30

The Pope invites disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic Church

Historic move a response to Canterbury’s stance on female clergy and homosexuality


 

In an unprecedented move, Pope Benedict XVI has opened the doors of the Roman Catholic church to a growing number of Anglicans left disaffected by Canterbury’s liberalism. Thousands of Anglicans have already left the church in response to its stance on homosexuality and female clergy. The historic move means that disillusioned Anglicans will be able to convert to Roman Catholicism while holding onto some of their religious doctrine rather than form small breakaway churches. While married Anglican pastors will be able to become Catholic priests, they will not be allowed to become bishops.

London Telegraph


 
Filed under:

The Pope invites disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic Church

  1. I've been following this story (and its reactions) all morning. As both an anglophile and a Catholic, it would be nice to finally bring the two worlds together. I do feel compelled that many anglo-catholics in the Anglican Communion aren't just leaving because of gay marriage and women clergy. There are other disagreements as well, such as the fact that the Anglican church is becoming increasingly "low church" (less liturgical) and "theologically innovative" (playing fast and loose with the Nicene Creed).

    I don't things are going to be as simple as this brief blurb of a story suggests though. There isn't much rapprochement between traditional Anglicans and the Catholic Church yet at the diocesan level, and having grown up in a protestant church that is leaving that church due to doctrinal differences, they aren't likely to view unity as important as the Romans do. There is no Anglican Rite being formed like the Eastern Rite churches (since they don't have an unbroken apostolic succession like the Orthodox Church does) but instead are going to have a "Personal Ordinary" in certain places. The Anglicans will appoint that person, who will be a bishop in all but name but not necessarily have the rank of bishop (though he may be a bishop). This will be similar to the relationship that various other religious communities have with the Church, such as Opus Dei.

    There are many remarkable concessions that are being made. Aside from keeping their liturgy, this group will be allowed to select its own Personal Ordinate, and may even put forth married men to be ordained as priests, as the Eastern Rite Catholics are allowed to do. I am unsure whether the book of common prayer will be allowed to be brought with them, or whether it will need a revision to remove conflicts with the RCC catechism.

  2. Just what the Catholic Church needs….more homophobes and misogynists.

    • *ahem* There are other disagreements as well, such as the fact that the Anglican church is becoming increasingly "low church" (less liturgical) and "theologically innovative" (playing fast and loose with the Nicene Creed).

    • Yeah, like Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark, John Turner, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion – its just packed full of homophobes and misogynists.

      Just what the world needs … more narrow minded name callers.

  3. One step forward, two steps back.

  4. I don't see what's new here. Disaffected Protestants have been rejoining the Catholic Church for centuries. Married Protestant clergy have frequently been ordained as priests (along with married men from all other walks of life in the Eastern rites).

    What's the new development?

    • The big thing is that they don't have to use the Roman Mass, or be under the authority of a Roman bishop. It is essentially like being a church of their own Rite, but they don't have a diocese structure or their own bishop (though they may eventually be led by their own Anglo-catholic bishop.) New seminarians will study at Roman Catholic seminaries, but form seperate communities within it and it has been suggested that seminarians in the Anglican sphere might study in those seminaries as married men.

      So without geographical boundaries, it is able to give a way for people to maintain their Anglican identity, yet be in communion with Rome no matter where there congregation is in the world. This will presumably have a large impact on Anglicanism in the southern hemisphere (such as Africa, the Caribbean, and India).

      • That's interesting. A new quasi-Rite, eh? I've thought for a while that most of the Protestant denominations will eventually reunite with the Catholic Church as new rites.

        I think you're wrong about not using the Ordo of the Roman Mass though. Perhaps they can use readings from the KJV or something but they can't possibly have Mass without the essential elements.

        Anyway thanks for the answer. I now see the significance.

        • The High Anglican Mass pretty much has the essential elements, though you are correct that it would need tweaking.

          The Catholic Church in England also had its own variant of the Roman rite prior to the Reformation, and there has been some interest by the very high Anglican church who have wanted to convert to Rome for awhile (but remain staunchly British. It is called the Sarum rite.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarum_Rite

  5. Or you could just not believe in God – and that takes back a whole couple hours every weekend.

    Plus, I can just use that suit for work and keep my money in my pocket.

