Priests and worshippers from to 20 Church of England parishes are to convert to Catholicism under a new scheme that allows Anglican opponents of women bishops to defect to Rome.
The founding members of the new Anglican Ordinariate, who include three former Church of England bishops, two of their wives and three Anglican nuns, will today be received into the Catholic Church in a low-key ceremony at midday Mass at Westminster Cathedral. The bishops are due to be ordained as Catholic priests in two weeks.
....
John Broadhurst, former Bishop of Fulham - whose resignation from the Church of England took effect at midnight last night and who is among those being received - told The Times: "This could herald a real transformation of the religious scene and be an aid to the conversion of England." (My emphasis)
Besides Father Broadhurst, the others being recieved today are Andrew Burnham, former Bishop of Ebbsfleet and Keith Newton, former Bishop of Matabeleland who retired to England in 2005, Edwin Barnes, former Bishop of Richborough and David Silk, former Bishop of Ballarat in Australia.
Not simply low-key, but nearly under the radar unless you're paying attention, which Ruth Gledhill always does. So the "stampede" out of the Church of England begins.
Anglican opponents to women bishops did not need a special scheme to defect to Rome. They were always free to do so. And "Father Broadhurst" won't be "Father" for two weeks, because as of the stroke of midnight, he was, and still is, a layman.
Some might say layman Broadhurst's commentary, the words in bold print, on what the reception will mean to all-England is a tad over-hyped, and I might be one who would say just that - "an aid to the conversion of England"? Really?
From America Magazine:
The 1230 Mass today at London's Westminster Cathedral looked like any other. But for the hint in the booklet for the feast of Mary, Mother of God, that after the homily would be a "Rite of reception and confirmation", there was nothing at all to indicate the significance of what was to happen. The celebrant, an auxiliary bishop of Westminster, Alan Hopes, said nothing at the start of Mass, and it wasn't until the end of a lengthy homily on Mary as Theotokos, or God-bearer, and the controversies of the fourth-century Council of Nicea which led to this Feast, that Bishop Hopes mentioned that they would be receiving some former members of the Church of England into full communion.
They included, he said, three former bishops and their relatives, as well as three Anglican nuns.
It would have been hard, if you had just dropped into the Cathedral for Mass, to understand the significance of what was happening.There was nobody around to explain that these are the founding members of the world's first Ordinariate, the scheme created by Pope Benedict to allow for the corporate reception of Anglicans.
Is there not a touch of irony in that the anti-women bishops bishops and nuns were received into the Roman Catholic Church on the feast of Mary, Mother of God? What would Mary say?
H/T to Jim Simons at Three Rivers Episcopal for the link to the article in America, and thanks to Ann V. for calling the post at "Three Rivers" to my attention.
I'm wondering what the average age of the group was. I'm guessing that it's a stately maturity.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where the idea comes from that the Episcopal Church is primarily elderly (lots of fresh young faces and new babies at my parish), but I can't help but notice that the opponents of the Episcopal Church are largely of a certain age, and it's not 30.
And then there are those among us, like yourself Grandmere, who are simply ageless, living proof of Dr. Oliver Sacks' contention that our brains are ever young and growing until we die.
It seems to me that the "tidal wave" in English religious life is right out the church door never to return.
Are these the three young nuns who abandoned their elderly sisters? [The phrase "they have their reward" comes to mind.]
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, you are too kind.
ReplyDeleteWhy do I think that the powers in Rome will soon come to view Broadhurst as a thorn in the side? The man's notion of his self-importance beggars belief.
JCF, I don't have a scan of the complete article in The Times. One of the nuns is the former Reverend Mother of St Margaret at Walsingham, and then the article is cut off after "Sister Caroline Joseph, Sister Jane Louise and Sister...."
