Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Peter Stanford: After 500 years, has the Pope outfoxed the Archbishop?

The Vatican's pitch for disaffected Anglicans is a major breach of protocol. But it could rid the Church of England of some of its most turbulent members

Full circle: Henry VIII accepts a Bible from Protestant reformer Hugh Latimer in around 1535. Now the road back to Rome is wide open

getty images

Full circle: Henry VIII accepts a Bible from Protestant reformer Hugh Latimer in around 1535. Now the road back to Rome is wide open

For 470 years, since Henry VIII broke with Rome, the Church of England has been walking a careful middle line, halfway between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. This week it has effectively given up the struggle, or, more to the point, been manoeuvred into defeat by the Vatican.

The uneasy look on the face of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, seemed to say it all as it was announced on Wednesday, at a press conference he was hosting with his Catholic counterpart, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, that Pope Benedict XVI was opening up a whole new branch of Catholicism to welcome parishes or even whole dioceses of disaffected traditionalist Anglicans who can't stomach the imminent prospect of answering to a woman bishop.

Williams muttered a few words about continuing inter-church dialogue, but it was obvious he had neither been consulted nor warned of what is effectively an open invitation from the Pope to the Catholic wing of the Church of England to leave a sinking ship. His predecessor George Carey has urged him to complain to the Pope about the manner of the announcement, and has expressed concern that the strategy could damage church unity.

Benedict's surprise offer marks a shift in Vatican attitudes. Those Anglicans – John Gummer, Ann Widdecombe and Charles Moore among them – who "came over" to Rome after the 1992 General Synod vote to ordain women priests were required to do so as individuals. No group discount was approved. And until very recently, the Vatican had been responding very coolly to pleas for a lifeboat from around half a dozen Anglo-Catholic Church of England prelates and their followers dismayed by the 2008 decision in favour of women bishops.

But suddenly it seems Rome has gone on the offensive and is targeting the Catholic wing of Anglicanism. In so doing, it is brazenly unpicking the Reformation settlement in England. Some senior CofE figures are so dismayed by the Pope's new strategy that they want Benedict's visit to Britain next year to be scrapped.

What is particularly galling – to Anglican leaders and to Catholics who struggle to live within the sometimes draconian rules of their church – is that Rome is also offering the traditionalists opt-outs from some of its most contested teachings. In the new "ordinariate" that Benedict is proposing to set up for them , they will be able to keep their own distinctive "smells and bells" liturgical arrangements, and their own married clergy. Elsewhere Catholic priests have to choose between marriage and ordination. There is even talk that they will be able to run their own seminaries, thus ensuing that this is not a transitional arrangement but the permanent establishment of a church within a church.

Estimates of how many will take up the offer vary greatly, but one thing seems plain: the delicate balancing act between High Church Anglo-Catholic and Low Church Protestant wings (with liberals holding the centre ground) that has characterised the Church of England for centuries is over for good.

The Church of England is often described as having its origins in Henry VIII's desire to divorce his first wife, but it saw in its early decades a genuinely theological tug of war between Catholic and Protestant tendencies. In 1552, under Edward VI and his Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, the CofE produced a draft of 42 "articles" which would dump all Catholic trappings and throw its lot in wholeheartedly with Luther, Calvin and fellow European Protestant reformers. Then Henry's sickly son spoiled it by dying.

The throne passed in 1553 to Mary Tudor who at once instigated a Catholic backlash, executing those who stood in her way, including Cranmer). But then she too departed to meet her maker and it was left to her half-sister, Elizabeth, to adopt the compromise that is the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563, the first eight being broadly Catholic, the next 10 all but embracing the fruits of the Reformation, and the rest concerning themselves with the position of the Church in relation to the state.

It took until 1662 to hammer out a compromise on that other bedrock of Anglicanism, The Book of Common Prayer. Thereafter, the Church of England stuck to its middle way. On occasion it overbalanced. In the 1840s, the Oxford Movement significantly bolstered the Anglo-Catholic wing before one of its leaders, John Henry Newman, spoiled it by going over to Rome. The compromise church endured – until now.

When he gets over the shock of Rome's actions, Rowan Williams may find some short-term comfort in the realisation that at least it makes his task as leader of the CofE easier. If the Catholic wing departs for Rome, it will remove one troublesome faction in what has become a paralysing debate within Anglicanism about the role of women and gay ordination. Protestant Anglicans are broadly pro-women and anti-gay; Anglo-Catholics, again in general terms, the opposite. The dwindling number of liberals try to mediate.

