This is on Catholic ONline -

..."The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, is to lead his fellow Anglo-Catholics from the Church of England into the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Herald will reveal this week.

Bishop Burnham, one of two "flying bishops" in the province of Canterbury, has made a statement asking Pope Benedict XVI and the English Catholic bishops for "magnanimous gestures" that will allow traditionalists to become Catholics en masse.

He is confident that this will happen, following talks in Rome with Cardinal Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Kasper, the Vatican's head of ecumenism. He was accompanied on his visit by the Rt Rev Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough, the other Canterbury "flying bishop", who is expected to follow his example.

Bishop Burnham hopes that Rome will offer special arrangements whereby former Anglicans can stay worshipping in parishes under the guidance of a Catholic bishop. Most of these parishes already use the Roman liturgy, but there may be provision for Anglican prayers if churches request it.

Anglican priests who are already married will not be barred from ordination as priests, though Bishop Burnham would not be able to continue in episcopal orders, as he is married and there is an absolute bar on married bishops in the Roman and Orthodox Churches...
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28517

It should be interesting to watch.

CDL

All we can do is to pray.

Lord have mercy.

You should read the fine print about the evangelical/Anglo Catholic branch of the Anglican Church before jumping on board!!!!! You should look a gift horse in the mouth. You should read David Virtue's Global Anglican blog (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/index.php). Many of these traditionalist Anglicans (they call themselves Orthodox Anglicans[ I personally feel that the term Orthodox and Anglican are contradiction in terms; it is like taking a ford Pinto and mounting a Mercedes Benz hood ornament on it and saying it is a new type Mercedes]) and many of them are evangelical fundamentalists (biblebelters). The ongoing fight there between the Conservatives and Liberals is so nasty that some of the flaming that occurs here seems rather low key. There was a response to issues raised in the piece that was posted at start of this thread:

Many Roman Catholics Misunderstand Orthodox Anglo-Catholicism

by William A. Wheatley
Special to VirtueOnline
7/9/2008

Yesterday's newspapers carried articles reporting that the General Synod of the Church of England approved the creating of female bishops. This morning's newspapers carried articles reporting that conservative Church of England bishops have been in talks with Rome regarding the possibility of taking themselves and their flocks into communion with.

Many Roman Catholic clergy, particularly those who did seminary in the 1960s, do not understand why anyone would want to be in communion with the Pope and not be Roman Catholic. In particular, a recent article by Gerald Warner, "The Barque of Peter Should Not Pick Up Anglican Boat People," is a case in point. He writes,

The news that Anglican bishops have had private talks with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a provocative development. Any collective negotiation suggests that these disgruntled prelates envisage the possibility of some kind of corporate adherence to the Catholic Church.

The barque of Peter should immediately hoist the signal: not wanted on voyage." The tag line under the header to his article states, "Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general. If it is an exaggeration to say that he believes the world has gone to the dogs, it is only a slight hyperbole.

He proceeds to argue that they would be poor converts - that Anglicans do not possess all the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith, do not possess a true church, and that therefore organic union should be opposed.

He posits that their faith is defective because they have long served alongside female priests, despite the infallible declaration by the Pope in 1992, "We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." He argues that Anglican clergy have long "accepted" the existence of female priests in their church, and are only now moving to approach Rome because female bishops are in the works for the Church of England. This proves, in his view, that their move is "church politics and not conversion."

Many Roman Catholics don't understand us "bitter" Anglicans "clinging" to our guns and religion - and especially to our liturgy. They think that if someone is going to be Catholic, the only way is the Roman way. From their viewpoint, you're either an Anglican, in which case you are part of a pseudo-church, or you are Catholic, in which case you're part of the only True Church (although they would admit that the Eastern Orthodox churches are legitimate Churches, they would argue that the Orthodox are out of communion with, and therefore not a part of, the True Church. It's sort of a Roman Catholic "exceptionalism." They're happy to receive "converts" from the Anglican world, but do not consider them to be "returning" to communion.

