Why do Conservative Anglicans Criticise TAC's Overtures to Rome?

Albion · #51 6th September 2008, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by ReadingForOrders

I tend to agree with Albion here. Especially in pointing out that Anglican Use Roman Catholics simply cease to be Anglican. If TAC becomes part of the Roman Catholic Church that is their choice and I pray that they are fulfilled, but they certainly cease to be Anglican in any real way.

This thread is more a matter of someone thinking aloud than the usual--posting a proposition for debate. That being the case, I am willing to offer an opinion, but I wouldn't want to jump on Secundulus' situation and beat it to a pulp. He's a good and knowledgeable fellow and is hoping for something none of the rest of us would, that's all.

You and I agree, apparently, and so does 'later nonjuror' (who put it more strongly) that the reason for the coolness of conservative Anglicans, if that's correct to say, towards the proposal is probably mainly because we see this as little more than converting to Roman Catholicism, not as any halfway deal in which one's Anglican heritage is going to be preserved.

BUT, I think at this point in the thread that we'd all benefit from Secundulus giving us his feedback. By that I don't mean for him to argue back against us thinking what we do, but how HE sees the prospects that lie ahead.

We say it's not possible that the Vatican -- if it gives TAC anything at all -- is going to go further than to offer "Anglican Use en masse." I'm wondering if 1) Secundulus will accept that offer for himself if it comes, and 2) whether he believes we are wrong in our evaluation, and that it will be something more like a Uniate relationship.

If it's the latter, I wonder why, since all that I've read is that this or anything close to it is off the table.

ReadingForOrders · #52 6th September 2008, 10:21 AM

It certainly was not my intention to attack Secundulus in any way. I too would be interested in knowing what TAC in general and friend Secundulus will choose should the RC Church simply offer "Anglican Use". I believe he has stated that he will happily follow his bishop whom he believes will follow Bishop Hepworth.

But I did intend to agree with you that "Anglican Use" is simply not "Anglican". One other question that has been fairly covered for me is the question what if nothing is offered short of simply allowing individuals to convert to Roman Catholicism? For me the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is an issue I could not personally accept. Thus even the status of Uniate could not personally be acceptable to me.

If I did seem harsh to Secundulus I heartily beg forgiveness.

Albion · #53 6th September 2008, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by ReadingForOrders

It certainly was not my intention to attack Secundulus in any way.

I know that. I attached my comments to your post, but I wasn't saying that you had attacked anyone. I was saying that I believe that the whole TAC proposal is distasteful for reasons already mentioned, BUT that I didn't want to be unkind to him because his and my POVs differ on this. He has his own conscience and it may lead in a direction that mine wouldn't take me, that's all. You feel similarly, I think.

However, I would like to have him give a reaction to what we've said rather than have this be left with only our responses to the OP.

I too would be interested in knowing what TAC in general and friend Secundulus will choose should the RC Church simply offer "Anglican Use". I believe he has stated that he will happily follow his bishop whom he believes will follow Bishop Hepworth.

Yeh, I guess this is what Secundulus' stance is. He's said before that he trusts his archbishop, and that's an answer. Probably my comments amounted to little more than saying "are you sure?" or "is there NO point at which you'd NOT go along"--and maybe this is unfair of me to ask.

If I did seem harsh to Secundulus I heartily beg forgiveness.

No, that's an impression I left by not wording my post more carefully.

Secundulus · #54 6th September 2008, 11:38 AM

Thanks for asking for my response.

Anglican Use. I don't think that this is what will be offered since if it was, I think they would have either said so already or simply rejected the letter sent last year. I tend to agree with you that this would not really be Anglicanism, but simply Roman with an alternate liturgy. If this is what is offered then I don't think our Bishops will go. If that was their intention, then they could have gone already. But if they did decide to go, what would I do? This is a difficult question that I have thought about extensively. Given where I live, these would be my options should my parish become Anglican Use.

1. Go to the TEC parishes. I cannot do that because I disagree with their theology at its most basic level.
2. Become a Southern Baptist. That is a possibility, although I really don't want to since I believe that they lack a proper understanding of the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. Nevertheless, I agree with all their basic theology and understanding of Christ.
3. Become Orthodox. We have a small Orthodox Church in town composed of former TEC members. However, in my opinion, they are so small their survival is questionable and they do not even have a resident priest. The closest priest is over 100 miles away.
4. Become Anglican Use. I could do that, although, as you say, it is no longer Anglican.

