Am I missing something?

[TomUK]

OK, let's imagine i'm Anglican who longs for reunification for Rome (I don't!). Based on recent announcements it would seem that, even though I long to be in Rome and hate all the recent developments in the Anglican Church, because i've quite liked saying the Lord's prayer at a certain point in the service and in a certain way I've found the prospect of crossing the Tiber utterly unimaginable.

Am i missing something or is this in essence what the events of the past couple of days amount to?

I'm not Anglican because of the liturgy! I'm Anglican because it's the Church which is the closest thing to that which Christ established, because it's a diverse and inclusive Church, because it genuinely cares about reaching the lost and finding radical ways to do that, because it has a heritage unrivaled in Christendom, because it's been one of the most significant instruments (if not the the most significant instrument) of social change in history, because there's a thousand more things i could add to this list!

We are a long way from perfect and i'm quite a vocal critic of some recent changes, but it's going to take a lot more than liturgy to make me jump the Tiber.

 

[Alizera]

I'm happy with where I am as well

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm Anglican because of the liturgy!

Do you mean 'I'm NOT Anglican because of the liturgy!' ???

 

[TomUK]

Yep, that whole paragraph sort of depended upon that word!

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

While I won't be joining them, I am happy for the group....said to be large...of Anglicans who has wanted this, and worked and prayed for it. Michael

 

[MKJ]

I think what you say makes sense from your perspective, but not necessarily from all.

For one thing, there are many who have begun to doubt, because of changes in Anglicanism, that it really is representative of the Church which Christ founded. Some may have felt that it once was part of that Church, but is no longer; others wonder if perhaps it was a wrong turn all along after all.

A lot of these people then may thing, what is it that caused the problem, that things could go so far? Was it lack of a central authority? Lack of a clear sense of what tradition is? Lack of documents or beliefs that could be held up as essentially Anglican?

Depending on how they have answered such questions, they might defect to some sort of continuing church, or the Catholic or Orthadox churches. But many have stayed where they are, not sure what to do, growing more and more uncomfortable. And some have, I think, been put off by the bad liturgy in the Catholic Church, and priests have been put off by the requirement for celibacy. Maybe not as the major factor, but as far as something that stops them from making that final move. (I think as far as those who might be attracted to Orthodoxy, its overall "Eastern" flavour is a similar difficulty for some.)

So this may actually be attractive to many who have been looking for answers and not finding them. As far as I can tell, it is a similar kind of arrangement as is found in the Eastern Catholic Churches, which is kind of an interesting idea for an English Church.

Another way of looking at it is that for some Anglicans, liturgy is fundamental, it is how we define and understand and express Anglicanism. It has provided that unifying force that the Catholics and Orthodox have in other forms. But that has been compromised by the changes in the liturgy in this century, and many would connect it with those changes as both cause and effect. To that extent, it can look like Anglicanism as it once was has ceased to exist. If you went into my local church, you would see a liturgy that is very similar to the bad liturgy in most RC churches, along with the bad music. So to people that are living with that, moving to their own liturgy in a Catholic church doesn't seem so horrible, it is actually an improvement.

And in the end, most Anglicans do not thing the Catholic Church is somehow an invalid church, while they may have doubts about parts of the Anglican Church. A good number feel some relationship or special place for Rome is actually how things ought to be, though perhaps not as it stands now. And many of the things that were issues at the time of the Reformation have been cleared up in a meaningful way.

 

[ebia]

If all it amounts to over what was before it presumably won't appeal to those Anglican parishes that already use the Roman Missal or similar anyway.It certainly doesn't offer much to individuals, and I remain to be convinced there are many parishes for whom it overcomes a sigificant objection. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't for any of the FiF parishes that I'm familiar with.

 

[ebia]

.

 

[ContraMundum]

I hate to weigh in to this, but there's a lot of assumptions about this being made here and elsewhere on the forum. As one of the Anglicans involved in all of this, I feel I should say a few things.

