Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Desperate bishops invited Rome to park its tanks on Archbishop’s lawn
London Times ^ | 10/21/2009 | Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Posted on 10/20/2009 9:44:06 PM PDT by iowamark

Rome has parked its tanks on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lawn after manoeuvres undertaken by up to fifty bishops and begun two years ago by an Australian archbishop, John Hepworth...

In the US, where a similar “Anglican usage” model has been in operation for years and will now be incorporated into the new ordinariate structures, there are 77 million Catholics alongside a mere 1.8 million Episcopalians. A few incoming conservative Anglicans have made little difference.

In England and Wales, the proportions are reversed, with 25 million baptised Anglicans but four million Catholics.... Set against this, however, is the more confident American-style Catholicism that this initiative represents...

Archbishop Nichols is a priest in the same mould as the late Cardinal Basil Hume, who led the moves to welcome in opponents of women priests back in 1994... A priest of remarkable charisma, Archbishop Nichols could easily end up in a senior position in Rome himself, if not the most senior.

He was clearly “in charge” at the joint press conference at the Catholic Church’s Eccleston Square administrative offices yesterday, at one point interrupting to answer a question addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He appears to have no compunctions about unsettling a few Anglicans...

Although the established status of the Church of England means this could never be a straightforward process, Rome’s new move undercuts all that by allowing for unity to evolve upwards organically, from the grass roots, as forseen by an ecumenical report produced a few years ago.

Every church leader speaks about unity, but they all want it on their terms. Pope Benedict XVI is the first since the Reformation who seems to have hit on a realistic way of turning the clock back by moving it forwards...

(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; Mainline Protestant; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: anglican; catholic; coe; popebenedict; tac
I clicked on this article hoping to see a picture of tanks, but, alas, it was only a metaphor!
1 posted on 10/20/2009 9:44:06 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: iowamark

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6883045.ece
“”Pope’s move will harm dialogue and weaken Church of England

Rome has clearly made a bold move, one which might prove attractive to some disgruntled evangelicals in search of an authority unlikely to cave in to the demands of the deepening secularist culture of the West...

The Anglican-Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue in its current phase has seen the Anglicans making deep concessions to Rome. To the surprise of many Anglicans, an agreed statement, the Gift of Authority, urged the acceptance of the universal primacy and teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome. Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops worldwide have also been working together in a body seeking closer co-operation between the two.

On the face of it the sudden announcement by Rome seems to jolt, if not actually upset, that apple cart. Is the cause of gradual movement towards unity, with both sides making concessions, looking less realistic? If Rome does remove a significant body of conservative Anglicans, it will be left with a liberal Anglican communion with which to hold dialogue.

Rome’s move looks like a Western version of the Eastern Orthodox groups that accepted the primacy of Rome, the largest being the Ukrainian. The so-called Uniate churches keep their liturgical local custom and practice, as the Anglican body would be allowed to do under the new offer...

Anything that weakens the Church of England, at a time of real embattlement with radically secularist agendas now under way, must ultimately be a bad thing for the nation from a Christian perspective.””


2 posted on 10/20/2009 9:51:49 PM PDT by iowamark (certified by Michael Steele as "ugly and incendiary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Dr. Rowan Williams is an idiot and a surrender monkey to Islam.

I have major issues with the Catholic Church especailly the liberal American Catholic Notre Dame wing of vermin. I do like this Pope. The Church may be the only thing standing in the way of Islamification.

The Catholic Church has been fighting against this evil for 1400 years.


3 posted on 10/20/2009 9:52:06 PM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's health care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

It’s a pretty interesting article anyway.

I don’t think it’s going to lead to any change in Latin Rite celibacy; for one thing, these married clergy may be grandfathered in with no provision for married clergy in the future. Remember, Anglican clergy marry only because this was required by Henry VIII as a sign that they were no longer loyal to Rome. The Church in England did not have a married clergy before Henry VIII. (On the other hand, in the East, married clergy and celibate bishops have a long history.)

In fact, many Anglo Catholic priests in the 19th century opted for celibacy as they grew closer to Rome. So I think it is not as wonderful as this author makes it sound. And then there’s the problem with divorced and remarried Anglican clergy...

In any case, I didn’t understand the final observation about Rowan Williams.


