Two and a half years after the name “Josephum” came booming down from the balcony of St Peter’s, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.
The liberal cardinals don’t like the sound of it at all.
Ever since the shock of Benedict’s election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest – and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, is in the thick of it.
“The liberal cardinals don’t like the sound of it at all.”
Ya think….;)
Nothing new here, move on.
Plenty new. It looks to get a mass of Anglicans and to give them their own space in union. That’s new and that’s meaningful.
I was struck by something when reading the comments after the article. +++ROWAN should find this article a wakeup call. Not because the pope wants to pull in disaffected conservative Anglicans but because of the frequent, favorable comments about the beauty of Anglican liturgy and the unfortunate state of the RC Mass. It appears that the liberal RC bishops in Britain are up to the same tricks as their TEC counterparts.
The C of E could seize this moment. Anglicanism could be the home of the faithful who dislike the innovations, the liberal bishops, and cringe at the historical baggage of the RCC. Why can’t +++Rowan see that so many are tired of the liberal agenda and bishops running the show, whether it be in the RCC or the AC? Why doesn’t he stand with us?
When reading this, kindly remember that the [i]Daily Telegraph[/i] has a long history of support (in both its editorial and news columns) for conservative Roman Catholic causes and against liberal or Anglican ones.
[i]Plenty new. It looks to get a mass of Anglicans and to give them their own space in union. That’s new and that’s meaningful.[/i]
“Own space in union”? Uh, where’s evidence of that? You mean they convert to Roman Catholicism and join the church. Perhaps, at very best their priests get to convert also, and they get to celebrate an authorized Romanized rite.
No indication whatsoever that TAC will be recognized as a separate church or even a separate entity within the church.
[i]The C of E could seize this moment. Anglicanism could be the home of the faithful who dislike the innovations, the liberal bishops, and cringe at the historical baggage of the RCC. Why can’t +++Rowan see that so many are tired of the liberal agenda and bishops running the show, whether it be in the RCC or the AC? Why doesn’t he stand with us?[/i]
Teatime, a very good point. This is why I worship as an Anglican rather than a Roman Catholic.
#4, you are so very right. After my old Episcopal bishop drove our family from ECUSA with a jaw-dropping sermon one fateful Sunday, we wandered from church to church for a couple of years looking for an orthodox, liturgical, Bible-centered worship. We attended a local RCC service and were horrified at how watered-down and shallow the liturgy had become. It was as if, in jettisoning the old Latin mass, the Church had broken completely free of its moorings and had become Flip Wilson’s “Church of What’s Happening Now.”
Bully to Papa Ratzi for imposing some order on this.
Bravo Benedict! Clean house and get rid of the liberalizers who have gutted the liturgy and pandered to the liberation theology crowd.
Note that the Anglicans to which the article refers are a small group of continuing church folks, not either the Episcopal Church or any of the Common Cause churches.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
What a gentle and careful piece of considered analysis from Damian. He is usually so much more careless and passionate ……
I read Damian Thompson every so often. He runs a one man campaign in the UK in opposition to the British RC bishops, priests and laity for what appears to be compulsory use of the Tridentine Mass. The Brits are not impressed and although his desire for a return to the age of the dinosaurs finds favour in some parts of Rome, his views are not popular as far as I am aware with many.
He can be pretty amusing but like all such gifts it should be used judiciously.
#6 — Reread?
[b] “But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse. …
This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for “full, corporate, sacramental union”.
Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.” [/b]
What’s new, 13? That the pope is taking an interest in the proceedings, or that TAC will be given “special pastoral arrangements.” If the latter, what’s different from the settlements with any previous Anglican group. I don’t see anything, sorry.
I was not aware that JPII disliked the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Where did Thompson get that impression?
#15, I don’t know if that’d be the right way to put things, either. Certainly Benedict is more interested and involved with the goings-on in the Anglican world than his predecessor, however, JPII did enact the Pastoral Provision here in the US, which shows he at least had SOME interest in the Anglican world.
The Anglican Use, promulgated by John Paul II, is alive and well with a newly minted book of divine worship. All has been tested, formed and is ready to recieve Anglicans with a “rite” of their own preserved in the Roman Church. If I were ever to covert I would go this route.
To learn more visit: http://www.anglicanuse.org
Mea culpa. I meant to write convert not covert!
Can someone explain to me why there is such control over rite usage. Why did the old latin rite have to be bishop approved simply for use? Why does the Anglican rite have have to have similar authoritarian approval for use? I can’t say I buy the line that the priest needs to be sufficiently trained in the rite or it will be abused.
And archangelica, help me understand why you consider conversion? Have you overcome all the usual sticking points preventing Anglican conversion (Marian doctrine, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, etc)? If not, how do you plan to overcome them? If you are in agreement with these issues, isn’t it unconscionable that you are holding out on joining the One True Catholic Church?
