Posts tagged Catholic Church
Light on Clerical Celibacy
Mar 11th
I have a document that probably sheds a considerable amount of light onto why the authorities of the Church are retaining celibacy as a rule and allowing generous dispensations from this discipline at the same time. I am sure most of our readers are aware that not all Catholics are orthodox or traditionally-minded. Many have exactly the same agenda as the Anglican churches we once belonged to and had to leave for reasons of conscience.
I found a statement on the website of the European Federation of Catholic Married Priests commenting on the Apostolic Constitution, and was quite flabbergasted on reading it. The document in question is a pdf, and can be downloaded from here. Rather than praise what might seem to be the thin end of the wedge towards abolishing celibacy, the attitude is sneering, as we will see from the quotes. It’s unfair! – they protest.
Before going on with the appropriate quotes, the uppermost idea in my mind is that celibacy can be compared with the issue of Latin in the liturgy at the Council of Trent. Making of celibacy a dogma or something irreformable would be the biggest blunder the Church could ever make, but that does not mean the flood-gates should be opened at this time. The implications go so far, that a general relaxation of celibacy is simply not opportune. It is a question of a whole conception of the priesthood, as the quotes will illustrate. Many lay apologists make the cardinal error of nominalism – singling out issues and failing to see the big picture or the connection between everything.
The European Federation of Catholic Married Priests made a statement about the Apostolic Constitution and commented on the proposal to dispense from celibacy generously. They firstly manifest their appreciation of the idea of there being a choice between marriage and celibacy, and that this would contribute to a healthy diversity of vocations in the Church. So far, so good.
Here comes the big tamale:
(…) it is difficult to see how this decision by Rome can ever be justified as there is not a shred of supporting ecclesiology to sustain it — that is unless it is also accompanied by the offer of re-admission to ministry of those catholic priests who have married and who wish to resume ministry. More than 100,000 married catholic priests have been prevented from exercising their ministry. Our view is that to consider these latter as traitors while at the same time believing it is alright to encourage a group of married Anglican priests to break their allegiance to the Anglican Communion is hypocritical. When the situations are compared there is clearly a danger that this will give rise to great confusion within our communities.
It is such an arbitrary and difficult to understand decision – unless, of course, we take for granted the fundamentalist and conservative views which are at the core of this group of married priests for whom the Catholic Church is throwing open its doors. They are against the ordination of women and the possibility of homosexuals being priests in the Anglican Communion, both of which were agreed as acceptable by a majority vote of that communion. However, the Vatican seems to have decided that the type of priest in which it places its trust is not one that is aligned with Gospel openness nor capable of reading the signs that the Holy Spirit is at work.
It seems to us that this gesture damages ecumenism because it fails to take account of the many years of dialogue in order to pursue a return to Catholicism. Rather than bearing in mind the progress made during Vatican II and in the ARCIC discussions on the eucharist, ministries, and authority in The Church, the Vatican is dishonestly recruiting by allowing Christians to get around a decision of their own Church. By doing this it increases division in a Church that is already having so much difficulty trying to sort out disputes touching in particular on important issues of morality.
This is quite mind-blowing stuff, considering that those liberals would like to impose their own “type” of priest as normative and compulsory for all. Their argument is that if it is good for dissident Anglicans, it is also good for all those Latin American base communities and their Congregationalist ecclesiology to have their own! Little Jonny has to have four sweets, and little Cynthia has to have four sweets. If there’s any squabbling, all eight sweets will go right back into the bag and into the kitchen cupboard. Then it’s fair for all!
Now, we have come to the crux of the matter. Is accepting Anglicans into the communion of the Church a matter of just another dose of inculturation to make the bitter pill of the Gospel relevant and meaningful, or is it a question of the revival of Catholic orthodoxy? Well, we’ll have to give it to these liberals: they hit the nail on the head. They’re dead right.
It is a question of a conception of the priesthood. The flood-gates are not being opened because it would be further secularisation in the Church. For the liberals, the ordination of married men (and the marriage of priests) is an issue that cannot be separated from the cause for the ordination of women and same-sex pseudo-marital unions.
That is the reason. About a year ago, I discovered this organisation in France and contacted one of the priest members. My wife was keenly interested in the idea of contacting married (laicised) priests and perhaps learning a thing or two. We entered into correspondence, and invited this priest and his wife to dinner at our home. And very pleasant they were too. However, we soon began to understand the issues. The priest in question is in his late 70’s and was involved in the worker priest movement in the 1950’s. Those men, fundamentally, had concluded that Christianity had run its course and that the only power in the world that could implement the radical ideals of the Gospel was Marxist Communism.
They become “committed”, meaning that they were acquired to the cause of the Revolution and the class conflict between workers and the factory owners and bourgeoisie, etc. This priest’s charming wife had been a religious sister, and they were married in about 1968. We spoke about non-controversial things like children, non-religious interests like sailing or fishing, but we understood that we had nothing in common in religious terms. I was marked by the fact, according to this laicised priest, that the vast majority of married former Catholic priests are so secularised that they have forgotten every last vestige of their vocations. None says Mass (fortunately, not only because they were no longer serving as priests under a Bishop, but also because they had celebrated in lay clothes on the kitchen table when they were in good standing). A good proportion no longer attend Mass or have any identifiable belief. They would not be asking to return to the priesthood as they have gone so far away from orthodox Catholicism.
The day this vital distinction will be made, and it is understood that married Anglican priests moving towards the Ordinariates and the married laicised men described above have nothing in common, it will be possible to help people understand what superficially looks to the average journalist like hypocrisy.
The issue, in short, is not whether or not we priests have wives – but whether or not we are Catholic in our doctrine, spirituality and understanding of the Catholic Priesthood.
Reflections on Liturgy and Much More
Mar 6th
As some of the older clergy in both Anglican and Catholic traditions are what I would call ‘1970’s dinosaurs’, still thinking about what needs to be discarded in order to be relevant to modern man, some of the younger folk are labouring to recover what the older men spent their careers on destroying. We have recently discussed the language of the liturgy, namely archaic and modern English. Language is important, but not the only consideration in the liturgy.
One of the very first articles I wrote for The Anglo-Catholic was on the Eastward Position. There is also an extremely interesting article in The New Liturgical Movement on Bringing Verticality and Presence back to Free-standing Altars. In our pilgrimage to the Catholic Church, we are obviously concerned for our Anglican patrimony. We should also take Catholic patrimony to heart, the very patrimony that Pope Benedict XVI is trying to recover – and for which he needs the help of Anglicans. It is a task for which men of vision and energy are needed, men who are capable of seeing far beyond the confines of the ‘establishment’ box which perhaps nurtured them.
The concept of the ‘horizontal’ liturgy is hard to explain without an illustration. I have carefully avoided the caricatures many traditionalists choose of clown masses or other such extreme abuses. This is a run-of-the-mill concelebrated Mass one would find in the vast majority of Catholic churches in the world. The main celebrant is wearing a chasuble, and the concelebrants are wearing albs and stoles. What strikes me in this scene is the horizontality of everything. The altar table has nothing on it other than the cloth, the chalice, paten and ciborium (or a metal dish), a missal and perhaps a microphone. The candlesticks are free-standing and the crucifix is off to one side. Asymmetry is often a device for destroying verticality. One very often comes across a pair of stubby candles on one end of the altar (facing the people) and the crucifix on the other end, the microphone in the middle. Here in France, a common arrangement is the chalice and paten on a corporal on the side of the altar facing the people, and the missal in the centre of the altar between the priest and the corporal. Everything is symbolic.
My objective here is not to raise polemics against the modern Roman rite, but to highlight the fact of an emerging tendency within our journey to Rome. Most of us in the TAC are somewhat more ‘traditionalist’ in our liturgical orientations and geared to contributing towards a revival of traditional forms of the liturgy. I think most of us are much more tolerant in regard to the other emerging ‘tendency’ among us that is more inclined to melt into the landscape of contemporary English Catholicism. We should be tolerant and engage in dialogue, that progress be made in our learning and our spirituality. At the same time, I am convinced of the necessity for us to have clear and lucid minds. The world to which we are walking – the Catholic Church – is a difficult one, and we must proceed without romantic ideas of a ‘perfect’ Church as was often dreamt of in the nineteenth century. The Catholic Church (or at least her Pope and the more lucid bishops and clergy) is seeking to recover her own identity and sacredness in the liturgy.