My thoughts - Bye, but we'll leave the light on. And I agree that many of these folks are old. Some people simply don't seem to be able to grow past a certain age - um, 40 for some - while you and I and many of our friends haven't stopped and never will if we can help it. I don't understand why people enjoy stagnation but many seem to cling to it as if it were life itself. We know it is the end of life, don't we? That's why we aren't old, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteSo I take it that the retired bishops will not stop drawing their retirement from the CofE whilst they worship in the CCofR. As you say, Mimi, in slightly different words, Broadhurst is a piece of work, and I think he won't be missed at all. Of course if he continues on his current path, he will continue to speak out about something. . .Oh, and now that they have left, will they be relegated to worshiping in RC churches, or will they try to remain in the buildings they had in CofE?
ReplyDeleteVW = enesharm. . . perhaps a parcel of land in England? I'm sure the 'r' is silent.
The people who left and will leave in the future were always free to go. They seem to think they will somehow still be Anglican. I don't see how they will be anything other than Roman Catholic converts. They may be allowed to use certain Anglican liturgical practices, but they will be Roman Catholics.
ReplyDeletesusan s., the bishops will draw their pensions as priests in the RCC.
Father Broadhurst says that he and the other bishops had made it clear to all parish groups wanting to defect that they must not engage in battles over property. Some dioceses will let them remain and share their former churches with the remnant of continuing Anglicans.
Why does Ruth call him "Father"? He's a layman for two weeks. According to Rome, he was always a layman, as his orders were invalid.
The arrogance! - "the remnant of continuing Anglicans"!
"Is there not a touch of irony in that the anti-women bishops and nuns were received into the Roman Catholic Church on the feast of Mary, Mother of God? What would Mary say?"
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing that out. That was exactly my thought as I read about their reception into the Roman Church. I think that perhaps Mary was laughing out loud in Heaven and saying, "Got you last!"
BooCat, I don't get it. A woman was chosen to be the Mother of God, but a women cannot serve as a bishop or even a priest in the RCC.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-fem fervor of some of the potentates of the C of E is beyond my understanding. Going home to Pope Benny? You got to really hate you some clerical women to bite that burger.I've reluctantly stopped titling myself Anglo-Catholic just to make certain that no one mistakes me for a member of that sorry fraternity.Lord have mercy.
ReplyDeleteJohn D, I know that there are good 'uns amongst the Anglo-Catholics, however the women-haters who "bite that burger" tend to give the rest of y'all a a bad name.
ReplyDeleteDear Grandmere Mimi
ReplyDeleteI'm usually a lurker, but I think I'll comment on this one.
I was at university in the UK, studying theology, when the whole issue of ordaining women started to become "hot". The truth of the matter is that, historically, the priesthood in the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Church has been nothing more than men's club designed to attract and retain an above average percentage of lazy males unwilling to work in the harsh, secular world.
In my time both at university and, much later, when I worked with a man who had left the Anglican Church over the issue and gone on to become ordained in the Orthodox Church, I have heard and read a number of theological arguments for an all-male priesthood, all of which hinge on the essential God-given nature of men and women.
What undermines all of these arguments, as far as I'm concerned, is the one thing that is hardly ever mentioned: the fact that in these churches priests are paid. And, in two of these churches, the Anglican and EO, the priest is also allowed to marry.
The effect of all of this is that a Christian man, but not a Christian woman, can choose to be a paid professional in an institution that is daubed as "Christ's Church".
In any argument and issue, it is always worth asking: who gains, in material terms, from this arrangement?
As far as going over to Rome is concerned, by no means all stay - even David Virtue has had to admit this.
Jane Smith (Pretoria, South Africa)
Jane, thank you for commenting. Your words intrigue me, and I plan to bump them up to an opinion post. I hope you don't mind.
ReplyDeleteI wish they would go back where they came from if the Anglican's would be charitable enough to take them. The last thing the Catholic Church needs is this crowd. The convert priest I've met see incapable of serving a large parish and/or obsessed with"priestesses."
ReplyDeleteAND they don't even want to worship as Catholics. What IS the point? Seems like they have just found a place to hide.
Briney
Briney, we would probably be charitable enough to take the Anglicans back. I don't understand why they don't just convert to Roman Catholicism and why Rome insists on pandering to them by setting up special ordinariates.
ReplyDelete