Fr. Chadwick has already commented on Damian Thompson's current editorial in The Catholic Herald vis-à-vis the potentially humble beginnings of the future English personal ordinariate. But another bit of Thompson's piece stood out to me as it reiterates a point that we have made several times before on The Anglo-Catholic.
The General Synod will not outline its legislation for women bishops until its July meeting. So far as I can work out, there is a slim chance that the Synod may give traditionalists limited oversight by bishops who do not ordain women. This would be no more than a fig leaf, and it is probably not going to be offered anyway, so how can Forward in Faith, the main Anglo-Catholic body, justify delaying its official response to Anglicanorum coetibus until the Synod is over? The Apostolic Constitution, remember, was drawn up following requests from traditionalist Anglican bishops for pastoral oversight; it was not intended as a last resort.
I get the distinct impression that there are not a small number of folks in FiF UK who are yet hoping for some statutory accommodation to protect faithful Anglo-Catholic parishes from the oversight of future women bishops, and for whom Anglicanorum Coetibus represents only a fallback position. Fr. Geoffrey Kirk put it this way at the 2009 National Assembly of Forward in Faith UK (and I quote his words as being illustrative of a certain attitude that almost certainly isn't his own):
I would be a rich man if I had a twenty pound note for every time in the last five years a member of Forward in Faith has asked me the leading question: "We know what the plan is," they would say, "to secure within the Church of England a viable, ecclesiologically-coherent future for traditional Anglican Catholics. But if that's Plan A, what's Plan B?" Well, now you know!
But I would commend to our brethren in FiF UK these words of the Bishop of Richborough at that same assembly:
We should not view this possibility as a last resort if everything goes wrong. I suppose I want to disagree again with Fr. Kirk about the Plan A and the Plan B. I think this probably is Plan A. We should not consider this imaginative offer of full communion with the Holy See simply because we've got nowhere else to go. Such an attitude will not endear us to the Conference of Bishops of England and Wales or the wider Catholic community. Cardinal Levada made it very clear in his press statement that those who request such a personal ordinariate — and it will have to be asked for — must share the Catholic Faith as it's expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also accept the ministry of the Bishop of Rome as something Christ willed for His Church. These are important things to consider and should not be taken lightly.
I am forced to agree with Mr. Thompson. Even were the General Synod to offer some provision for limited episcopal oversight for faithful Anglicans, it would indeed be a fig leaf — or rather an illusion. How exactly would this work anyway? Would traditional Anglo-Catholics see themselves as being in communion with some of the Church's bishops and not others? Would they be out of communion with a bishop today and tomorrow restore communion with the particular see when the incumbent happened to be male? …but perhaps not if he were consecrated by a woman bishop? How many female episcopal consecrators will be deemed invalidate the sacrament of Holy Orders? One? …two? …or must all three be lady bishops? What happens when the Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman? What then? And honestly, even on the outside chance that Synod provides more than a code of practice, how long would it be before the Church of England reneged on that?
This must be a decision of conscience rather than convenience. And it is not going to be easy. Many of us in the Traditional Anglican Communion have already had to make the same sorts of sacrifices that you will likely have to make. It was tough, but we managed… and now we're the better for it. We know you all can do it too, and we're praying for you!
There are some good people in Forward in Faith UK, and Bishop Broadhurst is a favourite of mine. At the same time I can understand them clutching at straws, hoping that their continued presence in the Church of England would be an “investment” for the future, waiting for better times. Some might be fearful of the complete upheaval, not only in their spiritual lives, but to leave their job security, house and everything.
It is easy to be glib about all this, and say that Christ said in the Gospel, “Leave everything behind and follow me”. I know that becoming an Ordinariate priest would not require me to sell my house, leave my wife in hardship and go and live out of a suitcase in Africa. I am a house owner, work as a freelance translator and have a private chapel. I could conceivably be of service to the local Catholic Archbishop. But those men have livings that depend on their staying in the Church of England without conditions. It is like being Russian in 1917 – you become a Communist and toe the Party line or get out (while the going’s good).
