Thank you, Father Tomlinson. Now let's dispel another myth: the myth that full communion can be achieved while dissenting from doctrine.
Here we are in the summer after Anglicanorum coetibus. One would think that, in the months that AC has been studied and discussed, it would be well understood.
Yet despite the clear intent of the apostolic constitution, and despite the self-evident implications of full communion for doctrinal unanimity, discussion continues, in this forum and elsewhere, suggesting that some who dissent from portions of Church doctrine should nevertheless seek membership through the ordinariates – as if accession to the ordinariates will not, or should not, require a profession of faith.
In drafting Anglicanorum coetibus, the Holy Father wisely anticipated so many questions. And now we can see the wisdom and foresight of Benedict in providing that the Catechism of the Catholic Church will be the standard of faith in the ordinariates (AC Section 5). The Holy Father anticipated the argument that, despite its internally contradictory nature, is now being played out.
What AC offers is the opportunity to come into the fullness of the faith without having to leave behind the beauty of the Anglican patrimony. What AC does not offer is a shortcut that would allow someone to claim full communion while rejecting, or worse yet, while declining even to consider what the faith teaches us.
In a comment elsewhere in this forum, Father Berry quotes the Catechism: “Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness." (CCC 2088) Father Berry then goes on to say in his own words, “It is only this deliberate cultivation of doubt – this hardening of the heart against some teaching of the Church – this willful shutting off of one’s hearing from the teaching voice of the Church that is a problem.”
Many Anglicans who now find themselves being called to full communion through the ordinariates have confronted the crisis in Anglicanism and have identified it for what it is: the lack of a consistent, unified, and trustworthy magisterium. And yet, perhaps out of habit more than anything else, and even while acknowledging the primacy of Peter, some are not quite ready to embrace the Magisterium of the Church. Perhaps there is some Marian doctrine, or some question of Holy Orders, or some obscure theological point that is not immediately accessible.
This is an obstacle that must be overcome before full communion is possible. Father Berry rightfully refers to it as a hardening of the heart. Perhaps it is just an old habit.
I understand that habit, the habit of disobedience, and I understand it from personal experience. Most thoughtful people understand it. And sooner or later, most Catholics (Anglo-, cradle- or otherwise) must confront the crisis of obedience as we consider — seriously consider — what the Church teaches us. Embracing the discipline of obedience to Church teaching, and doing so willingly and as an exercise of one's own freedom, is the solution.
Embracing obedience to Church authority as a voluntary exercise of freedom may at first seem paradoxical. But an exercise of freedom is not a surrender of freedom, as every new day will bring a new opportunity to revoke the obedience, and willfully to fall into error. Thus there truly is no contradiction.
Willingly embracing obedience demands a difficult new discipline and spirituality for all who come to it for the first time as adults. (We independently-minded Texans in particular, come to it with particular difficulty.) But once arriving at the necessity to reconcile, we can reason that obedience is just an appropriate response to authority, that Christ founded the Church on authority, and that authority is necessary for the preservation of the integrity of the faith.
Coming to a place where we are willing to accept whatever the Church teaches, simply because it is being taught by Christ through legitimate apostolic authority, can be a liberating experience.
Is it possible that we may have not just equal freedom, but greater freedom, after voluntarily submitting to authority? Perhaps so. I am more free, rather than less free, if I can accept doctrine based on Divine authority. I am free from the need to process the question through the weak filter of my own individual theological expertise, or through a synod or convention that determines doctrine by popular vote (and changes its mind every several years), or through a minister whose only authority is a bible college diploma. And I am free from uncertainty.
To those who feel a call to reunion through the ordinariates, you are being called to full communion, which demands full acceptance of all that the Church teaches. Consider that submission to the truth might be liberating, and not a burden at all. Consider the possibility that Anglicanorum coetibus offers you a new level of beauty and of freedom in your relationship with the Truth that is Jesus Christ
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
This point is well taken, however I wonder that excessive navel-gazing is leading us to the point where excessively high standards are being advocated on this blog for entry into the Ordinariate: That one must have perfect assent to all doctrines and dogmas contained in the CCC to enter the Catholic Church. I don't have a particular problem with this, but when I look around; i.e. at the National Catholic Reporter, the "conversion" of Tony Blair, or the beliefs of the members of the neighborhood Catholic parish, I wonder if this is perspective is well connected to reality.
Does it not make sense that someone entering a new church may have doubts, but does it anyway because they are making a leap of faith, or there is simply no where else to go? People enter the Catholic Church for many reasons, many of them not entirely honorable. But people change and grow with time – under the influence of the people around them and the sacraments! I would rather have a larger group of people, some of which have imperfect motives and beliefs, than with a tiny purest group of doctrinally perfect people.
The point of this post is to simply remember that we should not apply higher standards to the Ordinariate group, than to individuals entering the Catholic church one-by-one.
