I yield to no one in my respect and affection for Benedict XVI. His issuing of Summorum Pontificum three years ago was sufficient to guarantee the significance of his pontificate, even if the de facto schism of many bishops around the world has impeded its implementation. In his pronouncements and instincts he has displayed a Catholic sensibility lacking in his predecessors since 1958. That said, I am not enthused by his concession of an Ordinariate to traditionally-minded Anglicans converting to Rome en bloc.
So, forgive me if I cannot join my fellow traditional Catholics in dancing in the streets in celebration of this supposed coup. Of course, at a purely human level, it was hilarious to see Rowan Williams wake up one morning to find the papal tanks on his lawn, followed by the appearance of the same, visibly unhappy, Rowan Cantuar, looking like a shot-down U2 spy plane pilot paraded before the media in Moscow 50 years ago, at a joint news conference to announce this joyous event. The broader picture, however, raises considerable concerns. Not everything that provokes consternation in Eccleston Square ”“ enjoyable though that spectacle is ”“ is ipso facto good for the Church.
Why is it necessary to make such elaborate concessions to Anglicans, as distinct from converts of every other description? Why do they have to convert collectively, when personal faith can only be dictated by individual conscience?
“Because a section of the Anglican Church has long affected the trappings of Catholicism, those pretensions create more of a barrier than a bridge to authentic Catholic belief.”— But such Anglicans do not “affect the trappings of Catholicism.” They– we– truly embrace all the beliefs and practices of ancient Catholic Christianity, and also believe, at least until now, that the Anglican Church is a legitimate expression of that catholicism. But Mother is trying very hard to push us out the door because she’s got a new boyfriend in the bedroom. Hence the magnanimity of Benedict XVI.
What Mr. Warner seems not to understand is that there is some recognition on the part of B16 that the creation of an Anglican Church had as much to do with politics as it does with doctrine. Generosity in the face of such seems to be warrented.
From the article:
[blockquote]”Once any individual becomes convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, he is under an immediate obligation to make submission to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff and any delay in doing so is a sin against the Holy Ghost, imperilling his salvation.” [/blockquote]
I am very puzzled by this statement. Saint Paul, in his letter to the Romans, said, “[I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9) There is nothing in Saint Paul’s statement that implies I need to submit to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff in order to be saved.
You are exactly right, Father! The author is simply not recognizing the fact that we ARE Catholic–just not Roman!!!
I mean this seriously (it’s not an attempt to bait anyone), but what exactly makes an Anglican ‘catholic,’ other than the fact that a particular Anglican has decided to *call* himself or herself catholic?
I speak as a former Episcopal priest, now a Roman Catholic layman. I too used to believe that we were “catholic–just not Roman,” and I wore that badge proudly. But it occurred to me at some point that it’s a peculiar sort of Catholicism that keeps one from being recognized as catholic by anyone else.
And let’s be honest: not all Anglicans choose to see themselves as catholic. Some are openly hostile to the word. And, even among those who do see themselves as catholic, there are *degrees* of catholicism pertaining mostly to liturgical and doctrinal matters with which most Anglicans do not agree.
Doesn’t it seem, then, that the word ‘catholic’ is being used in a way that evacuates it of all meaning? It occurred to me toward the end of my ministry that I, for one, donned the catholic mantle whenever it suited me, and defined it by my own peculiar liturgical and theological tastes. If the word ‘catholic’ is so ambiguous in Anglicanism, then doesn’t it actually point to the spirit of individualism that is 180 degrees opposite of the real meaning of the word, which is whole, undivided, universal?
Again, I’m not baiting. I’m raising a question about an issue that I still haven’t figured out: what gives an Anglican the right to call himself or herself ‘catholic?’ And why do so many Anglican persist in it, when (a) their co-religionists see no value in it, and (b) others who are rightfully called Catholic don’t see Anglicans (even ardent Anglo-Catholics) as part of the same body?
