Catholics who keep up with Anglicanism may have observed that the whole thing seems to be visibly coming apart.
On the one hand, at June’s rally of the world’s conservative Anglicans in Jerusalem — the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) — over a thousand conservative leaders declared their willingness to work outside the official structure and indeed to intervene in the errant Western Anglican churches in defense of their marginalized and oppressed conservatives.
On the other, over 200 conservative bishops, mostly from Africa, simply refused to attend late July’s Lambeth Conference, the decennial meeting of the world’s Anglican bishops, because the bishops of the Episcopal Church — who, by ordaining an openly fornicating homosexual bishop, had thumbed their noses at the rest of the world’s Anglicans, and the Christian moral tradition to boot — were seated with full voice and vote.
Of particular interest will be the fate of the small Anglo-Catholic party, the wing closest to Catholicism in doctrine and devotion, now found almost entirely in England and the English-speaking former colonies. It was once, in the 1920s and early 1930s, the most creative and effective party in Anglicanism, but has kept declining since.
“The Anglo-Catholics’ position has grown steadily more dire. In America, just three of the hundred-some Episcopal dioceses remain under Anglo-Catholic bishops, and the other dioceses will not let them elect new ones when theirs retire. Many Anglo-Catholics have become Catholic or Orthodox, while many others have compromised, so that at the great “shrine parishes” in many cities you can find an Anglican “high mass” celebrated in a church stuffed with candles and statues, with the choir singing a Palestrina setting, with clouds of incense obscuring the high altar, at which stands — back to the people, in an old-fashioned fiddle-back chasuble — a celebrant named Betty.’
For this paragraph alone, the article is a gem.
[blockquote] Anglo-Catholicism covers a surprisingly wide range of self-definitions, from several varieties of “classical Anglicanism,” usually marked by adherence to the older version of the Book of Common Prayer and to the attempt of 17th-century Anglicans to correct (slightly) the Protestantism of the previous century’s break with the Catholic Church; to mainstream Anglo-Catholicism, by far the largest group, which favors the modern liturgy and tends to use the tagline “none must, all may, some should” in regard to disciplines like confession and belief in doctrines like the Assumption; to “Anglo-Papalism,” a mostly English movement that hopes for corporate reunion with Rome and comes as close in practice as it can to Catholicism. [/blockquote]
This (and what follows) is a very succinct explication of petrified positions. My own conversion to the Anglican Way began some 18 years ago, mainly from the Prayer Book and the Caroline Divines. I suppose that I fall somewhere between the “classical” and “mainstream” categories (I seem to find them more compatible than he does). The thing is, though, I believe that my Wesleyanism prepared me for a home in Anglicanism, as well as did my growing interest in Patristics. Modern Protestant theologians (particularly Thomas Oden–a Methodist, and to some extent, George Lindbeck–a Lutheran) also shaped my path in this direction, as well as modern Eastern theologians (Lossky, Meyendorff, Schmemann). All of these influences are why I am Anglican today.
I suspect that many of today’s Anglicans–including the so-called “Anglo-Catholics” are also influenced by this (not the other kind of) ecumenical climate and find it, as I did, quite enlightening and liberating. I suspect that many western Protestants (whom Oden refers to as “young fogeys”) are keenly watching what happens in western Anglicanism, hoping to see something emerge so that they may find a place that they can call home.
And when this influx occurs (assuming western Anglicanism gets its act together), they might not be as interested in the distinctions laid out by Mills or be convinced that the inconsistencies are more than apparent. Of course, there will be the die-hards who will need to set up blogs about the incoherence in these converts. But that’ll just be par for the course.
Am I alone, or does this ring a [sacring?] bell with others?
William Shontz
I continue in the English Use Prayer Book Catholic tradition in which I was raised. In Mills’ typology I am a “classical Anglican,” or “Reformed Catholic.” It is not a popular position, but it never has been.
A very well written article about the new “elephant in the room”, though the separation of the once allied orthodox of various stripes from the revisionist wing being pretty much a fait accompli is making this elephant more hard to ignore by the week. What, now, shall we do with each other?
I suppose that I could venture a guess as to how this ‘further’ division of the AC will play out. Can high and low churchmen remain under one roof without killing each other[with apologies to “The Odd Couple”]?
After the dust clears, I think a fair number of Anglo-Caths will stay in the reformed AC, even though conservative evangelicals will hold sway numerically and doctrinally.
I must admit, I was somewhat intrigued by something I read in Mills’ article, namely this: “Many in the second group and everyone in the third reject “classical Anglicanism,” and indeed I have heard Anglo-Papalist friends — one of whom told me he agreed with “every single word” of the Vatican II documents — declare how deeply they hate Anglicanism itself. (“Hate” is their word.)”
Forgive my naivate, but as far as I can gather, nobody is chained to a pew in any Anglican Church that I’m aware of. I’m rather puzzled why such don’t just do the logical thing-LEAVE. Why stay to exude a bitter venom on those who feel otherwise?
5. Because many are deeply plugged into the church of thier own baptism, culturally, historically etc.. they have come to be in the 3rd group over many years and gradually. They have families to care for, parishioners they love, a more Catholic church (perversely) than the liberal Romans round the corner. I can think of a raft of reasons……..though they are growing more untenable by the day. Now I do not HATE the church- I actually love it in a funny way. But I certainly have grave doubts about it and would look to Peter as the Holy Father of Western Christendom.
#5
I’m with you.
#5 I understood Mills article to be speaking to laity rather than clergy; perhaps I misunderstood. As for the clergy and how invested they are, its quite a bit more understandable. Unfortunate, certainly, but understandable.
As for the laity, that’s a different story. If they feel that strongly, they should make leaving a priority. For them-since they don’t have the concerns that a priest would-most reasons seem rather untenable indeed.
The way Mills uses the word “Catholic” throughout his article is disturbing to me. Unfortunately, he did not define his term, but rather used the modern understanding of it, which is “Roman,” or under the jurisdiction of the Pope, or the See of Peter. This is not true, as much as Rome would like it to be true, and we must work very hard to clarify it. To be truly Catholic means you are “part of the whole.” That is what the word means. The “Catholic Church” is a broken body, and those who deny this reality need to be educated. The “Catholic Church” grows each year in Its fullness…and we must remember that it ‘ain’t full until all who are to be present in it are indeed safely there. This article didn’t help clarify the true dilemma of what it means to be “part of the whole,†or truly “Catholic.” Furthermore, it most likely will create more confusion to those who read it, especially layfolks, as it clouds the issue once again! The issue is: How does an individual person, as a vital and gifted member of the universal body of Christ, given our denominational situation, BE or BEGIN TO BE actually aligned with a universal but divided Catholic Christendom.