Archbishop Welby: “Don’t Give Up On Us” After Vote to Ordain Women Bishops

Archbishop Welby: “Don’t Give Up On Us” After Vote to Ordain Women Bishops July 22, 2014

“Don’t give up on us…. We need each other!”
 That was the message from Archbishop Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Orthodox and Catholic churches this week, after the General Synod of the Church of England voted to ordain women bishops.

With so much troubling the world today, Archbishop Welby emphasized that common witness to the Gospel was of greater importance than ever.

But try as he might, Archbishop Welby will not be able to reconcile that controversial vote with his goal of greater cooperation and unity between his denomination and other Christian churches.  From Catholics to Orthodox to many within his own denomination, the move to accept women into the episcopacy is seen as a denial of apostolic succession and church authority.

A case in point:
  Cardinal Walter Kasper, whom many Catholics have come to regard as on the far liberal end of the theological spectrum, holds fast to the Catholic Church’s constant teaching.

Ruth Gledhill, writing in The Tablet, reported on Catholic Cardinal Walter Kasper’s remarks at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, which brought together bishops from throughout the world.  Cardinal Kasper, then president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had been asked to speak to the title: “Roman Catholic Reflections on the Anglican Communion”:

Regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, the Catholic Church’s teaching was clear, he said, citing correspondence between Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II with successive Archbishops of Canterbury: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordin­ation on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

This was not what the Anglicans wanted to hear. But there was more. For him, the decision to ordain women implied a turning away from the common position of all Churches of the first millennium. He was clear about the implications. “While our dialogue has led to significant agreement on the understanding of ministry, the ordination of women to the episcopate effectively and definitively blocks a possible recognition of Anglican orders by the Catholic Church.”

Catholic Online, in an analysis published July 15, further explains:

The vote rejected the Catholic and Orthodox theology of Apostolic succession, the nature of the priesthood and the of sacraments. It also removes any real hopes for institutional and structural reunion of the Catholic, Orthodox and what is now called the Anglican and Episcopal Church.

It rejects an entire theology of Church, Sacrament and Holy Orders. It dismisses centuries of Anglican tradition. The Church of England has been deeply divided over this issue.

And the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales issued a “statement of regret” which said, in part:

The Catholic Church remains fully committed to its dialogue with the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. For the Catholic Church, the goal of ecumenical dialogue continues to be full visible ecclesial communion.”

“Such full ecclesial communion embraces full communion in the episcopal office. The decision of the Church of England to admit women to the episcopate therefore sadly places a further obstacle on the path to this unity between us.”

In other corners of the Christian world, the response has been viewed as divisive.  According to The Tablet,

Catholic Archbishop Bernard Longley, chairman of the international Anglican-Catholic dialogue body Arcic, said last week that the decision “sadly places a further obstacle” on the path to unity, but added that the bishops were still committed to ecumenical dialogue.

The Russian Orthodox Church’s department for external relations said it was “alarmed and disappointed” by the vote. “The decision to ordain women, which the Church of England took in 1992, damaged the relationships between our Churches, and the introduction of female bishops has eliminated even a theoretical possibility for the Orthodox to recognise the existence of apostolic succession in the Anglican hierarchy.”

Canon Simon Killwick, chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod, said that while he was pleased with the provision that would be made for Anglicans who cannot accept women bishops, “we are deeply concerned about the consequences for the wider unity of the whole Church”. He added: “We remain committed to working together with all in the Church of England to further the mission of the Church to the nation, and to model a way of living and working together despite deeply held differences.”

Thomas Peters, writing last year for CatholicVote, pointed out that one factor which may have influenced the Church of England’s embrace of women’s ordination and women bishops is that those who disagree–Anglicans who supported the constant teaching of the Church–have been leaving to join the Personal Ordinariate approved by Pope Benedict XVI to allow Anglicans into full communion with the Catholic Church.  Peters quoted the UK Independent,

Advocates for women bishops last night welcomed the resignation of five Anglican bishops to the Catholic Church saying their departure should help quicken the arrival of full equality within the Church of England.

The five bishops, three of whom are still working bishops, have left the Church of England following prolonged disagreement over the consecration of women bishops, an issue which has bitterly divided the Anglican Church.

 As Catholics, we pray with Christ that all may be one.  However, we cannot achieve that mighty goal at the expense of the big-“T” Tradition that’s been handed on to us from the apostles.

"I'll follow you over Kathy. I was probably in more sympathy with your point of ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"If you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Thank you, Mrs. Harris! Christmas blessings to you. I hope to see you over at ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Let's defer to the experts (namely, the tract writers (tractors?) at Catholic Answers) for a ..."

Heaven Is For Real: Secrets Colton ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Shaun G. Lynch

    There never was much of a chance of full unification of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, and clearly any faint hope in that regard is now fully extinguished. But that’s okay. We can still be close friends.

    In any event, the Catholic Church has never had the slightest interest in any unification of Christian churches that involves anything less than the full absorption of other churches into itself, and that’s never going to happen.

    While I congratulate the Church of England on a decision that makes complete sense, I have to acknowledge that no such change is going to occur within the Roman Catholic Church anytime soon.

    My suggestion to reform-minded Catholics: let it go. There are other battles to be fought, many of which have at least the potential to lead to positive change in our own or our children’s lifetime. As it becomes increasingly apparent over time that women are as fully capable of functioning as bishops as they are at functioning as priests, the barriers to the full inclusion of women in the Catholic hierarchy will weaken and ultimately fall.

    It is somewhat ironic that this blog post appears on the feast of Mary Magdalen, when the Gospel reading from John (20:1-2, 11-18) presents the description of Mary being the first to encounter the risen Christ. Apparently our Lord felt that women were as deserving as men of full inclusion in his revelation!

    • JoAnn

      Or “reform-minded” Catholics can join the Episcopal Church, which appears to offer what “reform-minded” Catholics want, and the Catholic Church can continue to teach the Catholic faith to believers.

