Posted on 12/25/2005 10:09:32 AM PST by 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."
Correct - the Catholic "Transubstantiation" (real presence) versus the Protestant (in this case Episcopal) "Consubstantiation". The modern Lutherans (and, by extension, the other mainline protestant churches) seem to have abandoned Luther's original explanation for consubstantiation (Google the term for more) but AFAIK the Catholic, Orthodox and (I think) the Eastern churches hold to transubstantiation.
BTW - and this isn't addressed to you two - I must say it's a little discouraging to see my fellow Protestants in here flaming the Catholics (and vice versa). Bin Laden and the anti-Christian zealots of the western Left must be very pleased.
"Yes, you are either extremely dishonest or extremely ignorant."
I have nothing but pity for you then. Good luck.
"I think it had more to do with the fact that with Latin as the 'universal' language, it didn't matter which peoples were converted, or their native language, the Mass would be said in the same language everywhere, and folks in other countries wouldn't have to chance to put their own 'spin' on the Word of God"
I'm sure you are correct, but unfortunately, most weren't educated enough to know Latin.
"I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.."
That ONE refers to the UNITY of Worship, Doctrine, Authority
That too few Christians can honestly profess the Creed is nothng new. That too few Christians witness to their words with the orthopraxis of their actions is nothing new.
Nevertheless, that is what a Christian asserts publicly when he says gthe Creed. Maybe some ought to shut-up when the Creed is being professed if they don't really believe it.
Your arguement is with Jesus who, according to your idea, erred in building His Church.
Please review Matthew 16:18,19
Just posting some basics - not specifically to you in case someone wants to, heaven forbid, question your manifesto -
It's wikipedia but is pretty thoroughly referenced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyclif
Stated within:
First his reason:
"Wycliffe believed that the Bible ought to be the common possession of all Christians, and needed to be made available for common use in the language of the people. National honour seemed to require this, since members of the nobility possessed the Bible in French."
Then this:
"Portions of the Bible had been translated into English, but there was no complete translation."
Then from a separate source -
http://www.wycliffe.org/history/JWycliff.htm
"The Church expelled Wycliffe from his teaching position at Oxford, and 44 years after he died, the Pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned. Intense persecution stamped out his followers and teachings. It would be hundreds of years before men like Martin Luther resurrected the reforms of which Wycliffe dreamed. "
Perhaps you may want to reconsider some of your personal attacks on me, but again, that they will not be forthcoming speaks more of you, than me.
There is also an entire organization dedicated to the work Wycliffe started - which I just learned of:
http://www.wycliffe.org
Enjoy, and I expect more psuedo-ramblings and personal attacks - but I will preemptively forgive you for metaphorically "burning my bones" - in hopes you can enter into rational dialog as a basis for teaching, learning and discussion for everyone interested in this subject.
as usual, you're right, site. All the inertia is in the direction of maintaining the Apostolic Origins of Preistly Celibacy in the Latin Rite
*Post for us a single heresy taught by any Pope
* As a bac, I have never heard this
When people start picking on typos I know the pettiness has begun.
Since AAC claims to be so knowledgeable and spews so many factoids, he is more responsible than you in the fuzz war over what "translated the Bible into English" means. He should be defining his terms. Certainly you have made it clear, and everyone who knows a whit about Wycliffe knows what this means in the context of a discussion about him.
I think this is overstating the issue. To my knowledge, there has been some talk on this issue but not a lot and it doesn't appear to be a wedge issue.
And, btw, the unspoken debate over the meaning of this phrase also points to another sore point in the discussion. The previous translators didn't provide the whole thing, they provided what they thought best. They were controlling what got out into the common language. 'Tis true, and I hate Jack Chick stuff.
Dateline UK....
Henry the VIII spinning in his grave.
OTOH, there are some of us ex-Episcopalians who woudl be very happy to join a local TAC parish should it suddenly be in Communion with Rome.
"Post for us a single heresy taught by any Pope"
You don't really want a list do you, BAC? :)Assuming you don't, let's just leave it at this: Pope Honorius.
