Skip to comments.Senior Anglican bishop reveals he is ready to convert to Roman Catholicism
Posted on 10/24/2009 3:47:20 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Rt Rev John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester, has announced he is considering becoming a Roman Catholic in a move that could spark an exodus of clergy.
Bishop Hind said he would be "happy" to be reordained as a Catholic priest and said that divisions in Anglicanism could make it impossible to stay in the church.
He is the most senior Anglican to admit that he is prepared to accept the offer from the Pope, who shocked the Church of England last week when he paved the way for clergy to convert to Catholicism in large numbers.
In a further blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury's hopes of preventing the Anglican Communion from disintegrating, other bishops have cast doubt over its survival.
The Rt Rev John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham, even claimed that "the Anglican experiment is over". He said it has been shown to be powerless to cope with the crises over gays and women bishops.
In one of the most significant developments since the Reformation, the Pope last week announced that a new structure would be set up to allow disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with Rome, while maintaining parts of their Protestant heritage.
The move comes after secret talks between the Vatican and a group of senior Anglican bishops.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason the Anglican church exists at all is because ol’ Henry couldn’t keep it in his pants.
Seems to me that they never shoulda left Rome, so this makes sense.
All RIGHT! He has SEEN the LIGHT!
The Bishop sees the Anglican “Church” is well on its way to becoming an atheist social club and he wants no part of it.
And the dominoes begin to topple.
Some things are too precious to abandon on a whim.
It is the only branch of Protestantism with Apostolic Succession. That worked for a while.
I would think these guys would be a little uncomfortable forsaking the national church of their country, however unsatisfactory.
**Rt Rev John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester**
Welcome home, Bishop Hind.
Sounds like he might be married since it talks about him being ordained as a priest.
“Correct me if Im wrong,”
If that were true then Anglican converts wanting to be Catholic Priests wouldn't have to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
“Seems to me that they never shoulda left Rome, so this makes sense.”
I think the proper admonition is that they never should have had to leave Rome. They did, and they did.
This is meant as no slight to the todays RCC, but in Henry’s time they were the center of much political intrigue. Rome openly favored Spain, and by refusing to replace English Bishops, funds went straight to Rome instead of remaining in the respective Dioceses in England.
Henry really had little choice but to break with Rome. He did what was best for England. To be sure he had is own personal reasons, but Rome typically allowed folks to buy their way out of most any personal jam, especially monarchs - they refused Henry for aforementioned political reasons.
I’m not trying to start a religious war - I am happy for anyone who finds solace in a conversion to the RCC (or any other faith).
The traditional Anglican faith is a beautiful one, and I will not give it up.
“If that were true then Anglican converts wanting to be Catholic Priests wouldn’t have to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”
They do have apostolic succession. That the RCC doesn’t recognize it’s validity (post-Reformation) for their own purposes is hardly a surprise.
I am reminded of the comedy show “Yes, Prime Minister”, in the episode ‘The Bishop’s Gambit’, in which a new Church of England bishop needs to be appointed by the government.
Sir Humphrey explains that the Church is always seeking to maintain the balance of bishops between those who believe in God and those who do not.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: The Queen is inseparable from the Church of England.
Jim Hacker: And what about God?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: I think he is what is called an optional extra.
Henry might have been a beastly man, but he didn't create the Church of England on his own. He didn't just give an order to his Catholic bishops, and then they immediately threw up their hands and said "What ever you say Henry." Reform movements had been winding through Catholic England for several centuries starting with John Wycliffe in the 14th century who translated the Bible into English. By the 16th century, the Protestant Reformation was in full swing on the continent of Europe. Many Catholic priests in England fell under the sway of Protestant ideas. These priests wanted reforms in liturgy and independence from Rome. When Rome refused the annulment of Henry's marriage, English Catholic priests came to his aid. All the king had to do was break with Rome and these reformists priests would grant him his annulment. After all, they told Henry, the Old Testament forbids that a man should marry his brother's wife.
Such is history, but on another matter, I do wonder when the Italian state is going to give the Papal States back to Pope.
Keep telling yourself that. That argument comes right out of the George Costanza Book of Relativism:
"Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it."
“Keep telling yourself that. That argument comes right out of the George Costanza Book of Relativism: “
Look friend, don’t get testy with me. That the RCC doesn’t recognize Protestant Apostolic Succession is hardly a surprise. I’m sure you like your religion, I’m genuinely happy for you, but if you don’t like mine, just be content that your “one true path” to heaven will be uncluttered with those not quite as Holy as thou.
