News from the Vatican today makes it easier for fed-up Anglicans to convert to Catholicism without leaving everything behind. Excerpt:
A new canonical entity will allow Anglicans "to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony," Cardinal William Levada, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said at a news conference here on Tuesday.The move creates a formal structure to oversee conversions that had previously been evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including those of married Anglican priests, who are permitted to remain married after they convert to Catholicism. Called Personal Ordinariates, the structure will consist of local Catholic faithful overseen by Anglican prelates who will provide guidance to Anglicans seeking to convert.
Under the new regime, former Anglicans who become Catholic can preserve some liturgical elements of the Anglican Mass.
Here's the oddest part to me:
In a joint statement, the Vatican's archbishop of Westminster and Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Church, said that the new structure "brings to an end a period of uncertainty for such groups who have nurtured hopes of new ways of embracing unity with the Catholic Church."The Vatican's decision, they said in a statement of unity between the two churches, was "further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks for all the world like a face-saving compromise for Canterbury, and a way for Rome to deal with what Roman ecumenists see as an unwanted source of diplomatic anxiety. Anyway, I'm glad to see this development, even if it leaves me with more questions over how it will work than answers. Like: how does this differ from the Anglican Use provision? Help me out here, readers.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Scurvy Oaks wrote:
"I haven't followed this closely, but I'm curious about whether these Anglicans really can continue to use the historic Book of Common Prayer. Certain important aspects of it (e.g., the prayer of consecration in Holy Communion) are Protestant to the bone. HC from the 1928 BCP cannot properly be characterized as a mass, if you think liturgical words matter."
Be surprised. There are no magic words. The Vatican has recognized the validity of the Assyrian (Syriac) anaphora attributed to Mari and Addai.
Henry's marriage to Catherine was no more valid then Caligula's marriage to his horse.
As the great scholar of Tudor church history William Tighe has written: "Henry . . . in the early years of their marriage, frequently boasted that he found Catherine a virgin, and Catherine herself swore an oath on the Sacrament at the time of the abortive legatine trial in 1529 that she had been a virgin when she wed Henry--while Henry refused to make any statement about the matter."
You also neglect to mention that all during his legal case at Rome, Henry also "sought and obtained a dispensation from the pope to allow him to marry, if he ever became free to marry, a woman [i.e., Anne Boleyn] with whose sister [i.e., Mary Boleyn] he had had carnal copulation." So much for Henry's disdain for papal judgments or his scruple at consanguinity!
Really, I've never seen someone so vigorous in his defense of King Harry--you Anglicans must be desperate. I mean as staunch an Anglican as C.S. Lewis thought so public a sinner as Henry VIII was surely a favorite denizen of Hell.
For Catholics, he is surely a type of the Antichrist, a forerunner of the Beast, drunk on the blood of the saints.
You probably shouldn't argue with Hector on Catherine and Henry's marriage. Yes he's wrong, just like he is on Leftist dictators in Latin America, but he's so assured on this wrong point nothing is going to dissuade him and it's a waste of everyone's time to try.
Anyway I think this won't effect all Anglo-Catholics, many of whom are somewhat liberal on matters of sexuality and gender, but on the specific subset of conservative Anglo-Catholics who agree with Roman Catholics on most or all matters of doctrine. I think this is going to be more expansive than "Anglican Use" which is apparently fairly restricted. I don't know if it's going to mean an actual Anglican-Rite, but that's what it sounded like.
Filmat,
I don't think Henry VIII was a nice guy. He was a tool. However, the Anglican case on this matter doesn't rest on showing that Henry VIII was a good guy (as he never claimed to be any sort of _spiritual_ leader of the Anglican church, simply a _political_ leader). And it doesn't depend on showing that Henry was in any sense, the vicar of Christ. The Anglican case rests on showing that Pope Julius II and Clement VI were NOT the vicars of Christ. And I think their sordid political dealings here (as well as many other political, theological and other historical decisions) provide evidence for that case. I don't think the Popes are vicars of Christ in any sense that other Christian bishops are not.
Thomas R.,
No, I'm not wrong, neither on this issue nor on Latin American history and political morality. And if you want to defend the dispensation over Henry and Catherine's marriage, go ahead.
There are, I think, few Anglo-Catholics that agree with ROme on all matters of doctrine. If they agreed with Rome on everything already, they would already be Catholics. Anglo-Catholics range from liberal to conservatives on matters of sexuality and gender, and some are liberal on some issues and conservative on others, and they are certainly not across the board in agreement with Rome.
Calling the Catholic Church the "Roman Catholic" church was really a creation of the English leadership.
It is simply a desire to say that you can be Catholic without being in communion with the Vatican, the see of St.Peter and the Magisterium (This is needed for true unity as history shows).
Being Catholic is in the creed and an excuse was needed to justify reciting the creed yet being separate. You can checkout the history/etymology of the phase "Roman Catholic" online. I think youtube.com has something.
Tell me, how does Henry VII become in charge of the Church and still claim to be One, Holy and Catholic? How does he take over and still claim to be united? Promoting the phrase "Roman Catholic" and claiming that following a particular leadership (the original Catholic leadership at the Vatican) is not the way that God would unite the flock.
In order to diminish the esteem of the original leadership a qualifying term needed to be created thus terms like Romanist, Romanism, papist etc... These terms had to be promoted to promote a Church favorable to Henry.
It is sad, but that’s what happened.
It confuses people to this very day, especially the young who thing that Rome is for Romans, England for English-- why not start the London Catholic Church.
Well we see the mess today. Young people think that all titles are the same; that any Church is as orthodox as the other.
It may be too late to fix.
Hard research, humility and courage can lead people back to the Catholic Church founded by Jesus who promised the Holy Spirit to guide it (its leaders) 2000 years ago.
The Catholic Church today can be recognized by its united leadership, electing Peters successor periodically.
God help us all.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.