    It's amazing how everyone is so worried about what banner they fly under – you believe in a talking snake – get a grip.

    • I feel bad for people like you. Church on sunday is an awesome place to gather with your community and endeavour to do good in the world. It connects us with our community in a way that few other places do. How often do people hit the community centre or the town hall? God Bless Carl

      • JT,

        Actually, I'm an avid Atheist. I love the fact I don't need to tell someone I generally don't know that well my mistakes and feel bad because of it going in front of an imaginary being. I just simply learn from my mistakes and shortcomings in a family fashion with my female partner and our child. As a note, we're married under the law as a couple before we had our son – so we'd be pretty good Catholics – we had our child within marriage, we don't use birth control, etc. We're also not actively harassing or perpetuating falsehoods to unaware cultures.

        I actively participate in my community and volunteer my time cleaning up local parks, visiting others and volunteering my time as a park ranger in parks around my community. I am also a member of local groups that discuss horticulture and science. Our community hall is less than a block away and we actively read the newsletters it provides and discuss ways we can be involved in our area. This is all accomplished without your or anyone's god or religion.

        It's interesting how you take my comments as a flaw in my personality and therefore pray for me – you're fully entitled to believe in whatever god you choose, as I'm allowed to believe in scientific theory and facts. As a note, theory is not as you define it in science – so please read the definition before you discuss how you define your choice as a theory – which is actually conjecture as it has no solid facts to back it up other than a lot of iconography and a book written by humans hundreds of years after the man was around, like a great game of telephone.

        • Carl,

          I'm glad to hear that you are active in your community. Many today are not focused on community involvement and don't spare the time to enrich the lives of those around them. I also do not advocate for anyone to be subject to a belief system that they find abhorant. However, when you say that you believe in facts, it suggests that faith in God is incorrect or invalid. My question to you is what fact scientific or otherwise has refuted the existance of God. It is interesting to note that some of science's most "revolutionary" ideas like evolution were brought forth by practicing christians (Darwin was an Anglican, not an atheist nor did he believe that his theory contradicted his religious beliefs). Christians on the other hand do not need facts to prove to them that God exists or not. They have faith. And that combined with charity and helping your neighbour are what religion is all about. At the core of Christ's teachings is love your neighbour as yourself. As far as Catholic vs Anglican concerned, your denomination reflects your culture, family history and yes doctrinal belief. They way in which we worship changes but the core message is the same. God Bless

  6. As one who is neither Catholic nor Anglican, I must say that good men concerned about the doctrinal drift of western religious thought ought to recognize the Bible is the inspired Word, and thus. the pattern for our lives and service. That goes beyond the book of common prayer, or issues of how the East Rites can serve as a medium for uniting diverse religous thought.____Anglican concerned by the current views in Canterbery can be well served by a careful study of the Word –the ultimate standard for our faith. II Timothy 3:16,17 tells us that all inspired scripture is profitable for doctrince, reproof, correction and instruction in righteaousness that men of God may be complete and provided with all that they need to know. Acts 4:10,12 tells us that only in the name of Jesus Christ is there salvation for men. Acts 2:37 tell of the concerns of men who came to know that they had killed the promised savior. Maybe we all ought to consider Peter's response to their question as given in the following verse.______

    • It's awesome how christians consider the bible to be self-authenticating. A book of fairy tails and people walking on water and lambs and selfish gods commanding child sacrifice and people rising from the dead is the inerrant and inspired word of god, and true, because it says it is. I'd love to be able to use that to admit evidence in court–"Oh, your honour, the evidence is true because it says it is!"

      Whatever–it's all meaningless. Replace "god" and "jesus" with "zeus" and "apollo" or "odin" and "thor" or "giant toaster" and "purple slipper in the sky"–it makes no more or no less sense.

