Terry Mattingly, for years an acute observer of the Anglican scene as founder of the popular religion blog Getreligion.org, and a religion columnist for Scripps Howard says, “I expect some of the old-school Anglo-Catholics to pack up and go to Rome, period.” But if Benedict were to sweeten the pot by allowing an Anglican Rite Church in England, “that’s gotta be huge.” And when Mattingly says “huge,” he doesn’t just mean for the Anglo-Catholics. Rather, he believes that an exodus of that size could affect the worldwide Communion after all, by giving other dissidents, with entirely different grievances, a model with which to unravel the fabric of Anglicanism.
Mattingly points out that more so than in other religious groupings, one of the things that holds the Anglican Communion together is the simple belief that the Anglican Communion must hold together. The case can be made that a dutiful sense of global unity, represented by four “instruments” ”” including the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams ”” is stronger than any Anglican doctrinal agreement. Mattingly suggests that the departure of 1,300 priests and bishops from the English mother church could act as a kind of spell-breaking moment, the first time during the Communion’s current round of troubles when a significant number of Anglicans “are saying, ‘I’m no longer in communion with Canterbury.'”
Such a defection, as it played out in terms of theology, finances and British law, would be a kind of seminar for all possible schismatics on how to break with the Communion, without the world ending. Other dissidents might then feel freer to go their own way.
And it could happen a good deal sooner than almost any other version of schism, primarily because it would take the key decision out of the hands of the Anglicans, who, as Mattingly puts it, “have a special knack for not making decisions.” Rome, he notes, “doesn’t usually act fast, either. But Rome ”” and especially, it seems to me, Benedict ”” has a knack for acting with clarity more than Anglicanism.”
Mr. Mattingly goes on to say that “most of the English dissidents this week are not the evangelical, Bible-thumping members of the Communion whose fury at the American ordination of an openly gay bishop has led to talks of schism this summer. Rather they are members of a faction, heavy on liturgy and ritual, that abhors evangelicalism but considers itself very close to the Catholicism from which the Anglican Church originally sprang. Many “Anglo-Catholics” share Rome’s opposition to female ordination. They have also historically hoped for a reunion with Catholicism, and correctly assume that female bishops would be a deal-breaker in any negotiation with Rome.” You can just feel the love that Mr. Mattingly has for Evangelicals, can’t you?
Anytime people start using phrases like “bible thumping” and use “evangelical” as if it’s a dirty word, I tend to tune them out because their bias is apparent. If people don’t want to be evangelical why BE in a church? Why be in what calls itself a Christian church if you don’t believe in the tranformative saving power-the good news-of Jesus Christ, and that he was a more than simply a great human being? That is of course, unless you want to be part of a social service agency with fancy vestments, smells and bells that is Unitarian in all but name only?
It is my understanding that many English Anglo-Catholics have little or no love for the Book of Common Prayer, unlike many American Anglo-Catholics. In other words, I’m not sure an Anglican Rite (which would be based on the BCP) would particularly appeal to CofE Anglo-Catholics as Mattingly suggests.
[i] #1 and #2 Please do not take this thread off topic. [/i]
#3 – They may not feel strongly about an “Anglican use,” but from what I understand would they not appreciate retaining their own corporate existence, a unique identity?
First of all, this story is a year old. Second, missing from this story is the question about how the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales would feel. From outside the Catholic Church you have the impression that the Pope makes all the decisions. In reality, he would consult and listen carefully to the English episcopate. My intuition is that they would not welcome a parallel rite. And let’s not forget the property issue. The parishes in the Church of England that came over en masse eg St Matthew’s Bethnal Green, Holy Cross Cromer St, St Stephen’s Gloucester Road, all in London – all remained in the hands of the Church of England, indeed I doubt if it could do anything else. So please – be realistic. This is going nowhere.
#5, Drew Na,
Could well be. But my guess is that there would have to be a compelling reason (from Rome’s perspective) for retaining such a corporate existence. A distinct liturgical tradition would apparently be such a reason, given the Pastoral Provision of 1980 for Episcopalians (U.S.) who converted to Catholicism. An important aspect of the Pastoral Provision was that it established the basis for developing what is referred to as the Anglican Use, drawing from the U.S. BCP. One writer has argued that Anglicanism has preserved and developed Benedictine monastic spirituality (http://www.liturgysociety.org/JOURNAL/Volume10/10_3/Pauley.pdf), but that would be very closely tied with Anglican liturgy, I would think, which again raises the question of why those Anglicans who are not particularly attached to the Anglican liturgical tradition would need their own corporate identity.