      • Shaun G. Lynch

        Why do so many dogmatic Catholics seem to think that it’s in any way appropriate for them to suggest that anyone depart from the Church? I can tell you with absolute and total certainty that no recent pope would ever countenance such a suggestion!

        I have been a Catholic since my baptism over a half-century ago, and I currently head the lay pastoral team of my parish. I couldn’t even contemplate joining another church!

        And if no bishop, including the Bishop of Rome, has seen fit to excommunicate someone as persistently vocal in his criticism of the Church as Father Hans Kung is, I don’t think my place in the Church is in any way threatened.

        • fredx2

          No, the Pope would want people to remain in the church so that they could come to understand and accept the truth of Catholicism.

          The reason the commenter above suggested that “reform minded” Catholics do the obvious thing and move to the Anglican church is because that is what people do. They go to churches that offer them what they want. It is bad form indeed to stay in a church and constantly whine and complain about things that are fundamental to that faith – as JP II told us in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis, the all male priesthood cannot change. This, he further told us, is to be definitively held by the faithful (in the subsequent CDF document) Now, if I were convinced that he was just plain wrong, and if I felt strongly about it, I would assume that the Catholic church was not able to lead us in the right direction, so I should find a new church. The one thing I would not do is stay, keep whining and complaining that everyone did not see things my way. I would not pretend that I had greater access to the Holy Spirit, or that I was a far sighted visionary while the Pope was a crabbed old mysogynist,

          • JoAnn

            Great explanation!

        • JoAnn

          No one is talking about formal excommunication. However, if a “Catholic” person wants the Church to “reform” to meet his or her vision of what the Church should be, how can that person claim to be “in union with” the Church? If your heart and soul and mind are not in agreement with what the Church teaches, don’t accuse the Church of being wrong or “behind the times” or “in need of reform”. (Remember Martin Luther?). Your body should just follow your mind to whatever church fits with what you think it should be.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            In response to both you and fredx2: no, no, no, no, NO!!!

            Seriously, think this through, both of you.

            Here I am, working diligently to bring people back into the Church, and the best you can do in response to my intimation that some elements of the Church be reformed is to suggest that I leave?! That’s all you’ve got to offer?

            And, for the record, this discussion hasn’t even included any enumeration of anything that I feel should be subject to reconsideration. You want me to leave the Roman Catholic Church simply because I don’t think that everything as it currently exists should stay as it is for all eternity.

            Do you seriously think it’s even remotely realistic to expect that every single Catholic will be 100% in agreement with every single aspect of the Church? And do you honestly believe that the Church would be better off if every single person who had any dissatisfaction with any aspect of the Church simply abandoned the faith? REALLY???!!!

            As it happens, the paragraph above represents pretty much the same message I regularly deliver to Catholics who have drifted away from the Church. I have to explain to them that they can be active Catholics even though they are not happy with absolutely everything the Church teaches. There is enormously more that is valuable within the Church than there are things to be unhappy about. If you’re a Catholic, the Church is and always will be your home.

            Under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever is it EVER appropriate for anyone in the Church below a bishop to even suggest that someone leave the faith. Making such a suggestion may be the absolute worst thing you could possibly do!

            There have always been and will always be disagreements about various aspects of faith and practice. There’s no way that it could ever be otherwise in an international organization this huge. And, as uncomfortable as it may be to accept, there will always be people sharing the pews with whom you intensely disagree.

            There is still massively more that unites us than there is that divides us. We can disagree on specifics, but we are all, and always will be, Catholics.

          • JoAnn

            You’re missing my point.
            Again, no one is suggesting that any BELIEVING Catholic leave the faith. However, if you DON’T believe what the Church proclaims to be true, YOU’VE ALREADY LEFT IT of your own volition, so why pretend and call yourself something that you’re not (hello, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden)? Find a group that meets your criteria.
            If there were something in the Catholic faith that I disagreed with, I’d either have to conclude that **I** have to work harder at understanding why the Church teaches that position and learn to accept it with HUMILITY, or if I still think my position is somehow wiser than the consensus of all of the Popes, Bishops and Theologians throughout the centuries, then I would be doing everyone a favor (including myself) by joining another Church that has what I want. I think it’s just amazing arrogance to expect the Church to “reform” itself because of what other churches are doing. Either their is Truth (which doesn’t change), or everything is relative. As another poster indicated, people are leaving the Anglican Church because it can’t seem to proclaim the Truth, but is just blowing around with “current thought.”
            And no, I know that every single Catholic is not 100% in agreement with every single aspect of the Church’s teachings, but they’re also not loudly promoting “reform” and to be patience while the Church comes around to what the world is doing.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            If I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that only a properly ordained Roman Catholic priest possesses the faculties to perform the consecration, then where, exactly, am I supposed to go?

            And as for your continuing encouragement that I leave the Church, might I suggest that you read Romulus’s post below, which quotes the Catechism on the subject of scandal?

          • TerryC

            I would never suggest that you leave the Church. I would however suggest that you be careful of supporting stances that are obviously not in conformance to Church teaching, especially if you have a ministerial role in your parish. It tends to confuse those of weak faith.
            Remember even if JPII declaration on the inability of the Church to ordain women is not infallibly dogmatic (I support that it is) it is still a doctrine declared Sententia certa, which means that it is something that a Catholic is required to accept, by an act of will if not faith.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            Actually, it is an infallible declaration, but only because it restates a teaching from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. That clarification was expressed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in response to widespread confusion following the Pope’s declaration.

            And I do understand and appreciate your point about needing to be careful about how I express my concerns about the faith.

            At the same time, I think that people who have drifted away from the Church need to see that there are many who have chosen to remain in spite of their doubts about specific points of faith and practice. I fear that many who might otherwise return to the faith stay away in order to avoid exactly the kind of judgement and opprobrium being expressed by so many in this forum.

          • Talitha Kumi

            Cafeteria Catholicism hurts the Church immensely. While I definitely encourage critical thinking, obedience to the Magisterium is also a huge part of Catholicism. And the Magisterium is very clear on its rulings concerning women’s ordination…heck, the gospels are clear about it! As you know, being a Catholic isn’t easy, but it’s imperative that we struggle to obey the Church in her spiritual decrees. The Church isn’t here to please man- and yet so many of these “reforms” seem to center on just that.