I’ve never received understandable answers on this question from Roman Catholics. Perhaps you, a possible convert, will be able to help me understand?
I have no intentions of converting to Rome. I am a convert FROM Rome. Anglican liturgy, Anglo-Catholic spirituality, the incorporation of the best of Protestantism and progressive theological development (primarily women’s ordination and GLBT inclusion) all were powerful agents of evangelization and conversion for me. I only meant to say that the only way I could ever concievably be a Roman Catholic again ( strictly hypothetical but not altogether impossible) would be through the Anglican Use heritage, ethos, and patrimony.
Many share your journey 21. And if Damian ever has his way there will be a lot more ……….
Hey, everybody, that is one of the most poorly written articles i have ever read. Boy has he got his facts skewed! Shame on the Telegraph for even printing that story.
Folks,
#s 21 and 22 are precisely the reason why Catholic Anglicans have no future in the Anglican Communion. A “Catholicism” that endorses both WO and SS is hardly Christian, let alone “Catholic.”
“And if Damian ever has his way there will be a lot more …”
Count me in as I add my wishes and prayers to Damian’s, then.
Damian for such a young man apparently hankers after a golden age of zealotry and fervour where perhaps Prof. Tighe would be comfortable. Anglo-catholicism is an essential part of our make-up and has reminded us evangelicals of the spirituality and depth of our faith. I certainly appreciate and continue to learn from them and I am grateful that +Venables has made provision for some in much the same way that the CofE made provision for those who could not accept oversight from those who ordained women. What a pity that others have not been more tolerant and less certain of the need to bludgeon other views into submission.
I am very glad not to be a part of any church run by Damian Thompson; I suspect it would be a dark and joyless place.
#23, No, no — he’s done a lot worse. When you go to the full article from here, you’ll notice a link to one of his other pieces, entitled “Lesbians at Lambeth.” THAT is the worst piece I’ve ever read! He admits he can’t find any material on an incident he insists happened. I was SO tempted to ask him if he’s ever written an article about Pope Joan, too!
Oh, and some of the comments following that article are enough to make the devil blush!
#24 The Orthodox and Oriental Churches have practiced the ordination of women to the diaconate from the earliest centuries. Furthermore, none other than the prominant Bishop Ware has said that the ordination of women was equivelant to that of men despite appeals to the contrary. http://www.stnina.org/journal/art/3.2.7
Even a cursory internet search of “orthodox deaconess” will provide plenty of evidence from Orthodox literature and sources in support of women deacons as a valid, full and complete ordained ministry. So to claim that a Catholicism that endorses the ordination of women is not even Christian is both wrong and absurd.
See also:
http://www.stnina.org/journal/art/1.3.7
William Tighe: I could say: “there’s no room in Anglicanism for Papal child kidnapping”, but that would be mean of me. Come on Prof Tighe, there are skeletons in all of our closets, Roman Catholicism none less than the others. The tar with which you paint Anglicanism applies even more so to Romanism.
Re: #27, 28
Last time I heard, Bishop Kallistos did not claim infallibility, and much less so Deborah Belonick. Having read the material provided at the two links, both of them are giving their impressions based solely on the Byzantine rite for making a deaconess. However, neither of them even begin to deal with the evidence presented by the French patrologist and liturgical scholar Aime-George Martimort in his *Deaconesses: A Historical Study* (French 1982; English translation 1986) that (1) deaconesses did not exist in Rome or Armenia ever, and in Gaul/France, Egypt or Ethiopia before the Sixth Century, (2) they existed earlier, in fact, only in Syria/Mesopotamia and around Constantinople, (3) that while the Byzantine rite seems to assimilate a deaconess rather closely to the diaconate, the corresponding, and older, rites among the Syrians do not do so, and make it clear that a deaconess was NOT a “female deacon” and (4) Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea states clearly and explicitly that deaconesses are “laity” and not “clergy” in Holy or Major Orders.
So, to conclude, the Orthodox and Oriental churches have NOT practiced “from the earliest centuries” the ordination of women to “the diaconate” and whatever some Byzantines may opine, it is clear that deaconesses, in those relative few parts of the Church where they were to be found before the Fifth Century were not “female deacons.” “If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride” seem an old adage that, like a mischevous poltergeist, seems to have taken up permanent residence in the purlieux of the scholarly demi-monde that seems to exist to recycle endlessly the threadbare historical arguments for WO.
And Re: #29, your point is? Since its relevance to the argument is not apparent, please spell it out a little more clearly.
