So long and thanks for all the priests?

[angli_fan]

[from the (UK) Guardian]

What a great title! ;D

The Guardian has begun a series of commentaries on the recent proposals by the Roman Catholic Church to create a space for disaffected Anglicans within its own structure.


Is this really the end of the Anglican Communion, and perhaps of the Church of England? When even the evangelical and previously staunchly protestant Bishop Nazir Ali refuses to rule out conversion, is this a symptom of a wider and more important convulsion? And if the Anglo-Catholics go, does this finish off the hope of legal safeguards for the remaining opponents of women bishops?

This looks like an ecumenical disaster, too. If the Vatican has divided up the Anglican Communion into those parts it can do business with, and those which can be ignored, is there anything left for formal discussions but politeness?

But this isn't just an Anglican earthquake. How might an influx of 500 priests, many of them married, change the Roman Catholic church in this country? If this is the foundation of a lasting Anglican rite, with a married priesthood, how will the rest of the Roman Catholic church respond?

The first entry is written by Austen Ivereigh:

Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster until 1975, used to get annoyed when Anglicans were offered communion in French Catholic churches and given a hearty Gallic welcome. French Catholics, understandably, couldn't see a lot of difference between Catholic Anglicans and English Roman Catholics. But Heenan was horrified. Once the two started being welcome in each others' churches, he warned, it was obvious what would happen: the Romans would all start to drift to the smart Anglican churches, with their robed choirs and Oxbridge clergy and their glimpse of a pre-Reformation English world.

And that's the reason why the pope's firecracker announcement last week of a legal space within the Catholic church for a corporate Anglican existence will have the effect of advancing Catholic-Anglican relations, not undermining them.

More at the link:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/25/religion-anglicanism

[Sojourner]

Again, sex rears its ugly head as a defining tenant of the Church. Benedict's offer is to protestant priests who have, at best, by Roman standards, defective orders, to come into their fold and continue to have sexual relations, while denying their own priests the same consideration. Obviously, those who make this journey across the Tiber remained in Anglican churches because they could not live celibacy as their fellow priests chose to do. I say that because to travel to Rome they have to believe in Papal infallibility, Transubstantiation and Marian devotion leading to the proposition that Mary is a Mediatrix of grace, all such ideas being heresies in the minds of at least two thirds of the Anglican communion.

[angli_fan]

The next entry in the Guardian's "Question of the Week" series is written by Maggi Dawn, who says:

Don't turn to Rome in anger

It's not all that unusual for practising Christians to change denominations, as faith inevitably shifts as the experience of life disturbs our ideas. I count among my own friends a Brethren minister who became an Anglican, an Anglican who became a Catholic, and a Catholic who became a Baptist. None of them changed denomination in protest at anything, but because they simply discovered that their life and thought fitted better in a different context.

...Although it's entirely possible to move informally between protestant denominations...a protestant can normally only become a Catholic through formal conversion. But the personal ordinariates announced last week by Pope Benedict XVI are a rather different animal, in that they represent an invitation to Anglicans who feel beleaguered by changes in Anglican practice to relocate under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic church while retaining features of their Anglican heritage....the process is likely to open up at least as many complexities as it resolves.

...There would, perhaps, seem some irony in a move to Rome out of protest, since this would seem to be more of a Protestant trait than a Catholic one. Historically it's the Protestant church that has divided and separated over unresolved disagreements. I can't help but wonder whether there are many who underestimate how much they have enjoyed the freedom to disagree vehemently and publicly with their archbishop. It's one thing to be a staunch and protesting Anglo-Catholic from within the autonomy of a Protestant setting, but quite another to live in obedience to a completely different authority structure. I suspect there are some who like to have church on their own terms who will find Rome not nearly so accommodating as Canterbury.[/i]

More at:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/28/catholic-anglican-rome-conversion

[angli_fan]

"The Church Mouse" is Thursday's respondant to the Guardian's Question of the Week, and says:

This could be a win-win

When the dust settles from the bombshell announcement by the Vatican that Anglicans can join the Catholic church and retain some of their liturgical traditions, all sides will agree that it is a good thing.

In the short term, there will tensions and disagreements. There may be some bad blood and arguments over the terms of departure and admittance for those who wish to take up the pope's offer of a new home....The fundamental result will be that those Anglicans who feel a closer affinity with the Catholic church can end their battles, and simply join that church. If they choose to stay, they will have made a conscious decision to remain in a church that will soon be ordaining women bishops, and must therefore accept that.[/i]

More at:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/29/conservative-anglicans-rome-catholic

[angli_fan]

Finally, Friday's entry in the Guardian's Question of the Week is penned by Christina Rees, who asks:

What does this mean for women?

