On June 7, 2009 I resigned as a priest in the Church of England. On July 18, 2009 I was received into full communion in the Catholic Church. I have been asked numerous times if I am sorry that I left when I did as a result of the news this week from the Vatican on what Pope Benedict XVI is graciously offering Anglicans. The answer is a theological profound no way. I am a Catholic now and I have never been more happy about my personal decision to depart when I did. I could do no other as it was an issue that impacted the salvation of my soul as one who was theologically convinced of Catholic theology and what it meant to be a Catholic in communio with the Holy Father and the universal Catholic Church.This decision was all the more confirmed after listening to my former affiliation FiF UK's discussion at their general meeting tonight. I was at the meeting this past February and it was at that meeting where I decided that what I understood to be Catholic was not what I was hearing from many. This present meeting is even more clear than the one in February that all the talk of being Catholic 'seems' to be not much more than what the individual wants to believe is Catholic. To be perfectly honest, it almost feels like a bluff has been called and some are standing there asking why they entered the game of praying for unity now. Sitting and listening to those speeches made me sad and realise that for many in the C of E, the issue that alone makes them 'feel' Catholic is being against the ordination of women or so it seems. Let me state clearly that I did not leave the C of E over women's ordination or homosexuality though in regards to both of these issues I hold the Catholic orthodox line. I became Catholic because being Catholic was true, the primacy of Peter and his infallibility is true and the lack of the Magisterium in Anglicanism leaves the priest with nothing other than his (or now her) own opinion. I am afraid that this sort of approach has nothing to do with true Catholicism. This approach has nothing to do with the theological idea of communio in the writings of the Holy Father either.
Sitting here in my study and sipping on some Ruby Port, I am finding the addresses to be very difficult to listen to. I honestly wonder how it is that I belonged to a movement that gives appearances of not really wanting real reunion with Rome when it has finally been offered with some real substance. What I hope becomes clear to those at this Assembly is that the Holy Father is NOT putting forth some document to be revised by a revision committee or determined by a popularity of a majority as something akin to a general synod. Sorry folks, that is not the Catholic way. It's not about lace and birettas; it's about authority and truth. There is all sorts of talk about Eucharist and ecclesiology and an ecclesial solution to their problems but this language is becoming all the more nothing save fancy rhetoric. It is really time to take a closer look at what is the substance of being Catholic. I was absolutely shocked and grateful for the generosity and love our Holy Father is offering the Anglican worldwide communion and then only to hear the voices of people claiming to be Catholic at this meeting and longing to remain Anglicans and CofE blows the mind.
To me, there is a strong disconnect with regards to the issue of Eucharistic ecclesiology and episcopal office. There is a seemingly real misunderstanding about the structures of a universal Church with regards to Eucharistic theology. There seems to be a lack of acknowledgment concerning the mission of a bishop as a Eucharistic point of unity and much more. I am afraid that what has not yet really happened to many is a true conversion to a Catholic way. I mean that in the best sense of the definition of Catholic. Because it is a real conversion of heart to make one give up everything and follow Jesus' call to unity. Sacrifice is involved and one has to be willing to sacrifice all if we are to have the substance of the Christian life. There is nothing to be salvaged in my opinion about Anglicanism as an 'ism'. The Reformation is one of the greatest tragedies in ecclesial history. Why the assembly is not falling down on its knees and thanking God for answering their prayers in this Newman moment is really mind-boggling.
Many might ask me why I care. The answer is, because our Holy Father and pastor just extended a hand of welcome for reunion and reconciliation beyond what any could imagine and they have to think about it...I hope the Vatican isn't listening to that assembly.
What I feel is most problematic is that so many claim to have been praying for the very thing that the Holy Father has given and even more and now what is in reality a lovely piece of fish seems to be treated as if it were only a stone. Sadly, this all seems a bit ungrateful to me.
Clarification: This post is not addressing the wonderful speeches made by the PEV's as I believe they have done all they can to promote and seek unity. Many others in that assembly have as well. What I feel like this morning is not much different from last night after hearing other speakers. I have a high emotional involvement in unity with the dissertation I am about to finish and this new move by the Holy Father will need writing into my final chapter I am about to finish. Please God, may their meetings today bring about a warm embrace of what the Holy Father is offering worldwide!I will happily offer my Daily Office for everyone at that meeting today...May God's Spirit of unity and love be on us all!
24 comments:
Sadly, I couldn't agree with you more, Jeffrey.
I was going to take the time to listen it all.
The first thing I heard was: "...an answer to our prayers", so I thought it was going to be good to hear.
But after reading your post, it seems to me that there is not good news to hear from the Assembly.
Well, the Holy Father has made everything he could...
Yes - I couldn't agree with you more about some of the contributions I heard. I was dismayed by one of them in particular. But we were aware of differences of opinion amongst us and shouldn't be too surprisied that they have come to the surface now. However, the comments of the Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Richborough were positive and appreciative of everything Rome has offered us. Tomorrow's discussions, I hope, will redress the balance and convey to the Holy Father that we are very much in earnest in seeking to return to the rock from which we were hewn.