            Instead of reform focused on changing Church teaching, why don’t we focus on changing the discrimination still seen in the Church on a huge scale towards disenfranchised people?

            Though I do agree, it makes no sense to encourage anyone to leave the Church.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            Read my original post in this thread! I am not encouraging anything other than obedience with regard to the Church’s position on the ordination of women!

            I very much like your comment about focusing effort on the disenfranchised. I absolutely agree. As much as I would like to see reform in certain beliefs and practices, I am not, myself, actively working to change anything. I have more than enough to do in my role in my parish, which Romulus so cavalierly denigrates elsewhere in this thread.

            The most I do is to occasionally comment in forums like this one. The irony, in this case, is that I’m essentially agreeing with the position stated in this blog post, i.e. that the Anglican Church’s decision to allow the ordination of female bishops will, for the foreseeable future, eliminate any possibility of full reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.

            I’m being attacked simply because of a vague reference to myself as “reform-minded,” in spite of there being no specific indication of what reform I have in mind, or what, if anything, I intend to do to promote it.

            In light of that, the tone and content of many of the responses I’ve received is profoundly disturbing. Why would anyone want to have anything to do with a faith community that expresses such profound animus towards anyone who is hesitant to agree absolutely and without question to every single thing the Church says or teaches?

            Happily, I see none of this kind of scandalous attitude among the faithful in my own milieu.

        • Romulus

          You say “dogmatic” like that’s a bad thing. IS holding to dogma a bad thing, Shaun?

          To argue that “women are as fully capable of functioning as bishops as they are at functioning as priests” is to take a reductionist view of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The priesthood and episcopacy are about much more than mere function. Otherwise why not ordain robots?

          You do not understand Holy Orders and your advice to “reform-minded” Catholics is deeply un-Catholic. What they (and you) need is conversion and submission of will and intellect. You are a danger to souls and have no business on a “lay pastoral team”, whatever that is.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            So, I’m bad because I question, but don’t actively seek to change, one particular aspect of the Church’s teaching.

            But it’s okay for you to challenge the decision of priests and a bishop in my diocese, who actually know and have worked with me, to place me in a position of responsibility with regard to building the Church. Sorry, not buying it.

            If you want to know what I mean by “lay pastoral team” (actually, Équipe Pastorale d’Animation du Milieu), you can read about it on the website of the Diocese of Valleyfield. But you’ll have to find a way to translate it from French.

            By the way, I use the term “dogmatic” in order to avoid terms like “right-wing” and “conservative” that are less clearly descriptive and may be viewed pejoratively. Obviously we’re all dogmatic to a significant degree. If you have a better term to recommend, I’m open to suggestions.

          • Romulus

            I haven’t called you “bad”. I’ll be happy to start however, if you insist on imputing to me accusations I’ve never made.

            I see you’re very proud of your little EPAM job: typical of post-conciliar clericalism. One can only hope you handle the coordination or the charité, not the foi or prière. (I hardly ever get the opportunity to speak French, but can read it just fine.)

            So glad to see you admit that “dogmatic” was a poor word choice. Perhaps the word you really want is “faithful” or
            “orthodox”. Clearly descriptive and not pejorative at all.

            Your problem here is not that you struggle with elements of the faith (including even those magisterially defined), but that you defiantly insist on viewing them as not settled and on voicing your defiance in public. In this you give scandal to your neighbor — more so because of your Big Important EPAM Position. That’s a sin against charity right there — specifically a sin against the 5th Commandment.

            Finally: be assured it’s perfectly OK for me to question the prudence of priests and a bishop who assign a position of responsibility to someone deficient in the faith. Canon law gives us the right to mention our concerns in a reasonable and charitable way.

          • John Fisher

            So that means you are undogmatic… rather than a fifth columnist seeking to undermine from within.

          • Talitha Kumi

            Romulus, while I agree with you about Holy Orders, I don’t think you’re in a position to judge someone else as being in need of conversion and being a “danger to souls”. Pick the plank from your own eye. Attitudes like this create stumbling blocks for others and lobbing around accusations like that will only push people away.

        • Johnb

          Thank you Shaun. JoAnn, I understand your frustration, but please remember that it is a grave sin to encourage another to leave the Catholic Church. I’m not accusing you of actually doing that, and I know this is an internet forum. But please don’t throw those ideas around lightly just to make a point. Not even when you’re 99% sure others will understand it as hyperbole. Even the possibility that another will take it as a serious suggestion and stir them to leave the Church is something I’m sure you don’t want to happen!

          • Ryan Godfrey

            Actually John, I think if someone has already “left” by their actions and their lack of commitment to Church teaching, the advice to just make it official would in no way be a grave sin. It would in fact be a grace to those in the Church who value orthodoxy and don’t need their little ones growing up hearing about lady priests and bishops.

        • John Fisher

          “Maintain the rage man”. Call others dogmatic when they point out you are peddling another gospel. Please resign from your role as you position has no integrity. It is easy to wear a label but its what is inside the can that matters. Kung is laicized and removed from his teaching role because of what he is. A silly old hippie who is a doorman for atheism and secularism. Why not walk through the door.

    • Nicola M. Costello

      No, not “anytime soon”. NEVER. Women’s ordination will NEVER happen in the Roman Catholic Church, because the minute that happens, it would simply mean a new heretical sect was created which would no longer be in full communion with the Church. Just like the Church of England became a sect in the 16th Century because the King was a committed adulterer. Christ’s Church is ONE and Peter, in the person of John Paul II, has spoken definitively on the nature of the priesthood as an institution reserved for men.

      • Shaun G. Lynch

        There is a mechanism for making changes to elements of Church Tradition. If the Church were to follow that procedure, and the recommended changes were duly approved by the pope and the bishops gathered in General Council, then the ordination of women to the priesthood could become a reality.

        I personally believe that it will happen, but, as noted above, not anytime soon. And it’s not something to which I personally intend to devote any energy whatsoever.

