Major Anglican Group Prepares for Full Communion With Rome

virtueonline/National Catholic Register ^ | Dec 23 05 | Edward Pentin

[churchillbuff]

As the Anglican Communion threatens to break up, one large group of Anglicans is blazing a trail to Rome, and another could follow suit.

The Traditional Anglican Communion, an autonomous group of 400,000 clergy and laity separate from the Anglican Communion, has drawn up detailed plans on how to come into full communion with the Holy See.

After 12 years of consultations, both internally and informally with the Vatican, the group - with the help of a Catholic layman - is preparing a "Pastoral Plan" asking the Vatican for an "Anglican Rite Church" that would preserve their Anglican heritage while allowing them to be "visibly united" with Rome.

The Traditional Anglican Communion's worldwide primate, Archbishop John Hepworth, hopes the group's College of Bishops will approve the plan at a possible Rome Synod in February 2006.

The church's members are so far reported to be unanimous in their desire for full communion. If formally agreed, the proposal would then be presented to Vatican officials.

If Rome approves, the Traditional Anglican Communion, a worldwide ecclesial body based in Australia, could become the largest Anglican assembly to return to the Church since the Reformation.

In a statement released earlier this year, Archbishop Hepworth, a former Catholic priest, said the denomination had "no doctrinal differences with Rome" that impeded full communion. "My broad vision is to see the end of the Reformation of the 16th century," he said.

The denominations has pursued unity with Rome since the Anglican started ordaining women as priests, a move that, Archbishop Hepworth says, was the "ultimate of schismatic acts" and irrevocably "fractured" the 1966 Common Declaration between Rome and Canterbury.

The historic agreement made between Pope VI and then-Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey, obliged both communions to work towards unity through serious dialogue.

Vatican Caution

During recent informal talks, Vatican officials advised TAC to grow in numbers, become better known by forming friendships with local Catholic clergy and laity, and build structures through which they can dialogue with other churches. We've now done that," Archbishop Hepworth said. "By next year's synod, our conscience will have brought us to a certain point - it will then be for the Holy See to decide what to do."

Meanwhile, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales have warned the Church of England that going ahead with women bishops risks destabilizing both the Church of England and the whole Anglican Communion, in a report the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales referred to "tremendous and intolerable ecclesiological risk" involved in ordaining women bishops.

The Church of England is considering whether to allow women to become bishops, with a debate expected at its general synod in February.

Ordaining women as bishops is particularly contentious for those opposed to women priests as they would be unable to recognize or accept the authority of all priests, male or female, who were ordained by female bishops.

For Forward in Faith, a worldwide association of Anglican who remain part of the Anglican Communion but are unable to accept the female ordinations, the situation is somewhat different than that of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

They remain committed to being Anglicans, so communion with Rome "is not on the agenda," according to Stephen Parkinson, director of Forward in Faith in the United Kingdom. However, the group is sympathetic to the Traditional Anglican Communion and is likely to move closer to that denomination's position if women are ordained bishops in England and Wales.

Currently, Forward in Faith-UK is negotiating with the Church of England for a "structural solution" that would enable its members to belong to a separate province within the Anglican Communion should the church decide to consecrate women as bishops.

But greater independence for Forward in Faith members might open the way for the group to move unilaterally towards Rome. "We could then pursue our own agenda," said Parkinson. "Ecumenism could then become an imperative for us."

Not if But When?

The Vatican is monitoring the current problems besetting the Anglican Communion. Not only do the communion's member churches have divisions over ordaining women as bishops, but Anglicans continue to be torn apart by the consecration in 2003 of Gene Robinson, the openly homosexual Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire.

At a Church of England synod in London in November, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, was strongly criticized by nearly half the church's presiding archbishops over the issue of homosexual clergy.

In the same week, the archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, announced that he was aligning the country's 17 million Anglican with the breakaway United States Episcopal churches. His church has already severed constitutional ties with the Church of England over Robinson's consecration.

For Anglicans like Archbishop Hepworth and Parkinson, it is a question of not if by when the Anglican Communion will fracture. But even if they're right, the Vatican is not inclined to work out precise plans for receiving large groups of Anglicans. Each case is likely to be different, which precludes forward planning.

