Skip to comments.British Anglicans Preparing Mass Defection to Roman Catholic Church
Posted on 01/30/2011 2:26:12 PM PST by fabrizio
LONDON -- Hundreds of disillusioned Anglicans were preparing Sunday to defect from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church in time for Lent, Sky News reported.
It follows a campaign by a former Anglican bishop in protest at its stance on the ordination of women and gay clergy.
Father Keith Newton has encouraged Anglicans to join the Ordinariate -- a special branch of Catholicism established by the Pope -- to welcome protestant defectors.
Despite the efforts of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglo Catholics have begun leaving following the conversion of three Anglican bishops in mid-January.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Could is be because of homosexuals taking over the Church of England?
You got that right!
And so, it would seem, that Henry VIII’s exercise in usurping the provenance of God may be coming to an end.
“We’re getting the band back together.”
That little issue is still alive in China ~ just incase anyone thought it was going away.
BTW, the Catholic church lost control of divorce ~ first in England, then everywhere else!
Henry's libido won, but this business of appointing bishops wasn't all it was claimed to be.
“Hundreds of disillusioned Anglicans were preparing Sunday to defect from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church in time for Lent, Sky News reported. “
Defect? I don’t think that’s an appropriate term. If anyone decides to leave Church A for Church B for whatever reason they choose, there is no reason to put as nefarious a term as “defect” upon such an act.
Maybe it’s a UK thing.
Isn't that the homosexual agenda? They don't really want to attend any Christian church service because subconsciously they'll be reminded that the Bible is very clear on homosexuality. The homosexuals just want to destroy any Christian religion that stands in their way.
Oh, indeed. I hope you didn’t think I meant to reduce it all to one simple issue.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
“Henry’s libido won, but this business of appointing bishops wasn’t all it was claimed to be. “
Gross abbreviation of history. Divorce (or “anullment”), such as the one Henry sought were routinely granted by the Catholic Church for monarchs and other influential folks. In Henry’s case, it was favoring Spain over England that was more of a factor.
The CofE acceptance of homosexuality is certainly in the mix as a contributor to its decline.
To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton the movement you see in the CofE is only the worms eating the carcass
No they want to tell everyone the Bible does not say that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Also skip the verses about changing the verses.
I am sorry to see that Anglicans are running rather than fighting. Once upon a time they would have been willing to do something about the heretics other than run back to the Mother Church. What a sad terminal, disease this liberalism is.
“Hundreds of disillusioned Anglicans were preparing Sunday to defect from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church....”
It’s very troublesome. Are they defecting because of dissatisfaction with the Anglican Church or because they are convinced that that the RCC is the one and true church?
If it is the latter, couldn’t they have concluded this earlier? Why wait for a crisis to make the change?
Whatever the answer; Welcome Home y’all.
Amen. Welcome home.
I left the ECUSA back in the 90s, and I was senior warden of
one of the oldest churches in America.
At the time, the Anglican Church was thought to be the best alternative for Episcopalians, but we see where that is going.
Since I started international travel in 2000, the Catholic church has been really my only alternative.
Home is not Rome. Home is Jesus.
Oh, I noticed the Pope created a new denomination to accommodate these people. How divisive of him.
>Home is not Rome.<
Correct, home is not Rome but the RCC for these people. And if it were not true, they could’ve remained Anglican.
I think a “sheep and goats” allegory would be appropriate in this case.
And the goats will have all the trappings of faith, and shall take all the fine churches for their revelries and feasts, but their spirits will remain empty, and they will drift away from these houses in disinterest, whence the houses shall fall into disrepair.
But while the sheep shall dwell in only modest houses, driven out of their ancient sacred places by the goats, they shall still prosper because within them is the true meaning of scripture, uncorrupted and without pollution by the goats. Because of their faith, they will someday dwell in fine houses, built on that firm foundation.
‘I noticed the Pope created a new denomination to accommodate these people. How divisive of him.’
The Ordinariate is NOT a new denomination, it is ‘a special branch of Catholicism established by the Pope’ possibly in the direction of setting up an Anglican Rite within the Church. This would be the same as the other non-Roman Rites in the Church.
Now my own church would have demanded that ~ and by immersion ~ no messing around with dippers and stuff either.
This is the ruination of Rome ~ no hard core there anymore! (/s)
This is cheap XVI century English propaganda devoid of all factual content (besides, at the time the Church was having problems with the Spanish crown as well). The Church has always prohibited divorce as commanded by Jesus. Henry had contracted a valid marriage and he had no chance of ever obtaining a declaration of nullity.