They don't understand that we are already Catholic in our faith and just want to restore communion. From their view, the purpose of ecumenism is so that those outside the Roman Catholic Church will come to sufficient understanding of Roman Catholicism to be able to convert from their non-churches and their non-Catholic faith to the One True Church and the Catholic Faith. These same prelates tend to be the ones who are modernist in tendency.

The conservative Roman Catholics, on the other hand, admire the Anglican liturgy for its beauty, just as they admire the Tridentine Mass for its beauty. They admire the conservative Anglo-Catholics for their steadfastness to the Catholic Faith and encourage us to re-establish communion with Rome so we can serve as an example of good English-language liturgy and good conservative theology to the English-Speaking Roman Catholic world.

I have some history in this matter. I studied in Roman Catholic Seminary in the 1960's, but was expelled because my idea of reforming the Roman Catholic Church didn't square with that of the faculty, many of whom were openly homosexual.

I continued as a student for the priesthood for another year under the sponsorship of the local bishop, but outside the walls of the seminary while continuing the course work. The bishop had told me he would send me to Rome for the completion of my studies after my baccalaureate. In the mean time, I realized that a married clergy was not going to happen any time soon in the Roman Catholic Church, so I resigned and resumed my architectural career.

After my sons were born, I discovered that there was a parish of Anglican liturgical use in the Roman Catholic diocese, prospering under the Pastoral Provision established by Pope John Paul II. I became a very happy member of that parish, having become utterly frustrated by the lack of good liturgical practice in the Latin Rite parishes near my home. However, there are only a handful of such parishes in the Roman Catholic Church, and the Pastoral Provision applies only to the United States.

The Roman Catholic Church consists of a number of different "rites", or separately governed churches, all in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but following the traditional liturgies of the Orthodox churches to which they correspond. The Latin Rite is what almost everyone thinks of as "Roman Catholic," although there are several other authorised rites used in the Latin Rite, including the Roman Rite, the Dominican Rite, and the Athanasian Rite, among others.

There are also Eastern or Byzantine Rite churches in communion with Rome that are not in communion with their Eastern Orthodox "parent" churches. These Uniate Churches either remained in communion with Rome when the great schism came, or returned to communion with Rome after the schism. They include Ukranian, Greek, Armenian, Byzantine, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Syro-Malabar, and West Syrian Rites.

Under the Pastoral Provision, a former Episcopal Parish that becomes a Roman Catholic Parish of the Anglican Use falls under the jurisdiction of the local Roman Catholic Bishop, who may not be friendly. In at least one case with which I am familiar, the local bishop accepted the "conversion" of the parish because he had to, but refused to give it the status of a parish, keeping it as a "mission."

He moved the priest to a Roman Catholic parish, put in one of his own priests as pastor for the mission, and required the use of Rite II, the modern-language English rite used in the Episcopal Church that corresponds almost verbatim to the Roman Rite used in US Roman Catholic parishes. He further required that mass be said facing the people, generally made it into a mission that bore no resemblance to what we think of as good Anglican liturgy. The mission withered away, and then he didn't have to deal with it any more.

A married Episcopal priest who converts can become a Roman Catholic priest and remain married. A member of an Anglican Use parish who wishes to become a priest can get married prior to his ordination as Deacon and can become a married Roman Catholic priest, who may then practice "Anglican Use" if the parish to which he is assigned does not object.

There is no "Pastoral Provision" for Anglicans outside the United States. It has not worked that well in the United States because many U.S. Roman Catholic bishops oppose it, thinking it will draw the faithful away from liberal Roman Catholic theology and "feel-good" Roman Catholic liturgies that lack doctrinal content and ritual solemnity. Thus we have the Traditional Anglican Communion in talks with Rome, and we have the newly-revealed group of Church of England bishops and clergy in talks with Rome. It might be possible for something akin to a Uniate Rite to be established within which Anglican liturgical practice can continue, unimpeded by local Roman Catholic bishops, and in communion with Rome. Many conservative Roman Catholics think this would be a good thing. Obviously, Gerald Warner does not.

(http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8588)

John,

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

What, pray, is the "Athanasian Rite"? Perhaps the writer is referring to the Ambrosian Rite?

Anyway, there is no valid reason to refuse a group of Anglicans who wish to join the Catholic Church, are prepared to accept the full Catholic Faith as taught by Rome, while maintaining a common identity with acceptable traces of Anglican Liturgy.

