I have read with great interest various reports concerning today’s announcement from top officials in the Vatican about some new provisions being made whereby Anglicans may enter into full communion with the Holy See. For some time now I have understood that high-level discussions about this were taking place in Rome and that an announcement along these lines would be made before the end of the year. As today’s announcement indicates, a new Apostolic Constitution is soon to be released which will spell out Pope Benedict XVI’s response to Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Many Anglo-Catholics will welcome this development as a very generous and welcoming offer that enhances the Pastoral Provision that has been in place for several years for those seeking reunion with Rome. Other Anglicans who desire full communion with the See of Peter would prefer some sort of recognition of the validity of Anglican orders and the provision for inter-communion between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.
Contrast this statement with Bishop Duncan’s. ACNA’s appears the more generous of the two.
IMHO Bishop Iker seems to be saying, “let’s not forget our differences with RC and besides this is the last thing we need right now.” And yet I can’t imagine ACNA losing anyone to Rome who hasn’t already gone.
Re #1
The Roman,
[blockquote] And yet I can’t imagine ACNA losing anyone to Rome who hasn’t already gone[/blockquote]
I think I would have to disagree with that. It’s been a pretty open secret that ACNA is an organization that has a lot of internal strains on it. The Anglo-Catholics are and have been VERY unhappy with being in communion with female clergy and while +Duncan is well liked on a personal level his position on W/O is anathema to the catholic wing of the ACNA. Almost from the moment they joined they have been keeping an eye on the exits.
Their discussions with the Met. +Jonah is strong evidence to that.
In ICXC
John
The subtext, to me, indicates Bp. Iker dampening down the enthusiasm for this among his clergy — quite a few of whom are Anglo-Papalists and were engaged in dialogue with the local Catholic authorities. He knows that the churches have many parishoners for whom Rome would be a bridge too far, or who have inherited fear of papists with their mothers’ milk.
He is also aware of how easily this could fracture ACNA, to which he has made an all-in public commitment (though he has looked rather uncomfortable at a few of the events).
Had this come just a year ago, there may well have been more takers in the US. The realignment has changed the geography; “Anglicanism” has a temporary advantage over “the Catholic faith.”
I think there will still be defections, nevertheless. But not a large-scale transfer. Which (by my lights) is heartily to be regretted.
Indeed, the rector of what could be thought of as the flagship Anglo-Catholic parish in Dr Iker’s diocese is apparently telling every media outlet that will listen that yesterday was the greatest day for the Church since Pentecost!
#4 Paul Goings – to which parish are you referring? St. Vincent’s in Bedford?
#5 Bernini – No, the other one.
Bishop Iker will not go to Rome and he does not want to lose his priests to Rome either. That is why he seems to be not too happy about this.
There is one essential question, and it is really the only one that matters: would TAC and other anglo-catholics be invited into communion yet remain utterly independent — [i]sui iuris[/i] — or not? If not, tolerance of such things as married clergy and Anglican distinctives will be but a temporary dispensation, and after a generation or two they will all be subsumed into a catholicism that both [i]de facto[/i] and [i]de iuris[/i] is utterly Roman in all aspects.
So, do you want your grandchildren to be garden-variety Romans, or not? If you wish for them to believe such claptrap as salvation by works, the loss of salvation through sin, purgatory, limbo, and the lot … then go for it.
I feel no need to pray to Saint Anne to intercede with her daughter Mary, to intercede with her son Jesus, to intercede with God on my behalf. If you think praying to dead people is just fine, then take Benedict up on his offer.
There were a number of highly cogent reasons for the Reformation, and with very few exceptions (sale of indulgences, etc) they remain valid. In our day, if you want to purchase indulgences … spend your money on “carbon offsets.”
As usual, Bp. Iker proves to be a refreshingly clear communicator. Commenters applying motive or intent to the good bishop would do better to address his actual points. The issue of the validity of Anglican orders is a matter of great importance and shouldn’t be ignored or glossed over.
It’s well to remember that Bp. Iker has lost something like 8 of his clergy to the Catholic Church, mostly right here in the the Diocese of Fort Worth.
To his credit, he has established a positive relationship with our Bishop Kevin Vann. At a Mass celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth, Bp Iker and about 20 of his clergy processed at the head of the groups of honored guests. They presented us with a newly written icon of St. Michael the Archangel and participated in the Mass as our respective situations allowed. Bp Vann also participated in the ACNA convocation in Bedford, to what degree I’m not sure.
#10. Words Matter
Thanks for reminding me. Yes Bishop Iker is a good friend to our Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth.
austin: I really wish you wouldn’t use the term “papalist” or “papist. Couldn’t you just call them Roman Catholics. The term “Papist” belongs, IMHO, to another century.
Blessings,
Bill (who happens to be an evangelical anglican)
Slightly off topic but of importance to the DioFW, we received this notification via our parish secretary, originating from Bishop Iker:
[blockquote]The Bishop is asking for prayers for The Rev. Canon John Heidt, Canon Theologian to the Bishop of Fort Worth. Canon Heidt is hospitalized at Methodist Hospital in Dallas, in addition to several health problems, he has apparently suffered a stroke and his left side is not functioning. He is not conscious and the doctors are trying to keep him stabilized. The Bishop has visited with Canon Heidt and his family in the hospital and Father Terry Jordan has given him last rites. Please keep Canon Heidt, his wife, Katherine, his son, Father Michael, his daughter Teresa and other family members in your prayers.[/blockquote]
It remains to be seen whether this will be a body blow or series of minor scratches.