As you can see, if this is to happen, the option to remain Anglican would no longer exist. The choice really comes down to staying home, giving up the sacraments, or becoming RC. Probably I would go Anglican Use, if for no other reason than to retain the sacraments.

I personally believe, based upon what I read and hear, that something other than Anglican Use is in the works. (I do not have any reliable information as to any specifics) If this happens then it becomes more of a debatable point whether this is still Anglicanism or not. If one believes that the history of the Anglican Church begins in 1529 then this is clearly not Anglicanism. If one believes that the history of the Anglican Church begins in the first century then it is believable that an Anglican Church can exist in communion with Rome.

As for Papal infallibility, since that seems to be everyone's main sticking point, I don't have as big a problem with that as do others.

First, support for the idea of the Bishop of Rome being the final arbiter of issues can be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Nevertheless, I agree that it is not stated explicitly there or in the scriptures. However, given its practical application, I don't have a real problem living under it. It has only been used once since its declaration as dogma to declare the assumption of Mary. I have no objection to the assumption since its concept is stated explicitly in Thessalonians and simply states that what will happen to every Christian happened to Mary first.

Wherever else they may have been in error, no Popes have used infallibility to undermine the faith or to declare something objectionable.

Also, I reject the notion of solo scriptura as being contrary to what the early Church believed and taught. While nothing can be taught that is contrary to scripture, new ideas and explanations can develop that are in harmony with scripture.

Frankly, if one truly holds to solo scriptura then that one should also reject the explanation of the trinity developed in the fourth and fifth centuries. While Christ's divinity is certainly contained in scripture, the full doctrine of the trinity is not really there. I believe it is true because it was revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church against the false teachings of various heretics beginning with Arius. Is any Trinity believing Christian really solo scriptura, or is this simply a something they use to differentiate themselves from the Roman Church?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I believe that the gross divisions present within Christendom today are contrary to scripture and that they weaken our witness against heretics, atheists, and Islam. We have become discredited in the ears of the world simply because the word Christian does not really have any specific meaning anymore. The word Christian today encompasses a large number of opposed and mutually exclusive beliefs.

TAC joining Rome will certainly not solve this. However, it is a first step. If TAC can join Rome under some arrangement that is not objectionable then that perhaps will send a message to the Orthodox that they can come back into communion without violating their core beliefs. (Preliminary talks have already occurred trying to find a way to make this happen). If that were to happen then Christendom might someday be reunited, at least 1.6 billion +.

Christianity will certainly not be destroyed, as Christ promised. But as long as we remain divided and in competition with one another we are ineffective against the world and particularly against Islam. I think at this stage in history, it behooves us to put aside secondary differences and reunite under one banner so as not to sentence future generations of Christians to dhimmitude under Islam or irrelevancy and persecution under secularism.

Until Christ sets foot back on earth, there will be no perfect solution. Until he returns, I see the Vatican as the only logical place where we can all rally.

-------------------------------------
Edited to Add:
I see no possibility of Anglicanism, ever again uniting. I also see no possibility of even the "Orthodox" Anglican uniting for an extended time. Right now, the only thing that unites Orthodox Anglicans is opposition to homosexuality. If they unite on this, which is questionable since they mostly seem to want to remain in communion with liberal Canterbury, then they will begin to immediately fragment over women's ordination. Following that they will continue to fragment over bishops' personal disagreements. Schism, once initiated, seems to be an unstoppable process.

Albion · #55 6th September 2008, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Secundulus

Thanks for asking for my response.

Anglican Use. I don't think that this is what will be offered since if it was, I think they would have either said so already or simply rejected the letter sent last year. I tend to agree with you that this would not really be Anglicanism, but simply Roman with an alternate liturgy. If this is what is offered then I don't think our Bishops will go.