This principle has been accepted, albeit languidly, by the Pastoral Provisions. Incidentally, those Provisions do NOT permit laymen of these few parishes to become married priests.

Roman Catholicism in England does not want this arrangement, first, because it represents the possibility of a more conservative style in both catechesis and Liturgy, and, secondly, because the Church of England is still strong enough to make life seriously difficult for Catholics in England.

While bearing in mind that the Church of England has had priestesses for a decade or more, one should also remember that the Church of England has provided episcopal supervision for parishes and clergy that were not and are not willing to acknowledge priestesses. Now, it seems, that concession is to be withdrawn. Also, at that time the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England was able to convince Rome not to accept group applications - despite Cardinal Ratzinger's support of the application. Now Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI (The Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not to the will of his enemies!), so the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England may find the Pope willing to accept the Anglicans who wish to become Catholcs on the above-mentioned conditions.

However - and I once had to deal with such a case - there is a need for a clear break with the Cranmerian madness. The Church of England is NOT Catholic and has never been Catholic; this matter cannot be fudged.

Fr. Serge

Some of us are of the thinking, just after the one year anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, that this kindly Holy Father who has demonstrated a willingness to pull rank and circumnavigate some of the local hierarchies who are unwilling to be as generous as they have been asked to be... Well something similar to the SP (a la a universal pastoral provision overseen by Rome) is quite easy for many of us to imagine.

Not to be too pointed, but as variations of the name Muhammed have bec...s in England... Well, I am left to wonder, how much infighting and negotiation, debate and focus groups and "discussion" do folks want to have over a group of folks who are interested in becoming Catholic?

Certainly, the Good Shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep to go after the ONE sheep is doing the work of the Lord. Concessions for the benefit of that one sheep? Be generous.

I'd be more impressed by Mr Wheatley's article if it were more accurate in many respects



Not sure where he got that bit of twisted fact.

Many years,

Neil

There is no "Pastoral Provision" for Anglicans outside the United States. It has not worked that well in the United States because many U.S. Roman Catholic bishops oppose it, thinking it will draw the faithful away from liberal Roman Catholic theology and "feel-good" Roman Catholic liturgies that lack doctrinal content and ritual solemnity. Thus we have the Traditional Anglican Communion in talks with Rome, and we have the newly-revealed group of Church of England bishops and clergy in talks with Rome. It might be possible for something akin to a Uniate Rite to be established within which Anglican liturgical practice can continue, unimpeded by local Roman Catholic bishops, and in communion with Rome. Many conservative Roman Catholics think this would be a good thing. Obviously, Gerald Warner does not.

(http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8588) [/quote]


you are tight on target, bro. I enjoyed your post immensely.
I STILL hold that the Holy See needs to set up a prelacy for Anglican people who wish to unite with Rome. I do see that there is a problem with a number of Roman Bishops who seem to be obsessed with "competition", who suffer from delusions that someone might want to take away their power and authority. we in the EC churches know all too well about Roman Bishops in their dealings with us, so any problems with Anglican (in communion with Rome) Bishops will not come as any surprise.
right you are about the beauty of the Anglican Mass (Rite 2). for a number of years, I attended Christ Episcopal in Chattanooga, which has been described by one Latin Priest of my aquaintence as the last pre Vatican 2 parish in Chattanooga.I like their use of the Epiclesis which does my EC heart well. yes, there might just be a flow of disaffected Latins to Anglican use parishes, but too bad. the Roman Bishops need to dump all the Peter Paul and Mary crap that passes for Mass in their dioceses. to hell with the feel good rubbish that dares to call itself a Mass, and to hell with the drivel that passes for "music". let these Roman Bishops get over the sixties and reform their parishes. the word has come out from the Holy Father that is way high time that they did.then they won't have to worry about Latins leaving for the Anglican Masses after having a bellyful of "Blowing in the Wind".
Much Love,
Jonn

Maybe he is reading Western Rite Orthodox sites where a married Deacon can be ordained a priest.

