I’m glad that Jonathan Wynne-Jones has respected the anonymity of the bishops in question. We at the Catholic Herald have known for some time about these historic negotiations. I pray that they succeed.
What one of the bishops has made clear to us is that they are worried that the liberal English Catholic hierarchy will throw a spanner in the works. Yet I infer from Jonathan’s report that the most liberal of all the bishops, Kieran Conry of Arundel and Brighton, is apparently prepared to countenance Anglican converts retaining some elements of their tradition. Has he had his arm twisted?
The attitude of Pope Benedict is crucial. He is very well aware that, in the years 1992 to 1994, the Bishops of England and Wales put pressure on Cardinal Hume to resist any concessions to Anglicans wishing to convert en masse.
Why would they pressure Cardinal Hume to resist?
#2
Because most of them were/are closet Liberal Anglicans themselves.
Ok. But is that a reason to stop others from coming into the Catholic Faith with Anglican identity? What would they do, these bishops of the Catholic Church? Go in the other direction? Of course not. I guess what you’re saying, Conor, is that the reason is simply emotional, not theological. If conservative Anglicans “come over” it will give an imbalance to the more liberal leaning Roman Catholic leadership in England. All the more reason to allow the “switch” while not messing with the present Roman structure, don’t you think?
My curmudgeonly comment to Damian:
As a lifelong high-church Episcopalian, old enough to remember when my church still took its teachings from the Holy Bible rather than from the op-ed page of the New York Times, I wish these bishops well and sincerely hope that the Vatican can find a charitable accommodation for them.
But I do have to say that from one point of view, at least, there is cause for concern. The Book of Common Prayer is widely regarded as one of the most beautiful devotional works ever written in English, even by those who have some serious reservations about its theology — e.g. the Orthodox Mass of St. Tikhon is very largely BCP, with the addition of an epiklesis in the Prayer of Consecration, while one of the articles on Anglicanism in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia notes rather snippily something to the effect that the beauty of BCP language does not compensate for its theological errors.
It never ceases to astound me that the Roman Church, born in the culture of Virgil, Cicero, and Horace, and matured in the culture of Dante, with the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Bruckner, and Fauré, could come out with the sort of clunky liturgy currently in wide use, at least in the US. But then, of course, the Episcopal what-was-once-a-Church traded the language that taught Shakespeare his craft for the trendy politically-correct pap of our 1979 “BCP”. And unfortunately, the “Anglican rite” Catholic missal in use in the US under the [url=http://pastoralprovision.org/]Pastoral Provision[/url] appears to be based largely on this wretched work.
I do hope, at any rate, that the Pope’s revival of the Tridentine Mass will help raise consciousness of the importance of beauty and dignity in liturgy. Yes, it’s better to come to church in a torn T-shirt and cutoffs than not to come at all. But if you really understand what God has done and is doing for you, a suit and tie would seem the very least you could do to express your gratitude and respect.
Is the Pastoral Provision as far as the Roman Catholic Church will go, should go in this cry from Anglicanism? Can there be a larger Anglican Rite Catholic Church?
#3
The nature of the English and Welsh hierarchy is such that it is being completely by-passed by both Rome and traditionalist Anglicans in relation to this issue. The Sandalistas time has past and Murphy-O’Connor will be gone next year. As to the mechanics of any agreement reached, everything is speculation at this point, but we live in hope.
#5
Despite there being no precedent in the Western Church, it is feasible. But it’s creation would almost certainly be on Romes terms – assent to papal infallibilty, Marian doctrines, acceptance of all Councils since and including Trent, autonomy rather than autocephaly, papal appointment of bishops, no deaconesses, no communion for divorcees, no contraception, no married bishops, etc. It’s possible that ordination of married men may be allowed but that’s pure speculation. Then again this is all pure speculation.
Conor,
Almost none of the conditions that you mentioned would be “mere speculation”. Of course those coming in to the Church would be required to accept the doctrines mentioned: assent to papal infallibility and all councils since and including Trent, Marian doctrines (ie: immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity) no communion for REMARRIED divorcees (without declaration of annulment), no artificial contraception.
Of the disciplinary items you mention, I would imagine that almost all of these would be adhered to as well: autonomy rather than autocephaly, papal appointment of bishops, no deaconesses, no married bishops. Also, Anglicanism being very much “western” I doubt that the differences present in the Eastern Rites would be applied, such as allowing for ordination of married men, however, certainly under the present pastoral provision, presently married Anglican clergy could be ordained.
