
Sadly it is early in the morning and I have much to do to get ready for work and am not able to comment extensively right now on the response from the Archbishop of the Anglican Catholic Church that is one of the numerous 'Anglican' bodies in America (too many to count for sure!). But, I can post it here and say my bits in the discussion. Here it is for all the readers to discuss and I will enter it when I can. Full-time chaplaincy work keeps me quite busy during the day and I am not able to keep up with much these days but do pass this around and point people here for a good charitable discussion of
+Dr. Mark Haverland's response to the Holy Father.
II. Our Response
The Note, however, does not mark in any respect an ecumenical advance. The Note assumes the fullest and highest claims for the Petrine Office which emanate from Vatican I and Vatican II. The Note assumes the essential correctness of Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of Anglican Orders and practically implies that for all effective purposes that condemnation has not been reconsidered or superceded in any degree by subsequent events. The Note assumes that Anglican confirmations and ordinations are utterly null and absolutely void. The Note does not imply the union of ecclesial bodies, but rather the conversion of former Anglicans to Roman Catholicism with what amounts to the prior, effective, and complete dissolution of their former ecclesial structures. This conversion by absorption is the case even if some of the leaders of those former structures may eventually gain office in new subdivisions of the Roman Catholic Church. We assume that local or congregational ownership of property will be entirely extinguished in accordance with normal Roman Catholic practice.
Insofar as the Note and subsequent Constitution provide for relatively one-sided conversions of former Anglicans with minimal concessions, we fear that the Note and Constitution in fact will harm and retard genuine ecumenical progress. By genuine ecumenical progress we mean, for instance, joint consideration of the Petrine Office of the sort some hoped for after promulgation by John Paul II of his encyclical Ut Unum Sint. While Pope John Paul repeated a description of the modern Petrine Office and noted the need for 'the power and authority without which such an office would be illusory' (94), he also seemed to speak of a joint exploration of the manner in which that office is exercised which might, it seems, help to reconcile classical Anglicans, as well as Orthodox and Oriental Christians, to the Roman Catholic Church. Pope John Paul wrote,
"I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in 'a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator.'" (95)
Anglican and Orthodox Christians look for union and full communion without "conversion," submission, and effective absorption and for an exercise of the Petrine Office that is compatible with the actual situation of the Church of the first millennium. The new Constitution will do nothing to forward that goal.
The forthcoming Constitution is in effect addressed to those who are already essentially Roman Catholic. We are not. We wish nothing but the best to Roman Catholic converts when they act in good conscience. But persons already convinced of the truth of Roman Catholic teaching in its fulness should become Roman Catholics promptly with or without the Pastoral Provision, with or without a liturgical "Anglican Use," and with or without the new Ordinariates. We see in this Note an offer which is merely prudential and practical in its nature and effect, and we do not see anything to attract persons who are not already essentially Roman Catholic in faith.
We believe that classical Anglicanism, as presented clearly in The Affirmation of Saint Louis and in our liturgies and other authoritative formularies, is already faithful to Scripture and the Fathers and is already fully Catholic and Orthodox. Conversion is not necessary and absorption is not appropriate. We believe that our Anglican patrimony is, moreover, by God's grace and Providence, also most appropriate for the English-speaking peoples and probably is essential for the successful evangelization or re-evangelization of the English-speaking lands.
We hope eventually for a genuine dialogue concerning the Petrine Office and long for the day when we, with our Orthodox and Oriental Christian friends, may again find in the successor of Saint Peter a patriarch with the primacy of honor and with high authority both as an organ for strengthening the Church's unity and also as an instrument for the articulation of the Church's teaching. We regret that the forthcoming Constitution, while kindly meant, seems set to delay that happy day.
----The Most Reverend Mark Haverland, Ph.D. is Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Anglican Catholic Church
14 comments:
'Anglican and Orthodox Christians look for union and full communion without "conversion," submission, and effective absorption and for an exercise of the Petrine Office that is compatible with the actual situation of the Church of the first millennium. The new Constitution will do nothing to forward that goal'
The Apostolic Constitution is addressed to those who have sought full Communion with the Holy See. To do so must surely presume acceptance of and welcome for the current exercise of the Petrine Ministry?
Within the first millennium the Pope would have recognized and exercised the same concern to ensure that no hint of irregularity or any suspicion of validity was attached to the Sacraments of the Church or to the Orders of those dispensing them.
Anglicanism - of which I am a part - is a loose collection of Ecclesial Bodies within the Latin Church, born out of ecclesiological confusion, doctrinal irregularity and political expedience. That there has been a seeking after, and realization of, Catholic Faith within these communities over the centuries has been Providential but as is everywhere move evident this has been an imperfect restoration and Catholic doctrine, practice and morality remain disputed and uncertain territory. This collection of bodies within a broad Anglican inheritance cannot be placed on par with the Holy Orthodox Church, nor are these communities recognised as such by any Orthodox Synod.
It is foolish and futile for pilgrims seeking refuge to act with hubris.
The good Archbishop's comments are so far off the chart that he may as well be on another planet. Isn't this precisely the kind of thinking that has led to so much confusion, disorder and anxiety? This is not a refusal to face reality it is an inability to SEE reality when it is staring you in the face.