We should be careful not to be too hard on those people. On the other hand, we must not be distracted ourselves. We have to bring ourselves to reality by realising that all this is in preparation. No ordinariate yet exists, and one can’t join something that doesn’t exist, despite those who say that the Pope goofed and that we should convert the old-fashioned way through parish-based and diocesan channels. People can say what they like. We are doing it the Pope’s way – and he did not goof.
Things are going to work out over the next few months. Perhaps there will be provision for priests and families coming from the Church of England. There used to be funds to help such men suffering hardship because of their conversion. Perhaps there still are. We should keep our eyes firmly fixed on the goal, and work and pray hard.
'We should not view this possibility as a last resort if everything goes wrong.'
No, it should be the first resort!
If I may be forgiven for slipping out of lurkdom once more (and for what I sincerely hope is the last time), I feel compelled to observe that almost all commentators among those those eager and ready to accept the Pope's offer are missing something here.
The TAC bishops, for example, have already conceded that not all their flock will cross over along with them, and yet have committed to providing whatever pastoral assistance they can for those who cannot cross with them even after crossing over. Is it then so unreasonable for those members of FiF UK who ultimately plan to join the ordinariate to stand by those who cannot yet do so just a bit longer in an effort to secure for their fellow Anglo-Catholics the best deal possible under the circumstances within the CoE before themselves crossing over?
Such generous solidarity is not incompatible with a personal intent to join the ordinariate as soon as it is established.
While some members of FiF UK may indeed be using the ordinariates as a bargaining chip, it strikes as unfair to ascribe such motives to all those not yet announcing an intent to plunge.
I find this site enormously more charitable than the Continuum blog, but I still sense a very human and yet unfortunate tendency to question and demonize the motives of others (sadly including even of those Catholic bishops in England and elsewhere with whom posters here soon hope to be in communion).
Patience and hope are virtues. Contempt and despair are not.
Michaël
Indeed, we must remember that this thing has no time limit. We should not begrudge Anglicans who want to stay in their present ministries for another year, two years or however long is necessary, especially if their motive is pastoral.
We who are ready as soon as the first Ordinariate gets its decree of erection from the Pope – are those who have nothing to lose.
I think that Mr. de Verteuil is correct; and I will add, that my own personal acquaintance with Fr. Kirk does not lead me to think that he regards the Roman option as a pis aller or a fall-back Option B.
The other thing is, how sad it is to contemplate the blindness of those willing to grasp at straws, or fig-leaves. All this talk of providing what I term "bantustans" for "conservatives" is so much fog to befuddle the gullible or the desperate. I so much want to shout "Look to Scandinavia, friends: all this kind of bollocks happened in the Church of Sweden in the 1960s and 70s, but from 1983 onwards, and finally 1994 the velvet has been stripped entirely from the mailed fist, and in Norway it all came in a rush from 1993 onwards.* Can't you learn from examples right in front of you not to trust such meaningless and threadbare "guarantees," but rather to reject them?"
* In Sweden, the presenting issue has always been WO: legislated for in 1958, with a conscience clause, that "guarantee" was withdrawn in 183, and from 1994 there has been an absolute ban on the ordination of men opposed to WO, with the first womanpurportedbishop chosen in 1997. In Norway, from the first "ordinations" of women in 1991 there were various "guarantees" for pastors opposed to WO, which were fairly honestly implemented, but no guarantees for parishes and congregations opposed to it. In 1993 the first womanpurportedbishop was appointed, and a big push for the acceptance of same-sex partnered clergy and for the ordination of same-sex partnered ordinands began, and when the favorers of these things among the State Church bishops came to outnumber the opponents ca. 1998, the same sort of totalitarian proscriptions began in the Church of Norway as had been going on for some while in the Church of Sweden.
To clarify, I did not mean to suggest that Fr. Kirk himself viewed the AC as Plan B. He was merely describing the attitude of some inquirers.
I have edited the original post to make it clear that I was not ascribing the "Plan B attitude" to Fr. Kirk.