No. 5: All good questions; here are my inadequate answers:
“what exactly makes an Anglican ‘catholic,’ other than the fact that a particular Anglican has decided to *call* himself or herself catholic?”
Faith and Order. I’m going to report–as a historian–what I understand the word to mean; I’m not arguing that it’s being used correctly. But regarding faith: ‘Catholic’ has usually been taken to mean agreement on the central Christian teachings of the first centuries (of the undivided Church). That includes the historic Creeds and definitions (e.g., Chalcedonian Definition and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). ‘Protestants’ would put more emphasis on the Bible and might eschew the Creeds (but for different reasons–Quakers, for example, say they don’t use them because God cannot be boxed into a creed’s language). And then order: the historic ministry including bishops in apostolic succession–i.e., successors (human, not merely verbal, successors) to the original eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and career. (Obviously the RCC quarrels with the AC over the validity of of Anglican succession. Both churches don’t spend much time on the historical problem that the apostles never actually ordained bishops; the theory of the unbroken tactile chain is still taught.)
“But it occurred to me at some point that it’s a peculiar sort of Catholicism that keeps one from being recognized as catholic by anyone else.”
That doesn’t seem quite right. Rome has to some degree recognized the catholicity of the E.O. and Anglican communions, hasn’t it? Degrees of catholic truth present? That seems to be the tenor of V II documents. Anglican and EO are singled out for special recognition, not lumped in with all the Protestant ecclesial communities.
“And let’s be honest: not all Anglicans choose to see themselves as catholic. Some are openly hostile to the word.”
But that’s a bit odd, isn’t it? Anglicans–all of them–have to confess their belief in the catholic church in some sense, right? So it has to mean something to them if they’re sincere. So not seeing themselves as catholic at all or being hostile to the word’s usage just suggests they stepped off the street and entered the wrong church. They might object to seeing themselves as Catholic. They might wish it were still PECUSA. But they can’t object to catholic–because all Anglicans/Episcopalians would want to say they’re part of the universal church, not some splinter sect or nationalistic body. Even when they are splintering off, they would not want to advance that claim but would want to say they’re truly catholic.
“And, even among those who do see themselves as catholic, there are *degrees* of catholicism pertaining mostly to liturgical and doctrinal matters with which most Anglicans do not agree.”
Don’t know about the last part. But yes, degrees. Geoffrey Fisher had a great deal of trouble with those he felt went too far in the “Catholic” direction–i.e., aping Roman practices that were not authorized in the C of E.
“Doesn’t it seem, then, that the word ‘catholic’ is being used in a way that evacuates it of all meaning?”
No. It just seems that it’s a difficult, slippery word; it is indeed hard to know what people mean when they say it. It is certainly a word that my students have virtually no comprehension of. But it is important to get across to them that important matters are at stake. It’s also important to start to break them of the notion that religion is a wholly individualistic affair in which one is trying to get one’s ticket punched so you get into heaven. ‘Catholic’ Christianity according to virtually any understanding has got to say to people that being Christian means being part of the Body of Christ. ‘Catholic’ points to that largeness of experience across space and time. It–religion–is dangerously misconstrued if it’s seen as a wholly individualistic affair. On the other hand, yes, Protestant insights provide key reminders about the importance of the faith and experience of the individual believer.
So of course people discuss this difficult term ‘Catholic’, but they have to discuss all difficult terms, like liberty, equality, apostolicity, grace, faith, etc. Right?
“and (b) others who are rightfully called Catholic don’t see Anglicans (even ardent Anglo-Catholics) as part of the same body?”