The question remains, though, of what precisely Pope Benedict is up to. A display of pastoral concern for a troubled group of Christians was how the Vatican presented its change of heart this week. Some Anglicans were not convinced. It was, they suggested, a shameless ploy to bolster Roman Catholic numbers by interfering in the internal disputes of a sister church with which Rome has spent decades working to establish closer links. What price now mutual respect? The hopes of ecumenical progress towards a final healing of the wounds of the Reformation, so high after Pope John Paul II's 1982 visit to Britain, seem now to have given way to what looks uncomfortably like a Catholic attempt to annex a whole swathe of Anglicanism.

"It is just clever marketing," an unhappy Church of England vicar told me last week. "Next thing, Benedict will be tempting Eastern Orthodox Christians by offering them pews if they join the Catholics." (Orthodox services traditionally require often elderly congregations to remain standing for a full 90 minutes.)

That is perhaps to judge the German Pope too harshly. One of his strongest instincts since he was elected in 2005 has been to act not as the rottweiler he was often accused of being as doctrine enforcer to his predecessor, but as a German shepherd rounding up stray members of his flock. He wants as many people as possible to feel at home in the big tent of his Catholic church.

So, soon after coming to office, he issued a lunch invitation to the dissident liberal theologian, Hans Küng, regarded under John Paul as little better than the anti-Christ. And Rome is currently engaged in a tricky set of negotiations to re-admit the extreme traditionalist Society of Pius X (whose members include the Holocaust-denier, Bishop Richard Williamson). The leaders of the group were excommunicated by John Paul.

The traditionalist Anglicans are by comparison a relatively uncontroversial target for this shepherdly concern. They also offer other advantages. They tend to describe their disaffection with the Church of England in terms of its overstepping its God-given authority, but many Anglo-Catholic dissidents openly regard women as second-class citizens at the altar – precisely what the Catholic church also teaches.

It not only refuses to ordain women (on the basis that there were none at the Last Supper and Jesus was a man) but since the 1994 has ordered Catholics to stop talking about it. Such an unreasonable dictate has, inevitably, had the opposite effect, especially among English Catholics who Rome is reported to see as a little too liberal and independent-minded for its liking.

The Vatican may just have calculated that adding a few traditionally minded converts from Anglican ranks to the local mix might ensure a little more obedience.

For cradle Catholics, the events of last week are both confusing and dismaying. Why is our church so eager to embrace a group who denigrate women? It sends out such an unattractive message about what Catholicism is about. And is the Pope in favour of married priests or not? He appears to be suggesting that those Catholics torn between a vocation to priesthood and the urge to marry should first become an Anglican vicar, then tie the knot, and finally apply for a transfer to the new ordinariate.

And what of these Anglo-Catholic liturgies? The standard Catholic mass has for centuries been a link between the Pope's 1.1 billion worldwide flock. Now, English Catholics will be able to choose between it and a "smells and bells" pastiche. The irony of the week's events is that, in the Church of England, the unravelling of its historic compromise between Catholic and Protestant factions may end up leaving it to go forward smaller but clearer about what it is and isn't. In Catholicism, by contrast, the Pope's apparent opportunism will bolster numbers but risks further confusing the faithful about precisely what it is their church stands for.

Peter Stanford is a former editor of The Catholic Herald and author of The Extra Mile: The Twenty-First Century Pilgrim (Continuum, 2010)

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]palaeologos wrote:
Saturday, 24 October 2009 at 11:23 pm (UTC)
If the various Eastern Catholic churches can have their own rites, why not the Anglicans? And as I recall it, smells and bells used to be the rule for the Roman Rite; should Anglo-Catholics have to become Methodist in their ceremonial in order to join the RCC?

You finally have a Pope who will enforce the letter of Vatican II rather than the "spirit" as interpreted by a coterie of self-absorbed baby boomers. For those in the TAC and FiF who have asked for this arrangement, this is an olive branch and a Godsend. And the establishment of the personal Ordinariates means that the Anglican Use will not be dependent on local bishops, most of whom aren't able to tell Anglicanism from Presbyterianism, and who actively distrust anyone whose piety and devotion are greater than theirs. This is a brilliant move by the Holy Father, and to be commended!
Give Pope a passport ?
[info]rogoz2 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 01:27 am (UTC)
Good old fashioned power politics - if the opposition is divided, move in & poach disaffected members. I await the Pope to arrive & make a log of property claims on fair England since Henry V111 is, um, no longer with us.
Re: Give Pope a passport ?
[info]biddle45 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 01:48 am (UTC)
"...rush confusing the faithful...."

Peter Stanford,

We have had functioning Anglican Use/Rite Catholic parishes in the States for years. They don't confuse the faithful Catholics at all in the United States. Why would they confuse English Catholics?