The Vatican is, however, understood to be urging those groups wishing to come into communion with it to demonstrate they are comfortable with Church teaching, and that they aren't motivated soley by disillusionment with the Anglican Communion.

The two departments responsible for group conversions, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are keeping a low profile for now.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has been focusing on issues that unite the churches and urging Anglicans to strengthen the bonds that unify the communion, particularly those surround the Anglican Communion's traditional teaching on human sexuality.

In the meantime, both Rome and the estranged Anglicans are waiting to see what the Anglican hierarchy does and how national Anglican churches and individual Anglicans respond.

"If many come over to Rome at the same time, then they're still all treated as individual conversions," said Dominican Father Charles Morerod, a member of the Anglican/Catholic International Commission. "But it is different if a whole province wants to come into communion."

[RFEngineer]

"You mean that Protestant tolerance?? "

LOL.....yeah, perhaps that was a little out of line. However, Our Catholic Brothers were hardly a shining example.

There were lots of "Bad" things - Virginia had an "official" religion, too. But by the time the Constitution was drafted and signed in 1789 religious zealotry of all kinds was suppressed, primarily by other Protestants, and we have the great country we have today.

The lesson that was learned is that state religion is bad. Tolerance for all relgions is good government policy.

That never would have been sanctioned by Rome - and history is replete with examples of that.

[RFEngineer]

"Oh come on! Even if Mary had been a perfect monarch, there's no way that the English nobility would've accepted full communion with the Church after confiscating all the land from the monasteries. Would they really be willing to give back all that wealth?"

Well, Mary wasn't a perfect monarch. The nobility took advantage, for sure, and given the political position of Rome against England, it was the "spoils of war". What do you think would have happened if Spain had defeated the English Navy and gotten a foothold in England? I'm thinking the Nobility would have suffered.

Of COURSE Queen Elizabeth wanted to be Queen - and hence rejected Communion with Rome. But that sort of proves the point about Henry VIII and protestantism (of which he was not a general fan)

[Campion]

The Episcopal Church may ordain practicing homosexual clergy, but at least they are following their collective conscience (however disordered that may be), whereas Rome speaks out of two sides of their mouth on the issue, saying publically that homosexual acts are disordered and evil, but privately turning a blind eye to the highly active gay subculture culture in their own church

This person doesn't understand that there is a profound difference between publicly calling evil "good," on the one hand, and failing to courageously enforce the law and stand up for the truth, on the other?

The second choice is evil and corrupt. The first choice is fatal.

The faith that some Roman Catholics have in the office of the pope is truly amazing. They truly believe that the pope and curia will never err (e.g. ordain women, or allow married clergy, etc.).

Nobody in their right mind claims that the curia will never err. Nor should any Catholic claim that the Pope will never err in the ordinary exercise of his teaching and governing offices. (IOW, situations not protected by Papal infallibility per Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus, and the opinions of reputable theologians as to what constitutes an infallible act -- which excludes most Papal teaching and governing.)

But I'm amazed that this gentleman is so, well, ignorant that he lumps female "ordination" (an impossibility which is infallibly defined to be an impossibility) together with the ordination of married men (a discipline, albeit a venerable one, which could be changed by the stroke of a Papal pen tomorrow).

[Campion]

His many wives were mostly while in favor with Rome.....I don't defend Henry - his personal life was an abomination, rather I point out much of this was done while he was Catholic in good standing.

Very much incorrect. It was his desire for a divorce from wife #1 (Katharine of Aragon) and marriage to wife #2 (Anne Boleyn) which led to the break of communion with Rome. Wives 2 through 6 were not while he was "Catholic in good standing".

Interestingly, Henry's claim was that his marriage to Katharine was invalid, making her not really his Queen. She is today buried in a Church of England church, and her tomb inscription makes it perfectly clear that she was Queen of England. Kind of an odd historical contradiction, because if she was Queen of England, Henry's break with Rome was without justification.

Tolerance for all relgions is good government policy.

All religions? You mean, like, ones that practice child sacrifice?.