Of course there have been abuses on behalf of some ecclesiastical courts in granting declarations of nullity, but that was always IN VIOLATION of clear and constant and never abrogated Church doctrine and canon law. And, there is no such thing as an “annulment”. Marriage can never be “annulled”: either it exists or it doesn’t. Only if it can be ascertained - and it seldom can - that it never existed in the first place can nullity be granted. Just the other day Pope Benedict insisted on the need to be more strict in granting declarations of nullity. This has been also a battle of John Paul II to combat the secularist/protestant mentality that has become widespread among ecclesiastical judges and bureacrats. You won’t find a single Pope from Peter to Benedict XVI teaching or allowing something different as regards marriage. All Popes have insisted on the indissoluble nature of marriage and warned against putting eternal salvation at risk by messing with the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Mat 10:14 And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.
That good one Rich LOL!
Very Blue Brothers
I am glad that some of our Anglican brothers and sisters are coming back to fold
Well, the Spanish were at the time invading and looting and desecrating Rome. Plus Hnery VIII wanted an annullment because he suddenly thought that his entire marriage had been invalid and therefore reduced his wife Katherine of Aragon to an unwitting concubine and his daughter Mary illegitimate. Then in the end the Church of England simply became a vehicle for an easy annulment/divorce whenever Henry got tired of his wives. The Church at that point was just a religious organization suited to make laws for the convenience of the monarch’s lifestyle choices.
SKY (FOX) News continues to propogate the lie that it’s all about the ordination of women. Nice try.
In Henry’s case, the problem was he had already had to go to the Pope to marry his first wife, Catherine of Aragorn, inasmuch as the marriage would have been considered incestuous, because she was his brother’s widow. The Pope gave him the sought after dispensation.It was a bit rich of Henry to go back to the same Pope seeking an annulment from the same wife he got the dispensation for.
Do you even know what Matthew 10:14 means?
I didn’t think so.
Not a right more similar to Opus Dei They were Roman Rite when they left and are still Roman.
Part of the problem is that the national church is controlled by iron-fisted radicals who took over while individuals in local churches weren't paying attention. They changed the rules so that they control the seminaries and the church property.
The radicals tried the same thing in the Catholic Church, but were defeated (at least so it appears at the moment) by the strong central organization and the Church's principled stand against all the foolishness proposed by the Anglicans (homosexuals and women's ordination are only the obvious issues. There are many more, including the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin, the Trinity, etc.)
The other part of the problem is the absence in the Episcopal/Anglican church of any kind of final ecclesiastical authority on faith and morals. You can believe pretty much whatever you want to believe, like the husband and wife Episcopal priests who were Wiccan priest and priestess on the side, or the idiot vicar who converted to Islam and didn't think that was inconsistent with her being an Episcopal priest (I think her jurisdictional bishop slapped her down, but only after the local bishop said he thought it was just fine and dandy.)
At some point you simply can't fight any more. For those of us who were "high" Episcopalians and had been telling ourselves all along that we were Catholics, just separated from Rome, there was one obvious refuge.
It has turned out to be a much better home than we expected or deserved.
“Of course there have been abuses on behalf of some ecclesiastical courts in granting declarations of nullity, but that was always IN VIOLATION of clear and constant and never abrogated Church doctrine and canon law. “
There have been abuses in the historical past, recent past, and will no doubt be in the future. In short, little has changed in Rome on that issue. However, it is not my quarrel or concern. The statement that Henry wanted a divorce so started a different church is wrong. It doesn’t reflect any better on Henry or other monarchs or Popes that divorces/annulments were routinely granted when palms were greased with alms, but it was the reality of the time.
Other than that - if you think the fact that Rome favored Spain over England is “devoid of all factual content” then by all means provide the “truth”.
‘Opus Dei They were Roman Rite when they left and are still Roman.’
Opus Dei is in the Roman RITE and always has been. Nor have they gone anywhere. It is a ‘personal prelature’ of the Pope. That is they have a secular bishop who leads them worldwide and are not subject to local bishops. Their members are lay people and secular priests.
Perhaps temporarily. However, considering the eternal ramifications of his immorality I would venture that only Lucifer himself considers it a "win".
I notice that the ignorant are exercising their free will opining on that which they know not.
Rome has always recognized local rites, whether Ambrosian or Mozarabic (which date from the earliest days of the Church), or the Eastern churches which recognize the authority of the Holy Father. The Roman Rite is simply the most common, the others are just as Catholic and just as valid. I've always admired the Maronite rite, which still says the words of consecration in Aramaic . . . the very words that Christ himself used at the Last Supper.