England and Ireland were evangelized from Rome the first time. St. Augustine was merely revangelizing those areas the Catholic Celto-Romans had abandoned in the face of the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
Dear RFEngineer,
"....and this is baloney."
What's baloney? That the concept of freedom of conscience has always been a Catholic idea? Go read St. Thomas Aquinas.
That religious tolerance was introduced into the thirteen original colonies by Catholics?
Go read some history.
"First of all, and a source of the arguments you posted is that Catholicism is somewhat monolithic..."
Not at all. I've readily stated that many Catholics at many times have not been tolerant of other religions. Catholics are far from monolithic.
However, authoritative Catholic doctrine is monolithic. If you have any doubts about that, you need to study further.
"It is this decentralized nature (and the impossibility of consensus on 'one true path')..."
Tell that to Jesus, Who told us that He was the One True Way, and founded His Church, against which the gates of Hell would never prevail, on Peter, the Rock.
There is no evidence that the early Church accepted a plurality of religious truths. THAT really IS a Protestant notion, although not a Christian one.
"...that is the source of the tolerance that is enshrined in the Constitution."
No, that's a bad reading of history. A better reading of history is that in Europe, after the rise of Protestant states from the period of the Reformation, it was clear to both Catholic and Protestant states that peace couldn't be achieved if each tried to force the other to accept each one's religion. From the Catholic perspective, I think the philosophical underpinnings came from the belief that peace between states is a moral good, and from the aforementioned concept of freedom from coercion of conscience.
As there came to be a settled peace between Protestant and Catholic states in Europe, the question of what to do with religious minorities in each arose. It occurred to some Catholic and Protestant folks that some form of religious tolerance, even where there are established churches, might be a good idea. For Catholics, this developed from the idea that one ought to be free from coercion of one's conscience. For Protestants, the idea was smuggled into the philosophies of Locke and others from Catholic ideas of natural law. On each side, these gave the philosophical underpinnings of the development of societal religious tolerance, and eventually, religious liberty.
As for your statements concerning Henry VIII, Usurper, there really isn't much to discuss. The "history" in which you believe is counterfactual. Henry VIII, before becoming an apostate, was actually a favorite of Rome's. He was lauded by the Vicar of Christ for his defense of the Seven Sacraments against the reformers, and was declared for his deeds a Defender of the Faith. It is ironic that his heirs believed that they could appropriate this title, like an inherited crown or jewel, for themselves, in defense of their own apostasy from Christ's Church, but that's another question altogether.
The fact is, there were many in Rome who wanted to accede to the Usurper's unreasonable request to divorce his real wife and cover with the cloak of respectability his adulterous relationship with the loose woman who succeeded his real wife. However, the pope would not be persuaded to fall into error for merely political purposes.
And after the Usurper committed his act of apostasy, his own non serviam, then what did he do? Why, he stole the lands and moneys of the Church to replenish his own bankrupt treasury! Yep, that was a real spiritual thing to do!
And then what did he do, after putting away his first wife and calling "wife" the adulteress who consorted with him? Well, he got rid of her, and ultimately, took to himself four more "wives," covering his manifold adulteries with the cloak of the "Church of England."
After reading Jesus' words regarding divorce and remarriage, it has always boggled my mind that anyone could come to the defense of the Usurper or his crimes against the Holy Catholic Church.
There are others here better versed in this sordid chapter of history who can better educate you and relieve you of your misunderstandings.
sitetest
Well, well, finally an admission that the Holy Roman Church is not free from error, neither spotless nor pure.
I see nobody has addressed the issue of how a church burns a man to death as a heretic and then later adopts his work (apparently without acknowledgement) into one's suite of liturgies. "Yessirre, potential convert, we have this nice liturgy written by a heretic all dolled up to make you feel right at home. Come into my parlour..."
Funny how you have to impugn motives to carry on your argument.
All error is bound up in a heresy taught by a Pope? What was the Reformation all about? Oh, I get it -- it never happened. Or it was all wrong-headed and heretical and had nothing whatsoever to do with error in your church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.