Queen irked at Vatican move

Queen irked at Vatican move

A senior adviser to the Queen met secretly with the leader of the Catholic
Church in England and Wales to express concern over the Pope’s offer for
disaffected Anglicans to convert to Rome.

In a highly unusual step, Earl Peel, the Lord Chamberlain, asked Archbishop of
Westminster Vincent Nichols to meet him in November, a fortnight after Pope
Benedict XVI’s decree.

The Vatican announcement shocked the Church of England and was widely seen as
designed to poach Anglican clergy.

The Queen, who is the Church’s Supreme Governor, was not warned of the move.


Article here (?)

More coverage from the Telegraph: Damian Thompson and Jonathan Wynne-Jones.

The English crown is facing some pressure on its relations with Catholicism. Catholics actually passed the number of Anglicans in England recently, and there have been overtures at removing some of the restrictions as far as the Monarch being married to a Catholic. Not to mention the fact that the recent document is going to result in significant legal battles over the possession of churches.

if it is true that Henry created the anglican church so he could have his way in a theological matter, how can any anglican, knowing this, stay in this church?

You put it much more graciously than I would have (Eddie Izzard describes it well), it was far more over a politically matter (he had no son). Because it is equally, at its heart, protestant (since Elizabeth) and national.

And since when does the Pope have to advise anyone of what he decides to do? Sheesh. :rolleyes:


From what I have gathered re. the Queen, she is a religious person and intelligent. I would think she would have had serious concerns re. the Anglican ordination of women, homosexual priests, and the same marrying, plus abortion. The Anglican/Episcopal Chruch has many problems.

Obviously, Anglicans think it is more subtle than that. Search for user GKC, look through his old posts and he will give you a fair representation of the Anglican view of the split.

Does anybody else see the irony in all this? I grew up in the 40s and 50s. It would have been unthinkable then for the Church to seek to bring in trained (often married) protestant clergy to serve as Priests! Now there are many married priests with children coming from protestant backgrounds. As far as I know the Church has always welcomed protestants who want to convert, nothing new there. Looks to me like some sort of unification is in progress but perhaps not the way many expect. I am going to stay tuned.

Well, both the Pope and the Queen are heads of state and as a matter of diplomacy some advisement is usual.

So the Queen is irked by the Pope’s offer to Anglicans… I wonder how irked she is by the fact that her denomination appears to be crumbling away - she is, after all, the head of the Anglican Communion, even if she delegates the governance of the Communion to the Archbishop of Canterbury. She is thought to be a “low-church” Anglican, but conservative, so how has she moved to address the difficulties which are dividing the Communion? The Anglican Communion, it seems to me, holds very little authority as it has bowed to pressure from the secular world in a number of areas, beginning in 1930 with the alteration of its teaching on contraception. Following this, we have seen women “priests”, a homosexual bishop (and another one possible, I think)…following Pope Benedict’s offer to Anglicans, we heard an Anglican bishop in England declare that “the Anglican experiment is over”. As far as I can see, there have been serious cracks in the Communion for decades…Pope Benedict’s offer has proved to be a welcome invitation from many Anglicans. The British monarch still holds the title “Fidei Defensor” - if the Queen has failed to live up to that title by defending the Anglican Communion, how can she claim to be irked when someone comes up with an appealing offer to disaffected Anglicans?:shrug:

It appears to be the other way around. An Anglican Bishop made an offer hoping for magnanimity from the Pope. The Queen may be irked about some procedural matter but it appears there are simply Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church. Details, of course, are still to be finalized but this is a matter for each individual Anglican in the end. Charges of poaching reflect badly on the sincerity of those wanting to join the Church and be Catholics, and amounts to, in my view, just a cheap shot by critics.



It’s a move to regain “lost” property. That’s all folks.

Assuming you are not being flippant, I have to ask, what on earth makes you think that the Catholic church wants the hundreds of pre-Reformation churches back, with all the problems of upkeep and repairs that would involve? Every Anglican church seems to have one of those displays outside, showing how far they are in their fundraising, and appealing for donations.

Why would the Catholic church want them, especially as we have plenty of churches of our own? Too many, in fact, in some areas. Not to mention the fact that many of the pre-Reformation can’t be altered, as they are historical, so congregations are stuck with rood-screens blocking-off the sanctuary. The land they are standing on would have some value, but only in theory, since they can’t be demolished.

This is not terribly accurate, despite its continued popularity as a theory. the King did not begin a new Church. He removed the English Catholic church from the authority of the Pope.The church was the same, though reforms to it were to come.

Does that mean that when the Eastern Orthodox removed themselves from the authority of the Pope, that this did not split Catholics and Orthodox into two “Churches” (a “true” church being an independent body with true Apostolic Succession and a belief in the Real Presence)?

It seems Henry did create a true church, by the Catholic definition of it. Then, with the later reforms, they lapsed into “separated brethren”.

The Catholic Church wants to save souls, not buildings.


That is not what I wrote. I am correcting a common lie that King Henry started a new Church. The problem was initially a matter of who he and the English bishops felt could interfere in the internal policies of the country. The fact is the Pope was doing just that. Anglican orders at the time were as valid as all other branches of Catholicism. They did finally lose the right to claim this when they invented the “priesthood” of women. On the other hand, the traditional Anglicans, those His Holiness has recognized as having valid succession and Sacrament and now formed into smaller offshoots of the Anglican Communion, have perfectly valid Sacraments and Orders.

After his EXCOMMUNICATION and subsequient appointment of The archbishop of cantebary he did start his own church. Except in a rare instance there is no Apostolic sucession. The internel affairs that you list is called divorce .

Of course you do have a point re the Catholic Church already having enough churches in some areas & that it does not need to take on the difficulties associated with maintaining old buildings. However, we have heard certain Anglican bishops declare that if some of their ministers and communities convert to the Catholic Church, they would not allow them to take the associated property with them. It wouldn’t be unreasonable, as far as I can see, to request that such Anglican bishops return some of the ancient churches and cathedrals to their rightful owner, the Catholic Church. A fair exchange, even if it is 400 years overdue.

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.