“I always thought, ‘The Roman Catholic Church – that is the Church.’ So when this opportunity arose, after a couple of weeks of thinking very deeply about it, I thought, ‘Yes, yes, I’ll go home.'”
So says Ann Vaughan, one of a group of 40 from the parish of St John the Baptist in Sevenoaks, Kent, who are leaving the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic Ordinariate for ex-Anglicans.
The group, headed by their vicar, Father Ivan Aquilina, plan to celebrate the Eucharist in the Anglican Church for the last time on Sunday.
It seems odd to me that priests and people who have made up their mind that “Rome is the Church” don’t immediately go. Hanging around for one more sentimental celebration of the liturgy in an Anglican Church is like recognizing that you are living in sin, but deciding to repent tomorrow. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that Rome is the church is also accepting that the ministry, sacraments, and liturgy of the Anglican church are absolutely null and utterly void. It isn’t a matter of “upgrading” from Anglican to Roman–it involves repudiation of where you have been (no matter how politely and delicately it may be phrased).
So often the media portrays Anglicans who are on the road to “coming home” to Rome and the universal Catholic Church as medieval troglodyte types.
However, this article–with actual interviews instead of biased labels and descriptions- gives a good look at the thoughtful, sincere, faith-filled Anglicans who are “coming home.”
I’m with Brien on this. I fully understand there are those who come to believe Rome is the One True Church. Many of those are thoughtful, sincere, faith-filled believers (to use most of deaconjohn25’s wording). However, I don’t understand not leaving one’s Anglican church immediately – nor do I understand continuing to celebrate Anglican mass in the interim. If the orders of the Anglican officiant are invalid – and one believes the priest officiates over the transubstantiation of the Host – and one believes that is the process necessary for real Communion – then isn’t it a mockery to continue as is until things are convenient for the change? I mean no disrespect; I just don’t get it.
Re#1 and 3. Perhaps because they really do believe, in their heart of hearts, that Anglican sacraments and orders really are valid, and that the “branch theory” really is true. They’d be right, of course.
Where they’re wrong is in their conclusion that moving under Rome’s authority is an “upgrade.” There are better options than the increasingly “Episcopalianized”, thoroughly bureacratized and dogmatically compromised Church of Rome.
I agree with DeaconJohn–and don’t mean to denigrate anyone in my comments. But Caedmon, the branch theory is something that convinced Anglicans often believe. But when one makes the move to the “real church” it involves accepting the “real church’s” judgment that the branch theory is all wrong. Being re-confirmed and re-ordained has clear significance, even if there are winks and nods among those involved. No matter whether you go with the pastoral provsion, the ordinariate, or just plain become a Roman Catholic without reference to Anglican matters–you are still faced with an official reality: you’ve spent your time up to the hour of your reception into Rome in a church with orders that are absolutely null and utterly void. It is likely that those making the move described in the article haven’t faced this because they already consider themselves catholics, left behind by the drift of Anglicanism away from catholic faith, order, and morality. It hasn’t dawned on them yet. It is likely that they’ve been given a wink and a nod from the Romans in order to minimize the impact of the unmistakable reality that they are in for a re-do of their sacramental life.
Another way to look at it is that they always considered themselves part of the same Church, God’s church. They are not changing which Church (capital C) they belong to, just the church (lower case c) they belong to.
As one who is moving let me say several things.
1) We could not leave until able to do so= the earliest date is Ash Wednesday
2) We have families to support and congregations to care for in the strange in between period between decision and move
3) We are not trying ask how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Interestingly it is Anglicans who keep bringing this up not Rome. I am not asked to denounce anything but it is viewed graciously and with thanksgiving.
4) I and Rome have no issue with offering Anglican worship in an Anglican church as an Anglican minister to Anglicans whilst preparing people to make choices of integrity.
