Thursday, March 17, 2011

Lucia Anglicans becoming Roman Catholic [UPDATE]

The Australian has an article titled, Anglicans flee to new faith, a story about how a greater number of Anglicans than expected are converting to Catholicism. It should really have been titled, Anglicans come back to old faith, considering that Anglicanism is a result of England breaking away from Catholicism so that Henry VIII could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Bolyn. The rest, as they say, is history.

ABOUT 900 members of the Church of England have quit their parishes and begun worshipping in the Roman Catholic Church, according to figures released yesterday.

At least 600 laity were expected to join the new ordinariate, set up by the Pope to receive disaffected Anglicans, but the first official figures showed the number was higher than expected.

More than 4700 people gathered in cathedrals across England and Wales last weekend as part of their preparation to be received into the Catholic Church during Holy Week in the run-up to Easter.

Anyway, things are moving. At glacial speed, but still, moving.

UPDATE: Three of the new converts who used be be Anglican bishops, have been given an extra distinction by Pope Benedict XVI, which gives them the title of Monsignore. They now belong to family and the retinue of the Holy Father. So the link from Holy Smoke, Pope makes former Anglican bishops monsignors is not totally correct. For more information on Monsignors, read New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia.

14 comment(s):

Andrei said...

This isn't glacial speed Lucyna, its rapid, very rapid.

These people are conservative Christians who have been watching in dismay as their Church implodes, They have Bishops who are to all intents atheists, Lesbian and Gay Bishops, not to mention priests galore with the same agendas.

The Pope has provided them a home.

Everybody is still working on this though there are a few tricky issues to be ironed out though in real substance we are pretty much on the same page.

Lucia Maria said...

Andrei,

You're right. I'm just letting my impatience at wanting everything fixed, now, show.

James Stephenson said...

So how do you Catholics feel about the bending of rules to allow married Anglican priests to convert?

I'm kind of surprised that there's no equivalent conservative Catholic outrage to the ordination of women in the C of E...are you that desperate to halt sliding congregations in Europe or is it that anything that hurts the Anglicans is a good thing?

Lucia Maria said...

James,

Married men have always been allowed to become Catholic priests in certain circumstances. The rule bending seems to be on the issue of continence. As I understand it, the tradition was always that once a man became a priest, he no longer had sexual relations with his wife. That's why he needs her permission to become a priest. That part is a little concerning, but then, maybe it's actually happening.

I don't quite understand what you are saying with your last paragraph.

Lucia Maria said...

And why the hidden profile?

Andrei said...

No rules are being bent here James.

There have always been married Priests in the Church. It is only the Latin Church that has required celibacy and even in that branch of the Church there have been exceptions made. Priestly celibacy is a discipline not a dogma.

Canon Law says a married man may be ordained but a Priest cannot marry after his ordination. Worldwide about 10% of the priests in communion with Rome are married, most of them in Eastern jurisdictions rather than the Latin branch though.

Bishops must always be celibate however.

I'm kind of surprised that there's no equivalent conservative Catholic outrage to the ordination of women in the C of E...are you that desperate to halt sliding congregations in Europe or is it that anything that hurts the Anglicans is a good thing?

Ordaining women to the priesthood is a heresy and its fruits are self evident.

All Christians desire a unified and undivided Church and these Anglicans are reuniting with the Latin Church from whence they came in the first place so it is a matter of joy.

James Stephenson said...

Lucia - as someone who was brought up as a methodist but is now an atheist, the whole thing fills me with bemusement. I thought I was detecting a note of schadenfreude, but I'll take Andrei at his word.

Profile isn't hidden, I don't have a blogger account...using google.

Lucia Maria said...

James,

My husband was brought up a Methodist (he's since converted to Catholicism), which just seemed to include the label and going to Sunday school for a short period of time. I don't know how that compares to your experience given that you are now an atheist, but my impression of Methodism, now that it's merged with some other group in NZ, that there's not much to it any more.

Thanks for the explanation as to why there's no Blogger profile - looks like Blogger needs to be a bit more descriptive rather than just saying the profile is hidden.

I'm glad Andrei understood what you were saying in your last paragraph, I've read it multiple times and I still don't know what exactly you are asking.

Psycho Milt said...

...considering that Anglicanism is a result of England breaking away from Catholicism so that Henry VIII could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Bolyn(sic).

A propaganda line you've pushed before. It sounds good as propaganda, but only has a chance with people who know nothing of English history beyond the Norman conquest, Elizabeth I and the Spanish Armada, Henry VIII's unfortunate wives and Winston Churchill making speeches (which, admittedly, covers a large proportion of the NZ population). However, even to the abysmally ignorant, the fact the Anglican church survived Henry's death should indicate there was a bit more to it than than Big H's divorce plans.

Andrei said...

Henry VIII spilled a lot of blood in often gruesome manners of those opposed to his innovations PM.

And when he died extreme Protestants tried to seize control, leading to the loss of Lady Jane Grey's head and more blood spilling.

And for a time Catholicism was restored.

Queen Elizabeth worked a compromise but only by preventing the Catholic Bishops voting in the House of Lords by having them locked in a cellar at the crucial time the vote was taken. This was astute politically and for the most part but not entirely the blood spilling stopped and things were quiet for a generation or two.

But then came a bloody civil war as extreme Protestants seized control, a king lost his head, as you will no doubt recall PM, in that debacle.

A generation later the last Catholic King of England was deposed and for the next few years outbreaks of extreme violence occurred as his supporters tried to re-instate him and later his son.

Of course echos of all of this still resonate in Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent Glasgow where blood is still spilled from time to time though the consequences are less likely to be fatal these days

Psycho Milt said...

Gruesome blood-spilling was par for the course in those days, hardly a Protestant invention - as witness the Huguenots and various others.

We have a lot to be grateful to those English "extreme Protestants" for, not least for demonstrating to the people of Europe that kings could be made to rule not "by grace of God" but by permission of Parliament. The Church's role in attempting to enforce the divine right of Kings is one reason for that gruesome blood-spilling you mention. The world is a better place for its failure.

leftrightout said...

Interesting discussion andrei and pm.

We must, of course, keep in mind that there are only 2 countries who have unelected clerics sit in their parliament - Iran and ...?

ZenTiger said...

Yes, LRO. You've spotted the fact that Iran and the UK are identical in every respect, and that they must be such similar countries because they both have identical links to religion. Brilliant point.

We must of course, also keep in mind you're running away from the other discussion, LRO.

So far, you've decided that any-one disagreeing with the State teaching 5 year old's sex education must be sexually repressed, and then proceeded to slag off Christianity on this basis. By making this argument, you also imply are quite comfortable with the state taking over the role and responsibilities of the parents. How very statist.

Psycho Milt said...

You're defining "Parliament" very broadly there, LRO. There's also no way the term "extreme Protestants" covers the Anglican Church, which in a lot of respects isn't that different from the RC Church (hence why the conservative end of it can make that leap so easily - they're the distant descendants of the English Jacobites).

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.