I have likewise been saddened by what appears the mean-spirited attitude of some. This is what they said they wanted, and this is what they have been praying for. But now that it has come about, they seem to think they can be "catholic" in their own way, as if any real definition of Catholic could fail to include Christian Unity. It very much appears to me that some much prefer to have their own show to really advancing the cause of Christ.
Two falsehoods which seem to stand behind much of this unedifying spectacle are:
1. These men sincerely believe that they are already Catholics lacking nothing in Word or Sacrament, but they are not.
2. After decades of positivism in every corner of Anglicanism, they have fallen prey to the illusion that we make the church by our choices.
Together, these two poisonous attitudes make epistemological modesty and personal humility before the Pastor of the Universal Church difficult in the extreme. And that is why I believe the Anglican response to the Personal Ordinariates will be only a trickle and never a flood. When it is time to walk away from beautiful buildings, to submit to new training and ordination, and to have one's marriage(s) examined for validity, very few of these men will have the fortitude to act.
The best comment (I forget from whom) was that people have been asking for Plan B but suddenly we have been presented with Plan A. Yes, indeed, let us grab it with both (very grateful) hands.
"What I hope becomes clear to those at this Assembly is that the Holy Father is NOT putting forth some document to be revised by a revision committee or determined by a popularity of a majority as something akin to a general synod. Sorry folks, that is not the Catholic way. It's not about lace and birettas; it's about authority and truth." AMEN TO THAT!
The recorded addresses from the current FIF conference did not altogether surprise me, although I thought that the PEV's were good and one or two other speakers who saw the Holy Father's initiative as an answer to prayer. The rest reminded me of children who had spent a grisly afternoon demanding an ice cream and then threw it away when it was given.
Yet nobody can underestimate the shock of the Holy Father's invitation nor the fact that it was only a few days old when the conference started. Only the PEV's seemed collected enough to understand its implications. It is still early days.
But the reality emerged that the phenomenon of non-papal Catholicism is still alive and well in the minds of many Anglo-Catholics and this was fully demonstrated by the American bishops. Bishop Ikers and his companion were illuminating on this point and demonstrated the difficulties involved in applying the papal option in America. Increasingly the reality of Anglo-Catholicism as a self-authenticating tradition is emerging. So it started, so it remains.
What also remains is the essentially unsatisfactory nature of Anglicanism as a via media. This might have made pragmatic sense within the setting of the Elizabethan Settlemant, confined within British shores, but has proved unworkable on a universal basis. What is left will continue to remain so for those of definite conviction, Catholic or Protestant.
I often deeply regret having been taken in by Anglo-Catholic claims in my youth. They only made sense in the setting of achieving reunion with Rome and not as an end in itself. I wish I had been born Catholic. But the preparation given by Anglo-Catholicism in its spirituality, beauty and learning was of enormous value in leading me into the fulness of truth. I am thankful I knew it when it was still a coherent body marked by integrity rather than a residual, self-authenticating experiment that has failed to succeed and survives only as a cultural phenomenon.
The saddest element for me is the recollection of fine Anglo-Catholic priests and laity of the past who, in retrospect, led futile lives and whose work died with them.
I did wonder how quickly this blog would turn on its former friends and colleagues, and over the past months has done so remarkably quickly.
What if they did say "YES"? These are not merely men and their families: they have congregations to care for (to say nothing of buildings and the legal side of it). There seems little point in having an extra few hundred 'laymen' received, hopefully to become priests, if their congregations do not come with them. What became of your flock, Fr Jeffrey, how many have followed you? This is not intended, by the way, as a personal gibe.
Not everyone is willing to throw off everything for the sake of what they feel is their personal salvation. Of course, this may appear to contradict Scripture: but can Christ's invitation to "follow me!" and leave everything be applied to "follow me, leave your churches, let your parishioners who are unsure damn themselves, and never mind staying to see if something can be done that includes others as well as yourselves?".
I have a question for you Anonymous. First of all, I haven't "turned" on my friends. As a matter of truth, many have refused to speak with me and I have and always will be open to friendships.
On the point of this post, a critique of speeches and what one hears and comes to opinions is not to turn on anybody at all. It is simply a serious call to consider what has been offered and most of all, what does it mean to be a Catholic. Rather than shooting arrows at my personal opinion, why don't you engage the debate about communio and Catholicity particularly as it has to do with authority.
What I don't understand that many others who are still AC's don't understand is why so many in FiF whose purpose in existence is eventually full communion with the Holy See are so adament about not coming in or being demanding about what will be required rather than a humble act of submission to the terms whatever they may be. As one speaker said at the Assembly today, 'they would be foolish' to not accept this gift to them. I said nothing different; did she turn on her friends at the Assembly? I don't think so, and anyone who really knows me knows I haven't either!
Jeff,
You laud the contribution of the PEVs. Could you please make it clear to your readers that one of them, the Bishop of Beverley, Martyn Jarrett, the man who ordained you, actually wants to remain within the C of E? It is slightly puzzling to me that you refer to the PEVs and to Father G Kirk et al. by any titles at all, as in your new-found status, you necessarily hold all these orders to be null and void.
