As it is commonly understood amongst Anglo-Catholics the Church is Catholic with branches which make up a society. For Anglo-Catholics it is argued that the 'branch theory' supports the Anglo-Catholic ecclesiology as a Communion within the society of the Catholic Church. So, as Anglo-Catholics (AC) our tradition will argue that we are a branch of the Catholic society along with the Roman church and the Eastern church. But, there are a number of issues facing this ecclesiology.One is that AC views have not won general recognition within the Anglican Communion as the legitimate expression of Catholic ecclesiology. Can we say that there is in existence an Anglican authority that can be pointed to that determines what the communion teaches? The obvious answer is no. So, how are we to understand a right ecclesiology with regards to there not being a unity of mind and authority about what it means to be a Catholic society let alone in communion with the two other branches of the Church? Strangely enough, the other two branches have not recognised the Anglican Communion as a part of the 'society' of Catholic churches. Without an official statement of contemporary Anglican authority there is no where to really look for essential beliefs of the communion. Perhaps this is why we can look hard at ourselves and see that the cafeteria approach to being Catholic is not working towards full unity.
One of the important matters for me as I seek to understand a sacramental ecclesiology is the issue that within the society of the Catholic Church there is no intercommunion of members. This obviously runs counter to Jesus' prayer that we be one. In order for this to take place it seems there must be a ministry recognised by all that is universal. We might begin by asking, what is the proper constitution of the Anglican Communion that is lacking in the other branches of the Catholic Church? How can the Mystical Body be the res of the Eucharist if there is not a single communion? Are we called to look for a 'potential' society or something more than that? Is the Church a single visible entity? If it is a true society whose potential is to be a single entity how has the Anglican Communion worked towards an actualisation of that single society? Are we working against it?
I believe that these are very important theological questions to discuss and think about and open discussion on matters facing Anglo-Catholics. We should not be afraid of these tough questions and we should be willing to acknowledge what is lacking in the Anglo-Catholic ecclesiology that needs further work and more active movement towards a single communion. In my mind this is the essential question facing Anglo-Catholics, not what can be provided provisionally that further delays unity of communion. Bishop John Hind has it absolutely right, 'We seek communion not provision.' That is what I am hoping and praying towards.
21 comments:
The Anglican Communion is a matter of opinion.
I personally feel that the argument for provision is under-valued. I feel that the Catholic Church should consider being generous in making provision that would allow the Communion to be a house of many mansions. We cannot be fully in Communion until we are most fully ourselves, and as Anglicans that means bringing the fruits of our years of exile back with us to the Catholic Church.
Thanks for the comment. My question would be on whose terms and who decides on what is brought back and what is it that is brought?
Look back to 1992 for a precedent. In England there was no attempt to enter the Catholic Church corporately. The many (some thousands when the laity are included) who were then received into the Church made their submission on an individual basis and nobody expected otherwise beyond a minute phalanx of day-dreamers who stayed put. Sorry, honey, nobody can be received on their own terms beyond Tony Blair, evidently. And he has recently had his knuckles rapt by the Archbishop of Westminster.
Are you going to put up with being called "Honey" by an Anonymous?
The question, as always, Jeff, is when are you going to put your money where your mouth - so incessantly and tediously - is? The answer - oh, so obviously! - is that you won't actually do it, unless and until you secure yourself some nice RC parish where they will accept the imposition from the RC hierarchy of a married priest with six children who demands (by his lights) decent musical standards (actually, Anglican musical standards). It may happen - or it may not. In either case, it has really nothing at all to do with theology.
LBS
Well, honey is nicer than other things I'm called on here so I won't complain too much! I believe individual reception is practically the only way that it can happen as well unless a lot of things change. With all the difficulties amongst Anglo-Catholics with regards to marriage and divorce for instance is enough to keep the Catholic Church busy for another 100 years.
My only question would be, can what happened in America with the Anglican Use parishes be accomplished on a larger scale? Within England, I am not convinced it can but I am open to the discussion and to be proven wrong.
sick and tired,
i guess we will have to see. until then, feel free to get it all out of your system.
Might be easier if you didn't censor your site. You lot have always been good at that. But it never works.
I can only help you with prayers, but please be assured of them in liberal quantities.
Little Black Sambo
You've clearly got sunstroke, honey, in spite of your umbrella.
Fr,
To answer your question, I'm not sure. I admit that it would have to be thrashed out, and making conditions might seem like a form of disobedience. However, I feel that certain "cultural indices" of Anglo-Catholicism would need to be carried over for pastoral reasons. Things like married priests, the full variety of liturgical texts like the Prayer Book (at least in part), English Missal etc. The baggage of our exile.
Some blog readers can be quite aggressive, no?
Fr. Jeff,
Perhaps we can work through reasoned logic here. You say your 'only question' is whether a comparable provision to Anglican Use could be allowed by Rome in England.