Bart Hall/#8:
Forgive my bluntness, though bluntness is sometimes necessary:
Your statement regarding the asking of the intercession of the saints indicates a significant deficit in understanding. Given what you wrote, you ought to cease saying the Nicene Creed (with reference to the Communion of Saints), and I’d go so far as to say you dare never to ask another friend to pray for you–and you should avoid intercessory prayer altogether. It is just you and Jesus.
If you truly believe that the Saints are some “dead people”, you need to reread your New Testament. The Dead in Christ are *certainly* more alive than you or I, dear one.
May the Lord show mercy!
Sorry–meant to sign my name:
Fr John Parker
Holy Ascension Orthodox Church
Mt Pleasant, SC
frjohn (at) ocacharleston (dot) org
#12 There is nothing pejorative about the term “Anglo-Papalist.” I’ve self-identifed as one for decades. So do many far more worthy men, such as Fr. Hunwicke of Oxford (whose excellent blog you might consult). Or try reading Michael Yelton’s 2005 book on the subject. Plenty of prominent Anglicans, such as the liturgical scholar Dom Gregory Dix, accepted the Petrine primacy and worked towards the eventual submission of the Church of England to Rome. That’s simply what we’re called.
“Papist”,as used above, is the precise term used to engender a fear of Catholicism. My own grandfather used it when he handed me his copy of “Maria Monk” in an effort to educate me about the horrors of the Antichrist. I find it a more muscular and acceptable term, in any case, than the mealy-mouthed “Roman Catholic”, a tag invented by Anglicans to make the point that Catholics were essentially nasty foreigners. “Catholics” used to call themselves simply that, but some adopted the Roman tag as a point of pride. In an Anglican setting, “Catholic” tout court generally gives rise to confusion.
Bloggers such as the Pertinacious Papist now employ “papist” in a humorous vein. I don’t think it carries much weight as a bogey-word any longer, except perhaps in the recesses of Ulster.
9. episcoanglican:
The issue of Anglican orders as they are thought to exist by Anglicans themselves being accepted by the Roman Catholic Church is over a century after Leo XIII’s encyclical one that shows no signs of being revisited.
[url=http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm]Apostolicae Curae (Leo PP. XIII, 1896)[/url]
Fr. John (#15):
I would refer you first to 1 Tim 2:1-5 … Jesus is the sole mediator between man and God. Apart from Christ himself, please point me to a single non-deuterocanonical example of living humans praying to dead humans. The “heavenly beings” of Revelation / Apocalypse don’t count.
Secondly, within the Anglican context, I refer you to Article XXII of the foundational 39 Articles. The invocation of saints is condemned as [i]a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.[/i] See also Article XXI of the Augsburg Confession … [i]Scripture does not teach calling on the saints or pleading for help from them.[/i]
All that said, I have for many decades omitted [i]filioque[/i] whenever I say the Nicene Creed, so in no way do I take your directness personally, nor do I think it even rises to the level of “bluntness.” It is thoughtful and heartfelt criticism: we simply disagree, and thereby mirror similar disagreement on the same topic amongst Jews (Hassidic v. Modern Orthodox), the broader Christian church, and even Islam (Shi’a v. Salafi).
Bart Hall: Haven’t you slightly skewed the playing field here? remembering that one of the major reasons for eliminating the d/c books from the canon of Scripture was to remove such embarrassing books as II Maccabees? And surely your beef shouldn’t be with the individual items on your list, but with the Catholic disinclination to follow the Sola Scriptura path introduced at the Reformation?
Bart Hall (#19):
Of course Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man. But then why do you think St Paul encourages us to make intercessions? Are we not then some sort of mediator? Shouldn’t the kings and rulers and sick just pray to Christ themselves? The point isn’t that *no one should pray*. It is that Jesus is the mediator, the Savior.
Secondly, if anyone has the ‘burden of proof’ on the intercessions of the saints, for for that matter on any theological praxis of the undivided Church, it falls to those who are separated from it. It is your responsibility, not mine. In that sense, you and I don’t disagree. I take comfort in the practice of Christians of all times, and you disagree with that.
If you’d like really to know why we ask the intercessions of the saints (and I am an Orthodox Christian, though born and raised ECUSA and trained at TESM–and I still don’t know what the “romish” doctrine is in Article XXII) just ask, and I send you to church, and then send you some reading.
Third, if I were going to engage in this discussion more fully, it would not be on Reformation grounds. One can’t demand “Bible only” answers, and justify the request by citing the “authority” of the extra-canonical and not-even-deuterocanonical 39 articles. Are asking me to decline to ask the intercessions of the saints based on an Anti-Catholic late medieval Calvinist/Lutheran treatise?
For the sake of argument, concerning finding examples in the Bible, how do you defend the priesthood of those who husband of more than one wife (ie, divorced)?
Forgive me, please, if I have been harsh with my words. I truly wish the folks would stop fighting the Reformation battles as if they were still alive today–especially when speaking with the Orthodox who were already 500 years removed from the worst of those battles anyway.
Fr John