4 posted on 10/20/2009 9:58:49 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

The atheist group National Secular Society says: “Rowan Williams has failed dismally in his ambitions to avoid schism. His refusal to take a principled moral stand against bigotry has left his Church in tatters.”

They are referring to Williams’ confused attempts to find some middle ground on homosexuality. As if he could have held his church together by being even more pro-homosexual.


5 posted on 10/20/2009 10:08:14 PM PDT by iowamark (certified by Michael Steele as "ugly and incendiary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: livius

The archbishop is a surrender monkey; what’s to understand? The Romans have been doing quite well tactically, but the the surrender monkey status of the Anglican leader is just a happy coincidence, not a result of any nefarious plot. It’s an observation that he’s a simian of French tendencies, not a conclusion.


6 posted on 10/20/2009 10:11:34 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Those atheists are idiots. Sound like RINO’s saying the party needs to be even more liberal.


7 posted on 10/20/2009 10:20:26 PM PDT by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
inevitably shift the focus to a questioning of the insistence that cradle-Catholic priests be celibate.

I really don't think so. The Eastern Rite Catholics have had married clergy. It is not a religious tenet that clergy be married but a long standing judgment that it works better to have a priesthood that is focused without the distractions of marriage. The Eastern rite parishes in the US have adapted to the Roman practice, not the other way around and the Anglican Use parishes will not be different.

8 posted on 10/20/2009 10:21:15 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Anything that weakens the Church of England, at a time of real embattlement with radically secularist agendas now under way, must ultimately be a bad thing for the nation from a Christian perspective.

As the liberal "wing" of the Anglicans is closer and closer to being effectively atheist the weakening of the Church of England does not look like a loss from a pan-Christian perspective.

9 posted on 10/20/2009 10:24:16 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Anything that weakens the Church of England, at a time of real embattlement with radically secularist agendas now under way, must ultimately be a bad thing for the nation from a Christian perspective

The CofE is already nearly mortally weakened by being squashed under the thumb of a bishopric of gay agnostics who have more in common with the Druids than with any "Christian perspective."

This frees the Forward in Faith contingent to do battle with the Enemy. Think of it as lifesaving triage, or the amputation of a gangrenous limb.

10 posted on 10/20/2009 11:10:37 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

The big question is what about the Queen? She’s under no obligation, constitutional or otherwise to maintain communion with the CoE. If the body of conservative Anglicans swim the Tiber, why not the Queen as well? England was built under Catholic Kings and Queens, even now, the majority have been Catholic.

As a convert from the Anglican church, this pleases me to no end, and I hope all those who have suffered dearly under the ‘leadership’ of Dr. Atkinson, can find a home with Papa Benedict.


11 posted on 10/20/2009 11:12:07 PM PDT by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Gamecock

GOD HAVE MERCY

Coming so soon after the encyclical advocating globalism . . . sobering.


12 posted on 10/20/2009 11:41:47 PM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

She would have to abdicate, because under laws passed in the wake of the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, the monarch is not allowed to be a Catholic....


13 posted on 10/21/2009 12:08:56 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
The Queen has to decide what her legacy will be. Will she be remembered as the monarch that lost the church?

This bold move to incorporate anglicanism is B16's way of sending a signal to the Orthodox communion. The big prize is the orthodox church. If a way can be found to get all branches of Christianity on the same page - B16 will go down as the greatest pope in history.

John Paul II's command to B16 (while he was in charge of the college of the doctrine of the faith) to clean up the Catholic Catechism took over 10 years to finish. It was published in English in the 1990's and is easy to read, easy to understand. B16 is a master of taking on hard jobs and finishing them.

By the time it was done, B16 knew more about the structure of the catholic faith than anyone else. This assignment by JPII was hard but necessary and providential. B16 has the academic and ecclesiastical credentials to make sweeping upgrades to the Roman communion. We are blessed that this is happening in our lifetimes.

As for the queen - she will have to jump out from under the bus.

14 posted on 10/21/2009 1:05:22 AM PDT by x_plus_one (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Anglicanism is liberalizing themselves into extinction.


