Ah, there's the real point, in Edwin Barnes' article. They want churches and parsonages. What will happen to the parish structure of the Church of England if a woman finds herself living in a geographical area where she can't go to her parish chruch, seek discernment of her vocation, and be accepted at the altar? That, above all, cannot and must not be accepted. Anyone who wants to submit to the See of Rome is free to do so, but English people must be allowed the use of their parishes churches, without gender tests being imposed by some defecting parson.

+Burnham and +Newton write:

"We have chosen 22nd February, The Feast of The Chair of Peter, to be an appropriate day for priests and people to make an initial decision as to whether they wish to respond positively to and explore further the initiative of the Apostolic Constitution."

Of course, we know why that date was chosen, right? General Synod meets 8-12 Feb. They'll threaten to take the Roman option in the run-up to Synod to try and get what they want from it. And if they don't get what they want from the CoE, then they'll take that Roman option. What kind of basis is that for going to the RC Church - because we didn't get what we wanted from the CoE?

Funny, isn't it, that it is the Anglicans who are trying to preserve the ancient model of episcopacy, while Rome creates all sorts of ecclesiological novelties (personal prelatures, personal ordinariates) to keep/get people on board.

In England, negotiations with the Vatican have been led by two of the "flying bishops" - the Anglo-Catholics sanctioned to porovide pastoral care for opponents of the ordination of women as priests. The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt. Revd. Andrew Burnham, and the Bishop of Richborough, the Rt. Revd. Keith Newton, visited Rome at Easter last year for talks with Cardinal Levada.
- Ruth Gledhill -

I don't always go along with Ruth's rhetorical slant on Anglican affairs, but I reckon she may just have put her finger on something important here. It would seem that, although the one-time R.C. priest, now divorced and re-married, T.A.C. Australian Archbishop John Hepworth may have been the prime mover in his negotiations with Rome over the reception of his ex-Anglican-rump church; the later meeting with Vatican officials by the two English 'Flying Bishops' has helped to set the ball rolling with this papal initiative.

What does this all say (in hindsight, granted) about the wisdom of the C.of E. in granting the licence to these two Anglican Bishops to exercise episcope over the anti-women sodality in the Church of England? Perhaps only now, the wisdom of such a policy can be seen for what it has turned out to be - a disaster waiting to happen.

However, every cloud has a silver lining, and that for the C.of E. at the moment may be the way being made clear for women bishops in the Church.

Has anyone warned the Pope about the problems he is taking on board with these contenders against forward movement in the Church? Not to mention the contention he will find amongst his own Latin Rite clergy who might want to get married!

Edwin Barnes will have to be much more convincing if he thinks churches, parsonages and (presumably) whole geographical areas of England are going to be given to the Roman Catholic Church. This would be legally and constitutionally impossible.

The whole point of these Personal Ordinarates is that they will require those who wish to be part of them to LEAVE the Church of England and JOIN the Roman Catholic Church. That means leaving behind churches, parishes, vicarages, stipends, pensions (except that earned to date) and synods.

I thought Ruth Gledhill's piece was very perceptive on just how dangerous this thing could be.

We must keep our nerve:

(1) We have a far better church in all respects - finer buildings (which we did not 'steal'), finer music, more compassion, better attitudes to women and gays, a more intelligent approach to the problems of religion vs science, far superior theologians, practical intercommunion (widely reciprocated at street level, especially in Europe).

(2) For several of the reasons above, 'History is on our side'. Don't laugh, it is.

(3) Many UK RCs at all levels will disapporve of this Papal initiative.

(4) In practice, most RCs think like most Anglicans about most things. 'How many battalions has the Pope?' Not nearly as many as he thinks he has.

But we need better leaders at all levels and far more self-respect.

I thought Ruth Gledhill's piece was very perceptive on just how dangerous this thing could be.

We must keep our nerve:

(1) We have a far better church in all respects - finer buildings (which we did not 'steal'), finer music, more compassion, better attitudes to women and gays, a more intelligent approach to the problems of religion vs science, far superior theologians, practical intercommunion (widely reciprocated at street level, especially in Europe).

(2) For several of the reasons above, 'History is on our side'. Don't laugh, it is.

(3) Many UK RCs at all levels will disapporve of this Papal initiative.

(4) In practice, most RCs think like most Anglicans about most things. 'How many battalions has the Pope?' Not nearly as many as he thinks he has.

But we need better leaders at all levels and far more self-respect.

Does retaining 'some Anglican practices' include birth control? Just curious.

I just wish the person who Rorate Caeli calls "successor to the usurpers of the extingushed see of Canterbury" http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ would put some effort into sticking up for decency towards women and gay people rather than melting into the shadows in the face of the harsh ecclesiology and sexuality/gender ethic of the Roman Catholic Church. He does believe that totalitarian and excluding methods of running a church are not wise or especially godly, doesn't he, or does he, in fact?

Too little detail.

Is this a new church (like a Uniate branch) where Anglican RC priests/bishops can only serve their own and will not be able to celebrate according to other rites? Good to keep the married priests apart from the general Catholic population.

