We are only a few days away from the annual Anglican Use Conference, to be held June 10 through 12. The event, produced by the Anglican Use Society, will be held this year in Newark, New Jersey, at the Archdiocesan Pastoral Center. The alert reader will ask, why Newark? Is there a Pastoral Provision congregation there? No, but Archbishop Myers, the Archbishop of Newark, is the Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Pastoral Provision.
Each year, members of the Society gather with an eclectic mix of Roman and Anglican laypeople and clergy to discuss a wide range of matters under the broad umbrella of Anglo-Catholic interests. In prior years, there was a heavy emphasis on the Pastoral Provision, and most conferences were hosted by Pastoral Provision congregations. (Recent annual conferences were held in Houston, San Antonio, Washington D.C. and Scranton.) This year, the emphasis will shift, and in ways that are difficult to predict, because in the interval since the last annual conference, the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus has been published. This promises to be a lively event, with much speculation, both informed and uninformed, and who knows, perhaps even some reliable news.
Mr. Campbell has summarized the official program in his post of last week, and the conference agenda is published on the conference website. The lineup of speakers is of the quality we have come to expect each year from Anglican Use Society president Joe Blake and the conference planners. Prospective attendees should keep in mind that some of the most informative moments of each year’s conference occur informally, between sessions.
It is not too late to register for the conference, and I want to urge all readers who have the ability to participate to consider attending.
Newark is not generally considered a tourist destination, or place of pilgrimage, except perhaps by diehard fans of The Sopranos. In fact, Newark is one of America’s great cities and contains one of the most important pieces of American Catholic material culture, the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart. This spectacular example of French Gothic architecture, and the fifth largest cathedral in America, will be the site of the conference liturgies. The 37-foot diameter rose window alone is worth the trip, and it is just one of more than 200 stained glass windows. The pipe organ is notorious and is said by some to be largest ever built. As the photos show, Chartres has nothing on Newark.
This magnificent building was envisioned by the first ordinary of the Newark diocese, Bishop James Bayley, who acquired the land and set the planning and design in motion. Bishop Bayley was later made Archbishop of Baltimore, and the work was continued by his successors. There is an interesting Anglican footnote to this story. Bishop Bayley was a cousin of Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton. Like Mother Seton, Bishop Bayley was a convert from Anglicanism.
Mr. Campbell has kindly invited me to provide reports from the Conference, and I look forward to posting in the days ahead.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
We don't call ourselves "Romans". We call ourselves "Catholics". The liberal fringe call themselves "Roman Catholics" but only because they reject traditional Catholic ecclesiology.
If former Anglicans want to be welcomed in the Catholic Church, they would do well to call Catholics Catholics.
Who is "we"? According to the Vatican and numerous sources there are many various types of Catholics. Roman or Latin, Anglican Use, Ambrosian, Maronite, Chaldean… etc., etc., etc. I think there are 28 rites in the Church. The majority in the States and Canada are the Roman or Latin Rite.
St Stephens, the only parish in the Diocese to offer the Latin Mass, has in its name St. Stephens Roman Catholic Church. So how are they rejecting traditional Catholic ecclesiology? Or anyone who calls themselves say Maronite Catholic, for example?
Fr. Mark
I would just point out that Mr. Johnston is a (Roman) Catholic (of the Anglican Use); no doubt he will find it amusing to discover that he is a member of the liberal fringe who rejects traditional Catholic ecclesiology.
The point is well taken. However, Anglicans have traditionally regarded themselves as being Catholics – albeit ones unfortunately out of communion with the Holy See – along with Eastern Orthodox, and along with Catholics in communion with the Church of Rome. Furthermore, those Anglicans who have been brought into communion with the See of Rome through the Pastoral Provision, as members of the Anglican Use of the Latin Rite, still consider themselves to be Anglicans – albeit Anglicans in communion with Rome.
The use of the term "Roman" was meant, I am sure, to indicate that there are different types of "Catholics" – even if we limited the term to include only those in communion with the Roman Pontiff. One must, of course, be able to distinguish somehow between Catholics of the Latin, and of the Byzantine Rite. Likewise, within the Latin rite, one must be able to distinguish between the mainstream Latin rite, and the Anglican use.
The most practical way of doing so is to distinguish between Roman and Anglican Catholics.
Even if "Roman" might, in time, become a mark of pride to Anglo-Catholics in communion with Rome – to indicate our support of the Holy Father – there is a tremendous desire to hold on to a name that distinguishes us somehow. The desire, however, must not be to in any way separate ourselves from the rest of the church, but to witness to the very unity in diversity that the ministry of the Holy Father is intended to safeguard.
Times have changed. Having attended school in pre Vatican II days, I certainly recall being told to resist the label 'Roman'. We were Catholics, members of the Universal Church. The term Roman was an attempt by the C of E to state that they were the true church in the UK. We were told a test was that if anyone in the street was asked for directions to the nearest Catholic Church it would not be an Anglican Church we would be directed to.
I recall being told that it was part of the law that in official documents we had to state that we were Roman Catholic and not Catholic, which was just another attempt to sectionalise us. I don't know if there was or is such a law but it must not be forgotten that Catholics were persecuted in the UK for a long period from the time of the Reformation, and while the Catholic Emancipation Act, 1829 (note, not Roman Catholic Emancipation) changed a lot there was still much hostility around in the 1950s. It would have been unthinkable to have a Catholic Prime Minister and still the Monarch cannot be a Catholic or married to one.