Here is another piece on the issue. Sames source. Please count the teeth in the horse's mouth and count your fingers if you shake hands with a traditionalist Anglican. There is really no unity there:

Ex-Anglicans will bring new life to our Church
This time, former C of E traditionalists must be allowed to stay together, says Damian Thompson

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/opinion/o0000261.shtml
July 11, 2008

"Most of all we ask for ways that allow us to bring our folk with us." Well, you can't put it plainer than that. The Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet and one of the Church of England's three "flying bishops", wants to lead his people to Rome. And - this time round - Rome seems ready to provide the "ways" that will allow the exodus to consist of more than simply a mass of individual conversions.

On Monday night the General Synod of the Church of England, meeting in York, voted to consecrate women bishops without offering objectors anything more than a flimsy code of practice. "Make no mistake," wrote George Pitcher in the Daily Telegraph, "the Anglo-Catholics were done over." But with love, mind you: as Pitcher nicely put it, the Synod is like a mafia movie "where the luckless are stabbed in the back while they're being hugged".

Bishop Burnham - whom I remember from my religious correspondent days as one of the nicest and wisest Anglo-Catholics - saw this coming. So did the Rt Rev Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough, Canterbury's other Provincial Episcopal Visitor (as flying bishops are officially known). That is why they travelled to Rome to talk to Cardinal William Levada, the Pope's successor at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's head of ecumenism.

The situation is confusing, because there have been two meetings between Anglican bishops and the Vatican: one involving the flying bishops, and a more mysterious one attended by Anglican diocesan bishops, not necessarily with a view to converting, but with the aim of sorting out the almighty mess in Catholic-Anglican relations.

The really good news, from the Catholic point of view, is that Rome and the two flying bishops seem to have agreed on the bare outline of a deal between Romeward-bound Anglicans and the Vatican. If it seems presumptuous for Anglicans to ask for a deal, remember this: in the mid-1990s, after the Church of England ordained women priests, many Anglo-Catholics drew back from union with the Holy See because the Bishops of England and Wales were so unwelcoming, and because they were so depressed by the low standard of liturgy in our parishes.

The situation now is very different. Pope Benedict XVI is an old friend of conservative Anglo-Catholics in England and America; he shares their dismay at the shoddy state of the liturgy in many churches, and he is seeking to renovate the vernacular Mass by exposing Catholics to the treasures of pre-1970 Latin worship. All this would have been inconceivable in 1994, as would a Ratzinger papacy, and old-fashioned "Sandalista" liberals are still hoping to wake up from their bad dream. The cheering from the Anglo-Catholic sidelines at these developments has been hearty and loud - much louder, I'm sorry to say, than that from the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. Yet it is now looking less likely, thank God, that our diocesan bishops will dig in their heels and refuse to allow special measures for former Anglicans. Roma locuta est, I suspect - quietly and diplomatically, but decisively. (One thing I do know, though it is a different issue, is that Ecclesia Dei has instructed the English and Welsh hierarchy to implement the Motu Proprio.)

So what might an agreement between Rome and former Anglo-Catholics look like? Here are some informed guesses:

1. Rome will set up an "apostolic administration" under a Catholic bishop to offer pastoral care to former Anglican priests and their parishioners.

2. The ex-Anglicans will form an umbrella organisation called something like the Fellowship of St Gregory the Great. The Fellowship, under the guidance of their new Catholic bishop, will consist of former Anglican priests who have been ordained into the Catholic priesthood. Their parishes, though open to anyone, will consist largely of ex-Anglicans.

3. Some Fellowship parishes will occupy their former church buildings, though this will require an unprecedented degree of co-operation with the Church of England.

4. Former Anglican communities may - if they wish - be allowed to use parts of the Book of Common Prayer adapted for Catholic use, as in a few American parishes. In practice, there will be little demand for this concession, I suspect.

5. Former Anglican priests will undergo an accelerated programme of study allowing them to be swiftly ordained. (Conditional ordination is unlikely to be on offer.) Marriage will be no bar to ordination, but no actively gay priest will be knowingly ordained, and this will be strictly enforced.

6. However there will be no question of married lay former Anglicans becoming priests, since this would effectively abolish the rule of celibacy in the Western Church.