      • I always find it fascinating how atheists are always first to critisize christianity and its teachings. At the core of doctrine is one idea; love your neighbour as yourself. Whats wrong with that? Also although you are heavily critical of what is in the bible, though it seems just by reading your response that you havnt even read it. I agree that bible thumpers are annoying when they use it as unquestionable proof. Its not meant for that. Its meant to inspire the faithful to live in a way that can elevate humanity to something bigger. Also I dont know about you but most of my "atheist and agnostic" friends still celebrate Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving. Closet Christians…

        • Aaah – supporting some made-up, now commercialized holidays makes us unreasonable? You'd soon understand we like gifts too – we're not ogres. The Easter bunny isn't very Christian, but it's around. I doubt the "Lamb of God" would be all too impressed with the Cadbury Bunny if he actually existed. Not to mention the fact we ostracize our children from society if we make them watch their friends get things and they don't. Children lack the intellect and voice to understand such things as that's why every religious person is encouraged to bring their children to church. It's a great way to mix fantasy with their already imaginary play world.

          Agnosticism is even more reason to celebrate religious holidays – all of them. You never know what you're in for.

          As a note, Christianity is one of the worst historical groups to preach teachings of loving thy neighbor as thyself. Catholicism probably on top of the pile of doctrines. Citing historical fact proves this. If you're truly in need of some belief to show you how to be nice to people, look into Jainism. They have the highest literacy rates within their origin country and have some of the oldest libraries in the world. Their main tenet is non-violence.

          • The Roman Church in History was a nation state untill the unification of Italy in the late 19th Century. It acted as other nation states did during that period. They did not find themselves as a modern liturgical body until the early twentieth century. On the other side of the coin, Hitler and communist China were/are both proponents of securlarism and look what atrocities they commited in the name of nature. Hitler loved the idea of natural selection, he took it to an unthinkable extreme. Having said that, I find the Catholic Church to be severely flawed, with its emphasis on iconography and their popish hierarchy.

  7. …snakey oily salesman looking for more lost minds to enslave with his imbecile doctrines while wearing his long flowing white gown pretending to be the holiest of humans…gawd… wish people could see through this be es!

    • I don't know what you are talking about. Vestments are perfectly reasonable garments for a Roman official of the 4th century. Who are you to complain about how people dress anyway, you trouser wearing, rancid butter smelling, bar-bar chatterer? Go back across the Rhine-Danube frontier where you came from!

  8. New atheists and evangelicals are cousins not because they think or believe the same things, but because you all act the same. This story is about the rapprochement between the traditional Anglo-Catholics and the Catholic church, and what the implications are for these two religious movements. Why not actually talk about that, instead of how your ideological enemies in your cosmic struggle are ruining your vision of a utopian world?

  9. Well as is every Pope he is demented. Why the Catholic church waits to appoint a new Pope until the last one has been rotting for a few months and they blow white or black smoke out of a chimney to signal they have the next antique nut case on the throne is beyond me. Mind you, I did catch the local priest doing the alter boy – but nothing wrong with that. Well a lot wrong with that. I'm agnostic. I don't care frankly, but as if the Catholic church, with all the wrong they have done in this world does not have something to repent, quit
    trying to drag other more honouable sects down with you.

  10. Because quite simply after centuries of being crucified in all manner of horrible ways for even being skeptical of someones, or some groups superstitious beliefs, now we have human rights that are protected by laws, and freedom of speech is one of the more important ones. It allows people to ask questions. If you wish to believe in something supernatural or superstitious, that's your business. But someone will ask you why. And if you wish to believe in a religion that has persecuted hundreds of thousands of people just because …. (the inquisition comes to mind), stood in the way of every baby step that humanity has taken to understand itself … (Let's see, Galileo, Darwin, science in general), is always whining about how their ideological enemies are so darn intolerant whilst they attack gays and lesbians and anyone who questions their irrational beliefs … if you wish to believe in such a thing and state it in a public forum, it's now more likely than at any time in history someone will want to hold you accountable, and will challenge your beliefs. Get used to it.

    • First of all, you need to work on your run-on sentences.

      Second of all, your historical narrative is completely and utterly wrong. You wouldn't have any science at all in Europe if it wasn't for the church. Heck, you wouldn't have lower case letters if it wasn't for the church. Your narrative is ahistorical garbage that wouldn't be accepted in any history department in any university.

