Damian Thompson blogs at some length about the rumor that Forward in Faith (yes, that's yet another sub group of an Anglican sub sub group) are 'in discussions' with Rome about corporate reunion. Is it just me, or is this getting a teeny bit tiresome?
Damian has too many precious Anglo Catholic chums. He talks sympathetically about an Anglo Catholic friend who could not become a 'Roman' because of the awful liturgies and architecture in the modern Catholic Church. I'm afraid this is just the sort of Anglo Catholic we don't want. If he can't see the big issue of authority in the church, and simply come across with no conditions and without worrying himself about 'the right kind of liturgy' then he hasn't got a clue yet what it means to be Catholic.
Anglo Catholics should grit their teeth and get over it. I love beautiful liturgy, solemn worship and reverence at the Mass as much as anyone, and readers of this blog will know that I'm the first one to lament trendy guitar masses, goofy relevant homilies, politically correct liturgies etc.etc.etc. but the matter of converting to the Catholic faith is simpler and more fundamental and more important than the liturgy. They should remember Newman's observation that Augustine or Irenaeus, should they visit modern Britain, would visit the ancient churches, and soon find themselves in the tin hut in the bad part of town with the Irish immigrants because there they would find not the prettiest church with the nicest liturgy and the finest music, but there they would find the true church.
There is a matter of priorities. Being received into the Church humbly with no conditions is necessary. Fussing over 'proper liturgy' is like humming and hawing over which china teacup to rescue when your house is burning down.
Already Rome has given the dis-enchanted Anglicans just about everything they want: They have the offer of their married priests being re-ordained. They have the offer (in the US anyway) of their own Anglican based liturgy. They have the offer (in the US) of their own quasi- independent parishes, and yet the number who have taken up the offer of Anglican Use can be counted on two hands, and the number of former Anglican priests who have come in under the pastoral provision is surprisingly small. Instead, they either quietly compromise with the Anglican-ECUSA heresy or they tootle off and start yet another Anglican schism, then they write me indignant emails saying 'We are not a garage church you know...our Archbishop has a degree from Princeton..." Big whoop.
As my recent post said, "Be suspicious of anyone who makes a simple matter complicated." The matter is quite simple: If you really understand the claims of the Catholic Church and if you really are called to be a Catholic, then there's the Tiber. Swim it.
Furthermore, the Catechism says not to is a serious sin.
25 comments:
Dear Fr. L:
I'd be curious to hear your reaction to the recent TAC communication from Bishop David Chislett, SSC:
http://www.themessenger.com.au/News/20090721.htm#story3
One of the many interesting passages from this paper is the following:
"When it comes to the more practical questions about the way of moving forward toward Christian unity, Ratzinger has stated that Catholics cannot demand that all the other Churches be disbanded and their members individually incorporated into the Catholic church. However, Catholics can hope that the hour will come when 'the churches' that exist outside 'the Church' will enter into its unity. They must remain in existence as churches, with only those modifications which such a unity necessarily requires. In the meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own to which they are legitimately entitled."
Ooops, the link broke; try this:
http://tiny.cc/UfvzZ
'Catholics cannot demand that other churches are disbanded and their members individually incorporated into the church.'
Right, but we can encourage individuals to join the Catholic Church as they are called to do, and not to hang around.
The problem with 'whole churches' entering into union with Rome with 'minimal modifications' is that the Protestant churches within themselves are so disparate. Where is the Anglican authority that can say, 'We're in.'?
Maybe the TAC leadership, or the FiF leadership, but as soon as they do a good number of their own will tootle off unhappily.
>Furthermore, the Catechism says not to is a serious sin.
Fr. L, I was having a conversation about this very statement not long ago, and I was surprised to not find this statement in the Catechism when I looked. Could you help me out? Indeed, the most relevant part of the Catechism is under `wounds to unity', where it seemingly states the opposite:
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
The further section titled `toward unity' does not make the claim you made. Are you thinking of another part of the CCC?
It seems to me that far from being tiresome, this is a great problem to have - would that every Christian denomination under the sun make such an appeal! Ut Unum Sint
Andrew, thank you for your attention to this post. There are two passages in the CCC I was remembering: para.836--All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God..." and para 846 quoting Lumen Gentium: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it."