First of all- it's most definetely NOT about the liturgy. The Novus Ordo will not be celebrated by most parishes involved. Variants of traditional Anglican liturgies, such as the Sarum Rite or the 1928 BCP etc, will probably be the liturgies that shall be embraced. Anglican liturgy and discipline will be preserved inasmuch as it is compatible with Catholic theology.

The real reasons behind the decision to seek Vatican inter-communion are theological. New theological developments in the mainstream Anglican communion have destroyed - permanently- any hope of the success of ARCIC or any other intercommunion initiatives. I think people tend to forget that. It's not about liturgy, bells or smells. It's about theology.

One ironic thing is that many in this move to intercommunion now believe that the only way to save genuine Anglican tradition is to have the support of the Vatican- which is now the case. Who would have thought?

 

[laconicstudent]

Hm... Well, I think that regardless of what points of doctrine everyone disagrees over, the healing of a schism, if even only partial, is always to be applauded.

We've come a long ways since we had the Church of England (Anglicans) and Roman Catholics killing each other, as made famous by Queen Mary I.... Otherwise known as Bloody Mary.

 

[TomUK]

Hm... Well, I think that regardless of what points of doctrine everyone disagrees over, the healing of a schism, if even only partial, is always to be applauded.

We've come a long ways since we had the Church of England (Anglicans) and Roman Catholics killing each other, as made famous by Queen Mary I.... Otherwise known as Bloody Mary.

This is only going to open a bigger schism. The contempt shown by Benedict and Nichols has wrecked decades of fruitful dialogue and is going to make future relationships much more difficult. You just need to look at Rowan's language during the press conference.

 

[TomUK]

I think people tend to forget that. It's not about liturgy, bells or smells. It's about theology.

And it's also a way of temporarily solving the massive crisis of lack of vocations in the Roman Church (or is that just my inner-cynic?)

 

[ebia]

Hm... Well, I think that regardless of what points of doctrine everyone disagrees over, the healing of a schism, if even only partial, is always to be applauded.

If some Anglicans becoming Catholic is a partial healing of schism, is some Catholics going the other way the same? How many people do we need to swap for full healing?

 

[Timothy]

And it's also a way of temporarily solving the massive crisis of lack of vocations in the Roman Church (or is that just my inner-cynic?)

That's pretty much it. Purely from hearsay, but an Anglo-Catholic priest (FiFer who out-classes every Catholic parish I've heard of with smells and bells) friend of mine says that a number of the men who convert end up returning because of Rome's high-handed authoritarianism and end up with the Anglicans not trusting them and the Romans not wanting them, so able to serve as neither.

 

[MKJ]

This is only going to open a bigger schism. The contempt shown by Benedict and Nichols has wrecked decades of fruitful dialogue and is going to make future relationships much more difficult. You just need to look at Rowan's language during the press conference.

It seems to me those decades of diologue were actually pretty fruitless. The Anlican communion and the Catholics seem to have been moving farther and farther away from each other, and I am not sure how anyone could think discussions were really going to come to some sort of intercommunion arrangement, at least in the last 30 years. (Did people think the Catholics would change their stance on things?) And these are due to actions on the Anglican side, not Catholic ones - Catholics who bother to pay attention to such things wondered why the Anglicans were even bothering to talk if they were going to head directly away from the CC theologically.

I suppose is should not be surprising people feel ticked off - the Orthodox seem to feel ticked off about the Eastern Catholic Churches' existence. But it makes a lot of sense from a Catholic point of view, that a Church could be related to the Catholic Church in that way.

But I don't see much point in taking it as some kind of personal attack. I don't think it's meant to be personal in that way at all.

 

[MKJ]

First of all- it's most definetely NOT about the liturgy. The Novus Ordo will not be celebrated by most parishes involved. Variants of traditional Anglican liturgies, such as the Sarum Rite or the 1928 BCP etc, will probably be the liturgies that shall be embraced. Anglican liturgy and discipline will be preserved inasmuch as it is compatible with Catholic theology.

The real reasons behind the decision to seek Vatican inter-communion are theological. New theological developments in the mainstream Anglican communion have destroyed - permanently- any hope of the success of ARCIC or any other intercommunion initiatives. I think people tend to forget that. It's not about liturgy, bells or smells. It's about theology.

