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."
"Oy Ve" may the saints presarve us"!
Yes, it was called the Synod of Whitby, which was in my original post, when the RCC attempted to assert control over the Celtic Church, with some superficial sucess, that later unwound.
The actual origin of the Celtic/Anglican church is in doubt. There is good reason to believe there were Christian missionaries in the various Isles as early as 40AD --- roughly 6 years after the crucifiction.
Pope Honorius? Hm. A Google search turns up an unusually spirited and vigorous defense from a whole bunch of catholic sites, the kind of defense one expects to see if an undefensible position is being defended, such as:
"Let me reiterate once again: Pope Honorius did NOT teach heresy. Period. He may have held a heresy as a private opinion, but he certainly did not teach it ..."An admission that a pope "may have held" a heresy as a private opinion. Hm. I guess the creeping in of a heresy at the very top makes papal orders invalid, by standards the Catholics appear to be ready to apply to others. Or maybe Rome somehow floats above all such standards... because it is Rome... which puts it above all such standards...
You haven't been reading a lot of Geoffrey Ashe's stuff lately, have you? ;)
No, wife is a former archetect/archeologist, and we have spent several summers (and lots of time) looking at old churches and, in particular, tracing the origins/evolution of various symbols.
What-is-now the Anglican Church has strong elements of pre-RCC traditions/origins.
And while I could not dispute Prof. Ashe's evidence of Arthur (there certainly was SOMEBODY who started getting the moon-worshipping rabble together), I don't necessarily believe him.
With a few notable and bright exceptions, this seems to be the rule for FR's Catholics. An intolerant, bigoted, and mean spirited group of Catholics such as I have never encountered on the street. And they are not surpassed by the worst of the fundamentalists I have encountered.
Catholics are far from monolithic.
This is good to know. I used to think kindly of Roman Catholics in general. But maybe I was (un?)lucky and by chance just happened to meet some of the few good folks in among the bigoted, intolerant wolf-packs.
I have a completely different view developed watching FR's Catholics over several years now. I do not like what I see; there is no way I would ever become a Catholic now (not that I have ever considered it...).
Thank you both. I am enlightened this Tuesday morning.
I would imagine because Christ uses His relationship with the Father as an example. Christ is God just as the Father is God. They are the same. They are One.
Or for that matter, any heresy contained within Catholic Doctrine.
Nice. Old dishonest debating trick right out of liberal playbooks. change the term of debate. He said "error" -- clearly you cannot defend that so you try to change it to"heresy." I would take this as admission of error.
Nice little trick with that "taught" business too, from what I saw following Kolokotronis' lead.
Kolokotronis, is the "filioque"(?) heresy or just error, according to the (Greek?) Orthodox?
Dear Clint Williams,
"With a few notable and bright exceptions, this seems to be the rule for FR's Catholics."
Well, it depends on what is meant by "tolerant."
If by toleration one means that we Catholics will not burn one at the stake for one's failure to adhere to Catholic truth as one confesses one's Protestantism, I think our group here is a very, very tolerant group.
If by toleration one means that we Catholics will admit that there is necessary religious truth to be found outside of the Holy Catholic Church that is not found inside Her, then I suppose that we're mostly an intolerant group. And proud of it.
The binding teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ. All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, as He was crucified for our sins. Thus, quite literally, we are saved through His Body, which is the Catholic Church. Apart from the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. We're obligated to believe this. The Catholic Church's claim to truth and salvation is pretty exclusive.
If you find that intolerant, then devout, faithful Catholics who are aware of, and put their faith in the binding teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, which is the Body of Christ, are intolerant.
"'Catholics are far from monolithic.'
"This is good to know."
Would you think otherwise? The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners. We have more of the latter than the former, but all the latter within Her have hope of becoming the former.
"I have a completely different view developed watching FR's Catholics over several years now. I do not like what I see; there is no way I would ever become a Catholic now (not that I have ever considered it...)."
Why? Because most of us are miserable sinners? I suspect that if you look carefully, most relgions have at least a few. A priori, should you find a Utopian Church of Saints Only, upon your entrance into it, it will cease to be a church of Saints Only. ;-)
sitetest
I'm not sure what the current Episcopal/Anglican Church is doing, since I left over 20 years ago. Perhaps they have taken advantage of modern scholarship into the liturgical history of the pre-Whitby Celtic Church and grafted in some elements. Certainly the concept of the 'Anglican Communion' (i.e., unity in the church yet independence of each diocese or province) has been argued as originating in the Celtic tradition.
But this is a good example of where, to pardon the pun, the devil is in the details. The early Celtic Church, especially the Irish Church, was not so much episcopal at all in terms of its leadership, as it was monastic.
Moreover, the earliest fairly reliable date we have for a widespread Christian presence in the British Isles is from the writings of Tertullian, c. 220 AD. That doesn't mean it wasn't there before, it just means there is no solid proof of it. And sorry, but the likelihood of Joesph of Arimathea schlepping up Glastonbury Tor is slim to none. Much of the modern proponents of a Celtic Church depend heavily on Gildas, but even by the standards of the times, Gildas is problematic, something no amount of modern scholarship has really solved.