I respect Anglicans who have opted for the modern Roman rite, knowing that they frequently celebrate it in a reform of the reform spirit using traditional music and celebrating with a profound sense of the sacred. I have already said that I am prepared to celebrate the modern Roman rite in situations where it would be the right response to a specific pastoral need. Like the good priests presently in the Church of England, I would interpret the texts and ceremonies in the light of Tradition. It can be done. However, I am convinced that the liturgical spirit can be fully recovered in the Church by the mutual inter-influence of a number of rites, as the Pope has allowed through Summorum Pontificum.
So it should be in the future Ordinariates. How it will all work out is not up to me, but up to men with authority and much more wisdom and experience than I. However, I am positive and hopeful that everything will continue to be impregnated with a spirit of generosity and pastoral welcome. I certainly await the day when it will be possible to minister alongside the many heroic priests here in France who have suffered everything but dungeon, fire and sword for their priestly vocations and pastoral charges.
We must work to understand each other, and walk forward in our long Lent of 2010, perhaps the most historic Lent of our lives, and remembering those who died before seeing the wonders we see today.
“Be Not Afraid!” As We Embark on This Historic Venture
Mar 4th
Back when I was a television producer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I used to receive a lot of free books from publishers hoping I would book the author for a TV interview.
I was attending a seeker-friendly Baptist Church at the time, and adhered to the “It’s just me and Jesus, baby” guide to the Christian faith. I had to understand before I could believe; I had a personal relationship with Jesus and I trusted my conscience to guide me, but would not accept any external authority to guide me except Scripture, which I interpreted with solemn eisegesis.
My exposure to the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church was only just beginning. One of the few journalists in town who was a practicing Christian was a Catholic convert, and I used to meet him and a group of conservative Catholics for lunch once a week. It was where I found out there was such a chap as G.K. Chesterton. But I staunchly defended my “Solas” which, of course, I interpreted my own way too.
One day a package arrived in the mail at work. It was “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” by John Paul II. I confess that I had a little flicker of derision as I opened up the book. Aside from that, I had been indifferent to the man, and I can kick myself now that I was working in Halifax when he visited in 1984 and I didn’t even bother using my press credentials to get close enough to see him.
I opened the book, and I remember reading “Be not afraid,” that he repeated as a refrain, echoing what he had said in his first homily in St. Peter’s Square. The book’s open pages seemed to glow with a warm light and the room got a little brighter.
That was only one of the many little epiphanies, the step by step “clicks” into place of understanding and spiritual growth that have led me to a place where I say “Yes!” to becoming Catholic. It’s been a gradual process over more than 15 years.
All of us are not at the same stage yet. There are “fightings and fears, within, without,” to borrow from a lovely hymn. We are leaping into an unknown, but what is clear, is this: we cannot remain the same. We have been offered a choice and some of us will say “Yes!,” others have not made up their minds, and others seem to have dug in their heels and say they will never fall under the pope’s authority.
I am thankful for the refining fires ahead and I choose to “Be not afraid!” I exhort all of us to “Be not afraid!”
I believe God will richly bless us for our obedience and I look forward to the flow of graces that are bound to come when we are in official communion with the See of Peter.
John Paul II said:
“In the Church–built on the rock that is Christ–Peter, the apostles, and their successors are witnesses of God crucified and risen in Christ. They are witnesses of the life that is stronger than death. They are witnesses of God who gives life becauase He is Love. They are witnesses because they saw, heard, and touched with their hands the eyes and ears of Peter, John, and many others. . . .
You rightly assert that the Pope is a mystery. You right assert that he is a sign that will be contradicted, that he is a challenge. The old man Simeon said of Christ Himself that He would be “a sign that will be contradicted.”
You also contend that, confronted with such a truth–that is, confronted with the Pope–one must choose; and for many the choice is not easy. But was it so easy for Peter? Was it easy for any of his successors? Is it easy for the present Pope? To choose requires man’s initiative. Christ says: “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
He then goes on to explain the Petrine Ministry in terms of service, Servant of the Servants of God.
I have experienced such love and generosity from so many of the Catholic bishops and priests I have come to know in my work for the Catholic Church. We can expect kindness and prayers.
We need not fear. It is Jesus who is calling us home. “Be not afraid.”
Legal and Moral – a Vital Distinction
Feb 27th
I began to write a comment under the recent article dealing with the objection by the Church of Wales against the use of its logo by the Friends of the Ordinariate website. It suddenly dawned on me that this little controversy hinged around something very simple (Occam’s Razor has a very sharp blade!). It is distinguishing between morality and legality.
In legal terms, the institutional organisation bearing the name is the owner of the logo.
In moral terms good Christian clergy and lay people in the Church of Wales have been marginalised by the liberal powers-that-be and it is understandable that the former object to the latter appropriating what should belong to all.
Now this little distinction brings me to a much bigger and important subject. We English can be very rigid in our interpretation of law. The law is what the words say. Were it so simple! We have to have lawyers and judges, not just to apply the law and make wrongdoers pay the price for their misdeeds – but also to interpret the law. As Roger Scruton said in his lecture (see my previous article), the role of the judge is to discover the law.
Now, we come to what I’m really on about. I read a definition by an intelligent young gentleman living in Pennsylvania and running a fascinating blog, defining the Anglican as “one whose Bishop is invited to the Lambeth Conference”. The notion is totally legal and in no way takes subjective factors into account. Legally, he is right. Continuing Anglicans like the TAC or the Anglican Province in America or the APCK are not Anglicans but distinct denominations. Legally, the parent Churches (TEC under the direction of Ms. Schori, the Church of England, etc.) have the right to accuse Continuing Anglicans of abusively using the name Anglican and sue them in consequence.
I have heard that German law forbids the use of the word Catholic by any group not in formal communion with the Episcopal Conference itself in communion with Rome. Of course, being in communion with the Bishops is being recognised by them as being in communion with them. This law does not take the orthodoxy or continuity of internal principles of the parent Church into consideration. Under the law, the Church is a legal entity and a moral person.
Of course, we can then find that a Church has deviated so far from orthodoxy that its activity as a human corporation no longer conforms to the definition and purpose given in the organisation’s constitution or statutes. That is another problem, one on which I am incompetent to judge.
There is another category, that of morality. Morality is not law, but a consideration of principles seen from a more complete perspective. It considers human acts in accordance not only to laws, but also in terms of the finality and the subjective dispositions of the person (physical or moral) concerned. I would strongly recommend reading the works of one of the greatest moral theologians of our times, Fr Servais Pinckaers OP, whom I was lucky and highly privileged to have had as my moral theology professor at Fribourg.
In moral terms, extra-mural Anglicans (and extra-mural Catholics) are those who are defined by their characteristics: doctrine, liturgical tradition, self-identity and others. Morally, extra-mural Anglicans are Anglicans. There are always problems when law becomes detached from morality, and becomes a means for the strong to exploit and oppress the weak. I am brought to think of that fascinating article from a few years ago by our own Bishop Robert Mercer on Extramural Anglicans. Fundamentally, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. An Anglican is one who does Anglican things and identifies as an Anglican. This happens because a community is forced by motivation of conscience to leave the original Church for a serious reason (typically because the parent Church has introduced unacceptable changes and attempted to impose them on all, tolerating no diversity in the matter).
This happened in Anglicanism, and also happened in Catholicism. I think particularly of the Society of Saint Pius X in spite of their having received severe canonical sanctions from Rome, including excommunication of their bishops (the excommunication was lifted in January 2009, but the clergy concerned have no canonical mission for their ministry). They insist on being considered as Catholics. In spite of their legal separation from Rome (which separation is now blurred), they do Catholic things, believe in Catholic doctrine and have valid priests and bishops. There were other schisms in history, where the dissidents were the conservatives, the so-called Jansenist Old Catholics of Utrecht (1725) and the Petite Eglise (1801). There was also the schism of the Old Believers from the Russian Orthodox Church under Czar Peter the Great in the seventeenth century.