7. There will therefore be no Uniate Anglican-Rite Church; there is not enough demand for it, and it raises too many questions about celibacy and jurisdiction.

8. That said, there could well be a future for the Fellowship of St Gregory once its original supply of ex-Anglicans has died out. The treasures our new brethren will bring with them - a poetic and contemplative spirituality, glorious prayers, fine music - will permanently enrich the Catholic Church in England; they belong to us all.

As I say, these are just informed guesses. I have only one plea to the Vatican and the Catholic bishops:

Please, get it right this time.

There is really varied opinion about all of these issues. This will be my last posting on the issue. i post here four (by my count) opinions that came at the end of the piece I posted yesterday (they are all from Virtue's blog):


Re: Many Roman Catholics Misunderstand Orthodox Anglo-Cat...
Some months ago I worshippped at the Saturday afternoon Mass of a RC parish noted for good music, good liturgy, and good preaching. I had attended special events there any number of times and felt reasonably at home (in spite of the "passing of the peace"). The priest, an estimable man probably headed for the episcopate, was greeting worshippers after Mass and I took the opportunity to compliment his liturgy. He asked with some gratification, "And where are you coming from?" I thereupon explained that I was an Anglican. If I had said that I had a communicable loathsome disease, he could not reacted more unpleasantly. I keep hearing of these RC's who appreciate the Anglican heritage, but they are quite rare. I have met one or two over the Internet, but very rarely in real life. If any truly traditional Anglican expects a warm welcome in the modern American RC Church, I have a couple of bridges I am willing to sell. Their attitude, not unreasonably, is "If you want to join our Church, why aren't you willing to really join it?"
I cannot make sense of ex-Episcopalians who "swim the Tiber" then spend their lives chasing after esoteric specialized out-of-the-mainstream RC churches, which in fact are a nuisance to the RC hierarchy.
Reply
shytech74
Posted: 2008/7/10 15:45 Updated: 2008/7/10 15:45
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/4/23
From: Ontario Canada
Posts: 962

Re: Many Roman Catholics Misunderstand Orthodox Anglo-Cat...
As one of those who sees being in full Communion with the successor to St. Peter as a Gospel imperative, it is depressing to read of snotty RC priests and bishops who respond to Anglicans like they were lepers.
I personally would have had no difficulty converting to Roman Catholicism prior to the 1960's. That is the Catholicism I admire, embrace, and profess with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength.
Forget the ambiguity and weakkneed nonsense issuing from Vatican II until now. I want meat and potatoes, not fluff and sugar.

"In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia, and a period of peace will be granted to the world".
Reply
ejsteele
Posted: 2008/7/10 16:51 Updated: 2008/7/10 16:51
Home away from home
Joined: 2004/10/18
From:
Posts: 285

Re: Many Roman Catholics Misunderstand Orthodox Anglo-Cat...
My main issue with this piece is that the author quotes Warner's comments about UK Bishops and the ordination of women, but then argues about the beauty of Anglican liturgy. Isn't this apples and oranges?

I too question why those in the CoE want to leave for Rome now, considering they seemingly had no problem with women priestesses prior to this. Besides, the author fails to mention that there is the issue of the validity of Anglican orders that would need to be worked out, among other issues.

As for the RC acceptance of the uniate churches (Eastern Catholic), they were all part of churches that once came under one of the five Patriarchs of the early church. Therefore their apostolic succession is not in question. Reformed churches chose to leave and thus voluntarily broke communion, and (supposedly) also broke valid apostolic succession.

So although he spent time studying for the priesthood, I am not convinced that Mr. Wheatly fully understands Roman Catholicism any better than he claims Roman Catholics understand Anglo-Catholicism.

Ed
Reply
Fidelis
Posted: 2008/7/11 3:42 Updated: 2008/7/11 3:42
Not too shy to talk
Joined: 2008/2/25
From: Diocese of Sydney, Australia
Posts: 35

Re: Many Roman Catholics Misunderstand Orthodox Anglo-Cat...
And then there are many millions of Anglicans who would no more cross the Tiber than try to swim the Atlantic Ocean.
So where do they fit in God's economy? After all they don't 'worship' in the 'true' church.

