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."

[narses]

The beauty of being Catholic is realizing that it isn't up to us, it is God who chooses via his Vicar on Earth.

May your Christmas be a Grace filled wonder and your New Year filled with all of the good things the Grace of Our Lord has planned for you and yours.

[sitetest]

Dear Tantumergo,

I had read once that Archbishop Hepworth would insist on the capacity of married men to be elevated to the episcopacy. I recall the word "dealbreaker" as being used if this couldn't be arranged.

From my own perspective, although I don't see a biblical requirement for episcopal celibacy, the tradition is so ancient that I can't imagine that Pope Benedict would give in on this point. I especially think this to be the case because I believe that the Orthodox just wouldn't accept it.


sitetest

[kalee]

Yes he is married, as is the Bishop of the Eastern Diocese of the ACA, which is the TAC in America. The Bishop of the Eastern Diocese was also Roman Catholic before he became Anglican.
While they may want to go home, the people in the pews are not ALL so gung-ho with this idea, so as I have said before the numbers will probably be less than Rome or the TAC hierarchy expect. I know of a couple churches who have already left for other jurisdictions. My parish has so far taken a wait and see attitude, but we have told our bishop that we are considering our options. True TRADITIONAL Anglicanism is catholic and reformed. If the laity nad clergy want to be Roman Catholic they should just be honest and convert. But hey, then the clergy couldn't remain clergy and be married, so I doubt that will happen.

[RFEngineer]

"Henry VIII is spinning in his grave (and not just on the fiery spit he's been attached to since descending into hell in the 1500's)."

Some of the Eastern Orthodox churches think that Roman Catholics are just as doomed as you think Protestants are.....

By their logic, you split off from them and then kept on splitting.

I don't think we need a "one true path" argument here, do we?

[RFEngineer]

"Enough. And if you don't, why belong?"

I suspect you are right, I also suspect traditional Anglicans could be just as Catholic as most U.S. Catholics, should they choose to do so.

[warsaw44]

wow. If ever a photo captured the face of evil which has infiltrated the Christian faith, that is it. Can anyone really think Jesus would have looked kindly on such things? Please.

[Bahbah]

Is this not astounding, amazing and wonderful news! To hear of this today, I am just stunned.

[RFEngineer]

"The "Henry the VIII created the Anglican Church" is really B.S. It was happening and he saw the writing and pushed it along for his selfish purposes."

He had good political purposes for pushing it along, as well. Rome was defunding England by not replacing Bishops (and a diocese without a Bishop sent its funds directly to Rome)

But no matter, England was restored to communion after Henry VIII death - and "Bloody Mary" proceeded to do what she did with nary a peep from Rome - thereby ensuring it's demise in England - as the Catholic Church became associated with death, mayhem, and the desired destruction of England herself.

The English made a rational choice that favored God and Country over the politicians in Rome that wanted Spain to defeat England.

So, Blame Henry VIII and condemn him to hell, but he was probably a better Catholic than than the Catholics that think he's in hell are today.

The Catholic church of that era was a political and religious institution. Protestants saw the folly of this and that is one reason why we have the great country we have today in the U.S. - and why Protestant tolerance enshrined in our Constitution allows ALL faiths to be practiced relatively free from government interference.

Of course, there may be one or two folks that disagree on this thread.......

[MeanWestTexan]

Well said.

[NewJerseyJoe]

Now if only Rome would come back into union with the Catholic faith.

[sitetest]

Dear RFEngineer,

"Protestant tolerance..."

You mean like the Protestant tolerance shown in the colony of Maryland? Founded by Catholics, the folks who passed the first Religious Tolerance Act in the Western world, then taken over by Protestants, who promptly repealed the religious tolerance laws and robbed the founding Catholics of their civil rights?

You mean that Protestant tolerance??

Merry Christmas!!

;-)


sitetest

[AlaninSA]

So...feeling confident in your attack on the precepts of my church, huh? Funny, it seems those like you are often afraid to share what odd sect they belong to out of what appears to be a fear of having that sect exposed.

[Fractal Trader]

Anglican ping

[guinnessman]

But no matter, England was restored to communion after Henry VIII death - and "Bloody Mary" proceeded to do what she did with nary a peep from Rome - thereby ensuring it's demise in England - as the Catholic Church became associated with death, mayhem, and the desired destruction of England herself

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?

There's no way that Queen Elizabeth would've accepted communion with the Church because she would be forced to acknowlege that she was not the legitimate heir to the throne.

[AlaninSA]

Such fine Protestant tolerance like the Blaine Amendments?

