Anglicans to Rome?


#1

God is striving to do a whole new thing to unite his people," he said. Later he exclaimed in Latin: “Ut unum sint,” or “that all may be one,” a reference to Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical of that name, in which the pope invited non-Roman Catholic Christians into greater affiliation with the papacy.

Although Moyer declined to discuss what he meant by “one, true church,” the Anglican Church in America’s presiding bishop said last week that the denomination, which opposes women’s ordination, seeks communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

In a telephone interview from his office in Clive, Iowa, Archbishop Louis W. Falk said that while the Anglican Church in America numbers only 8,000 members - “the size of some Catholic parishes” - it belongs to the Traditional Anglican Church, which claims approximately 500,000 members worldwide.

Falk said the Traditional Anglican Church, whose primate resides in Adelaide, Australia, has been in conversation with Vatican officials about possibly becoming a semi-autonomous Anglican rite of the Roman Catholic Church, similar to the Ukrainian Catholic and Greek Catholic rites.

philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10456533.htm


#2

Thanks for the link to the full article. I hope they can work something out and that it triggers an avalanche of Anglicans to Rome.

Here’s a model that works, but these Anglicans want more – their own separate autonomous “rite” (church) such as Eastern Catholics have. The Anglican Use Liturgy is gorgeous.

atonementonline.com/aua.html


#3

[quote=Katholikos]Thanks for the link to the full article. I hope they can work something out and that it triggers an avalanche of Anglicans to Rome.

Here’s a model that works, but these Anglicans want more – their own separate autonomous “rite” (church) such as Eastern Catholics have. The Anglican Use Liturgy is gorgeous.

atonementonline.com/aua.html
[/quote]

The Catholic bishops in England don’t allow the Anglican Use - they decided it was better for all Catholic converts from Anglicanism to be Roman Rite; which is strange, because Ukrainian Catholics, who are very few, are allowed their own Rite. They even have a cathedral - two, if one includes that in Scotland ( which has its own Roman Rite hierarachy, however).

IMO, Anglicans ought to be allowed their own Use, as is it based on that mode of worship to which they are accustomed. People cannot reasonably be expected to change the devotional habits of a lifetime just because it suits the ecclesiastical bureaucrats. This insensitivity is exactly what has caused so much of the bitterness since 1963.

To judge from William Oddie’s book on the events of 1992, prospective converts were not very well treated by the ecclesiastics. ##


#4

I think that they should be given there own rite. Especially if thats the only thing between them and reuniting with the church :smiley:


#5

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## The Catholic bishops in England don’t allow the Anglican Use - they decided it was better for all Catholic converts from Anglicanism to be Roman Rite; which is strange, because Ukrainian Catholics, who are very few, are allowed their own Rite. They even have a cathedral - two, if one includes that in Scotland ( which has its own Roman Rite hierarachy, however).

IMO, Anglicans ought to be allowed their own Use, as is it based on that mode of worship to which they are accustomed. People cannot reasonably be expected to change the devotional habits of a lifetime just because it suits the ecclesiastical bureaucrats. This insensitivity is exactly what has caused so much of the bitterness since 1963.

To judge from William Oddie’s book on the events of 1992, prospective converts were not very well treated by the ecclesiastics. ##
[/quote]

Based on a very limited knowlege I get the impression that the Catholic Bishops of England are afraid that if an Anglican Rite were to be allowed they would lose large numbers to it. I fear they are more interested in preserving their positions than in reaching out or reforming their liturgies.


#6

I read this on this thread: “about possibly becoming a semi-autonomous Anglican rite of the Roman Catholic Church”

Now what does that mean…semi-autonomous? It does not do a thing for the Catholic church. It may give the Catholic a black eye. If they did that, all the advantages would go to the Anglicans. They could govern themselves, and hold the hand out for money from us Catholics.

If Rome does that, I loose respect…if those boys join up with the Catholic Church they must become Catholics!


#7

i hope the anglicans come back home. the reason traditional anglicans’ liturgy is so good is because during the 19th century, there was a movement called the the oxford or ritualist movement. they basically reformed their liturgy to make it more catholic. crammer did away with most of the catholic liturgy before this. this era produced cardinal henry newman and also saw many conversions to the catholic faith.

the problem you have is there are catholics in england who resent the anglican liturgy because crammer’s reforms did away with the sacrafice of the mass and the eucharist. also, england was always catholic up to henry 8th so they do not have a legitimate claim to be seperated from the latin rite as they are part of the western church. but, i still would love to have a reform of the catholic liturgy to make it more harmonious with the tridentine rite. maybe the anglicans can help spur and new oxford movement in the catholic church.