In the past few months as we have been heading toward the Ordinariate I have had some notable conversation with Catholics, some of which have blessed and delighted me, and a few which have brought me much distress.
I talked to one elderly religious Sister and she quietly confessed dismay at the conservative stands of her church on many issues, and expressed the opinion that there were "many ways to God."
I conversed with another elderly Fransciscan nun, and she just beamed with the joy of the Lord. No "inclusive" nonsense here.
I asked another, a friend and convert from Protestantism, if she believed the Catholic church to be the "one true church." She said, "Dear Lord, no. It's just a church." I asked about some doctrines, especially the Marian ones. "I just put them on a shelf and don't worry about them." She then told me I am concerning myself with too many details, trying to get too many things "just right." She seemed to be a very happy Catholic.
As I experienced each of these encounters and more it seems to me that the "cradle Catholics" and those who have privately converted some time ago, have it made. Especially the cradle Catholics. They were baptized as infants, and confirmed while young and unquestioning. They, quite simply, are Catholics. Today, as adults, they may believe or disbelieve any number of things. But, they are still considered Catholics. And as adults they have never been subject to a rigorous inspection as to their orthodoxy and doctrinal correctness.
But here are many of us, struggling to find our way and being given a seemingly extensive list of ways to think, practices to follow, things to believe, attitudes and affections to adopt, and cultural norms to embrace, all of which are "essential" if we are to be true Catholics. And for sure, some of this may be necessary, but there are still things about which I wonder . . . like just how many T's do we have to cross, and I's do we have to dot.
I don't know what the answer is, but something seems to be rather unequal here.
But then, a TAC priest did inform me that there would be no doctrinal entrance test given to TAC parishoners when the Ordinariate comes into effect. The experience in the pew will the same the day after as it was the day before.
Does this mean some of us are struggling with issues with which we do not need to concern ourselves?
I guess time will tell.
Joseph Forster (in his 'Four Great Teachers', 1890) gave the following account of why Thomas Carlyle, as a young graduate, refused to enter the Presbyterian Ministry. I think it can be read as a warning to those who, like myself, occasionally contemplate crossing to Rome:
"Carlyle refused to enter the Church. He felt that his opinions, so broad and deep, could not be confined within the orthodox barriers. His grand mind and heart could not be controlled by theological cobwebs. He could not make up his mind to believe one thing and teach another. In matters of that kind, as he once said, 'he supposed a man must be honest'."
The requirement to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches is onerous indeed. It includes the teaching that contraception is morally wrong (except for the Billings method – which is an illogical exception, the intention is the same), that homosexuality is evil and depraved, and that the Bible is infallible (as asserted by Vatican II in the 'Constitution on Divine Revelation' document).
A man must be honest with himself. It is not possible for honest Anglicans to assent to such teachings.
Same old stuff. Why don't you stay where you are and not seek to sell your wares here?
By the way, I have something to sell you. Just one careful owner, special price just for you. Click here to see the item for sale.
Convinced? No? Nor are we of your proposition.
Let me tell you, sir, that this is one Christian who believes the Bible to be the holy, pure, and undefiled Word of God, and that all sexual intimacy outside of the "one-man one-woman united-for-life" covenant of marriage is sinful. More important than being "honest with himself" a man must be reconciled with God through the blood of Jesus Christ and, having become a Christian, bring His life under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and in line with eternal truth.
Andrew, you make a great point. The same standards should apply to all, and all should subscribe to the faith. Perhaps this is why centuries ago the Church in its wisdom made the Nicean Creed a part of the Mass. If we say it every week, the theory goes, then it will be difficult later to forget, deny or repudiate.
There are more than 2800 numbered paragraphs in the CCC. I could intelligently discuss many of them but, as a typically spottily catechised layman, would probably stumble by the fourth or fifth if you started questioning me about them at random in an examination. And this shows as clearly as any example could how very liberating obedient submission to authority can be! If I had to anaylze and assent to each and every paragraph, giving a well-reasoned theological justification in every case, it would take a very long time. Who knows, perhaps we would even see an Ordinariate established before the task were finished! But because I know that every one of them has been established by legitimate Apostolic authority, I can assure you right now that I will willingly subscribe to every one of them. If my belief then requires some difficult task, I may fall into disobedience and thus into sin, but I would not then be so foolish as to argue that my disobedience was justifiable because the truth of the article of faith had not been sufficiently proven!
And so we see that it is easier, far easier, to make a profession of faith by general obedience, and not on the basis of theological mastery (and concurrence) on every point.
Of those who would say "I guess I can't join the Ordinariate until I understand and believe this (fill in the blank: Assumption, Immaculate Conception, whatever)," — these poor folks have it BACKWARDS.