The Anglicans simply join all the other Catholic groups that are allowed to preserve their own customs in worship. In point of fact, their translation (Cranmer's brilliant work, preserved in this country in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer) is in most parts more accurate and true to the original Latin than the English translation currently in use in the Roman Rite. That's going to change this year, though, we're finally getting a decent (or at least more decent) translation.
“Well, the Spanish were at the time invading and looting and desecrating Rome. “
The Pope was indeed an effective hostage, I believe. It sort of gave the Spanish a bit of leverage.
“Then in the end the Church of England simply became a vehicle for an easy annulment/divorce whenever Henry got tired of his wives. The Church at that point was just a religious organization suited to make laws for the convenience of the monarchs lifestyle choices.”
No. The Church of England was put in place because Rome was favoring Spain for political, not religious reasons and manipulated religious elements - not appointing Bishops so that diocesian funds would go directly to Rome for political purposes. That Spain wanted to dominate England was no secret.
The formation of the Church of England mirrored the decline of political power of Rome and the rise of nation-states.
There were also notable doctrinal disputes, but really - I don’t seek to state one religion is better than another. We are free to choose in this country.
I’m happy for anyone who finds a religious home wherever they find it. I certainly wouldn’t disagree with the stated reasons for some to choose Catholicism if they feel it is best for them.
I don't think St. Thomas More and Bishop St. John Fisher would agree that a question of foreign policy was all that was at stakeas opposed to the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage and the teaching authority of the Popewhen they chose to go to their executions rather than change their minds.
You have no legitimate response, so you engage in ad hominen attacks. Nice.
Stick to the facts, A.A., rather than jump to the defense of your denomination.
Clearing up misunderstandings about the Church is like the labors of Sisyphus. Not to mention ill intentioned attacks (Did you catch the John Paul II in Hell thread before it was yanked an hour ago?)
Oh, I noticed the Pope created a new denomination to accommodate these people.So much for your gift of discernment there Theo.
“In Henrys case, the problem was he had already had to go to the Pope to marry his first wife, Catherine of Aragorn, inasmuch as the marriage would have been considered incestuous, because she was his brothers widow.”
LOL...well I hope you aren’t looking to me to defend Henry’s virtue. Then again, I wouldn’t expect you to defend the Popes virtue at the time either in naming Henry “defender of the Faith” - which at the time was the Catholic faith.
I’m sure the fact that the Pope was related to the King of Spain had nothing to do with his favoritism of Spain over England.
Yeah, I know, but it’s one of the spiritual Works of Mercy, right? :-D
“I don’t think St. Thomas More and Bishop St. John Fisher would agree that a question of foreign policy was all that was at stakeas opposed to the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage and the teaching authority of the Popewhen they chose to go to their executions rather than change their minds.”
There was plenty of Catholic kindling and Protestant kindling put to flame around that time, let’s not kid each other. More and Fisher were certainly men of Faith and not politics - the Pope was a politician as much as he was a man of Faith. He had to be.
Again - it’s a testament to our founding fathers that they enshrined freedom of religion in our Constitution. They knew what both kings and popes were capable of and wanted no part of that.
Ah, you don’t like with someone throws the “many denominations” argument back against Roman Catholicism, do you? :-)
Out of curiosity, a question for you: How many “denominations” are there within the “Protestant” tradition?
See my comment #46 re. “denominations.”
“The court life initiated by his father evolved into a cornerstone of Tudor government in the reign of Henry VIII. After his father’s staunch, stolid rule, the energetic, youthful and handsome king avoided governing in person, much preferring to journey the countryside hunting and reviewing his subjects. Matters of state were left in the hands of others, most notably Thomas Wolsey, Archbishop of York. Cardinal Wolsey virtually ruled England until his failure to secure the papal annulment that Henry needed to marry Anne Boleyn in 1533. Wolsey was quite capable as Lord Chancellor, but his own interests were served more than that of the king: as powerful as he was, he still was subject to Henry’s favor - losing Henry’s confidence proved to be his downfall. The early part of Henry’s reign, however, saw the young king invade France, defeat Scottish forces at the Battle of Foldden Field (in which James IV of Scotland was slain), and write a treatise denouncing Martin Luther’s Reformist ideals, for which the pope awarded Henry the title “Defender of the Faith”.”
Typical. See my comment #40.