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."
Article: yada, yada, yada, we Anglicans are crazy, everyone's crazy, why can't we get along and accept evil and love evil. The ECUSA has accepted gayss as bishops, so let's smile and be happy, why can't the RCC accept evil as well?
they aren't "sects", they're different rites. Different terminology can mean different things.
Re Your post #13.....BINGO!!!!!
It is generally agreed that the Missouri Synod is the "one true path" of which you speak.
I don't think the two Churchs will be communion anytime soon. However, they are both moving closer together, so it can no longer be discounted as impossible. I'm all in favor of clearing out the political issues first then move on to the tricky (and in my mind political/linguistic, though others may disagree) point of the filioque. After that, there are serious dogmatic differences that need to be addressed. Perhaps we could see another Council with all the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Churchs represented, IN OUR LIFETIMES.
Her role is entirely a matter of her relationship to her divine son, i.e., giving birth as human mother to the Savior. She is a creature who voluntarily cooperated through her fiat with God's redemption of mankind through Jesus Christ. Her role is not divine, but as a human who chooses cooperation with God to accomplish His will. Many Protestants profoundly misunderstand the Church's teaching on this point.
I'm a mega fan of clerical celibacy myself, but for better or worse, it is a disciplinary and not a doctrinal matter that the Church can waive as is the case in some of the eastern Catholic rites and on an individual basis with some Protestant converts. Liturgy is a mixture of disciplinary and doctrinal matters, but the competent authorities in the Church do have the right to legislate differences in liturgy, so long as core doctrinal requirements are met. There are several rites that have had long existence in the Church.
You are totally wrong. Our Anglican Use parish is 100% Roman Catholic. Our priest is married and has two kids and I dare you to find a priest more Catholic than he is. And the Anglican Use is a valid liturgy, and we have a proclamation on the wall in the narthex signed by the late Pope John Paul II that says so. Are you going to argue with him?
To sum up: if you are a Catholic in union with the Pope then you HAVE TO accept the AU as a valid liturgy. Period.
The AU movement is the "X factor" that God has sent to destroy the pollution that has corrupted the Church (especially in the English-speaking world) since World War II. Oppose it and you oppose God.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm not much for mincing words.
"That they all may be one, as thou, Father, [are] in Me, and I in Thee" -- John 17:21
How True!
LOL
I admit to great difficulty understanding and accepting that God who made covenants with His people,God who valued marriage and fidelity would condone a man abandoning his wife and children to follow Christ. Now if the meaning is that those who follow Christ must give up any future wife and children it still seems very odd in that only by conversion can a group that does not procreate grow. If only the priests are required to be celibate then it follows that only a small number of men would do so and the main body of the faith would procreate within the holy institution of marriage.
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.
If I remember ,Paul said he wished all men were as he was,not just priests.Thus earthly extinction in a generation.
Since Peter,the rock upon whom Christ built His Church was shown to be fallible ,yet forgiven by Christ,I think it is presumptuous of any later leader,indeed anyone mortal, to claim infallibility under any circumsatances.
Being reminded of the old game in which A tell a story to B,who tells it to C,and so on ,so that by the time X tells the story A can hardly recognize it,I am sure that men have knowingly and unknowingly added and subtracted to His spoken words.
Your bluntness is appreciated. However...having attended services there (it's not Mass to me), I found the building beautiful, the music wonderful and the community obnoxiously against having small children (even quiet ones) there for the "liturgy."
I raised this and had an email debate with the church staff, but they were set on saying that small children were not to be in the sanctuary during what they call Mass.
It's not a valid service in my opinion - and never will be.
He does, that is, if women represent a temptation to him.
I have a feeling that's all starting to wane a bit. The people I know who are into all that are for the most part over 50 with a few VERY VOCAL standout exceptions. There are a few renegade priests out there leading their flocks astray, but the young men coming through the system are not that way at all. And the people of my parents' generation are starting to get the idea that we in generation X and Y are not touchy feely in any way.
The one thing that I find problematic, is that true theological explainations are waved off as if they are meaningless. Nothing is done strictly to be done that way - there is a reason behind it. Theolgical arguments are thoroughly thought out and noted, documented and otherwise grounded in Scripture and Tradition - for a reason. Getting that through thick skulls is next to impossible.
I do have a few family members, friends and aquiantences who truly do disagree with various teachings, particularly on sexuality, and just won't listen to the theology behind the teachings. It's enough to make you cry.
Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).
To locate an Eastern Catholic Church in your community, follow the following link:
Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S.
A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his of her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaleans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.
Please freepmail me if you would like more information on the Eastern Catholic Churches.
The Archbishop of the TAC is Australian and he left the priesthood to marry. IIRC the Bishiop of the Eastern Diocese US left while in seminary.
BUT both were once Roman Catholic before they became Anglican and obviously want to return to their roots.
"How many contemporary Catholics have been married six times and are executing two of their spouses?"
Ted Kennedy comes close in marriages and body count, I'd wager.
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.
His many wives were mostly while in favor with Rome.....
Incorrect. His "divorce" from wife number one, Catherine of Aragon, was the catalyst for his loss of "favor with Rome....."
"What wonderful tolerance has been demonstrated by our Protestant friends over the years!"
Hilarious! I don't wish my Catholic friends ill, my friend, but I do point out that without great men who operated outside of Catholic Church Doctrine like John Wycliffe, who translated the Bible into the common tongue, the great unwashed masses would not have access to the Word of God - because Rome wanted to control it by keeping it in Latin - which the vast vast majority of people did not understand. That was a bad thing.
Protestants have done many things, many of them bad, Catholics have done many things, many of them bad.
Your point is? My point isn't that Catholics are better or worse than Protestants. In fact, we are more the same than anything else. I'm happy for those who wish to "return" to the Catholic faith. I hope Catholics the world over welcome them if they do.....
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.