#8

[quote=HagiaSophia]God is striving to do a whole new thing to unite his people," he said. Later he exclaimed in Latin: “Ut unum sint,” or “that all may be one,” a reference to Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical of that name, in which the pope invited non-Roman Catholic Christians into greater affiliation with the papacy.

Although Moyer declined to discuss what he meant by “one, true church,” the Anglican Church in America’s presiding bishop said last week that the denomination, which opposes women’s ordination, seeks communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

In a telephone interview from his office in Clive, Iowa, Archbishop Louis W. Falk said that while the Anglican Church in America numbers only 8,000 members - “the size of some Catholic parishes” - it belongs to the Traditional Anglican Church, which claims approximately 500,000 members worldwide.

Falk said the Traditional Anglican Church, whose primate resides in Adelaide, Australia, has been in conversation with Vatican officials about possibly becoming a semi-autonomous Anglican rite of the Roman Catholic Church, similar to the Ukrainian Catholic and Greek Catholic rites.

philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10456533.htm
[/quote]

As a member of the TAC, I’m requesting silence, and a LOT of prayers, on our behalf.

The last time such talks occured, several liberal members of the United States Catholic Council of Bishops scotched the deal. One thing they did was to replace the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) and the American/Anglican Missal that we use with it with the 1979 Prayer Book (which is much more modernist and avoids uncomfortable doctrines such as that of sin). Many, such as Cardinal Mahony (and his predecessor before him), have refused to received Anglican Use Parishes outright, in spite of Papal instructions.

The Mass, esp. when done as a Solemn High Mass, is beautiful. If you can picture a Solemn High Tridentine Mass done in 17th Century English with a LOT, with a LOT more participation by the faithful, you’ll have the idea. I understand that at least some of the Cardinals of the Church wanted to use that, or the Sung Mass based on the 1928 BCP, because of the beauty of the language and the fact that the Mass still retained some of the air of mystery.

Some other thing which might bother some of the members of the Council of Bishops - Anglican Bishops in the TAC are pretty traditionalist, along the lines of Pope John Paul II himself, and they are required to visit the parishes in their dioceses at least once each year. I’ve met my local Bishop, Bishop James Stewar, a Medal of Honor & 2x Purple Heart Recipient and a retired Commander Air Group, US Marines, 2x, and the Primate of the TAC, Archbishop John Hepworth, who taught “Battlefield Ethics” To the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) at the request of the Government of Israel (GOI), all in the last 15 months.

I understand that if things could be worked ourked, we’d all be in union with and submitted to His Holiness, the Pope.

As I said, I’m requesting silence and prayers. I do want this to happen, and so do a lot of others.

In Him, Michael


#9

[quote=Exporter]I read this on this thread: “about possibly becoming a semi-autonomous Anglican rite of the Roman Catholic Church”

Now what does that mean…semi-autonomous? It does not do a thing for the Catholic church. It may give the Catholic a black eye. If they did that, all the advantages would go to the Anglicans. They could govern themselves, and hold the hand out for money from us Catholics.

If Rome does that, I loose respect…if those boys join up with the Catholic Church they must become Catholics!
[/quote]

And so we would…

Explorer, what do you know about the various UNIATE CHURCHES?? Orthodox Churches that, during the past 300 years or so, arrived at the conclusion theat the POPE WAS RIGHT and that their PATRIARCHS were wrong?? These people ALL submit DIRECTLY TO THE POPE, not to their Local Ordinaries. That way, Local Ordinaries can’t interfere in whether individual cities or communities have Orthodox Rite Uniate Churches!

What do you know about the Society of Jesus (The Jesuits), who do not submit to the LOCAL ORDINARY but DIRECTLY TO ROME?? The Local Ordinary can appeal, but Jesuits receive their commands from ROME!

The Pope, and the Congregation doing the heavy lifting on this matter appear to have compelling reasons for creating a “Rite” rather than just a “Use”, which I’m not at liberty to discuss. Please remember, we would all be Catholics, and we all submit to the leadership of the Pope.

I really am asking for some ciscumspection, and a lot of prayer. The Devil would love nothing more than to see this deal go to pieces on some unforeseen shoal.

Please pray for us. Thank you.

In Him, Michael


#10

[quote=Katholikos]Thanks for the link to the full article. I hope they can work something out and that it triggers an avalanche of Anglicans to Rome.

