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
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)
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
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!
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!
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!”
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!
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" ...
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.
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!!
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.
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."
Are you under the impression that The Da Vinci Code was a work of history?
That's not a woman. That's nothing.
A cursory look at the relationship between religion and sexuality reveals the whole thing to be a hissing cauldron of fear and delusion.
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.
Looks like your knowledge of Anglicanism is about as proficient as your spelling!
Although only the outlines of this provision seem to be clear so far, I would be hugely surprised if that were to change.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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/commen
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/art
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