As palaelogos notes, there are Eastern Catholic Churches in the global Catholic Church -- 22 of them, including the Ukraine Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Byzantine Catholic Church, etc.
Why not have an Anglican Use/Rite Catholic Church for the Anglican Use/Rite parishes in the States and possibly in the UK?

You don't make sense!
Re: Give Pope a passport ?
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 06:15 pm (UTC)
You never know - they might even get one or two of their ancient church buildings back ...
Anglican to Catholic converts
[info]davidirby wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 01:49 am (UTC)
I went Catholic in 1964 because of the Vatican II's generosity and because the Anglican “communion” is hopelessly confused about what “communion” really is. I believe it is what Jesus Christ (God!) says it is, His Very body and Blood. And Anglicanism has become more and more confused, ever since.

And it has put up the real roadblocks before full Ecclesial unity; female “ordinations”, total denial of the Biblical prohibition of homosexual practice among Christians. And I accept Catholic authority in all matters of faith and morals. But in politics, I am no rock-ribbed conservative; (e.g.) I actively protest against racial discrimination and the unjust Vietnam War and Iraq invasion AS WELL AS abortion.

I do not appreciate this article's flippant tone. Neither our good Pope nor the Anglican Catholics are misogynists, because all of us must accept that female “ordinations” are contrary to the Will of Christ (God).

Ann Widdecombe is a convert and Tony Blair is a convert. So the Catholic Church is just what the name says on the tin. And to all who come, however they come, all of us say, “Welcome home! Thanks be to God!”
peter stanford's article
[info]biddle45 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 01:54 am (UTC)
"...risks confusing the faithful...."

Dear Peter Stanford,

There are several Anglican Use/Rite Catholic parishes in the States and none of them confuse the Catholic faithful in the States. Why would English Catholic be confused?

As palaeologos notes, there are Eastern Catholic Churches in the global Catholic Church. There are 22 of them, including the Ukraine Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, the Byzantine Catholic Church, etc. So why not have an Anglican Use/Rite Catholic Church for the Anglican Use parishes in the States? Maybe for the newly formed Anglican Use Catholic parishes in England, too?

They have not "risked confusing the faithful" in the States!
Re: peter stanford's article
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 05:54 pm (UTC)
Having read Mr Stanford's article in the paper, I came on to make the identical point, but you've beaten me to it - twice, I notice!

There's nothing whatsoever new about this, though there have been few recent examples, and none that have affected Britain. You mention the relatively recent similar provision in the southern states of the USA and a recent conference festival Mass of theirs is featured on Youtube, so, assuming what's planned for the rest of the world follows a similar pattern, anyone interested can see just how "Anglican" the liturgical provision might be. The only other relatively recent similar arrangement that I've come across is the Syro-Malankara community in south India, which dates from 1930.

Over the centuries, the Roman Church has been notably flexible in making this sort of provision, and has been prepared to allow almost anything that was "mainstream" as long as the Christian community that was being ... mmm, is "enticed" an unkind way of putting it?! ... would agree to acknowledge the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome - most of these arrangements having been agreed before the Roman Church got round to defining papal infallibility. All these "eastern rite" communities routinely keep their own liturgy, customs and ceremonies, and have a married priesthood - much the same in principle as Rome is now apparently prepared to offer to Anglicans worldwide. Given his background as a specialist jurnalist in RC affairs, I would have thought that Mr Stanford would be more up on all this than he seems to be.

He's not entirely with it about contemporary Anglicanism either. "Protestant Anglicans are broadly pro-women and anti-gay; Anglo-Catholics, again in general terms, the opposite. The dwindling number of liberals try to mediate." A fair proportion of Anglican evangelicals were as sniffy about women priests as Anglo-Catholics were, though for quite different reasons, and my impression is that most definite evangelicals oppose women bishops. Hasn't he run across "Reform", which states the conservative Anglican evangelical position decisively - not to say pungently!

And if the "number of liberals" is "dwindling", how come it's their agenda that has increasingly predominated in "developed world" Anglicanism in the last forty years? They've been active and effective promoters of their way of thinking, not mere "mediators" ...
Straying from the path.
[info]mh656 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 02:05 am (UTC)
It seems to me that if the members of the clergy go around saying the Bible is only a metaphor, or changing the rules of the Church of England to suit gays, lesbians and women protest groups, how can those who try to believe in the teachings of the bible cope. When sometime you are told that certain ceremonies are to be change so as not to offend others, is it any wonder that people are either leaving the C of E, or setting up alternative groups.

Is it not one of the ten commandments that says, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

This isn't about not lying, this literally means do not miss-represent my teachings.