In my mid teens I was going through a period when I did a lot of reading about the faith and would be livid if anyone called me a Roman Catholic. I would ask how they knew I was not a member of an Eastern Rite, we were all Catholics first and part of our respective rites second. My reaction was a reflection of the times we lived in.
Post VII we all seem to be in the same melting pot. Gone are the restrictions to attending services in churches of other Christian denominations. Apart from one town (whose name I cannot remember) Guy Fawkes day bonfires are not quite the anti-Catholic affairs they used to be with some effigies in the likeness of the pope on the bonfire. I certainly recall unpleasant remarks against me about being a Catholic, and the history course I attended at the local college where I was constantly battling against the anti-Catholic prejudices of the lecturer.
If you asked me now, I would still reply: I am a Catholic. Sorry, but I am too old to change, and the rite I was baptised into is of secondary importance to the fact that that I am member of a Church in union with the See of Peter.
I would have to agree with Daniel, the term 'Roman' divorced from the 'Catholic' is certainly used in a derogatory sense in Ireland and increasingly the term 'Roman Catholic' is used in a similar vein as distinct from plain 'Catholic'. To those without knowledge of the wonderful ecumenical unity we are witnessing before us, the use of such terms with unfortunate connotations may prove to be confusing or indeed ammunition to the unscrupulous.
However, of course there is need for distinction between a Catholic community with Anglican heritage and one without. Perhaps the most accurate term would be 'Anglican-Use Roman Catholic' rather than a distinction between Anglican and Roman.
It should also be noted that the attachment to the simple word 'Catholic' without adjectives is not merely due to an atmosphere of post-Reformation tension but rather originates from the Patristic Age.
Daniel's mention of the 'Church-pointing' test echoes the words of St. Augustine:
"…the succession of bishops taking their origin from the chair of Peter to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, confided his sheep to be fed; the very name Catholic which that Church, in the midst of heretics neither call themselves Catholic nor, when asked by a stranger about the Catholic Church, would dare point at their own churches of buildings."
Distinction without Division should be the golden rule when it comes to emphasising Anglican Patrimony and its welcome pride of place in the universal church.
Perhaps instead of ‘Romans’ and ‘Anglicans’ – which to the uninformed may appear divisive, the terms ‘Catholics’ and ‘Anglican-use Catholics’ could be substituted highlighting the unity between both groups while also noting the distinction in liturgical practice and heritage.
My goodness. And I thought the Sopranos reference would be the controversial part of the post.
Mr. David has correctly inferred my intent. Ordinarily I would have said "Catholic," but in this forum instead said "Roman," for clarity, and to demonstrate respect for the many Anglicans whose bishops are currently not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, but who consider themselves to be Catholic.
I do not find the term Roman or Roman Catholic offensive, and was not aware of the usage in Ireland.
Let us all earnestly pray for the day when we can simply say "Christian," and have no need of further distinction!
I don't take personal offense at you using of the term Roman, as I am aware of your intent. I don't, though, particularly care to being referred to as a Roman. I know a few Episcopalians (not the Anglo-Catholic variety) who refer to Catholics as Romans. They use the term as a derogatory code word, and not to differentiate between the run of the mill Catholic and those who might be of the Syro-Malabar or Maronite Rites. These Episcopalians haven't a clue as to what a Syro-Malabar, Melkite or Maronite Catholic is. The Catholics I know do not refer to themselves as Romans; they simply refer to themselves as Catholic, and no one feels a need to explain any further.
I would guess that 95% of Catholics might think all Anglicans are part of the Anglican Communion. So I suggest that the term that leads to greater confusion is the term Anglican, rather than the term Catholic.
That said, I've been following your story for quite a number of years. I came into the Catholic Church some 25+ years ago at the same time as an Episcopal priest friend was coming in through the Pastoral Provision. He is now the pastor of a local Catholic Church. I wish you Godspeed in your journey into the fullness of the Catholic Church.
Did anybody notice that this post is about the A.U. Conference?
Hello Fr. Phillips,
Has there been a change in your plans to attend the AU Conference, as I seem to recall that someone else would be attending in your place? I think we all will be waiting axiously for a report on how the conference goes this year.
I think sometimes people get hung up on certain words and ignore the subject matter. Maybe there should be a thread here for subjects or comments that are not related to a particular subject started by the "staff" of the Anglo Catholic as there are probably questions that we all have and would love to be able to ask.
I won't be able to attend this year. I'll be officiating at my youngest daughter's wedding that weekend. Mr. Johnston will ably represent me, I'm sure!
I have to agree that Catholic is preferable to 'Roman Catholic'. And I especially do not like being called 'Roman'. Andrew Burnham (I admire his sensitivity to the issue) specifically points out this issue in his new book, reminder readers that 'Roman Catholics' refer to themselves simply as 'Catholics'.
The name "Roman Catholic" was invented by the Protestant King James I in 1622. It was thereafter used only in the English speaking world. The invention of "Roman" by James I produced a feeling of remoteness and disconnection. It is also interesting to note that in Lumen Gentium the drafters dropped the adjective "Roman" to avoid unchurching the more than 20 million non-Roman, non-Latin-rite Catholics who are in full communion with the Pope.