[i]And Re: #29, your point is? Since its relevance to the argument is not apparent, please spell it out a little more clearly.[i]
The Roman Church has acted in ways and advocated theology that is unspeakably vile, things that would make the defective churches recoil in horror. You making the argument that Anglicanism can never be the place for Catholic Anglicans because of the actions of a mild heretic like KJS, shows an incredible lack of Roman history on your part, or else a willfull bias. I’m going with the latter.
[/i]
Re: #31
“because of the actions of a mild heretic like KJS”
This absurd comment dissipated any thought that I might have had of taking your remarks seriously. A “mild heretic,” forsooth.
Thank you Dr. Tighe for responding to the absurd posts by those who continue to distort the history behind the deaconesses of the Eastern Churches. Although I am an admirer on many levels of Bp. +Kallistos he has occasionally written things which have made me wince. While no one disputes the existent of the lay office of deaconess in the ancient church in the East, I must seriously question any legitimate cause for its revival in our modern day.
I regret the recent decision of the Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece to explore this. It strikes me as having no compelling argument for the restoration while having a real and significant potential downside. Most notable is the danger of causing confusion among the faithful and giving ammunition to those who have an agenda and are not particular about being honest in the presentation of facts that don’t happen to support their objectives.
#33: KJS, of whom I am no fan, has not slept with prostitutes, kidnapped Jewish boys, or burned CANA bishops at the stake. Yes, I disagree with her theologically, but I can live my life despite it all. Yes, she’s a heretic, a MILD heretic.
My point stands. The infallible Church has survived its many fallible leaders, and it may just weather KJS, and may even stand a chance at maintaining a Catholic Anglicanism. Why can’t you hold Rome to the standards to which you hold Anglicanism?
By all means, find some doctrinal means for excluding us from the Church Universal. But don’t do it because of our lousy leaders. Your people have lifetime shares in that little club too. Let’s get real.
Re#30
The Ecumenical Councils (at least the first five) and the ancient creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian) are the core and foundation of Orthodox and Catholic faith (Roman and non). Women’s ordination and sexual ethics; be ye for or against these developments, are not core doctrines. In regards to these and other developments, it was Cardinal Newman’s Doctrine of Development that lays the groundwork for legitimate changes in church teaching, practice and belief.
#34
You may regret the decision of the Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece but do you reject it? If so, then how is your position any different from liberals who dissent from official church pronouncements? Is it your belief that the Orthodox Church of Greece and Bishop Ware are in error? How convenient for you. Perhaps your are a Free Church man at heart!
Re 37
Archangelica,
The decision of the Greek Synod to explore the revival of a long defunct lay off is an essentially disciplinary one. Do I reject it? How can I? I am not a member of the Greek Church much less a member of their synod. Do I disagree with it? Yes, for the reasons I already cited. Is it a licit and canonical act? Yes. There is no confusion on their part between the lay office of deaconess and the religious order of deacon. Do I believe the Church of Greece is in error? As I just noted I disagree with them on a disciplinary decision which they made. However it does not directly touch on church doctrine. With regards Bp. +Kallistos if he is confusing the lay office of deaconess with the sacramental office of a deacon then I would have to say that he is wrong. I am not however convinced that such is the case.
“lay off” should read “lay office”*. Pardon the typos please, it is rather late.
Re. #36, I am always disappointed when I see Anglicans chalking ordination issues up to adiaphora. If Anglicanism has ANY claim whatsoever to be anywhere near catholic, then we will admit that we are saved through the Church. That is we are saved through grace, received chiefly and assurably in the sacraments, which come to us by way of the Church’s ministers in Apostolic Succession. If we, as Anglicans, cannot say this then we are absolutely nothing but congregationalists pretending.
If, however, we are to be faithful to our Anglican Heritage which has always taught that sacraments are efficacious means of grace, and has always defended the necessity of the Historic Episcopate, then we cannot deem ordination issues to be merely happy or unhappy additions.
No, ordination is the lifeblood of our Church–channels of grace which flow right from the source of life, Christ Jesus. What could be less ancillary? To make an incorrect ruling on the validity of women’s orders is to cut ourselves off from that channel of grace. And this is a decision that once made, is 1) made for everyone regardless of whether they agree or not; and 2) very difficult to go back on.
To say that ordination is adiaphora simply and utterly Protestant and unhistorical, which would make any appeal to the historic Church of the Councils or the Councils themselves unintelligible.
Archangelica,
FYI:
“…the priest is an icon of Christ; and since the Incarnate Christ became not only man but a male since, furthermore, in the order of nature the roles of male and female are not interchangeable it is necessary that the priest should be a male. [b]Those…who ordain women as ministers…are not however creating priests, but dispensing with priesthood altogether[/b]…”
Bp. +Kallistos Ware, “[i]Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ[/i],” Women and the Priesthood, pg.27
Re: #35,
You really are one confused thinker. None of what you referred to here:
“has not slept with prostitutes, kidnapped Jewish boys, or burned CANA bishops at the stake”
is “heresy” in any sense of the word, bad as it is, while on the other hand to describe the Presiding Flaminica as “a MILD heretic” is simply absurd: she teaches Christological heresy, moral error and purports to be a “bishop” (against the firm view of all “Catholic Churches” [Catholicsm, Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Polish National Catholic Church] that such an absurd conceit is impossible).