Here’s a model that works, but these Anglicans want more – their own separate autonomous “rite” (church) such as Eastern Catholics have. The Anglican Use Liturgy is gorgeous.

atonementonline.com/aua.html
[/quote]

Please look at the reply to you from Gottle of Gerr about the horrible way Anglicans and their parishes were treated by the UK hierarchy.

I have personal knowledge of another situation.

Anglican “Use” works only if the local Ordinary (or the case of the UK, the National Council of Bishops) is willing.

As I said previously, aside from confirming and expanding on what Gottle of Geer said, I can’t say too much.

Although, at least some of the impetus behind the "Anglican “:Rite”, seems to be coming from the Vatican, and may be a response to situations such as that described by Gottle of Geer.

Either way, you prayers on this would be appreciated.

Pax Vobiscum, Michael


#11

oat soda,

“the reason traditional anglicans’ liturgy is so good is because during the 19th century, there was a movement called the the oxford or ritualist movement. they basically reformed their liturgy to make it more catholic”.

That’s two different movements, at two slightly different times. The ritualists were concerned with liturgy, not the Tractarians or the Oxford movement.

GKC


#12

Just a detail: the pastoral provision for Anglican Use was granted only to the United States. Who knows why? I can understand not allowing it in England (politically, too touchy) but why not in New Zealand or Australia?

For more info: bookofdivineworship.com/links.html


#13

This whole thing, especially the case with Moyer and Bennnison, strikes me as really funny, except that it’s so sad. The contradictions are mind-boggling. As the article states, Moyer and his ECUSA bishop have a long history of argument. The bishop is very liberal, whereas Moyer’s parish is very conservative. Because of his disagreements with the bish, Moyer refused to let the bishop visit (that’s considered a bit of a no-no). He and his vestry are refusing to submit to the authority of the ECUSA (the same church that ordained him), because he accuses the bishop and the ECUSA of heresy–thus his parishioners are keeping him on as rector. Yet, he (Moyer) is suing to be reinstated (he was defrocked) into the ECUSA, and according to the article Moyer and the vestry “were optimistic that Good Shepherd would remain a part of the diocese and the Episcopal Church USA despite this new development”, while at the same time he is becoming a bishop in another church? What kind of ecclesiology is that?

Also, when I listen to a lot of the conservative Anglicans, I do get the impression that they would indeed like to see a church with more authority- yet only if that authority pleases them. Anglicans-especially in America- are accustomed to having quite a bit of autonomy and a strong role for the laypeople (and there’s an interesting history about how it worked out that way). I’m not so sure that you’d find such a large number of folks ready to give all that up.

Which brings me back to the point. With all due respect to the Traditional Anglican Church, many churches have ongoing discussions with Rome- even the Anglican Communion had some pretty interesting stuff going on (like the ARCIC)- albeit put on the backburner since the Robinson events. Yet, if a true “Anglican Rite” were to be created, wouldn’t that somehow need to involve the Anglicans (i.e. the Anglican Communion"), or at least a very sizable portion thereof? For example, say the schism of the Anglican Communion that some folks are talking about does occur, and a big piece of that pie wants to ally themselves with Rome?


#14

thanks GKC, i’ll have to read on the difference.

People cannot reasonably be expected to change the devotional habits of a lifetime just because it suits the ecclesiastical bureaucrats.

welcome to the catholic church. more harm is done by those inside the church then outside. mahony for better words, is a jerk, and now we have truatmen as head of the liturgical commision for the usccb. obviously these guys have caused untold suffering for traditional/orthodox catholics. cardinal john henry newman was ostracized by many of the catholic clergy when he converted, probably out of jealousy. this suffering by the hands of those inside the church was shared by many saints. Jesus way is the cross, so we should expect the same if he loves us.


#15

[quote=mercygate]Just a detail: the pastoral provision for Anglican Use was granted only to the United States. Who knows why? I can understand not allowing it in England (politically, too touchy) but why not in New Zealand or Australia?

For more info: bookofdivineworship.com/links.html

[/quote]

Mercy- I don’t know Rome’s reasons, but it’s my understanding that, in most other countries in the Anglican Communion (dunno about NZ or Australia), the laity doesn’t have nearly so much power. In the US, for instance, each parish has a significant say in the hiring and firing of rectors. We also have a vote in the election of bishops, diocesan and church-wide conventions, etc. Thus, it’s more likely that a whole parish might vote to switch over to Rome (and, if lucky, maintain the liturgical style).