How long does one wait? Should you not leave as soon as you can and get off the sinking ship? The ship has a leak and will sink, it may not be filled with water as of yet but it is getting closer to the top. In my merely human opinion if one plans of leaving on should leave as soon as the door is open. You don’t have to be rude about it; just say goodbye politely.
The reason why many “Anglo-Catholic” are not “ready” to go to Rome is because they do not really want to go to Rome. Many Anglo-Catholics in this country (USA) that I have talked to are only catholics in practice not belief; they still take issue with the position of the Pope and many other Roman things.
I'm sorry you still haven't got it. No one will move until one or more Ordinariates have been officially established by the Pope. This hasn't happened yet. When it does happen, that will be another story for a number of Anglican clergy and laity who want to get off the sinking ship without jumping into the sea and freezing to death!
Fr. Chadwick
First I mean no disrespect to you. I know that it has not happened yet and y’all are waiting on Rome to come through. I personally think that there are many more questions one Anglican should be asking themselves; like why are they just now ‘truly’ interested in Rome. If all these Anglicans really wanted to go to Rome why didn’t they before? What was holding them back? I know several former Anglican clergy that have left the Anglican church and found new homes as clergy in the Roman and Orthodox Churches, so again why are they waiting? And many of the “Anglo-Catholic” people I know as I have already said are only catholic in practice; many of them do not believe in the authority of the Pope or his infallibility. And on top of all of that many of these “Anglo-Catholics” have no idea the amount of authority the Roman church will take from their local parishes, it will be interesting to see what happens with that.
Joe,
I would respectfully submit that you ought to take some time and peruse the archives of The Anglo-Catholic. It is not a matter of "just now" being truly interested in Rome. Certainly the path of individual conversion has been open to Anglicans all along, and many have taken that route. But individual submission entails the surrender of our great Anglican patrimony which many of us have been loathe to do. The Holy Father himself has recognized our long-held aspiration to rejoin the unity of the Catholic Church in a corporate fashion that would allow us to retain our Anglican identity and traditions.
As for the "authority" that the Catholic Church will take from Anglican parishes received into the personal ordinariates, I would suggest that you read the Apostolic Constitution and the Complementary Norms — and the commentaries provided on The Anglo-Catholic — before you comment.
Well those "Anglo Catholics" who do not wish to be Roman will presumably stay where they are. Catholics who wish to keep their Anglican tradition will join the ordinariates. Catholics who don't care about Anglican tradition will presumably not wait for the ordinariates but become Romans. What are we worried about? These various groups will find their own level. There are altogether too many people anxious about the state of other people's minds – are they genuine? etc. It is none of our business.
Oh! The reasonableness of an Englishman!
If only all had this sense of fair play and respect of the freedom of others. We have to take some pundits to task because they are trying to influence people's judgement on the basis of falsehood (which in some cases has been admitted by such in private).
We don't mind what people decide to do or not do, if they are acting according to their consciences. But, we do mind those who "poach" and try to manipulate those who are poorly informed.
I agree completely with Joe. I cannot comment on the English or other European Anglicans, but in the US, there are many who are Anglo Catholic in practice only. They do not want any real authority over them. My former parish taught everything Catholic and prayed for the Pope and in the end the priest and many left to become Catholic. Others stayed, now they belong to TAC, and I don't think they still have made up their minds as to what they are going to do.
I don't envy them. Once you make a choice it gives you the opportunity to grow spiritually. Whether the choice is Rome or to stay Anglican. Indecision is harmful to ones growth as it stands in the way of just going on with your life and totally participating in church and no longer having doubts.
This is an individual choice and no one should judge another's decision as to which church brings them a closer walk with God.
In response to comment 10,
Our Lord established ONE Church. Consequently, it is not a theologically legitimate decision to affiliate with something other than that ONE Church. Of course, we must broach the subject pastorally, but if we care about another's spiritual state we must unabashedly affirm the objective tenets of Catholicism.