Still, I am all for those who are struggling “at maintaining a Catholic Anglicanism.” Those who are doing so, are, however, to be found in the “Continuing Anglican” bodies (or possibly in dioceses like Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin), and not among the devotees, or unwilling subjects, of KJ-S
#35. Heck, Popes and Bishops have done far worse. I heard one Pope denied even KNOWING who Jesus was. Not once, but THREE TIMES! Another Bishop denied the resurrection until the Man Himself showed up to prove it. Don’t even get me STARTED on that Saul/Paul joker.
I think you confuse or conflate infallibility in matters pertaining to moral and doctrinal teaching with impeccability. KJS and General Convention has neither. The office of the Papacy has the first (which, of course from a non Catholic POV is arguable, but at least it’s ARGUABLE!), but demonstrably not the second (and no Catholic is dumb enough to think the contrary).
So comparing and contrasting the sins of the person in the office is completely irrelevant. Comparing the official teachings from that office is not.
Somehow I thought the issue was the healing of the Church. Anyone who can write off Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy and does not see that they each has what the others lack isn’t really having a discussion that goes anywhere near “that they all may be one.” Isn’t each weary of pretending that they’re the “real” Church, or mostly right, or all right? Stupid. Untrue. We need each other desperately. Then a discussion begins in earnest.
“Mild Heresy” #1:
New bishop of Cashel and Ossory supports same-sex unions
Wednesday, 12 April 2006
by Colin Coward
The Irish News
Michael Burrows, the Dean of Cork in the Church of Ireland, has been appointed Bishop of Cashel and Ossory. Michael Burrows is on the theologically liberal wing of the Church of Ireland.
At General Synod 2005, he stated that he regularly gives Holy Communion to parishioners in long-standing homosexual relationships. He claimed that it was possible for the church to exist with two integrities on the subject of sexuality.
As one of the Irish representatives on the Anglican Consultative Council, he stated in 2005 that the Church of Ireland “did not intend to break or impair communion” on the issue of ‘same-sex affection’. This was challenged by Reform Ireland, who wondered “Who gave Canon Burrows such authority to speak for the whole of the Church of Ireland?”
Michael Burrows was educated at Wesley College, Dublin. He read History and Political Science at Trinity College, Dublin and studied the 15th century Medieval Irish Church for his M.Litt. He was ordained in 1988 and served his curacy at Douglas Union with Frankfield, diocese of Cork. In 1991 he became Dean of Residence at Trinity College Dublin and Minor Canon at St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin. In 1994 he returned to the diocese of Cork to be incumbent of Bandon Union and in 1996 was appointed Canon at Cork and Cloyne Cathedrals. In 2002 he was appointed Dean of Cork and Incumbent St Fin Barre’s Union.
The previous bishop, the Rt Revd Peter Barrett resigned in January because, he said, he was ‘no longer able to cherish’ his marriage.
Miachel Burrows brother-in-law, Michael Jackson, is the Bishop of Clogher. No date for Michael Burrows’ consecration has been set but it is unlikely to take place before this year’s general synod to be held in Armagh from May 9 to 11.
************************************************
And #2:
In the Catholic Herald from London (Nov 9), p. 2, it is stated that Anglican Bishop Michael Burrows, who heads the Cashel and Ossory diocese for the Church of Ireland, has criticized Ireland’s leaders for their “systematic spinelessness” in failing to pass pro-abortion laws. In reply Catholic Bishop Leo O’Reilley of Kilmore has said that there is “no democratic mandate for the legalisation of abortion” and urges “respect for ‘the democratic decision of the people of Ireland in a referendum that there should be no abortion in Ireland.'”
Please delete #s 44 and 45.
[i]done. Note that it was two comments by Dr. Tighe himself which we removed due to problems with overlong links[/i]
Re: #46
Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church would agree with the ecclesiological presupposition of a “divided Church” upon which your statement seems to be based.
Adding to #47:
Absolutely correct, hence the kerfluffle found here: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4298
I am not a scholar of this, but the only time I have ever heard the term Deaconessa used in the Orthodox Church, it was used to refer to the wife of a Deacon, not to separate ordained office. This might be the source of some of this confusion.
#47. Respectfully, that is non-responsive. It is akin to repeating the problem already pointed out. There is missing from each something necessary of the Gospel’s gift found in the others. An honest discussion about those points would be the beginning of an honest move to “organic Unity.”