# Church of Rome reaches out to disaffected Anglicans



## yeutter (Oct 20, 2009)

Archbishop of Canterbury criticises Rome for springing this announcement on him – Telegraph Blogs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200091020/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_anglicans
Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert en masse – Telegraph Blogs


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 20, 2009)

Is Benedict the last pope? Is he the "Gorbachev Pope" in line with this Medieval prophecy? Does he really know what he's doing?

Prophecy of the Popes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Berean (Oct 20, 2009)

One line in the AP version caught my eye.



> By welcoming them in with their own special provision, Benedict has confirmed the increasingly conservative bent of *his* church.



It's not Christ's church, it's the pope's church.


----------



## Grillsy (Oct 20, 2009)

It will be interesting to see how this story develops.


----------



## Philip (Oct 20, 2009)

Personally, I think the Archbishop should have seen this coming. Benedict has been hinting at it for a while. 

If the prophecy is right, Benedict would be the second to last pope.


----------



## Mayflower (Oct 20, 2009)

Berean said:


> One line in the AP version caught my eye.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



By the way, do you accept baptism outside the Christ's church, as many reformers do ?


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Oct 20, 2009)

The last pope? My money's on Francis Arinze.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 21, 2009)

NYT article on the matter: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/europe/21pope.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

AMR


----------



## ClayPot (Oct 21, 2009)

This story made me very mad and sad. It seems hypocritical to allow some priests to marry and some to not. It is sad that more will be added to the fold of the Roman Catholic church and be taught that they are justified by faith and works.


----------



## Hawaiian Puritan (Oct 21, 2009)

I guess to me it's all relative. How can one remain in a church that teaches that there is no sin, that simply being baptized assures salvation, that the Bible is not authoritative, that all religions are equally valid, that the Church should conform itself to secular culture, and that the Gospel has been supplanted by the United Nations millennium Development Goals?


----------



## JBaldwin (Oct 21, 2009)

jpfrench81 said:


> This story made me very mad and sad. It seems hypocritical to allow some priests to marry and some to not. It is sad that more will be added to the fold of the Roman Catholic church and be taught that they are justified by faith and works.



As the article indicated this practice of allowing married Anglican priests to become catholic priests has been allowed for awhile. What angers me is how the RCC has handled this. 

Up until now, only the married Anglican priests who could further the cause of the unification of all religions under the RCC have been allowed to become RC priests. Each one of them has had to seek special approval from the pope. An old friend of mine is a perfect example of this. He was a married Anglican priest who converted to catholicism when the COE was making moves to ordain gays and women. After his books and writings about converting to catholicism became popular among RCs, he was suddenly granted the right to become a RC priest and given a prestigiuos position in an RCC in the USA. His (my friend's) type have laid the groundwork for a move the pope and his predecessor have been planning to make for some time. 

There are similar overtures from Rome to other denominations. I imagine we will see more and more of this in the future. (Did anyone say the pope is an anti-Christ?)


----------



## dudley (Oct 21, 2009)

jpfrench81 said:


> This story made me very mad and sad. It seems hypocritical to allow some priests to marry and some to not. It is sad that more will be added to the fold of the Roman Catholic church and be taught that they are justified by faith and works.



It makes me also sad. But does not surprise me. I voted hands down on the roman catholic church over 3 years ago. I left the roman catholic church in 2006 because of the moves Benedict was making to reverse the open dialogue that was the intent of Vatican II between Protestants and roman catholicism. I became an Episcopalian at first then as I studied Protestantism and the Protestant Reformation I became born again into the Reformed Branch of Protestantism in 2007. I am thankful that I am no longer a roman catholic. I am more thankful to God alone in my conversion to the Reformed Protestant faith.

In faith alone,
Dudley


----------



## JM (Oct 21, 2009)

This isn't the first time. John Paul did a little reaching after the 1976 General Convention approved the ordination of women and a new prayerbook.

Anglican Use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://anglicancatholic.ca/documents/Affirm.pdf


----------



## Philip (Oct 21, 2009)

Hawaiian Puritan said:


> I guess to me it's all relative. How can one remain in a church that teaches that there is no sin, that simply being baptized assures salvation, that the Bible is not authoritative, that all religions are equally valid, that the Church should conform itself to secular culture, and that the Gospel has been supplanted by the United Nations millennium Development Goals?



What it is, is that there are still leaders in the Anglican Church who believe the Bible and preach the Gospel. In terms of the worldwide Anglican Communion, these far outnumber the liberals who have gained control in the American and British churches. The new ACNA is, in some ways, a plant of the rest of the Anglican Communion in protest of the direction that Anglicanism in Britain and North America has taken.


----------



## JennyG (Oct 22, 2009)

I've been following this story in our newspaper, with utter outrage.
This is Great Britain, how dare the pope try to move in like that!!
But then with sorrow I have to acknowledge that the Church of England, the church of Ridley and Cranmer and Bloody mary's Martyrs, has brought it on herself.
I could weep.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 22, 2009)

I think this is all about the celibacy debate. Benedict wants to accelerate the debate in order to finally get rid of the celibacy requirement and get some young priests into the church again. Benedict is a conservative but I think he sees that celibacy is driving potential priests away and the conservative wing is willing to give it up.


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2009)

They've always allowed a married priesthood in their grandfather clauses.

You know, in a communion where Bishop NT Wright is considered a conservative, and demands women Bishops, no more burning of the rain forests and believes that Adam and Eve were late model apes, do we really want it to survive?


