Senior Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi was yesterday unable to confirm UK media speculation that leading Church of England bishops held a series of secret “conversion” meetings with advisers to Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican last week. Other senior Vatican officials claimed to have no knowledge of such meetings.
Reports in yesterday’s online editions of the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail claimed the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Rev John Broadhurst; the Bishop of Richborough, the Rt Rev Keith Newton; and the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham were involved in meetings with the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last week.
The scope of the meetings was to discuss future Anglican conversions “en masse” to Rome with the bishops reportedly informing the Vatican that many Church of England clergy are keen to defect to Rome.
These three bishops ought to do the honorable thing and simply step down.
Why? It is not they but the C of E who have changed the goalposts, having been hung out to dry by the establishment they have every right to go when they see fit
Presuming that the Ordinal of the 1662 BCP was used when they wer made bishops, they swore an Oath of due obedience to the Archbishop and his successors. If they can no longer be obedient to him and are promising to be obedient to the Pope, then they should resign.
re 3. RMBruton wrote: “If they can no longer be obedient to him and are promising to be obedient to the Pope, then they should resign.”
One presumes that when they have made their decisions, they will.
Of more significance to me is the fact that, so far, and however likely, the secret meetings are just rumors. Much of our discussion in recent years, whether on church events or politics, is based on alleged opinions and presumed acts as reported by the press. Does anyone else remember when the journalists’ standard was Who, What, Where, When and sometimes Why?
By RMBruton’s reasoning, Cranmer and the rest of the miserable bishops that rolled over for Henry VIII should have resigned. And then there would have been no episcopal Church of England.
And the Episcopal bishops that illegally ordained women, thereby giving their allegiance to some non-specified church of the future rather than ECUSA ought to have resigned.
But these three men have been “Anglo-papalists” all through their lives as priests and bishops. They have not yet sworn official allegiance to the Holy Father. There is no more reason that they should resign today than there was last year, or a decade ago, or several decades ago.
They have, however, been lied to and disgracefully treated by the church they have served all their lives. The entity to which they swore their allegiance no longer exists. It seems only reasonable that they should explore their options with the Patriarch of the West.
Half the truth might help you but the whole truth is better. They promised, as I did, to be faithful in all things right and proper…current church teaching is not
Instead of blasting these Bishops for exercising a human right of free association in visiting Rome, how about the ABC and people in Synod waking up to just how serious the current situation in the CoE is and making proper channels where the Anglo Catholics can continue to be Catholic?
Billqs,
The ABC and members of Synod who have collaborated in the destructive policies which have contributed so greatly to the demise of the C of E, should also be held accountable.
I agree with off2. All that this article says is that a vatican spokesman was “unable to confirm UK media speculation”, and, “Other senior Vatican officials claimed to have no knowledge of such meetings”.
Is there any credible reason to believe such meetings have occurred?
MichaelA
[blockquote]Is there any credible reason to believe such meetings have occurred?[/blockquote]
Only that the bishops who went have confirmed that it took place per Associated Press.
Who is one to believe – the three bishops or the Vatican?
My apologies pageantmaster, I did read about these meetings, but assumed from the expression “secret meetings” in the article above that they were talking about something else. Never assume anything with the media….