Bishop John Broadhurst
Posted on 10/26/2009 3:22:02 PM PDT by NYer
.-
Members of the traditionalist Anglican group Forward in Faith recently concluded their annual gathering, which was dedicated to discussing Pope Benedict's overture to Anglicans. The general impression left by the conference was the “Anglican experiment is over,” a mood that was reinforced by Bishop John Hind officially announcing he is ready to become Catholic.
The 2009 National Assembly of Forward in Faith was held in the Emmanuel Centre, Westminster, London, October 23-24. The Assembly was originally scheduled before the Vatican announced its unprecedented move, but the issue dominated most of the discussion.
Speaking to the press during the event, the Right Reverend John Hind, Anglican Bishop of Chichester, announced he is considering becoming a Roman Catholic.
Hind, the most senior traditionalist in the Church of England, told “The Telegraph” that he is willing to sacrifice his salary and palace residence to join the Catholic Church.
“This is a remarkable new step from the Vatican,” he said. “At long last there are some choices for Catholics in the Church of England. I'd be happy to be re-ordained into the Catholic Church.”
The bishop said that he expects his previous ministry will be recognized in the Catholic Church, but stressed that the divisions in the Anglican Communion could make it impossible to stay. “How can the Church exist if bishops are not in full communion with each other?” he asked.
During the conference, the Right Reverend John Broadhurst, who is the Anglican Bishop of Fulham and the Primate of Forward in Faith, affirmed that “the Anglican experiment is over.”
Bishop Broadhurst said that Pope Benedict has made his offer in response to the pleas of Anglicans who despair at the disintegration of their Church. “Anglicanism has become a joke because it has singularly failed to deal with any of its contentious issues,” said the bishop.
“There is widespread dissent across the [Anglican] Communion. We are divided in major ways on major issues and the Communion has unraveled. I believed in the Church I joined, but it has been revealed to have no doctrine of its own. I personally think it has gone past the point of no return. The Anglican experiment is over.”
In an emotional closing speech on Saturday, Bishop Broadhurst used the metaphor of the frog and the boiling pot to describe the current Anglican status.
"The temperature at the pot has become intolerable, but the process of boiling started before the ordination of women… The truth is, the tragedy for us is the Church of England has presumed. It's presumed to know better than the tradition on many matters and it's presumed to know better than Jesus Christ about some matters,” he explained.
“And It is the presumption of our Church in this present period that has caused such pain and anguish to many of us.
“Oh yes, the ordination of women was the water being turned up; we knew that we were going to be cooked to death ...
“And what the general (Anglican) Synod did, was to say, ‘We will push the pot towards the edge of the gas, as long as you stay on this side of the pot, with a few ice cubes, it'll be all right,’” Bishop Broadhurst said.
Then he explained: “We've never claimed that Anglicanism is the Church of Jesus Christ, and we've always claimed and believed that there needs to be catholic unity.”
“This is about Anglicans in communion with Rome and not about Anglicans ceasing to be Roman Catholics,” he also said.
The Right Reverend Martyn Jarrett, Anglican Bishop of Beverley, also insisted on the fact that “there are questions over the church's survival,” explaining that the Church of England has changed too dramatically for some traditionalists.
“The offer from the Vatican is momentous and I felt a great sense of gratitude that the Roman Catholic Church is thinking about the position of traditionalist Anglicans,” he added.
Another participant at the “Forward in Faith” conference, Fr. Edward Tomlinson, Anglican Vicar of St. Barnabas, said that he would be following the lead of Bishop Hind.
“The ship of Anglicanism seems to be going down... We should be grateful that a lifeboat has been sent. I shall be seeking to move to Rome. To stay in the Church of England would be suicide,” Fr. Tomlinson said.
Forward in Faith is a worldwide association of close to 1,000 clergy and thousands of lay Anglicans founded in 1992 in opposition to the ordination of women as priests or as bishops, and most recently, to the ordination of active homosexuals. The association says that it finds such practices not only “contrary to the Scriptures as they have been consistently interpreted by the two thousand year tradition of the churches of both East and West,” but also as a “new and serious obstacle in the way of reconciliation and full visible unity between Anglicans and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.”
Personally, I take the plight of 80 million people very seriously.
Anglo-catholics.
You’ll not get the whole Anglican church. Neither the liberal wing nor the evangelical wing of the Church of England will buy into this.