I would argue that knowledgeable Anglo Catholics are not in the condition of ignorance of one born into a separated community and totally uninformed of the claims of the Catholic Church. Anglo Catholics are too often all to aware of the claim that the Catholic Church is founded as necessary by God through Christ, and they refuse to enter it.
These are the Anglicans with whom I have increasingly little patience, and without judging individuals, it seems that many fall soundly within the CCCs definition of schism: "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (para. 2089) This, you will see, comes under the category of sins against the first commandment, and therefore 'serious sin.'
I wonder if Pope Benedict meant to refer to Anglicans in that paraphrase from "Ratzinger's Faith". A recent statement from the Vatican (no time to look it up now; it came out within the last year) says that that Protestant denominations are what we'd call "ecclesial communities", not full-fledged churches like the Eastern Orthodox, because Protestants lack so much. So I suspect the author of misapplying Benedict's quote. It's hard to imagine him saying of the various Anglican groups that "they must remain in existence as churches" or that "the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other churches." That's something I think he'd only say about the Orthodox.
I agree with you Rachel, however, you should understand that part of the Anglo Catholic self understanding is the 'branch theory'. This is the idea that there are three ancient branches of the Catholic faith: Roman Catholicism, the EO and Anglicanism. Therefore many Anglo Catholics see themselves as in the same situation as Eastern Orthodox and repudiate any suggestion that they are Protestant
"I'm afraid this is just the sort of Anglo Catholic we don't want."
Not a very welcoming comment seeing that so many "real" Catholics do not give a hoot about the pope or the Magisterium, even less about a beautiful liturgy. Is it not Ratzinger himself who places immense importance in the liturgy for the sanctification of souls? At least the Anglo-catholics recognise the importance of the sanctification of souls. As Damien's friends were trying to point out, it is precisely those many Catholics that do not give a hoot that has been making the crossing of the Tiber so difficult.
I'm not judging individuals, but am suspicious of the Anglo Catholics who ignore the question of the authority of the Church and focus only on the liturgical question.
On liturgy I'm on their side. On their snooty refusal to enter the church because of their 'good taste' I'm not
R of the R,
cannot Damien and his friends then enter the Church and start pushing, the way the Catholic Cavemen do, for better liturgy? If not the Anglican Use, then the EF -- whaddaya say?
Arkanabar, I agree, and I wish they would, but too often they stand around and flirt with the Catholic Church and make up complicated reasons why they can't yet submit to Rome or they disagree about this or they disagree about that and the nit pick and they fuss.
My point in the post is that they should just get on with it. Come into the Catholic Church. Take us as you find us and try to put up with us warts and all, and guess what, we'll be grateful you've come home, and we'll try to put up with you warts and all.
There is that great scene from an Indiana Jones movie where he has to cross a chasm to save his father's life, but can see no way across. Thinking it means death, he takes a step of faith to find a hidden footbridge. Those are the converts we seek. You know you have to get across,you know the truth is there. You cannot see the far side from where you are, but trust me and thousands who have taken that step, it is far better than your wildest dreams could imagine.
Thank you, Father. Very much.
As an ex-Anglican I totally endorse what Fr Longenecker has said.
I know Anglo-Catholics love beautiful liturgy, however, if the truths and essentials of the faith really mattered to them they would realise that obedience to God's will takes precedence over everything.
How can they possibly defend the "Catholic" parts of their religious observance - incense, vestments, confession, statues etc - against attacks from the Protestant wing of Anglicanism yet keep ignoring one of THE most Catholic points of all - "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven."
The founding of the Papacy is one of the clearest statements in Holy Scripture - ignore it Anglo-Catholics at your eternal peril!
"I love beautiful liturgy, solemn worship and reverence at the Mass as much as anyone, and readers of this blog will know that I'm the first one to lament trendy guitar masses, goofy relevant homilies, politically correct liturgies etc.etc.etc. but the matter of converting to the Catholic faith is simpler and more fundamental and more important than the liturgy."