I can quite understand the reluctance of many Anglicans to leave their spiritual "homes" - their communities, parish structures, "comfort" zones (I do not mean this disrespectfully). I have no wish to see people hurt or left feeling adrift in the ecumenical sea, but surely many will see the hand of God in these developments and will at least begin to think again about their attitudes towards the Petrine Ministry.
May I also say that, sadly, so many Non-Roman Catholics have got the Papacy wrong (sometimes seriously wrong) and need to bone up on good Catholic theology. Dialogue and discussion are needed at this point, as well as prayer for each other. The Archbishop's response seems sadly narrow and closed in.
Good luck with that +Dr. (deep sigh)
"Anglican and Orthodox Christians look for union and full communion without "conversion," submission, and effective absorption and for an exercise of the Petrine Office *that is compatible* with the actual situation of the Church of the first millennium. The new Constitution will do nothing to forward that goal."
Please help me understand -- is the good archbishop actually suggesting that first, the Pope must surrender the primacy that is traditionally his by Apostolic Succession inherited from the line of St. Peter, bestowed by Christ Himself?
Yet, why does he say in his conclusion, "...may again find in the successor of Saint Peter a patriarch *with the primacy of honor and with high authority* both as an organ for strengthening the Church's unity and also as an instrument for the articulation of the Church's teaching"?
Just what exactly is his version of "primacy" and "high authority" that he believes is rightfully the Pope's?
There is an “Alice in Wonderland” quality to the clergy of the Continuing Anglican world that is really quite charming in its madness. As their jurisdictions split into ever smaller pieces, their roster of primates, archbishops and bishops multiplies. As the number of souls in their care shrinks and the number of other jurisdictions with which they are in full communion shrinks ever faster, they protest all the louder that they are the true Church, preserving the deposit of faith unspoiled from Roman corruptions. The name of their game seems to be “Let’s See How Small We Can Make the Universal Church!”
Sadly, what this is really about is much simpler: If the Bishop of Rome is not the Pastor of the Universal Church, then every “bishop” is pope and every parish priest is a patriarch. That’s why we won’t see these folks seeking full communion with the Catholic Church.
Spot on Father Jay!!
Timotheus
These sentiments echo similar ones expressed by the American bishops present at the recent FIF Conferance and should not come as a surprise. The more I discover about American Episcopalianism the stranger it seems.
Peter, I think you are on to something. Having lived in America and served as a priest in the C of E, I can tell you that many are a different sort of Anglo-Catholic than say FiFUK/SSC priests are.
Voces said: Just what exactly is his version of "primacy" and "high authority" that he believes is rightfully the Pope's?
My guess is a version or "primacy" and "high authority" that consists of a figurehead who is, in reality, devoid of any real authority, and therefore utterly impotent and harmless. Does that ring any bells?
It ain't happenin' if that's what "they" are waiting for.
The Holy Father's gracious offer will be accepted by some, hopefully many, for the right reasons.
The rest will find plenty of reasons to refuse, and their "communion" will continue spinning off into pieces, as the centrifugal force of Protestantism continues to its natural end.
Let's not let the celebration of those who come home be diminished by the hand wringing of those who won't/can't make the trip.
It seems to me that Metr. Mark Haverland put his finger on the sore spot with great accuracy ... I am sure that you - Father Jeffrey - as a former Anglican Priest can still understand the frame of reference he is coming from?
Fr. Gregory +
(just in case: I am an Orthodox priest)
The response by Dr. Haverland is one I expected. Having lived for 35 years as an Anglican religious I completely understand the mindset. In one regard he is correct: The Pope's overtures will only appeal to those already "Roman Catholic" in their thinking. This has been my contention for a year, back now in the fold of my Roman Catholic upbringing. A mental/emotional/psychological re-mapping of one's interior is indeed necessary, nay ESSENTIAL to move from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism. This is the work of the Holy Spirit on one's soul. Conversion, submission or absorption is PRECISELY what would be experienced in the decision to leave the Anglican communion and submit to the Chair of Peter.
"The care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head." - Pope St. Leo The Great, Letter XIV.
The Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas (519 A.D.), which effected the Eastern Church's return from (the Acacian) schism (484 to 519) and the monophysite heresy and submission to Petrine authority, clearly establishes over five hundred years before the 1054 schism that the Bishops of Rome were certain of their authority and what the papacy meant for the universal Church.
I was brought up in a highly disfunctional society where the question, 'Are you Protestant or Catholic?', whether uttered or silent, was the defining characteristic of people's identity, even though, in those days, the large majority were Christian of some sort. Endless discrimination, misery and death ensued. I do not believe that Peter or Jesus or anyone else of any sense can make that same question a criterion of salvation.
"My guess is a version or 'primacy' and 'high authority' that consists of a figurehead who is, in reality, devoid of any real authority, and therefore utterly impotent and harmless. Does that ring any bells?"
This seems very familiar to me. Oddly enough, perhaps that might explain why there were certain Cromwellian ideals that I personally deem not without warrant.
"The rest will find plenty of reasons to refuse, and their 'communion' will continue spinning off into pieces, as the centrifugal force of Protestantism continues to its natural end."
It is very interesting to note even from a historical perspective how a common symptom of Protestantism seems to be the endless fragmentation that tends to go on almost perpetually.
Surely, Our Lord did not intend such a thing; that His flocks should divide itself ad infinitum.
Let's pray for that very unity which Our Lord Himself asked Our Father on that fateful night.
Post a Comment