The pope with the knife in Canterbury Cathedral
Thursday, October 22, 2009
By Bryan Cones
Comments (13)
Get it? Like CLUE, only with the pope instead of Miss Scarlet. And no, I'm not accusing the pope of actually killing the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, though I do think Benedict dealt a serious blow to the Anglican Communion, intentional or not, by creating a special process to admit large numbers of Anglicans to the Roman Catholic communion.
Quite frankly, I've found the commentary of Austin Iverheigh and Micheal Sean Winters at America, and Rocco Palmo at Whispers entirely too irenic. On the one hand, Rome's move may seem pastoral, but if it was directed toward the Orthodox, it would be considered aggressive.
By all accounts, the Roman process to bring over "Anglo-Catholics" did not include Cardinal Walter Kasper's Pontifical Council for Christian Unity nor was there conversation with Rowan Williams beforehand. That Williams agreed to a joint press conference with the Catholic archbishop of Westminster is more a sign of the man's grace and charity than agreement, and he's taking heat for it over there.
I tend to agree more with Andrew Sullivan's take at the Daily Dish: This looks something like an attempt at a hostile takeover, and I do not believe for a second this blather about how ecumenical discussion after 40 years has made this possible, nor do I think that it will continue beyond mere pleasantries.
This is about women's ordination and homosexuality pure and simple, and Rome has basically said that if Anglicans are OK with the Roman position on these, we can work the rest out. Unless all of the sudden Anglicans are ready to give "internal assent of the intellect and will" (as Catholics are required to) to the dogmas of papal infallibility and transubstantiation. Right...
And for all the talk of liturgical unity in the Roman Catholic Church, we are now going to have three liturgies: The Roman rite of 1970 (after Vatican II), the 16th-century liturgy of Pius V (after Trent), and now an Anglican liturgy, probably the late 19th-century one that most of the Anglican traditionalists favor. Shall we see if there are any Lutherans who want to take us up on a "personal ordinariate"?
Posted in: In preview mode
Still Confused by All of This - Is this a sign of change?
By Robert Bates (not verified) on Wednesday, December 2, 2009As an American "High Church" Epsicopalian who also supports the ordination of women and homosexuals and recognition of gay marriages, I find all of this quite confusing. I do personally believe in transubstantion, but it is a voluntary, not a required belief within the Epsicopal church. The beauty of the Anglican and Epsocpalian church, at least in the American tradition, is the ability to use reason and to disagree on many issues as long as we accept the Nicene Creed and promote the love of Christ.
There is so much of the Catholic tradition I adore, but also which I find hard to accept as a matter of doctrine (papal infalliability, male
priesthood, opposition to birth control, etc....).
The bottomline is, as was so elequently stated by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, that almost all Christians share far more in their common belief than have significant differences. It is the commonality of the Christian experience that matters. I do find the willingness of the Vatican to allow a married Epsicopal priest to cross the divide and become a Roman Catholic priest fascinating as to the unmarried priesthood issue.
Although Eastern Rite Catholic priests have been
allowed to marry within the Catholic tradition, their numbers have always been small. If a sigificant number of Anglican and Episcopalian priests take up the Vatican offer, how long will it be until the Catholic Church as to deal with the issue of the unmarried priests in a different light?
Huh?
By Hans (not verified) on Friday, November 6, 2009Why should the pope have to discuss any of this with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the first place? Did Henry VIII and his cronies extend the same courtesy to the Pope in the 16th century? "Hi Your Holiness, we're thinking of taking a large number of people away from your church and jurisdiction. Maybe some buildings too. That ok with you? Nothing personal". Anglicans aren't being "wooed" or "stolen" or "tricked" into becoming Roman Catholics. That they would convert at all says something about their wishes and relationship to the larger Anglican community.
The Pope, as all Christians,
By JC (not verified) on Friday, November 6, 2009The Pope, as all Christians, are called to higher standards than your analysis, which boils down to; since you treated us badly, we can do the same to you.
You go onto say "that they (Angelicans) would convert at all says something about their wishes and relationship to the larger Anglian community. And what is your analysis of the Catholics who have left The Catholic church? Your post indicates that you take a situation and, rather then looking at it objectively, spin it in a way that suits a position. Christians are called to do better.
what does this mean?
By Kelly (not verified) on Tuesday, October 27, 2009I was completely confused by this when I read about it in the newspaper. My priest has not spoken about it, so I'm still muddled.
I grew up being told that Anglicans don't believe in transubstantiation. Have we now reached the point in our culture wars that being opposed to gay people "practicing" their sexuality, or the ordination of women is more important to our Church than whether someone believes they are receiving the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharist? I was also told that Anglicans don't revere Mary as we do, either. Again, isn't that dogma? The only two times the Pope ever spoke infallibly were related to Mary. But that no longer matters?