One ironic thing is that many in this move to intercommunion now believe that the only way to save genuine Anglican tradition is to have the support of the Vatican- which is now the case. Who would have thought?

I suspect, actually, that the NO mass may ultimately be on its way out in the Catholic Church, and they will go to something much closer to what Anglicans already have. The new NO translation takes away a lot of the worst NO bits, but I think that is just a place to start.

 

[Joseph 651]

I'm not Anglican because of the liturgy! I'm Anglican because it's the Church which is the closest thing to that which Christ established, because it's a diverse and inclusive Church, because it genuinely cares about reaching the lost and finding radical ways to do that, because it has a heritage unrivaled in Christendom, because it's been one of the most significant instruments (if not the the most significant instrument) of social change in history, because there's a thousand more things i could add to this list!

This is interesting as the CC was around for about 1500 or so years before the Anglican Church. I believe that Christs Church was founded on Peter and if that is the case then the CC was the Church. The Apostles wrote all kinds of letters to there Church just as the Pope has been doing for 2000 years showing the error of there ways. Yes, you may be right about social changes with the Anglican Church, but I don't believe they have been for the better. Another thing you need to look at, the CC has been around for 2000 years, Anglican little over 500 years, and the way it looks is that the Anglicans won't be around in another 50 years, but I imagine that the CC will still be standing up for the faith and the Glory of God.

 

[TomUK]

I'm not Anglican because of the liturgy! I'm Anglican because it's the Church which is the closest thing to that which Christ established, because it's a diverse and inclusive Church, because it genuinely cares about reaching the lost and finding radical ways to do that, because it has a heritage unrivaled in Christendom, because it's been one of the most significant instruments (if not the the most significant instrument) of social change in history, because there's a thousand more things i could add to this list!

This is interesting as the CC was around for about 1500 or so years before the Anglican Church. I believe that Christs Church was founded on Peter and if that is the case then the CC was the Church. The Apostles wrote all kinds of letters to there Church just as the Pope has been doing for 2000 years showing the error of there ways. Yes, you may be right about social changes with the Anglican Church, but I don't believe they have been for the better. Another thing you need to look at, the CC has been around for 2000 years, Anglican little over 500 years, and the way it looks is that the Anglicans won't be around in another 50 years, but I imagine that the CC will still be standing up for the faith and the Glory of God.

The Anglican Church, that is the Church of the English people is one of the oldest in Christendom. It sent representatives to the council of Whitby long before the Roman Church had any presence here. It was the victim of a papal sponsored invasion by William the Conqueror in the 11th century and at the reformation once again asserted it's rightful and historic independence.

Don't forget that the split from only occurred because the pope refused to annul a marriage that was against the law of the church, and he only refused to annul it because it wasn't in the political interests of Spain.

I have tremendous respect for what the Catholic Church is doing in England, but you under delusions if you don't acknowledge that is being propped currently by immigrant communities (currently Polish) and in the next few years by converts from Anglicanism. If it keeps relying upon migration rather than evangelism then it faces a very grave future.

 

[ContraMundum]

The contempt shown by Benedict and Nichols has wrecked decades of fruitful dialogue and is going to make future relationships much more difficult. You just need to look at Rowan's language during the press conference.

I think this whole thing proves that the decades of ARCIC etc have not been fruitful at all. How can we honestly expect Rome to have discussion talks with a communion that seems to be perpetually changing its theology? Almost every meeting in recent times would have had Anglican novelties on the agenda. I think Rome is really just saying "come back to us when you actually know what you believe". For those Anglo-Catholics already convinced of their beliefs, this move is generous and bails them out of hostile dioceses where energy has been soaked up in trying to stay the course against a hostile and often very litigious/carnal Church hierarchy.

I'd say that the dogma of Rome is far more peaceful than the radical, violent facism of some of the radical Anglican authorities in some parts of the world. Not all of the communion is stained by the carnal political church paradigm, but a lot of it is.

 

[Ave Maria]

I know next to nothing about this. But I am staying put regardless of what Rome may do to try to get Anglicans to swim the Tiber.