5) I am not leaving due to a crisis over the validity of orders but due to persistent and gross abandonment of faith by Anglicans which has led me to realise the need for the magisterium and papal office.
rugbyplayingpriest writes:
[i]5) I am not leaving due to a crisis over the validity of orders but due to persistent and gross abandonment of faith by Anglicans which has led me to realise the need for the magisterium and papal office. [/i]
Eastern Orthodoxy has no magisterium and papal office, and it has done quite well keeping the Faith.
#7 rugbyplayingpriest says:
I’m not criticizing anyone’s choice, either to go or to stay, but this statement isn’t strictly true. You could have left for Rome at any time.
subscribe
The issue of coming into full communion with the Catholic Church from Anglo-Catholicism is often much more complex than many of the snide comments here suggest. If you’re wondering “why didn’t they just walk into the nearest RC parish and convert if they were so convinced of Rome’s claims?” (I did), perhaps you ought to go ahead and ask the folks over at “TheAngloCatholic.com” and see what they say instead of making little sniping comments about their integrity, their beliefs, and how much you think Rome is full of it here on Canon Harmon’s blog? This is just as sinful (yes, sinful) as disparaging your fellow Anglicans who remain in communion with TEC, yet remain faithful to Christ (or those in TEC attacking those who have left for ACNA, NCAA, ARCIC, or whatever alphabet soup is in vogue right now).
A cursory overview of Church history, ancient and recent, shows there are no clean hands and pure hearts amongst the various movements and enclaves and leaders of Christianity. No brand of whitewash or scented ointment can remove or cover up the stain and stench of what is ailing the church.
Much bloodshed, much sin, much harm has been committed in the Name of God to His people by His Church.
There is much need for humility and repentance: naming, owning, acknowledging and repenting of sins, particularly presumption and pride within the Body of Christ.
The land, the people and Christ’s church are sick with sin. For example, 42% of Americans are hooked on internet porn. Substance addiction is almost as prevalent. Adultery and promiscuity, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, porn, gambling…. have taken people’s hearts and minds captive and away from God. It will take the power and action of God and a courageous, humble, honest and repentant and restored church to change this.
“In repentance and returning you will be saved….” Isaiah 30:15
Chris Molter writes:
“perhaps you ought to go ahead and ask the folks over at “TheAngloCatholic.com†and see what they say instead of making little sniping comments about their integrity, their beliefs, and how much you think Rome is full of it here on Canon Harmon’s blog?”
As long as, in the interest of balance and objectivity, you ask the folks over at http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/ about “TheAngloCatholic.com†(the use of quotation marks was quite appropriate here), the Ordinariate, and the reasons typically given for swimming the Tiber.
Considering the folks at the Continuum blog have made their views clear (in some of the most uncharitable ways possible, to put it politely), I’d agree that folks can visit whatever applicable blogs they like and make their own judgements accordingly.
Chris Molter writes:
“Considering the folks at the Continuum blog have made their views clear (in some of the most uncharitable ways possible, to put it politely), I’d agree that folks can visit whatever applicable blogs they like and make their own judgements accordingly.”
I’m glad you agree that folks “can” do so. I’m saying that in the interest of balance and objectivity, they [i]should[/i] do so. As for the charge that The Continuum has been “uncharitable”, well, that’s all pretty much in the eye of the beholder (or, forgive me, depends on whose Roman ox is getting Gored). Fr. Hart et al. are largely reacting to some unprincipled tactics employed by certain ACA bishops who are presently infected by Rome Fever, and they have been heated at times, yes, as they attempt to get the facts out to the ACA faithful, facts which these bishops are eager to sweep under the rug. But there is some good, relatively irenic pre-Ordinariate stuff stored there at that blog, such as Fr. Matthew Kirby’s three-part essay that absolutely devastates the case of the Two One True Churches that they are the “true church.” It is entitled [i]Catholic Ecumenism and the Elephant in the Room.[/i]
While I certainly understand the situation over there in the C of E (one that does not apply to those of us in Continuing Anglicanism), I nevertheless personally find it ironic that Anglican traditionalists would make a dash for Rome, for that church is “conservative” on paper only. Underneath all that orthodox paper at the See of Rome is an increasingly “Episcopalianized church”, one teeming with Lavender Mafias, liberation theologians, Protestants, radicals, nominal Christians and lovers of money. Part of the genius of the English Reformation was to rid the church of such corruption and put the laity back in touch with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Not to say there aren’t many Roman Catholics who don’t love Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, just to say that Rome, despite its orthodox veneer, suffers from the same disease that has infected the C of E, and that it’s supply of antibiotics may not, at the end of the day, save it. I felt sort of sorry for poor GKC when I read this morning a quote about his reasons for converting. He said, ” We do not want, as the newspapers say, a Church that will move with the world. We want a Church that will move the world . . . .” I wonder what he’d say now.