Despite all this - or perhaps partially because of it - there seems to have been a big resurgence of interest in the Celtic Church in recent years, and I think it is a fascinating topic. My own paternal ancestors come from the Island of Anglesey, not far from St Seiriol's abbey of Penmon.
The Body of Christ is not an organization. It transcends organizations. It is what it is, and one is either a member of the Body or one is not. The shepherd knows His own and they know Him -- even if, by accident of birth or brainwashing they nominally belong to other faiths. The Church exists everywhere. There is no salvation outside of it.
(And who will go to Heaven? That's not for us to say. I suspect that there will be a great many surprised faces to be seen on that first morning in Paradise -- and a good many on the first midnight in Hell, too. The best we sinners can do is "strive to enter" the reward prepared by God for His faithful.)
However, Christ did not leave us alone. He conferred the Holy Spirit upon His apostles and charged them to feed His flock -- to teach, lead, and comfort the faithful. To Peter He gave the keys to Heaven and Hell, the power to teach the Truth infallibly, and the authority to forgive sin in His name. The apostles in turn passed these on to their successors, who have carried the Keys for two thousand years without fail. We know these keepers of the Faith as bishops, and chief among them the Bishop of Rome, successor to Peter, who we call Pope. The Church consists of those united with Pope and Bishops -- even if they are united imperfectly with them.
Although we know that only the Church founded by Christ possesses the fullness of Truth, we Catholics call all those who profess the Creed by the name "Christian". Those outside of formal union with the Church are our separated bretheren. Some of our separated brtheren are nearer or further from the fullness of Truth according to which self-proclaimed "pope" they follow -- Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Benny Hinn, et al -- but all who acknowledge the Creed are members of the Body of Christ nonetheless.
In this sense, all Christians are one, part of the singular, ressurrected Body of Christ. However, until the Age of the Self-Styled Popes comes to a close, the Passion of Christ will continue, the Body of Christ will writhe under the whip of this world -- wounded, flayed, suffering. To end its torment we must all work and pray, suffer and sing, and most of all submit ourselves, our wisdom, and our own pride to the authority of Christ established by Him on Earth: Peter, the Rock upon which the Church is founded.
I guess that's my point. If there are indeed members who are not necessarily card-carrying Roman Catholics, then "oneness" of the body means something other than common membership in the Roman Catholic Church, does it not?
The thing to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as "membership" (card-carrying or otherwise) in the Catholic Church -- at least not in the sense that one can be a member of a country club or a gym. One can be a registered member of a given parish within the Church, but otherwise all that exists are human beings -- some who accept the salvation of Jesus, some who do not. Those who accept Jesus are saved. These people make up the Body of Christ.
Every Body has a head. In the case of the Body of Christ -- a body made up of human beings -- his head is a human being, the Pope, and the Bishops in union with him. In other words, the Catholic Church is the earthly "head" of the Body of Christ. Just as with a human body composed of cells, those parts of the Body that are in proper relationship with the head (and the other members of the body) are spiritually healthy; those parts that are not are spiritually ill -- but they are still parts of the one Body. Does that make it clearer?
Another way to put it: all people who accept the salvation offered by Christ are card-carrying members of the Roman Catholic Church, even if they themselves do not know it (or even if they deny it).
(Thiis goes for pagans, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Baptists, Bohemians, Trekkies, cavemen -- everyone who has ever lived. We Catholics believe that at some point in every person's life -- even if it is the moment of their death -- they will be confronted with the reality of Jesus Christ and His offer of free salvation. Everyone will then have the opportunity to choose to accept Him or reject Him. God will judge those who did not know the Truth mercifully. We who already know the Truth will be judged much more sternly.)
I'm not much good a explaining these things, so please forgive my obtuseness. I can post the relevant portions of the Catechism if you like.
Many were educated only enough to know the Latin for Mass, though the peasants, I'm sure, were just supposed to sit and listen, and pick it up after a while.
The Church didn't switch to Mass in the Vernacular until I was ten years old. Prior to that, we each had little Missals (books), which were usually received as gifts at First Communion, around age 7. Each had the English on one page, and the Latin on the facing page, so even if you didn't really know much Latin, you could still understand what was going on at Mass. Even now, after 42 years, I can still remember and sing some of the hymns in Latin!
The Pope is not the only person in the Church who teaches. There have been times when people in various parts of the world have taught heresy, and the Catholics taught by them have grown up under that influence, until someone else has come along and put them right. Some groups of religious have their own quirks, and the children taught by them grow up believing that what they learned is what was truly taught by the Church as a whole, when it isn't. Even different areas of the United States have different ideas about the Church. When a fellow Catholic voices something I know NOT to be true, but they don't necessarily believe ME, I tell them to get a copy of the Catechism and read the part about their question.
We are living in a marvelous time in which the truth can be sent all over the world in seconds; people just have to be listening for it.
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.