Bishop John Broadhurstvv
Posted on 10/23/2009 10:57:48 AM PDT by NYer
Bishop John Broadhurstvv
.- Hundreds of traditionalist Anglican clergy will meet this weekend in London to discuss whether to enter the Catholic Church in light of Pope Benedict XVI’s creation of an Anglican “ordinariate.”
About 500 members of members of the group Forward in Faith will attend the meeting, the Times Online reports. Many of them are waiting for the Vatican’s publication of a Code of Practice, which will provide more detail about the proposed new church structure organized under an Apostolic Constitution.
The chairman of Forward in Faith, Bishop of Fulham, England John Broadhurst, issued a statement on Tuesday responding to the Vatican announcement that a structure will be created to assist Anglicans who want to enter into communion with Rome.
Bishop Broadhurst said that Anglican Catholics have had “frequently expressed hope and fervent desire” to be enabled to enter into full communion with Rome while retaining “every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
“We rejoice that the Holy Father intends now to set up structures within the Church which respond to this heartfelt longing. Forward in Faith has always been committed to seeking unity in truth and so warmly welcomes these initiatives as a decisive moment in the history of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England.”
He closed his message with the Latin phrase “Ut unum sint,” Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John meaning “may they be one.” The phrase is also the title of Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical on ecumenism.
Jack Leo Iker, Episcopal Bishop of Ft. Worth, Texas, also responded to the proposed church structure in a Tuesday message.
“Many Anglo-Catholics will welcome this development as a very generous and welcoming offer that enhances the Pastoral Provision that has been in place for several years for those seeking reunion with Rome,” he commented. “Other Anglicans who desire full communion with the See of Peter would prefer some sort of recognition of the validity of Anglican orders and the provision for inter-communion between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.”
He said the virtues of the proposal include the maintenance of “certain aspects” of Anglican worship and spirituality, but he added that not all Anglo-Catholics can accept certain Catholic teachings and do not believe they must first “convert to Rome” to be truly catholic Christians.
The proposal comes at a “difficult time,” Bishop Iker continued, noting the lawsuits against his diocese by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.
His diocese voted to leave the Episcopal Church in November 2008, choosing to join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.
“This diocese stands for orthodox Christianity, and we are increasingly at odds with the revisionist practices and teachings of the official leadership of The Episcopal Church,” he had said at the time of the vote.
The bishop closed his Tuesday statement by eschewing “hasty decisions” and by pledging to continue to work and pray for Christian unity.
Bishop Iker’s predecessor, Clarence C. Pope, Jr., converted to Catholicism in 2007.
More than 440 clergy left the Church of England after the Anglican Church’s General Synod voted in 1992 to ordain women priests, the London Times says. Some subsequently returned.
Pope Benedict’s proposal has reportedly made their conversion easier by allowing Anglicans to retain crucial aspects of their identity and by allowing them to set up seminaries.
However, some may face financial difficulties. The London Times reports that Catholic priests in Britain earn slightly over one-third the salary of Anglican clergymen.
While Anglican clergy who left the Church of England after its 1992 synod received a compensation package, the Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated there will be no similar package this time.
Bishops Andrew Burnham and Keith Newton, the two prelates appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to minister to Anglicans opposed to women priests, advised against “sudden decisions.”
They said Anglicans will want to stay within the Anglican Communion, while others will want to make “individual arrangements.”
“A further group of Anglicans, we think, will begin to form a caravan, rather like the People of Israel crossing the desert in search of the Promised Land,” they commented.
The two bishops suggested Feb. 22, the Feast of the Chair of Peter, as an appropriate day for priests and laity to make an “initial decision” about whether to “explore further” Pope Benedict’s proposal.
Catholic / Anglican ping!
The Anglican Church was started because Henry VIII needed a divorce. Not a very strong foundation for a church to begin with.
Don’t we live in Brilliant and Wonderous times!!!!
Not to quibble but the Anglican Church long pre-dates Henry VIII. Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to start the church there in the 6th Century to minister to the Celts.
““Other Anglicans who desire full communion with the See of Peter would prefer some sort of recognition of the validity of Anglican orders and the provision for inter-communion between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.””