What wonderful tolerance such unbigoted men like James Blaine demonstrated in their desire to see Catholic kids freed from their religious prison and given the chance to study the KJV in public schools -- while having the laws changed to ban any public funds from going to Catholic schools.

What wonderful tolerance has been demonstrated by our Protestant friends over the years!

[Clint Williams]

This thread reminds me of something I read recently.... Ah!

I am Tired of Roman Triumphalism

Every morning, one of the first things I do, after my Daily Office, is sit down at my computer and read the New Oxford Review online. I check out their news links and read about all of the crazy stuff going on in the Roman Catholic world (Legionaries of Christ and their scandels; the banking scandels; the supression of traditional liturgies; clergy murdering people; bishops involved in hit-and-run accidents; child sexual abuse scandels; etc.). They have this ongoing parody about "Fr. Flapdoodle" of St. Bozo's Catholic Community - a wishy-washy priest who is always embroiled in some sort of homosexual scandel, or trying out some weird new thing at the liturgy... it is quite funny.

These articles, as well as the history of Christianity general, show that the Roman Church is just as screwed up as any other church out there, despite all of their claims to the contrary. The Episcopal Church, and other western Anglican churches, are, without a doubt, completely wacko themselves (one could fill volumes with their antics: bishops divorced and remarried multiple times; acceptance of Mormon baptism; woman "priests" and "bishops"; syncrenistic rites; clergy that double as Wicca clergy; etc.). But I will say this for them: at least they are not outright hypocrites with a lot of this stuff like Rome - at least the American Church - is. 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 - a very well-documented culture (e.g. is anyone else following the Fr. Haley affair in the gloriously "traditional" Diocese of Arlington?).

Rome looks great on paper. But their (false) belief that the pontiff is infallible, and the "center of catholic unity", and the "Vicar of Christ on earth", is just a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to day-to-day Roman Catholic parish life. The authoritarian model of their governance, and their innovative "four-fold office", is not a foolproof system that absolutely prevents strange doctrines and practices from ever developing. In the long run, there is nothing doctrinally or morally more "safer" or "secure" about the Roman Church as compared to any other Church. 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.). They would do well to learn from history, and study the corrupt lives of some of the Renaissance popes, or perhaps revisit some of the controversies of the Reformation (treasury of merits, indulgences, etc.... oh, yeah, indulgences are still around , by the way.). Popes have erred in the past, so why would they not in the future? They are, after all, only human. Those who think "swimming the Tiber" will solve all of their problems, and answer all of their questions, and end the struggle with sin and heresy, should think twice. It won't.

My point, believe it or not, is not to sit and bash Rome. Continuing Anglican churches have their problems too, don't get me wrong. Any church will have its problems. I think, though, we have to choose our poison. Personally, I would rather be in a church that may have a problem with overlapping jurisdiction, too many people running around claiming to be bishops, and buildings that are not grand edifaces instead of being in a church where God is spoken of as "mother", and where so-called bishops and clergy routinely deny the core doctrines of Christian faith and morality and go undisciplined. And personally, I would rather be in a church that does justice to the scriptural and historical notion of a collegial episcopate (among other things) than one that does not. I do not condemn those who, following their conscience, belong to some other church (Roman, PCA, Episcopal, ELCA, etc.). But we should always be aware of the problems in our own commmunity before we criticize others' communities. Rome seems to be one of the only churches left out there that hasn't quite realized this just yet.

posted by St. James the Average at 9:01 AM 15 comments

[NYer]

Yes he is married, as is the Bishop of the Eastern Diocese of the ACA, which is the TAC in America. The Bishop of the Eastern Diocese was also Roman Catholic before he became Anglican.

While it is true that the Eastern Catholic Churches allow for a married priesthood, the marriage must take place before admission to Holy Orders. It is a question of vows.

If, as you noted, both of these Anglican 'bishops' are former RC priests, then they would have taken vows of celibacy. In order to marry, they left the RC Church, became Anglican and now wish to return to the Catholic Church, not only as married priests, but as bishops?! That would have serious repercussions throughout the entire Catholic Church. It would be as precedent setting for the Catholic Church, as was the decision of ECUSA to elect an active homosexual as bishop. I'm not holding my breath on this and neither should anyone else.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Incorrect. You obviously don't know what the meaning of "to come into full communion with the Holy See." actually means.

[A.A. Cunningham]

but he was probably a better Catholic than than the Catholics that think he's in hell are today.

How many contemporary Catholics have been married six times and are executing two of their spouses?

You've obviously forgotten to have a water load in place of the antenna when you're testing that transmitter on more than one occasion.

[gbcdoj]

+Hepworth has offered (publicly, I believe) to resign in the event of a successful union.