By accepting these people as Catholics, is the Pope saying that none of this dogma matters? Is he saying that Catholics and Anglicans are the same, theologically and dogmatically? If so, then can progressive Catholics switch to an Anglican church (if, say, we would welcome ordained women and the blessing of gay unions), and we would still be Catholic?
It would be really nice if the US Catholic would do an article on this, to help explain it. In the meantime, I'm just completely confused!
Clear answers
By Jeffrey Pinyan (not verified) on Tuesday, October 27, 2009Kelly, you have expressed concerns that the Anglicans don't believe in transubstantiation nor the Marian dogmas. The Anglican communion, as a whole, has different takes on these matters; some individual Anglicans believe what the Catholic Church believes in these matters, but others don't.
Let me make clear what's NOT happening: the Catholic Church is not simply extending her definition to include "Anglicans who don't approve of women's ordination and practicing homosexual clergy and homosexual 'marriage'".
What IS happening is that the Catholic Church is making it procedurally easier for Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church, provided they profess the Catholic faith. Some of these Anglicans have already signed a copy of the Catholic Catechism as a sign that they accept its teachings. In other words, these Anglicans are Catholic at heart already. They're just reticent to give up all of the Anglican tradition (that which does not oppose the Catholic faith).
Anglican "Communion"
By Fran Ferder, fspa (not verified) on Tuesday, October 27, 2009Bryan,
Thank you for your insightful comments. While I agree with some of what has been said by other commentators (the Catholic church has welcomed more than 100 married Anglican priests in the US alone), this is about women's ordination and homosexuality. Most of the Anglican priests who now function in the US came to the Roman Cahtolic church only after these issues were resolved by the Anglicans against their liking. Being aware of history, and noting the obvious is not a sign of hostility--it is being honest. This move looks so political. I only wish that leaders in the Catholic church would have open discussions about both of these issues, rather than ignoring something that Catholics in the pew talk about all the time. I do not object to welcoming Anglicans. I do object to the secretive process, and the real reasons behind it. I truly doubt that such a welcome would be extended if Anglicans had not taken more open positions on homosexuality and women's ordination.
In a church where so many priests, bishops, etc. are homosexual, and at least half the population of the church is female, this decision smacks of spiritual suicide.
"Most of the Anglican
By Jeffrey Pinyan (not verified) on Tuesday, October 27, 2009"Most of the Anglican priests who now function in the US came to the Roman Cahtolic church only after these issues were resolved by the Anglicans against their liking."
They realized that the Anglican communion does not have the stability which they expect Christ's Church to have, and it has changed its stance on doctrinal issues which, until that point, had retained ties to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. They realized that the entity they knew as the "Anglican Church" is not, in the words of Dominus Iesus, "a true particular Church", but, as Vatican II referred to such, an "ecclesial community."
"I only wish that leaders in the Catholic church would have open discussions about both of these issues, rather than ignoring something that Catholics in the pew talk about all the time."
What manner of open discussions would you expect to see over the issues of homosexuality and women's ordination? Better explanations of the Church's unreformable position against them?
"In a church where so many priests, bishops, etc. are homosexual, and at least half the population of the church is female, this decision smacks of spiritual suicide."
The Church hasn't killed herself after 2000 or so years; why should she die now?
Anglican issue/ Why so much hostility???
By David Phillips (not verified) on Thursday, October 22, 2009There are and have been already large numbers of Anglicans who have been seeking a path to Rome...here we have Rome reaching out to them, and yet Rome is being attacked over it?
Weren't precedents set for these types of arrangements at various times in history when groups of Eastern Christians (separated from Rome) sought to return to Rome? That is why we today have Eastern Rite Catholics who maintain their own liturgies, AND their own bishops, laws, and disciplines - including being allowed in many cases to have married priests! (The Maronites are the only Eastern rite to never have broken communion with Rome.)
I would agree that if these Anglicans want to become Catholics, then yes, they should assent to papal infallibility and also transubstantiation.
Why so much hostility?
By Jerry (not verified) on Friday, October 23, 2009Your post is perfectly valid. The Catholic Church has been taking in Anglican / Episcopalians for awhile. Here is a 1994 article on the subject. .http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htmThe reason there is so much hostility is because the Catholic left wants to turn the Catholic Church into the Anglican Church that approves artificial birth control and ordains lesbian priestesses. The Catholic Left wants faithful Christians to accept these changes and keep giving their money to support the left that is in control.The issue of a married priesthood is obviously secondary modest accommodation since the Catholic Church had a married priesthood at one point. Catholics should gladly take in faithful Anglicans as Anglicans should gladly take in the Catholic Left.
Thank you Jerry
By David Phillips (not verified) on Friday, October 23, 2009That is a very good article on the subject.
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
