Since when is a family reunion or a homecoming or a family feud resolved bad news? Well, in the secular news media apparently whenever the Catholic Church is involved.
The dust has settled on the October 20 announcement and the November 4 publication of the Apostolic Constitution streamlining the entry of Anglicans into full communion with the Catholic Church. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, has even been to Rome to discuss matters with the Pope in a “cordial dialogue”. The dust has also settled in large part on the uproar of news pieces, articles and blogs on the subject. Some choice pieces spoke of the Pope in huntsman’s terms: poacher, fishing without a permit, sheep stealing. Far fewer have been articles by members of the Traditional Anglican Communion who feel they have fallen into a poacher’s trap; none to my knowledge but I’m neither God nor Google.
Others complained that Rome didn’t give Canterbury enough heads up, only forty-eight hours by some calculations. I wouldn’t know that either although I suppose the archbishop’s secretary does. Either way there was enough time to prepare a joint statement featuring the Archbishops of Westminster and Canterbury on very day the announcement was made.
Another fascinating insight featured in an op-ed of the New York Times proposed that such a drastic move is not about liberals vs. conservatives but rather in building up the Catholic Church against the threat of Islam. “Interesting; I hadn’t thought of that”, is all I could say. I venture that Benedict XVI would have said something similar.
You would almost think that the Pope had presented the Anglican Communion with a big red ‘reconciliation and communion’ button that somehow translated — a la Dan Brown — into ‘salt lick’.
Even if some of these articles are well intentioned they are missing the point. This is all about communion.
The Catholic Church and the Church of England have been estranged since Henry VIII’s split with Rome in the 16th century. The separation weighs down on leaders from both sides. They are all acutely aware that Jesus’ intention was to found his Church, not many churches: “That they may be one.”
For well over a hundred years there have been meetings on both sides and this activity intensified after Vatican II. The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission has issued numerous doctrinal statements since then that have built the close ties between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion.
Meanwhile large splits in the Anglican Communion have been caused by… what? The Bishop of Rome tightening moral doctrine to pharisaical extremes? Prominent Catholic bishops making public wisecracks about the “founding” of the Church of England? No, none of the above, but rather from within the Anglican Communion; yes, with the ordination of every variety and orientation of people to the office of bishop and an almost systematic slackening of moral doctrine. This is not to say that these problems have never existed in the Catholic Church. They actually have, but always at an individual or small group level and have never enjoyed universal sanction.
So you have some (hundreds of thousands) Anglicans feeling a little disenfranchised, perhaps asking themselves, “Is this what Jesus had in mind when founding his Church?” At the same time they wanted to retain some aspects of their liturgy and tradition. They asked and they received.
So all the other spin/blogs/articles on the topic are either a slightly mistaken defense of the Anglican Communion on behalf of folks who didn’t want to be a part of it anymore or just another swipe at the biggest target out there: the Pope and whatever he stands for.
While many third parties are complaining about the events, about a dozen Anglican Bishops are celebrating; and a few have already declared their intentions to take up the Pope on his offer.
This is anything but a story of hunting without a permit or horse thievery. It’s a homecoming, a dream come true for thousands of Anglicans, it’s the beginning of what could be a big family reunion, it’s a piece of good news, it’s a story whose happy ending is nothing less than full communion.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Amen!
I’m not sure of the exact number, but aren’t there many, many groups in communion with Rome who have their own liturgy and traditions? The Byzantine Catholics, who have a presence right here in Alaska, spring to mind as one example. Why should the Anglicans be treated differently?
I say: WELCOME HOME!
Thank you for a very nice article.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:46 am
I can’t make the article appear on my computer screen.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Likewise. I’m currently browsing in Seamonkey 1.1.11, in Puppy Linux 4.1.2. All I see is what looks like it should be some of the comments in the HTML, having to do with the noscript section.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:36 am
I can’t view it in Firefox but Internet Explorer works fine.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
OK. Now I see the light. Well, at least the article.
It’s a good one. As the Episcopal Church in America and other portions of the Anglican community continue down a spiral into total irrelevance, many faithful Christians of those groups want an authentic church home. It’s a brilliant, as well as benevolent, move by our Shepherd to roll out the red carpet to them. Welcome home indeed!
December 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I’ve already read a lot about this on Father Dwight Longenecker’s blog ( http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com ). His interest is natural, as he was a priest in the Anglican communion who entered the Church and then the priesthood through the Pastoral Provision.
He has also made the point that what Papa Ben is after is that we may all be one.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I wonder what John Henry Newman (1801-1890), who converted from Anglican to Catholic, would say about these developments?
As mentioned in my profile, I’m United Methodist (not even in communion with Anglicans, come to think of it). It’s important, I think, for Catholics to realize–if they don’t, that many, if not most, Protestants do not denigrate the RCC as less than a worthy denomination of the catholic (universal) Church of Jesus Christ. What many Protestants may find curious is the construction of a view that is wholly RCC-centric, as may be implied by statements such as “the separation weighs down on leaders from both sides. They are all acutely aware that Jesus’ intention was to found his Church, not many churches: ‘That they may be one.’” If one were cynical about it, one might question whether the RCC is that “one.” The form of that analysis would practically prompt a correction, that in terms of a church bureaucracy, it was more Constantine than Jesus who wanted “one” church. Jesus showed us one path to God, and to seek communion with God in Christ is the essence of our faith.
Surely from Malachi forward, the idea of a universal God who reigns over all of humankind is the stage that is set for Jesus’ dramatic and ultimately triumphant entry into history. When one delves into issues of church hierarchy one must, I think, be guided less by “branding” than by two great commandments that Jesus taught us, and by the great commission of bringing people to Christ.
So I look at words like “slackening of moral doctrine” and I wonder about many issues that reflect upon various denominations, including the RCC. As much as I respect the Pope as a good and moral pastor and speaker for Christian values, I cannot help but pick up on the wording of another commenter above, who speaks of a “a spiral into total irrelevance.” There was an opportunity, with the selection of the current Pope, to bring young people to Christ and to strengthen ecumenical ties. We’ll see what these latest developments bring (surely nothing as dramatic as the events that began in 1641 in England, but perhaps as important).
I don’t want to go “home,” to the “home” of 1517. Five hundred years later, I wonder how many Catholics can hear that?
December 7th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
davea, welcome to CE. Please stay around. My husband and I met in a Methodist church and still count friends among it’s lovely people. I think I understand the sentiment you are trying to express when you say that you want the home of 1517, but I would ask you to delve a bit more deeply into history. Just because you regret the Protestant rebellion does not mean that you would have liked the Catholic Church before the Catholic Reformation.
That being said however, we acknowledge that the Church is still in need of reform and ever will be. Come home to her as she is, please (we invite you from the heart) and be part of the solution. Be part of today’s Catholic reformation — for God has placed you in this time, not in 1517. You may find as I did that coming into the Catholic Church and joining today’s reform means your own personal reform and ongoing conversion — and what, dear man, could be more Methodist than that?
(You may also be surprised to find that youths are among B16’s biggest fans.)
December 7th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
I read davea’s comment quite differently than Mary. I read that davea does not want to come to the Catholic Church of 1517. How about the Church of 517? How about the church of 151? They are one and the same Church. It wasn’t Constantine who said: upon this Rock I will build my Church, it was Jesus.
Sure the Church was(is) political too. It has to be to be relevent in public policy. Nothing was more political than Henry V111 taking over the church and mowing down everyone in his path.
The decry of a missed opportunity with the election of the current Pope is something that needs to be taken up with the Holy Spirit. BXV1 was also the choice of JP2, You talk about bringing youth into the church, he was a rock star.
Our pope IS a “speaker for Christian values” just as Jesus was a speaker for Judaic values. But there is so much more. How dare I make the comparison that the two are in any way equivalent?
The answer is in the title – The Vicar of Christ.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I appreciate both comments above — thanks for taking the time. Yes, goral is correct: I said I DON’T want to “go home” to the RCC of 1517. The early Christian church, composed of Jews who would meet in a private homes after temple to celebrate communion, have inspired the development of orders of service in many churches that reflect ancient worship: meeting, praise and worship, the Word, and then Holy Communion and passing of peace.
I pray for the action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Pope. I didn’t come here to be dismissive. I’m supportive of ecumenism, and found the reported developments interesting and surprising, especially under the auspices of this particular Pope.
The so-called “English Reformation”–something based on a specific and untoward set of circumstances–doesn’t offer much insight into Protestantism generally, of course.
The Protestantism that developed in the years leading up to 1517 had, besides the particular issues related to RCC practices such as indulgences, a principle feature that distinguishes it today: a questioning of the function the priesthood vis a vis an individual’s personal relationship with God. From the Wiki: “Catholics and Anglicans point to passages such as Matthew 16:18-19 (‘upon this rock I will build my church’) as the establishment of the Papacy and ecclestiastical hierarchy. Most Protestant and Orthodox theologians believe Jesus was referring to Peter’s confession of faith or himself as ‘rock.’” There’s not enough space on your servers to revisit 500 years of Protestantism.
All Christians rejoice in the love of our Savior–this Sunday is Gaudete (“rejoice”) Sunday, where in our (Methodist) church we will light two violet candles, and one rose candle on the Advent wreath. Advent itself, which began to be observed perhaps 500 years before 1517, has for a thousand years been recognized as a penitential and reflective time in the lives of Christians (please disregard the commercial version on TV). The exception is this coming Sunday–woo hoo! Rejoice!
December 10th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
davea: Sorry for misreading you.
Thanks for your charitable response.
You wrote: The early Christian church, composed of Jews who would meet in a private homes after temple to celebrate communion, have inspired the development of orders of service in many churches that reflect ancient worship: meeting, praise and worship, the Word, and then Holy Communion and passing of peace.
Now let me ask in all seriousness: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO A MASS?
Where really do you think that order of worship (when it is used in those Protestant services that are still liturgical) comes from? You think it jumped over 1000 years of history and landed in Protestantism? You think that the Protestant communions went back to the early Christians and read their worship books and patterned themselves after that?
Have YOU read the early Christians on worship?
December 10th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I think that order of worship comes from the early church, Mary.
I was at last at a Catholic mass in about 1968, when I went to hear an anti-Vietnam war message from a priest on the campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. I can’t imagine what response I would get from a priest if I confessed THAT. I’ll tell you something personal, Mary: your earlier invitation has triggered some reflection. That is quite unexpected.
That said, I grew up in the American Baptist Church (not liturgical in the least). It was a bit of an adjustment to land in the UMC when I got married many years later. I would not say that the liturgy per se has deepened my faith. Joining the choir, I have found, has made me much more aware (and concerned) about the progress of the service of worship. Now I have a heightened awareness of everything that is going on, and prayerful concern about the “feeding” of all the parishioners.
History argues against some of the “traditions” of the RCC–significant elements having been introduced during the Middle Ages or later, and some for pragmatic reasons. It is frustrating to hear attacks against Christianity based on claims that it is a mechanism for “control” of people. Naturally, the venerable RCC is a favorite target for these attacks. I don’t accept them, and as a Christian, I really can’t (Mark 9:40).
Since you’ve challenged me in a couple of areas, I’ll toss this out: is it not curious that the Anglican Church, whose structure was “invented” as a “replacement” for the RCC, for nefarious purposes, should, because of the presence of the accouterments of the RCC (the bureaucracy, and other structural elements, arguably fraudulently produced in their original form), should be, because of these very formal similarities to the RCC, be singled out for an entrance into communion with the RCC? Isn’t this a case of “form over function?” From the article above: “At the same time [Anglicans] wanted to retain some aspects of their liturgy and tradition.” Is that what it’s really all about?