Tolerance for all religions isn't even possible, much less good government policy. The lack of unreasonable coercion in matters of religion may be good policy, though. Rome seems to substantially agree (cf. Vatican II Dignitatis Humanae).

And it remains an odd historical fact that the first community in North America to officially practice religious tolerance was the Roman Catholic St. Mary's Towne in Maryland, about a year before Roger Williams established Rhode Island.

[AlaninSA]

Having Mass said in Latin was not intended to keep it "from the masses." It was intended to keep it universal -- that the same Mass would be said no matter where in the world you attended it.

Please don't go assuming you understand my Church based on what you read in a Jack Chick publication.

[sitetest]

Dear RFEngineer,

An honest, non-tendentious history of the centuries after the Reformation will admit that there were both Catholics and Protestants (and Islamics and others) aplenty who tried to use the power of the state to coerce consciences.

"However, Our Catholic Brothers were hardly a shining example."

However, I don't recall anyone making the argument. Having been caught in a rather ludicrous argument, you're now deflecting. ;-)

"Virginia had an 'official' religion, too."

Yes, and interestingly, it WASN'T Catholicism, now was it?

And frankly, I don't find objectionable that the state of Virginia had an established religion, even though it wasn't Catholicism.

"But by the time the Constitution was drafted and signed in 1789 religious zealotry of all kinds was suppressed,..."

No, that's not at all true. It was illegal to say Catholic Mass in Virginia into the first part of 19th century. Apparently, the Protestants who ran Virginia took their sweet time "suppressing religious zealotry."

As I said, I don't oppose established religions. However, I DO oppose the coercion of conscience forced on us Catholics, not by favoring a particular Protestant sect in the state of Virginia, but by BANNING the Catholic Mass in Virginia (and Maryland - again, at the hands of Protestants).

In Maryland, the "supression of religious zealotry," and the provision of fundamental rights to freedom of conscience were actually promoted first and foremost by,... ahem..., Catholics.

"...primarily by other Protestants,..."

You mean like all the Protestants who passed Blaine Amendments to discriminate against Catholics in large swaths of the United States? A hundred years and more AFTER the adoption of the Constitution?

"That never would have been sanctioned by Rome - and history is replete with examples of that."

Well, not quite. Although the Catholic Church doesn't oppose established religions, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught doctrinally against the coercion of consciences.

Plenty of both Protestants and Catholics have violated that doctrine, but it's really much more of a mixed bag than you seem to think. Going back to Europe, there were countries with state-established Catholicism, as well as countries with state-established Protestantism, of different flavors and varieties. State-established Protestant religions flourised throughout northern Europe, and indeed, state-established Protestant religions still exist in Britain, Scandinavia, and other places.

In Great Britain, for centuries, far beyond mere state-establishment of Protestantism, it was illegal to say Catholic Mass. EVEN TO THIS DAY, the United Kingdom discriminates against Catholics. So much for "Protestant religious freedom."

And I hate to tell you, but historically, the Pilgrims weren't fleeing from CATHOLIC oppressors, but rather from PROTESTANT oppressors.


sitetest

[Clint Williams]

I cannot accept the "Anglican Use" as a valid liturgy. Call me bigoted, biased or what have you. It's unacceptable to me.

Well of course you can't, if you look back at the history. The Roman Catholic Church was on its Live Human Candles! tear (when did they finally figure out that burning people alive for their beliefs wasn't a terrible good idea?), and among their various experiments in live incendiaries was the author of the English liturgy, Cranmer.

Burn him to death, then adopt his liturgy. Nice piece of work.

Do you think they give him credit in the Anglican Use? Do they even mention him if only to say: "We Burned the Original Heretical Author of This Liturgy to Death at the Stake (but really, it's safe for you to use this liturgy)"?

[NYer]

The Archbishop of the TAC is Australian and he left the priesthood to marry.

In so doing, he broke his first vow of celibacy.

BUT both were once Roman Catholic before they became Anglican and obviously want to return to their roots.

