The Archbishop of Canterbury moved last night to counter secret plotting among disaffected Anglicans who are planning to defect to Rome.
In a surprise announcement, Dr Rowan Williams said he wanted to establish a new joint group of Roman Catholic and Church of England figures to oversee the conversion process.
The proposed group would be designed to enable smooth and less painful transition for those who want to leave the Church of England to become Roman Catholics in protest at the ordination of women bishops.
Is anyone else have flashbacks of old “Yes, Minister” episodes? Did Sir Humphrey Appleby ever take orders?
If I was an Anglo-Catholic wanting to convert to Roman Catholicism the last person I’d want negotiating for me would be Mr. Williams. The presumption is that the Vatican will lay down the rules for these people. No one will be brokering any “deal”. The former Anglican clergy will all be received as laymen anyway.
And why would the Roman church find it helpful for a C of E functionary (we all know their ‘modernist’ bishops are indistinguishable from bank clerks -no offense to bank clerks intended) to advise on Ordinariate matters when they can’t even manage their own denomination well enough to keep it from flushing itself down the loo?
Right. Because all of this is perfectly normal and no big deal and nothing for Rowan Williams to be concerned about. Actually, he’s part of the whole thing — it has his approval, he set up a committee to deal with it, his people are on the committee. So nothing embarassing going on here. Only thing is….who needs him or his committee??
Now, I don’t doubt that he and the RC bishops of England have a very “warm” relationship. So they’ll probably let him set up his committee. And it will be just about as meaningful and purposeful as the Anglican/RC committee that schmoozes about “re-unification.” Those who are going are going. And the Church of England has exactly zip to do with it.
I agree with the above comments — this looks like a face-saving and control-seeking little committee attempt.
I wouldn’t deal with the Anglicans one bit if I were planning to leave.
Rowan, it’s out of your hands now — you had your chance earlier.
[blockquote]The proposed group would be designed to enable smooth and less painful transition for those who want to leave the Church of England to become Roman Catholics [/blockquote]
If this is, indeed, the purpose of the group and it actually performs this function, then I say it’s a positive thing.. but.. those are very big IFs.
IF the proposal were to facilitate the transfer of parish property and perhaps buildings to the Ordinariate parishes, there would be some point in this, and it would be significantly more Christian approach than has been taken towards TEC departees over several decades.
Does anyone know what will happen to the parish property in Maryland, where people are going to take up the Ordinariate offer? Pardon me for making a negative assumption, but I assume they will get the same harsh treatment meted out to other parishes leaving.
Well, that would be fine, but it would seem strange for a single committee to deal with this. Both sides (leaving and staying) clearly have completely opposite vested interests when it comes to distribution of property. Each side might want to have its own committee negotiating with the other side’s committee — but having both sides on the same committee would seem to be kind of like having a committee made up of foxes and chickens to discuss managing the hen house if I may make an inept metaphor.
Precisely, Katherine. I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that under Henry VIII every parish, monastery, chantry chapel, whatever, belonging to Roman Catholics was stolen. Williams can certainly assist in the Restoration to undo the Dissolution. There are Anglican parish churches (old ones, too) that are so unused there isn’t even a local cleric to ask to see the inside. The key is held by the cashier at the convenience store down the street. Williams is qualified for that job and no other.
And without implying that one side or another is better represented as a fox or chicken. Just that there is no shared goal whatsoever except possibly “let’s not spend more money on lawsuits than the property is worth.”
Note also this bit at the bottom.
[blockquote] In the interview, Dr Williams acknowledged that the ordination of homosexuals and women as bishops threatened to create “deeper divisions†within the world-wide Anglican Communion.
“I feel that we may yet have to face the possibility of deeper divisions,” he said.
“I don’t at all like, or want to encourage, the idea of a multi-tier organisation. But that would, in my mind, be preferable to complete chaos and fragmentation. It’s about agreeing what we could do together.” [/blockquote]
Looks like relegating the global south to the second tier is the plan, then.