15 posted on 10/21/2009 2:18:31 AM PDT by TASMANIANRED (TAZ:Untamed, Unpredictable, Uninhibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
The big question is what about the Queen? She’s under no obligation, constitutional or otherwise to maintain communion with the CoE. If the body of conservative Anglicans swim the Tiber, why not the Queen as well?

I believe she is -- the laws of England state that the monarch cannot be Catholic -- if you become Catholic, you are automatically off the line in waiting for the throne.
16 posted on 10/21/2009 3:59:53 AM PDT by Cronos (Nuke Mecca NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: x_plus_one

The political union with the Orthodox will not happen so quickly. I feel it’s better for us to hasten in an alliance againstIslam and secularism. We have much to learn from the East and both need each other to fight these two demons ofIslam and secularism.


17 posted on 10/21/2009 4:01:34 AM PDT by Cronos (Nuke Mecca NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
The big question is what about the Queen? She’s under no obligation, constitutional or otherwise to maintain communion with the CoE. If the body of conservative Anglicans swim the Tiber, why not the Queen as well? England was built under Catholic Kings and Queens, even now, the majority have been Catholic.

Actually she is under obligation.

1) She is head of the Church of England by law and is required to be a member.

2) Under the Act of Settlement (1700) that governs the succession to the throne she and her heirs are barred from entering into communion with the Roman Catholic Church, on penalty of losing their succession rights.

3) Under the Statute of Westminster (1931) the British Parliament cannot alter the succession to the throne without the permission of the other dominions. Therefore amending the Act of Settlement would require the agreement of all the other Commonwealth Dominions that recognize her as head of state.

Until the law is amended she is by law forced to be a member of the Church along with women priests and gay bishops. As are her children and grandchildren if they wish to assume the throne at some time in the future.

18 posted on 10/21/2009 4:33:07 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: you want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Coming so soon after the encyclical advocating globalism . . . sobering.

Yeah, it's like them EEVIL Papists actually read John chapter 17 and intend to carry it into practice to the best of their ability. Can't have that!

The CofE is still in communion with the ECUSA, which not only thinks homosexual clergy are dandy, it's in the process of endorsing "gay marriage" as a good thing.

Would you rather Christian people be in communion with the gay-marriage promoting ECUSA than with the Pope of Rome? Is that really what your "conservative Christianity" has come to?

19 posted on 10/21/2009 5:15:06 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Queen abdicated when her health started to deteriorate, and converted to Catholicism shortly thereafter.

That's not to say it will happen, of course.

20 posted on 10/21/2009 5:17:14 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: x_plus_one; Cronos

I agree with Cronos...Orthodoxy is going to be a harder nut to crack.

This development required no less than a hurricane of liberalism blowing through the Anglican Communion. It stripped the roof off the building and made people go looking for alternative shelter. People were forced into solutions that were less than ideal (foreign oversight, continuing churches) for the sake of maintaining orthodoxy.

Like camping, sure, it’s fun for a while to be out in the elements....but stay out there long enough and most people will be begging for a roof and 4 walls. Even if it’s a stranger’s house.

The TAC specifically requested to come in and put no preconditions on their re-entry. They made it easy for Rome to welcome them. No similar situation exists for Orthodoxy today, and moreover, there is still considerable resistance to reunion among the Orthodox faithful. I’m still hopeful that a reunion can be worked out in time, but without some other kind of pressure bringing itself to bear, I don’t think it’ll be anytime soon.


21 posted on 10/21/2009 6:20:37 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan; Campion

Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn’t another option be for the Queen to call for the repeal of the laws of 1688? I thought I heard rumblings in that direction some time ago.

I can’t see that Her Majesty would face much political opposition in that regard.


22 posted on 10/21/2009 6:23:37 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Well, for a start, it would cause trouble in Northern Ireland and secondly, the ‘Glorious Revolution’ is a defining moment in England’s history, roughly equivilent to 1776 in the US or 1789 in France.
It represented the final primacy of Parliament and Liberty over the King, and its a complete non-starter to suggest that the Queen would dare to imply that the Glorious Revolution should be rescinded.....


23 posted on 10/21/2009 10:20:38 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

1) She is head of the Church of England by law and is required to be a member

She isn’t required to be an Anglican, merely a protestant. William III (1688-1702) was a Calvinist and all the monarchs from George I to William IV (1714-1837) were Lutherans...