        … but are you saying that if the Church did, in fact, follow all of its established procedures to make such a change, that you would, ipso facto, regard the Church itself as having become invalid? And, if that is the case, wouldn’t that mean that you reject the Magisterium even now?

        • Kilkenny

          There’s a difference between tradition and dogma. Male priesthood is not tradition, it’s dogma, i.e. as taught by Christ. Having women “priests” is contrary to what Christ taught, ergo it means separation from His Church. To insist on women “priests” is to insist on one’s own path, not the path of Christ and certainly not that of his Church.

        • fredx2

          I don’t think you misunderstand the nature of the Church’s teaching on this matter.

          Ordenatio Sacerdotalis. First of all, JP II said:

          Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

          When that came out, it was pretty clear. But those who wanted womens ordination tried various legalistic tricks to say that it was not a firm decision. They said “Ooh, it’s not an infallible decision, so we can change it” Which is kind of a dumb argument, but there you are. So, the CDF prepared a new dubium and had JP II sign off on the conclusion

          Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith. Responsum: In the affirmative.

          This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

          The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.”

          Now, you can think this is bad reasoning, or you can think you are a better theologian than Ratzinger, or you can think that your personal feelings about women priests are guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore enable you to override papal teaching. But it is the firm teaching of the Catholic church and it cannot be changed etc.

          No doubt you have read things that said that the Church has changed doctrine in the past. These are usually in error, see Cardinal Avery Dulles’s response to John Noonan’s book. Or, if your position is that a General Council could be held to undo things that are firmly part of the deposit of the faith, then I suppose all you are saying is that a General Council COULD get together and deny some or all of the teachings that have been considered the deposit of the faith.. While a theoretical possibility, it is never going to happen. It is about as likely as a new US Constitutional convention being held to re-institute slavery.

          You can read a good synopsis here

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            fredx2 writes: I don’t think you misunderstand the nature of the Church’s teaching on this matter.

            I realize that this was a proofreading error on your part, but in the grand Freudian tradition, your statement as written is absolutely correct!

          • Romulus

            Was it a proofreading error? I am not so sure. I think fred’s exactly right: your problem is not lack of understanding, but lack of obedience.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            But I am obedient!! I’ve clearly stated that I will personally take no action, nor will I encourage anyone else to to take action, to change the Church’s position on admission of women to the priesthood.

            All I’ve said is that I believe that the Church will, at some point in the far distant future, take appropriate steps, within its existing structures, to reconsider its position.

          • English Catholic

            As Nicola said above:

            In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, PJPII definitively taught, ex cathedra, that
            the Church has no authority from Christ to ordain women to the
            priesthood. This is definitive teaching for all Catholics and is not
            subject to change or development.

            Do you think JP2 was mistaken? It seems to necessarily follow from I believe that the Church will, at some point in the far distant future,
            take appropriate steps, within its existing structures, to reconsider
            its position.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            The entire doctrine of infallibility, which is at the root of this entire discussion thread, is a continuing source of profound disagreement at all levels of the Church. It was enacted, in its modern form, less than 150 years ago, and even at the time of the first Vatican Council it was highly controversial and politically charged.

            Minor point of correction: Pope Saint John Paul II made no ex cathedra pronouncements during his papacy. As was explained at the time by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was simply restating a point of dogma that is part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is already considered infallible.

          • Romulus

            Excuse me, but you are not obedient. Have you not stated that you “emphatically disagree” with the Church’s assessment of homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered? Have you not stated that there’s “no reason” for the Church to withhold ordination from women? Are you not on record as being in favor of “marriage” for same sex couples? Finally, have you not declared that you believe human life should not enjoy the right to life from conception because they lack personhood?

            I am not one urging that you leave the Catholic Church, though I wonder how you can square staying around with any sense of integrity or intellectual coherence. I do urge you to take a sabbatical from your EPAM duties and devote yourself to a period of silence, prayer, and reflection. These are not minor differences over policy or discipline; they go to the root of whether and what you believe.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            You’re digging into Disqus in order to unearth past statements I’ve made in other contexts, in an effort to discredit me. Fair enough; I have chosen not to hide my Disqus history or my identity, “Romulus.”

            I’m not going to engage here in discussion of subject matter that is not directly applicable to this blog post. Anyone who wishes to can go read and comment upon the original discussions to which you refer.

          • Romulus

            It’s true: I’ve read some of what you’ve chosen to post publicly. What a cheater I am.

            My own Disqus record is fair game. Knock yourself out.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            I’m not saying you’re cheating. Quite the contrary. The record is there for anyone to read. But I frequently write really long comments that detail my reasoning; your brief resumé, while not entirely inaccurate in its broad lines, completely eliminates any nuance from the original opinions.

            I also notice that you chose to entirely ignore my more recent comments in opposition to assisted suicide for the terminally ill, among other comments that would not have served your ad hominem intentions.

          • Romulus

            Credit where it’s due: Shaun is an outspoken opponent of assisted suicide. Why, I don’t know.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            If you know that I’m an outspoken opponent, then you must also know exactly why I oppose medical euthanasia. The reasoning is very clearly stated along with the position.

          • Romulus

            What I don’t know is why you view some of us as persons with human dignity deserving protection, and others…otherwise. More specifically, I don’t know why anyone can call this a Catholic way of thinking.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            Feel free to ask a question or make a comment in the appropriate forum. We’re now much too far off topic for this thread.

          • Lubega Leonard

            The Anglican Church has never been accepted by both Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Churches as valid. In fact, their ordination right from deaconate to episcopacy is considered invalid and that is why when a bishop from the Anglican church wants to join the Roman Catholic Church he will become first of all a lay person. Then that person will be ordained a deacon, a priest and if there is a need will be consecrated a bishop with some conditions. Pope Leo XIII stated that the Anglican orders are invalid.

          • John Fisher

            “I” “I” “I” Why why why? You are a one man ecclesial communion!