Where is the line drawn? Since about the end of the nineteenth century, there has been the phenomenon of men like Joseph René Vilatte and Arnold Harris Mathew, called episcopi vagantes by authors like Peter Anson and Henry Brandreth. This ecclesiastical subculture features hundreds of men claiming a valid Episcopate by virtue of a line of succession (which is no guarantee of validity in most cases). Episcopi vagantes tend to confuse people (or do they?) and draw discredit on the Church every time one of these bishops gets involved in fraud or sexual abuse, or worse. So, Churches get very nervous about who is the real thing and who are the impostors. This problem is more widespread in America, but there are a few in England and Continental Europe. Some of them build up communities that can be seen and visited, and prove to be devout and pious men – and so the question can be asked whether they are genuine “extra-mural” churches rather than frauds and quacks.
We do hope all these issues will become academic and moot as we move into official, formal and canonical communion with Rome. We will not only be praying una cum the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, but we will also have bits of paper signed by the Pope to say that he recognises us to be real Catholics! The years of wandering in the desert will be at an end, and legal and moral will be reunited in their happy marriage.
I hope, that once this happens, we will not be tempted to sneer upon others from our ivory towers of canonicity, but rather reach out to all Christians with compassion and understanding for why they are in that particular situation. The Pope could have sneered at the TAC, saying that we were vagante quacks. He did not, and has opened his arms to us in our poverty and the humility of our bishops being ready to lay their own necks on the block. Let us read the Parable of the Two Debtors – many times, and meditate upon it!
We have understood a vital distinction. Many others have not and continue to cause confusion and heartbreak to the simple. Let us get to work!
Invigorating Words from the Holy Father
Feb 26th
I was reading an address given by His Holiness to the 23rd World Youth Day held in Sydney, Australia in July of 2008. In this address our Pope is speaking broadly concerning the world at large, but I could not help but to contextualize his remarks to our present quest for unity. When he speaks of relativism I could not but think of the “catholicity” claimed by those who seek to maintain the status quo of separation, or the gross misunderstanding that by virtue of claiming the title Christian there exists a “spiritual unity” as opposed to the objective unity demanded by our Savior and His Apostles. However, it is the Pope’s emphasis on the Divine that struck a chord for me, particularly in light of the temptation to focus on the temporal nature of the process toward our goal of the establishment of the Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans, i.e. its seemingly protracted progress, the mixed signals concerning the process, the varying human dynamic, etc. I pray that these abbreviated remarks by the Successor of Peter may be a source of strength.
You are already aware that our Christian witness is offered to a world which in many ways is fragile. The unity of God’s creation is weakened by wounds which run particularly deep… Indeed, society today is being fragmented by a way of thinking that is inherently short-sighted, because it disregards the full horizon of truth–the truth about God and about us. By its nature, relativism fails to see the whole picture. It ignores the very principles which enable us to live and flourish in unity, order, and harmony.
What is our response…? Unity and reconciliation cannot be achieved through our efforts alone. God has made us for one another and only in God and His Church can we find the unity that we seek. Yet in the face of imperfections and disappointments–both individual and institutional–we are sometimes tempted to construct artificially a “perfect” community. That temptation is not new. The history of the Church includes many examples of attempts to bypass or override human weaknesses or failures in order to create a perfect unity, a spiritual utopia.
Such attempts to construct unity in fact undermine it! To separate the Holy Spirit from Christ present in the Church’s institutional structure would compromise the unity of the Christian community, which is precisely the Spirit’s gift! It would betray the nature of the Church as the living temple of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit, in fact, who guides the Church in the way of all truth and unifies her in communion and the works of ministry. Unfortunately the temptation to “go it alone” persists. Some today portray their local community as somehow separate from the so-called institutional Church, by speaking of the former as flexible and open to the Spirit and the latter as rigid and devoid of the Spirit.
Unity is the essence of the Church; it is a gift we must recognize and cherish. Tonight, let us pray for resolve to nurture unity: contribute to it! resist any temptation to walk away! For it is precisely the comprehensiveness, the vast vision, of our faith–solid yet open, consistent yet dynamic, true yet constantly growing in insight–that we can offer the world… Who satisfies that essential human yearning to be one, to be immersed in communion, to be built up, to be led to truth? The Holy Spirit! This is the Spirit’s role: to bring Christ’s work to fulfillment. Enriched with the Spirit’s gifts, you will have the power to move beyond the piece-meal, the hollow utopia, the fleeting, to offer the consistency and certainty of Christian witness!
My dear…friends, receive the Holy Spirit in order to be the Church. Being the Church means being all united as one body which receives its vital force from the Risen Jesus. This gift is greater than our hearts, for it flows forth from the inner life of the Blessed Trinity. It will enable you to live united to one another, to live in communion. Therefore…take up within you the power of Jesus’ life. Let Him enter into your hearts. Let yourselves be molded by the Holy Spirit.
Friends of the Ordinariate (FOTO) Now Welcoming TAC and RCs
Feb 25th
The Friends of the Ordinariate (FOTO) web site is now inviting the participation of members of the TAC (The Traditional Anglican Church/The Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite)) and Roman Catholics.
- If you are a communicant of the TTAC, go here to sign-up.
- If you are a Roman Catholic supporter of the future English Ordinariate, go here.
While the invitation to include the TAC and RCs in this endeavor is laudable, I do want to reiterate that there was no intended slight (against the TAC or any other group) on the part of the FOTO organizers. The project is primarily focused on members of Forward in Faith UK as the organization — unofficially — begins to take the first steps to gauge the support for the Apostolic Constitution. The eagerness of TAC members and Roman Catholics was not anticipated. Thankfully, though, now everyone is able to register their support as we work together to establish the English personal ordinariate!
Photos from Joint Prayer Service
Feb 23rd
On February 2, 2010, the Bishop of the Diocese of the Northeast (ACA/TAC), Brian Marsh, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, Maine, Richard Malone, celebrated a joint prayer service for Christian Unity and the special intention of reunion between the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. Here are several pictures from the historic event.
Realistic Expectations
Feb 18th
On another post, we recently received a comment bemoaning the fact that, despite media reports that his “conversion” was imminent, a certain Church of England bishop (i.e. The Right Rev. John Hind, Bishop of Chichester, whose remarks at the time were misconstrued) had not yet swum the Tiber. ”It never came to pass,” the commenter lamented. What a remarkably myopic perspective some people have!
I shouldn’t have to point out that it’s only been three and a half months since the Apostolic Constitution and its Complementary Norms were released (and there is evidence to suggest that their announcement several weeks earlier was premature). The personal ordinariates proposed in these documents do not yet exist. The Holy See has defined only the contours of the scheme; the details of its implementation must still be negotiated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the various Anglican constituencies involved. Basic practical questions remain unanswered. Specific legal norms and statutes must be drawn-up for each new personal ordinariate. And, it should also go without saying that, as Anglicans, we have our own synodical processes with which to contend.
But things are happening. Yesterday, I provided an abridged timeline:
Just this past Saturday, Forward in Faith Australia directed its National Council “to foster by every means the establishing of an Ordinariate in Australia.” In just a few days, on February 22, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, Anglicans in Forward in Faith UK, led by the provincial episcopal visitors, will be praying for discernment. Beginning on March 1, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America (TAC) will convene in Orlando, Florida; the ACA bishops, together with Primate John Hepworth, will be joined on March 2 by representatives of FiF UK (the Bishop of Fulham) and the Anglican Use/Pastoral Provision in the USA. This conference will be an important step in formulating our response to Anglicanorum Coetibus. In mid-March, bishops of the TAC and Forward in Faith will be in Rome to consult with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and to seek clarification on a number of important points. In Low Week, the College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion will meet in Rome. And it is expected that the first personal ordinariates will be erected as soon as the end of June 2010.
Anglicanorum Coetibus was primarily aimed at the Traditional Anglican Communion, which formally petitioned the Holy See in October of 2007 for such a mechanism to effect corporate reunion with the Catholic Church. After prayer and reflection, this historic appeal on the part of the bishops and vicars-general of the TAC was unanimous and ultimately expressed in the solemn act of signing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, its Compendium, and the Petition to the Holy See in the context of Holy Mass. In the intervening two years, there have been minor changes in the makeup of the TAC College of Bishops, and, of course, the bishops now have the Holy Father’s offer in hand, but the commitment of the Communion remains solid. As Archbishop Hepworth stated in a letter to members of the College of Bishops only yesterday:
…it is the policy of our College, and therefore of the whole Traditional Anglican Communion, to seek unity with the Holy See in the terms of the Petition.
