PDA

View Full Version : Anglican Bishop Petitions Pope for Return to Rome



Loyalist
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 11:32 PM
An Anglican bishop has said he is prepared to convert to Roman Catholicism after the General Synod voted to allow women bishops.

The traditionalist Bishop of Ebbsfleet has asked the Pope, as well as Catholic leaders in England and Wales, to help him and his parishes defect to Rome.

The Right Reverend Andrew Burnham said objectors within the Church of England were feeling "shipwrecked".

He said: "We are floating in the water looking for someone to rescue us."

A Church of England group is drawing up a code of practice to reassure critics after the Synod vote earlier this week.

The Synod voted in favour of consecrating women and against safeguards demanded by traditionalists opposed to the move.

Following the vote the Vatican said the result would create an "obstacle" to reconciliation between Anglicans and Catholics.

The Roman Catholic church does not ordain women.

Writing in the Catholic Herald the bishop called for "magnanimous gestures from our Catholic friends, especially from the Holy Father, who well understand our longing for unity and from the hierarchy in England and Wales".

"Most of all we ask for ways that allow us to bring our folk with us," he wrote.

Bishop Burnham hopes entire parishes under his care will convert but be allowed to remain worshipping in their existing churches under the supervision of Catholic bishops.

He told BBC Radio Four's The World at One he did not know what form the help would take, but was awaiting a response from Rome.

"If you are in the water you just hope that help will come, you can't actually engage in the luxury of wondering what form the help will come in." (continues)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7499852.stm

While I am indifferent to the issue which is provoking this effort at a split, I am becoming fed up with the notion that the opinion of the Vatican is somehow consequential to a Protestant denomination. It is quite possible that continued Catholic interference, and the presence of insubordinate officials such as this Bishop, could further destabilize Protestantism, and even herald an eventual re-unification with Rome. The matter at hand is an internal point of contention between Anglicans, not an obstacle to, what I assumed to be, a non-existent movement towards unity with the Catholic Church. Instead of preaching the benefits of multiculturalism and promoting Sharia law in an alien nation, perhaps the appropriate authorities in the Church of England should instead focus on maintaining the unity and integrity of their own faith.

Jute
Friday, July 11th, 2008, 04:57 AM
I shiver to imagine our brothers in England falling into the "universal" Church of Rome again.

But they probably will not. Anglicans have been having an argument (sometimes even War) about this since the middle 1500s. About whether their Church is really "Catholic without The Pope", or a branch of strong Protestantism. I think #2 is more defensable, but #1 has gained strength lately.

mischak
Friday, July 11th, 2008, 05:34 AM
Well, good for him.

Jute
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 02:13 AM
There are some who would say that Anglicanism and Catholicism are both corrupt and degenerate. Therefore both are bad. This is absolutely wrong.

If both are bad, the fact is that one is still a national church controlled by your own People, and the other is an "universal" church controlled by The Pope.

The fate of the Anglican Church is still in the hands of Englishmen. If the English stumbled back to The Pope after all this time, whose hands would their fate be in? Sure not of their Own People.





Who do you want to control your fate in religious matters :

Your Own People;
or The Pope and his "universal" Church?

Erhard
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 03:17 AM
It will never happen.

The non-ordainment of women to priests and bishops is an infallible truth and rule in matters of faith and morals, supported by 2,000 years of uninterrupted continual practice and ex cathedra declared as infallible by Pope John Paul II in the 1980's.

It can never be changed or reversed.

By canonical law, the only clerical position open to women within the Catholic Church is (somewhat ironically) the position of the Pope, which is theoretically open to any Catholic, lay or not, male or not, adult or not.

Jute
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 03:32 AM
The non-ordainment of women to priests and bishops is an infallible truth and rule in matters of faith and morals, supported by 2,000 years of uninterrupted continual practice and ex cathedra declared as infallible by Pope John Paul II in the 1980's.
Erhard-
Myself I am uninterested in what The Pope says or thinks or does on this matter.

I am interested in what our Own People have done.
It is a Germanic custom since thousands of years, for our women to have a high position in matters of Religion : True or False?

CharlesDexterWard
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:26 AM
It will never happen.

The non-ordainment of women to priests and bishops is an infallible truth and rule in matters of faith and morals, supported by 2,000 years of uninterrupted continual practice and ex cathedra declared as infallible by Pope John Paul II in the 1980's.

It can never be changed or reversed.

By canonical law, the only clerical position open to women within the Catholic Church is (somewhat ironically) the position of the Pope, which is theoretically open to any Catholic, lay or not, male or not, adult or not.

Women were clericals in the early church, and continued to be so for a long time:


Is it true that we've never had women priests in the Church?

There is significant evidence that there were churches in the fourth to sixth centuries that remained in communion with Rome and also had women priests. Dr. Giorgio Otranto, Director of the Institute for Classical and Christian Studies at the University of Bari, Italy, discovered iconographic evidence of women presiding over the Eucharist in ancient catacomb frescos. Otranto cites a letter from fifth century Pope Gelasius I scolding bishops in southern Italy for allowing women "to officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex..." He also points to the letters of a ninth century Italian bishop, Atto of Vercelli, substantiating the use of the word "presbytera" to refer to women priests.http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/questions.htm#two

Personally, I could not care less what doctrine is "infallible" and which one isn't, but according to a roman catholic friend of mine who takes a lot of interest in reading encyclicae, the infallibility doctrine (itself a new one, by the way) has only been used once, namely in defense of the holy virgin.

"National" vs. Papal church
Anything can happen to a "national" or nationstate church, because it is in the hands of political power.

Oswiu
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 11:50 AM
On reflection, I can't remember ever having met more than a couple of Anglican churchmen in my life. It should be stated first of all that they are an almost complete irrelevance to the vast majority of English people these days.

If this Bishop is so weak in his Protestantism that he can find it so easy to turn to Rome, then I'm left wondering why on Earth he became an Anglican minister in the first place. I met a few High Church oddballs at University, seemingly a proRome fifth column within the CofE, and they were even further removed from their normal countrymen than any other religious people I've met.

Why Rome, though? Is there not still a Patriarch in Constantinopolis? ;)

Jute
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 01:47 AM
"National" vs. Papal church
Anything can happen to a "national" or nationstate church, because it is in the hands of political power.You consider Vatican City to be not a political power? :p



Why Rome, though? Is there not still a Patriarch in Constantinopolis?Another un-Germanic church? Why in the world--? Oh, wait. Orthodox is Slavic. I forgot who am I speaking to :o :o

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 02:09 AM
You consider Vatican City to be not a political power? :p

I'm not saying it is entirely apolitical, but it is not in the hands of (another) political power.

Jute
Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008, 06:46 AM
I'm not saying it is entirely apolitical, but it is not in the hands of (another) political power.The Roman Catholic Church is a universal political power already.

Which is better:
If the dominant church of a nation is
1) Controlled by that nation's own People
2) Controlled by The Pope

There are some arguments against a state church, true. But in philosophy we should always want our Religion to be in our own People's hands. (Even if they are independant churches.) Not in the hands of The Pope or another "universal" power.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008, 12:08 PM
RE the posts lost in the server crash:

Here's what I meant by Orthodox churches acting in the interests of their people: The Serbian Orthodox Church helped hide for years a patriot wanted by the forces of globalism for resisting the attacks of UN/NATO/EU/US:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25787633

Karadzicís reported hide-outs included Serbian Orthodox monasteries and refurbished mountain caves in remote eastern Bosnia. Some newspaper reports said he had at times disguised himself as a priest by shaving off his trademark silver mane and donning a brown cassock.