As much as anyone? This sounds like a political statement to me. The way you word this statement, you are proposing that the Catholic faith and the Mass are separate things, that one can "be Catholic" without worshipping in any particular way. This is precisely (if I may be so bold) what leads to innovations, laypeople and priests remaking the Mass in their own image.
If we are not to stand in reverent awe before God in the Mass as a body of Christians...when are we to do so?
Happy Feast of Pope Sixtus and Companions. I take great comfort in the passions of the Roman martyrs.
Fr. L,
Of Anglican Use's lack of converted priests, I can offer a very simple answer. Most of the Anglo-Catholics in America who might be persuaded to swim to Rome agree with Her on most everything, and they're the sort that use the older Prayerbook and/or the Anglican Missal, which models its ritual after the Tridentine Mass. Anglican Use is based on a) The 1979 Prayerbook and b) The Novus Ordo.
Both of these are problematic for reasons we don't need to get into here. Simply put, they're hoping for a deal that isn't a theological mess, which they (and many others) think both the Novus Ordo and 1979 BCP are.
As far as authority goes, I recall you mentioning it like being a member of a country a few weeks ago. But it's also rather like a political party. To give an example, there are members of the GOP (of which I'm not a member) who agree with the party platform 99.9%. They'll sway on an issue like abortion or marriage or defense or any single big issue, and they're branded as "not a conservative," even though on the vast majority of issues, they are one. I consider the East to be plenty Catholic (as do many others) and plenty Orthodox. They don't swim the Tiber. It doesn't make them not-Catholic, and it doesn't make them Protestant.
The issue of authority seems to me a poor litmus test when there are plenty of folks in the camp who could give a fig about it, but still judge and condemn others, rather than treating them with faith, hope, and love based on faith in Christ. That seems to me far more important part of salvation than which pointy hat we obey, based on Paul's own words concerning charity.
Well, Shaughn, I think you make Fr. L's point. Look: I think the guy saying Mass in the church that looks like a Pizza Hut with the ghastly guitar music and the cheap vestments and the Jesus statue saying, "Touchdown!" happens to be doing this thing whereby Jesus becomes truly present to us. And I think the guy at saying the better Anglican Mass is not doing that thing. Now, either I am correct or else I am not. But is seeme to me that the very last thing this is about is which pointy hat to listen to.
Father, I think Lionel has hit on an important point. We do after all accept the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. When sincere anglocatholics, with their varying degrees of understanding of the Church, see the horrible state of the Roman Catholic liturgy in so many instances it is hard for many of them to take it in any way other than, "there is something gravely wrong with this liturgy, perhaps there is something else wrong too" and out of the subsequent confusion remain in their place awaiting a more corporate solution, whether it be from the TAC, AU or FIF.
I was received into the Catholic Church over five years ago and I still find that the state of the liturgy in so many places is extraordinarily hard to bear. It brings one to a state of desolation and depression at a moment when one's heart should be uplifted. The message of such a liturgy is conflicted. I know other more long-standing Catholics who might've left the Church ages ago had it not been for the strength of their faith and their understanding of the nature of the current crisis.
Not everyone has that understanding, however, and can we really expect everyone too? Even our bishops don't always get it. The problem is that, if the law of prayer is the law of faith, then our faith lacks credibility to the average joe when our prayer is so corrupted. It's not as simple as anglocatholics seeing the true nature of the Church and rejecting it for superficial liturgical reasons, although I have no doubt that is true in some instances. Anglocatholics have a problem seeing the true nature of the Church precisely because our liturgy has been so damaged by the zeitgeist.
Sulla,
I was ever the fan of Marius, and so we're bound to disagree. (Ahem.)
What you've come down to is a discussion of valid Orders, which has very little to do directly with being obedient to the Bishop of Rome. If I think Anglican orders are valid (which is, again, another question for another time, as I really have no desire to drag out the pile of primary sources), then I believe that my priest, also, confects the sacrament of the Eucharist at the altar. I think both a Roman priest and an Anglican priest are capable of doing so. I think Orthodox priests are capable of doing so.
