Skip to comments.Anglicans going to Rome are not "proper Catholics"
Posted on 02/07/2010 12:01:41 PM PST by NYer
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, says those Anglicans who respond to Pope Benedict's invitation to join the Catholic Church under the provisions of the new Apostolic Constitution, would not be "proper Catholics". You can listen to the interview in full on this week's Sunday Sequence (Sunday, from 8.30am).
In the same interview, Dr Sentamu also called for the banning of the British National Party and says he is "surprised that Parliament doesn't want to do it." He also says he has "every hope" that [Robert] Mugabe will be gone very soon."
Here's part of the exchange I had with Dr Sentamu on this week's Sunday Sequence:
Archbishop Sentamu: "If people genuinely realise that they want to be Roman Catholic, they should convert properly, and go through catechesis and be made proper Catholics. This kind of creation [the Apostolic Constitution] -- well, all I can say is, we wish them every blessing and may the Lord encourage them. But as far as I am concerned, if I was really, genuinely wanting to convert, I wouldn't go into an Ordinariate. I would actually go into catechesis and become a truly converted Roman Catholic and be accepted."
William Crawley: "So those Anglicans who take advantage of the Apostolic Constitution, you're saying, would not be 'proper Catholics'?"
Archbishop Sentamu: "Well, I mean, I'd be very surprised --"
William Crawley: "What would they be if they are not 'proper Catholics'?"
Archbishop Sentamu: "They would be what they are: an Ordinariate of the Vatican."
William Crawley: "Anglican Émigrés?"
Archbishop Sentamu: "(Laughter) Well, if I was a Roman Catholic bishop and I had this group within my diocese being looked after by an Ordinariate whose reference was back to the Vatican, I'd have to ask a number of questions."
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Catholic / Anglican ping!
Well he’s a bit of a whiner isn’t he?
What does he know about being a proper Catholic that the Pope doesn’t?
The Pope is trying to build bridges to Anglicans and other Christians - with the goal of creating unity, while the Bishop is trying to burn them down.
The fable of the sour grapes comes to mind.
Hey, Sentamu, SHUT UP!
The UK Anglican churches are somewhat unsettled right now, because while they are the de jure center of Anglicanism, the de facto strength of Anglicanism is in Africa. In truth, the UK churches are very conscious of their weakness, and feeling a bit put upon.
That is, as the Pope extended his hand to them, it made them all too aware of their failings. For example, while about 22% (13.4m) of the people in the UK identify themselves as Anglicans, only about 1.7m (out of a population of 61m) of them are churchgoers. There are now more practicing Catholics in the UK than practicing Anglicans.
When I saw the title, I figured it was something posted by one of our “friends” to start some junk.
I am, of course, relieved to find that it is an CofE bishop whining.
Interesting - it was the interviewer who introduced and repeated the phrase “proper Catholics.” Archbishop Sentamu did not use the phrase, and seemed quite hesitant to agree with it, even when pressed.
It’s almost as if the interview wrote the headline in advance and then was determined to elicit his intended words ... and then attributed his own words to the Archbishop when that didn’t work. What a trashy thing to do.
Here's the real problem: Sentamu is a Ugandan, from the Evangelical, low church wing of the Anglicans. He doesn't "get" Catholic issues because they are way out of his orbit. It would be like interviewing the Pope about some internal issue in the Church of Christ.
LOL, like 60% of the Catholic laity in this county.
**Anglicans going to Rome are not “proper Catholics” **
They will be after some adult catechesis and reception into the Church.
Pretty common response.
My wife’s bishop is rumoured to be rather unhappy about this.
The only Piskies who are interested in swimming the Tiber are the 'high churchers' - the low churchers and the Evangelicals are not coming. It would be a total waste of time for high churchers to go to your typical RCIA class, as they already subscribe to 99 and 94/100ths of Catholic doctrine, and in many cases are 'more Roman than Rome', especially since VCII.
In fact, that's the reason that more liberal Catholics are having ten fits about welcoming the Anglicans . . . because these guys are extremely orthodox and conservative and will not support guitar masses, ordination of women, liturgical dance, or fuzzy theology.
When we visited our parish for the first time, we met with the rector and he gave us a number of books to read. When we met with him again, it was plain that the only points on which we had any substantial difference were the validity of Anglican Orders and the supremacy of the Pope. That's true of most high churchers. So we evinced our readiness to adopt the Catholic view . . . I observed that 'by their fruits shall ye know them' and Anglican orders clearly had not worked out or protected that denomination from error, and that Papal supremacy prevented exactly the sort of nonsense that GC 2003 created . . . in other words, adult leadership is a good thing. As my husband said, "We can deal."
We did not go through RCIA and were received into the communion and confirmed by the rector, with the Sunday School director acting as our sponsor.
Besides, we would have annoyed the heck out of everybody else in RCIA talking about finer points of this and that and what the Church Fathers said, while they were learning stuff that we learned in Sunday School 30 years ago.
I’ve read some pieces by the African Bishops in “First Things,” and when I asked sionnsar and Huber about them, they agreed that their experiences were so different that what Archbishop Akinola, for example, thought was “key” about being Anglican was not at all what our Traditional Anglicans would have chosen.
What do you think the author’s point was, here? Just general pot-stirring, down on the CofE, down on RC? Just a jerk?
Well he is a Pom.
That sounds like, “All of the above, and also you can kick him in the knee just on general principles.” One of the “intelligentsia” whom Thomas Sowell makes look like absolute cretins.