Over the weekend, there was a great deal of speculation as to who among the Church of England's senior clergy might make the move to Rome. The enthusiasm of some Anglo-Catholics was not, however, matched by those diocesan bishops thought to be in the frame, who put out statements saying they would not convert.

Meanwhile, faithful Roman Catholics are fuming. They are horrified at the thought of more disgruntled ultra-conservatives being allowed to join their church. They are bitter at the deafness of the pope to their own repeated calls to allow Roman Catholic priests to marry and women to be ordained, a subject which is still officially banned even from discussion by their church.

...One can only hope that the pope's offer will help to reset the [CoE] Revision Committee's compass and encourage General Synod in February to insist on the arrangements it voted for over a year ago.[/i]

More at:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/30/women-priests-catholic-anglican

[Sojourner]

I applaud those who run to something. In the mid-19th century, a number of Churchmen moved to Rome because their study and meditation led them there. They were convinved that the result of reformation in England had corrupted rather than purified the catholic faith. One of those who converted, John Henry Newman, eventually became a Cardinal in the Roman tradition.

Newman, and the others who converted, worked out their own salvation and, with honesty and integrity, moved forward, embracing what they considered to be the true faith. This approach stands in stark contrast to many of the disgruntled in TEC, who are more attached to a denomination than to the wellbeing of their souls.

[Canadian Phil]

Wow, Sojourner, you're starting to sound like an extreme conservative these days. But, the question I have for you is where does that leave those of us who aren't interested in spliting on this issue, but have real concerns about whether this among other issues (divorce/remarriage, usury, economic/social justice etc) is good Christian practice? Do we have no place in the new Episcopalian/Anglican world?

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

Among the differences we have evidenced in our conversations over these years concerns schism. You have always considered it to be a primary scandal in the Church. While I have underplayed it in the past, I am coming closer to a point where I consider it irrelevant. Ultimately, schism seems to be a political, rather than theological term. The rise of denominationalism, post-Reformation, seems not to be necessarily, a repudiation of fellow Christians, but rather, the gathering of Christians who emphasize certain elements of the faith, while other groups focus on other areas. Adhering to five point Calvinism may appeal to a certain intellectual urge, it does not require one to shout anathema at a convinced Arminian. Presbyterians need not deny the validity of a Lutheran's baptism, and deny his membership in the Body of Christ.

Anglicanism, as we know it, was a very specific development in the Reformation, as much defined by English politics as informed by the Holy Spirit. The Elizabethan compromise only occurred in England. Geneva certainly attempted no reformation by compromise. From its beginning, the Anglican experiment had fissures and rifts, and, I would say, the seeds of it's future eruption rather than destruction. Acceptance of Holy Scripture, the Nicene Creed, the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion and the historic episcopacy, coupled with usage of a Prayer Book, were the essentials of Anglicanism. As long as these instruments took precedence, an unsteady peace could be made. However, these instruments were not strong enough to overcome the theological incongruities that attempted to exist side by side. Add to this the practical and cultural differences that exist between "former" colonialists and their former colonies, we now have cultural, economic and social differences that require a reordering of the Communion. That is what we are seeing.

I read a lament in your question, "do we have no place in the new Episcopalian/Anglican world?" I have no answer to that question, because it is a question that I believe is too parochial, too wedded to a denominational view current Christianity. For me the question is "what does the new world look like?" And, 500 years from now, will our descendents look at our actions and declare that we all were nuts? I'm betting heavy for that to be the case.

[Canadian Phil]

Sojourner;

You have helped clarify the difference between our position on how to understand schism. It does make sense that your view is based on seeing it as primarily political and, while I concede that there are political aspects to communion, I do see it from a theological/spiritual point of view. That is, schism is the breach of the unity of Christ's body (emphasized all over the place in Scripture, I note) and, hence, demonstrates a failure in the virtues of forebearence and mutual service which Christ himself taught us, most notably enacted in the footwashing of the disciples.

What bothers me the most is the failure of the virtues, not the collapse of the structures which, you rightly imply, are human-made. We do agree that the Church of Christ is not in its physical or institutional structure, but rather in its people which is precisely why we should be worried when Christians of good will are unable to deal with disagreement and start slanging each other off. How is that a demonstration of good Christian virtue? So, yes, the political aspects are not enough to bind us together, but the spiritual ones should be and they're not. That means all of us, conservative and liberal, need to repent and start looking to God for our answers not our own self-will. Because isn't that what this whole dispute about as one side proceeds, damn the torpedoes, and the other side picks up its marbles and goes. Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?