It's hard to tell what might have happened if Henry had had a son by Catherine of Aragon who had survived. If there had been a line of Tudor kings after Henry who were loyal to Rome, Protestantism would have still come into England from the Continent and from Scotland. The question is how much of the population would have gone over to it--10% ... 20% ... more? They might have ended up with a situation like in France, with 90% of the population Catholic and 10% Protestant, but England and France are very different countries so it isn't safe to argue from analogies.
Actually Anglicanism lost its Apostolic Succession in the 16th century.
Mind you, some Scandinavian Lutherans (esp. the Swedes) insist they never lost Apostolic Succession.
Cardinal Newman, Anglican convert, said "converts come to the Catholic Church not so much to lose what they have, but to gain what they have not, by means of what they have, more may be given to them." or as Yogi said 'it ain't over till it's over. Regards,
All interesting conjectures, but as you say, it's hard to tell. What if Rome had given the English bishops permission for a liturgy in English? That might have stopped protestantism in its tracks in England. But we will never know. It's just a conjecture.
But this I do know. There won't be many of these Anglican personal ordinariates conducting the liturgy in Latin. They will be using some of that beautiful English from the old Book of Common Prayer that came out of the early years of the Protestant Reformation. That language is an essential part of the Anglican liturgical and spiritual patrimony that these personal ordinariates are designed to preserve.
IIRC, the Swedish Lutheran Church also retained Apostolic Succession.
The Pope was an enemy of Spanish King/Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. It was Charles’s army that sacked Rome and captured the Pope as a prisoner. Catherine of Aragon was Charles’s aunt so no way in hell would Charles allow his prisoner Pope to annul his Aunt’s marriage and humiliate her and the whole Hapsburg family.
Just some background, while there is a Papal document regarding the validity of Anglican Orders (this post is not about that substance), I have recently completed “No Ordinary Fool” in which in the Rev. John Jay Hughes made a case for “conditional Ordination” which I might suspect might be fairly common with any Traditional Anglicans crossing the bridge.
From what I understand the more Traditional Anglicans tend to be very concerned with maintaining the Apostolic succession therefore conditional is probably more appropriate.
This is a very deep Theological issue above my pay grade.
Thus proving my basic premise, that the Anglican church was the result of politics, not theological differences.
Thank you for your cursory interest in history.
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 interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
You’re welcome! I’m just not a believer of revisionist history...
I wash born Catholic, an I wash raished Catholic, and dad gum it, I am gonna die Catholic, an no sidewindin’ bushwackin’, hornswanglican’ cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter.
“Im just not a believer of revisionist history...”
You need to get beyond Cliff’s notes, my friend.
Yes, oh great one. Its nice to know we have such eminent scholars on FR.
“That language is an essential part of the Anglican liturgical and spiritual patrimony that these personal ordinariates are designed to preserve. “
I think they are to be preserved so that converting Anglican faithful will find the transition easier (and I think this is with the purest of intentions) - but only until they can be brought into line with standard RCC liturgy. Why would the RCC want to preserve the Anglican rites for the long term?
“Its nice to know we have such eminent scholars on FR”
Read them. There really are some bright and informed people on these threads. Maybe one day, with some effort, you can be among those eminent scholars.
My father and I are discussing this right now. One thing to watch for: a meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Queen. Now, consider this: if the Pope offers the Archbishop not just re-ordination as a Cardinal, but as Patriarch of an Anglican sect?
The Catholic Church does recognize Anglican apostolic succession where it exists. The problem is that part of the requirements for apostolic succession include a proper understanding of the meaning of the priestly ministry, meaning that those who have apostolic succession are a dwindling minority. But several Episcopal priests have been welcomed into the Catholic priesthood without requiring new Holy Orders. My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the new structure will streamline the ordination of many more priests who cannot establish succession with their current Holy Orders.
Because that is part of their patrimony. If you that any Anglicans are going to fall for a ploy that like, you are deceiving yourself. By the way, the beauty and reverence of a tradition Anglican rite of Holy Communion puts the modern RC Mass in English to shame. Roman Catholics will need the Anglicans to teach them how to improve the modern mundane, pedestrian, insipid English translation of the Latin Mass. Pope Benedict knows the church has to improve its sloppy liturgy or he will never make any progress with the Eastern Orthodox churches. Progess with the Orthodox will depend a great deal on how well these personal ordinariates are received into the church.
Well, to dig deeper still, however, those “reform” movements have very political origins. Papal acceptance of the Magna Carta hinged on England having a unique condition of fealty to Rome which the British government deeply detested, and sought to get out from under. One British king even offered his kingdom to become a vassal state to Islam, but a wise Sultan of Morrocco deemed any land which tolerated such a wicked ruler would be a liability. Wycliffe operated with a Parlaimentary “commission” of sorts to undermine the papal domination. With Jan Hus (who studied Wycliffe) came the radical realization that one could claim Christianity apart from from either the Western or Eastern system of patriarchs.
