What do you think of Anglo-Papalism?

[ContraMundum]

I've said it before, so probably I should let it go at that...but I'd be dumbfounded if Rome offered anything other than a group admission to the Anglican Use provision, if that.

That has been discussed over the last decade or so and has been rejected by both sides already.

Whether that would appeal to most TAC parishes, I doubt. Beyond this, TAC is just too small for Rome to see as any vehicle for a breakthrough in Anglican relations, and especially so in view of the fact that she's recently made it clear that she is powerfully opposed to schisms coming from within the Anglican Communion.

Actually, the TAC is much larger than many groups who have previously been accepted into full communion with Rome. Also, recently the RCC made it clear that unity talks with Canterbury are basically "difficult" until further notice, as Cardinal Kaspar has told the Lambeth conference on July 30 this year.

What people seem to forget is that the TAC is merely continuing the exact same process and vision of ARCIC. The same language has been employed ("united, not absorbed") and the TAC has gone further along that original vision than any other Anglican group previously. This was where all Anglicans were going anyway.

 

[Albion]

That has been discussed over the last decade or so and has been rejected by both sides already.

Although TAC had wanted and expected better than this previously, when at Portsmouth she petitioned Rome to take her on in on ANY terms that Rome might go for, I think it meant that the bishops were re-thinking a rejection of this kind of offer. But I still think it very unlikely that it will be offered, anyway, because that would be to facilitate Anglican schism, something she has criticized and called upon Canterbury to resolve.

Actually, the TAC is much larger than many groups who have previously been accepted into full communion with Rome.

I don't doubt you, but were those groups part of a larger family of faith--unlike this situation?

Also, recently the RCC made it clear that unity talks with Canterbury are basically "difficult" until further notice, as Cardinal Kaspar has told the Lambeth conference on July 30 this year.

Yes, but the implication there was not that she'd go off and deal with some other Anglicans instead.

What people seem to forget is that the TAC is merely continuing the exact same process and vision of ARCIC. The same language has been employed ("united, not absorbed") and the TAC has gone further along that original vision than any other Anglican group previously. This was where all Anglicans were going anyway.

But TAC is not Canterbury or the Anglican Communion. That's a huge difference to Rome.

 

[ContraMundum]

Although TAC had wanted and expected better than this previously, when at Portsmouth she petitioned Rome to take her on in on ANY terms that Rome might go for, I think it meant that the bishops were re-thinking a rejection of this kind of offer.

That's not true at all.

But I still think it very unlikely that it will be offered, anyway, because that would be to facilitate Anglican schism, something she has criticized and called upon Canterbury to resolve.

That IS true.

I don't doubt you, but were those groups part of a larger family of faith--unlike this situation?

I don't know.

Yes, but the implication there was not that she'd go off and deal with some other Anglicans instead.

But there is also the implication that the theological differences were to be resolved, not deepened. The Canterbury communion has not done its part of the deal.

But TAC is not Canterbury or the Anglican Communion. That's a huge difference to Rome.

Time will tell.

 

[Albion]

That's not true at all.

Well, I'm not wrong on the terms of the offer, and if that's was correct as stated, the second part is a "given."

I don't know.

OK, but that would make all the difference.

But there is also the implication that the theological differences were to be resolved, not deepened. The Canterbury communion has not done its part of the deal.

Of course, but my point is that Rome just issued its challenge to Canterbury. It wouldn't make sense for the Vatican to undercut its own position--which is what making any deal with another set of Anglicans at this time would amount to, even if one of them is indeed closer in faith to the RCC.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well, I'm not wrong on the terms of the offer, and if that's was correct as stated, the second part is a "given."

The offer is not "we'll take anything you can give us" at all. Certain things must be guaranteed and the Bishops will decide on whatever Rome offers the TAC.

 

[Albion]

The offer is not "we'll take anything you can give us" at all. Certain things must be guaranteed and the Bishops will decide on whatever Rome offers the TAC.

Yes and no. Yes, the offer was to join Rome on whatever terms Rome stipulates. Certain things being guaranteed was not part of the proposal.

On the other hand, if the offer is a real surprise or something the bishops had not thought possible, of course their hands aren't tied in advance, not any more than the membership can be exected to go over to Rome 100% even if the offer turns out--assuming that there is one--to be to the liking of the bishops.