        • Nicola M. Costello

          Sir, have you read the documents Inter Insignores by Pope Paul VI or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by Pope John Paul II? The theology of the priesthood has been fully developed and clarified by these recent popes in response to the women’s ordination trend.

          In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, PJPII definitively taught, ex cathedra, that the Church has no authority from Christ to ordain women to the priesthood. This is definitive teaching for all Catholics and is not subject to change or development.

          The reason you hold out hope for change in some far off future is so you can confirm yourself in your error, hoping that you are ahead of your time and that the light will eventually penetrate the supposedly darkened minds of Church leadership.

          But, just the opposite is the case. The so-called progressive Churches are cascading into darkness and accepting the ways of the predominant, decadent elements of Western culture. That’s where the darkness lies and we hope that the Church of England comes to it’s senses and re-grafts itself to the true Church of Christ.

          As far as working together on what we have in common? Of course. But, the trend is toward division because some Churches want to adopt feminist principles in their faith and practice. Churches pushing women’s ordination are the same Churches embracing abortion and same-sex marriage.

        • Romulus

          From the CCC, discussing the Fifth Commandment, “You shall not kill”:

          2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

          2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    • fredx2

      “As it becomes increasingly apparent over time that women are as fully capable of functioning as bishops as they are at functioning as priests…”

      You mean capable of destroying their churches? Every church that has adopted women priests is declining in membership. The Anglicans have been losing membership head over heels. No matter what you think on the matter, one thing seems clear: women priests are a religion killer.

      At the recent Anglican synod, they reported that the Anglican church will be dead and gone in twenty years, if current trends continue.

      • John Wilson

        Complete sense? Only if you are a post-Christian Gnostic. By the way, in the forty years since the Episcopal “Church” began to ordain women, they have lost more than half of their members, have virtually no young men studying for ordination, and have embraced abortion and same-sex marriage. Way to go ! ! (if you are suicidal.)

      • Shaun G. Lynch

        Well, it’s also the case that the Anglican Church has been losing members ever since Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer, so I guess, by your reasoning, that is also a direct cause for the decline.

        The fact that one thing happens after another doesn’t mean that the second was caused by the first.

        • TerryC

          True, however it is not just their support of women priest, but the complete moral breakdown of the Episcopal church which is resulting in their decline. Studies have shown that religious groups which have strong, dogmatic beliefs which are counter-cultural do much better than groups which merely reflect common cultural values. This might not always have been true, though the preservation of Jewish cultural groups as opposed to assimilation seems to indicate that it might be. It is certainly true in modern times as Mormon, Evangelical and fundamental Islamic groups seem to be flourishing while weak dogma mainline Protestant churches, who support female clerics, homosexual unions (or “marriage”) and non-strict moral conduct codes seem to be failing.

          • Shaun G. Lynch

            I understand what you’re getting at, but I think the causes and outcomes are far more complex than what you describe here. (And, in fairness, forums like this one are terribly inadequate for expressing complex ideas. I suspect you’d have much more to say in a different context!)

            The problem I’m living, and it’s particularly acute in the province of Québec, is the animus that so many non-practicing Catholics have towards a church that is significantly out of step with the society that surrounds it. A stridently “small-O” orthodox approach will cost us many of the few who are still active in the faith, and will definitively slam the door on many if not most of those who make tentative moves to return (e.g. by having their children baptized or formed in preparation for receiving the other sacraments).

            I was recently at a press conference with my bishop, at which he announced the impending establishment of “pastoral units,” joining groups of parishes under common pastoral and administrative leadership, as a way of addressing a human resources crisis (not only lack of priests, but of trained lay pastoral personnel as well).

            It raises a fundamental question: which is better, a tiny Church composed only of people who maintain complete and unyielding agreement with and obedience to the Magisterium; or a larger, more inclusive Church that accepts, even if it does not necessarily tolerate, the skeptical?

            I think the Catechism’s instruction on homosexuality is instructive in that regard. While the Church clearly does not tolerate same-sex intimate behaviour, it also, very clearly and emphatically, requires Catholics to accept homosexuals and not to discriminate against them in any way.

            Personally, I’d rather see a big tent containing people who accept one another in spite of their disagreements than a pup tent of people who shut out any who disagree with them. Because I’ll be a very unhappy camper in that pup tent. If anyone wants me to leave the Catholic faith, they’ll have to drag me out, kicking and screaming!

        • John Fisher

          Shaun go to where your heart is!

    • TerryC

      It is simply not true that the Catholic Church has no interest in reunification. The twenty something Eastern Catholic Rite shows this is not true. The Personal Ordinariate for former Anglicans shows this is not true. I suspect that the Personal Ordinate of Our Lady of Walsingham will see an up-tick of new members as the result of this decision.

    • Victor

      ((( I have to acknowledge that no such change is going to occur within the Roman Catholic Church anytime soon.)))

      You’ve got to be kidding Shaun G. Lynch because on one hand you say that it will never happen but then on the other hand you go on to imply that in “Time”, “IT” could happen.

      Is God’s Word not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow or have we Catholic Christians been fooling ourself for ever two thousand years? 🙁

      I better stop for now before “I” start reving UP my spiritual reality engine. LOL 🙂


      • Victor

        I must apologize and ask for your forgiveness folks cause, when I made the above comment to Shaun G. Lynch, I had not read any of the remaining comments but for what it is worth, I was planning on doing so.

        I’m not saying that I’m psychic and although, I don’t know this French man and never red any of his past post, I knew that he was on the wrong track and that’s even before I learned that he was involved with our church.

        As a Christians and after reading all the things that he’s been accused of believing and trying to keep it quiet, (where many use that kind of propaganda these days) I’m starting to feel sorry for him and I’m sure he could probably feel sorry for me also. lol

        Anyway I should thank him because he agrees that we’re all off topic so I may as well continue.

        Don’t be too hard on him cause I’m sure he’s a good man and his heart of heart probably doesn’t even know that by spreading this stuff in our church, he’ll be leading some of God’s Children astray.