Of course Roman Catholics do not see Anglicans as being part of the same body if you mean part of the Roman Catholic Church. But I know many Roman Catholics, priests as well as laypeople, who see Anglicans and Orthodox as fellow participants in the Catholic tradition–if, for example, these Anglicans and Orthodox believe in the Real Presence. I even know some Roman Catholic priests who do not believe Anglicans need to ‘convert’ to Rome to be part of the Church Catholic. No, that’s not official teaching, but your point seems to be what one might hear ordinary Roman Catholics, lay or ordained, actually saying–not necessarily what the official teaching is. And you’re right to highlight the importance of such views. After all, the Reformation started perhaps more on the basis of popular preaching and belief (think of Tetzel) than on the basis of official Catholic teaching on grace; but that’s a different subject, I suppose.
Is an Anglican priest who denies the (real) presence of Christ in the Eucharist and refuses to use the epiclesis in the Eucharistic prayer, and who insists that ordination nothing more than an institutional form for conferring leadership a “participant in the Catholic tradition”. Having been an Anglican for more than a quarter of a century, I am beginning to think the only way Anglicans participate in the Catholic tradition is that they dress up in fine liturgical robes, and call their pastors bishops and priests, and ?
There is also a view of “catholic” that turns up in phrases like “catholic imagination.” It emphasizes the quotidian, matter-of-factness of the life of faith, and it’s what ends up having people kissing the feet of statues and so on. It says it’s less about what you think than what you say and do. I recall a monk telling me, at a particularly difficult time for the community, that when catholics are in so much pain they don’t know what to think, they still know what to do — they say the prayers they’ve always said every day. Faith and order are all very well, but it doesn’t explain why you so rarely see a whitewashed, imageless Catholic church.
Excellent answers, David, and I truly appreciate the time and care with which you present them.
As I reread your answers, I can see that part of the problem is in this small-c/large-C ‘catholic’ dichotomy. Anglicans (myself included, at one time) often say, “We’re catholic, but we’re not Catholic.” And generally, other Anglicans know what that means: we are part of a broader catholic tradition that cannot be encapsulated in any one church, including (perhaps especially) the Roman Catholic Church.
The problem I see with this, however, is that there is no institution called the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. No one can find the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Charleston, South Carolina. The catholic Church to which Anglicans so frequently refer does not in fact have any concrete, universally recognized existence, apart from specific groups whose teachings and actions more or less mirror the faith and morals of that nebulous catholic tradition. And since it doesn’t actually exist in the way Anglicans speak of it, how are Anglicans to know if they are, indeed, catholic?
In other words, Anglicans measure themselves by a yardstick they freely admit doesn’t exist. So it would seem that an Anglican can believe anything, teach anything, and still claim the mantle of catholicity, since the person using the word is himself the measure of what it means to be catholic.
RE: “The catholic Church to which Anglicans so frequently refer does not in fact have any concrete, universally recognized existence, apart from specific groups whose teachings and actions more or less mirror the faith and morals of that nebulous catholic tradition. . . .
In other words, Anglicans measure themselves by a yardstick they freely admit doesn’t exist.”
Right. Because everybody knows that if something does not have “concrete, universally recognized existence” it “doesn’t exist.”
“The problem I see with this, however, is that there is no institution called the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
Well, the RCC seems to make that claim for itself, doesn’t it?
But I for one do not see the fact that a church is not the institution which is properly called the One True Church (or THE ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) as a problem. I would find an institution arrogating to itself the title the One True Church (to the exclusion of others) as a problem–in fact, a problem to be avoided.
The more I’ve become disenchanted with the current institutional representation of the Episcopal Church in the United States, the more I’ve gotten to know, experientially (not just from books), other churches. It’s been a good time. I find a commitment to “the Body of Christ” (the Church) in places where I would not have expected to find it, based on theory or from looking at a spectrum of church “types”; and I have found a deep commitment to the sacraments and even to what sounds like the Real Presence in very Protestant churches. So as an ordinary person, I find super-claims by churches–for example, that we’ve got the apostolic succession and you don’t–to be a little hard to take.
And how many Roman Catholics can honestly look at the current institutional expression of their communion today and call it the One True Church? And how many should say or think that? Shouldn’t we all be a little chary of making grand institutional claims? Right now, TEC, for example, is high on proclaiming itself, rather self-righteously in my view, as a prophetic church that knows what it’s doing ’cause it’s got the Spirit. My ordinary guy-in-the-pew’s reaction is, “Come off it. Climb off of that high horse, or peddle your wares in another town where they might be interested.”
To me “catholic” is vitally relevant in today’s discussions because it means that this one institutional body (TEC, I’m still referring to) is not perfect or particularly gifted and sorely needs the help of all the churches in the Anglican Communion to humbly and patiently sort out what is right. “Catholic” to me means, among other things, Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence.
Thanks to Anglicanum (##5 & 9) and David Hein, plus MarkP; I enjoyed and benefited from the careful delineations – even if Sarah’s remarks might be justified – perhaps. Yet …!
The past decades have seen a vigorous debate, both institutional and theological (in journals, across conferences, etc.), concerning “communion theology†and praxis. Ratzinger and Kasper have had their differences, especially re the link between “the universal Church†and local churches. John Zizioulas and the likes of Paul McPartlan (an RC himself) have also offered assistance from the Eastern Orthodox side that might handle the stalemate that Latins seem to have cornered themselves into. That is, this discussion needs to be lifted up a gear and the Eastern Churches brought in, so that we might see that “the whole†is larger still than what has been so far laid out in this thread.
Matters of the Eucharist (Dan #7 has a key point!), as well as eschatology (they are linked anyway!), need to be appraised, as we try to venture that the universal Church of say Heb 12 and/or Rev 21-22, let alone Ephesians as per [i]TWR[/i], is both gift-and-calling, is both here-and-now and yet-to-be. For as Oliver O’Donovan points out, the Reformation necessarily saw fit to distinguish even as it linked the mystical Body of Christ, the visible Church, and particular organizations, into a tripartite schema.
I remain too much a convinced and convicted Anglican of the Reformed and Catholic kind (who happens to have inculcated as well far too much Penty life and experience together with Orthodoxy!) to allow the Roman Bishop his current institutional identity – even as I acknowledge JP2’s call in §96 of [i]Ut Unum Sint[/i] “to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue†regarding precisely “communion†and what role if any the Bp of Rome might yet have for a reunited/reunified Church.
So; game on indeed during this 21st C!! My prayer (which I trust my institutional praxis may mirror) is that the Lord of the Church may have yet further surprises for us, even while I am increasingly persuaded that much over the last 50 years has actually set us back a very long way ecumenically: the dilemmas of the AC are but a microcosm of the “wholeâ€. So I fully acknowledge Anglicanum’s probable painful pilgrimage … But actually deny the need to follow him.
Excellent discussion. I’m afraid that many many Anglicans are weary of the turmoil and just want to belong to a church that is consistent to its doctrine and willing to impose discipline over those that don’t abide by it. The RCC is offering such a place to disaffected Anglicans on generous terms. Most people aren’t as well grounded in comparative religions as most on this site.
Why would anyone run to the RC Church? This is simply moral cowardice, a desire to have someone makes one’s decision for oneself so there is no risk involved. What is the Ordinariat save a refuge for the illegal immigrant? This is like a Mexican running to the US to hide instead of staying home to fight against what is broken. There’s a war on, have you noticed? Are you going to fight or not? Are you going to demand that those who are supposed to fight actually come out of their corners ready to fight.? Do you really really really think that niceness and politeness and pious admonitions are going to water the crops? Well, let’s conference on that. Larry
Some real interesting discussion here. I like what one saint said about how to find out where the True Catholic Church is–ask the average man in the street where the nearest Catholic Church is. Inevitably he will point to the Church in communion with Rome. He won’t point to the nearest Orthodox Church. He won’t point to the nearest Anglican Church.
I don’t know how this test would work in England where there is an Anglo-Catholic tradition. But here in the U.S. 100% would point to the nearest “Roman” Catholic church.
#14
Most who are/will leave have acknowledged the reality that the “war”, as you phrase it, is over and their side has lost.
Larry, I can not respond without risking being banned for violating this blog’s policy about urging people to leave TEC. I will just say that each person must decide for themselves and their children what course of action is the best for themselves and their eternal salvation. And if no one should assume that decision , whether to stay or go, is an act o moral cowardice.
Larry Morse, I went (didn’t run, but walked 🙂 ) to the RC Church after several years of searching. While my initial impetus to look around was TEC’s abortion support (and a true calling to remove my child from TEC influence), I came to believe that there are serious problems with theology and understanding in the Anglican Communion and all Protestant churches, but I can fully appreciate how someone else can come to a different conclusion.
You paint with an awfully broad brush that those who go to the RC Church do so from “moral cowardice, a desire to have someone makes one’s decision for oneself so there is no risk involved.” I have actually found more debate and difference of opinion in the RC Church than I ever heard in TEC. Yes, there is established doctrine, but I have found in the RCC that how you approach it is extremely broad and varied, not lockstep at all.
We are all Christians trying to discern God’s Will for us and He may be calling us to be a part of different groups of His followers at different times for different reasons. Please don’t demean someone else’s decision as cowardice – you have no idea what strength may be called on to leave the church of one’s family and friends to become a “dreaded Catholic.”
Larry Morse — I disagree with this: ” This is simply moral cowardice, a desire to have someone makes one’s decision for oneself so there is no risk involved.”
Many have made the decision to move to other churches based on theological and ecclesial agreement and conversion to same. I don’t take all conversions — to whatever denomination — as “moral cowardice” at all.
I think “moral cowardice” is going too far, but there is something to be said for the virtue of stability. I have a lot of respect for people who disagree and stay. After all, the Roman Catholic church lived through hundreds of years of Borgia popes and Avignon papacy and much else besides. The idea that 30 or 40 or 50 years of disagreement — even very serious disagreement — is obviously insuperable strikes me as a very modern consumerist understanding of what the church is about. I’m not suggesting anyone should stay in a destructive relationship if there’s a way out, but the idea that stability — growing where you’ve been planted — is an intrinsic virtue is very ancient.
Branford– your comment about the breadth of opinion in the RC reminded me of the Reformation era and early hero of that movement- his name was Erasmus. He was an ordained Catholic priest pushing for reform in the Catholic Church (and a close friend of St. Thomas More). But when push came to shove he would not leave the Catholic Church for any of the newly rising Reformation churches (or start one of his own).
Why–even though he had been loudly damning the Catholic Church on many fronts for its faults and failings– didn’t he follow in the footsteps of another ordained priest, Martin Luther??
He came to the conclusion, apparently as you did, that there is a greater breadth of freedom under the Catholic umbrella than in the various churches and groups that were breaking with Rome. I believe he was the one who claimed along the lines that there were more “popes” demanding a more rigid conformity to their personal whims outside the Catholic Church than the pope in Rome inside the Church who at least felt bound by established Tradition. (Its been years since I read him in college, so I hope I got his basic argument correct.)
And as for “moral cowardice” in conversions–some probably do come about for that reason, some do not. There are many, many reasons, some good, some bad that lead people to change their religion.
But, also, sometimes it is “moral cowardice” that keeps a person glued to the same pew for decades or one’s whole life.
14. LM, call me a “moral coward” if you like. There is a beatitude about bearing insults for the Lord’s sake that gives me more comfort than your words can subtract.
After attending a then TEC parish which was truly excellent in many ways, my experience of embracing the Catholic faith was anything but the easy route. I grappled with all kinds of issues for several years including theological sticking points like the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints which I had been taught to detest and fear as instances of abject idolatry. It took everything I had to confront those fears instilled by my Episcopalian brothers. It was only with great trepidation that one winter night the Lord brought me to kneel in the snow before a Grotto of Our Lady, and looking up to her I was overcome with peace and serenity.
I recently met a delightful small community of nuns who after 40 years of schism from the Catholic Church over the liturgical reforms of Vatican II (these were sedevacantists) had come each in their own way to believe that Benedict XVI is the real pope. What incredible courage it took for them to make their leap into full communion. And their reward has been a new joy in the Church such as they had never before known.
Whatever the virtues or vices of those who open themselves to the Catholic faith, I have never known anyone whose impulse was moral cowardice.
May God bless with his good counsel all those now struggling in their consciences to find the answers only he can give.
deaconjohn25, Erasmus decided not to leave the Roman Catholic Church because he admitted he was not ready for martyrdom. So I wouldn’t get too excited about him as an example or role model!
Moving along to the article, I also found it very interesting. Does anyone know if this gent’s attitude is widespread within the Roman Catholic Church? If so, does it matter? i.e. will it make things difficult for Anglican groups going to Rome, or will the Pope just say, “look, you can grumble about it, but its happening, so you had better just get used to it”.
I did NOT say that fleeing to the RC Church at all and any times is moral cowardice. If it reads that way, then I am in error. I MEANT to say that the present mess with women bishops and all the related tawdryness is cause to fight, not run, and that those who cross the Tiber under in this context are doing so out of moral cowardice. Look, the RC church has shown itself to be corrupt for long long years, and the present vicious mess is a outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible dishonesty, isn’t it? Moral cowardice: To be afraid to fight for moral reasons what needs to be fought, not fled from.
Join the RCs? They can’t clean their own stables, for Heaven’s sake, and you want to join the sheep therein?
Sure I’m angry and I daresay the elves are warming up their pens. My question is ” Why aren’t YOU angry?”
Of course there is such a thing as a conversion for sound and necessary theological reasons. I have no argument with this. I am talking about running away, and this is precisely what is happening to those who are fleeing the CofE because they are afraid of the bloodshed to come if they enter the war. The CofE has been hijacked and you all know it.
I read what you all say. But what will you actually do? Christ himself did not hesitate to be a warrior, to judge and condemn all that required it. Or should we forgive the fig tree? Larry
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
I agree with Larry, actually. If one converts simply to get one’s way regarding women bishops, one can ride that decision all the way to Hell. (“My will be done.”) But if one converts because one has come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church’s claims are true–even if, on the Other Side, we find that those claims were mistaken–then that shows a desire to follow God’s will (“Thy will be done”), which is the opposite of moral cowardice.
The thing many people don’t understand about Anglo-Catholics, though, is that they have usually worked out in their heads the possibility of the Roman Catholic claims, and even come to accept them in some modified measure. For most Anglo-Catholics I know (and I was one for many years, remember), catholicity is something found in both RCism and certain stripes of Anglicanism. When they see that the CofE is willing to jettison basic beliefs about sacramental validity in the name of comprehensiveness, and they see that the RCC–whatever the moral defects of its hierarchy–is not willing to do that, they cross out the second as a possibility and are left with just the first.
In other words, most Anglo-Catholics do not see it as fleeing *from* something, but rather remaining *within* something. They don’t see it as ditching the Church of England, so much as moving to solid ground on an island they already inhabit, where the encroaching waters of Protestantism have claimed part of the shoreline.
So it doesn’t seem to me that they’re exhibiting ‘moral cowardice.’ They certainly don’t see themselves that way. It wouldn’t be moral cowardice, for example, to move out of a flood plain when the river starts rising. You go to higher ground, ground upon which you’re sure to be safer. That’s simply prudent. That, it seems to me, is the Anglo-Catholic mindset.
Whoops. Shouldn’t I have written, “They cross out the *first* as a possibility and are left with just the *second*”?
Oh well. I’m sure you good people all know what I meant.