 

[longhair75]

Friend Albion wrote:

Yes and no. Yes, the offer was to join Rome on whatever terms Rome stipulates. Certain things being guaranteed was not part of the proposal.

In the end, I would bet that Rome will insist upon full conversion and acceptance of all things Roman (Marian dogma, infallibility, full submission to Papal authority ect.)

 

[Albion]

In the end, I would bet that Rome will insist upon full conversion and acceptance of all things Roman (Marian dogma, infallibility, full submission to Papal authority ect.)

Yes, but that isn't an issue. The TAC (and its American province, the ACA) have long since agreed to all of that, in order that there be no reason for Rome to find them unacceptable on doctrinal grounds. They already profess all RC doctrines.

That's why they have hopes that they'll be admitted into full union--with only the concession being that some sort of Anglican identity be permitted to remain. To other Anglicans, the response is often, "then just join a local RC parish (or an existing Anglican Use RC parish) and get it over with." That, however, would deprive the TAC of being able to feel that they'd played a specific and tangible part in some reconciliation of the RC and the Anglican church after these five centuries of separation. They really want to play that role. Other Anglicans think it's much ado about almost nothing, even if Rome accepts TAC.

And as for the average TAC member, like Secundulus, there's a reluctance to jump immediately since this would mean leaving their parishes and also not waiting to see what the deal--if there is one--amounts to. They already call themselves Catholics and profess every Catholic doctrine, and they have the professed good will of the Vatican as well, but after several years of the bishops telling their people that something is "imminent," there is no end in sight to the waiting and wondering. It is beginning to make me think of the situation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their predictions about the end of the world. This one issue overwhelms everything else, keeps the church endlessly off balance and anxious, and there is no end to it. The Vatican would do them a real favor by saying "No," if that's Rome's thinking, rather than keeping the issue on the back burner forever.

 

[longhair75]

Friend Albion,

That being the case, I wish our brothers and sisters in the TAC well, and I hope they find fulfillment in reunification with Rome.

As for me, there are no circumstances what so ever that would persuade me that such a reunification was desirable. If the Anglican Communion as a whole reunites with Rome, I will explore other denominations until I find a home.

 

[Albion]

Friend Albion,

That being the case, I wish our brothers and sisters in the TAC well, and I hope they find fulfillment in reunification with Rome.

As for me, there are no circumstances what so ever that would persuade me that such a reunification was desirable. If the Anglican Communion as a whole reunites with Rome, I will explore other denominations until I find a home.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter also (except that I already have found an alternate Anglican home).

 

[longhair75]

Friend Albion

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter also (except that I already have found an alternate Anglican home).

Then if reunification happens, look for a short, rather chunky man with a thinning grey ponytail sitting at the back of your church. ;o)

 

[Secundulus]

And as for the average TAC member, like Secundulus, there's a reluctance to jump immediately since this would mean leaving their parishes and also not waiting to see what the deal--if there is one--amounts to. They already call themselves Catholics and profess every Catholic doctrine, and they have the professed good will of the Vatican as well, but after several years of the bishops telling their people that something is "imminent," there is no end in sight to the waiting and wondering. It is beginning to make me think of the situation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their predictions about the end of the world. This one issue overwhelms everything else, keeps the church endlessly off balance and anxious, and there is no end to it. The Vatican would do them a real favor by saying "No," if that's Rome's thinking, rather than keeping the issue on the back burner forever.

Actually, I am probably one of the more extreme TAC members, if not possibly the most extreme. Maybe I could get an award, or perhaps a condemnation, from Archbishop Hepworth.

I once told my former Priest that i would be happy if he would begin celebrating a Tridentine Mass. He was pretty extreme also, but that took even him aback. Of course, I told him this tongue in cheek.

Most of our parish is not concerned with all of this. They will be happy with whatever happens if nothing (they see) changes too much. They are Anglicans and they want to worship in the Anglican Tradition. Communion or non-Communion with Rome isn't important to most of them. Of everyone in our Parish, I think we have only one that might actually be called "anti-Roman".

As for what they think of Catholic Doctrine, most (maybe all but one) trust our Priest to teach them what is correct. He is teaching what our Bishop has accepted.