Or, as our evangelical friends say with greater wisdom than we credit them, "Jesus said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"
Mr. Johnson is right on about actually having more freedom when you become Catholic. That is exactly the way I feel being Catholic. I might not be able to explain it, except that I don't have to worry about the doctrines or teachings, they are there for everyone to see. I know that tomorrow someone in the Church will not be able to change the beliefs for whatever reason. Yes there are individual Catholics who might want the Church changed, but this has not and will not happen.
Also there is a feeling of community in the spiritual sense that I never felt as an Episcopalian. It is not the feeling of having friends and socializing with others, more a sense that we are truely brothers and sisters in Christ. I have found kindness from others within the Church, we are all individuals and we all have our faults, but it was no different in the Episcopal church. The parishes within the Ordinariates will be small in the beginning, but will expand over time and hopefully the first members will remember to be welcoming to others who come into the parish.
I have found that some think that a Catholic parish is unfriendly and that their former parishes were much closer, but that was not my experience in the Episcopal church. Everyone has had their own experiences, but sometimes our experiences are based on whether we reach out to others and develop friendships. Church is where we go to worship Christ, not where we go to have a social life, that is secondary.
But freedom is something I felt very strongly. Christ demands obedience from us, which is probably the most difficult issue many have. It is even more difficult for the incoming priests as this was not part of the practice in our former church.
Although today in TEC and the Anglican Communion it appears that the leadership is more like a dictatorship, there seems to be more authority with the leadership than even the Pope has. At least this is what I see and of course is my opinion.
I appreciate the clarity with which Mr. Johnson, an Anglican Use congregant, and Fr. Tomlinson, an Anglican Priest, have set forth what AC is and is not.
That being said, I as a Byzantine Catholic have no ox being gored in this corral, would very much like to know what this so called Anglican Patrimony is? Spell it out people, 1 2 3 4 5.
The term is being batted about like a volleyball by all sides, pro AC, anti AC, pro AC with misdirection and misinterpretation, and those who number one aim is to create even further division in the Body of Christ!
I would have thought that the Anglican Liturgical Tradition , which the Anglican Use perpetuates, would be at the top of the list; however, in the U.K. that is apparently not the case. I also know that The Anglo-Catholic tradition is very much into the Church Fathers. From what I have learned over the years many Anglicans have returned to the devotional practices of the Catholic Church but also have developed their own unique ones. Then there is the question of where the Anglican Divines fit in. Holy men one and all but not officially Saints even by the Church of England, Martyrs are recognized but this has it's own peculiarities such as those Anglicans and Catholics that were killed together.
So, having gone on much to much I still ask – WHAT IS THE ANGLICAN PATRIMONY!?! SOMEBODY HELP ME!!! GRRRRR!
Perhaps this article gives one ingredient among many, in understanding Anglican patrimony: http://anglicanpatrimony.blogspot.com/2010/03/anglican-patrimony.html
Anglican Patrimony & the meaning of Obedience – some weighty subjects to chew on!
Patrimony – simply that godly history of the Anglican experience since the mid-sixteenth century that did not have the good fortune of being incorporated into the Church Catholic. Liturgy, yes, but far more, and I would say INCLUDING the work of John and Charles Wesley. I know I'll get flack on that one, but I believe it to be true.
Beyond such things, matters of full communion on the one hand, and obedience to the teaching of the church on the other more or less comes down to this, in my opinion: that we might think we can elect to have Jesus as Savior, but not Lord, is a modern Protestant mistake of frightful proportions. Specifically, certain Anglicans who have taken the bold stand to separate from TEC nevertheless behave as if to indeed appreciate the sanctifying and saving actions of Christ as in frequent reception of Holy Communion, but then balk at ecclesiastical authority that might require something of them that rubs against their grain, whatever that "something" may be. In my evangelical days some opined that we could have Jesus as Savior, but not necessarily Lord. Utter nonsense it was!! The Church of Jesus Christ, ie. the Roman Catholic Church rightly teaches that to truly enjoy the salvific fruits of Christ's redeeming work, you also have to "sign-on" to His Lordship, specifically as manifested in the canonical teaching of the chuch that – choke, gasp! – actually requires certains actions and attitudes on the part of God's faithful people.
Linking Lordship with Saviorship – that's what this whole discussion is about, and in the end you really can't separate one from the other.
Logically, the Anglican Patrimony is whatever of Anglicanism that is true, good, holy and beautiful – whatever of Anglicanism that is not contrary to the Catholic Faith. As the Apostle teaches in Phil. iv, 8, and as Laud put it (in Brightman's translation):
Whatsoever things are true,
whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just,
whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report,
if there be any virtue
and if there be any praise,
that we may think on these things
and practise these things,
let us ask of the Lord.