Perhaps I am just a simple protestant but I cannot understand how anyone who loves and understands the biblical theology of mainstream Anglicanism could possibly entertain the Church of Rome.

Apologies if I offend anyone on here. Perhaps I am fortunate to live in a part of the world where the 'true' Protestant religion thrives!

There are certainly Anglican clergy and laity who take their understanding of what is "Catholic" seriously - I have met quite a few.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge

Perhaps you are in a position to know, are there any Anglo-Papalist or at least Romeward leaning clergy in Ireland? I do know that there are three Anglican parishes affilliated with TAC but they are decidedly Low Church in character and I cannot see them coming on board should TAC and Rome come to an agreement. Indeed given our history I would assume Ireland is particularly fallow ground for Anglo-Papalism, it's not even a particularly productive ground for standard Anglo-Catholicism either.

Hope Fr Serge doesn't mind...

To answer your question, nope.

You're right. As the church of the English rulers as opposed to the Irish people and reacting against living in a Roman Catholic country, the so-called Church of Ireland, that is, the Anglican Church there, is historically Evangelical: Low Church. (Like in England they got all the nice mediæval churches.) Lately it's turned somewhat liberal which explains those breakaway parishes. No, such people don't want to go under Rome!

There have been a few High Church parishes like St Bartholomew's in Dublin IIRC (pretty church interior) but they've gone liberal too.

Interesting fact: IIRC the Church of Ireland's first woman priest later became a Roman Catholic. Her mind was open enough to eventually close on something solid as Chesterton said.

I think that happened circa 1995. I really cannot recall the name, but I seem to recall that she joined up with some Poor Claires as a religous sister.

Again, I am compelled to raise the issue of charity. Whether Anglo-Catholics can come to an accord with Rome and the terms of such are valid topics of discussion - to include whether there are real stumbling blocks in bringing any such accord to fruition. At the bottom line, however, is the very real thought that there is a Christian imperative to seek unity for God's people.

Thus, dismissing out of hand the desire of peoples to come to such unity, generalizing Anglo-Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians - or any group of peoples, for that matter - fails the basic concepts of charity and love. Being exclusionary, dismissing the motives of others on premises so flimsy as third-hand observations and speculation, and presuming to know the minds and souls of others are likewise unacceptable start-points for discussion nor solid bases on which to continue it.

It would not be remiss to devote some of the energy that is being spent on disparaging this effort to praying for its success.

Many years,

Neil

AMEN!

Serge(YF)

I'm well aware of the general nature of the CofI, historically Evangelical and Broad, now unfortunately Liberal too. As a rule the further north you go, the lower you go (as far as borderline Zwinglian in parts of the Ulster Bible Belt.) I was simply wondering whether any isolated pockets of Anglo-Catholicism, against all the odds, exist in Ireland.

I'm aware of two "Anglo-Catholic' (Hiberno-Catholic?) in Dublin. I think that's about it.

Fr. Serge

There is, believe it or not, a High Church Anglican parish right in the centre of Belfast, appropriately enough in High Street. It is dedicated to St George and boasts a beautiful panel sized icon of the saint, painted by an iconographer who worked for the Archbishop of Athens in the 1960s. It also has two more recently commissioned icons, one of Christ Pantocrator and one of Our Lady of Walsingham, painted in Byzantine style. But because it's Northern Ireland, it also has the Chair of King William of Orange

The parish website is here:

http://www.stgeorges.connor.anglican.org/index.htm

Doesn't sound very hopeful that this will happen:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pope-rides-to-rowans-rescue-868695.html

"In his first public comments on the Lambeth Conference, Pope Benedict XVI has warned Anglican leaders that they must find a "mature" and faithful way of avoiding "schism". On top of this the Pope has:

* Sent three cardinals to the conference in Canterbury, including one of his top aides from the Vatican, to act as personal intermediaries between the two churches;

* Let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church;

* Given behind-the-scenes support to the Archbishop of Canterbury's attempts to hold together the conservative and liberal wings of the Anglican Church, including at face-to-face meetings in Rome."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...lit-868696.html

Patience, patience. We shall see.