Nonetheless, Henry’s “reforms” were hardly greeted with the docility and ready acceptance you suggest. Quite the contrary, he executed the Archbishop of Canterbury, dissolved 825 monasteries, siezed the monastic and church properties, executed as treasonists several hundred priests, and provided for only those who would accept his schism (in the form of a continuation of their ministries, a pension, or a one-time cash payout for those who chose laicization over apostate ministry). Entire communities of priests were replaced, in many cases, by a single rector, vicar or curate.
Keep in mind, the population of England was only about 4 million, so it could be served quite well by only a few thousand pastors, a small faction of the number of priests form the 825 monasteries and thousands of rectories.
Of course reforms have political considerations. So did the Papacy for the first 1900 years. A very large part of the history of Europe is the tug of war between the Papacy and secular powers in Europe for political advantage. The Pope is still a monarch. He used to rule over a considerable amount of land. He had a standing army and a navy. He ordered those armed forced into battle. At times he even led his army on horse back. I would hope that we don't have to pretend on these threads that the Papacy was never a political force in Europe or wield political power.
Nonetheless, Henrys reforms were hardly greeted with the docility and ready acceptance you suggest.
I never suggested that. I only stated that he had allies among the Catholic clergy who advocated reform. The Catholic Church has experienced many reform during its history. If the Pope had been a little more diplomatic during the 16th century, perhaps it could have used to forces for reform to its advantage. But of course it didn't turn out that way, and Christian unity in Western Europe was broken.
Nonetheless, Henrys reforms were hardly greeted with the docility and ready acceptance you suggest.
As I said in my post, King Henry was a beast. He saw an opportunity to enrich himself and the nobles who supported him, and he took it by taking advantage of the Catholic priests who advocated reform.
They do accept the concept of the Apostolic succession. More than a hundred years ago, they tried to get Rome to accept the English hierarchy as a valid if schismatic branch of the Church. But the strong Protestant element in the Cof E had secured a practical break in the line of succession.
Henry did plunder the Church. Queen Mary managed to mend the rift, but she did not live long enough, and her sister renewed the split.
“Queen Mary managed to mend the rift”
You might want to elaborate on this one.
Queen Mart restored relations with Rome, and let the nobility and gentry keep their loot, and the priests to keep their wives. Worst mistake was the extent of the persecution of the Protestants. During the reign of the boy-king, the Protestants has made themselves very unpopular, and then blundered into the attempt to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne. The government should have been content to execute the big shots. But they chose to make examples of a lot of ordinary people, making martyrs of them. This rescued the Protestant Party from the wide discredit into which it had fallen. IAC, when Elizabeth ascended the throne, the majority of the population was still Catholic, but the Protestant party had made comeback, and by banking on the popularity of the Tudors, was able to re-establish control. The only real mistake that Mary made, however, was dying before she was forty.
“The only real mistake that Mary made, however, was dying before she was forty.”
She was 42 when she died. Burning Protestants at the stake for heresy probably wouldn’t be classified as a great idea, especially Cranmer, if you won’t call it a “real” mistake.
But the biggest boo-boo was marrying Philip II of Spain, thereby earning her the deserved mistrust of her countrymen.
There is a reason why she’s known as “Bloody Mary”, you probably should have mentioned that, too.
Why do you refer to Protestants as “the Protestant Party”?
Well she was queen for only about five years. Elizabeth lived to great age.
Cranmer was an able man and a great churchman, but not personally heroic. As for Phillip, remember that Spain had been allied with England since the reign of Henry VII. Part of that deal had been to marry Catherine to Henry’s brother Arthur. Catherine was a beauty when she was young, and partly for that reason Henry married her after Arthur’s premature death. And of course after Mary’s death, Phillip was one of Elizabeth’s suitors. It wasn’t until the Dutch rebellion that England began to pull away from the Spanish alliance.
You object to the term “Protestant party,” but t because Protestants were in the minority and strong mainly in London and other parts. They were also divided. Protestants like Cranmer were strong in the Church, but there was already many others and sectarians —not unlike the Pilgrims of our history— who did not think his reforms went far enough. It was the political Protestants who were the real danger to Mary. Her ministers however, went after many persons who were politically quite harmless. These are the ones who deserved to be praised by Foxe. Phillip , btw, advised against a harsh handed suppression. Nonetheless, Mary was personally quite popular, as were all the Tudors. “Bloody Mary” is a political epithet; she was demonized by Protestant propoganda.
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.