And I'm happy that we have a Bishop of Rome who is sympathetic to the cause of preserving what Anglicanism has to offer -- one willing to despoil Egypt, as it were. I'm equally happy that he will, I have no doubt, be more sensitive about nourishing the souls of the Anglicans who do join than previous efforts have been. Good things are afoot. Why not pray that we will all be one, trust in the process underway, and trust in the authority which is overseeing it, rather than insisting on individual conversion in contradistinction whatever may be on the horizon?
Fr. L:
Thanks for responding to my question. The two passages in the Catechism you mention are:
------------------------
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."
And
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
---------------------------
However, the topic in question is not `Anglicanism’ or even `Anglo-Catholicism’, rather it is the group of people in FiF and the TAC who desire to enter the Church in a corporate way. Therefore when you apply the Catechism’s salvation passages 836 and 846, i.e. “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it”, you are not showing that "this is a serious sin", as you said. Rather you are consigning these folks to hell.
To make this charge to a group of people (as in the TAC case) whose bishops have unanimously signed the Catechism on an alter, and who have petitioned for "full eucharistic communion with the Catholic Church" is, to put it mildly, strange.
Perhaps you might wish to revise this post after having a relaxing drink?
If I make a more charitable reading of your post, it seems that you are trying to say that you disagree with Damian on the issue of corporate reception into the Church. I think this is a point where people of good will can disagree, even if your opinion is ahistorical. While I usually love your blog and think it on target, here I must side with Mr. Thompson.
What is the good of all these years of ecumenical dialogue if the Church is unwilling to receive groups of Christians into communion? Considering the fact that neither DT’s opinion, nor yours will decide the corporate fate of these folks, I guess it doesn't matter too much. However, in case of a positive decision on the Vatican's part, the public reaction of influential Catholics such as yourself will create a climate of either welcome or hostility toward these folks.
I’ll put one more comment, and then duck out of this thread:
You also mention this point to characterize these folks as being in “serious sin”:
"the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (para. 2089)
In response, I will simply mention this part of the TAC appeal to the Catholic Church:
On our acceptance of the ministry of the bishop of Rome:
"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."
I think that it is important to remember that the folks involved here are often disparagingly referred to as `Anglo-papists’ by their enemies in the Anglican church. Clearly the FiF folks will have to make a similar declaration for this to go anywhere. Consequently, I do not believe that this charge of “serious sin” can be substantiated by recourse to the Catechism.
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."
This is the kind of double talk that drives me crazy about Anglo Catholics and I wish I could be as gentle and kind as Abbot Leo about it.
You 'accept the ministry of the BIshop of Rome' but you still refuse to become Catholic.
C'mon. Stop fibbing. If you accepted the ministry of the Bishop of Rome you'd be Catholics already.
" 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."
This is the kind of double talk that drives me crazy about Anglo Catholics and I wish I could be as gentle and kind as Abbot Leo about it.
You 'accept the ministry of the BIshop of Rome' but you still refuse to become Catholic.
C'mon. Stop fibbing. If you accepted the ministry of the Bishop of Rome you'd be Catholics already. "
EXACTLY!!
Once I knew that Our Lord had appointed Peter as head of the Church on Earth, it was only a matter of time before I left Anglicanism.
It was inevitable.
Otherwise I would end up living a lie - claiming to be Catholic yet not submitting to Christ's Vicar.
I can sympathise with the comments that tell of how appallingly badly celebrated masses might keep people from making the "swim".
I find many masses excruciating and I virtually have to shut myself up in an spiritual cocoon during the mass to keep an understanding of the true beauty of Christ's Holy Sacrifice. The abuses in too many masses now are a disgrace.
However, that is NOT a reason for remaining outside God's Holy Catholic Church. As an ex-Anglican I fight and pray for the faith from INSIDE God's Church instead of standing on the outside looking in.
And I see signs of liturgical hope. THe present Holy Father is really starting to turn things around.
Come home you Anglicans. By all means bring your love of beautiful liturgy with you. Rome IS making a place for you and the Anglican Usage, while it has real faults, is a start.
I think para. 2357 of the Catechism is a bigger factor for many of these Anglo-Catholic "convert teases" than anything liturgical.
I hope and pray with all my heart. T+
Post a Comment