The Bishop of the Eastern Diocese, having left before taking a vow of celibacy, has a better shot than the other one. However, there are no instances of married bishops in the Catholic Church and it's extremely doubtful the Church hierarchy would allow either of them to retain that position.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Well,I was sent to Roman Catholic grade school as was traditional in my father's family. And baptised as an infant and confirmed as a child.

Irrelevant. People like Frances Kissling, Richard McBrien, Dominic Crossan, Daniel Maguire, Joan Chittister, etc. all make the same claim.

condone a man abandoning his wife and children to follow Christ.

Scripture definitively teaches that only one Apostle, St. Peter, was at one time married. His wife is never mentioned in Scripture by name. In accordance with Jewish custom, the Korban rule, as well as the Fourth Commandment, children were required to care for their parents, so your characterization of abandonment is incorrect. I suppose you feel that Christ abandoned the Apostles when He sent them forth with very little.

"And He called the twelve; and began to send them two and two, and gave them power over unclean spirits. And He commanded them that they should take nothing for the way, but a staff only: no scrip, no bread, nor money in their purse, But to be shod with sandals, and that they should not put on two coats. And He said to them: Wheresoever you shall enter into an house, there abide till you depart from that place." Mark 6:7-10

"Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30

"And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for My sake and for the gospel, Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. But many that are first, shall be last: and the last, first." Mark 10:28-31

"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30

Do you know much about the priesthood of Melchisedech and its relation to Christ and the Apostles?

What do you say about the biblical passages that a bishop must be man of only one wife,and the other references to qualifications that only a man who has shown he can be a good head of a family can be a good shepherd of a church.

Nowhere does Scripture mandate that a man "must" be married in order to be a bishop, priest or deacon. St. Paul in his instructions to St. Timothy, in his new role as Bishop of Ephesus, describes those men who Timothy could select as bishops. Polygamists, those who divorced and remarried, remarried widowers, were not to be chosen. Single men are not excluded. St. Paul being a celibate himself would have no credibility stipulating that one "must" be married. What do you have to say about the passage from Scripture in which St. Paul praises the state of celibacy?

"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." 1 Corinthians 7:32-33

The argument many resort to that celibacy for the clerical state is a medieval invention is bogus as well.

"ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus" Canon 3 Second Council of Carthage 390 AD

Celibacy is a higher calling and the nature of the Priesthood in acting persona Christi is sacrifice and sacrifice of self is inherent in the vocation just as Christ stated.

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19:12

Since Peter,the rock upon whom Christ built His Church was shown to be fallible

The Church has never taught that St. Peter or any of his successors, as mortal men, were infallible.

I think it is presumptuous of any later leader,indeed anyone mortal, to claim infallibility under any circumsatances.

Pope John Paul II went to confession every week and he rejected any notion that he was absolutely infallible. You seem to exhibit a profound misunderstanding of the doctrine of infallibilty which can most likely be attributed to the poor catechesis you've demonstrated here.

"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." John 14:6

"And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever.The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him: but you shall know Him; because He shall abide with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you." John 14:16-18

"But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me." John 15:26

I am sure that men have knowingly and unknowingly added and subtracted to His spoken words.

Men like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.

[sionnsar]

Thanks to Fractal Trader for the ping. A bit of interesting reading here.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[A.A. Cunningham]

John Wycliffe, who translated the Bible into the common tongue

The Bible was translated into the vernacular long before Wycliffe, by, but not limited to, the follwing:

Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, 7th century

Venerable Bede, Eadhelm, Guthlac, Egbert in Saxon all during the 8th century.

Raban Maur 8th century

Lindisfarne Gospels 10th century

King Alfred the Great

Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury

paraphrase of Orm, 12th century

Salus Animae 13th century

William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, 14th century

John Trevisa 14th century

because Rome wanted to control it by keeping it in Latin

Urban legend rhetoric propagated by the ignorant and dishonest.

[Celtic Conservative]

What about african rite churches whose priests are married as a matter of course?. Hence the term "rite". And BTW I don't consider you to be bigoted, just misinformed.

CC

[hoosierham]

Christ sent forth adult men who willingly followed Him,not children.