#15, it’s fairly easy to see your own biases and opinions in your starry-eyed gloss of the English Reformation (I’d say DEformation, but that’s just tit-for-tat), your personal take on the errors of Papism, and the current state of the Catholic Church. I have no interest in engaging in polemics, though. My point is that folks here are “making windows unto men’s souls” (quite un-Anglican!) in regards to the reasons why certain Anglicans are coming into full communion with Rome, and, while they may do so, in the interest of truth and fairness perhaps they ought to see what those people say about it themselves rather than take the word of Fr. Hart and those whose oxes seem rather gored by the Anglicanorum Coetibus crowd.
[i]it’s fairly easy to see your own biases and opinions in your starry-eyed gloss of the English Reformation[/i]
But not so easy to see your own “Rome”manticism, sad to say. But it’s OK. We’re all predisposed to our biases, if you’ll excuse that redunancy. Balance and objectivity are things, however we must force ourselves to strive for. As for your mordant little comment about the Reformation, it’s precisely because I am not so starry-eyed about it that I am an Anglican Catholic rather than Lutheran, Reformed or Baptist.
[i](I’d say DEformation, but that’s just tit-for-tat), your personal take on the errors of Papism, and the current state of the Catholic Church.[/i]
Well, do you deny what I said about those things? (Is there not a “Lavender Mafia” in the Roman Church, etc.?) Or will you be content to merely cover it all up in an emphasis on how terrible the Reformation was?
[i]I have no interest in engaging in polemics, though. [/i]
I’m not asking for polemics, just careful reflection. Because, by my lights, in your haste to run [i]from[/i] something, I don’t think you’re giving enough thought to exactly what it is you’re running [i]to[/i]. This, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrDbgjLKoxU
http://www.sspx.org/RCRpdfs/2004_rcrs/march_ 2004_rcr.pdf
[i]My point is that folks here are “making windows unto men’s souls†(quite un-Anglican!) in regards to the reasons why certain Anglicans are coming into full communion with Rome, and, while they may do so, in the interest of truth and fairness perhaps they ought to see what those people say about it themselves rather than take the word of Fr. Hart and those whose oxes seem rather gored by the Anglicanorum Coetibus crowd.[/i]
Your souls are one thing. The [i]reasons[/i] you air publicly are another, and are fair game. When those reasons are not reason[i]able[/i], and when they don’t account for all of the pertinent facts of the matter, that’s why Anglicans such as Fr. Hart speak as forcefully as they do.
By the way, Mr. Molter, for someone who “has no interest in engaging in polemics”, you sure have quite the online presence doing just that.
[b][i]1. Brien[/b] and [b]3. montanan[/b][/i],
Sorry, but I just have to ask, have either of you actually attended a Novus Ordo Mass with a contemporary (as opposed to traditional) choir? If you have, and if transcendent music and liturgical language are significantly important to you as aids to your worship, you might have a clue as to one possible answer.
I did depart TEC as an individual (officially at the end of September 2008), and began a thorough and systematic reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the same time, but my biggest obstacle in becoming Catholic was neither doctrine, dogma nor the magisteria (Ordinary or Extraordinary), but primarily the absence of movingly transcendent hymnody and/or chant. This was exacerbated by the banality of the language of the current English ([i]mis[/i])translation of the Roman Missal (to be replaced by a corrected translation on the first Sunday of Advent of this year). It probably has something to do with my being somewhat overbalanced towards being a Myers-Briggs Thinking type.
Nevertheless, I was very fortunate to have three persons (each unknown to the others and two of them unknown to me) who had heard or read me express my personal need in this regard who contacted me and informed me that there was a Catholic parish only 20 minutes from my home that had music and liturgy that were nearly on a par with the best Episopal parishes. Foir my wife, a cradle Episcopalian, and lifelong chorister, this initially seemed an even larger obstacle.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
“Part of the genius of the English Reformation was to rid the church of such corruption and put the laity back in touch with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Oh that was good for a glorious laugh. Not on the Reformation itself mind you but on the underlying attitude of how for it sin was vanquished, the land made pure and mankind a more noble animal.
The assumption that before it the laity was out of touch with Jesus Christ is simply mind boggling in the extreme. I assure you the mind of the Catholic laity in that age was quite well in touch with Jesus Christ.
[blockquote]With regard to individuals, groups, and peoples it is only by degrees that (the Church) touches and penetrates them, and so receives them into a fullness which is Catholic.[/blockquote] [i] Ad Gentes [/i] Art 9, Vatican II
Well said, #11/14/16, and thank you for doing so.
Paula Loughlin writes:
[i]Oh that was good for a glorious laugh. Not on the Reformation itself mind you but on the underlying attitude of how for it sin was vanquished, the land made pure and mankind a more noble animal.[/i]
Glad you had a good laugh. But now try re-reading my post and then show us where I either said or even implied that the Reformation caused sin to be vanquished or made the land made pure and mankind a more noble animal.
As for the remainder of your response, well, I surely didn’t mean to suggest that the Catholic laity wasn’t “in touch with Jesus Christ”, just that the Reformation was intended, in part at least, to point the faithful back toward the early faith and away from, as one person has deftly put it, the “‘ecclesial creep’ in both the Western and Eastern portions of the Church”‘ that “had for all practical intents and purposes replaced Old-Law works righteousness with a new works righteousness based on the respective ‘New Law’ of the West (the Penance-Merits-Purgation-Indulgences doctrinal phalanx) and of the East (the imposition of the Monastic Typicon upon the laity)”. And also away from the patent corruption in the church that turned many a good Christian man’s stomach.
I stand by what I wrote regarding there being an underlaying attitude in your post. What else can I infer from this “See of Rome is an increasingly ‘Episcopalianized church’, one teeming with Lavender Mafias, liberation theologians, Protestants, radicals, nominal Christians and lovers of money. Part of the genius of the English Reformation was to rid the church of such corruption.”but that the Reformation vanquished the sinful orgins of such corruption? Without such corruption in their hearts would not man be a nobler animal? I accept that you did not mean to imply that Catholic laity were not in touch with Jesus Christ.
By the way you could have shortened the list of offenders simply by writing Jesuits. We Catholics would have known what you meant.
Now lest this thread get too far off course I’ll let my silence be my response to the rest of your claims.
If someone leaves Anglicanism for Catholicism hoping to find perfection he will be most disappointed. If he leaves because he has become convinced of the Truth of the Church then he will find true satisfaction which does not rest on the folly of man.
St. Nikao wrote of the evil history of the Church and “no clean hands, etc.” Alas, we are all sinners in need of forgiveness–so why should the Church or its leaders have been any different in the past–or even today???
Unfortunately it is oh so easy to see the sins and failings of those in former ages and then feel self-righteously like a Saint Nikao because we are so certain we are behaving rightly today. As the old saying goes –hindsight is perfect .
I’m glad you spoke about the music #19, because one of the reasons I go to church is to live again in music that I can hear nowhere else. The old Anglican hymnody is of a high order, and the divine speaks more clearly to me through the music than through anything else. To be sure, the lyrics are often banal and repetitive, but, believe it or not, it is not the lyrics that makes the music worthwhile, it is the music itself.
And now go to a contemporary RC church and listen to what THEY do to church music. This is an embarassment. This is like searching for Brahms and finding Elton John. Larry
[b][i]26. Larry Morse[/i][/b],
If by “a contemporary RC church” you are referring to a parish which has what is sometimes referred to as “a four hymn sandwich,” you are reiterating what I was addressing. In other words we are talking about parishes (unarguably the majority) which use Haugen and the OCP music editions, and in a few cases what look like “modern praise music bands.” Fortunately there are still Catholic parishes that have scholas and consistently follow the documents of Vatican II, which specified that Gregorian chant must have “pride of place” in liturgical settings, and we were very fortunate to have been pointed to one such. Counting Sunday Masses alone, we have five (there are about 1050 households in the parish) and the music ranges from contemporary through a chanted Mass at Noon.
I agree with you to some degree about the language of the hymns. However, I do think your assessment tends to ignore two aspects. The hymnody is a form of prayer (“Who sings well prays twice.”), and it was primarily the language of the liturgy to which I was referring. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church, as repeatedly emphasized by Benedict XVI, holds to [i]lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi[/i]*, or (loosely) how we pray is how we believe and how we live. So the words we use have a considerable significance to our faith and our manner of living.
But, the tone, or mood, of the music, in order to be supportive of our faith should be fitted to the meaning of the words we are singing. I don’t think Elton John is the right exemplar of the contrast. Something more like expecting Beethoven or Handel and finding AC/DC or a nursery rhyme.
[i]Pax et bonum[/i],
Keith Töpfer
_______________________
*—literally, the law of praying is the law of belief and the law of life.
There is only [b]ONE[/b] ‘real church,’ and it is called the [b]One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God.[/b] Not Roman Catholic, not Orthodox, not Anglican, nor any other name. The branch theory does hold true, in the opinion of many, and to insist otherwise is to nullify the prayer “that we all may be one.” We are all Christians, aren’t we? So, why do we insist on the distinctions?
People whose religion is apparently music makes me wonder if Mohammed had been a great composer –would they become Moslems??? Or as Pontius Pilate said: “Truth–What is truth????” Some of the comments here about music unfortunately carry on the stereotype that “smells and bells” are the doctrinal tuths of Anglicans.
Agreeing with deaconjohn25, at #29.
I don’t wish to offend those who’ve been talking about music here. I love good liturgical music as much as anyone. But liturgical Christians need to take care that their faith does not become mere aestheticism. Early Christian liturigies weren’t anything near as elaborate as what we “high church” types enjoy these days. And if for some reason all that was taken away from us, what would remain? I would hope the Faith.
Music has a language of its own, proper to itself and non-transferable. I I sang A Mighty Fortress.. with aaaaaaa instead of words, the music would still move me, and if i were in a cathedral and listening to the Bach Chorale on an organ, the words would be entirely unnecessary.
Wordless, if with voices, it would simply be a melisma. Listen to Palestrina. The Latin is commonly ncomprehensible. Is there any misting what it is? This is not “mere” aetheticism. This is the voice of the Spirit in ways far beyond words. I would like to think Heaven’s voice is music, not a homily. Larry
Larry, hence my use of the word “mere.” But your point is duly noted.
Although I will add, that without the Word, incarnate and “inscripturate”, no one would have a clue as to why either Luther or Palestrina copmosed what he did. It is the Divine Logos, through Whom and in the Spirit, such musical offerings are made to the Father.
[b][i]31. Larry Morse[/i][/b],
Thank you for that response. I couldn’t have expressed it near as well as you did. The only thing I would add is that Truth and Beauty cooperate.
[i]Pax et bonum[/i],
Keith Töpfer