I think the Church of England has lost it's way and should re-examine it's role as the promoter of the Christian faith. They should get back to their grass roots. It isn't only Star Trek needs to reboot, maybe the C of E needs a reboot as well.

And I'm an athiest to boot.
Re: Straying from the path.
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 06:14 pm (UTC)
The Bible's hardly a metaphor, though you can find metaphor in it. It's not in fact any one thing, because it isn't a large monochrome book, like, for instance "Das Kapital" - or, to cvhoose a slighly closer parallel, even the Qu'ran. In fact the title, in the original Greek, gives the clue: "ta biblia" - "the books".

Books of poetry, songs (even erotic ones!), oral traditions passed down for centuries before they were written down, sermons and earnest tracts, history without much agenda, history with a very definite agenda, pastoral letters, gloomy or exultant musings about what God might be doing in the world and how things would pan out. It isn't any one sort of literature, but lots.

The one thing it all has in common is a sense that God was real, to be reckoned with, and actrually did things in the world. And that generations subsequently thought it still had something worthwhile and meaningful to communicate to them, in all sorts of different ways. And that it was one way of hearing, not just what earlier generations thought God was saying and doing, but that it was also a way of getting through to him here and now.

The idea that the Bible's all one sort of thing, and especially that it's all history, is arguably the daftest legacy of the Protestant reformation. It's made atheists of quite a few people that I know. Few Christians ever thought in those terms back in the early days, and the ones that did were liable to get laughed at.

Having said that, as a former Anglican, the antics of Anglicanism in recent years have brought me
closer to agnosticism than I ever thought possible. To my mind, your penultimate paragraph above has it just about right.

Comes to something when it takes an intelligent atheist to preach a brief, apposite and intelligent sermon to a bunch of Christians about their internal affairs, and their own calling!!
Make sure you are going over for the right reasons
[info]arniep wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 03:08 am (UTC)
What on earth is George Carey going on about when he says that the Popes offer to traditionalist Anglicans could damage church unity? There is only the thinnest thread of unity in the C of E and the forty year ARCIC dialogue between the UK Catholic hierarchy and the Church of England has produced little fruit. After forty years the Anglican Church still cannot agree with the catholic doctrine of the seven sacraments despite the fact that their first supreme Governor of Henry XIII wrote a book “An assertion of the Seven Sacraments” which he presented to the Pope. The Pope in turn bestowed the title Defender of the faith on Henry as a mark of gratitude. There is no point in continuing with inter faith dialogue on those things that we have in common. We have talked enough about what we have in common, and assiduously avoided those teachings of the Catholic Church that are controversial and unacceptable to the majority of Anglicans e.g. divorce, contraception, abortion, papal infallibility, confession to a priest, Marian Devotion, indulgences, hell, private interpretation of the Gospels etc. The Catholic Church is not a spiritual supermarket where you can stroll down the aisles and pick and choose what you will believe and practice and reject that which does not appeal to you. Those Anglicans who are teetering on the edge of converting to Catholicism must be sure that they are doing it for the right reasons and not merely as a protest slap-in-the face to the hierarchy of their own church with which they are disaffected.
...
[info]razygentry wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 04:39 am (UTC)

The bible is a metaphore - or it's obviously fiction. Either way it's not worth the attention its had for the past 2000 years.
Bums on Seats
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 05:37 am (UTC)
As long as the Catholic Church uses albino assassins it cannot be considered to be Christian. I have read the New Testament from cover to cover and I found that we are supposed to love our enemies, not waste them.
90% of Church goers are considered by St. Paul to be heathens because they are not Born Again, and were not even let in the early Churches. Any losses to the Catholic Church can be soon made up by saving a few of these "bums on seats."
Re: Bums on Seats
[info]palaeologos wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 06:35 pm (UTC)
"Albino assassins"?

Are you under the impression that The Da Vinci Code was a work of history?
Dump the Pope's visit.
[info]steerpike66 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 07:24 am (UTC)
Apart from anything else, the queen is technically the Head of the CoE, so this is a serious diplomatic problem from a political point of view. The Pope is being rankly opportunist and purely political, and it underlines AGAIN why I shun these craven organisations and the creepy men who control them.
Nobody with any respect for women can be a Catholic.
[info]steerpike66 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 07:29 am (UTC)
The gender politics of the Church are a nonsensical as they are barbaric. Any fool can see that women are treated as stupid and lowly by the Church. Mary is the most ineffective cipher ever to e paraded around as a model for womanhood. The sterile mother. The unused womb. Motionless. Voiceless. Colourless. Moribund.

That's not a woman. That's nothing.
Soory to keep posting but
[info]steerpike66 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 07:32 am (UTC)
the pope appear to have finally worked out a way to get his hands on Africa, where celibacy is considered a perversion even more 'unnatural' than homosexuality.