        I’m French also and we Frenchmen can be pretty stubborn and short of laying down a cross with a bucket of nails and each taking one in until one of US (usual sinners) give UP our silliness, the best we can do is keep praying for each other cause that hurts less. 🙂

        I won’t get into the part that one of our pass Holy Angel church was closed by our good Bishop where I was an altar boy when it was first built in 1954 and my father, god bless his soul even helped to build it.

        I won’t say too much before the church was closed that our second priest strongly supported woman involment in our church and he was liked by everyone in our community. Longer story short, even though he was later found guilty of some kind of sexual abuse, I truly liked him and won’t get into it here. He knew that I did not agree that woman should be conducting church when he could not be there and on a few occasions, I literally walked out while it was still in session because as far as I was concerned, the start of woman was beginning.

        I use to make, as we French call “Des FACES” with this priest and back then. I didn’t miss too many daily Mass. For example, in the morning when there was a fog, I would tell him that the angels were taking inventory and he always took it with a smile. One day, I guess I came on a little too strong before Mass cause he always waited in the back of the church to welcome his followers and on this day, I asked him if he knew that when a child was born, he/or she was a sin? To be fair to myself, I thought that he would know that I was referring to the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve and that sin is removed by “Baptism” and let’s just say he wasn’t smilling and/or impressed and simply leave “IT” at that.

        Better stop now Victor! LOL 🙂

        God Bless Peace

        • Shaun G. Lynch

          Merci, Victor, for your thoughtful comments. It’s refreshing to see that we can disagree and still be civil. More importantly, that we can disagree while maintaining respect for one another as people of faith!

          If I post controversial opinions on forums like this one, where I’m obviously in the minority, it’s not just to poke orthodox Catholics with a pointed stick. Rather, I want orthodox Catholics to have the opportunity to interact with someone who, like them, is deeply committed to the Roman Catholic Church, even in spite of disagreements with a very small number of issues (albeit very important ones). We tolerate far too much demonization of those with whom we disagree, on both sides of the cultural divide. We’re all, first, foremost and above all, fellow Roman Catholics, and we should never allow ourselves to forget that.

          Much more importantly, I want Catholics who have drifted away from the faith to see that their concerns don’t need to be an impediment to their return. They do need to accept, as I have, that most of what concerns them is not going to change in their lifetimes, and perhaps not ever. But that’s okay. It’s actually one of the things I most appreciate about the Catholic Church. We don’t tend to make sudden, revolutionary changes. Instead, we evolve over time.

          And we do evolve. But we need to recognize that such evolution will always be preceded by consternation among those who desire change, and will always be met with consternation by those who are attached to old ways.

          However, we still all remain Catholic. There will always be far more that unites than divides us. We should all (myself included) begin any conversation with those with whom we disagree by remembering that.

          Une dernière chose : je ne suis pas « français. » Je suis plutôt québecois! LOL

          • Victor

            ((( Une dernière chose : je ne suis pas « français. » Je suis plutôt québecois! LOL )))

            Pas de problem mon Canadien. Pour moi, je suis Canadien come toi and like I was saying, I’m also Canadian and I must agree when you say that we do evolve. For example, I was told by my poor mother, god bless her soul, that our ancestors travelled back and forth on the high seas and at this moment, I’m kind of sorry that I did not push her about more stories. The reason that I didn’t push for more was because of the true sadness that I saw in her eyes and anger that she felt for so called non-believers but long story short she told me enough. Truth be known and trust me, it’s a lot more than I care and/or need to write here. For example one family of our entire past family ancestors lived on one of those so many sail boats who travelled back and forth then and she added among other things that she believed to be factual and one of her great uncle had died and one of those boats and was burried at sea. Forgive me again for going on about myself.

            Anyway! When you say: ((( Much more importantly, I want Catholics who have drifted away from the faith to see that their concerns don’t need to be an impediment to their return.)))

            I and many others also want Catholics who have drifted from the faith to return and I’m willing to wager that if we stay strong in our “Faith” that “Jesus Christ” started through His Rock, more will come back stronger than ever and I wouldn’t be surprised if countless will evolve with them, sort of speak. 🙂

             You go on to say: (((They do need to accept, as I have, that most of what concerns them is not going to change in their lifetimes)))

            Finally! We agree 100% that’s if you’re saying that they must follow what His Holiness says without continually pushing him for this so called evolution of our Church, then we see eye to eye or is that soul to soul?

            Now comes the water in the wine (((, and perhaps not ever. But that’s okay. It’s actually one of the things I most appreciate about the Catholic Church. We don’t tend to make sudden, revolutionary changes. Instead, we evolve over time.)))

            Gee! We’re back to my first comment when I said in so many words, that GOD is (Good Old Dad) and we are but his seeds and YES, yes, we will evolve but GOD will never evolve cause HE’s the same today, tomorrow and yesterday.

            STILL You continue to spread what I believe is what indirectly closed our last church((( And we do evolve. But we need to recognize that such evolution will always be preceded by consternation among those who desire change, and will always be met with consternation by those who are attached to old ways. )))

            Gee! what old ways? With all due respect again I say and believe that if we hold to The Bride that Christ started through especially these days, “IT” doesn’t matter how many spiritual, reality nails they might put in The Children of GOD, The Blessed Trinity will see US (usual sinners) to THE END.

            Please keep praying for this sometime (Annoying Super Sinner)

            God Bless Peace

    • John Fisher

      Yet Christ whose Mother is above the Apostles and those women who were his followers were never made or given the role of apostles their successors or the clergy. Even the role of helper had no liturgical role and was concerned with the modesty of women in baptism. There are different parts of the body and each is complementary and each has a place in the body. You are nor reform orientated. You are “deform” orientated. Since before World War One Christianity has been replaced by pragmatism and rejection of Christianity. You are part of that in that you reject what is a permanent, integral and authentic part of what Christ gave us distorting it to fit an ill considered ideology of freedom and sameness you think equality. You are the one you think to judge tradition. No you are not. Believe and conform yourself to it in the here and now. Do not distort to suit fashion.

  • I guess if they allowed women priests, they might as well allow women bishops. But the whole issue is disasterous for the Anglican Church. I don’t see how we could merge with that obstacle.