I am a Christian first and Anglican second, so I deny that I am being parochial in my question over where my place is in this 'new world'. I am not interested in spliting because that is the easy way out and because I believe the path to the virtues lead to my remaining where I am. So, does that mean I'm welcome or not? If not, why not? That is my real question.

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

I'm damning the torpedoes, Phil, but I would welcome worshipping next to you. You do not have to approve of the position that I take, nor the actions that support those positions. You certainly have the right to voice opposition to those views. The next question is, could you be welcoming of me?

As I understand your position, if I advocate a view, I just may not act on it. As long as I do not act, you will feel welcome?

[Canadian Phil]

Sojourner;

Of course, I would worship next to you for the simple reason that I am no better and no worse than you are. You and I have written back and forth long enough for you to know that I don't hold a view that everyone has to be perfect in the church and that I, as a sinner, have no call to kick anyone out of the church for sin. Frankly, if the condition for remaining a member of the church was perfect righteousness, the churches would be mightly empty. And besides, Jesus himself says he's come for those who needed healing, not for those who were well. All of those things together mean, to me, that I should feel no squeamishness on consorting with other sinners (and I don't care what sin that is), especially in God's Church.

As for your characterization of my position as being "if I advocate a view, I just may not act on it.", I'm not entirely sure of what view you are advocating here, so it is hard to know what to answer. Could you clarify this?

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

Phil, you asked for clarification of the statement "if I advocate a view, I just may not act on it." The first clarification is an acknowledgement that it was so poorly written that I am not completely clear what I meant. I think this statement is within the context of our long standing conversations. In the past you have taken the position that ECUSA was precipitous in certain actions, most especially the consecration of Gene Robinson. You suggested that action taken when deep disagreement existed within the communion was schism. You have suggested that while the Spirit may be leading the Church into change, no action should be taken until some sort of consensus is reached. Thus, I take your position to mean that one may espouse positions, but acting on them, absent a quorum, is schismatic.

My problem is this: assuming that I and my partner found an Anglican priest to conduct a marriage service for us -- a preposterous action based on my belief that my partner and I have made promises in the sight of each other and of God -- or found an Anglican priest to pronounce a blessing on our relationship, we would have been involved in schism even though we respected your choice not to accept the action as valid. It is within this kind of context that I assume your position to be that I may advocate my view, but if I take action on it, I have put you into a position where you ask where you fit in the new Anglican world. And I don't have an answer to that, other than to register displeasure that life can involve irreconcilable choices.

[Canadian Phil]

Sojourner;

I understand better what you're driving at. In a sense, you're right. Honestly, I cannot see how we could see the actions in questions as anything else but schismatic, even if, as I would concede, the reasons for doing so were founded in a belief that social justice should override concerns of mere unity in the Church. The fact that the pleas of conservatives and moderates were pushed aside should be enough to warn us that those who supported these actions didn't think their opinions weren't worth being dealt with. If that isn't church division, I don't know what is.

As time has gone on, I am starting to come to the view that ecclesial controversies are calls to humility. What I mean by that is that there are so many ways by which we can display our sins: pride, oppression, vainglory, mutual abuse. it is altogether too easy to get carried away in these controversies and begin to believe that our point of view is entirely right and that of our opponents entirely wrong. Yet, I know of no one who manages to be entirely right or wrong in the living of their lives, so why do we think this is true in ecclesial controversies? What much of my reading in church history has told me is that the will to power, even among those who are the heroes of our faith, is still a great temptation. It is all too easy to overcome one's opposition in one's own head and forget that that opposition consists of flesh and blood people. Your post reminds me of that. I don't have a good answer to your challenge...except that the world is messy and I'm not inclined to make irreconciliable choices right now.

So, with as much humility as I can muster, I have to say that, while I haven't backed off my firm convictions on this issue, I still can't see how to reconcile the valid social justice concerns which the liberal side calls to attention to along with the plea to seek God's grace on this issue with the very real concerns of conservatives about Biblical teaching and living out a life of Christian virtues. And, I think, I have to also give up the desire to control the outcome implied by my insistence on consensus. What I have to do (and I am emphatically saying I, not we or you or the whole Communion) is to try to listen to where the Spirit is going on this issue and, perhaps, shut up more and talk less.

Mind you, I suspect that the warning implied in that last question should be generalized to my whole spiritual life and all of my attempts to discern how to run my life.


I hope this meandering post makes some degree of sense. I'm a little skeptical that it does.

Peace,
Phil