Wed 17th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Wed 17th Sep 2014 at 17:30pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Catholic bishops welcome new Archbishop of Canterbury

By on Friday, 9 November 2012

The appointment of the Rt Rev Justin Welby was confirmed this morning (Photo: PA)

The appointment of the Rt Rev Justin Welby was confirmed this morning (Photo: PA)

Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster has welcomed the appointment of the Rt Rev Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham, as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

Writing on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, he said: “I warmly welcome the news of the appointment of the current Bishop of Durham, the Right Reverend Justin Welby as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

“I know that Bishop Welby will bring many personal gifts and experience to his new role. As the future Primate of the Church of England, I am sure that his ministry, like that of his predecessor Archbishop Rowan Williams, will provide an important Christian witness to this country over the coming years.

“In fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ’s prayer that his followers may all be one, I hope that we will endeavour to strengthen the bonds of Christian friendship and mission already established between the Catholic Church and the Church of England. I look forward to working closely with Bishop Welby in the service of the common good and in the common witness we can give to all the people in our land.

“The archbishop-elect may be assured of the prayers and best wishes of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales and of the whole Catholic community in our country.”

Bishop Welby, 56, an Old Etonian who studied history and law at Trinity College, Cambridge, worked for 11 years in the oil industry.

He was a member of Holy Trinity Brompton, the home of the Alpha Course, when he decided to become an Anglican minister. He was ordained at the age of 36.

He has been Bishop of Durham for just over a year.

At the press conference this morning, he said he had “learned so much from the Catholic Church”, particularly on Catholic social teaching. He added that his spiritual director was a Catholic priest.

The archbishop-elect also joked that he had “a better barber and spen[t] more on razors than Rowan Williams”.

  • nytor

    More oecumaniac nonsense. Read Apostolicae Curae, Nichols.

  • Guest007

    “Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster has welcomed the appointment
    of the Rt Rev Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham, as the next Archbishop of
    Canterbury.”

    Dear Vincent Nichols there is a good reason why Rome hasn’t given you the red hat, traditionally the head of the Apostolic Church in England and Wales was given the rank of Cardinal but with regards to YOU…..the Holy Father knows very well of your actions and you yourself know this!

    This is the year of faith lets start getting our Facts right people:
    Anglican Orders are absolutely null and utterly void”

    There has been no valid Archbishop of Canterbury since Cardinal Reginald Pole (1
    2 March 1500 – 17 November 1558.

    Apostolicae Curae, Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XII:

    “Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders . . . by any one but a
    Bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders again.”

    23. But, as we stated at the beginning, there is nothing we so deeply and
    ardently desire as to be of help to men of good will by showing them the
    greatest consideration and charity. Wherefore, we ordered that the Anglican
    Ordinal, which is the essential point of the whole matter, should be once more
    most carefully examined.

    24. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of
    Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and
    that which is essential, the latter being usually called the “matter and form”.
    All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of
    invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect
    the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in
    the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter and form”, it still
    pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not
    determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form”. And this appears
    still more clearly in the Sacrament of Order, the “matter” of which, in so far
    as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which,
    indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several
    Orders and for Confiirmation.

    25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to
    constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy
    Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of
    Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the
    power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord”
    (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that
    sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross”
    (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

    26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office
    and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves
    perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this
    addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too
    late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine
    Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of
    ordaining.

    27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of
    Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside
    other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican
    life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed
    whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic
    rite. That “form” consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the
    Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.

    28. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula,
    “Receive the Holy Ghost”, not only were the words “for the office and work of a
    bishop”, etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently
    state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the
    Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface,
    “Almighty God”, since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which
    denote the summum sacerdotium .

  • Alan

    I deplore the nasty-minded attitude of those who criticise our Archbishop on this matter.  Ecumenism is more than an optional extra.

  • steveglynis

    Three dolphins on the mitre! A clearer indicator of priorities, I suppose, than a slogan on a t-shirt. I realise that the appointment requires some acknowledgement from our own leader but need it be quite so ‘over the top’. We don’t have a shared mission, ours is to convert England and Wales to Catholicism.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7UO272UB3UDIPP7X6QIHGDIEK4 Herman U. Ticke

     The Novus ordo presbyter at the church which I attended (before I left)
    was of the opinion that Anglican orders were perhaps valid.

    But then he also expressed doubts about the Trinity,
    the virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and daemonic possession.  
    I accept without hesitation that Anglican orders are invalid
    as described in Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo the 13th.

    On the other hand I also consider that the episcopal consecration
    promulgated by Paul the 6th is invalid for the same reasons.
    The form of a sacrament is instituted by Jesus Christ not by a Pope
    and the 1968 formula is even less convincing than the Anglican one.
    And this is before you take into account the fact that the matter
    (the laying on of hands) is now separated from the form
    ( spoken by the consecrating Bishop).
    Would you consider that a child had been properly baptised if the Minister
    poured the water and then later on pronounced the words of baptism?

    If I, we, are correct then virtually all priests and bishops
    in the Novus Ordo today are mere layman.
    To those who would say well that is just your opinion and you’re
    in the minority I would point out that the burden of proof is on
     anyone who wants to change the form of the sacrament to prove
    that the changed form is valid.
    There is no burden of proof on a traditionalist to show that the formula
     that has been use since apostolic times is valid.

    Also  when the traditional sacrament of
    extreme unction is administered the occasional traditional effect of
    an inexplicable recovery of good health occurs. This does not happen
    with the new rite of  “anointing of the sick”.
    Moreover, if you read  “The Rite”  by Matt Baglio you will discover
    that the Novus Ordo presbyters are none too effective when
    it comes to performing exorcisms
     or at any rate that is my reading of his book.

    Just to compound the doom and gloom I would like to mention
     that I don’t understand why the validity of the orders in the
    Russian Orthodox Church are unquestionably accepted so widely.
    For 73 years and 7 months Communists had total unrestricted
    control of the Russian Orthodox Church.
    Has anybody undertaken to ensure that those who claim
    to have orders  can trace a valid succession of orders
    back to pre-revolutionary times?
    How would you do this anyway? Would it not involve interviewing
    many people who are now dead??

  • nytor

    For ecclesiological reasons the consecrations and ordinations of clergy under the new forms are valid as the Church is indefectible and although the new rites are less explicit as to the intention to consecrate a bishop in the line of the Apostles or ordain a sacrificing priest than the old rites are, they are nonetheless done with the intention of so consecrating and ordaining and this being the mind of the Church they are effected.

  • nytor

    Indeed. Anglicanism is now more heretical than ever, and rather than working with it we should be seeking to rescue from it those who can be brought into the Church, as indeed the Holy Father has sought to do through the Ordinariate. We should not utter platitudes which convey condoning of the heresies of Anglicanism, foremost amongst them the idea that a woman can ever be validly ordained a sacrificing priest.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7UO272UB3UDIPP7X6QIHGDIEK4 Herman U. Ticke

     As long as a handful of bishops are still using the traditional
    rite of consecration the Church has not defected.
    Numbers prove nothing in this context.
    How can you be sure about the
    “Intention” of the Church on the one hand and the
    “no intention” of the Anglicans on the other hand.
    I have trouble reading even my dog’s mind.

  • JabbaPapa

    A good start has been made, there are more practicing Catholics in England than CoE…

  • JabbaPapa

    … and the 1968 formula is even less convincing than the Anglican one

    Complete and utter rubbish !!!

    The reason why Anglican Orders are invalid is NOT liturgical, it is sacramental.

    Anglican Orders are invalid because Anglicanism denies the Real Presence, and is therefore completely unable to provide any Sacraments of whatsoever nature apart from Baptism (because it does not depend on Holy Communion) and Marriage (because it is provided by the Baptised, not by the clergy).

  • JabbaPapa

    Because Anglican theology specifically and overtly denies the doctrine ; their theology of consecration being clearly heretical, it is therefore invalid as are their rites, and their ministers are therefore completely unable to provide such consecrations.

  • Alan

    I cannot for the life of me understand why you, and those who think like you, choose to remain in the Catholic Church (assuming you do) when you are obviously so totally out of sympathy with all of our leaders.   I do not deny your right to remain, but why on earth should you want to?

  • Stephen

    I do not claim to be an expert on Archbishop Nichols, but he seems to have an attribute which you, Sir or Madam, seem to be lacking – good manners and common courtesy.

  • Guest

    I suggest you read: Mark 12: 28 to 34. Converting to Christianity is paramount.

  • Guest

    Not a word from the Holy Bible!!!

  • http://mystateinlife.blogspot.com/ Edwardswyco

     The Holy Bible, which the Catholic Church compiled, translated, transcribed, protected, and codified?  The Bible’s pretty clear: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

  • lonestar buddha

    …actually, JabbaPappa, the Anglicans, although embracing consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation, do subscribe to the Real Presence in the eucharist…

    ,,,”complete and utter rubbish”, indeed…

  • Jon Brownridge

     As a matter of interest only, and not to instigate a diatribe of outrage, Our parish priest quoted a statistic in his recent homily: 78% of Church-going Catholics do not believe that the consecrated bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ, but only symbolically so. He was possibly referring to North American Catholics, but there you have it.

  • Ed

    In 1971 the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (authorized by the Vatican under the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) studied the respective views of Anglicans and Roman Catholics on the eucharist and concluded that both groups agreed as to the “real presence” of Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist.  

    In 1994 Cardinal Edward Cassidy (Vatican Christian Unity Office) ratified the ARCIC 1 clarification of the Anglican/Roman Catholic views of the eucharist. In 1996 John Paul II and the ABC celebrated vespers together and heralded the ARCIC 1 document.

    Protestants often have simplistic and inaccurate understandings of Roman Catholicism.  So I suppose it’s not surprising that even well-educated Roman Catholics might not understand some of the basics of the anglican tradition (or even keep up with the excellent ecumenical work of their own church)

     

  • mollysdad

    He’s a former oil executive. They’ve made JR Ewing Archbishop of Canterbury.

  • Parasum

     Anglican ministers are not and cannot be priests in the Catholic sense. The Fathers of the Protestant Reformation in England bent over backwards to avoid being “Popish” priests. Leo XIII is not the one who deprived the C of E of valid ordination to the Catholic priesthood established by Christ – they did. The only exceptions are those who already have valid orders – all other Anglican ministers are layman; admirable Christians maybe, but not Catholic priests.

  • Gildas Wiseman

    “And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.” 

  • JabbaPapa

    Oh, please …

    a) given the nature of Anglicanism, no local statement in the US is of any meaningfully theological value — until such time as the Anglican Synod were to affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Anglican church will remain in a state of objective heresy

    b) given the nature of Anglicanism, it is extremely unsurprising that you might find this or that local group that believed in the Real presence ; however, the inability of their ministers to provide the Sacrament means that this belief is most likely to be ill-founded as regards their rites and ceremonies

  • GildasWiseman

    “At the press conference this morning, he said he had “learned so much from the Catholic Church”, particularly on Catholic social teaching. He added that his spiritual director was a Catholic monk”.

    I wonder! did this Catholic monk teach the ‘Archbishop’ of Canterbury, in a spirit of true Catholic charity and conviction  that there is “No salvation out side of the Catholic faith”?.Did he point out that Anglican orders are invalid and that the Anglican communion remains in a state of heresy? Did he understand the only true meaning of ecumenism. that of conversion and return?
    I will pray that this “Archbishop” discovers the conclusions of Cardinal Newman. I would also recommend that he reads, if he in fact has not so far done so, ” Apoligia Pro Vita Sua.

  • Guest

    Oh my God!

  • Guest

    How cheap can you get.

  • Guest

    Perhaps he might just be a thinking Catholic.

  • Stephen

    Quite. If anyone believes that the comments made on this blog reflect how charitable Catholics can be towards their fellow Christians, perhaps they should to go Youtube and find Mgr Keith Newton’s talk on ecumenism. In that he states that so often, ecumenism has descended to only being nice to each other – but he says there is nothing wrong with that as such, and indeed that it is preferable to being discourteous.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    I wish Archbishop Nichols would “look forward” to teaching the integral Catholic Faith, and as part of that, explaining to the new Archlayman of Canterbury why he should convert to Catholicism.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Jabba, you are wrong. Leo XIII’s judgement quite clearly points to the excision from the Anglican rite of ordination of all the form (and matter) that makes an ordination valid.

    Where do you get your ideas?

  • glenfi1

    Yes indeed, another fruit of very poor teaching and belief in the post-conciliar Church.

  • Alan

    There is no point in quoting this verse to make your point, for the simple reason that it can be interpreted in different ways (for example, some say it does not apply to Peter’s successors, and we are talking about a time when they expected the Second Coming).   That’s why ecumenical dialogue is so important, otherwise it’s just shouting at each other from our trenches. 

  • Alan

    Perhaps the first priority is to convert it to Christianity.

  • Guest007

    The fact you are not an expert or have any knowledge of Careerist Nichols is enough for me to rest my case..

    Having good manners and common courtesy from one human being to another is one thing but to recognise him as Archbishop in the Catholic sense…no we cannot do so and by him doing so it causes confusion amongst the laity….

    Then again the last 50 years has seen plenty of abuse of this word ecumenism and we have to in this year of faith start denouncing those who have misled ur flock from what the church teaches as truth and what is error.

  • Guest007

     7 Anglicans liked this post

  • scary goat

     Oh my goodness!  How can they not believe that!  It’s the whole point of everything.

  • scary goat

     I would have thought Christianity IS Catholicism.
    I also would have thought it’s easier to convert people direct…..not via a confused “Christianity” which muddies the waters.

  • paulpriest

    Whether he’s rude or not is an irrelevance – is he right?

  • scary goat

     I can’t understand why on earth “thinking” Anglicans don’t come home to Rome. In particular not only “thinking” but educated…..ie their clergy.

  • steph

    interesting posts.  refreshing to find defenders of the faith leading the discussion instead of the usual onslaught of distortions and chaos I find posted on this site by the usual suspecgs.  Archbishop Nichols/the article are very anglican “friendly”–reflecting what I’ve seen since I arrived in the UK.   I’ve been living in this country for two years and as a recent arrival I often find daily mass here a very painful experience–all the RC priests I’ve encountered think and act like protestants at best and new agers at worst.  The exception being one priest who leads a daily latin mass–unfortunately, his parish is close to a one hour drive from my home.

  • Greg

    GW asks: 

    Did this Catholic monk teach the ‘Archbishop’ of Canterbury, in a spirit of true Catholic charity and conviction  that there is ‘No salvation out side of the Catholic faith’?.

    Answer:
    Although some arrogant Catholic exceptionalists prefer to rely on that kind of exclusionary sloganeering (“extra ecclesiam nulla salus”) more than the profound teachings of the Church for their understanding of its role in Christ’s plan of salvation, Bishop Welby’s Catholic spiritual advisor more likely relied on the actual Catechism of the Catholic Church for its clear guidance on the Church’s belief in the likely extension of Christ’s saving grace to even sincere non-Catholics like Welby:

    “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation….The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.  Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”

  • ed

    Now I get it, JP – you clearly still don’t understand the difference between “Real Presence” (a theological term which you introduced into this conversation, regrettably apparently  without understanding its meaning) and “transubstantiation” and seem to blithely think they are merely interchangeable terms.  

    Anglicans have always affirmed the “real presence” of Christ in the eucharist but have disagreed with Catholics on the consubstantiation/transubstantiation issue.  On the other hand, Baptists, fundamentalists, and evangelists tend to reject the notion of the “real presence”.
    Oh, and you say that “given the nature of Anglicanism, it is extremely unsurprising that you might find this or that local group that believed in the Real presence”, but as a result of your unique discernment you’ve concluded that’s not at all what Anglicans believe ?  

    Is it that you do not trust the investigation and judgment of the Vatican in its approval of the ARCIC 1 document on this topic ? And are you convinced the Archbishop of Canterbury somehow pulled the wool over Pope John Paul II’s eyes in 1996 after 25 years of inter-church discussions on this topic ?

  • Dfaithfulavenger2

    Lol I walked out of a Catholic Sunday mass today, because they started singing God save the Queen. Am I wrong or is that the road to Apostacy? Ps that is no joke it happened!

  • Awkward reletive

    A case of the Emperous nre cloths I think. You cannot reconcile yourself to anyone if you pretend he does not exist, and exist he certainly does. A brother in Christ I think?

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    “Our parish priest quoted a statistic in his recent homily: 78% of
    Church-going Catholics do not believe that the consecrated bread and
    wine are literally the body and blood of Christ, but only symbolically
    so.”

    SINCE MANY CHRISTIANS STOP WITH DOGMAS, CATECHISMS, AND TEACHINGS THROUGH CIRCULARS ETC. THEY ARE NOT REACHING OUT TO THE WORD OF GOD FOR PERSONAL GROWTH IN THE FAITH; CONSEQUENTLY REAL PRESENCE IS NOT AN EXPERIENCED FACT BUT A DRY AND STERILE ONE. THIS IS EXACTLY THE REASON WHY MANY DO NOT EVEN GO TO THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION, OR BETTER EXPRESSED, CONFESSIONS OF ONE’S SINS.

    IN ALL THIS THE PRIESTS ARE INSTRUMENTAL AND RESPONSIBLE. IF THEY THEMSELVES ARE SATISFIED WITH MERE PERFORMANCE OF A RITUAL, WHO IS TO BE BLAMED FOR THE LACK OF FAITH OF THE COMMUNITY?

    FAITH COMES AND GROWS FROM ONE’S MEDITATION ON THE WORD OF CHRIST, AND EXPERIENCE OF THE POWER OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD COMES THROUGH ONE’S MATURE FAITH. WHEN WE TAKE JESUS THE LORD SERIOUSLY MIRACLES BECOME PART OF OUR LIFE. THIS HELPS IN WITNESSING TO OUR FAITH AMONG UNBELIEVERS.

    FOR EXPERIENCING THE POWER OF  GOD’S WORD AND THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD, ANYBODY, PRIESTS, RELIGIOUS  AND PEOPLE OF GOD OR EVEN PAGANS AND UNBELIEVERS  ARE WELCOME; but IT IS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR PRIESTS TO EXPERIENCE THE LIVING GOD.

    SEHION RETREAT CENTRE
    THAVALAM P.O., ATTAPPADI
    PALAKKAD DT., KERALA – INDIA – 678 589
    PH. 04924, 327710, 327770
    E-MAIL: director@sehion:disqus .org, http://www.sehion.org,

    sehiontelevision.blogspot.com

  • Rowancarstairs

    Layman pretends to be Bishop, true Bishop fooled.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    SOME BIG-HEAD-GOD-HEADS ARE USUALLY ARROGANT. THIS IS HOW THEY GLORIFY THEIR GOD.

  • Alan

    What makes you think they are Anglicans? (And it’s now 8!)

  • Alan

    So you don’t accept non-Catholic Christians as Christians?  There are some Proestants who don’t accept Catholics as Christians.  You make fine bedfellows. 

  • spongsdad

    You’d better include me in that observation too; and the number is 9