If the answer is 'No' then you would become Roman Catholic. If the answer is 'Yes' then there is no reason not to become Roman Catholic now because you would likely be assigned to serve in the equivalent of an Anglican Use parish (or called upon in some fashion) due to your vast knowledge of Anglican heritage. And the time would not be in the least lost or wasted---it could only benefit you and the Church---because you would bring with you the gained knowledge of what it means to be Roman Catholic, thereby serving your newly assigned parish with a complete catechesis. Apparently, there is no time to waste.
This is difficult to answer and yes I can see a reason to why it would be important for catholic minded Anglicans to bring over what they consider to precious to them.
However, one must understand that much of the Prayer Book was written by the heretic Cramner much of that will not remain if Unity is sought.
At the same time there is a recognition of the charity that surely should be shown to those that seek unity and so there are things to which we must be flexible.
Personaly speaking, not for the Church, of course. I think that this current generation should be given a pass they should keep their Bishops (even if married) and their married priest.
Also reguarding the rite of the Mass may be a rebirth of the the Sarum Rite is in order for England. I would think that to be good start.
Anon,
I am not sure the Prayer Book is an issue for Anlgo-Catholics here in England at all since almost all traditionalist would already be using the Roman Rite. I think the patrimony that most of all would be precious is pastoral care. There is something positive I think about being a Church for the country and all people. That is not to say I particularly like what has become a neo-Erastianism. The real issue I think is that the Catholic 'conversion' almost has to be in many instances an individual decision. So, how that all works out corporately is a very interesting question.
Fr. Jeff,
You're right, it is an individual decision. Even **if** done corporately, the individual still decides (understanding there will be families w young children, etc.). The fact remains: you decide. I did, and everyone else I know did...and are so doing, as we speak. All done as individuals. Involves fear & takes courage. Result: delirious joy. More now than 25 years ago when I made the decision.
As a high church Lutheran with an affinity for high church Anglicanism, my concern is somewhat similar to that of ex fide's concern. For me, I would like Rome to formally acknowledge specific individuals who have lived in the last 450 years who may have not been in communion with Rome, but whose lives are worthy of recognition and whose writings were largely within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy(sainthood, I understand, would be asking for too much, but at least some sort of continuing acknowledgment). With individual conversions instead of some sort of corporate union, I am afraid that the memory of individuals such as Michael Ramsey and Dietrich Bonhoeffer would be lost in history in favor of those from the same time period who were in communion with Rome. Along those same lines, I would like Rome to acknowledge certain writings from those outside of communion with Rome from the last 450 years as being within the bounds of catholic orthodoxy so they are not cast upon the dust heap of history, either. A specific example I can think of where such a recognition was discussed was the proposal by some Catholic scholars in the 1970s to recognize the Augsburg Confession as an authentic statement of the Catholic faith, a movement which was supported by none other than then-Archbishop Ratzinger.
I suppose what we must demand of ourselves (and presumably what Christ in His Body demands of us) is very difficult---Which is more compelling & demonstrates Christ to the world: Our willingness to relinquish our denominational and personal desires to be One in unity; or to remain detached and retain our partisan, denominational, and personal desires, complaints, and theologies?
Anglo-Catholicism's Catholic future in England is as RC national parishes, like the Anglican Use ones are but in England less Anglican, much less Prayer Book.
It is not a long list but didnt Pius XII call Karl Barth the most important theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas or something in that context.
I would say that is an endorsement.
@Jay:
The sort of thing you're hoping for is not likely to happen anytime soon at the level of, say, the CDF. That is to say, I don't think we'll be seeing in the near future a document from Rome celebrating the orthodoxy of, to use your example, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
That being said, recognition of Protestant writers has been happening for quite awhile now at the level of Roman Catholic scholarship. At the parish level, it can also be seen in a different sense with the incorporation of Protestant hymns into Catholic worship. Finally, one may look to the popularity among lay Catholics of authors like Bonhoeffer, and especially C.S. Lewis.
I should also point out that these phenomena are not only to be found in the context of institutions, parishes, and individuals that would commonly be thought of as progressive (to use one of the Catholic blogosphere's many shibboleths). Taking the example of liturgy, my own parish, known for being one of the most conservative in the diocese, has two Latin Masses every Sunday: one using the Missal of 1962, one using the reformed missal. The former, of course, cannot employ any music that isn't in Latin; for the latter, however, the choir director regularly makes use of Protestant hymns, with or without the original words. That may not amount to the official recognition that you're looking for, but it points about as far in that direction as we are likely to see in the near future.
I'd also like to point out that if I, as a Catholic, cannot recognize the orthodoxy of a Protestant writer, this does not automatically entail that I will consign his or her works to the dustbin! To put this another way: the names of Origen and Tertullian won't be invoked in the Litany of the Saints anytime soon (or at least I hope not; at certain parishes, anything can happen). Yet the writings of these men are considered to be extremely important by Catholic scholars everywhere—and not just as heresies to be refuted. The wounds of the Reformation are, perhaps, still a little too raw for its most prominent authors to attain to such a rank; it may be, however, that one day this will be the case. Again, it's not a declaration of sainthood. It is, however, something amounting to positive recognition all the same.
Pax+
Matt
Post a Comment