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 22, 2009)

BobVigneault said:


> I think this is all about the celibacy debate. Benedict wants to accelerate the debate in order to finally get rid of the celibacy requirement and get some young priests into the church again. Benedict is a conservative but I think he sees that celibacy is driving potential priests away and the conservative wing is willing to give it up.



Interesting observation.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 22, 2009)

David Virtues online site is the best way I have found to follow this developing story. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news
I wonder if the current Archbishop or Canterbury even understands Ridley and Cramner. Sadly those who are going over to Rome clearly have not come to grips with the Gospel or they would not go that direction. It appears that those holding to historic Anglican faith in and practice in Great Britain and North America will be largely marginalized in the mainstream Anglican Communion.


----------



## JennyG (Oct 22, 2009)

yeutter said:


> I wonder if the current Archbishop or Canterbury even understands Ridley and Cramner. Sadly those who are going over to Rome clearly have not come to grips with the Gospel or they would not go that direction. It appears that those holding to historic Anglican faith in and practice in Great Britain and North America will be largely marginalized in the mainstream Anglican Communion.


well, they already were pretty marginalised, but of course you are right - just as Scotland has forgotten the Covenanters, the CofE doesn't remember its martyrs, or what they died for.
If only a mass exodus to Rome would leave a purified and strengthened church, but I'm afraid it will only leave a more determinedly liberal one.

Brothers and sisters - please, pray for England and Scotland


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 25, 2009)

The Wall Street Journal's front-page story called it "one of Rome's most sweeping gestures to a Protestant church since the Reformation."

The part that confuses me is: "These Anglicans who want to enter in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, want to bring with them one of their spiritual treasures, and that's completely understandable," Massa said. "It would exist alongside the Catholic Mass as an equally valid expression of Christian worship."

How can the Roman CATHOLIC church maintain that the Mass is essential and then allow the Anglican rites to exist "alongside the Catholic Mass as an *equally valid *expression of Christian worship"????????????

I have never claimed to understand the papacy or the church of King Henry's divorce snafu, but this is really confusing. But, given Rowan Williams' overtures to non-Christian religions such as Islam, how could the Anglicans of today make a *principled* rejection to this overture? Afterall, if they get to keep all the "best parts" of their Anglican faith and practice and can still call themselves part of the universal church, what possible objection could they make to it? Considering the omnipresent ecumania of liberal protestantism, this *should* be a dream come true. Oh, you mean that preservation of political power and the perks of office might keep religious leaders of no particular biblical/theological scruples from uniting the way they have been harping on all of us to do for decades?  Hmmmm.


----------



## LeeJUk (Oct 25, 2009)

As I myself am in a state church that is largely liberal I can understand why traditional anglicans would have the desire to go to rome. The portrayed image of rome is one of stability and protection from liberalism creeping in and anglicans at the end of the day will be suffering in their denomination, like I and many other evangelicals suffer in the CofS. This will be extremely tempting for them.


----------



## JennyG (Oct 25, 2009)

LeeJUk said:


> As I myself am in a state church that is largely liberal I can understand why traditional anglicans would have the desire to go to rome. The portrayed image of rome is one of stability and protection from liberalism creeping in and anglicans at the end of the day will be suffering in their denomination, like I and many other evangelicals suffer in the CofS. This will be extremely tempting for them.


well, except that the only ones who will consider going are catholics already, in all but the "roman" part. I never understood quite how the Forward in Faith bunch (and anglo-catholics in general) managed to tell themselves there was a serious point to being catholic _but not roman_. I agree, it's a hard road for evangelicals in the church, but if they go anywhere it won 't be to rome!


----------



## Philip (Oct 25, 2009)

> How can the Roman CATHOLIC church maintain that the Mass is essential and then allow the Anglican rites to exist "alongside the Catholic Mass as an equally valid expression of Christian worship"????????????



Because the Anglo-Catholic liturgy is a form of the mass, just as the Eastern Orthodox rite is. This would just be a valid variant on the Latin Rite, like the Tridentine service. 



> Oh, you mean that preservation of political power and the perks of office might keep religious leaders of no particular biblical/theological scruples from uniting the way they have been harping on all of us to do for decades? Hmmmm.



That and the fact that the Church of Rome, for all its false doctrine, teaches truth when it comes to female clergy and sodomy. They can't submit to something that isn't politically correct.



> well, except that the only ones who will consider going are catholics already, in all but the "roman" part. I never understood quite how the Forward in Faith bunch (and anglo-catholics in general) managed to tell themselves there was a serious point to being catholic but not roman.



It's similar to the way that Old Catholics in Germany and the Netherlands are able to be Catholic--they simply deny the authority of the Pope.

If only they understood that Reformed doctrine is more catholic than any of this popery.


----------



## historyb (Oct 27, 2009)

> *Church of Rome reaches out to disaffected Anglicans*



Sounds like a good idea


----------



## yeutter (Oct 27, 2009)

JennyG said:


> ....well, except that the only ones who will consider going are catholics already, in all but the "roman" part. I never understood quite how the Forward in Faith bunch (and anglo-catholics in general) managed to tell themselves there was a serious point to being catholic _but not roman_. I agree, it's a hard road for evangelicals in the church, but if they go anywhere it won 't be to rome!


Many of the Forward in Faith crowd and many other Anglo Catholics can not swim the Tiber because they are not in tune with Vatican 1 on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and Papal Infallibility. Some could go over to the Orthodox Church much more easily then they could the Roman Church


----------