But while the TAC is committed to moving forward — and as expeditiously as possible — the practical considerations which derive from the corporate nature of this transition must not be underestimated. Apart from concerns about liturgy, ordination, and the process for the reception of laity which must be referred to the Holy See, there are complex legal and organizational questions peculiar to the present configuration of TAC entities which must be addressed. How do we migrate our existing legal structures, property, trusts, &c. into the new personal ordinariates? How will we maintain the bonds of communion with — and honor our commitments to — those who remain behind or have yet to make the transition?
And, of course, FiF UK (the other significant group to whom the Apostolic Constitution was addressed) has unique problems of its own…
I want to reassure the readers of The Anglo-Catholic that there is a tremendous amount of work going on behind the scenes to answer these challenging questions to which I have alluded. Much depends on next month’s meeting of Anglican bishops with the CDF; only in the aftermath of this consultation will we have received clarification on a number of key issues. Having established the foundational points, things will finally begin to proceed apace. The bishops of the TAC and Forward in Faith have much work ahead of them — curial consultations, episcopal conferences, presbyteral councils, standing committee meetings, synods must all be conducted — and the next several months will, no doubt, be stressful for the faithful shepherds who have brought us thus far. Please pray for them!
It is understandable that many people are anxious. After all, we have seen human pride — both on the part of Anglicans and Roman Catholics — scuttle many a scheme for reunion. But those to whom the Apostolic Constitution is addressed are pressing ahead. I would simply caution folks to have realistic expectations. It has taken faithful Anglican Catholics over four hundred years to reach this point — another six months or so is not that much more to ask! To despair of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Anglicans have not yet been received into the Catholic Church via the (non-existant) personal ordinariates is extraordinarily naïve and such an attitude can not help but mislead people who are not well-informed. By all reasonable standards, this process is moving at an extremely rapid pace.
Assistant Bishop of Newcastle Received into the Catholic Church
Feb 17th
Damian Thompson is reporting that the former Church of England Assistant Bishop of Newcastle (formerly Anglican bishop in Papua New Guinea and diocesan bishop of Wangaratta in Australia), Paul Richardson, has been received into the Catholic Church.
“I would have become a Catholic even if the Church of England wasn’t ordaining women bishops,” he says. “In a sense I feel it’s what I’ve always been, so this is like coming home.”
Richardson says that he has no plans of joining a future Anglican personal ordinariate, but that he is open to the prospect of ordination in the Catholic Church if the Church should call him.
Chair of St. Peter Day of Prayer Events
Feb 15th
James Bradley has created a Facebook page listing all of the UK events related to the February 22, 2010 Day of Prayer requested by the PEVs. Both Anglican and Roman Catholic communities will be praying for those discerning their future relative to Anglicanorum Coetibus.
The Record of Anglicanism (Expanded)
Feb 15th
This is the second part of a paper sent to me by Fr. Michael Gray on behalf of Fr. Michael Silver, who is priest in charge of St. Alban and St. Henry, Letchworth, a provisional parish of the TTAC in England. He has a web site.
The first part was published here last December 31st.
* * *
Not Anglicans but Angels?
There were once two pending possibilities that seemed remote: London getting the 2012 Olympic Games and the Pope making provision for the corporate reception of Anglicans. Ah well, applied-prophecy was not an option in my degree, no donkey-detection for us. Both prospects have struck alarm in some, whilst generating euphoria in others. Thus the Pope’s invitation was issued 20th October, 2009 whilst on the 8th February, 2010 the Archbishop of York was reported as saying that any such converts would not be “proper Roman Catholics.” This is excellent news because those Anglicans to whom this applies have no intention of becoming (whatever might be meant by) “proper Roman Catholics.” Traditional Anglicans are duty bound to seek the visible unity of Christ’s Church and the offer on the table is from Pope Benedict. One might have dared to hope that even an Anglican archbishop would have known the difference between a “Roman Catholic” and a separated, ethnic communion (and one cannot get much more ethnic than “Church of England”) reconciled to the Holy See. The Pope’s press-release has reopened that delicate topic of Anglican identity and purpose. The underlying irony is that it is we “continuers,” the upholders of Anglicanism, who were first to approach the Pope on this matter.
Me in My Small Corner
Feb 15th
Our judgements are inevitably egocentric. Global events, historic breakthroughs, momentous sweeps of history, are judged by how they impact us and ours.
Not all that long ago I was invited by a small Brit congregation of ours to talk about hopes for reconciliation with Rome. One lady said, “I don’t approve of Catholics. When I’m visiting my granddaughter I go to her church but they won’t allow me to receive holy communion.” I was able to answer, “But if this thing goes through, you will be able to, and when she visits you she can communicate alongside you at this altar rail. No names no pack drill, but there is a loving couple. The husband communicates here and the wife goes to the Roman church. If this thing goes through they’ll no longer be divided. What’s more, if your rector slips on black ice and breaks both knee caps the Roman priest could step in and take your service to help out. Alternatively, if the Roman priest breaks his knee caps your rector could step in to help them. What’s more, if you are holidaying in Scotland or Wales you won’t find a single solitary Traditional Anglican parish in either country, but you’d be welcome at Catholic altars – anywhere in the world for that matter. Perhaps RC bishops may give, rent or sell us a few of their churches, allow our smaller groups the permanent use of side chapels in their larger buildings”. I couldn’t add – because the event had not yet happened – that recently in the USA when a small community of Anglican nuns had been received into the Roman church, not even waiting for the “thing” to go through, some Roman clergy had started learning how to celebrate the [Anglican Use] for the benefit of the sisters.
“In that case”, said the lady, “I’m all for unity. I don’t know whose bright new idea this is, but I support it”. I protested that the idea was not new, “You know that in 1950-something Archbishop Fisher went to meet the Pope; that in 1960-something Archbishop Ramsey did ditto; that they set up a dialogue called Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, ARCIC for short, which sent for two dozen years or so; that this dialogue produced a series of agreed statements about doctrine. Perhaps you studied these statements in your own parish or together with your Catholic neighbours. You know that in 1980-something Pope John Paul II went to meet Archbishop Runcie in Canterbury cathedral; that Prince Charles was present. You know that the Prince once attended the Pope’s private chapel but could not receive. You know that every Archbishop since Ramsey had been to meet the Pope.” No, said the lady, she didn’t read the papers much, listen to the news much, she had no idea about any of this. Besides, the papers tended to garble religious news. (What a mercy she had not so as heard of the blogosphere where dwells the father of lies, the spirit of malevolence). All the lady knew was that when she was a little girl her mother wouldn’t let her play with the Catholic neighbours because Catholics were not quite nice.
When I myself imagine how this Roman thing might impact others, I am delighted for some of them. I think of a couple on the Prairies who live hundreds of miles from the nearest ACCC parish. Yes, they travel when they can but given the winters and the distance, this is not all that often. Yes, they are ecumenically minded and help as much as they can in local Lutheran, Orthodox and Roman parishes, but now they’ll be able to receive in the last of these. The new situation may do little to disturb the even tenor of our well established parishes but it may be of great benefit to smaller groups and individuals, to say nothing of travellers at home and abroad. But even well established parishes may be glad of, say, extra musical help on special occasions, of a pulpit exchange now and then, of joint charitable work, perhaps for Pro Life.
My regret is that this Roman thing was not a possibility thirty years ago. (Even then I was involved in optimistic dialogue: Pope John Paul II preached at Prayer Book Evensong in my former cathedral.) We had in Matabeleland a saintly country parson whom we thought of as our George Herbert. He was a late vocation. He had been a farmer and a high school teacher. English lit was his thing. His father had been a missionary bishop in Mozambique and in South Africa. John’s wife was an equally devout RC. We thought of them as an ecumenical movement all on their own. She kept open the house in the rectory, did the altar guild, played the organ, cleaned the church, attended all of our services. John did handyman jobs in her church, worked for their fête, attended as many of their services as he could. How delighted every RC and Anglican in that Valley would have been to see John and Jo kneeling side by side at the communion rail, to have had the RC priest at our altar, to have had John at their altar.