As a priest, himself an ex-Anglican minister once told me, it enfolds such elements, at their most basic and profound level, as the Evangelical love for and fervent personal relationship with the Person of Jesus Christ, the Anglo-Catholic love for demonstrating this love both through worship done decently and in order and, inseparably, the outreach to the poor precisely to bring them to such worshipping love, and the general Anglican love for fine hymnody and music whereby to express one's devotion.
Some suggested texts:
The Authorized Version (wherever not contrary to a Catholic interpretation – and recall that Challoner deliberately revised the Douay-Rheims to be as close to the A.V. as possible);
The Book of Common Prayer (ditto, especially Mattins and Evensong – the Holy See has already appropriated as much as possible, from of all editions the 1979 U.S. B.C.P., to compile a first edition of the Anglican Use for Catholics);
Hymns Ancient and Modern;
The English Hymnal;
Lancelot Andrewes' Preces Privatæ (which Newman kept on his prie-dieu);
E. Milner-White's A Procession of Passion Prayers (to instance a more modern devotional text);
Gregory's Dix's preaching the Three Hours' Devotion (itself a strange case of cross-fertilization, whereby a Baroque Latin American Jesuit practice became beloved of Evangelicals), entitled Power of God…
"…you are being called to full communion, which demands full acceptance of all that the Church teaches."
"Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"
So does a belief in the validity of Anglican Orders prohibit full communion with Rome? I've read Apostolicae Curae and I'm just not convinced. Maybe an article on this?
Welcome to Earth! You will find writings by Archbishop Hepworth and others saying that we can believe in Anglican Orders, but we should still accept absolute or conditional ordination because the Church has the right to want to be certain about our orders. End of story.
There is no need for an article arguing that Apostolicae Curae is correct. It is part of the infallible Magisterium.
The more interesting and often-debated question is whether subsequent events changed anything. There were efforts to introduce Old Catholic orders. There were efforts to ordain persons who do not have Christ's nature. It's complicated. None of this matters because, As Fr. Chadwick says, the Church must now do what is necessary to assure orders.
Some have argued that it would be a grave error to ordain a man who has previously been validly ordained. If this is true, then the error would be the Church's, not the ordinand's. The ordinand is not culpable; indeed, he is admirable in his humilty and his willingness to submit in obedience. Personally, I don't believe that the Church is capable of an error of this magnitude but, as our great President says, and as the Anglican clergyman obediently submitting to ordination should say, that's above my pay grade.
There are many holy priests who have valid orders and who are outside of communion with Peter, for example, Orthodox and SSPX. I do not ordinarily receive sacraments from those clergy because I feel an obligation to respect the Church's discipline on this. But if I were on a crashing airplane and were seated next to an Orthodox or SSPX priest I would request absolution and, upon receiving it, would have certainty of salvation. And if the priest were Anglican, I would request absolution — conditionally — just in case!
So this morning, my 20-year old daughter and I went to mass at St (Fill in Blank with Your Fav. Saint Here)….you know the one….with the big screens (yes, 2 of 'em)…..so's you can read the words to the song. She hadn't been to mass in awhile, and we were nearby—not our regular parish, but hey, it's still Home—and she leans over to me and says (wait for it, pregnant pause)………. "Just like Karaoke."
Now embedded therein is an entire master's thesis.
Over to you, take it from here.
Pax
I sympathize: years ago, while in a similar church, we were perforce singing "We walk by faith, and not by sight, / No gracious words we hear" – a friend of mine leaned over and whispered to me, "Just like the Novus Ordo".
I keep reading comments about how bad the Mass of Pope Paul VI (Novus Ordo) is, and I have to disagree. Since I married into a Catholic family 31 years ago I have always attended the "new" Mass at various parishes, and have never attended one that was not worshipful. Granted, the music may not be as good as the hymns I was raised with in the Methodist Church, but that's minor. Every priest I have seen has been reverent, as have been the people.
I've never seen a Catholic parish use screens during Mass, or have liturgy that was not as written in the sacramentary. I say this only to let those who may have never attended a Catholic Mass know that the Novus Ordo is not as bad as many people here make it sound.
+Ed
I have attended many OF Masses and have found many to be disorderly. This is not only my opinion but many Latin Rite Catholics have the same complaints.
I am very lucky to attend one that follows what VII intended. There are no innovations, in fact the priest faceds East and we have a communion rail. We use the same hymns as when I was in TEC.
There is much loud talking before Mass so one cannot prepare for it. Even in some parishes the priest runs around right before Mass and goes to pews and talks to the members. The Sanctuary is filled with women, no boy altar servers or men, although the church is full of men and boys.
I guess it depends on which diocese a person is in, how the Mass is celebrated.
Occasionally confronted with the question(s): "Which would you prefer, Mozart or Happy-Clappy? This Mass or that Mass? This Parish or the other one across town?"
My response is: "I like Church."
I'm a Catholic, and these are my Peeps.