Or is this like Opus Dei - a Personal Prelature opperating within the existing RC churches?

Yes, Rowan has decried the lawsuits in America because he hasn't bothered to inform himself about the polity of TEC OR American contitutional and civil law. TEC is not acting out of 'meanness,' but rather, trying to retain property that is held in trust for it. So far, the overwhelming majority of such suits have been settled in favor of TEC. But Rowan is too lofty to bother with tiresome things like facts. It's like the Windsor report going on and on about American bishops being 'appointed.' Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!

How will he like it if the Tiberswimmers tow along a couple of major London churches and a cathedral or so?

Is Rowan giving to let these people take their church buildings and bank accounts with them, as he has so often pushed TEC to do with its own separatists?

If "Rorate Caeli" enthuses about something, that's a sure sign it's a dead duck.

Abp Rowan has signalled clearly that the Vatican has committed an act of supreme ecumenical tactlessness. The hallmark of it is that it is the work of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith rather than of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Presumably Cardinal Walter Kasper was not notified of it any earlier than Rowan was. The CDF are famous for bad manners. I expect to hear Card. Kasper make his indignation clear as on similar previous occasions.

"An Anglo-Catholic tradition will continue to be a part of the Church of England, nurtured by those who cherish this tradition while not ready to accept the current jurisdiction of the Holy See." - 'Rorate Coeli' statement -

This is perhaps the most credible paragraph of the statement by 'Rorate Coeli' facilitated by Fr.Mark on this thread. The fact that 'Rorate' hosted comment by Archbishop John Hepworth,
a former Roman Catholic, now divorced and re-married, Primate of the recently-formed *Traditional Anglican Communion*, should warn his R.C. associates of the sort of catholicity they are inviting into their new 'ordinariates'.

One wonders what the real Anglo-Catholics will make of their prospective new bed-fellows - if they decide to actually move in with the TAC in this newly-proposed set-up with the Roman See?
I can't imagine those who really value their spiritual connection with the likes of Celtic Saints Adrian, Hilda and Chad (despite Hilda's eventual acceptance of the Roman Primacy) will want to surrender their loyalty to the Celtic Saints, to fall in line with the present incumbent of the Roman See.

Father Ron Smith said "However, every cloud has a silver lining, and that for the C.of E. at the moment may be the way being made clear for women bishops in the Church."

Hear hear! Hopefully this matter is quickly concluded. The sooner the disgruntled are settled in to Rome, the better the C of E can focus on straightening out the mess created by the Flying Bishops and the ABC's waffling.

The more likely scenario will be for a stampede coming from the opposite direction anyhow.

Those conservative Anglicans pondering an exit for special spaces newly created just for them in the allegedly big tent that Rome now preaches itself to be - will temporarily find consonance in the global Church of No.

Come down hard on two negatives - No, to women; No to queer folks. Then settle in comfortably?

I see an elephant around here somewhere, The Roman Catholic Really Big No To Modern Sciences and best practices critical scholarship. Did the silencings of John McNeil or Teilhard de Chardin really render them void and voiceless?

The oddest thing about this invitation is that it defines a big tent ethos and method that could just as easily be used to include and welcome exactly those women and queer folks who are otherwise the targets and the subjects of the Two Big Negatives. A Finer Irony would be hard to locate in this newly published hot button moment.

For a while, I guess, we will be using modern-ish tools honed by Vatican II Councils to carve out special conformed Flat Earth Believer Spaces. Okay, Holy Benny, whatever works for you and Levada Inquisitor? PS, now what about what happened in Ireland Catholic Youth corrections, and that church life cover up?

I do not understand why Rome has used so many fireworks with their propaganda, only for a bunch of anglicans who already broke away from the Anglican Communion.
This so-called "Traditional Anglican Communion" only has a dozen of bishops and priests in England without church buildings (they oftenly celebrated masses in houses or rented temples and even in stores)...and...without people ! What is this all about ?

A few years ago, a Roman Catholic priest colleague of mine said," We send you our brightest and our best, both clergy and laity. You send us your dregs, your dissidents, your unhappiest people who will not be happy wherever they go."

I predict a big flop in the U.S. - the Anglican traditionalists here (1) picked up their marbles and left when things didn't go their way and (2) have been enjoying a great amount of autonomy in their separatist structures since then. Neither one of these tendencies will fit in very well in the RC Church.

And I think many of them also fear that what is standard practice in Rome these days won't always be the case. Imagine if you had converted to Rome in the 1950's because you thought Protestantism had embraced modernist tendencies and contemporary liturgical practices too much? Fast forward ten years after Vatican II and you'd be screwed...

"Imagine if you had converted to Rome in the 1950's because you thought Protestantism had embraced modernist tendencies and contemporary liturgical practices too much?"

Or imagine if you had separated from the Anglican Church over liturgical reform. How would you now have the unmitigated gall to join Rome, where you do not have the freedom to refuse to use what is essentially the same liturgy that you once thought was so utterly wrong you caused a very public scene as you flounced out of the Anglican Church in a huff? I mean seriously.