Hi, Secundulus...and thanks. Here we may have a difference of opinion about the facts themselves. I'd say that--despite what you have written here--the bishops had reasons not to accept the Anglican Use without further delay. That would be 1) (if I'm right about how it works) that they wanted TAC to be dealt with as a church, not piecemealed into the RCC in the way that an individual parish might do when coming over from ECUSA to Anglican Use. I think that the bishops were and are prepared to go Anglican Use if Anglican Use is restated so that all of TAC is accepted as eligible for it as a package. The only way that I'd see them rejecting this is if the Vatican replied, in effect, "It's there already. Apply. No special treatment."

And there is also one other little item we forget sometimes...2) it's not automatic that what the Vatican has set up for Episcopalians applies to us schismatic Anglicans. It think that the TAC bishops had to have that resolved in their favor as part of the deal, whatever it is.

But if they did decide to go, what would I do?

This is a difficult question that I have thought about extensively. Given where I live, these would be my options should my parish become Anglican Use.

1. Go to the TEC parishes. I cannot do that because I disagree with their theology at its most basic level.
2. Become a Southern Baptist. That is a possibility, although I really don't want to since I believe that they lack a proper understanding of the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. Nevertheless, I agree with all their basic theology and understanding of Christ.
3. Become Orthodox. We have a small Orthodox Church in town composed of former TEC members. However, in my opinion, they are so small their survival is questionable and they do not even have a resident priest. The closest priest is over 100 miles away.
4. Become Anglican Use. I could do that, although, as you say, it is no longer Anglican.

As you can see, if this is to happen, the option to remain Anglican would no longer exist. The choice really comes down to staying home, giving up the sacraments, or becoming RC. Probably I would go Anglican Use, if for no other reason than to retain the sacraments.

One way out might be if your parish declined to go along and joined some other jurisdiction. I am sure that that will happen in many cases. Although ++Hepworth is negotiating on behalf of all his churches, many of them are holding their breaths and not giving any blank checks. They are not going to protest at this point, however, knowing that it might never come to that.

I personally believe, based upon what I read and hear, that something other than Anglican Use is in the works. (I do not have any reliable information as to any specifics) If this happens then it becomes more of a debatable point whether this is still Anglicanism or not.

Yes. But the '64 dollar question' is "How MUCH different." If TAC as a unit were invited to take advantage of the Anglican Use and a special overseer of some sort were named by the Vatican to facilitate it, that in itself could be called "other than Anglican Use" as it currently exists. And of course there could be some other variations which would, again, require a decision if this constitutes retaining anything meaningfully Anglican or not. We can't know all the possibilities at this point, so I'm with your thinking here that it's not impossible the deal will be sweetened enough to put you at ease. I guess some of us went into this thinking you couldn't accept Anglican Use or "Anglican Use Plus" and that was where we went wrong.

If one believes that the history of the Anglican Church begins in 1529 then this is clearly not Anglicanism. If one believes that the history of the Anglican Church begins in the first century then it is believable that an Anglican Church can exist in communion with Rome.

Well, the Vatican certainly isn't going to support that second view of history.

As for Papal infallibility, since that seems to be everyone's main sticking point, I don't have as big a problem with that as do others.

First, support for the idea of the Bishop of Rome being the final arbiter of issues can be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Nevertheless, I agree that it is not stated explicitly there or in the scriptures. However, given its practical application, I don't have a real problem living under it. It has only been used once since its declaration as dogma to declare the assumption of Mary. I have no objection to the assumption since its concept is stated explicitly in Thessalonians and simply states that what will happen to every Christian happened to Mary first.

Wherever else they may have been in error, no Popes have used infallibility to undermine the faith or to declare something objectionable.

Also, I reject the notion of solo scriptura as being contrary to what the early Church believed and taught. While nothing can be taught that is contrary to scripture, new ideas and explanations can develop that are in harmony with scripture.

Frankly, if one truly holds to solo scriptura then that one should also reject the explanation of the trinity developed in the fourth and fifth centuries. While Christ's divinity is certainly contained in scripture, the full doctrine of the trinity is not really there. I believe it is true because it was revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church against the false teachings of various heretics beginning with Arius. Is any Trinity believing Christian really solo scriptura, or is this simply a something they use to differentiate themselves from the Roman Church?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I believe that the gross divisions present within Christendom today are contrary to scripture and that they weaken our witness against heretics, atheists, and Islam. We have become discredited in the ears of the world simply because the word Christian does not really have any specific meaning anymore. The word Christian today encompasses a large number of opposed and mutually exclusive beliefs.

TAC joining Rome will certainly not solve this. However, it is a first step. If TAC can join Rome under some arrangement that is not objectionable then that perhaps will send a message to the Orthodox that they can come back into communion without violating their core beliefs. (Preliminary talks have already occurred trying to find a way to make this happen). If that were to happen then Christendom might someday be reunited, at least 1.6 billion +.

Christianity will certainly not be destroyed, as Christ promised. But as long as we remain divided and in competition with one another we are ineffective against the world and particularly against Islam. I think at this stage in history, it behooves us to put aside secondary differences and reunite under one banner so as not to sentence future generations of Christians to dhimmitude under Islam or irrelevancy and persecution under secularism.

Until Christ sets foot back on earth, there will be no perfect solution. Until he returns, I see the Vatican as the only logical place where we can all rally.

I'm persuaded that if this is your view, there's nothing for you to oppose if your parish does go Anglican Use.

-------------------------------------

Edited to Add:
I see no possibility of Anglicanism, ever again uniting. I also see no possibility of even the "Orthodox" Anglican uniting for an extended time. Right now, the only thing that unites Orthodox Anglicans is opposition to homosexuality. If they unite on this, which is questionable since they mostly seem to want to remain in communion with liberal Canterbury, then they will begin to immediately fragment over women's ordination. Following that they will continue to fragment over bishops' personal disagreements. Schism, once initiated, seems to be an unstoppable process.

Yeh, this doesn't bother me overly, although I'd rather there were more unity.

Well, this has been interesting and gives lots of food for thought. Thank you, Secundulus.

Secundulus · #56 6th September 2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Albion

Hi, Secundulus...and thanks. Here we may have a difference of opinion about the facts themselves. I'd say that--despite what you have written here--the bishops had reasons not to accept the Anglican Use without further delay. That would be 1) (if I'm right about how it works) that they wanted TAC to be dealt with as a church, not piecemealed into the RCC in the way that an individual parish might do when coming over from ECUSA to Anglican Use. I think that the bishops were and are prepared to go Anglican Use if Anglican Use is restated so that all of TAC is accepted as eligible for it as a package. The only way that I'd see them rejecting this is if the Vatican replied, in effect, "It's there already. Apply. No special treatment."

And there is also one other little item we forget sometimes...2) it's not automatic that what the Vatican has set up for Episcopalians applies to us schismatic Anglicans. It think that the TAC bishops had to have that resolved in their favor as part of the deal, whatever it is.

My hope is that Pope Benedict is taking the long view of history and is making moves that could lead eventually to the reunification of Christendom. I really don't have any hard evidence for this, but it remains my hope.

Looking back, it seems that Christendom reaches some crisis point that leads to significant change about every 500 years. Maybe now is the time for a new chapter to be opened.

One way out might be if your parish declined to go along and joined some other jurisdiction. I am sure that that will happen in many cases. Although ++Hepworth is negotiating on behalf of all his churches, many of them are holding their breaths and not giving any blank checks. They are not going to protest at this point, however, knowing that it might never come to that.

I don't think would separate if it comes to that. I am senior warden and have at least some say in the matter. Of course, I could always be outvoted.

Yes. But the '64 dollar question' is "How MUCH different." If TAC as a unit were invited to take advantage of the Anglican Use and a special overseer of some sort were named by the Vatican to facilitate it, that in itself could be called "other than Anglican Use" as it currently exists. And of course there could be some other variations which would, again, require a decision if this constitutes retaining anything meaningfully Anglican or not. We can't know all the possibilities at this point, so I'm with your thinking here that it's not impossible the deal will be sweetened enough to put you at ease. I guess some of us went into this thinking you couldn't accept Anglican Use or "Anglican Use Plus" and that was where we went wrong.

I am hoping we retain our Bishops; not entirely out of the question I think. Unmarried Bishop and Priests is not doctrine, but simply discipline. I know that many current Catholics are strongly against this, but, it is not their decision. Many speculate, but few know, including myself.

Well, the Vatican certainly isn't going to support that second view of history.

You may be right, but I think Pope Benedict is our friend. He has been working with us since long before he became Pope. If he makes something happen, even if many of their Bishops are not entirely happy with it, they will be stuck with his decision simply because he is the Pope.

Also, may he live long enough to bring the RC church back onto an "Orthodox" course. He has already made a great start.

Rhamiel · #57 6th September 2008, 04:34 PM

Well, the Vatican certainly isn't going to support that second view of history.

You may be right, but I think Pope Benedict is our friend. He has been working with us since long before he became Pope. If he makes something happen, even if many of their Bishops are not entirely happy with it, they will be stuck with his decision simply because he is the Pope.

if by vatican you mean the current Pope and his court, then that may or may not be true, if you mean the catholic church in general, then that is just wrong, the Catholic Church recognizes differant Churches, the Catholic Church is made up of 22 Churches united to the Latin Rite Catholic Church, recognizing an anglican rite would not be so outragous as you think, england has a history as a quasi independant christian church from very early on

Albion · #58 6th September 2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Secundulus

My hope is that Pope Benedict is taking the long view of history and is making moves that could lead eventually to the reunification of Christendom. I really don't have any hard evidence for this, but it remains my hope.

Looking back, it seems that Christendom reaches some crisis point that leads to significant change about every 500 years. Maybe now is the time for a new chapter to be opened.
I don't think would separate if it comes to that. I am senior warden and have at least some say in the matter. Of course, I could always be outvoted.

I notice that you omitted a word in that third-to-last sentence, so I'm not certain what you meant to say. I'm guessing that it's "I don't think WE would separate if it comes to that." If so, then we could just scratch that possibility from your list.

I am hoping we retain our Bishops; not entirely out of the question I think. Unmarried Bishop and Priests is not doctrine, but simply discipline. I know that many current Catholics are strongly against this, but, it is not their decision. Many speculate, but few know, including myself.

My understanding is that the TAC bishops offered to become priests under the new set-up.

You may be right, but I think Pope Benedict is our friend. He has been working with us since long before he became Pope. If he makes something happen, even if many of their Bishops are not entirely happy with it, they will be stuck with his decision simply because he is the Pope.

They will be stuck with it, yes. And I'm willing to say that he's a friend. But he'd never accept that view of history...not that this means much one way or the other to the prospects of the TAC proposal. It's more a question of how you view things and I don't suppose that, whatever happens, anything would mandate that you change your mind about history in this regard.

Also, may he live long enough to bring the RC church back onto an "Orthodox" course. He has already made a great start.

If it were me in your position, my biggest concern would be that because the Pope wants to continue on with RC-Anglican talks with Canterbury, and because at the same time he's criticised Anglican splits and cross-border jurisdictions as wrong and calling for them to be ended, he intends not to offend the Anglican Communion by giving TAC anything more than it would give any group of converts. IOW, estrange oneself from 70,000,000 Anglicans you've said you are still interested in working with towards some kind of unity in order to reach an accomodation with several hundred thousand? That seems like a longshot.

Albion · #59 6th September 2008, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Rhamiel

if by vatican you mean the current Pope and his court, then that may or may not be true, if you mean the catholic church in general, then that is just wrong, the Catholic Church recognizes differant Churches, the Catholic Church is made up of 22 Churches united to the Latin Rite Catholic Church, recognizing an anglican rite would not be so outragous as you think, england has a history as a quasi independant christian church from very early on

No, no. The two situations are entirely different and the Papacy (this pope) has already said so.

Secundulus · #60 6th September 2008, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Albion

If it were me in your position, my biggest concern would be that because the Pope wants to continue on with RC-Anglican talks with Canterbury, and because at the same time he's criticised Anglican splits and cross-border jurisdictions as wrong and calling for them to be ended, he intends not to offend the Anglican Communion by giving TAC anything more than it would give any group of converts. IOW, estrange oneself from 70,000,000 Anglicans you've said you are still interested in working with towards some kind of unity in order to reach an accomodation with several hundred thousand? That seems like a longshot.

Perhaps I misread them, but what I heard from the Cardinals that recently spoke at Lambeth, that era is ended since the Anglican Church shows no inclination to desist from their innovations. What I think they said was that they now felt free to speak with groups such as TAC since further talks with the Anglican Church at large would appear to be fruitless and would continue as a mere formality.