Now that’s a rather astonishing comment from a Anglican bishop. I would think that Bishop Iker knows that Rome denies the validity of orders conferred outside of the Apostolic Succession. Perhaps he and his fellows believe that Rome is as flexible about these matters as they are?
It was not a separate church, anymore than the Catholic Church in the US is the “American Church” or the Catholic Church in Germany was the “German Church.” The British were, in fact, often brought into line by Rome, for example when dealing with Pelagius (a Brit).
Having a slightly different liturgy (Sarum rite) makes you no different from any other part of the Church. Spain had the so called “Visigothic Rite” during that same time, but nobody ever considered the Church in Spain to be any different from the Church anywhere else.
I think this is going to be a big problem for Anglicans, because one of the ways they have avoided admitting that their ecclesiastical community was founded by a petulant monarch who was annoyed that Rome wouldn’t let him do what he wanted and is headed by a rather useless royal household is to invent some separate English church of the past. There was never such a thing, other than the usual geographic and cultural differences of any country.
Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom
Lead Thou me on!
The night is dark, and I am far from home—
Lead Thou me on!
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene—one step enough for me.
I was not ever thus, nor pray'd that Thou
Shouldst lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path, but now
Lead Thou me on!
I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.
So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still
Will lead me on,
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone;
And with the morn those angel faces smile
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.
---Cardinal Newman
I think that what the Pope has proposed certainly opens the door to such flexibility.
While that's a convenient trope, the reality is, as usual, much more complicated than that.
You can't really understand Henry's disputes with Rome without taking into account the wars of succession that had gripped England for a long time prior. Henry needed an heir.
There were also politics involved: Henry VII wanted an alliance between England and Spain, which meant marriage between Henry and Catherine of Aragon -- who happened to be the widow of Henry VIII's older brother. This needed a Papal dispensation, and also a previous appeal to the Pope to allow him to marry Catherine of Aragon, who was his brother's widow.
They married ... but Catherine failed to produce a male heir, which Henry felt was necessary to prevent a resumption of the wars of succession.
So, at least in part, Henry was motivate by political reasons. He was also, it must be said, partly thinking with his little head about the lovely young Anne Boleyn.
My apologies. I thought Henry VIII started the Church of England because the Pope refused his request for a divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. Henry then proceded to make himself head of the English church and then looted Catholic church properties and made a fortune for himself as well as doling out spoils to his supporters among the nobility.
Henry didn’t seem so concerned about Catharine of Aragon’s first husband before he married her. Seems that it became a big issue when the Queen began too enter midle age.
There are limits, however. The Pope (and any other observant person) realizes that a lot of the difficulties with the Anglican Communion stem from the fact that there is no central authority to rein in the innovations of the constituent national churches.
The same goes for the diocesan structure within the national church bodies ... bishops can be non-conforming within the larger church; and priests can be non-conforming within the diocese; and there's not a lot that can be done about it.
The Catholic hierarchy has a great deal more authority than do the Anglicans; and I'm pretty sure that the FiF and other disgruntled Anglican organizations are not actually prepared to fit into that structure.
Catherine of Aragon's first husband was Henry VIII's older brother, Arthur, who died young. Henry was not married to her until she had been a widow for quite some time; and it was a classic "alliance marriage," arranged by Henry VII, who wanted a marital alliance between England and Spain.
Catherine was about 6 years older than Henry; that would have made her about 23 when they were married, in 1509.
The Brittons (Celts) had converted to Christianity before the Romans withdrew from England in 410 AD. St. Augustine went to England in 597 to convert the Anglo-Saxons who invaded that Celtic land after the Romans left. He succeeding in converting the Angles. But he found resistance from the Celts who were already Christian. The Celts were eventually "reconverted".
Here is what Jesus had to say about divorce:
“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become become one flesh. So, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human must separate.”
Mark 10: 2-16
So perhaps the Pope was just following the Bible. As for ole Henry... After he disposed of the rightful Queen of England, did he not go on to marry FIVE more times putting two of his young wives’ heads on the block? Henry seemed to love divorce as well as murder.