24 posted on 10/21/2009 10:27:20 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
She isn’t required to be an Anglican, merely a protestant. William III (1688-1702) was a Calvinist and all the monarchs from George I to William IV (1714-1837) were Lutherans...

Actually per the Act of Settlement she is required to be Anglican. It didn't apply to William III and Queen Anne, but after they died the requirement kicked in.

III.
And whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further Provision be made for securing our Religion Laws and Liberties from and after the Death of His Majesty and the Princess Ann of Denmark and in default of Issue of the Body of the said Princess and of His Majesty respectively Be it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1565208

25 posted on 10/21/2009 11:11:54 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: you want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established.

And if the Church of England comes in communion with the Church of Rome?

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

26 posted on 10/21/2009 12:14:59 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

“1) She is head of the Church of England by law and is required to be a member.”

Who represents the CoE, if they go into schism? The Queen hasn’t left the Church, if the Church chooses to rejoin Catholicism. She’s both Catholic and a member of the CoE.

“2) Under the Act of Settlement (1700) that governs the succession to the throne she and her heirs are barred from entering into communion with the Roman Catholic Church, on penalty of losing their succession rights.”

Again, this would apply if she were to convert. If the entire church converts, then really, the Act no longer makes sense anymore.

3) Under the Statute of Westminster (1931) the British Parliament cannot alter the succession to the throne without the permission of the other dominions. Therefore amending the Act of Settlement would require the agreement of all the other Commonwealth Dominions that recognize her as head of state.

This is the biggest problem. I do not see significant support for the Act of Supremacy in the colonies. Especially not here. She’d be Queen of Canada before anywhere else.

“Until the law is amended she is by law forced to be a member of the Church along with women priests and gay bishops. As are her children and grandchildren if they wish to assume the throne at some time in the future.”

What happens when the CoE itself splits? I don’t see any clues from the Act of Supremacy.


27 posted on 10/21/2009 12:41:06 PM PDT by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
And if the Church of England comes in communion with the Church of Rome?

From Ghostbusters:

Dr. Peter Venkman: Or you can accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr. Raymond Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddmore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

At the time of the Act of Settlement, what good Englishman would believe that Church of England bishops would ever be taking men as their lawful wedded spouses? So we're off into Terra Incognata, guys.

28 posted on 10/21/2009 1:16:12 PM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: you want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

What can I say? See post #28 above.


29 posted on 10/21/2009 1:19:49 PM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: you want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: x_plus_one

“As for the queen - she will have to jump out from under the bus.....”

Hmmm, I suspect the Queen had that bus idling in neutral..awaiting Benedict...

“When Pope Benedict visits this country next year, he is expected to stay at Buckingham Palace as a guest of the Queen. The warmth of her welcome will come as no surprise to the Pontiff, if senior sources at the Vatican are to be believed. According to informants quoted in The Catholic Herald, the Queen has ‘grown increasingly sympathetic’ to the Catholic Church over the years while being ‘appalled’, along with the Prince of Wales, at developments in the Church of England. The usually well-informed newspaper adds that the Queen, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, ‘also said to have an affinity with the Holy Father, who is of her generation.’”

http://www.practicalbible.com/content/queen-england-has-affinity-with-pope


30 posted on 10/21/2009 1:31:46 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
In England and Wales, the proportions are reversed, with 25 million baptised Anglicans but four million Catholics

How many of these 25 million are the Traditionalist Anglicans?

31 posted on 10/21/2009 1:36:02 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
The political union with the Orthodox will not happen so quickly. I feel it’s better for us to hasten in an alliance against Islam and secularism.

I'd be happy to see this come about formally. It could lead to greater trust and understanding between the two sides.

32 posted on 10/21/2009 1:53:02 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Campion

the queen is a tough old bird :)


33 posted on 10/22/2009 2:42:34 AM PDT by Cronos (Nuke Mecca NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
How many of these 25 million are the Traditionalist Anglicans?

From when I lived in Brighton, England, I'd say that no more than 5 million are traditionalist. These would be the only ones that attend services and would have the average age of 65. Sadly, most won't dream of leaving their cultural group
34 posted on 10/22/2009 2:48:28 AM PDT by Cronos (Nuke Mecca NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson