As for our Catholic bishops, there is now more sympathy for the Anglo-Catholic dilemma. The appointment of Archbishop Vincent Nichols to Westminster is significant; for, although he has never been a “traditionalist”, nor has he ever been at the heart of the dialogue between liberal Catholics and liberal Anglicans that has wasted so much time since the ordination of women priests made reunion impossible. As a young Westminster bishop, he unobtrusively cleared the path to Rome of at least one Anglican priest; there is no reason to think that he will not do the same again.
But the crucial change is that the present Pope, unlike his predecessor, is an admirer of the conservative Anglo-Catholic tradition – and open to the idea that doctrinally orthodox Anglicans should convert together, bringing with them spiritual gifts. He is aware that the practical obstacles to such a move (or series of moves) are immense. But he will not be dissuaded by a Catholic ecumenical lobby that, even now, pays court to liberal Anglicans.
Those Anglo-Catholics unsure of what the Roman Church really stands for or has to offer to people of orthodox faith cannot go wrong by reading some of Scott Hahn’s books. Specifically, “Rome Sweet Home”, and my favorite “Hail Holy Queen”.
[blockquote] At the centre of my friend’s Christianity is public worship, and (so far as I can judge from many conversations with him) the main reason he did not leave the Church of England is that he could not accept the claims of a Church which did not get its worship right. His objection was not to Vatican II, but to a casual approach to the celebration of Mass that made it harder to believe in the unique universal status of the Roman Church. [/blockquote]
That was a major jolt when [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2007/10/16/theres-catholicism-and-then-theres/]I began my Tiber swim many years ago[/url], but I think there are reasons for that other than a high or low regard for the liturgy.
[blockquote] Liberal High Churchmen have quietly abandoned their opposition to women priests, ditching their principles but keeping their chasubles; they include most of the practising gay clergy who were such a stumbling block in the 1990s. [/blockquote]
Hopefully this will solve the [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2007/09/25/the-paradox-of-glbt-people-and-the-church/]”unEnglish and unmanly”[/url] problem for the RCC that has been out there since the nineteenth century.
“His predecessor” personally reviewed and signed off on married Episcopal (and, I believe a Methodist or Lutheran) ministers to be ordained as Catholic priests. “His predecessor” approved The Book of Divine Worship for Anglican Use worship.
No one disputes the liturgical disarray of the contemporary Catholic Church, but:
And that’s what really matters to the CDF: the knowledge that the TAC is now unequivocally orthodox in all its doctrines.
is what matters to this Catholic, as well.
There was something troubled me about this article when I read it this morning in the Daily Telegraph and I have finally realised what it is: the question of social class, perhaps even of snobbery. For too many English and American Anglo-Catholics, the liturgy is associated with good taste and high culture. The music, the architecture, the whole setting must be refined. No babies’ cries disturb the reverent hush. No badly dressed people from the rougher classes of society throng the pews. No tacky slushy hymns beloved of the simple folk twang across the air. No iconodules light candles while the eucharist is happening. To be Roman Catholic, on the other hand, is to join a motley crew. We come from all classes. We are sometimes desperate in our prayers and excessive in our devotions. There are lots of babies and infants and the racket can be deafening. Churches need to be bigger, and in the UK have only been built (hastily) in the last 150 years, so they lack a lot of the refinements of our Anglican neighbours. And I confess: too often there is a sense of the liturgy being rattled through, mechanistically, and this does trouble me (though few priests could say that they have never been guilty of this). However when I came to swim the Tiber 20 years ago, I had been slowly drawn to the decision by the number of people from all walks of life who were RC and who seemed to know what they believed. Yes, I even warmed to the demotic, street-level spirituality, with its statues of the Infant Child of Prague and plastic rosary beads, because I sensed that it came from deep within. I wanted to share that depth of commitment, which I knew to be a commitment to Christ and the Church. Yes, let us continue to bring a greater dignity and reverence to Roman Catholic liturgy, and yes, in this let us learn something from Anglo-Catholics if we can. But let us never lose sight of who we do it for. Someone once said to Newman, dismissively, ‘Who are the laity, anyway?’ To which Newman quietly replied: ‘The Church would look pretty foolish without them.’
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Terry Tee #5, you’ve hit up one something that Americans in particular hate to discuss. I noticed the class change when I swam the Tiber and always found it refreshing.
My brother visited my first Catholic parish one time and noted that the people there (as opposed to the ones we grew up with) actually looked like they had worked for a living (as is frequently the case in South Florida, most were retirees.)
That should be “hit up on something.”
Terry Tee #5, you are absolutely right on a number of counts. I have noticed this effect in the ‘flagship’ East Coast Anglo-Catholic parish I’m a part of, where there are very few children of any age in the pews. While this does make it easier, in a way, to concentrate on the liturgy, it is also an ever-present reminder that a childless parish is (in some way, at least) a dying one. I’m not sure how long a parish can survive with elderly couples and with homosexual men as its primary demographic groups.
The overlapping issues of class and taste are a fascinating, and largely unspoken (as #6 vulcanhammer noted) fact of life in the Anglo-Catholic circles I’ve travelled in. Again, this is a two-edged sword. There’s the salutary preservative effect as laypeople and clergy alike regard the liturgy, liturgical furnishings, etc. as worth caring for, even at great expense and effort. On the other hand, there’s the ever-present risk that the faith will take on an effete, precious air that is both unhealthy in its own right and rather off-putting to visitors, newcomers, etc.
The comparatively gritty, ‘here comes everybody’ reality of the Catholic Church can be startling to Anglo-Catholics used to the cozier, more refined atmosphere of the typical AC parish. There’s a very real cultural adjustment to be made when travelling in either direction along this path. It’s easy to lampoon and to criticise, but orthodox Anglo-Catholics casting their eyes towards Rome (as a great many do at some stage) often find this cultural difference to be an obstacle to conversion.
I know that this is a bit off topic, but I must agree with Father Tee.
In southeast Wisconsin there is shrine church called “Holy Hill” in the countryside near Milwaukee. I love to visit it, particularly in the fall when the views of the hills in full color are spectacular, and the crowds are equally spectacular. The crowds which fill the grounds on a sunny Sunday are truly all sorts and conditions and utterly unlike TEC. The people of every language and nation from Milwaukee and Chicago make for a mix that is actually catholic.
I think that the Holy Hill bookstore/gift shop sums it up. There is the most serious and austere Carmelite literature (Holy Hill is a Carmelite priory) is mixed in with the vivid devotional art. It is peculiar mix, but it vividly shows the universality of the Catholic Church. The contrast with the “high culture” of TEC could not be greater.
On the opposite side of the state is another site called the “Dickeyville Grotto” which is collection of cement and glass-fragments honor our Lord, Saint Mary, the apostles and a host of others including George Washington. It was built by the parish priest in the 1920’s or ’30’s and has been maintained by the Catholic parish since. (It shows what can be done one man with a cement mixer.)
It is a piece of folk art and it has a sort of devout authenticity. I spent three years at a parish nearby. For a while I used to take other Episcopalians to Dickeyville to see the Grotto, but I stopped doing so because they invariably thought it was a joke. All the class bias and all the Know-Nothing Nativism that seems to lie about a quarter of inch under the surface of so many TECs would come out, and I did not want to risk any of the good people there to be hearing to that sort of thing.
A few years ago we were treated to a capsulized version of all this when the presiding bishop referred to the tendency of the unwashed and uneducated to reproduce more rapidly than the higher orders as if that explained why TEC was declining by comparison with the Catholic Church.
Episcopalians in North America need to learn to be very careful when they distinguish between the Catholic Church and Anglicanism to be certain when they are talking about doctrinal issues and when they are just being snobs.
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
#4: I’m not sure I agree with you. There are plenty of “Affirming Anglo-Catholics” in TEC…former PB Griswold could don the clothes and shake the incense pot with the best of them. This Anglican is the Faith and the Worship of the Church Catholic. What many find the case in American Roman Catholicism is a retrograde form of the Faith and Worship. It is not “plastic rosary beads”, but removing the statues and distancing the parishes from the heritage of the RCC viz a viz prayer candles before the Blessed Sacrament, etc. “The Stripping of the Altars” is a book which I believe addresses this reality.
Worshipping with many children, the whole panoply of socio/economic and racial/ethnicities is one of the glories of Catholicism, and Anglo-Catholics aspire to enhance, not repel, such a sign of the Kingdom of God at Holy Mass. Some of the truly heroic English Church’s Anglo-Catholic priests took their ministry to the poorest and most un-educated, precisely because they understood the Catholic Faith to be concerned for the last and least!
The contemporary problem of the RCC in America is not its “difference” from Episcopalianism, but its growing comformity to Episcopalianism.
Sorry: in #10 it should read: “What this Anglican cares about is the Faith and Worship of the Church Catholic”.
Father Einerson, visitors to Cullman, AL, (the home of EWTN) get a similar experience with the grotto and the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament. Anglo-Catholics in the South would do well to make the visit as part of their considerations.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
I’m not at all certain how thinking that something is remarkably ugly and tacky is an example of “class bias and all the Know-Nothing Nativism.” Unless you’ve decided that thinking something is ugly and tacky by definition is “class bias” in which case you’ve also just eliminated the entire scope of mankind, since all of us will end up thinking some things are ugly and tacky and others are not.
The object to which I believe that you are referring is this one:
http://www.dickeyvillegrotto.com/_borders/Front-photo.jpg
And if you’re going to glorify that as “folk art” and “devout authenticity” and decry “high culture” than I merely observe that there is such a thing as reverse snobbery, and I think it is being well demonstrated on this thread.
If “high culture” means dignified worship, glorious music, and majestic liturgy than I further find it rather offensive that it is somehow assumed in some of these comments that the masses — of which I am one — won’t appreciate that, but will rather appreciate “folk art” and “devout authenticity” as somehow superior.
Our art — our visual, oral, and written communication — demonstrates and reveals our values. The fact that some people believe that certain art — such as the crucifix submerged in urine or Gregorian chant or Elvis black velvet paintings — demonstrates nasty values, or ugly values, or tacky values, or sublime values — is certainly revealing. The fact that some people gravitate to art with crucifixes submerged in urine and some gravitate to dignified worship and some gravitate to Dickeyville Grottos is also revealing.
But why outraged cries of “snobbery” and “class bias” and “Know-Nothing Nativism” should be applied to those who do not gravitate to Dickeyville Grottos I do not know.
Surely the elephant in the room no one is talking about is papal infallibility? Can these Anglicans get in without affirming it? If they already affirm it, then why have they not crossed the Tiber already?
A small town in eastern Iowa where I once lived had something on the order of the Dickeyville grotto, although not quite as bad.
The liturgy is actually a big problem to many who might otherwise consider a move. We go weekly to receive the sacrament and to be refreshed, revived, and re-focused in the faith. If refreshment and renewal are not the routine but rather a superficial and frankly not beautiful experience is the regular routine, it is very easy to become discouraged and disillusioned. What’s wrong with asking that the worship of the LORD be uplifting?
Associating certain art forms (especially art forms used in liturgy) closely with certain classes is not as safe an assumption as we in the 21st century often assume it to be. Read L. Levine’s Highbrow/Lowbrow for an interesting and well-documented presentation of an earlier period in American history when the correlation of class distinctions and art wasn’t taken as seriously as it is now.
My guess is that when it comes to the use of ‘art’ of all types in the liturgy, both the RC and the Anglican traditions have become too post-enlightenment in their view to understand — deeply — what Palestrina or gothic arches or the stained glass of Ste. Chapelle really should mean when used in churches and liturgy. Ikons of Orthodoxy seem the closest we have (and I think it’s safe to say ikons are appreciated by most Christian traditions these days?) to art that is neither a badge of class identity nor best left to aesthetes.
Greetings.
As an aside to some of the comments here, those interested in “folk Catholicism”, primarily Latino, will find much interesting material on [url=http://arturovasquez.wordpress.com/]Arturo Vasquez'[/url] site. That’s not the only topic covered, but a bit of poking around will be richly rewarded.
regards,
JPB
#14, Thank you. You are not the first to call attention to my class bias and reverse snobbery. I am certainly sorry that I was so offensive.
I am also sorry that I was so unclear. I had certainly not intended to glorify anything from Carmelite literature to the Dickeyville Grotto nor did I intend to denigrate anything from devotional objects made of plastic to “dignified worship, glorious music, and majestic liturgy” which glorify God.
I had intended to make two points. First, the Catholic Church draws upon a much broader portion of the population than TEC. I do not think that is a very remarkable observation.
Second, I have found that the “last acceptable prejudice” is alive and well in the Episcopal Church. For example, people will look at any eccentricity made of cement and broken china and put up next to a motel or a drive in and, if enough people see it, it will be called “folk art,” or at least “roadside art,” but let be put up next to a Catholic Church and it will be ugly, tacky and “bad.” (Bad.. Huh? Evil? Wicked?)
Here, by the way, are some other pictures of the “object” and some context,
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/wisconsin_dickeyville_grotto.htm
(Oh, look! It is part of Wisconsin’s Heritage.)
Finally, I might add that it seems to me people who cannot distinguish between worship as that which is given to God and worship which is fundamentally about what is to obtained from the sixty to ninety minutes given to it, probably are not going to be happy with Catholic liturgy regardless of the setting. Although, since I left eastern Iowa right after I was born, I don’t know for sure.
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin,
Home of the Hodag (More Wisconsin Art): http://babyhatchetblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/hodag.jpg
Dr. Witt hit the nail on the head.
Now, you can get around the administrative arrangements currently in place, such as central approval of liturgies, appointment of bishops, and so forth, though I don’t know why you would want to. But you can’t get around the dogmatic question: is the office of the bishop of Rome, presiding over the College of Bishops, the means by which Christ guards His Church from essential error? Corrolary to that, if not, then how does “indefectability” work? Anglicanism, of course, denies that Christ actually guards His Church from essential error, since “all Churches have erred”. But if you want to be Catholic, it’s a different matter.
BTW, let me second the recommendation re: Cullman, Alabama. The grotto isn’t nearly as tacky, but set on a beautiful, peaceful hillside. The monastery has a nice elder hostel program as well. Of course, I am personally much more comfortable with Father Einerson “reverse snobbery” than Sarah1’s clear inability to see devotion behind the (truly) tacky.
http://www.avemariagrotto.com/
Alas, alas, Fr. Dean, in the same small Iowa town the Catholic masses in all the parishes were limited in time. Otherwise they would “lose the people,” as a priest told me. When a priest came from Iowa City to fill in and preached a real sermon, a good one, lasting slightly under 15 minutes, there were bitter complaints, and the priest apologized at the following week’s masses and promised it wouldn’t happen again.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Whoa! I LOVE it!!! Seriously! It’s right up my cultural heritage alley. Now I finally have a reason to go to Wisconsin (besides the cheese.)
BTW I had a little ephipany re: Anglo Catholics (or at least some Anglo Catholics, or at least (lets be honest) one particular “Anglo Catholic” parish) I went to a mass there about 15 years ago. It was IMPECCIBLE! Gregorian chant, incredible vestments, processing with three choirs, recessing, incense, holy water, candles all over the place, I mean this was some really SERIOUS medieval stuff. So of course (confused person that I was at the time — not yet having found Stand Firm) I’m thinking “boy these are really conservative, Tridentine-type, ultra-traditional Catholics. I mean, they seem to have gotten disconnected from the Pope somehow, but other than that they are obviously more Catholic than the Catholics!” Then I listened to the sermon. It meandered all over heck and back with no obvious point and seemed to come from some theology that appeared to be pretty much made up on the spot (something along the lines of “Jesus was a nice Jewish boy who made God and we can too”) I couldn’t puzzle it out at all. Like watching a lion open its mouth to roar and hearing it quack like a duck. How can that be??
Then I started noticing their ads in the paper. They were always having some event in which their multiple choirs and million dollar organ were putting on some great choral work by Handel or some obscure medieval work in Latin. This would be like on a Saturday afternoon. That’s when I finally figured it out. For at least a substantial portion of the attendees, it wasn’t really a church — it was a theater. And a lot of the people in the pews were beautifully dressed theater goers. Now I love theater myself, but I don’t go to a play about church and think I’ve been to mass.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
I’m not sure that the criticisms concerning Anglican cultural snobbery are altogether valid. In my medium-sized town you can go to the glorious Latin Mass with the Catholics and hear Gregorian chant (with splendid hired singers), or you can come to the dingy room the country Baptists have loaned us and worship with the Anglicans. Whatever happens we will never have a truly beautiful space. I admit that a component of Anglicanism has too often had to do with class and cultural snobbery, but I am convinced that this is less the case with the new Anglicanism emerging. We are brothers and sisters to poor but vibrant African Christians, and many of us are under their authority. Let’s watch the generalizations!
RE: “Of course, I am personally much more comfortable with Father Einerson “reverse snobbery†than Sarah1’s clear inability to see devotion behind the (truly) tacky.”
I object. I do believe that something ugly and tacky can be created with “devout authenticity.”
RE: “Whatever happens we will never have a truly beautiful space. I admit that a component of Anglicanism has too often had to do with class and cultural snobbery . . . ”
Arrrgggghhh. Again, why must something that is a “truly beautiful space” be associated with “class and cultural snobbery”?
Are the peasants not allowed to appreciate beauty? Or if they do, are they therefore ergo catapulted into the “upper classes?” Or are there “lower class” peasants who do not appreciate truly beautiful spaces, and “higher class” members of the masses who do?
Thanks for re-iterating your point, Sarah1 (#26). For it needs re-iteration. When the poor and the un-educated assume appreciating beauty is beyond them, they play into the hands of the cultural gate-keepers. The Holy Spirit hasn’t inspired all of this splendid liturgy and art so that it can be cast aside in the name of a faux populism. If certain elements of Anglicanism have bled this heritage dry by buying into pure aestheticism rather than truth along w/ the beautiful, it’s simply a case of misusing something inherently good. Abusum non tolit usum.
Sarah1- The point of the comments is that some Anglo-Catholics appear to worship beauty for beauty’s sake, not because beauty represents and reflects the glory of God. All people, regardless of “class” can and do appreciate beauty, be it in worship or architecture. I don’t see any comments that explicitly or implicitly suggest otherwise. With regard to Catholic worship, yes there are lots of Masses that are not celebrated with reverence. However, I would argue that the key point in observing current Catholic worship in the US is not that it often “bad” but that overall, parish by parish, diocese by diocese it is getting better. We have an new English translation coming soon that restores much of the beauty of the Mass in our langauge (and is more faithful to the Latin). Many parishes, mine included, have started using chant, Latin, great hymns, etc. instead of “folk” masses. Bishops are issuing directives regarding things like proper dress by participants (e.g., I was at a Mass recently in NC where the new Bishop’s missive on prohibiting such things as flip flops on the altar servers was read aloud — not happy received by the priest, but obeyed none the less). Finally, even when my wife and I attend Masses that leave us cold, we remind ourselves that it is still a valid Mass — a treasure beyond compare.
Ok, there’s good taste and true devotion, which, ideally, combine to reflect the glory of God; perhaps the kicker is that “good taste” is mutable: in some cultures, it’s kitsch, in some, it’s art. My initial formation in the Catholic Church was Cistercian, which achieves beauty through form and scale, rather than decoration. That remains my preference, although my parish church is Romanesque. It’s not to my taste, but when it’s restored, it will be a beautiful house of worship, achieving beauty through elaborate windows, painted elements, and statuary.
My point is that legitimate diversity exists in architecture, art and music, and when speaking ill of the taste of others, it’s best to remember that sometime our own preferences may be judged to be kitsch.
If I might change the focus of the discussion a bit, I was surprised to find myself agreeing with Damian Thompson for once. I hope that Rome does indeed open wide the door for conservative Anglo-Catholics (the FiF, anti-WO kind), since the CoE seems to be making it all too clear that they aren’t wanted anymore and no real accommodations will be made for those who can’t tolerate women bishops. I also sadly agree that Anglicanism’s slow train wreck has already led to the [i]wreckage[/i] of the kind of Anglo-Catholicism typified by FiF and the SSC.
Finally, I also agree with the columnist that Pope Benedict XVI has shown real sympathetic interest in the plight of orthodox Anglicans, and not just Anglo-Catholics. I was present at the historic Plano conference back in the fall of 2003, and I can still remember vividly the impact of hearing then Cardinal Ratzinger’s warm letter of encouragement for all of us gathered there.
But FWIW, adding to Dr. Witt’s comment above, I think there are more obstacles to swimming the Tiber for many of us than just the dogma of papal infallibility. Speaking personally, although my much esteemed mentor in ministry (former Bishop of Albany Dan Herzog) predicted over 20 years ago that I would someday inevitably follow my greatest hero John Henry Newman into submitting to the papal obedience, I have other reasons for lingering on this side of the Tiber (although often casting a wistful glance across to the other side). Doctrinally, such obstacles would include the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which I reject (as did Thomas Aquinas). But not least, the dogmatic barriers would include the fact that despite the laudable ecumenical agreement reflected in the JDDJ, I find the classic Protestant/Lutheran view of justification more compelling than Trent’s version of that crucial doctrine.
After all, I’m a passionate advocate of a radical New Reformation! And besides Newman, my other two greatest theological heroes are Luther and Wesley. So despite the fact that in many ways I’m more Catholic than Protestant (e.g., in my sacramental theology, and my view of the relationship of Scripture and Tradition), and despite my preference for celebraing the Eucharist with all the catholic trappings: chasubles, incense, and chanting plainsong, I myself won’t be swimming the Tiber anytime soon.
{Edited by Elf]
David Handy+
RE: Snobbery.
When I was a very unhappy RC on the verge of leaving, I promised my pastor I would give it a REALLY good go. Participate in every spiritual offering the parish had, use my gifts in ministry, etc. for one year and then decide. I kept my promise.
I won’t get into all of the questions I had regarding the many Marian devotions and my discomfiture with them or the snobby parishioners who assumed I was a divorcee (I wasn’t) and complained to “Father” that I should NOT be allowed to offer the chalice because of their false assumption. Nope, it went deeper.
The priest sent me over to the office to pick up something he had forgotten right before Mass. As I left the church, I saw a bunch of shopping carts outside near the flowerbeds in front of the church. Assembled there were at least a dozen homeless people. I asked them why they didn’t come into the church? “Oh, no, miss,” one of them said. “We stay out here and listen.” I invited them in and said I would accompany them. The “spokesman” put his head down and said the ushers would ask them to leave and people would glare at them. It had happened before.
That stuck in my heart and the memory still brings tears to my eyes. At the end of my promised year, I decided to begin attending the Episcopal Church in town. And on the first Sunday I arrived, I saw shopping carts outside. The PEOPLE belonging to the carts, however, were all INSIDE. During coffee hour, I saw the sexton serving them breakfast and also giving them bags of food to take with them.
I knew I was home.
RE: “perhaps the kicker is that “good taste†is mutable . . . My point is that legitimate diversity exists in architecture, art and music, and when speaking ill of the taste of others, it’s best to remember that sometime our own preferences may be judged to be kitsch.”
I agree that taste is mutable, whether good or bad. But I do not believe that beauty is. In this way I am a Platonist. I do believe that there is an ideal in beauty just as there is an ideal in truth [an absolute], justice, mercy, purity, and all of the other things we are to think on.
Because of that I also believe that there are absolute standards of beauty and I wish to find them and enjoy them.
I don’t care if people judge my taste to be kitsch. It is not important to me what others think of my taste, just as it is hopefully not important to others if I think their taste tawdry or fine. All of us exercise our judgement about the material world as creatures made in the image of God.
But the interesting thing is . . . people down through the centuries congregate about whatever they judge to be beautiful and holy. There is no way to stop this, and I don’t think it a bad thing at all. The question is, do the ideas expressed by the people still signify or relate to that which has been made beautiful and holy.
That is what the prophets of Israel were concerned with — the people still congregated about that which had been made beautiful and holy, but regrettably they had lost their love of God and His ways. It is probably that way with many Episcopalians, [I can’t speak for Roman Catholics] and that is the real tragedy to me, not that they still congregate about the beautiful and holy but that they do not believe the ideas which those things were to represent.
This thread has been cleaned.
Comments requiring, encouraging or intimating that other readers must or should leave or join a particular church are well known to be against T19 comment policy, no matter what the thread and will be deleted completely. It does not matter whether that is in reference to the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox churches, Baptists, Moonies or whatever. Repeat abuse of this may lead to commenters being moderated or loss of commenting privileges.
Commenters’ assistance will be appreciated in maintaining T19 as a site for discourse for and by Anglicans, although all are welcome and encouraged to participate and hopefully to be built up and to build others up in Christ – Elf]
[Comment deleted by Elf – Please note that comments which refer to comments which breach T19 comment policy may, and comments which argue with the decisions of the Elves will be deleted]
[Comment deleted by Elf]
I thank contributors above. BTW I affirm my support of T19 policy regarding proselytising. That was never my intent, and I am sorry if the blog drifted in that direction. I was moved by the post # 31 above, if a little ruefully, because ministry to street people in the parish I serve as pastor has led to some disruptive scenes in and around church, including, only last week, a long tirade of racist abuse hurled by an inebriated street person at an ethnic family leaving church after a baptism. As a result of that and other incidents I have reluctantly shut down our sandwich distribution. Pastors sometimes have to make difficult decisions. I can only agree with the posts above saying that surely the poor, too, can appreciate beauty, and the choice is not between good liturgy and a sense of welcome and community. But I write from an English context, and I have a genuine question here. Anglo-Catholic service of the poorest city communities has been long and real, in some areas going back over 150 years. Why then is there no substantial working-class Anglo-Catholic wing to the Church? In fact, the poorer the area, the less likely it is that local people will go to any Anglican church there, of whatever hue. I do not write this as a cheap sneer. I think that the renewal of Christian faith in England (and I mean England, not the UK) is unlikely and perhaps impossible without a vigorous Church of England. Finally: a lifelong Catholic who is a friend of mine told me last week that she has begun attending her local Anglican church. She was tired of the impersonal liturgy and large numbers at her local RC parish. She felt that she found a welcome and above all a sense of community at her local Church of England parish. Reality cuts both ways.
David Handy #32,
I agree with you that there are a number of issues that must be resolved before one crosses the Tiber. To your comments about the Immaculate Conception, I would add all of the Marian dogmas (with the exception of the title theotokos, which is not really a Marian dogma, but a Christological dogma), justification by faith (as you mentioned), but also indulgences (still an issue almost 500 years after the Reformation), transubstantiation (as a particular theory about the mode of the real presence)–the list goes on an on.
But the crucial issue really is the one about the pope, isn’t it? If I were convinced the pope is infallible, I could agree that he is infallible about the numerous dogmas that distinguish Roman Catholicism from everyone else. On the other hand, it is precisely the controverted dogmas that make me unable to believe in papal infallibillity.
But, again, the same question applies. If [some] Anglo-Catholics already embrace the distinctively Roman positions, then why have they not left already? If they don’t, then how can Rome offer a “rescue”?
[Elves: I’m not sure whether the above violates the comment policy or not. I don’t see how it is possible to discuss an article like the one above without discussing (at least abstractly) the theological issues an Anglican needs to address before crossing the Tiber. To me, at least, this is a more important issue than whether or not Roman Catholic art and liturgy is tacky.]
[Terry Tee and Dr Witt – your posts are fine. Discussing the differences between churches is fine including those issues people thinking about moving church need to consider provided no one is encouraged to leave or join any church. However, comments such as the following would be problematical: you must leave church A because you will be in communion with heretics; you must go to church B because that is the true or apostolic or whatever church; if you believe such and such you have no choice but to join church B; if you believe such and such why haven’t you joined church B; you must join church B because they have nicer liturgy, vestments, taste, more poor people, fewer poor people, women priests, male priests, better coffee etc. Hope that helps – Elf]
Dear Elf, my #13 did none of what you reference in #38. Where is the comment policy, for future reference?
#36– Terry Tee,
I certainly can’t comment on the situation in England because I don’t live there. I’ve visited fairly often but only attended Anglican churches on my visits, and always felt welcome and well greeted.
I was a cradle Catholic and remained RC until my reception into the Anglican Communion in 2001. I’ve lived in three different states and saw the same circumstances played out in all of them. Unless the area is very rural and non-populous, cities have a few RC churches in them. There are the older “ethnic” churches whose memberships are comprised of mostly poor and blue-collar folks and then there are the large, modern church campuses mostly attended the the upper middle class and upwardly mobile. Rarely, if ever, do the two types of congregations meet. Generally, the large, modern churches were built by congregations who outgrew their old churches located near the downtowns and chose to move to where the new, beautiful subdivisions were being built and away from urban blight.
There only tends to be one Episcopal church per city, unless you’re in a large urban area, and these tend to be venerable old buildings close to downtown. The situation I described above fits this pattern — the RC church was a large, fairly new complex miles away from the city center and the Episcopal church was in the heart of the downtown, right down the street, I might add, from a beautiful old RC church that was no longer in use.
The trend in the States when money is tight is to close the churches downtown. The structures are old and in constant need of repair and the congregations are withering (unless it’s the only church of that denomination in town). If you’ve got the time, you might want to read the stories of the RC archdioceses closing down the inner city churches, particularly in those archdioceses that have been especialy hard-hit by the sex abuse lawsuits. Some RC dioceses are having to close dozens of them and sell the properties to pay the settlements.
I take great issue with those insisting that Anglo-Catholics make idols of beautiful buildings and liturgy. I attend a VERY beautiful, old, gothic Episcopal church that is known for its fabulous acoustics and commitment to good music. And it’s a delight to see community members of all ages and faiths (including none) attend the many concerts held at our church. It is our gift to the community and we’re not “snobbish” in sharing it. Come to any of our services on Sunday and you won’t see an all-white congregation dressed to the nines. Sure, there will be some, but you’ll also see ranch families in their best Wranglers and overalls, teens in a variety of T-shirts, college students, Air Force personnel, young couples and families, and elderly on a fixed income. You’ll meet people from Africa, India, England, and Ireland. All have found a home in that church and, being downtown, are committed to ministry in the downtown neighborhoods.
It’s not so much the infallibility, as it is the deep contradiction between saying that our church is worthless and then trying to collect the fruits of that “worthless” church. The infallibility is a problem, no doubt, but the part where the Romans are willing to take our priests– because they have already been priests— indicates that, really, it’s something of a pose.
Expecting the pope to fix the American RC situation is expecting too much; and to the American church, the Anglo-Catholic tradition is, now, alien and radical. It’s funny that, for all the talk about RC diversity, the weddings and masses I’ve been in have been, with rare exceptions, essentially like deliberately degraded Rite II services. It’s cannot imagine an influx of Anglo-Catholics making more than a passing ripple in this. I have no patience for departing Anglican clerics talking about Roman liturgy, because after all, they can, to some degree, reform it in the image of their old church. Us laymen can only expect a church where it somehow makes liturgical sense to reduce “We Three Kings” to two, if so radically traditionalist a hymn be sung at all. Benedict is only four years younger now than JP II was at his death, and he has already lived longer than Paul VI; it is going to take more than one pope to bend the American church from its determination to mediocrity.