A cursory look at the relationship between religion and sexuality reveals the whole thing to be a hissing cauldron of fear and delusion.
Re: Soory to keep posting but
[info]palaeologos wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 06:37 pm (UTC)
Er, no. The African bishops aren't going for this.

This is aimed primarily at the TAC and FiF, two groups that have been pleading with Rome for just such an arrangement. +Akinola et al. are Reformed evangelicals, and they're no more likely to become Roman Catholic than is Ian Paisley.
So exciting
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)
Wow, this is all so exciting and relevant to todays world. But if these strange people could just worship the same God (if She exists) and really love their neighbours, then all their scheming, back-biting, bigotry and duplicity would not be necessary. But keep up the good work chaps, it's more entertaining than Neighbours and Eastenders rolled into one.....
good ridence to anglicans
[info]mind_ful wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 08:48 am (UTC)
jolly good. the more the merrier. we dont want mysoginists in the real church of england. let them join the roman catholic faith which is proud of its anti-female heritage. This is where they actually belong, and their obsesssion with 'high church' nonsense is a tribute to that.
Re: good ridence to anglicans
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 04:16 pm (UTC)
Good riddance to Anglicans? Members of the "real" Church of England happen to BE Anglicans. Hadn't you noticed?!

Looks like your knowledge of Anglicanism is about as proficient as your spelling!
will the defectors accept reordination
[info]cping500 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 09:25 am (UTC)
I understand the Bishop of Chichester is ready to leave.... but only if his orders are recognised, but the offer is actually that priests who 'go over' should be re-ordained. So will he go? and how many more will leave under this condition. They and their flocks will be clearly second class citizens of the Roman Heaven or maybe just have to stay longer in Purgatory). Let them go and join a real Roman congregation under a real Roman bishop (but they won't get in if they are gay!). Incidentally the Roman Catechism which they must give assent to is a very fundamentalist document which requires Romans to believe in 'Sacred History' form Creation onward
Re: will the defectors accept reordination
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 04:24 pm (UTC)
The precedent from the 1990s for Anglican priests who were received as individuals was that they would have to be re-ordained, but the ordination rite differed from the normal RC one in that it contained a specific acknowledgement of their previous ministry. Whether or not that constituted a "conditional" reordination was therefore arguably ambiguous, depending on your point of view. Possibly deliberately so.

Although only the outlines of this provision seem to be clear so far, I would be hugely surprised if that were to change.
Yet Again
[info]robert_price wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
Our Independent Minds are restricted to not commenting on the BNP stories. Whether for or against surely we should be trusted to think and speak freely?
Re: Yet Again
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 06:23 pm (UTC)
It tempts us all to say naughty things, Robert. Like anything to do with Israel/Palestine ... P.C. rules!

Mind you, both are subjects on which people take the most incredible - not to say "barking" - positions, but you'd think it'd be possible to trust other posters to challenge them and provide balance.
Anti-women?
[info]pjpm wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC)
Peter,
It's tiresome to have to deal with 'Catholics' like you who create a fog of prejudice around a teaching that is clear, if unpalatable to some. The teaching that a woman cannot be ordained goes back to the fact that the Word of God chose to 'take flesh' as a man at a certain time. This 'God-man', not bound by cultural taboo, chose from among his thousands of disciples Twelve who would form the foundations of His Church. There were no women among this Twelve. Jesus could have chosen so had he wished; after all, he recruited a former tax-collector, something that would have surely been at least as controversial. The Twelve he chose would be the leaders of the Church, shepherds, teachers, ministers of the Word, witnesses of the Resurrection. In turn, they would pass this on by the ministry of ordination to other men. In brief, the ordained man represents Christ in person to others, sharing his individual nature as a man. This is the 'scandal of particularity'. It is a stumbling block to some, but only if they lack the goodwill to think things through. Just as a man cannot naturally be a mother, so a woman cannot supernaturally be a priest. The Catholic Church is unable to change a precedent that was so clearly set by the choices of Jesus himself, who in myriad ways in the Gospels showed his concern for women. If you see this as 'anti-woman', then you're applying a wholly inappropriate women's rights filter to what is a profound theological matter.
Re: Anti-women?
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC)
Yes, pjpm, very self serving. If, of course, you had "the goodwill to think things through" without your Catholic brainwashing, you might conclude that your church was indeed anti-women in many ways. Indeed, how any women can belong to an organisation run entirely by strange old men is beyond me. And if God existed, I am sure She would be horrified at the things you and your religion say and do in Her name.
Re: Anti-women?
[info]pjpm wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 01:00 pm (UTC)
Well, at least I have a brain to wash.
Re: Anti-women?
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 01:09 pm (UTC)
So, you admit that what the CC does to poor innocent children is, indeed, brainwashing. There's obviously more than one way to abuse children in your church.
Re: Anti-women?
[info]pjpm wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 01:17 pm (UTC)
It's clear you've made your mind up based on a pack of prejudices and nothing will change your jaundiced view. You use 'logic' rather creatively to make it do what you want it to do. So, byee, I'm signing out.
Re: Anti-women?
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 01:22 pm (UTC)
Truth hurts! Bye
Not even "broadly" right
[info]thehalfwelshman wrote:
Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 02:40 pm (UTC)
"Protestant Anglicans are broadly pro-women and anti-gay; Anglo-Catholics, again in general terms, the opposite. The dwindling number of liberals try to mediate."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Like too many of your co-religionists, you are shockingly ignorant of the realities of the Church of England.