You do not seriously suggest it was the duty of infants or children to support their parents? I think you well know the meaning was that people were not to abandon their aged or infirm parents who could no longer care for themselves. Was Peter a widower?Again,there is a vast difference between giving up the future wife than breaking one's solemn vow;no where else does anyone suggest Jesus advocated breaking one's vows. Indeed,He told them not one tittle of the Law was to be changed;which apparently His disciples once thought meant everyone had to become practicing Jews .Well it is for us that He decreed they were to preach the Word to all the people, even gentiles.I see that married priests are a huge stumbling block for reunification of God's people.As is the usually homosexual pederasts sheltered by morally-weak bishops. If only such abusers were rooted out with a portion of the zeal the Roman Catholic Church once exhibited, and perhaps more of the church money spent on good works instead of fancy material things.

Since some clergy receive dispensation the state of marriage for those priests cannot be sinful,as it would be beyond the power of the Pope to place the seal of approval on continuing to sin. I must therefore conclude the requirement of priestly celibacy is only that of man,not God,OR the Pope is in great error in granting these dispensations.

The Roman Catholic and many other Churches have sad eras in history of imposing belief in direct contradiction to His biblical instruction to leave that place and shake the dust off your sandals as a sign.Too many churches seem more concerned with worldly wealth and power rather than the message of salvation.

I think Heaven,and who makes it there will be surprising to many.

[AnAmericanMother]

Yup, we were That Kind of Episcopalian.

We had a conference with our new Rector, and turns out the only points of dispute were the validity of Anglican Orders and the supremacy of the Pope. We said "We can deal." Obviously the orders weren't valid, or the Holy Spirit would have kept that crowd out of error and heresy. And we figured it was about time we had some Adult Leadership. < g >

[sionnsar]

Obviously the orders weren't valid, or the Holy Spirit would have kept that crowd out of error and heresy.

Kolokotronis, any comment on this?

[Kolokotronis]

"Obviously the orders weren't valid, or the Holy Spirit would have kept that crowd out of error and heresy.

Kolokotronis, any comment on this?"

I think, S, that that is an extremely dangerous idea to carry around or bandy about. The greatest heretics in The Church were usually hierarchs with perfectly valid orders and impeccable Apostolic pedigrees.

So were Martin Luther's, as I recall.

[sionnsar]

Thanks, K. If my brain weren't so fuzzy today I'd have figured that out. I'd immediately thought of your comments in the past on (the quick rooting out of) heresy in the Orthodox church and thought, "This statement cannot be right." Even the Roman church has not always been free from error.

But it was ECUSA's failure to apply correction to Pike that should have been at least a strong indication that trouble was brewing within.

[Kolokotronis]

"Even the Roman church has not always been free from error."

The great Christological and Trinitarian heresies of The Church, as well as virtually all of the others which have plagued The Church since its founding were, with the exception of some novel ones coming out of the Reformation, were mostly all from the era of the pre-Schism Church. I have noticed among some Roman Catholics, though not among their Eastern Rite brethren (except maybe the Maronites), that there is some sort of idea that the Holy Spirit keeps not only The Church, but also hierarchs and priests from any error by virtue of their ordination. I haven't a clue where this comes from, but it has had a baleful and pernicious influence on the Roman Church.

[Kenny Bunk]

...but there are also serious issues regarding marriage of (heterosexual) clergy ....the Roman Catholic Church's emphasis on the role of Mary in redemption...

In regard to the marriage of clergy: There are some rites in union with Rome now that permit married clergy. No problem, especially with those priests already married. There are quite a few converted Lutheran and Anglican priests who came over with the wife and kids. Perhaps the Romans alone will remain bachelors!

Doctrinally, specifically in regard to the Virgin Birth, The Immaculate Conception, the Assumption,and the role of Mary as Mediatrix, there are relatively few significant differences between the various Orthodox, Roman, and Anglican rites.

[torqemada]

Silly buggers, those...& I do mean "buggers!" I just cringe everytime I think about how we all sat on our hands & let these bald-faced sinners & pagans take over the ECUSA.

"God forgive us for what we have done & what we have failed to do...." namely defend the Bride of Christ from being defiled.