Catholic fishing for Anglican defectors?

It does seem that the Catholic Church is fishing in the Anglican pond.

Does this mean war?

Do the Anglicans go after Catholics disiilusioned over a variety of Catholic positions?

If Henry VIII was still around, someone would lose a head for this shit.

I guess it’s better for homophobic Episcopalians/Anglicans to go to the mildly-homophobic Catholic Church rather than come into alignment with the vicious hatefulness of Anglican churches in Africa the way they’ve been doing.

Only if he was married to them.

Is there an Anglicans for the Pope website?

Its a subdomain of Jews for Jesus.

The Catholic Church has been known to take Anglican married priests who convert. The Western Catholic Church has a priest shortage…this is one way to get them without letting Catholic priests marry (gasp!), ordain women (the horror!), or break their “don’t ask, don’t tell, believe that their celibate priests would all do women if they had the chance” policy (yeah…)

It will be interesting to see what happens. The number of Anglo-Catholics in the US Episcopal Church is relatively small – the groups that have broken away tend to lean more Evangelical, with some exceptions. However, in countries like England and Australia (I’m told) there is a much stronger Anglo-Catholic identity that is just as uncomfortable with the recent evolution of the Anglican Communion as the dissenters in North America.

Based on my understanding of this announcement, I would predict a trickle of converts from North America, with maybe one or two big prizes for the RCC. But most of the folks who have left the Episcopal Church have already found new homes. I think this is a more serious issue in other parts of Anglicanism, especially England, where you have a lot of dissatisfied Anglo-Catholics with no where else to go. This might be what they’ve been waiting for.

So, if I’m married, and I want to become a Catholic priest, I now can see the career path that I should follow. A few years as an Anglican shouldn’t be all that painful: it’s not as if they are really Protestant.

I saw someone on another site arguing with a straight face that the shortage of Catholic priests was due to a shortage of altar boys. What she meant, of course, is that being an altar boy is where a kid who has a sense he might be called to the priesthood first tests his vocation. But still… :wink:

Wow, a thread on Anglicanism where I get to agree with Skammer unreservedly. This is more or less pretty much on target – the only disagreement I’d have is that the number of Anglo-Catholics is not that small, but, as he suggests, the breakaways tend to be Evangelicals, with exceptions.

Aside from the utter lack of any intellectual content to your post, it’s not unknown that priests may be gay. It’s also not considered at all important. Second, we don’t ordain women as priests for our own theological reasons,

While priests could marry, we don’t have it because we prefer the stricter and less worldly practice. I’m sure you, with your insipid modernist demand that anything and everything which is not equally bad must be equally good, cannot comprehend that some thigns are actively chosen from various worst, worse, bad, neutral, good, better, and best choices.

I swear, you give the damn Manicheans an inch

You’re both mistaken a bit, but it’s because of focus. The RCC is not really looking too close at Anglo-Anglicans, although we certainly do want them brought back into the fold. Rather. this is in great measure aimed squarely at Africa.

They’re not fishing

They’re Angling for Anglicans.

I do understand it - I don’t agree with it so I’m not Catholic any longer. But there is intellectual content there - they HAVE allowed married Anglicans to convert in the past and be priests, and their IS a shortage of priests in the West. So there is a practical rationale for the RCC to encourage conversion of the Anglican priesthood - a problem that COULD be addressed by allowing married priests or women to be ordained, but the RCC has not chosen to go that direction (for both reasons of theology, tradition, and politics - to say its mere theology is ignoring the tradition and politics which often weighs as heavily in RCC decisions). And there IS precedent.

Yes, I know there is. I’m saying it’s not as if there’s some fear of cooties. You acted as if it were randomly chosen, and that ain’t so.

This is an interesting thought, because Anglicanism has certainly flourished in sub-sahara Africa in the last few decades (something like 70% of all Anglicans life in Africa; it may even be higher but I can’t find the numbers right now).

However, it seems to me that African Anglicans, as a rule of thumb, tend to be the least Catholic. I mean, these are the churches who have declared that they don’t even have to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Church of England to be Anglican. I have a hard time seeing them swimming the Tiber and giving up every last vestige of national autonomy. Heck, they’ve been fighting against colonialism for centuries now.

Ah, but why have they done so? Is it nationalism or not wanting to give up power, or is it that they disagree with the direction the Anglican elite have taken?

Besides, it’s not as if the RCC doesn’t have several related churches which respect its authority but retain their own - the Eastern Rite Catholics, the Assyrians, and Coptics. The Orthodox could mesh tommorow and still have their Patriarchs if they wanted it. Indeed, several whole Holy Orders would probably also qualify if not for the fac they are geographically spread out. The RCC has never been a controlled bureaucracy.

Oh, a little from Column A, and a little from Column B.

But they just seem to have more in common with Evangelical Protestants than Roman Catholics. A strong emphasis on Biblical interpretation and authority, and a weak appreciation for ecclesiastic discipline. I could be wrong, of course, and most likely the response to the RCC overtures will be mixed, with some fleeing to Rome and others maintaining a strained relationship with Canterbury.

I do think this is a significant development in the relationship between the two traditions that will take years to sort out, and if an Anglican Roman Catholic community became available to me here it would suddenly become much more than an intellectual exercise. I would seriously have to consider the choice.

Well, it’s better than being cuckoo for Euchar-puffs.

Quite the contrary. The reason the Catholic Church is doing this for Anglicans and not for other denominations is that, theologically, the Catholic and Anglican churches are actually quite closely aligned, so conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism is a very smooth process. Until recently, the only difference of any substance was the recognition of the Pope as head of the Church. Now that the Anglicans have started ordaining women, that’s another major (in the eyes of Rome, at least) difference between the two, but that’s exactly what this is addressing: “If you don’t want to ordain women but you still want to be connected to a larger worldwide Church, join us! All you have to do is recognize the Pope, and you can keep everything else exactly the same as you’ve always had it!”.

There is significantly more to it theologically than that – while an Anglican may accept transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception, they’re not mandative doctrines. And on many political issues (abortion and gay rights, for starters), Anglicans and Catholics seem to be on opposite sides of the fence.