I agree with Terry Tee that this story is not new, and I also think that no one will know what the Vatican will do about Anglo-Catholics until it does it on a worldwide basis, either an expansion of or a different idea from the American “Anglican use” existing option.
Both groups, “Anglo-Catholic” and “Evangelical Anglican,” have many permutations and combinations on both sides of the Atlantic, and don’t necessarily mean the same thing on both shores. It’s just not that clear-cut. And those Anglo-Catholics who are considering going to Rome are, fairly obviously, not those who are “catholic” in liturgical expression but reappraising in belief, like “Affirming Catholics” in the UK and the Americas.
At the recent Anglican Use conference in Houston (June 2009) one of the presenters, a German liturgist with some expertise in Anglican liturgy and some involvement in Anglican Use affairs, as well as connections with the TAC, gave us to understand that a future revised “Anglican Use” liturgy will not be based on the 1979 ECUSA Rite (as is the current Anglican Use “Book of Divine Worship,” although heavily modifies as regards the heart of its Eucharistic rites), nor on some post-Reformation English BCP (1549, 1662) but rather on those rites, such as the “English Missal” and the “Anglican Missal” produced by Anglo-Catholic Anglicans almost a century ago that incorporated elements from the 1662 BCP into what was a “Cranmerian” translation of the Tridentine Mass.
#8, Katherine,
I’d say we need a “score card” to keep track of all the “players,” but the task would probably be too dizzying. In short, though I admire and respect Mattingly’s getreligion.com site, I reluctantly suggest that his comment about an Anglican Rite could use a bit of the probing analysis he himself applies to many journalistic pieces on religion.
As far as the USA is concerned, the pope has had his chance. The three A-C dioceses went with ACNA, and remaining A-C parishes at the moment either are being bloody-minded about staying or have the opportunity to jump to ACNA and stay A-C. In England, my bet would be that Cantuar wants to keep the A-C parishes; it would take the threatened liberal coup to change this.
It is funny but I have yet to hear an RC talk about Anglicans/Episcopalians coming into the RCC. I sometimes attend a parish where the parochial vicar came from TEC. Although he is very well liked and respected, this has not engendered a discussion or even a desire to see Episcopalians convert to the RCC as a group. If a person believes that the interpretations and teachings of the Magisterium are true, then RCs welcome you with great joy. If on the other hand, we are seen as some kind of “second-best”, then it makes no sense to join the RCC. I can tell you from personal experience that RCs are way more concerned about addressing problems within the Church than “swiping” other Christians from their Churches. I wish that other churches would not make RC children their primary target … but if we did a better job, it would not be such an issue.
If you’re a Catholic, then you need to be with Rome. That much has been made clear, the last few years.
Before pinning hope on the “Pastoral Provision” check out how much it has *provided*. The website they established claims a whopping 75 ordinations since 1980. Not bad for a church with a billion or so. Also note places like Olympia, WA with a parish of 7000 souls, 2300 families and *one* priest. When a Pastoral Provision priest (retired) offered to help out, he was forbidden to do anything whatever in the parish. He joined with the Eastern Rite mission there and did fine, but Rome still has marriage phobia. No cure in sight.
While the Catholic Church in Olympia may have marriage phobia, it doesn’t make sense to say that about Rome, since the bishop of that Church personally signed off on most (if not all) the married priests in the U.S. In fact, the Catholic Church of Fort Worth has had married priests in charge of parishes for about 20 years. In fact, we had two Anglican Use congregations, but one shut down when our priest was needed to pastor a regular Latin Rite parish. That same priest no longer pastors that parish, since he is now chancellor of the diocese (sort of like Canon to the Ordinary).
It’s true that the Anglican Use is healthy, but quite small. It’s hardly served as a conduit for large numbers of conversions from TEC. However, it’s worth distinguishing between the pastoral provision, which operates within the Latin Rite, and a separate juridical organization, such as the Eastern Rites. It’s an interesting question how such an arrangement might be received.
Of course, Anglo-catholics, like all potential Roman Catholics, would have to deal with the papal claims. It’s not all about rituals and hymnody.