Fr. Serge

One of the things that I most admire about this forum is the respect for opposing viewpoints and the ability to discuss issues without personal attacks. I am distressed about the use if the word "priestess" referring to women who have been ordained in the Anglican churches. I understand why the word "priestess" is used by those who believe that a woman could never become a priest. (Yes, I get it!) But this word is offensive, even insulting, to some members of this forum. This is like referring to all Israelis as "Zionists" or all Byzantine Catholics as "Uniates." The use of this word, in my opinion, is beneath the level of discourse appropriate to this forum. I would urge all members to continue open and frank discussion, but to use more neutral and inoffensive language when referring to those with whom they disagree.

raustin:

Actually it's standard English--like actor/actress, executor/executrix. But I see your point. We might say that the use of the word "priest" to refer to Anglican ministers is off when we consider what the Apostolic Churches mean by the term and what it means in the Anglican Communion. We refer to the Liturgy as being the anamnesis (re-presentation) of the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner while the Anglican Communion has disavowed that for the most part--with the exception, perhaps, of some Anglo-Catholics.

Then we have Anglicans who would say--and I had one cleric say this to me outright--that they have ordained many women but have no women priests. Another made the remark that one can no more ordain a woman a priest than one can ordain a brick a priest, but I was allowing him to vent privately like the first.

Gotta be careful when the topic turns to this issue since there are still many who oppose this in the strongest terms. Those long, slow processions to cemeteries are often a wonderful learning experience and a look into another's ecclesial life. When we think we've got problems and discord, we only have to listen to others to know we're all in the same boat.

BOB

Again, "priestess" is simply standard English - not more, not less. I fail to grasp the objection.

Fr. Serge

I would think that "priestette" is far more derogatory.

As would be "priestinia" and "Sister Wanda B. Priest."

All of these are best avoided.

:-) FDD

One wonders why people would take offense at a word like "priestess." This is standard English. It suggests that there is some reality that they are trying to deny by playing with words.

To call a female Anglican minister a priest is to imply that sex is incidental to priesthood rather than integral to it. This is, I think, the fundamental issue.

The safest approach is simply to refer to Anglican clergy as ministers.

Perhaps what we are failing to grasp is that many Episcopalians refer, for the most part, to their "ministers" as priests, regardless of their gender. If you don't believe they have orders anyway, who is it hurting?

Common courtesy usually teaches that one refers to the clergy of another church in terms that they use, even if you don't agree with it or have a different understanding of that term. Me thinks that many who talk here would talk a different story in front of these peoples faces.

One could, of course, use the fine English word "cleric", which has been in use for centuries and does not indicate the gender of the cleric in question.

Fr. Serge

John's point is well made. Regardless of one's personal opinion as to their ecclesiastic status, the faith each represents, or even them as persons, one could hardly greet the Dalai Lama as Mr. Thondup, Archbishop Desmond Tutu as Mr. Tutu, His All-Holiness Bartholomew as Mr. Archontonis, or Pope Benedict as Mr. Ratzinger, and claim to be representative of civil, polite society.

Many years,

Neil

When addressing people, or even in their presence, that is a proper way to behave. Should the Panchen Lama visit and one find oneself at the reception, one bows politely and says something like "We do hope that Your Serenity will enjoy visiting our city." (Incidentally, I would enjoy having the title of "His Serenity" myself, although I have no desire to be the Panchen Lama!)

Under other circumstances, standards are apt to change to a degree. There used to be a notorious episcopus vagans in Brittany who used the awe-inspiring title of "His Whiteness". He is now deceased, but this dubious if awe-inspiring sobriquet has been pressed into service as a title for almost any ecclesiastic who fails to inspire religious awe!

Another now-deceased acquaintance would refer to almost any hierarch in the absence of that hierarch as "the Great Toad".

My own favorite was used quite seriously until somebody pointed out how it could be mis-construed a few decades ago: Your Amplitude. Nowadays, it could get you a slap across the face.

When Patriarch Joseph found that some Cardinal was annoying him, it was easy to tell from the complimentary close of the Patriarch's letter of complaint: the more annoyed the Patriarch was, the more elaborately deferential the complimentary close was (perhaps on the premise that some people simply do not realize when they are being insulted).