As for mission in Matabeleland, why did we and Romans have to be rivals when engaged in primary evangelism? There was little Sindebele literature for either of us. We were both in need of prayers and hymns, of music, of schools, of clinics, of rural churches, of catechists and clergy. We faced the same droughts, poverty, civil war. Did we have to duplicate everything?
As for me in my small corner, I am ecstatic: what I’ve been praying for since my teens. I rejoice in being Anglican and in all the gifts God has lavished upon our own tradition, but now I can be in communion with the Bishop of Rome as well. (I’m writing this on the day we remember C. S. Lewis.) The Australian theologian, Mrs Tracey Rowland, has written Ratzinger’s Faith. In the chapter on ecumenism she reports, “He stated that Catholics cannot demand that all other churches be disbanded and their members individually be incorporated into the Catholic church. He hoped the hour would come when churches entering into unity would remain in existence as churches, with only those modifications which unity necessarily requires”. I am delighted that he thinks of the church as a communion of people in Christ rather than an administrative institution, though even antinomian I who see Galatians as the best text book on canon law, recognize that any large body of people need agreed “rules of the road” for freedom and safety of movement.
Like his three immediate predecessors in thinking globally, one of whom said the church has two lungs, East and West, and that these lungs should breathe in harmony, Pope Benedict recognizes that rapprochement between Orthodoxy and the Western church is the most urgent ecumenical goal. Mrs Rowland quotes him, “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than was formulated and was lived in the first millennium … the West would recognize the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” A sense of realism about the fissiparous and unstable nature of Continuing Anglicanism, and about the fissiparous nature of Orthodoxy, discourages us from thinking that the tiny Traditional Anglican Communion on its own can heal the breach between East and West, apart from “the great Latin Church of the West”, as the Lambeth conference of 1920 called the RC church. Increasingly warm relations between Pope Benedict and at least the Russian Orthodox are hopeful.
I rejoice that two brethren of the CR [Community of the Resurrection], Bishop Charles Gore and Bishop Walter Frere, participated in the Malines Conversations, unity talks between Anglicans and RC’s held in Belgium in the years 1921-1925. The most recent book about these Conversations is ‘A Brother Knocking at the Door’ by Bernard Barlow. Chevetonge is a monastery in Belgium founded by a Pope to pray for unity between East and West. Some of the monks observe the Rule of St Basil and use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Other monks observe the Rule of St Benedict and use the RC liturgy. The first Abbot was Dom Lambert Beauduin who also took an interest in Anglicanism. He gave us the lapidary sentence, “An Anglican church absorbed by Rome and an Anglican church separated from Rome are equally inadmissible”. He gave us the proverb ‘United but not absorbed’. But even Malines was not a novelty. Bernard and Margaret Pawley have written Rome and Canterbury Through Four Centuries, an historical account of off and on dialogue down the years. Canon Pawley of St Paul’s cathedral in London was the Anglican church’s first resident ambassador to the Vatican and Director of the Anglican Centre in Rome. Even to this day large numbers of Anglicans and Romans do not know that there is an official operating out of such a Centre. In TAC’s current relations with Rome we are nothing if not traditionally Anglican.
The whole Christian church faces increasingly dark years. Islam, the decline and fall of the West, the rising economic and military might of China. I am inevitably egocentric but even I should try to think globally. The church is not only personal, it is also universal, catholic, according to the whole, kata holos, as our Canadian Prayer Book puts it, “Let us pray for Christ’s Holy Catholic Church”, or as the South African Prayer Book puts it, “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church”.
+Robert Mercer, CR
The Modern Cult of the Pope
Feb 10th
There is a blog I like to follow, run by a Catholic layman of Mexican roots living in California and highly interested in questions of folk religion and Catholicism at its most “natural”. The name of the blog is Reditus: A Chronicle of Aesthetic Christianity. The article that particularly interests me today is On Papalotry. Between those who deny the Pope entirely and those who worship him, we indeed live in unbalanced and spiritually dangerous times!
The article is to some extent inspired by this article concerning the Pope and his relationship with the Church. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries gave a complete caricature of authority in the persons of Hitler and the clown-emperor Mussolini. I am personally persuaded that John Paul II was an extremely devout and spiritual man – but he was also a showman. When the Holy Father was in England in 1982, I remember him preaching in a football stadium about the evils of contraception and abortion – and he received standing ovations and hysterical screaming from the very young women who were probably at that very time discovering their sexual liberation! The words spoken were of no importance to the crowd, but the figure saying them!
I remember buying a copy of the Encyclical Laborem Exercens, the great social teaching of John Paul II in the wake of Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. I don’t think I got beyond the first page of this turgid and barely comprehensible language (I was reading the English translation of course). I find the language of Benedict XVI refreshingly easier to follow and read, much like that of Popes like Pius XII, except that he no longer uses the royal “we”.
In my article on Erastianism, I sketched the development of Papal power throughout the second millennium in particular, and I make no secret of the fact that I would have been an “inopportunist” had I been involved in the 1870 Vatican Council. Like Newman, I would have been opposed to a formal definition of Papal infalliblity in those historical circumstances, but would have pressed for what happened, the infallibility of the Pope being limited to his Extraordinary Magisterium when defining a dogma of faith ex cathedra. In the Petition the TAC Episcopate sent to the CDF in October 2007, this was stated:
- We accept the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, which is a ministry of teaching and discerning the faith and a “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity” and understand this ministry is essential to the Church founded by Jesus Christ. We accept that this ministry, in the words of the late John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint, is to “ensure the unity of all the Churches”. We understand his words in the same Letter when he explains to the separated churches that the Bishop of Rome “when circumstances require it, speaks in the name of all the Pastors in communion with him. He can also – under very specific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council – declare ex cathedra that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith. By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity”. We understand that, as bishops separated from communion with the Bishop of Rome, we are among those for whom Jesus prayed before his death “that they may be completely one”, and that we teach and define matters of faith and morals in a way that is, while still under the influence of Divine Grace, of necessity more tenuously connected to the teaching voice of catholic bishops throughout the world.
- We accept that the Church founded by Jesus Christ subsists most perfectly in the churches in communion with the See of Peter, to whom (after the repeated protestation of his love for Jesus) and to whose successors, our Divine Master gave the duty of feeding the lambs and the sheep of his flock.
- We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium, which we have signed together with this Letter as attesting to the faith we aspire to teach and hold.
- Driven by these realizations, which we must now in good conscience bring to the attention of the Holy See, we seek a communal and ecclesial way of being Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See, at once treasuring the full expression of catholic faith and treasuring our tradition within which we have come to this moment. We seek the guidance of the Holy See as to the fulfilment of these our desires and those of the churches in which we have been called to serve.
The tendency of adoring the Pope is a recent development no older than the mid nineteenth century, and a considerable amount of pressure was applied on the Fathers of Vatican I to define an understanding of Papal authority that would have gone far beyond the limits of Tradition and Catholic orthodoxy. I have read Döllinger’s The Pope and the Council. It is a most illuminating book, but I stop short of denying a dogma that was defined by an Ecumenical Council and which curbed the excesses of both the Gallican remnant and the extreme infallibilists. The moderation of this definition is what I find most comforting and expressive of the power of the Holy Spirit in these solemn moments of the Church’s history.
Much of the nonsense was to a large extent corrected by the constitution of Vatican II Lumen Gentium (of course with the Nota Praevia Paul VI had inserted to correct the “gallican” and liberal tendencies among the conciliar Fathers). Over the past couple of hundred years or so, Popes have been great and devout men, and this has served to nourish the myth of an impeccable figure who did not share the common human condition of fallibility and sinfulness. What happens when we get an immoral or a heretical Pope? This speculation is of actuality in sectarian groups of radical traditionalists called sedevacantists. Theologians have been divided over the question of whether a bad Pope tacitly abdicates and can thus be physically removed by the Cardinals or bishops, or whether one has simply to put up and shut up until he dies. I find the speculation pointless, and no more productive than the sterile arguments of some for obscure quotations of Hooker and the 39 Articles most Anglicans consider of historical interest only!