Our Parish is not off balance as (outside of me) nobody really worries about any of this. We continue to celebrate a Valid Eucharist on every Sunday and on every 1928 BCP day of obligation. And we continue to have a fellowship supper and class of some kind on every Wednesday.

The people in my Parish are Christians and seek only to follow Christ. They currently trust their leadership and will follow it where it leads.

As for me, I don't much worry about it either. I pray for communion because I think it is the right thing. But until a decision is made one way or another it continues to be a secondary issue to serving the Parish week to week.

If a negative answer eventually comes back from Rome, I am not sure what I will do. Honestly, probably I'll stay where I am at if for no other reason than to continue serving MY parish and following MY Bishop.

 

[ContraMundum]

Yes and no. Yes, the offer was to join Rome on whatever terms Rome stipulates. Certain things being guaranteed was not part of the proposal.

On the other hand, if the offer is a real surprise or something the bishops had not thought possible, of course their hands aren't tied in advance, not any more than the membership can be exected to go over to Rome 100% even if the offer turns out--assuming that there is one--to be to the liking of the bishops.

I don't know where you are getting your information from. I have personally had this whole thing explained to me by the Abp himself as well as two other bishops since. The proposal is quite clear- full communion, not absorption, with Rome. There are a lot of people in the TAC that would be happy to be absorbed into Rome, but I'm not one of them. The idea is an extension of the Malines Conversations- spoken of later by Pope Paul VI as being that Anglicans would be "united but not absorbed". It is the terms of that unity that are basically up to Rome, and those terms must be within the already previously agreed upon boundaries. This is not a mass "conversion" to Rome, but an extension of the discussion on how unity will take place and the further hope that it does.

 

[ContraMundum]

Most of our parish is not concerned with all of this. They will be happy with whatever happens if nothing (they see) changes too much. They are Anglicans and they want to worship in the Anglican Tradition. Communion or non-Communion with Rome isn't important to most of them. Of everyone in our Parish, I think we have only one that might actually be called "anti-Roman".

As for what they think of Catholic Doctrine, most (maybe all but one) trust our Priest to teach them what is correct. He is teaching what our Bishop has accepted.

The people in my Parish are Christians and seek only to follow Christ. They currently trust their leadership and will follow it where it leads.

Sounds like most of the TAC parishes I have visited too for the last decade or so- though there has been a massive shift towards Anglo-Catholicism in the last ten years or so.

Most people aren't too worried about the Rome thing. It's up to God.

 

[No Swansong]

I don't know where you are getting your information from. I have personally had this whole thing explained to me by the Abp himself as well as two other bishops since. The proposal is quite clear- full communion, not absorption, with Rome. There are a lot of people in the TAC that would be happy to be absorbed into Rome, but I'm not one of them. The idea is an extension of the Malines Conversations- spoken of later by Pope Paul VI as being that Anglicans would be "united but not absorbed". It is the terms of that unity that are basically up to Rome, and those terms must be within the already previously agreed upon boundaries. This is not a mass "conversion" to Rome, but an extension of the discussion on how unity will take place and the further hope that it does.

Contra my friend I have a question for you. Who exactly does Rome have intercommunion with that isn't absorbed? I mean the Uniates exist but to most of those outside Rome they are still Roman. The Romans will allow their communicants to commune in an Orthodox Church under exigent circumstances but the Orthodox do not reciprocate so no formal intercommunion exists there. The Romans allow no Old Catholics or Anglicans to commune. Nor do they allow any Protestants. So what exactly is it that has been explained to you? I'm really pretty puzzled by this.

 

[Albion]

I don't know where you are getting your information from. I have personally had this whole thing explained to me by the Abp himself as well as two other bishops since. The proposal is quite clear- full communion, not absorption, with Rome.

There's no need to be upset, my friend. We both are just guessing, and neither of us will be affected personally no matter which way this goes. And we both can be wrong.

We both have our sources, and time will show which of us is more perceptive. So far, I am, like it or not. When the same TAC abp said, several years ago, that Rome's approval of the specific TAC proposal then on the table would be "imminent," I doubted the accuracy of that prediction and said so. Of course, it was not "imminent." It never came at all. Now even TAC has admitted that that isn't going to happen.

Then, it was confidently predicted that the revised proposal for TAC to be given some less notable status by Rome would be announced earlier in this year. I said again that this would likely not happen. It didn't.

Then it was said, also with great confidence, that the Vatican was planning to make its positive announcement right after Lambeth...after all, there was too much going on until that was over and done with. But then it would come right away. I said this was very unlikely. Again, I was right.

So, once again, the faithful are being told by the same people who said several times before that approval was going to be announced any day now that the outlook is still good. If I am wrong, so be it; but I certainly don't think that Abp Hepworth knows what the Vatican intends to do. He didn't know each of the earlier times, and he doesn't know now. But if we pay attention to what the Vatican itself is saying, rather than banking on TAC sources which have been wrong more than once before and obviously would prefer not to admit defeat a moment sooner than necessary, we get a better picture.

Anyway, we'll see if I am right once again. Let's make a mental note to return to this thread in, say, three months and see what has transpired vis-a-vis TAC's plans and predictions.

There are a lot of people in the TAC that would be happy to be absorbed into Rome, but I'm not one of them. The idea is an extension of the Malines Conversations- spoken of later by Pope Paul VI as being that Anglicans would be "united but not absorbed".

I have noticed before that you seem to think that whatever Rome has said with respect to the Anglican Communion she will also apply to any small offshoot of the Anglican Communion, if only that offshoot is doctrinally in step with Rome. I think that this is a fundamentally mistaken idea, CM. She doesn't...and she has made this clear.

From the very beginning of the Continuing Anglican movement, there were Catholic-leaning groups which were just certain that Rome was on the verge of making then Uniates or something like that, and in each case Rome was polite and supportive. In each case, however, nothing came of it. TAC's initiatives are just the latest installment in that saga.

Even the much discussed Anglican Use and Pastoral Provision decisions of recent years were inaugurated with clergy and parishes of the Anglican Communion in mind, not with our churches.

 

[ContraMundum]

There's no need to be upset, my friend. We both are just guessing, and neither of us will be affected personally no matter which way this goes. And we both can be wrong.

Actually, I will be very effected, and in fact already have been. You seem to forget I'm a TAC cleric. So far I've been very positively effected by this all, with some very good and exciting things going on...but enough of that.

You do have a point. We could all be wrong about this- even the Bishops.

We both have our sources, and time will show which of us is more perceptive.

Abp Hepworth and the other bishops are my source. I live and work and minister in his home diocese.

So far, I am, like it or not. When the same TAC abp said, several years ago, that Rome's approval of the specific TAC proposal then on the table would be "imminent," I doubted the accuracy of that prediction and said so. Of course, it was not "imminent." It never came at all. Now even TAC has admitted that that isn't going to happen.

Then, it was confidently predicted that the revised proposal for TAC to be given some less notable status by Rome would be announced earlier in this year. I said again that this would likely not happen. It didn't.

Truth be told, I was saying all that too. You and I are both right.

Then it was said, also with great confidence, that the Vatican was planning to make its positive announcement right after Lambeth...after all, there was too much going on until that was over and done with. But then it would come right away. I said this was very unlikely. Again, I was right.

They did make an announcement, or a non-announcementt if you like. Please don't forget that the Vatican is made up of people who are also getting it wrong. They have some positive clergy, and some doubters too. Some are very supportive and are pushing for this.

So, once again, the faithful are being told by the same people who said several times before that approval was going to be announced any day now that the outlook is still good. If I am wrong, so be it; but I certainly don't think that Abp Hepworth knows what the Vatican intends to do. He didn't know each of the earlier times, and he doesn't know now. But if we pay attention to what the Vatican itself is saying, rather than banking on TAC sources which have been wrong more than once before and obviously would prefer not to admit defeat a moment sooner than necessary, we get a better picture.

The Vatican is in a peculiar place right now. They don't want to upset people, but I think in the end the TAC will get a decent answer.

I have noticed before that you seem to think that whatever Rome has said with respect to the Anglican Communion she will also apply to any small offshoot of the Anglican Communion, if only that offshoot is doctrinally in step with Rome. I think that this is a fundamentally mistaken idea, CM. She doesn't...and she has made this clear.

Actually, I don't think that- I am saying that such is the intention of the meetings. I'm right about that 100%.

From the very beginning of the Continuing Anglican movement, there were Catholic-leaning groups which were just certain that Rome was on the verge of making then Uniates or something like that, and in each case Rome was polite and supportive. In each case, however, nothing came of it. TAC's initiatives are just the latest installment in that saga.

But, you must admit- they are a) continuing to push for what they think is right and b) gone a lot further down the road to success than any of the smaller continuers.

 

[ContraMundum]

Contra my friend I have a question for you. Who exactly does Rome have intercommunion with that isn't absorbed? I mean the Uniates exist but to most of those outside Rome they are still Roman. The Romans will allow their communicants to commune in an Orthodox Church under exigent circumstances but the Orthodox do not reciprocate so no formal intercommunion exists there. The Romans allow no Old Catholics or Anglicans to commune. Nor do they allow any Protestants. So what exactly is it that has been explained to you? I'm really pretty puzzled by this.

Yeah, good question. I've been pretty slack in not really looking into that much myself. You'd think I would have but I never seem to get around to it. Here's a link I found online. (And I thought this was interesting too)

But one thing that does puzzle me is this- how many groups eventually do get absorbed? I don't know- does anyone?

 

[Albion]

Actually, I will be very effected, and in fact already have been. You seem to forget I'm a TAC cleric. So far I've been very positively effected by this all, with some very good and exciting things going on...but enough of that.

I agree. The way I worded it, I unintentionally made it sound as if the outcome would be a matter of indifference for both of us. What I meant, of course, was that neither of us would to going to Rome. However, the consequences for you of a positive response from Rome would, I realize, mean much more than that.

Abp Hepworth and the other bishops are my source. I live and work and minister in his home diocese.

I know.

Truth be told, I was saying all that too. You and I are both right.

I'm glad you took the time to clarify that for me.

But, you must admit- they are a) continuing to push for what they think is right and b) gone a lot further down the road to success than any of the smaller continuers.

a) Well, from the start I've said that if this is the way that TAC wants to go, then I wish them well. I always want, for everyone, that they find the right church home they are seeking, whatever it might be.

I do not share the opinion that it will make much of a ripple in the Anglican world, however, one way or the other. On the contrary, it'll be something like the history of the Evangelical Orthodox Church which was, in its time, much better known to the public than TAC is now. She found her way into the Antiochian Orthodox fold, thereby becoming extinct and forgotten except for a tiny footnote somewhere or other. I certainly don't hold the rosy views of some that it (TAC's move) would be hailed as a mending of the Anglican-Roman rift of the 16th century, etc., whatever Rome's response might turn out to be.

b) As for the idea of this being some kind of success, no, I don't think that. First, TAC is not more significant than the other Continuing Churches. Its position has been declining. The rest of us look upon the TAC proposal as something that makes us shake our heads, not as something that excites our imaginations about what could be, challenges us to strive for a great ideal, or leads the rest of us in any way at all. It is seen as ending an association.

It looks as though a considerable portion of TAC's membership will NOT follow the Archbishop if Rome at last beckons. That alone will make the event less than the Archbishop is hoping for. I understand that the situation in Australia is different than it is here, but in the USA where the Continuing Church movement began and where every Continuing Church is to be found as well as those dioceses and associations working for a new Anglican Province, the effect of TAC having merely made the appeal to Rome (whether or not it is met with any degree of acceptance by her) has already put TAC/ACC, in the eyes of the rest of the conservative Anglican people and churches, off on some side road that is nothing we are interested in. Anglo-Catholicism is one thing, but Anglo-Papalism is, frankly, another planet altogether. Meanwhile, and possibly as a consequence of the TAC initiative, the activities of the other Continuing Churches in such matters as their proposals for cooperation with other Continuers and/or the Realignment folks have taken over.

And lastly, the whole idea of a church disavowing its own faith and history does not amount to "success" in most people's minds. What's become of the Worldwide Church of God, for instance? Does the religious world now call that particular piece of history ground-breaking and a success story? No. After a brief moment in the limelight because of the change, the once well-known WWCOG is thought of as having drifted into oblivion even though she still exists. The religious world moved on. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints changed its name and some of its theology in an attempt to harmonize that faith with conventional Protestantism...and promptly became, for all intents and purposes, a former church. Yet in principle the facts of the case were actually very much of the sort that would excite everyone who yearns for church unity, reconciliation, etc.

Thanks for your comments. I've enjoyed the exchange of views.

 

[ContraMundum]

a) Well, from the start I've said that if this is the way that TAC wants to go, then I wish them well. I always want, for everyone, that they find the right church home they are seeking, whatever it might be.

I agree with those sentiments.

I do not share the opinion that it will make much of a ripple in the Anglican world, however, one way or the other.

Nor do I. I think it will be a footnote in history, frankly. In there somewhere with the Tractarians who joined Rome in the 1800's.

I certainly don't hold the rosy views of some that it (TAC's move) would be hailed as a mending of the Anglican-Roman rift of the 16th century, etc., whatever Rome's response might turn out to be.

Yeah, me too. I sometimes think a lot of this is over-rated.

b) As for the idea of this being some kind of success, no, I don't think that. First, TAC is not more significant than the other Continuing Churches. Its position has been declining. The rest of us look upon the TAC proposal as something that makes us shake our heads, not as something that excites our imaginations about what could be, challenges us to strive for a great ideal, or leads the rest of us in any way at all. It is seen as ending an association.

There's a lot of mix-and-match in reactions. I think it largely depends on which circles you travel. A lot of RC's are very excited about it, as are a lot of Anglicans...and yet...a lot of RC's don't even know it's happening and most Anglicans I know never heard of it either.

It looks as though a considerable portion of TAC's membership will NOT follow the Archbishop if Rome at last beckons. That alone will make the event less than the Archbishop is hoping for. I understand that the situation in Australia is different than it is here, but in the USA where the Continuing Church movement began and where every Continuing Church is to be found as well as those dioceses and associations working for a new Anglican Province, the effect of TAC having merely made the appeal to Rome (whether or not it is met with any degree of acceptance by her) has already put TAC/ACC, in the eyes of the rest of the conservative Anglican people and churches, off on some side road that is nothing we are interested in.

I understand that. I'd be interested to know what some of those people are saying they will do if Rome goes ahead with this unity thing. I haven't heard a squeak this side of the Pacific. Most people are all for it over here, but I suspect there are many who are silently hoping it doesn't happen.

Anglo-Catholicism is one thing, but Anglo-Papalism is, frankly, another planet altogether. Meanwhile, and possibly as a consequence of the TAC initiative, the activities of the other Continuing Churches in such matters as their proposals for cooperation with other Continuers and/or the Realignment folks have taken over.

Where I live the Continuing movement is non-existant other than the TAC. The Anglican Church in Australia is struggling around here, divided and teetering on bankruptcy in some places. Other parts of the country are doing better, some dreadfully poorly. If you are an Anglican of the evangelical or low-church persuasion, you have no where to go unless you accept women in ministry other than Sydney. If you are of the High-church or Anglo-Catholic persuasion, it's the TAC or FiF who have a few parishes. Otherwise, you have to accept women in ministry and go for the broad church. It's not like the US where you have the REC or whatever. There is an Independant Anglican Communion but I don't know much about them. It's not easy living in a post-Anglican country where the denominaiton is largely seen as a liberal, modernising, compromising and accomodating church with nominal membership who turn up only for weddings and funerals. Most people seem to look elsewhere for Christian teaching. I think Sydney might be an exception.

And lastly, the whole idea of a church disavowing its own faith and history does not amount to "success" in most people's minds.

I'm not sure if the pro-Rome push within the TAC sees itself as disavowing any truth, and that's ultimately what matters more than historic debates and positions over doctrines- we should only hold what is true. So, to your average TAC member, he or she is not disavowing their faith, but re-claiming it.

What's become of the Worldwide Church of God, for instance? Does the religious world now call that particular piece of history ground-breaking and a success story? No. After a brief moment in the limelight because of the change, the once well-known WWCOG is thought of as having drifted into oblivion even though she still exists. The religious world moved on. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints changed its name and some of its theology in an attempt to harmonize that faith with conventional Protestantism...and promptly became, for all intents and purposes, a former church. Yet in principle the facts of the case were actually very much of the sort that would excite everyone who yearns for church unity, reconciliation, etc.

A very good point- and one that I have concerns over.

Thanks for your comments. I've enjoyed the exchange of views.

Me too!