      Third, I don't mind people questioning my beliefs. But why does every comment thread on every story that involves the Church have to sift through all the same garbage that you are spouting? Why does it have to drown out all legitimate commentary on the issue at hand?

  11. Run-on sentences seem to be a problem with me. My apologies.

    As for history. It's there for anyone to see. Please explain the inquisition. The 'church' only recently apologized for the Galileo debacle. Darwin and evolution is still attacked by the superstitious.

    I addressed your third above. Get used to it.

  12. The whole "the church has stood in the way of man bettering itself" is crap. If you want to know what European society would be like without the Church, just examine the societies that proceeded it. You would have not have done well under Germanic law, I can tell you that.

    And yes the history is plain to see. I don't usually recommend wikipedia, but it doesn't look like you have access to historical journals or a university library. It certainly is better than the ahistorical crap you're spouting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_middl

    If you actually want a credible source, here are some university lectures on the History of Science before 1700, by Lawrence M. Principe, of John Hopkins University.

    http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?…

    The affair with Gallileo is also more complex than you like to make it (and is more an argument for freedom of speech and tenure than it is about science vs. religion). It was after all, a dispute about who had the right to promulgate ideas and a clash of two scientific theories. Nor has the Church ever had a problem with Darwin and evolution, and it was Gregor Mendel (an Austrian monk) which explained the mechanism of heritability which is a key component of modern evolutionary theory.

    Also, you haven't answered the third at all. Unless your answer is "You will never get a chance to discuss anything on an intelligent level, because I'm just going to use the excuse to go on a tangent about things that have nothing to do with the story." What if everytime you wanted to discuss King Lear, someone came by to spout off about how horrible life was in Elizabethan England? Certainly you can agree that there is a time and a place for everything.

  13. Oh – and don't go on about the whole Hitler thing… using him at an Atheist is a little low. One minute you're telling me Hitler was an Atheist because I attack the Catholic church, but then we all know he was brought up in a Catholic home and in fact the Catholics turned a blind eye when the Jews were being persecuted. There is lots of proof that Hitler was deist, not an Atheist. He never publicly declared himself an Atheist.

    That's also like using Stalin or Pol Pot or Lenin as a Atheist to further that discussion that faith is good for you. The reality is that their adherence to Marxism and communist ideas coupled with arrogance is the real reason. Communism is actually a lot like religion, given that fundamentalist ideas are portrayed as science to the masses, who use faith to adhere to the ideas.

    China, again… really??? Christ would save China from violating human rights? If that was the case, one of the most Christian countries in the world, the United States of America, would be the best place and the safest to live. Please inform me how this is making sense by now… because to me – it's not.

  14. *sigh* Hitler… using him at an Atheist is a little low. One minute you're telling me Hitler was an Atheist because I attack the religion, but then we all know he was brought up in a Catholic home and in fact the Catholics turned a blind eye when the Jews were being persecuted. There is lots of proof that Hitler was deist, not an Atheist. He never publicly declared himself an Atheist.

    That's also like using Stalin or Pol Pot or Lenin as a Atheist to further that discussion that faith is good for you. The reality is that their adherence to Marxism and communist ideas coupled with arrogance is the real reason. Communism is actually a lot like religion, given that fundamentalist ideas are portrayed as science to the masses, who use faith to adhere to the ideas.

    China, again… really??? Christ would save China from violating human rights? If that was the case, one of the most Christian countries in the world, the United States of America, would be the best place and the safest to live. Please inform me how this is making sense by now… because to me – it's not.

  15. Yes, I can agree there is a time and place for everything. Guess what? We are doing it here and now. I am not going to be led about by your lame attempts to defend an unreasonable proposition with reason. You believe in the supernatural, which in and of itself is a contradiction. I don't. I am calling you on it.

    I am not spouting crap, i am merely pointing out what happened. The Inquisition killed thousands if not hundreds of thousands for religious / superstitious reasons. Why do you hold that a belief in something that cannot be validated is a good thing? It has been used throughout history as a means to an end that you do not preach.

Sign in to comment.