  • There seems to be some confusion. The Catholic Church can’t just “recognize” the validity of Anglican orders if they are invalid — which they are — anymore than it can “recognize” a piece of bread is the Body of Christ if it hasn’t been consecrated.

    • John Fisher

      Yes Anglicans are a generic brand with no valid orders. The continuity of apostolic succession is broken. Even if some bishop from Utrecht take part even their succession is doubtful.

    • John

      I don’t think this was necessarily true (of course I’m in no position of authority and am not a canon lawyer, etc.) However, it is known that there was an infusion of valid orders by co-consecration with Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic bishops in the early part of the last century. Virtually all Anglican lineage now follows from bishops who the Church considers validly ordained. (This was not the reason for the co-consecrations, but was a side-effect.) Thus, it seems to me that before women bishops it might have been possible to recognize Anglican orders as valid after careful study of the ordination liturgy and Apostolicae Curae (you would have to check that the errors from the Edwardian ordinal were not present in the 20th century ordinals). Now that is not the case.

      • Apostolicae Curae infallibly declared the invalidity of Anglican orders.

        So, to “recognize the validity” would really have to entail a ceremony to simply “re-ordain” them, which in reality would just be ordaining them for the first time.

        • John

          Look, let me point out that I don’t know what I’m talking about and that this is at best idle speculation, and now with women bishops, it is void anyway, but regardless:

          AC infallibly declared the invalidity of Anglican orders at the time because the Edwardian ordinal did not have the appropriate form and could therefore not ordain bishops. It did not say that there is no possible mechanism in the future by which an Anglican could have valid orders (this should be obvious: had there been some sort of reunification between the Anglicans and Rome, then Rome would have re-ordained all the Anglicans conferring on them valid orders. My point here is that Apostolicae Curae applies in a particular context and is true so long as the context remains valid, but there are situations in which the context no longer applies.)

          My understanding is that the Anglicans then fixed the ordinal so that it had the correct form, but because their bishops were not validly ordained, even using an appropriate rite they could not new bishops. However, much later the Anglicans started co-ordaining bishops with Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic bishops (who have valid orders). So now we are in a situation were Anglican orders can almost always be traced back to a validly ordained bishop (Old Catholic, PNCC, etc.) and the rites used were corrected of the errors that caused the orders to be invalid in the first place. So, it seems to me possible, as to at least one recent cardinal*, that Apostolicae Curae may not now apply to Anglican orders any more because the context has changed (the possible infusion of valid orders using a valid rite, which was not the case at the time of AC). It did apply, but it applied due to certain features of Anglican orders that may or may not be present in the contemporary lineages.

          Anyway, I digress because it really doesn’t matter anymore.

          *Cardinal Basil Hume conditionally ordained at least one Anglican priest rather than absolutely ordained, and has several writings on the subject which present essentially the same reasoning as above.

          • Well it is humble of you to say you have no idea what you’re talking about, because you clearly know more than I about this. And your logic is certainly sound. Needless to say, though, it doesn’t apply as soon as there is a woman in the chain, for that would break the Apostolic Succession.

            Furthermore it would just seem a practically impossible situation, and I think that if a reunification does occur, it would be by way of re-ordination. On the flip side of the coin, we should be reverent towards (but not receive) Communion in Anglican Churches due to the *possibility* it might be valid.

  • Michael Francis James Lee

    No. We don’t need the Anglican Apostacy that used to be a Christian denomination. We do need them to convert, and to accept the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, from whence they have long departed. (**Full Disclosure: I am a former Anglican Priest)

    • Cap America

      . . . I think, rather, that THEY need US!

  • Mary E.

    I read the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement as an attempt to save face. He has to know that the decision to ordain women bishops has changed everything in the dialogue with Catholic and Orthodox churches. If you read his full letter, which is available online, he relates the “five principles” outlined by the General Synod of the Church of England, Principle #2 makes it clear that they regard the decision to ordain women to the episcopate as non-negotiable: “2. Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must be prepared to acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter.” Yes, the General Synod agreed to accomodate those in the Church of England who do not accept the ordination of women, without any clear end date for that accomodation, but it is difficult to imagine how this will work out over time, as more women are ordained into positions of authority as bishops. They will insist that their orders be recognized as valid, and this will cause even more tension with the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Certainly, there can still be ecumenical efforts in areas of common interests and concerns, but the prospects for closer union are now gone, as Cardinal Kasper foresaw when he made his 2008 address.

  • Antiphon411

    “…we pray with Christ that all may be one.”

    We believe with Pope Pius XI (Mortalium animos) that all are already one in the Holy Catholic Church. We pray that heretics and schismatics (and Jews, pagans, and atheists) might come into that oneness.

  • Faustina11

    The very existence of the Anglican church is a denial of apostolic succession and authority. It’s irrelevant who they ordain.

    • Ryan Godfrey

      It isn’t even technically a “church.” It is an “ecclesial community.” Lets not grant them the credibility and weight they don’t have.

  • $97155992

    What does Christian unity entail? Certainly not the political shenanigans going on at the highest levels of the various denominations.

    • Victor

      Very interesting stuff to read in the link that you provided cpsho.

      I’ve only read to the end of the first page dated 30th June, 2014 up to the end of COME LORD JESUS. Although I have not yet clicked on the links provided but long story short, I’ve heard about many of them through The Daily Gospel which I’ve been reading for years.
      I would like to add if I may, “Come Lord Jesus be our guest and let this spiritual food to US (usual sinners) be Blessed.”
      God Bless

      • Victor

        Gee, I forgot to include your link for those who would like a quick look. 🙂

        • Victor

          The Christian Purge From Mosul

          The Islamist attacks on non-Muslims are a problem for Islam.

          Folk, let’s not forget that just like there are many different varieties of seeds, there are also different varieties of angels sowing these seeds and long story short, some good seeds get caught with some bad seeds…

          Why even mention what Jesus didn’t say? Such things like… ‘But the Lord Jesus did not tell her to “move on or get lost.”