Of course, the whole notion that salvation may hinge on whether one is Anglican or (Roman) Catholic is absurd: Jesus would have laughed at it and roundly criticised it, as indeed he/He continues to do.
qa
Well there is respect for those I once served alongside but perhaps you do not understand that. It will be led by +Keith and +Andrew. But that does not necessitate me being disrespectful to +Martyn though I have disagreements with him.
As far as orders are concerned, I was a priest fully within Anglican Orders. I am not a RC priest and neither are any who would come but will be ordained if they come.
Jeff,
You're being evasive. The theological point is that according to your present standpoint Martyn Jarrett is no more a bishop than I am.
No, you are being silly. They are bishops in the Anglican Communion. Not even the Holy Father denies that!
Anonymous @ 16:16:
It seems that Jeffrey did the very best thing for his flock: he set a good example; by acting, he led.
Remaining when he knew it was right to become Catholic would have shown weakness and dishonesty to the people in his congregation. Instead he demonstrated strength and integrity -- along with many other virtues.
As Saint Francis is said to have taught, "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words."
BTW -- has anyone noticed how much happier and healthier Jeffrey looks -- maybe it's just the photo. :)
What saves you is whether or not you are holding on to Jesus, whether or not you are in fact incorporated into Him. And as Joan of Arc said, "About Christ and the Church, I just know they're one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter." This is why it matters so much, Anonymous and Quondam Amicus. It's not which diocesan newsletter you read that matters. It's not per se what you think or where you worship. It's whether or not you are incorporated into Christ. Actually so, not intentionally. The Holy Father has a terrible responsibility, the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The Church doesn't make the faith, the reality. Christ is the reality, Christ makes the Church, and she is the way to Him.
Most of us don't worry enough about our own salvation, and that's why we (or at least I) create difficulties for ourselves, worrying about our responsibility to others, forgetting that a)only Jesus saves and b) Jesus does save. Our first responsibility is our own soul. That is selfish only if we stop thinking of ourselves as hopelessly mired in sin and going to hell unless God has mercy on us.
Overly earnest post while my bathwater runs over. Happy Sunday!
I am sorry to hear such negative and unloving comments and such bitterness. The Episcopal priest who baptized me sent me on with his blessings when I became Catholic. He told me he thought I put more thought and prayer into it than he had at my age in moving from Presbyterian to Episcopal. Why can't those who disagree accept the decision of your conscience? It doesn't speak well for the security of theirs.
Susan Peterson
Remember that line from St. Thomas More which went something like "When you go to heaven for following your conscience, will you join me when I go to hell for not following mine?"
It is a mystery how people of good will trying to discern God's will and follow it, don't all find themselves following the same path. It just isn't necessary to judge that someone else's path is marked out by expediency or prejudice or by clinging to the familiar or any of the many other things which have been said about people's choices. God knows the heart and will judge. We are not Him, and do best always to speak charitably, even if we can't help harboring some contrary feelings, one way or another, on either path.
Susan Peterson
Thank you Susan! And Amen!
"No, you are being silly. They are bishops in the Anglican Communion. Not even the Holy Father denies that!"
Pace Jeffrey Steel, but I don't think this to be the case; that is, if Apostolicae Curae is presumably still in effect, whether outside or within the Anglican Communion, Anglican Holy Orders remain nonetheless invalid.
Ironically, this is precisely why this move of the Holy Father is both remarkably generous as well as unprecedented and historic.
voces,
you missed my point. what the HF does not deny is that reality of these ministries distinct from other Protestant ministries. it is in that sense that i was speaking to acknowledge these priestly ministries within the anglican ecclesial communities.
Jeffrey Steel,
"what the HF does not deny is that reality of these ministries distinct from other Protestant ministries."
I suppose you are correct in this sense; otherwise, the Holy Father himself would not have been able to formulate such an initiative to begin with as regarding the new establishment of an ordinariate specifically concerning the clergy of the Anglican Communion (whereas when you compare with other protestant sects, such a thing would not be possible with respect to their ministers).
Clare you use powerful words in your piece but I think if the whole issue was in the public domain these words would have a hollow representation. Jeff has left a very sour taste in many mouths that is his doing and no one else's no matter how much he doth protest that he hasn't turned his back on his friends and that it is they who do not speak to him. This is down to his behaviour throughout this situation.
"...in the public domain these words would have a hollow representation..."
O boni deus!
If words are just all too hollow regardless of content, then perhaps we all should be grateful that the good man would rather put to action what mere words simply would not do.
That is, instead of engaging in what seems like a perpetually futile Via Media; if true action is not taken up and instead there is only a reliance on mere words; it would seem such symptoms of flagrant lukewarmness would just simply go on in saecula saeculorum.
Indeed, how good it is that there are actually those of Mr. Steel's caliber who would rather act instead of merely play-acting.
Post a Comment