The myth of the “impeccable” Pope was, for some exploded, for others reinforced, in the wake of Vatican II. The most notable event that profoundly disturbed the life of Catholics was the new rite of Mass issued in 1969 by Paul VI. Other events and teachings also led to the increasing polarisation between conservatives and liberals / progressives. For some time in the late 1980’s, I took an interest in the idea of Western Rite Orthodoxy and its parallel in the “classical” Anglican Continuum, and was attracted to the idea of Western Catholicism modelled on the ecclesiology and spirituality of Eastern Orthodoxy. There appear to be successful Western Rite Orthodox communities in the USA, slightly less marginal than the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church, but on the whole, Anglicans are not well accepted in Orthodoxy. The Old Catholicism of the old archdiocese of Utrecht, French Gallicans like Bossuet and Dupanloup and German intellectuals like Döllinger can be very attractive in theory, but it is exactly that, a theoretical religion devised by intellectuals, and of no relevance to ordinary people. In more recent years, the Union of Utrecht is entirely modelled on Ms. Schori’s Episcopal Church (ugh!) with the radical feminist and LGBT agendas. In considering “non-Roman” Catholicism as an attractive option, I perhaps reacted against having been in my twenties and thirties during the pontificate of John Paul II, the super star Pontiff presiding over a Church that was less and less favourable to a traditional ecclesiology and liturgical life.
When confronted with the writings and opinions of some Anglicans showing their critical attitude in regard to the TAC, my reaction is “saw the film, read the book and went there…”.
The election of Benedict XVI has brought us to a more realistic view of the Papacy, something he himself wanted from the moment of his election in April 2005. I think he is a devout, pleasant and highly cultivated person, but what interests me in Benedict XVI is the content of his teaching and observations on the current situation. Those who worshipped John Paul II are now condemning Benedict XVI for delivering exactly the same moral teachings and “hard sayings”. Of course the Holy Father could die before having neutralised the influences that would bring us back to the 1970’s. We might get an out-and-out evil Pope. Anything can happen. But, I refuse to worry about it.
I think few of us in the future Ordinariates will be tempted to be Pope-worshippers. We are Anglicans and accustomed to intellectual criticism and going into things open-eyed. We do need to remain lucid, not suspicious or fearful but bringing our way into helping the Church to have a more balanced attitude about the Pope and authority in the Church.
Erastianism
Feb 9th
Many Anglicans have heard or read the word Erastian or Erastianism without really understanding what the word really means. Erastianism is a political theory of absolute state primacy over the church. The idea comes from Thomas Erastus (1524-1583), a Calvinist who debated whether religious leaders had the right to punish sinners and dissidents in matters of doctrine. He argued that sinners (against church precepts or morality, or those who for example denied the Trinity) should be punished by the State.
The idea of the State in control of the Church is an old one, and the ultimate cause of the increase in the political power of the Papacy. The Church under Constantine is the first example of an official established Church. History is characterised by the Church being under the control of a strong State and being independent at times when the secular power was weak or non-existent. Soloviev quoted Saint Jerome as saying: Ecclesia persecutionibus crevit; post quam ad christianos principes venit, potentia quidem et divitiis maior, sed virtutibus minor facta est (The Church firstly languished under persecution. After this, she turned to Christian rulers who gave her wealth and power, but she thereby grew weaker in virtue).
The power the Church obtained from kings and emperors prepared the way towards the schisms between Rome and the Oriental Patriarchates, Luther, King Henry VIII and the Church of England, the Church of Utrecht and the Old Catholics. The principle of Cuius Rex eius religio (literally “whose king, whose religion” – the “Vicar of Bray syndrome” – not having any real religious convictions but just going along with one’s country’s ruler, and changing as the regime changed) ran parallel with the rival claims of the Popes. The Church in Russia and the Balkans was subjected to imperial domination, a sort of cæsaro-papalism, and in the West, the rule was papo-cæsarism. The Anglican theologian Eric Mascall, in The Recovery of Unity, made the remarkable observation that “the causes of Christian disunity are to be found in the agreements of Christians rather than in their disagreements”. Does not all this ring a bell in the collaboration of churchmen in present-day anti-Christian agendas?
The historian will easily identify the first step of the rise of the Papacy in the Gregorian Reform undertaken by after Gregory VII (1073–85). The essential theory behind this reform, which imposed clerical celibacy in the western Church, consisted of affirming that the Church was founded by God and entrusted with the task of embracing all mankind in a single society in which divine will is the only law; that, in her capacity as a divine institution, she is supreme over all human structures, especially the secular state; and that the pope, in his role as head of the Church under the petrine commission, is the vice-regent of God on earth, so that disobedience to him implies disobedience to God: or, in other words, a defection from Christianity. This, under Boniface VIII, who issued Unam sanctam in 1302, became the two swords. Both spiritual and temporal power were to be under the pope’s jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Church.
Now we understand the reason for the revolt of Elizabeth I and Henry VIII before her against the Papacy! It was simple rivalry over who pretended political power, the local Monarch or the Pope as Emperor of the world. This is the whole key to understanding what has gone on in the Christian world since the fourth century, but especially since the mid eleventh century, which was – no coincidence – the fateful year 1054, the schism between Rome and the Byzantine Church.
As the power of the Papacy became extreme through centuries of weak kings and princes, that power went to their heads and corruption set in. What do you do when you want a check on the Pope’s power? You’ve got it. Put the Church under secular authority. That is what the Reformation was all about. The doctrines of Protestantism, the famous solas, was all about making priests and bishops unnecessary. If the clergy is not necessary for salvation, you do away with the Pope, bishops and priests at one fell swoop – but don’t imagine for a moment that this was to give freedom to the people! This is where Erastus and the tyranny of the Protestant State came in. The people would go on tithing, but no longer to the clergy but to line the pockets of politicians and corrupt officials.
When I consider all this, I look upon the demise of Establishment Anglicanism with a feeling of relief. I compare it with the demise of European Establishment Catholicism in the nineteenth century, in the wake of the French Revolution. The doctrine of the separation of Church and State, as it developed in nineteenth century liberalism, was called madness by Gregory XVI in 1832 when he condemned Lamennais. But, it was the only solution for the freedom of the Church from atheistic and anti-clerical political authorities. This is what the document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, was all about. The State and the Church are two radically separate entities.
Some traditionalists would like to see the State reinforce their agenda and uphold the Social Kingship of Christ. They are living in a fantasy world. The people they would ask to punish heretics by putting them in prison and making them pay fines are those who legislate for abortion, divorce, same-sex marriage and curbs on religious expressions in public places. But, the price of disestablishment is not having the grand buildings one had and the money to finance their upkeep. The Church becomes a private enterprise and has to be financed as such, either by getting people to tithe or earning money.
The Church lives in a world of negative secularism, the ideology that has reigned in France since the Revolution and the anti-clerical era of the 1900’s. It now characterises England’s New Labour and political correctness. The Church does just fine if it collaborates with all this stuff, accepts secular moral / ethical tenets, waters down any requirement religion will make of our moral conduct. But, from the moment the Church complains about abortion, equal opportunities laws to an unreasonable extent – and so forth, persecution is not far away.
I am brought to realise that one aspect of Anglican patrimony will have to go, that of Erastianism or its modern equivalent. It is ironic that some of those who are most vocal in upholding “classical” Anglicanism are those who live in countries where the Church is free in a free State. Isn’t it amazing that you don’t find this way of thinking in England? A few days ago, I received a series of highly rude and aggressive e-mails from a person claiming to be an ordinary Anglican lay parishioner in the north of England. I am English, and know our people have lived under the Established Church. I examined the headers of the e-mails in question, and found the IP address based in Florida – an American! Of course! Is it not amazing that those who live in a free country are those who often despise the freedom of other people’s consciences? Thank goodness there are some wonderful American Anglicans and Catholics who are grateful to be free and love the freedom of others!
At last, we have a Pope who is a theologian and a historian. He has no ambition to be a secular emperor, but he does take his role to govern the Church seriously, and will not allow himself to be trodden underfoot by the atheist and the negative secularist. The Church has to live in a secular world, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The USA is an example of a secular state that traditionally respects the freedom of conscience and all religions. The price of the Church’s freedom from political interference is the freedom of non-religious people from specifically religious tenets. We can’t have it both ways.