          The question is why did Mary Magdalene not recognize her Master? Why did she not recognize the person who drove away the seven demons that had previously tormented her? Why did she not recognize the person who had showed her so much favor, when another person in similar circumstances could have said: “move on or get lost”?

          Having said that Victor! What is wrong with US (usual sinners) “I” mean us gods in greating a new Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition that is (RSVCE) so that we can make UP for having picked on these woman of high estimate, “I” mean “I” xxx team, no, no, nevermind cause we gods have a few adjustments to make and………………………………………………………………….andddd………………………………………………………and


          END YA SAY sinner vic? DON’T BE LIKE THAT! BE NICE NOW!

          Go Figure brothers and sisters in Christ?

          I hear YA! What’s the matter Victor, YA’ve got something against “EVOLUTION” NOW? LOL 🙂

          God Bless Peace

  • English Catholic

    Female Anglican clergy are as entitled to the same career opportunities as any other employee of the British government.

  • TerryC

    No the Catholic Church can’t just “recognize” the validity of Anglican orders, however when we were only talking about men it would be quite simple to recognize individual ordinations with authentic pedigree. For example any bishop who had Apostolic succession as a result of ordination by a non-Anglican bishop, such as an Orthodox Bishop, who is know and accepted by the Catholic Church as having valid orders, could validly be a bishop, depending upon both the actual ordination ritual used and the intent of both the minister of the sacrament and its recipient.
    Once you throw a woman into the mix there can be not even the slightest chance of validity.

    • bluesuede

      Anglican bishops don’t have valid orders recognized by the Catholic Church. Only if the bishop were ordained Catholic in the first place, but it would be illicit.

  • Ray

    @shaunglynch:disqus : By no means do I question your dedication to the faith. But I do believe you don’t understand the very nature of being Catholic. By your argument, contraception could one day be made acceptable by the Catholic Church.

    What it shows is that you don’t understand the theology behind the reasons why such things can never happen. To do so would mean, essentially, that the Holy Spirit was in error when guiding the Church leadership. This would mean that Christ is a liar and that the gates of hell have prevailed against His Church.

    That’s why the Church will never change on this issue, just as it will never change on contraception. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of women. Men and women received different roles by the Church and each one has a strength and power the other lacks. The Catholic Church acknowledges this difference.

    Women have had a HUGE presence in the Church throughout history. But the priesthood is and forever will be for men. Arguing otherwise would mean that I, as a man, should be allowed to enter a convent and become a nun.

    The priesthood is a spiritual fatherhood. That’s why it is limited to men and that is why it will always be limited to men. I can’t be a spiritual mother anymore than a woman can be a spiritual father.

    So your argument that someday this will change in the far future shows a lack of understanding of dogma.

    But this is a general problem with many Catholics. There is a difference between being a member of the Church and submitting to the Church. Submitting to the authority of the Church is submission to Christ Himself.

    I am currently battling this difference within my own family, who encourages me to use contraception. I explain that I can’t and I’m told it is my choice. It isn’t. It is the will of God. I’m simply choosing to follow God’s will and not those of my family.

  • Billy Bean

    Here’s where I part ways with one of the best teachers of biblical doctrine I have ever read: the learned N. T. Wright, Anglican echo;ar and erstwhile Anglican bishop of Durham.

    • Billy Bean

      Did you mean “Anglican scholar”? Surely Wright is anything but an “echo.”

  • Ryan Godfrey

    I think this situation can ultimately be considered a good thing. The CofE’s actions will prevent a half-hearted, half-committed “recognition” that would only cause confusion on both sides. Anglican orders haven’t been valid since Cranmer anyway.

  • Cap America

    Of course Welby’s new statement is just a dodge, a game, to keep up a relationship with the Catholic Church because of the status it confers and the public relations value. It’s worthless.

  • John Fisher

    I think the Anglican ecclesial community has given up on Christianity! My forefathers were coerced into remaining silent under pains of death, fines for not attending Protestant services and social discrimination. The catholic Church in England was gradually transformed into a nationalistic sect . This mutation occurs because a room full of heretics will only produce heresy and falsity. Anglicans wake up! You are the victims of a fraud! Dress ups will not do! You are social and fashion victims! Leave your sect! For those who are English first and Christian second. Who fear because you are compromised realise you are like hermit crabs living in the shell left by Catholic England. Be Christian in substance not only in a whimpy weak spineless way!

  • Dmikem

    I love it when the Anglican’s (or any other faith community for that matter) put doctrine up to a popular vote. It makes me shake my head and wonder what they might vote in next?

  • John Wilson

    It’s over for the Anglicans. They survive only through the fiction that they are a “Church” because of their establishment statue. The moment that goes, the C of E will be a vague memory. As for the Episcopal Church, demographically they will be totally gone within twenty years. But the last Episcopalian will be very rich. Meanwhile, face reality.

  • bluesuede

    So the more worldly and secular the Anglicans become, they still have reasons to believe they can come into the Catholic Church and bring all that claptrap with them? I hope not. Is Cardinal Kasper is going to keep trying to unite both?

  • digpig

    Welby is still talking of the goal of full eucharistic communion with Orthodox and Catholics. That is now never ever going to happen, and any theological discourses with that as the goal are an utter waste of everyone’s time.

  • Catesby

    My understanding is that Anglican Orders were declared null and void by Pope Leo XIII. After this declaration, some Anglican clergy – those who saw themselves as High Anglican – would invite an Old Catholic Bishop to participate in the ordination to ensure they were validly ordained. At this time Old Catholic Bishops were seen as schismatic, but not heretical.

    After women were first “ordained” in the 1990’s, many Anglicans crossed The Tiber and most were ordained unconditionally as Cardinal Ratzinger reaffirmed The Church’s teaching on Anglican Orders. However, some Anglican clergy sought a conditional ordination that allowed for the possibility they may already be validly ordained. The most well known of the Anglicans that did so was the former Anglican Bishop of London, Dr. Graham Leonard.

  • john njuguna

    Let them do it in Catholic but in Orthodox No, it can,t happen.