Dear Fr. Holiday,
Yes I understand that and do wish all could belong to Christ's Church, but I have seen so many terrible posts, usually from Anglicans towards the Catholic Church and the Pope, that I feel the only remedy is to pray for them. It seems useless to try to have them see this truth and since I came from an Anglican background understand their mindset. I can't discuss the faith with my own brother who is still an Episcopalian and I am sure will always be. He has a Ph.D., so intelligence has nothing to do with his choice. Until the Holy Spirit touches someones heart and leads them to the Church I wonder if there is anything that will reach them. I feel many have hardened their hearts against Rome.
I myself don't understand the hostility, except I think some of it is fear that if the Catholic Church is the True Church then they are wrong and many people can't accept being wrong.
As Mr. Campbell says if Anglicans had submitted individually to the Catholic Faith, all would either be Roman Rite or Eastern Rite. I am very grateful that 30 years ago several Episcopal priests went to Rome and were able to establish the Anglican Use, as I believe this was the stepping stone to the offer of Pope Benedict today. Because of these priests and their parishes being loyal to Rome and bringing in our beautiful patrimony it has been proven that Anglicans can be truely Catholic in the full sense and bring their Anglican Treasure to the Catholic Church.
It is very difficult for Anglicans to give up their traditions as they are so much a part of who we are or were, in my case. God is patient and although it took so many years for this great opening for all Anglicans to bring with them traditions and liturgy it is now here and I believe as time goes by and more and more Anglicans will come into the Church within an Ordinariate, many Anglicans who have distrusted Rome will have a change of heart and will enter. This is surely an answer to my prayers over the years, whether an Anglican Use/Rite is close to me I can still know that our Patrimony is alive and well. Actually I think that the Church has been very gracious to our Anglican Use parishes when a Bishop has allowed them to be established. Now we won't have to depend on whether a Bishops in favor or not, the Ordinariate will be able to deal directly with Rome, it is a very pastoral move on Pope Benedict's part. He has opened the doors and whenever someone is ready to enter they will be welcomed.
Okay maybe this is my ignorance in the matter but I must ask, why have more Anglo-Catholics not gone to the Roman Anglican Use?
Please do not misunderstand my words or intentions. I have a great respect for Anglicans (I was one) and I just wanted to ask some question in an open forum. I do apologize if I have offended anyone.
Joe, I can speak to this from a personal perspective, as the pastor of the first of the Anglican Use parishes. These parishes exist only in those dioceses where they've been allowed to exist. Not only is the Pastoral Provision exclusively for the United States, but many bishops in America have not allowed A. U. parishes to be started in their dioceses. Even though we've been in existence for nearly 27 years, there many bishops who know little or nothing about the Provision.
Part of the genius of Anglicanorum coetibus is that it doesn't depend on the charity or approval of the local Latin Rite bishop. Parishes will be able to be established and clergy will be ordained under the direction of an Ordinary.
From my understanding if you were an Anglican and converted individually as I did, you can still be part of the Ordinariate when they are established.
Since as Fr. Phillips stated there are not very many Anglican Use parishes in the US and none in Europe, many Episcopalians and Anglicans have converted many years ago. As far as TAC and FIF I think that when they decided to approach Rome and had some indication that Rome would accomodate them as a group with their own identity they waited for Rome to let them know if they would be accepted with their own patrimony. If they had all gone as individuals the Apostolic Constitution might never have been established.
There are many Latin Rite Catholics who do appreciate the beautiful Anglican traditions and liturgy and if they are unhappy with the NO Mass but do not want to attend the TLM they will have another option. There are many Latin Rite Catholics who attend the Anglican Use parishes from what I understand.
If any of my comments are incorrect I would appreciate a priest who is familiar with the Constitution and Anglican Use parishes to correct me. The Catholic Church is open to many different rites and that is a wonderful proof of it being the Universal Church.
In reply to comment 12:
Our Lord did indeed establish one church. It was then broken by human sin–including the sin of refusing to tolerate honest disagreement about inessentials. The popes, I would suggest, have been guilty of that sin ever since the Quartodeciman Controversy at the end of the 2nd century.
When a plate has been shattered, it seems pretty unreasonable to insist that the largest shard is the whole plate.
Michael Ramsey once said "I believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and I heartily wish it existed". Of course he meant "on earth".