For the first four centuries of the Church’s existence, Christians lived either under persecution or indifference. The Christian community celebrated the liturgy and the Sacraments, studied the Scriptures and the Fathers, prayed and waited for the Parousia. Today, it is the life of monks, and increasingly of the rest of us. We try to have a moral influence on the world as much as possible, but we should try to do so through positive witness and not violence and shows of fanatical behaviour. We are free, but we no longer have the power churches once had. The price is paid and our survival depends on the authenticity of our religion and the quality of our faith, love and prayer.
We will be observed and judged for our love for each other.
Apologia for Christianity
Feb 8th
One of my favourite quotes from Pope Benedict XVI is in The Ratzinger Report, published in 1985, pp. 129-30:
The only really effective apologia for Christianity comes down to two arguments, namely, the saints the Church has produced and the art which has grown in her womb. Better witness is borne to the Lord by the splendour of holiness and art . . . than by the clever excuses which apologetics has come up with to justify the dark sides which, sadly, are so frequent in the Church’s human history.
A couple of months ago, I sent a few articles to The Anglo-Catholic about the liturgy. I have been somewhat dismayed to find discussions on liturgy bogged down in discussions on how liturgical texts express this or that doctrine. I found some strings of comments on the epiclesis quite boring! I wrote the posting to invite discussion from a strictly liturgical and historical point of view – and much of it swung to apologetics and the usual single-issues.
I would love to see us moving away from “armchair apologetics” and to the contemplation of God through liturgy and beauty. Has anyone read any of Dom Odo Casel’s works? The most well-known has been translated into English under the title The Mystery of Christian Worship. Dom Casel was a German Benedictine monk and died in 1848 as he bore the triple candle on Holy Saturday to the chant of Lumen Christi. He wrote some of the most beautiful theology of the liturgy I have ever read along with Fr Alexander Schmemann.
Has anyone reading The Anglo-Catholic been converted through the beauty of the liturgy, and can you relate your experience?
Vital Distinctions
Feb 6th
Last November, I was invited to contribute to the discussions of a “round table” organised by the French traditional Catholic association Reunicatho. About 200 persons turned out to this get-together at the Palais de Congrès, just next to the magnificent Château of Versailles built in the glorious years of the French Kingdom under Louis XIV. As I walked past the magnificent Royal Chapel, I could not help hearing Marc Antoine Carpentier’s Te Deum in my mind.
I did not prepare anything in advance. I merely had the idea that I would give a brief introduction to the Catholic movement in Anglicanism and a positive appreciation of the Apostolic Constitution. As I listened to people’s contributions, priests and laity alike, the more I saw a completely new spirit in the French traditionalist milieu. Of course I write about the part of the traditionalist world that is in communion with Rome and loyal to the Church’s magisterium. There was the Abbot of Randol, an eminent French Benedictine Abbey founded by Fongombault, priests from several dioceses, the Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, several religious communities, from all over. No one from the Society of St. Pius X was present, not that they weren’t invited. I definitely saw a will to pull down the walls of shame, and not a few comparisons were made with the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago. John Paul II brought down Communism, and Benedict XVI is bringing down the causes of disunity and conflict in the Church.
As I listened to the magnificent contributions of Professor Luc Perrin, a specialist in church history from Strasbourg University, Fr. Chanut, a diocesan priest with decades of hands-on pastoral experience and devout laymen anxious for their children to have a proper Catholic education, I began to put my notes together and find inspiration. These are white-hot devout souls, anxious to serve God and the Church they clearly love.
I began by underlining that Benedict XVI is the Pope of Catholic Unity, and Christian Unity, because he is doing everything to give Catholics the traditional Latin Mass they love, reaching out to the Orthodox, and especially laying everything on the line for us Anglicans who want to leave the Reformation mess and bring the positive and Catholic aspects of our Anglicanism into the Church, so that everyone can benefit from it.
Listening to many poignant tales from French Catholics in the dioceses and religious communities, I was struck by the parallel pilgrimage of these traditional Catholics and our years of combat as Anglicans. These are two aspects of a single and same combat for the soul of Christ’s Church. This was an utterly moving experience to come to this awareness!
I outlined the conflicts in 16th century England, against which the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre against the Marxist-inspired rebel clergy of the dioceses was but a mere picnic. We Anglicans have seen this all before, and were doctoring up the Prayer Book to make a Mass of it 150 years before the reform of the reform was ever thought of. Our Anglican priests in the late 19th century, Fr. Mackonachie and Fr. Stanton, among many other heros of those days when Ritualist priests were persecuted, were the precedents of the Mass centres in the 1970’s and 80’s, Archbishop Lefebvre and the seminary of Ecône. I quickly traced the history of the Catholic movement in the Church of England, referring my audience to the many books and web sites from which they can learn a general history of Anglicanism. Those French people have hard heads, and it takes a lot to get the message through!
Then I brought up the subject of the Continuing Anglican Churches, some of which formed the TAC in 1992, and ever since, there has been an off-and-on dialogue with Rome in the person of Cardinal Ratzinger. I described our big meeting in October 2007 in Portsmouth, in that beautiful Victorian church of St Agatha near the Royal Navy dockyard, and our warm relations with Bishop Broadhurst and Forward in Faith.
I see this whole thing with Rome as a kind of triptych: the announcement made on 20th October by Cardinal Levada, the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms released on 9th November, and – finally – the specific response to Archbishop Hepworth and the entire TAC Episcopate that signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is now possible to talk business. No one in the Catholic Church is telling us that the Apostolic Constitution is a tablet in stone to take or leave. There will be meetings and talks, and then the final approach to establishing the first Ordinariate like the pilot who finely adjusts the controls of his aircraft before reaching the runway for landing.
It is essential to realise that this is not about us individuals or saving our own vocations and little lives we have built up over the years. This is about the Church and the re-evangelisation of the apostate “post-Christian” western world. We can help this wonderful new movement in the French traditional Catholic world, Tradiland as they nickname themselves, to look for harmony, peace and forgiveness after so many years of conflict fed by a certain unscrupulous sensationalist media. We can also help other movements all over the world who have doggedly kept the Faith, and have also kept Hope and Charity! The Church has been wounded by conflict for so long. We are here to help you. I believe this is our vocation as Anglican Catholics (or Catholic Anglicans if you prefer) in the mission of the Universal Church.
Now, as that sweet day of closeness to the good Summorum Pontificum Catholics remains in my memory, we are still faced with meanness and stinginess in the columns of blogs more or less near the Society of Saint Pius X position. We read from an Italian source that Bishop Fellay said the talks were useless, and that no agreement would ever be reached in human terms. What is wrong with these people? I can give an example of what is wrong, what Bishop Peter Elliott said – They distort the Pope’s offer because they cling to small fiefdoms and purist enclaves.
I see less and less difference between the position of sectarian “classical Anglicans” and the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X who trash the Catechism and every positive move and piece of teaching that came out of Vatican II. I sometimes wonder what would happen if some of the former category actually met up with the Maurrasian Action Française skinheads from Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet! I suppose it would be like a “friendly” meeting between the supporters of Manchester United and Arsenal after the match and a good number of pints of beer.
Why are people so intent of throwing away the gifts of God’s generosity and that of the first Pope to give us hope in a long time? What do they want, for the Holy Father to pack it all up and say it was a joke? They would say, as did a character in Robert Bolt’s The Mission describing the destruction of the Jesuit missions in South America and the enslavement of the natives – You must work in the real world. And the real world is thus. Do we not cast our mind to some who say on their blogs that Bishop Elliott doesn’t know what he is talking about? Cardinal Altamirano replies – Oh no. Thus we have made it.
I have a feeling that those few who make it home to Holy Mother Church will be those who have understood. Those who stay out in the cold will be those who wanted just that.
United in Communion, but Not Absorbed
Feb 5th
UNITED IN COMMUNION, BUT NOT ABSORBED
Understanding the Pope’s Welcome
By Bishop Peter J. Elliott
Auxiliary Bishop, Melbourne
AT their November Meeting, 2009, the members of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference appointed me their Delegate for the Australian project of establishing “a Personal Ordinariate for Anglicans who wish to enter full communion with the Catholic Church”, to use the words of Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.