“The Anglican Church was started because Henry VIII needed a divorce. Not a very strong foundation for a church to begin with.”
No. that’s a misconception. He got tired of paying a tithe to Rome. He considered it robbery as we feel about our own federal government.
And yes, divorce didn’t help.
“I think that what the Pope has proposed certainly opens the door to such flexibility.”
Frankly, if +BXVI were to “declare” that Anglican bishops were within the Apostolic Succession, more problems would pop up than would be avoided. Are you suggesting that the orders of Anglican priests entering the Roman Church be recognized but not those of the priests and bishops who don’t join up?
Interestingly, back in the 1920s or 1930s, one of the Orthodox patriarchs recognized Anglican orders as valid. That doesn’t seem to have had any practical effect as Anglican priests entering Orthodoxy are always ordained. In contrast, Latin Rite or Eastern Rite Catholic priests entering Orthodoxy are simply vested.
Yes and after he made himself the supreme head of the Church of England, he was the one who collected the tithes, tributes, and taxes. Very convenient. Kind of like Napoleon crowning himself emperor. Many brave men died on the block because they saw right through Henry’s blatant grab for power, riches, and young women including St. Thomas More.
This is about Anglican culture, liturgy, and music. As a former Episcopalian and choir member, I can assure you that it has been extremely hard to endure no music, bad music, or loud mariachi music at Mass. Anglican music is, for me personally, a window into heaven. Loud mariachi music is not. (Maybe it’s my window into Purgatory. LOL!)
Any time you’re in Atlanta, you’re welcome to visit us at the 11:30 a.m. Mass and get some relief! Come up to the choir loft and introduce yourself! I look just like everybody else, but my husband is a huge guy with a bushy grey beard. He looks like Barney the Dinosaur in his purple robe . . . .
Given the sweeping nature of this opening to what amounts to the entire Anglican/Episcopalian community, I would see such potential difficulties as minor matters.
As I read it, the Pope is effectively offering to accept the entire Anglican church, lock, stock and barrel, as is, a going concern, with the only significant provision of accepting Papal authority.
As I understand it the offer involves authorizing a parallel structure. I see the remaining issues as details that can be worked out within the agreement in principle.
Not true. He's setting up a structure to receive groups of Anglicans who already agree with Rome in all matters of faith. One can't "accept Papal authority" without accepting all of Catholic dogma.
“Not true. He’s setting up a structure to receive groups of Anglicans who already agree with Rome in all matters of faith. One can’t “accept Papal authority” without accepting all of Catholic dogma.”
Exactly. And the same goes for any reunion of Rome with the Orthodox Churches. Comparing the happy reception of the Anglicans into The Church with the sort of reunion we are speaking about between Rome and Orthodoxy is the ultimate comaparing of apples and oranges.
I don't know how you got that impression. But then the Apostolic Constitution authorizing these personal ordinariates has not been published yet, only an announcement and brief summary. So perhaps it would be easy to misinterpret. But the Pope is not offering union with the Anglican Communion as a whole. Instead he is offering personal ordinariates for those groups of Anglicans who request visible communion with Rome, accept the Petrine ministry, and sign agreement to the catechism of the Catholic Chruch. In fact there are hundreds of former Anglican priests who have done that years ago. Pope Benedict is now creating the legal framework for those priests and their congregations to come into the Catholic Church while retaining Anglican liturgical traditions.
Thanks! I expect we will head up that way when Mr. Claret retires in the next year or so. We plan to visit EWTN and the Shrine and will probably head your way, then on to Virginia and Maryland...
You are always welcome! By that time we should have the extra bedroom fixed up for company (at the moment everything is in a state of disarray — son headed off to the USMC, so his bedroom is being converted to a music room, so all its furniture is in the guest bedroom . . . . it’s like musical chairs only with LOTS of furniture.)
Sounds like fun! We’ll bring the wine!
Congrats on son at USMC! (We know about musical chair furniture - we just went through construction of a new addition and all the furniture from our other house was stored in a trailer in the barn, while boxes and clothes were stashed in the guest room and anywhere else there was a square foot of space!)