Broadly speaking, the evangelicals are anti-gay and anti-women and the handful of remaining Anglo-Catholics don't care overmuch about gender/sexuality as long as they get their nice rituals. Apart from a few card-carrying imbeciles like Milord Bishop of Fulham, who's just anti-everything. The Anglo-Catholics that actually care about these issues left 20 years ago. Moreover, the idea that everyone in the middle is a "liberal" is ludicrous. Those in the "broad" church (to give it its rightful name) tend to be the strictest on matters of sexuality, not "liberals".

"Pope Benedict XVI was opening up a whole new branch of Catholicism to welcome parishes or even whole dioceses of disaffected traditionalist Anglicans"

Where to start? Perhaps most obviously by trying to hammer home the following: there aren't any "dioceses of disaffected traditionalist Anglicans!" Anglican dioceses are very loose structures compared to their Catholic counterparts. There is usually a whole multiplicity of practices and ideals within individual parishes, never mind dioceses. There are a bare handful of parishes outside London that would be interested in moving across. In any case, as it would require either legislation or an Order in Council to allow it to happen given that parishes are fixed and attached to their churches by law (Anglican Parishes are always St X, Y) the legal obstacles to whole congregations "leaving and taking their churches" are formidable.

I travel around a great many parishes and churches in my role as a professional organist, and there is simply no appetite for this offer. If a Bishop tried to enforce it on an entire diocese he would simply be sacked. If a parish priest tried to run away the resulting ructions would leave him with no congregation to take across. Most likely, in the highly improbable event this went ahead, it would see the "broad churches" suddenly experience a numbers boost as people defected across.

Face facts, this is a bid by the Pope to sweep up a few cross High Anglicans in America and London, but most of all it is a bid to establish a tradition of married clergy within Catholicism, without which it will collapse through lack of clergy in 25 years - perhaps less. You've got to hand it to the Pope, he's a smart man. However, he's setting about this one in the rudest and most provocative way possible. He's also done what I never thought possible - persuaded George Carey to stand up for Rowan Williams! Man's a miracle worker.
[info]vivianlmft wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 01:57 am (UTC)
The idea that church unity exhists is clearly a fallacy. It apparently exhisted on the surface, but the reality underneath was something totally different and self-serving.
[info]vivianlmft wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 01:59 am (UTC)
The reality is that there is a lot of unhappiness in the Catholic Church as well, and the Pope appears to have made a move out of desperation.
[info]vivianlmft wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 02:02 am (UTC)
There is only one thing that is very clear, God is not present at either church.
Anglician Roman Catholics - GOOD RIDDENCE!
[info]alex3845 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 01:10 pm (UTC)
If anyone, never mind a handful of Church of England Anglicans wishes to join with the Roman Catholic church, a church that has become in Western Europe a by-word for child abuse and paedophilia, whose treatment of women as second class citizens and whose celibacy policy has forced many priests into homosexual relationships, then the best of luck to them and good riddance!

There has been much pro-Rome hysterical suggestions that the Anglican Communion will collapse and some would even have us believe the Reformation has been finally crushed! However what will be left is a Church of England, with less internal dissent, more doctrinally cohesive and more Protestant in outlook.

There will be a realignment within the Anglican Communion world wide making it internally more cohesive which I for one welcome.

Maybe after this whole scenario has run its course next year, we can finally be rid of these pseudo Anglican Roman Catholics and the COE get back to its basic Protestant principles and Reformation roots.

I believe Pope “Benny” the ultimate “snake oil” seller, has done us a favour!
What is more Important? Reformation truth or Women priests / Bishops
[info]protestantman wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 08:08 pm (UTC)
As a Presbyterian, not an Anglican, I wonder why people like John Gummer, Ann Widdicombe, Charles Moore and others desert the Reformed Church of England over the matter of woman priests. Whilst there may well be an argument for their disagreement with the decision of the C of E to have women priests, I would suggest that the benefits of the Reformation far outweigh the matter of the gender of priests.

Of course, those who wish to take the Romeward road, are 'high church', which doesn't even have the width of a bible page between their doctrines. There is no place for holy water, candles and the high church dogma in a reformed church and my bible has certainly never taught me that our Lord Jesus Christ indulged in the use of such icons and other nonsense.

I would therefore lose no sleep and neither should the C of E, if those who are annoyed, go to Rome. I think that Church with it's questionable Christian practices is welcome to them. The Church of Rome may have millions of adherents worldwide but as the old maxim says, quantity doesn't always equate to quality. The quality in my life is in my reformed Protestantism and I'd certainly have no truck with the unbiblical doctrines of Rome.
[info]veronica_77 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 October 2009 at 04:34 am (UTC)
What draconian rules? The ten commandments? Come off it. As to ‘offering traditionalists opt-outs from some of its most contested teachings’ the liturgical arrangements and also married clergy are not part of Catholic doctrine, but rather tradition. That’s why the Eastern Catholic churches have married priests. Catholicism has always allowed for married priests in special circumstances, providing they’re married before they become priests, and that goes back a long, long way. There is no justification for calling this a permanent ‘church within a church’. Catholicism is and always has been a broad church, but yes we keep the ‘draconian’ commandments. Personally stealing, not having extra marital affairs, not killing babies, etc. has never been a problem for me. It’s simply a matter of basic respect.
As to Catholicism regarding women as second class citizens at the altar, this is left wing clap trap. Making women ‘equal’ at work (which they still aren’t) simply emptied the home and emasculated the protectors of the family, men. All very useful Marxist methods. No wonder people want out of the C of E. Rowan is a Marxist, as are all of the English Bishops, both Catholic and CofE – and a pox on all of them - but thankfully we’ve got Rome. I don’t know any Catholics who are ‘confused’ but I do know a lot of supposedly ‘Catholic’ groups who are always claiming to be so, but it’s the same old Marxist Trojan horse.
Elizabeth 1 defender of the faith from Roman Catholic invaders
[info]aconservative wrote:
Tuesday, 27 October 2009 at 11:02 pm (UTC)
Time to wake up Protestant Christian.

Elizabeth the First will be turning in her grave!

To think how this brave British Queen, Elizabeth 1, with her very real Christian faith, bravely stopped the Roman Catholic plots from France & Spain to try and return England back into a Roman Catholic Country.

She was a true defender of the Church of England & The Christian faith and of this nation against Southern European Roman Catholic invaders. But now our wishy washy academic Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams just allows the bullish German Pope to seduce up to 20 % of of the Anglican Bishops, Clergy and laity; with the Archbishop of Canterbury giving not much more than a shrug of his shoulders and wringing of his hands; with his bearded blank expression seems to be saying: don't blame me, I didn't get us into this mess! (The fact I am such a bad Christian leader and more interested in secular issues like climate change than being the leader of the main Christian church has nothing to do with what is happening). Oh but it does! If he had any humility he would resign immediately and allow a real Christian who actually believes the Christian Gospel and who is not afraid to defend our nation and our protestant Christian faith and Anglican church from foreign invaders. I thought a good shepherd was supposed to look after his sheep not let them wander all over the place; ready to be devoured by known predators.

This Pope made his intentions very clear; not long after he was appointed when he publicly declared ' The Roman Catholic is the only real Christian faith in the world'. (such arrogance, he implied that all other Christian denominations were heretics, so it seems nothing has changed since the brutal years of the Spanish inquisition and the slaughter of thousands the protestants including the Calvinist Huguenots in France; that saw religious cleansing in Europe on a massive scale). So who will stand up to this aggressive Pope? Before he causes massive outrage and reaction in England? Mark my words once the protestants in England & Wales and NI wake up to what is being proposed, we will be on very dangerous ground indeed. And only God knows where it could lead. This can all be avoided if the Pope stops his religious crusade in England & Wales and 'wishy washy' Dr Rowan Williams stands down as soon as possible.

What this country needs right now is a Wesley, Spurgeon or a Whitefield to lead the Anglican Church; someone who has the boldness to stand and be counted and be proud to be a Protestant Anglican Christian.

Bullish Pope is playing a very dangerous game.....
[info]aconservative wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 12:24 am (UTC)
This bullish approach to Anglo-Catholic Anglicans from the Pope is potentially very dangerous indeed. Does he want to destabalise nearly 500 years of relative peace between Angilcans in England & Wales & Roman Catholics; with largely mutual tolerance, peace and understanding; avoiding sectarianism as we have seen in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland.