I don’t know anything other than what I’ve said, as my source didn’t elaborate. However, my own personal opinion is that I can’t imagine that the most loved prayers from the BCP (the prayer at the beginning of Mass “Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open,” the prayer of Humble Access “We do not presume to come to this thy table”, and the prayers after Communion “Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee”) would be absent. Those prayers are from Rite I, which is more Anglo-Catholic than Rite II, which is more “Novus Ordo.” Rite I of the 1979 BCP also follows more closely the 1928 Prayer Book, which is why so many people loved it. If it is to be truly an “Anglican” missal, I can’t imagine that it would have anything other than the King’s English (or rather the Queen’s [Elizabeth I]), otherwise it wouldn’t be “Anglican,” and why bother when the new ICEL English translation is coming out next year? From what I understand from last week’s press conference, the new Apostolic Constitution specifically allows Anglicans to keep their traditions and liturgy, which are special and unique, so I can’t imagine that the new missal would be bereft of all that would make it Anglican. Catholicism in England has always been different from that on the continent and it seems that the Holy Father recognizes that and wants to preserve it. After all, England was once “Our Lady’s Dowry,” and I would expect it was precisely because of the beauty of English worship and devotion, including architecture and music. Think of all the unique traditions and customs surrounding Holy Days (i.e., Shrove Tuesday Pancake Suppers), which will be preserved and celebrated. It’s just truly mind-boggling and exciting to think of the ramifications of all of it.
The Queen is the governor of the Church of England, not its head.
She swore an oath to “Defend the faith”, and she is a lady to whom that is important. Theoretically she could do something, but practically she probably won’t.
The fact that you are still wondering is a tribute to her discretion. The Monarch does not make statements on such matters. Her private thoughts are her own.
Its not her call as to whether Roman Catholics can be reigning monarchs.
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)
Maybe not, but I know one day Christ will unite His Church into One again. :)
Is your understanding that they will be required to use this new missal as the means by which they are allowed to keep their liturgy? If so, what is the basis for your understanding?
Or what? Order them arrested? Tortured? Imprisoned in the Tower?
Not bloody likely ...
She might be able to excommunicate them, and act which would seem singularly pointless.
We don’t want the liberal wing (unless they repent of their liberalism), and the evangelical wing would be a bad match. They don’t believe as we believe, on a number of topics. It would be dishonest of them to try to join, and dishonest of us to accept them.
I am not contending that the Anglicans should not have their own liturgy. It is my belief that they will keep their current ones. For example, the Anglican Church in America (which is the U.S. constituent of the Traditional Anglican Communion) uses the American Missal based on the 1928 BCP and the 1940 hymnal. It is my understanding that they have every intention of keeping those books, not switching to the books being used by the Pastoral Provision churches or the latin rite churches.
Are you a member of one of the Pastoral Provision parishes or a member of an Anglican Church? I'm not sure to whom you refer when using the word "we."
I am a member of an Anglican Use Catholic parish, as I stated in a previous post. We use the “Book of Divine Worship” which is what all Anglican Use parishes use. My church was originally Epicopalian and converted, parishioners and priest, to the Catholic Church in the 90’s. My husband and I converted five years ago from an ECUSA parish and joined this parish at that time. We attended last year’s Anglican Use Conference at Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio, so we are fairly well plugged in, but would have been even more so if our schedules had not prevented us from attending this year’s AU Conference which was held at Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston. At last year’s conference, people were saying things like, “wouldn’t it be great if we had our own bishop?” and “wouldn’t it be great if we had our own seminary?” All of this has been in the works for a long time.
Since there is a new missal being made, your friends will not have to use the current “Book of Divine Worship” nor will they have to use the Novus Ordo missal. The Apostolic Constitution has not come out yet and I would guess that it will come out when everything is ready (procedures, missal, etc.).
You might want to go back and re-read my posts. I think you missed a lot of my explanations.
That's why the BDW was written in the first place.
“it had an ignoble beginning and seems destined for an ignoble death.”
Careful friend. You cannot be honest and make this statement, if you actually know the history.
That the “church” of England was founded by an adulterer and woman killer for political and personal reasons rather than religious reasons?
You consider that an illustrious beginning?
“You consider that an illustrious beginning? “
You need to read a little history then consider how offensive you statement is.
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.