Myself, if I am merely annoyed by some such nuisance, my letter concludes: "beseeching Your Eminence's holy and righteous prayers". But if I am seething with frustration and fury, my letter concludes "yet nourishing at the breasts of Holy Mother Church, I lie prostrate at the feet of Your Benignitude". Imagine the gymnastics! (I've only used that one twice in my life - and on neither occasion did the recipient show any signs of having grasped the point). I learned it from a Professor who told me to use it sparingly, so as not to cheapen the coinage, so to speak.

Fr. Serge

Linguists who specialize in pragmatics have a name for either a mistake or an extraordinary politeness. They call it a conversational implicature.

It is commonly used when giving a back-handed reference or comment. Yes, it employs sarcasm.

"I cannot recommend him enough."

or

"That was the most brilliant idea to have ever come out of his mouth."

Hopefully they will enter the Church in hordes.And perhaps start a whole host of people thinking.
Stephanos I
I am using the Year Of St Paul as a great evangelization tool.

I am praying for hordes of good people to enter the Church and be done with this schizophrenia.

I don't say priestess because here it's an insult that means non-Christian, and I call clergy what they want to be called. The Episcopal priest, like the Methodist bishop.

Why would "priestess" be a non-Christian term (apart, of course, from the obvious fact that until the mid-20th century the mainline Christian Churches had nothing of the sort)?

Fr. Serge

I think that despite what the PC crowd would like to hear, "priest" is a word in English that has a gender - male. Of course, I suspect one could ordain a dog and call it either a priest or a priestess, if so desired. However, one could reasonably question the validity of the ordination. The Anglican/Episcopalians seem to waffle back and forth on the priesthood anyway. I remember 40 years ago when an Episcopalian minister would have resented being call a "priest." So I tend to believe their views vary depending on whether they are currently in a more Catholic mode, or a more Presbyterian mindset.

I suppose he threw out the Scriptures, in that it says God abandon them to their fleshly desires. So very sad!
This ought to push more along in their journey.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece?&EMC-Bltn=OIUDD9

Yes, indeed, St George's is a lovely church - I've visited a couple of times (it's not far from where I work).

It is true that the CoI is, generally, "low church" in Anglican terms, and as Fr.Serge says, the only real high church presence would be St Bartholomews and St John the Baptist in Dublin. In Belfast, though, there is also St John the Baptist on the Malone Road, and I think also St Nicholas on the Lisburn Road - they (I believe) are considered "middle to high".

To be honest, I've never really grasped the whole Anglo-Catholic thing. I lived briefly in Manchester, England some years ago, and not knowing the area, I went looking for the nearest church to my digs for Sunday mass. I came across one (dedicated to St John Chysostom) whose notice board advertised mass at various times on Sunday, duly went along...and found that I was actually in a CoE church. The interior of the building looked familiar, the service was pretty well identical with mass in a Catholic church, but there was a definite (but indefinable) difference; despite the similarities, I knew I wasn't in a Catholic church.

Now jump forward a couple of years to my first trip to Greece, and my first time inside an Orthodox church. There, the differences in physical aspect were many and obvious, BUT...I've never forgotten the sight of old women just dandering into church, lighting candles and venerating the icons, and I felt more in tune with them and what they were doing than I did in that Anglo-Catholic church in Manchester. I suppose I had the same sense of timelessness that I get when I see the older ladies in our parish come in to light candles, or do the stations of the cross.

It's from then that I date my interest in Eastern Christianity.

Incidentally, there is an active Orthodox presence in Northern Ireland - the parish of St Ignatius, on the Antrim Road in North Belfast (parish priest is Fr Irenaeus - I've exchanged emails with him, and he's a lovely man).

Is mise le meas.

Craig

The Anglo-Catholic thing is based on several loopholes in Anglican doctrine like claiming to retain apostolic succession (bishops, priests and deacons) and, in the 1662 and later Books of Common Prayer, a backhanded belief in the Real Presence because the leftover Communion elements don't revert to secular use but are to be eaten and drunk. ACism as such - churches a