Yes, he also wanted to steal all the Catholic Church land and property.
For later.
“He’s setting up a structure to receive groups of Anglicans who already agree with Rome in all matters of faith.”
And this is, as far as I can tell, no real issue, as there is no point of the usual Anglican belief that differs in a significant way, barring the matter of Papal authority.
Words and in particular modern interpretations of certain worldly issues (contraception, etc.) vary, but thats pretty much what he has offered a deal on - give the words a pass, and see it his way on the issues, which the more conservative Anglicans, to whom this is targeted, are inclined to do anyway.
“those groups of Anglicans who request visible communion with Rome”
Potentially some very large groups, it sounds like, including entire national churches in some countries. Lock, stock, and barrel.
National Anglican churches are a part of the Anglican Communion. No national churches will be coming into communion with Rome any time soon.
There are a lot of fairly small "continuing" Anglo-Catholic churches that are no longer members of the Anglican Communion. They left the Anglican Communion years ago and now own their one church property. They support their own clergy with salaries and pensions. These continuing churches are the ones that will be forming personal ordinariates in communion with Rome. There is probably a total of around a half million people in these small continuing churches. Exactly how they will organize themselves and petition Rome is not clear at this time. The apostolic constitution that establishes these personal ordinariates has not been published yet. But as soon as it is, I think we will see a lot of these churches move very quickly. Most of them have petitioned Rome years ago, so they already have established lines of communication with the Vatican.
Anglo-Catholics who are still members of the Anglican Communion will probably have a harder time making the transition. They will have to organize themselves into some kind of corporate body independent of their national church. Then there is the question of the church property. The national churches are unlikely to give them the property. It is also unlikely that the national churches would sell them the property. Then there is the problem of salaries and pensions for their clergy. If their priests leave the national church, they will loose both their source of income and any pension due to them on retirement.
So, look for a lot of small continuing churches to come into communion with Rome quickly. Anglo-Catholics who are lay members of national churches may simply join a continuing church or a personal ordinariate once it is established.
I think Kolokotronis is correct. This structure for the Anglicans is a structure that allows them to retain that part of Anglican Liturgy, which as its foundation comes from the Roman/Latin Church via the Sarum Liturgical Rite, which was the Catholic Rite practiced in Englant pre Council of Trent and Anglican Music, i.e hyms that came out of the Anglican Church, while at the same time returning back to the Mother CHurch from which they sprung, ie. the Latin/Roman Church. As such, the Anglican Church is an historically Western Church and thus dogmas expressed in Roman terms, i.e. Purgatory, Assumption of Mary, etc, would be required to be held by these Anglicans comeing into the Catholic Church.
This situation is different from the Eastern Orthodox whose Liturgies and Sacraments are “not questioned” by Rome and are thus are valid expressions of Apostolic Tradition. So dogmas expressed in Western terms, such as purgatory, the Assumption, etc, while not clearly defined by the East, are still believed as the Eastern Orthodox pray for the dead at Liturgy [consistent with the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory] and celebrate the Assumption/Dormition{spelling} of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Liturgy [in fact the Assumption of Mary has its roots in the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Tradition].
A reunion between Rome and the Orthodox would allow both Rome and the East to express the doctrines of faith in ways consistent with the Latin and Greek Liturgical Traditions while at the same time not in conflict. Papal Primacy in a reunited Church with the Orthodox would not equate to Papa Supremacy, rather a form of Primacy that reflects the first 1,000 years of the Church while at the same time does not contradict Vatican I. My off the cuff guess at that would be that the Bishop of Rome would be First Bishop among the Bishops, consistent with the early Church Councils and that the Bishop of Rome would be the only Bishop that could 1) call an ecumenical Council, 2) No Council would be Universally valid unless the Bishop of Rome signed its Decrees, and 3) The Bishop of Rome would be the Bishop of appeal when disagreements occur between sui juris Churches of the East, etc. 4) The Pope would not issue an ex cathedra statement without first consulting the various Patriarchs of the Eastern Church so that no dogma is proclaimed in a manner that is not consistent with both Latin and Greek Tradition.
Regards
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.