He is right about Mugabe, anyhow.
I have “every hope,” too, but I’ve been practicing Cuban cooking for four years now, and Fidel Castro still hasn’t died, so we haven’t had the massive “Fidelito es Muerto!” bash the neighborhood is waiting for.
“Hope” is an iffy thing.
Outstanding post and there are millions of Catholics who are glad you are now in full communion with Rome and all of the Catholic CHurch.
But the fundamental problem is that everyone outside insists on thinking that the Anglican Church is a church, when actually it was formed as a political solution to a political problem, containing at least three separate churches and perhaps as many as five.
We just jumped the gun a little, I think the High Church Anglicans on the whole will be good Catholics and an asset to the Church. After all, some pretty good Catholics have swum the Tiber . . . John Cardinal Newman for one.
:)I found out 2 weeks ago my friend will be ordained in June in USA.WOOOHOOOO
As a Lutheran, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight except for maybe a home for the refuges of the ELCA who won’t go LCMS for anything.
But going strictly by the old canons, this is problematic at best. Not that some of those have been followed for a thousand years or so.
Why wouldn’t they be ‘proper Catholics’?
You write that the reporter has a degree from “Princeton.” For the sake of others, that’s a degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, not to be confused with Princeton University.
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.
But at least he's not a fellow alum.
Welcome! You folks are a great asset at a time when so many “Catholics” want us to emulate the church from which you fled. I agree that any Episcopalian (other than marriage converts) who would be so inclined as to convert to Catholicism would likely require very little catechetical instruction.
The same would certainly be true of “Anglo-Catholics” in England who already saw themselves as essentially a branch of Catholicism. Generations came and went hoping and praying that the C of E would return to communion with Rome. Unfortunately, the rest had no such intention, and instead embraced every modernist fad to come along. If that’s the path which Anglicans choose, they ought not to whine when some leap from that sinking ship and reach out for the Barque of Peter.
I applaud the creation of this ordinariate. I don’t see how such Catholics will be any less “proper Catholics” than those who attend Maronite, Ruthenian, or Ukrainian parishes. Aren’t the Eastern Catholic Churches independent of the local Latin bishop? If the Archbishop of Philadelphia can sleep at night knowing that there are Eastern parishes with his geographical jurisdiction, I think the Archbishop of Westminster will be able to manage while knowing that there are Anglican Ordinariate parishes out there which are not under his pastoral jurisdiction.
And there are nearly as many (1.5 million) Muslims in the UK...
I got that from his Wikipedia page. I’ll have to check his blog for a laugh!
I must say he seems ruder than C.S. Lewis, who was a Belfast Church-of-Ireland man.
Perhaps His Grace's view is colored by the long-running controversy over the "flying bishops" . . . ?
The U.S. has had an "Anglican Use Rite" for some time -- they don't have their own bishops but use most of the old Book of Common Prayer (with amendations to correct some Edwardian excesses). There's not enough critical mass (pun intended) in our old ECUSA diocese to start an AU parish -- this is traditionally a "low" diocese with only a couple of "high" parishes -- but in Texas where for some reason there is a cluster of AU parishes it seems to have worked fine and caused little if any problems with the local bishop.
I think the Archbishop is saying that if someone wants to be Catholic, then they should be Catholic all they way.
We have had for many years Anglicans who pretend to be Catholics (the “more Catholic than the Pope” types). Now we will have Catholics who pretend to be Anglicans (they were the vestments and use the a modified BCP, but they believe all that Rome teaches, even those things Anglicanism rejects).
Perhaps recent events are showing that there were all along yearning rather than pretending.
For many that may be true. But it must be ascertained if that yearning was for Catholic style or Catholic substance. Things such as Roman vestments, incense and bells would fall under the style category. Doctrines such as Purgatory, Papal Infallibility and the full breadth of Rome’s Mariology would fall under the substance category. Just because one wants the style does not mean they want the substance.
Many in the Church of England oppose female bishops, gay marriage and other distasteful innovations. They also don’t accept the above mentioned Roman doctrines. The choice then comes down to which is more distasteful: the troubles in the CoE or the questionable (in their minds) teachings of Rome.
So we corrected our mistake and become Catholics.
I don't see the problem here.
I miss Cranmer's prayerbook and Coverdale's psalter . . . but we sing a surprising number of English anthems with those lovely old words.
Plus, of course, the Episcopalians had abandoned Cranmer and Coverdale anyhow for a translation that is JUST as bad as the old ICEL translation (in fact they are suspiciously similar). The Church is now correcting the translation, while the Episcopalians are moving in the wrong direction (in that as in so many other things).
So I am content.
They are NOT coming over. Not even thinking about it. They have (in their view) the best of both worlds right where they are. Why should they change?
The Oxford Movement folks are the ones who are jumping ship. Their theology is quite Catholic.
“The Catholic “style” people tend to be homosexual and theatrical type”
True. The more liberal churches are usually like that. I’ve always called it “liturgical theater.”
Very well said.
Sorry, Dr John Sentamu, they ARE real Catholics — many may be better Catholics than cradle Catholics
Unfortunately, there are also now more practicing Muslims in the UK than practicing Anglicans, so the problem is more dire than just for Anglicans.
“In fact, that’s the reason that more liberal Catholics are having ten fits about welcoming the Anglicans . . . because these guys are extremely orthodox and conservative and will not support guitar masses, ordination of women, liturgical dance, or fuzzy theology.” — and that’s why we say HOORAY! the Anglicans are coming :)