Real estate can be a bit more difficult, since in almost all cases when parishes have left (to join Rome, or more likely another offshoot Anglican group- there are dozens of them), the property stays with the Diocese, who ultimately belongs to the national church. I don’t know whether it’s true or not, but I’ve heard cynics say that unless a parish can wrangle a way of bringing their real estate with them, the Romans aren’t terribly interested in granting them permission to become an Anglican Use parish. Maybe that’s just hearsay, but I do wonder why there aren’t more Anglican Use parishes. To the best of my knowledge, there are fewer than a dozen such parishes in the US.


#16

[quote=mean_owen]I’ve heard cynics say that unless a parish can wrangle a way of bringing their real estate with them, the Romans aren’t terribly interested in granting them permission to become an Anglican Use parish. Maybe that’s just hearsay, but I do wonder why there aren’t more Anglican Use parishes. To the best of my knowledge, there are fewer than a dozen such parishes in the US.
[/quote]

If I were a Catholic bishop today, the LAST thing I would want is more ecclesiastical real estate to manage. Urban parishes are closing churches all over the place. Actually, same thing goes for Episcopal churches in most cities. The upkeep on the beautiful old buildings is horrendous, and congregations are dwindling.


#17

[quote=mercygate]If I were a Catholic bishop today, the LAST thing I would want is more ecclesiastical real estate to manage. Urban parishes are closing churches all over the place. Actually, same thing goes for Episcopal churches in most cities. The upkeep on the beautiful old buildings is horrendous, and congregations are dwindling.
[/quote]

That’s a good point, tho I’m not so sure that either the laity or the bishops always think the same way.


#18

[quote=Traditional Ang]. . . As I said, I’m requesting silence and prayers. I do want this to happen, and so do a lot of others.
[/quote]

[right]JMJ + OBT[/right]
Okay, prayers you’ve requested and prayers you’ll receive!

If you don’t mind me asking, how does the whole “invalid priestly orders” thing factor into your thinking?

Do you believe that as of today, when your parish priest or bishop celebrates Mass, that transubstantiation occurs at the consecration of the bread and wine?

Depending on how you feel about that, do you think it will be any different once/if the TAC comes into full communion with Rome? Won’t all the clergy have to be (re)ordained or conditionally (re)ordained?

And what about the other Sacraments like Confirmation? Will TAC laity be (re)Confirmed en masse?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA


#19

[quote=whosebob]If you don’ mind me asking, how does the whole “invalid priestly orders” thing factor into your thinking?
Depending on how you feel about that, do you think it will be any different once/if the TA’s come into full communion with Rome? Won’t all the clergy have to be (re)ordained or conditionally (re)ordained?

And what about the other Sacraments like Confirmation? Will TA laity be (re)Confirmed en masse?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
[/quote]

Bob,
Many mainstream Anglicans and “continuing” Anglicans have “beefed” up their Orders since the publication of Apostolicae Curae in 1896 by having valid (though illicit) co-consecrators for their bishops. Utrecht, Polish National Catholic and some Orthodox lines have been “imported.” Graham Leonard, the former Anglican Bishop of London, was ordained a Catholic priest conditionally because his pedigree was strong enough to support the possibility (not certainty) of validity. Virtually all Anglican priests ordained in Rome are ordained de novo. I have heard of only two exceptions when ordination was conditional.

Yes, people are confirmed de novo – unless in the future evidence should emerge that the confirmations were possibly valid in the first place.


#20

[quote=mercygate]Bob,
Many mainstream Anglicans and “continuing” Anglicans have “beefed” up their Orders since the publication of Apostolicae Curae in 1896 by having valid (though illicit) co-consecrators for their bishops. Utrecht, Polish National Catholic and some Orthodox lines have been “imported.” Graham Leonard, the former Anglican Bishop of London, was ordained a Catholic priest conditionally because his pedigree was strong enough to support the possibility (not certainty) of validity. Virtually all Anglican priests ordained in Rome are ordained de novo. I have heard of only two exceptions when ordination was conditional.

Yes, people are confirmed de novo – unless in the future evidence should emerge that the confirmations were possibly valid in the first place.
[/quote]

Would the other you have heard of be Fr. John J. Hughes, author of the best 2 books on the Anglican side of *APOSTOLICAE CURAE *, (written after he became a RC)? Though he was ordained in Germany, I believe. If you know of others, I would love to hear of them.

And I am a little doubtful about the Orthodox being in the Anglican lines. What can you tell me?

GKC

Traditional Anglican


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.