Before I explain what this involves, I should introduce myself. I was born into Anglicanism, in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. My father, Rev. Leslie Llewelyn Elliott, was for some time President of the Australian Church Union. While studying theology at Oxford, in St Stephen’s House, I followed my conscience and was reconciled to “Rome” in 1968. I then studied for the priesthood in Melbourne and was ordained in 1973. After parish appointments, work as a bishop’s secretary and doctoral study in Rome, I served for ten years in the Roman Curia, Pontifical Council for the Family. I returned to Melbourne in 1997 to work for Archbishop Pell in preparing the religious education texts, To Know, Worship and Love. Then I served as a parish priest and Director of the John Paul II Institute before ordination to the episcopate in June 2007.
Am I grateful for my Anglican heritage? Yes, I am. Where did I first learn the Catholic Faith? At home, in the vicarage.
Therefore I rejoiced when news of the Ordinariate came from Rome. I have been hoping for something like this for years, having addressed Forward in Faith Australia on the “Roman option” in 2006. As that talk indicates, I never imagined such a generous provision would be made in response to traditional Anglican appeals to Rome.
But what does Pope Benedict’s welcome and offer involve? You have to be clear about this before saying “yes”, “no”, even “maybe”.
The Pastor of the nations is reaching out to give you a special place within the Catholic Church. United in communion, but not absorbed – that sums up the unique and privileged status former Anglicans will enjoy in their Ordinariates.
Catholics in full communion with the Successor of St Peter, you will be gathered in distinctive communities that preserve elements of Anglican worship, spirituality and culture that are compatible with Catholic faith and morals. Each Ordinariate will be an autonomous structure, like a diocese, but something between a Personal Prelature (as in Opus Dei, purely spiritual jurisdiction), or a Military Ordinariate (for the Armed Forces). In some ways, the Ordinariate will even be similar to a Rite (the Eastern Catholic Churches). You will enjoy your own liturgical “use” as Catholics of the Roman Rite. At the same time your Ordinaries, bishops or priests, will work alongside diocesan bishops of the Roman Rite and find their place within the Episcopal Conference in each nation or region.
There is no “hidden agenda” here, no popish trap! So beware of warnings from certain traditional Anglican bloggers or pamphleteers. They distort the Pope’s offer because they cling to small fiefdoms and purist enclaves – where they do as they wish. Indeed, the Ordinariates come under the discipline of the Church and her laws, but the Code of Canon Law is also a detailed charter of our rights as clergy and laity.
The decision to be reconciled through an Ordinariate can only made through following personal conscience, that is, after prayer, study and reflection. This is a step of faith in Jesus Christ and his Church. It involves accepting all the teachings of the Church on faith and morals.
Such a personal assent of faith needs to be formed and informed. To use an Anglican expression, please “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest” the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This summarises the Faith “once given”, embodied in one Word of God that comes to us, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, through Scripture and Tradition.
There will be sacrifices, but humility and suffering are parts of a faith journey – and many of you have already suffered much for the sake of conscience.
Yet you do not come to the Ordinariates with empty hands. As I learnt forty two years ago, you will lose nothing – but you will regain an inheritance stolen from us four centuries ago. That heritage was largely recovered by the giants of the Oxford Movement. I believe they smile on us now. In these early days, let us keep praying with them, so that together we may patiently work out how Pope Benedict’s project can be achieved.
Source: The Messenger (www.themessenger.com.au)
New Serbian Patriarch Seeks Dialogue with Catholic Church
Feb 4th
The newly-enthroned patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church has called for dialogue to overcome differences with the Catholic Church and is open to the possibility of a papal visit to Serbia in the near future. Even before he was elected, Bishop Irinej signalled his desire to see the Serbian Church improve ties with the Vatican. The 80-year old Patriarch Irinej, a moderate churchman in the very conservative Serbian Church, has proposed 2013, the 1700th anniversary of the promulgation of the Edict of Milan under Constantine the Great, as a “good opportunity … to meet and talk,” saying that, “with God’s help this (dialogue) would continue to overcome what had happened in history and take a new, Christian road.” He has suggested a joint ceremony to commemorate this event, to involve the Pope and Orthodox leaders, and has proposed the Serbian city of Niš, Constantine’s birthplace and his former bishopric, as the location.
The Pope (at least in modern times) has never visited Serbia. Until now, the Serbian Orthodox Church had opposed such a visit, and the Balkan wars of the 1990s largely fought between Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats exacerbated the tensions. The recent past “was not the right moment (for the papal visit) and we decided to postpone it for more peaceful times,” said Patriarch Irinej.
Prayers of Archbishop Laud for the Church
Feb 4th
The following prayers are taken from The Private Devotions of Dr. William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Martyr, edited by the Rev. Frederic(k) W. Faber, B.A., Fellow of University College, J.H. Parker, Oxford, 1838, a reprint of A Summarie of Devotions, Compiled and used by Dr. William Laud, Sometime Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Now Published according to the Copy written in his own hand, and reserved in the Archives of St. John Baptist’s Colledge [sic] Library in Oxon., printed by William Hall, anno Dom. 1667.
From the Preface to the 1838 reprint:
His martyrdom saved the Church at the time. The evil spirit was cast out; and though outside her walls it raged violently, and did her much harm, yet it was not able then to re-enter, so long as his body lay across the breach. If there are any symptoms in these days of the revival of like spirit, it may bring to our minds very fearfully those words of Jeremiah, (xxvi. 15.) which the venerable Martyr quoted so emphatically on the scaffold:
“But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears!”
Somehow these prayers seem just as apposite today as they were in the 1640s. The “rents of the Church” are indeed grievous and “we have done wickedly,” but let us pray with Archbishop Laud that God will “let not all the trouble seem little before [Him] that hath come upon us” and finally grant unto us the unity that Our Blessed Lord desires. Ut omnes unum sint!
* * *
ECCLESIA.
DOMINICA V. POST EPIPHANIAM.
O LORD, we humbly beseech thee to keep thy church and household continually in thy true religion, that they which do lean only upon hope of thy heavenly grace, may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; and that I may humbly and faithfully serve thee in this thy Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Gracious Father, I humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church, fill it will all truth, in all truth with peace. Where it is corrupt purge it; where it is in error, direct it; where it is superstitious, rectify it; where any thing is amiss, reform it; where it is right, strengthen and confirm it; where it is in want, furnish it; where it is divided and rent asunder, make up the breaches of it; O thou Holy One of Israel. Amen.
O merciful God, since thou has ordered me to live in these times, in which the rents of thy church are grievous, I humbly beseech thee to guide me, that the divisions of men; may not separate me either from thee or it that I may ever labour the preservation of truth and peace, that where for and by our sins the peace of it succeeds not, thou wilt yet accept my will for the deed, that I may still pray, even while thou grantest not, because I know thou wilt grant it when thou seest it fit. In the mean time bless, I beseech thee, this Church in which I live, that in it I may honour and serve thee all the days of my life, and after this be glorified by thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
O Lord, thou hast brought a Vine out of Egypt, and planted it (Psalm lxxx. 8.); thou madest room for it, and when it had taken root and filled the land. O why hast thou broken down her hedge, that all which go by pluck off her grapes? The wild boar out of the wood rooteth it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it. O turn thee again, thou God of hosts, look down from heaven, behold, and visit this Vine, and the place of the vineyard that thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest so strong for thyself. Lord, hear me, for Jesus Christ his sake. Amen.
O Lord, except thou buildest the house, their labour is but lost that build it: and except thou, O Lord, keep the city, that watchman waketh but in vain. It is but lost labour to rise early, and take late rest, and to eat the bread of carefulness (Psalm cxxvii. 1, 2.), if thou bless not the endeavours that seek the peace and welfare of thy Church. Therefore, O Lord, build thy Church and keep it, and take care for it, that there may be no lost labour among the builders of it.
Ecclesia Angl. post Possessiones direptas. O Lord our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God; O thou which keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee that hath come upon us, upon our priests, upon the houses built and dedicated to thy name, upon the maintenance from them that serve at thy altar, upon our kings, state, and people since that day of affliction. Thou art just in all that is brought upon us: for thous hast done right, but we have done wickedly (Nehemiah ix. 32, 33.). Yet, O Lord, have mercy, and turn to us again, for Jesus and his mercy sake. Amen.