In these troubled times with the nation facing many problems, such as the threat of terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists, a broken society that has largely lost its moral compass and its spirituality and more recently financial hardship for the poor in the midst of a recession; with excessive greed by the few who are flaunting their unearned wealth under the noses of those who have next to nothing.

At a time when we all need to hold together and seek unity where ever possible, the nation is now faced with an unexpected threat to destabalise the country. The Pope & the Roman Catholics should back off now, before the masses realize what is being proposed. This could easily lead to trouble on our streets as those who seek to divide us in this difficult times see their opportunity to cause civil unrest in our nation, and even set neighbour against neighbour.

Scaremongering? I don't think so, this nightmare scenerio is a possibility if this divisive proposal is not stopped now.
Two good reasons for Anglicans not to be seduced by the Roman Catholics
[info]aconservative wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 02:10 pm (UTC)
TWO GOOD REASONS FOR ANGLICANS NOT TO BE SEDUCED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:

1. Arrogance:

The Times 11 July 2007:
'If it isn't Roman Catholic then it's not a proper church' Pope tell Christians. The Vatican has described the Protestant & Orthodox faiths as not proper churches in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece#

2. Protection of Child Abusers:

New Catholic Archbishop Most Rev Vincent Nichols May 2009 praised the courage of guilty clergy for admitting their guilt: Daily Mail 21.05.09:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1185773/New-Archbishop-engulfed-Catholic-abuse-row-praising-courage-guilty-clergy.html

But what about the courage of the victims who suffered for years at the hands of these child abusers? The Archbishop should be ashamed of himself for making such a ridiculous statement like this..............
It doesn't need courage to abuse a child only some sick and twisted perversion. These people should be named and shamed and brought to justice in a criminal court for their disgusting crimes against children
Re: Two good reasons for Anglicans not to be seduced by the Roman Catholics
[info]timpall wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 04:00 am (UTC)
I'm just relieved, as an English speaking Roman Catholic that FINALLY, I'll be able to go to an Anglican Rite Church in union with Rome. I don't know about other languages, because I'm not fluent, but the Anglicans have always had a top notch mass. Is this why the English hierarchy is so concerned? Loss of members to a much more satisfying rite? And much better sermons, by the way.
The Liberal Wing of the Anglican Communion has alienated the majoity of its own people worldwide
[info]hdsfn51 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:42 pm (UTC)
The Pope's (Roman Catholic Church Magesteria) actions would have never been necessary had Liberal Anglican theologians and Bishops abandoned their own articles of faith and adopted an adgenda-zed Liberal anti-orthodox, pro-gay, pro-feminist, pro-Liberalist theologies. The minority Liberal Anglicans which for 40 years have forced their anti-Conservative views and actions on the Anglican world based on the primacy of the Arch-bishops office are responsible for those turning to the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglicans in Africa, Austral Asia, Canada, United States, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zea land, and in Great Britain itself who have openly stood against Canterbury's agendas for 40 years now have a viable option in regards as to exercising their Christian faith. The minority Liberal adgendists knew this was coming with their rulings on female ordination, the gay life style, gay ordination, and their failure to even countenance the Conservative Traditional theological views of the majority of Anglicans worldwide. The Pope actually is promoting Christian unity by preventing an Anglican schism and providing a spiritual home for Anglicans forced from their traditional Christian home. Regardless of ones Christian beliefs Conservative or conservative or Liberal or liberal Christianity itself gives us many examples of denominations who's leadership have adopted the Minority Liberalist adgenda. In every situation the denomination splits or dies slowly. The United Church of Canada is a prime example of this, once Canada's Largest Protestant Denomination in the 1960's; it is virtually dying as an ever emptying shell. Liberals are welcome to their own particular agendas and theologies. However, when you exercise these agendas and theologies in Church's that have historically and traditionally rejected them you bring about the condition that the Anglican Church sees itself in today; where the leadership's position is opposed to a large enough portion of the Laity worldwide where their plight becomes the concern of another denomination that seeks to offer an alternative to their theologically untenable situation. The Roman Catholic Church is not the problem here for disaffected Anglicans, the Liberal Anglican leadership and adgenda is.

Columnist Comments

hamish_mcrae

Hamish McRae: A time for giving with a difference

With the recession, there is a shift from giving people things to giving them services

mark_steel

Mark Steel: Come rain or revo- lution, it's money they want

Haven't the 20th anniversary celebrations of the overthrow of communism been miserable?

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: Science must never be political or emotional

Politicians and action groups select favourable data, ignoring inconvenient evidence


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion