It was only in July 2006, almost three years after the Episcopal Church’s consecration of a pseudogamously partnered man as Bishop of New Hampshire that Walter, Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), the Vatican’s “ecumenical office,” delivered an urgent address to the House of Bishops of the Church of England imploring them to proceed no further with measures allowing for the appointment of woman bishops, as such a measure would render impossible the realization of previous Anglican and Catholic ecumenical aspirations. (I shall return to this episode further on in this presentation.) Cardinal Kasper had a reputation, perhaps not undeserved, for being interested primarily in cultivating ecumenical relations with representatives of the historic Protestant churches, such as those that made up the Lutheran World Federation or the Anglican Communion, to give two examples, and rather less with conservative or dissident groups stemming from those traditions, and reacting to their perceived liberalism, such as the Lutheran Church ”“ Missouri Synod, or the various “jurisdictions” that make up “Continuing Anglicanism,” and this address to the Church of England’s bishops was almost the “last hurrah” of this type of Catholic ecumenism. Almost ”” for there was to be a last farewell to it at the 2008 Lambeth Conference.
All this said, the remainder of my presentation shall tell “three stories:” the story of the Traditional Anglican Communion’s approaches to Rome; the story of England’s Forward-in-Faith organization and its dealings, or the dealings of some of its member bishops and clergy, with Rome; and, finally, and perhaps most significantly, the almost completely unpublicized story of the secret discussions between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome and some English Anglican bishops in 2008 and 2009.
Dr. Tighe,
You left me thinking that there may be bishops in your second wave of converts. Could that include Michael Nazir Ali? What do you make of the AMiE?
Mr. Bruton,
You asked,
“What do you make of the AMiE?” I have insufficient knowledge to have an opinion, save to note that “breakaway” Anglican groups of any and all sorts have not had any success beyond the miniscule in England. If a number of Church of England bishops were to found (or join) such a body the results might be different, or it might be simply the Nonjurors all over again.
[Edited by Elf – please do not speculate on what particular named clergy intend to do or not – thanks]
Dr. Tighe, welcome back.
#!, you can find all that out if you read the address at the link. In the [i]antepenultimate[/i] paragraph (that’s the 3rd one from the end; ha! I’ve been waiting since about 6th grade (in 1961) for an opportunity where that word could be used 😉 ) you will find the complete list of these bishops and the reasons, and yes, +Nazir-Ali is in the list. Go read it; Prof. Tighe is immensely entertaining as well as learned.
Just a suggestion – thoughtfu, detailed articles of this sort would be much easier to read on the web if paragraphs were generally no more than five or six lines long. Thank you, Dr. Tighe.
Dr. Tighe is a very astute historian with a vast mastery of dates, people in history, but always he works from a thoroughly Romanized perspective.
This article is founded on the assumption of Roman Catholics and some Anglo-catholics that Rome is home, mother, The Church, is in possession of the gold standard of theology, and is the rightful arbitor and authenticator of true Christian ministry and doctrine.
The fact is, Roman Catholic church has its very own unique, innovative, idiosyncratic, in-house evolving and self-proving theology and ecclesiology and so is incongruent with Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestant evangelicals. The Roman Catholic Church also has serious problems with unrepentant homosexual identification and practice in the leadership as much as any other Christian organization.
Rome is not home, not the center of Christendom according to Scripture. The Bible states that Jerusalem is home, mother, destination, beginning of the church, symbol/metaphor of the temple and worship, the Bride. See Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12, all of Isaiah, Psalm 122, and the book of Revelation 3:12.
My comment is not meant as an attack, but a caution to hopefus who trying to escape the current ills of Anglicanism, so they will not be idealizers expecting to find perfection, but be ready to encounter many of the same species of burrs and brambles in the grass on other side of the fence.
Re: #7 –
An Episcopal priest recently said to me that he thought about becoming Catholic to escape the mess in the Episcopal Church. I assured him that at 30+ times the size of TEC, the Catholic Church has 30+ times (at least!) the problems.
One becomes Roman Catholic if one believes that all the Catholic Church teaches is revealed by God. Otherwise, it’s best for the soul to stay Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, some other form of protestant, or Orthodox. Certainly, one escapes nothing by becoming Catholic; in fact, what one finds the dogmas, doctrines, rituals, and life of the Church is the great mystery of the human condition, in all our glory and all our shame. That’s messy.
…what one finds inside the dogmas, doctrines…
Having made the move I could not be happier. Rome is home… what protestantism offers is personal choice over obedience
#6, that’s the New Jerusalem, isn’t it? and not a reference to a particular geographic location. Yet there are numerous good historical reasons including the ministries of Ss. Peter and Paul that Rome became the center of (Western) Christendom.
In any case, though you may not intend to criticize, nor much like to read, an address such as Prof. Tighe’s which hews to Catholic orthodoxy, the fact is he was invited to give it to a gathering of Catholics including some of the [i]Anglican[/i] Use, in a Catholic cathedral in the presence of its bishop (+Vann), IIRC. Probably everyone in the listening audience would take issue with the first sentence of your third paragraph and your fourth paragraph. It has seemed that the blog host here posts material of many [i]Anglican[/i] perspectives and this post would serve to inform those who are interested, curious or whatever.
TACit:
FYI, Bishop Vann was present for at least part of the conference, but his Cathedral is St. Patrick’s in downtown Fort Worth. St. Mary the Virgin is a parish of the diocese of Fort Worth.
Not that it changes anything, I’m just that picky guy.
🙂
Thanks you for correction, Charles52, not picky at all but helpful. I went to check on those details by trying to bring up ‘The AngloCatholic’ site where the address link was from, and it hung up for some reason, so I quit and posted the comment thinking I had enough details correct enough – sorry for the imperfection.
From Bp. Vann’s address at the conference on video (IIRC), I was further intrigued to learn about the Irish bishop from the 1600s who is memorialized in (I think) a window in St. Patrick’s, or is it St. Mary the Virgin? – which is perhaps why I confused the venues, thinking Bp. Vann had been talking about a figure the listeners could see there…..
#6: [i]Dr. Tighe is a very astute historian with a vast mastery of dates, people in history, but always he works from a thoroughly Romanized perspective. [/i]A rather interesting comment, given that Dr. Tighe is an Eastern Catholic.
RE: “A rather interesting comment, given that Dr. Tighe is an Eastern Catholic.”
Not sure why — since it’s obvious that “Romanized” in this instance merely means “those in full communion with the See of Rome.”
It would be good to hear from Prof. Tighe on comment #15.
As Rev. Tibbetts helpfully reminded with his comment, the posted address was given by a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, one of at least 65 churches in communion with the See of Peter, that is, with the Pope, who also is the Bishop of Rome within the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.
Sarah’s comment highlights the difficulty introduced with some terminology in English which does not accurately describe some relations of bodies within the Catholic Church, and St. Nikao’s non-attack on the so-called Roman Catholic Church in #7 also trips up on terminology. Western (or Latin) rite Catholics which include Anglican Use Catholics and the more recently arrived Anglican Ordinariate Catholics, and the many churches of Eastern Catholics such as the Ukrainian Greek, are equally in communion with the See of Peter. That has never made the Eastern Catholic churches ‘Roman’ Catholic since they have a different rite from the Latin rite, yet they are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Because the Church in England once was a part of the Latin rite Catholic church, its descendants in Anglican patrimony logically cannot be defined as a body with a distinct rite from the Latin one, yet they are a distinct ‘species’, if not genus, once thought to be extinct but re-discovered, within the organically evolving living body of Catholics in – or about to be in as some Ordinariates await formalizing – communion with the See of Peter.
Thus they are called Anglican Use and/or Anglican Ordinariate Catholics rather than Roman ones and, in the document [i]Anglicanorum coetibus[/i] (On the Gathering of the Anglicans) which Prof. Tighe’s address concerned, are never referred to as Roman Catholics. In that document the word ‘Roman’ is only used to refer to the Bishop of Rome, who represents unity in Christ (‘Roman Pontiff’), and once in the mention of the Roman Curia, but not to modify ‘Catholic Church’.
It is a unique linguistic difficulty of some Episcopalians and Anglicans that they toss the word Roman around to signify ‘not us, but we’re catholic too!’ I know this intimately, having grown up at a fine and exemplary liturgically catholic parish where 40-50 years ago we often snickered about the Church of the Italian Mission.
“It would be good to hear from Prof. Tighe on comment #15.”
Well, it is certainly true that I am “in full communion with the see of Rome,” and I glory in it, but I have never heard of being in communion with the See of Rome as being “Romanized.” For all I know, though, the use of the term may be a peculiar characteristic of sectarian circles with which I am unacquainted.
RE: “As Rev. Tibbetts helpfully reminded with his comment, the posted address was given by a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, one of at least 65 churches in communion with the See of Peter, that is, with the Pope, who also is the Bishop of Rome within the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.”
Right — but we didn’t need to be reminded of that because we already knew it and have been so reminded quite tediously of it for years now, as if it means something applicable to the point that St. Nikao quite rightly made.
RE: “. . . St. Nikao’s non-attack on the so-called Roman Catholic Church in #7 also trips up on terminology.”
Well no it doesn’t.
All of us know all about the various churches in full communion with Rome. And we all know about the differences in forms of worship that take into account various historic and cultural nuances and that the doctrine is the same.
Of course, the real issue is not trying to inform the ignorant — since we’re not — but in trying to force Christians not to use the word “catholic” to describe themselves, when they are *not* in communion with the See of Rome. The fact that those in communion with the See of Rome see *themselves* as the only true catholics is not going to prevent the rest of the Christians from referring to themselves as catholic.
So. The matter of determining what to call that mass of people who are in communion with the See of Rome comes up and people simply refer to them as “Roman Catholics.” Referring to all those in communion with the See of Rome as “Roman Catholics” is about placing an adequate — [though not perfect as witness the red herring trail of pedantry that has now sprung up on this thread] — modifier in front of the word “Catholic” since the rest of us don’t grant those in communion with the See of Rome exclusive use of the word “catholic” to describe themselves.
RE: “It is a unique linguistic difficulty of some Episcopalians and Anglicans that they toss the word Roman around to signify ‘not us, but we’re catholic too!’”
Not particularly — but certainly some of those in communion with the See of Rome wish that it were so.
Thanks, St. Nikao, comment #6, for pointing out something that is obvious, true, and perfectly understandable. I don’t hold it against anyone to have a bias but it’s always fine to point it out and move on. Nobody was “confused” over whether the Ukrainian Catholics were in communion with the See of Rome. ; > )
Having been Roman Catholic for almost 25 years, I’ve been surprised at comments like those above: my diocesan website bills us a “Roman Catholic” and the sign in front of my parish says we are a “Roman Catholic Church”. Of course, we are Latin Rite, so maybe that’s just my situation. I understand that some people mean the term as a pejorative, but that’s not really my problem, is it?
It does raise an interesting question as to what “catholic” means, not just in the literal translation (maybe “universal”, but even that’s disputed in some circles), but to what does it refer historically, i.e., where did the term come from and what did it mean in it’s original usage? Why did the term get applied to a particular body? Or bodies? What does it mean today? Why does it matter? Why would anything think it important to be “catholic”, or “a catholic”? Where does the term fit into the larger questions of history and ecclesiology. And so on. It’s a fascinating topic, but most important of all questions: am I a better Christian, more faithful to the Lord Jesus, if I have a legitimate claim to the term Catholic? Myself, I can say that among the most faithful and devoted Christians I know are Baptists and independent Evangelicals, who find no validation in the term “catholic”.