Oh, but on the RC thingy, perhaps this joint group can use up some of the Panel of Reference stationery that was over-ordered.
The discussion of property in this thread seems to confuse the CofE issues with TEC’s. Does not CofE property belong to the state through the Queen? In England there would necessarily be no few people to consult before signing over any churches. I would agree with those who believe that regarding TEC, though, it should be up to the diocese.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury moved last night to counter secret plotting among disaffected Anglicans who are planning to defect to Rome.”
On an architectural note, some of those converts to Catholicism might want to consider a Tudor-era remodel of their homes to include what was called a “priest hole”. As you might have noted in recent Episcopalian disagreements Hell hath no wrath like an Anglican scorned. Female certainly, but male too.
+++Rowan’s doing something about something? Say it ain’t so!!!
I believe one of the first things posted about the Ordinariate stated that the RC Church was not going to involve itself in property disputes or litigation. Did I miss something?
It all sounds very “borderline-like” to say to someone whose leaving you, “Oh no, not until I get exercise my hooks on you once more.” Rowan Williams is not part of the solution – lest anyone be mistaken – but part of the problem (and a big part in my thinking).
Katherine, the word I’ve heard from a couple of different directions now is that the diocese of Maryland is at least willing to talk to Mt. Calvary. I’ve heard no word on whether the national church may step in as they did in Virginia. One suspects that Williams may want to clamp down on the kind of disorganization likely to occur in which a parish in one diocese gets cast into the street while one in a more gracious diocese gets to take their own or some redundant building with them. His irritation at having this sprung on him is hardly unreasonable, and it would have been no skin off the Roman church to at least tell him that they were thinking about it.
“14. Dan Crawford wrote:
+++Rowan’s doing something about something? Say it ain’t so!!! ”
No, He is just [b]talking[/b] about doing something, as usual.
Rowan Williams wants to be in control – well imagine that!
I agree with Sarah that this is a face-saving and control-seeking move which is too little, too late. But it also seems a way for Rowan Williams to get rid of some nuisance Anglicans who oppose his liberal agenda.
#20 Papa J
Rowan Williams has made some effort recently to do something to keep the Anglo-Catholics, a bit late and ineffectively, but I don’t think he wishes to see them depart. However, much earlier when he might have been able to do something, he prevaricated. Synod has delivered what our House of Bishops sent to them two years ago in the form of a draft resolution, and that is where blame lies. Whether the legislation will pass through without amendment is not cut and dried.
With regard to #21, and other recent comments, I expect we shall soon see the AbC in a position in which he shall have to show his hand in regard to how willing (and sincere) he is to support meaningful provision for those of what has been termed “the orthodox integrity” in the Church of England. +Fulham has declared his intention to leave (and then we shall see what sort of successor to him +London will nominate); I expect that +Ebbsfleet and +Richborough will likewise depart early in the New Year 2011. The responsibility to nominate successors to those two PEVs rests with the AbC — true, the “Woman Bishops” measure would abolish the whole PEV system, but its enactment, if it does manage to pass the final hurdle of a two-thirds vote in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, voting separately, in the Church of England’s General Synod, which looks unlikely, and which, in any case, probably will not occur until November 2012 at the earliest; and then it would require another year to go through Parliament and then be “promulged” a the next General Synod session after receiving the Royal Assent — and it will (I think) reveal a great deal of his attitude if he nominates, on the one hand, young and vigorous clergymen aged between, say, 45 and 55, who could carry on in their positions until age 70, or “elderly” clergymen pushing 65, who would have only five years in their posts. The former sort of appointments might betoken a willingness to give those of “the orthodox integrity” a fighting chance to, well, fight for provision which they might regard as adequate; the latter would demonstrate an intention to provide no more than “terminal care” for that constituency.
Is the Pope or the English Roman episcopacy stupid enough to inadaba, given Rowan’s track record so visible to all the world? I think it’s a demonstration of invincible ignorance: the ABC’s.