It’s not all that unusual for practising Christians to change denominations, as faith inevitably shifts as the experience of life disturbs our ideas. I count among my own friends a Brethren minister who became an Anglican, an Anglican who became a Catholic, and a Catholic who became a Baptist. None of them changed denomination in protest at anything, but because they simply discovered that their life and thought fitted better in a different context.
Although it’s entirely possible to move informally between protestant denominations, many do so only after considerable soul searching, and ”“ as observed in Tony Blair’s rather public spiritual journey ”“ a protestant can normally only become a Catholic through formal conversion. But the personal ordinariates announced last week by Pope Benedict XVI are a rather different animal, in that they represent an invitation to Anglicans who feel beleaguered by changes in Anglican practice to relocate under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic church while retaining features of their Anglican heritage. Many have welcomed this as a move of gracious generosity by the pope, while the more cynical see it as a proselytising move. Either way, the process is likely to open up at least as many complexities as it resolves.
The author is making a key category error – one I and others have also tended to make since this story broke. She represents the Vatican’s proposal as “an invitation to Anglicans who feel beleaguered by changes in Anglican practice.” But the whole offer was prompted by the overtures of the Traditional Anglican Communion, which hasn’t been associated with Canterbury for some time (if ever, in some cases). TAC not only isn’t “beleaguered” by alterations of faith and practice in that Communion, it has no contact with them at all.
I’m not saying there aren’t Anglo-Papalists in the CoE who might also salivate over this opportunity, given the impending dissolution of sacramental assurance by Canterbury; but, we should remain clear that the Vatican is responding to a question by a Continuing Anglican group, not proselytizing the mainline Anglican Communion out of the clear blue sky.
Maggi just doesn’t get it.
“the whole offer was prompted by the overtures of the Traditional Anglican Communion, which hasn’t been associated with Canterbury for some time…. we should remain clear that the Vatican is responding to a question by a Continuing Anglican group, not proselytizing the mainline Anglican Communion out of the clear blue sky. ”
Well, that explains the joint press conference of the Archbishop of Westminster and the Archbishop of Canterbury! I wonder why all the press didn’t come from the HQ of the Traditional Anglican Communion.
Re: #1
“But the whole offer was prompted by the overtures of the Traditional Anglican Communion, which hasn’t been associated with Canterbury for some time (if ever, in some cases). TAC not only isn’t “beleaguered†by alterations of faith and practice in that Communion, it has no contact with them at all.”
This is not untrue, but it is a considerable distortion of the truth. The TAC’s petition in 2007 was followed in 2008 by a formal, if unpublicised, petition to Rome to the same effect on behalf of FIF/UK, by three of its bishops. This past January, Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna hosted, at the direct behest of the pope, a two-day meeting in Vienna with two FIF/UK bishops and two of that organization’s well-known leading priests as his guests, at which the unambiguous acceptance of the Roman magisterium and its authority by the latter was met by the former’s assurance that Rome would indeed produce, before the year’s end, a “canonical structure” for Catholic-minded Anglicans. Every indication is, that this clarification of the position of FIF/UK (much different from that of FIF/NA, which seems willing to compromise its very raison d’etre by linking itself to ACNA) is what finally determined Rome to do something, and to do it NOW — “now” being, not coincidentally, October 20th, just three days before the beginning of the annual meeting of FIF/UK.
And if you doubt my account of this, I have one (actually, two) simple requests: click on this link, which will take you to podcasts of the talks at the FIF/UK annual meeting last week, and listen to two of them (1) “Introduction and Welcome” by Fr. Geoffrey Kirk, and (2) “The PEVs.” Of the three bishops who speak in the last, two of them were involved in the petition I mention above, and one of them was a participant at the Vienna meeting in January 2009 which I also mentioned.
Obviously, MarkP, the whole thing reflects negatively on the Anglican Communion, as the steady stream of articles documented on this blog make clear. Canterbury had to try to get in front of that reaction, whether he was principally involved or not.
That seems obvious. I’m not sure why you felt the need for sarcasm.
“Don’t turn to Rome in anger”
Wise advice. Those who convert in anger may find that the problem has come with them.
This is nothing short of relativism and pluralism in the context of “denominationalism.”
“But anyone who moves from one church to another out of unresolved anger – over women priests, or gay priests, or anything else – then they are almost certain to take their discontent with them, and cause just as much disruption in their new home as their old.”
When in doubt, attack the other’s motives, along with the suggestion that they are psychologically unbalanced in some way (which *I* could never be!).
The therapeutic approach to religious truth is not helpful. Does it not occur to Maggi Dawn that unease (or even anger) over changes in Anglican Communion life could be stirred in part by the sense that these changes are unfaithful to the Gospel? or that large areas of ‘Western’ Anglicanism are rejecting its biblical heritage? or that there has been a signal failure of leadership?
Maggi Dawn sounds like another subjectivist religious relativist from the evangelical stable.
So, abandonment of significant elements of the catholic faith are mere changes in practice… is there a need to read further?
🙄
I’m with tired. “Mere changes in practice” didn’t get us here. And if there are those who take up the pope’s offer, I doubt it will be out of mere anger. It will be out of a desire to return to faith. She writes as if it’s all about folks getting put out with liturgical dance or something. Quite shallow.
So I reckon one should *stay put* in anger? Folks have done that for years. Why is is a problem to leave? It reduces anger in one place, potentially calms the nerves. Or is it the problem that it makes Anglicans look ever more Anglican that rankles? Undiluted liberalism does look a little different as time goes by and others leave or just die off.