Respectfully, I don’t think that any of those seriously considering union with Rome have much reservation about these. I do think the liturgy and worship style is very important to many, however, I bet many would even be willing to give that up and work for the renewal of the Roman liturgy ordinary and extraordinary form for the incomparable joy of coming into the Church truly built on the Rock.
Going once again back to my Episcopal formation in the 1950s, it would seem that enossis with Eastern Catholicism (i.e. Orthodoxy) would be easier than with Rome. The notion of an autocephalous Church, with jurisdiction based on political boundaries, is well-established in the East but foreign to the West (oddly, given the cujus regio, ejus religio outcome of the 16th century religious wars).
I remember that Communion hospitality — an informal sort of relationship where the appropriate church was not geograpically available to the communicant — between Orthodox and Episcopalians was common in the 1950s; in the small midwestern college town where I grew up, there were usually one or two Greek or Serbian foreign students who attended our little Episcopal church. (St. Patrick’s Catholic Church was right across the street; on feast days, we used to chuckle about how much better organized our processional was than theirs. Our thurifer and crucifer were both ex-Marines [WW2], and would tolerate no nonsense from the teenage acolytes.)
One of the great lost opportunities in Anglicanism is the close relationship with Orthodoxy that seemed on the verge of achievement in the ’50s, only to be destroyed by WO and increasing rejection of the Great Tradition in the ’60s and ’70s.
Re # 9
I have heard from a number of sources that there were isolated instances of Eucharistic hospitality between Anglicans (at least the High Church types) and some Orthodox parishes. This was of course all very very informal. But yes it did happen.
One rather elderly Greek friend noted that in those days any Episcopalian who inquired about converting was usually discouraged unless he was marrying into the church. The priest would tell them they were close enough and there would one day be formal communion between the Anglicans and Orthodoxy.
Today we leave the light on and the welcome mat out.
ICXC NIKA
John
Re: #s 5 7 & 8
The TAC has in fact petitioned Rome for full communion and have asked for status as a uniate Anglo-Catholic Church similar to the uniate Eastern Churches. All of their bishops signed a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and submitted it with their petition which, if rumors are not misleading, is receiving favorable attention from Rome. One indicator is that their case has been handed to the Congregation for Doctrine (CDF) instead of the more customary Roman dicastory. This was Ratzinger’s old job and he is widely believed to be in favor of the idea.
I think the question is not whether the TAC will be received but rather how they will be received by Rome. When you have all of your bishops signing off on the CCC that settles any doctrinal issues. Dr. Tighe has written about this at some length in other threads.
However my guess is that some sort of arrangement will be made allowing for those Anglo-Catholics who are able to accept the doctrine and faith of Rome to come into full communion. It will likely include Anglican flavored liturgical rites and might include a tolerance for a married clergy (though I doubt priests will be allowed to marry after ordination). I think one thing that will not happen is permission for married bishops.
In this respect they would be closer to the discipline of the Eastern Churches. But of course they will have to abide by the other doctrines and disciplines of Rome. No communion for divorced and remarried members being one major difference.
ICXC NIKA
John
Respectfully, I don’t think that any of those seriously considering union with Rome have much reservation about these. I do think the liturgy and worship style is very important to many, however, I bet many would even be willing to give that up and work for the renewal of the Roman liturgy ordinary and extraordinary form for the incomparable joy of coming into the Church truly built on the Rock.
Repectfully, I think that any group of bishops silly enough to hold out on Rome because of liturgical style rather than substance should not be given leadership in the Ecclesia Anglicana. As I’ve so often asked and never received a satisfactory answer, if these Anglican Bishops have no problems with the usual Rome/Anglican sticking points, then why are they not joining–they appear to be no more than politicial power-mongers? If these leaders have remained Anglicans because they cannot tolerate the unbiblical innovations of Rome, then why are they even talking of joining?
Either way, something is very wrong.
I believe it may be possible for married bishops at the beginning of whatever Rome allows. The transition to an unmarried ordination of bishops would be the second, and if you will, final situation. Then the same rule as the Orthodox would be easy to accomplish. We need the bishops of the Anglican formation as we begin this new relationship, married or not. I hope Rome will allow this. As for a Uniate relationship, I hear that it will not be considered.
justinmartyr, great points in #12, you put my thoughts into words. Thanks!