What do you think of Anglo-Papalism?

[Catherineanne]

I am not from the UK, but from what I read of the Anglo-Catholics over there, they will leave for Rome if Rome offers them something palatable.

That is a very big 'if'.

Not all Anglo Catholics want to defect to Rome, just some. I don't know what proportion, because I am no expert, but I know plenty who are happy being accommodated in Anglicanism, and who have no intention of ever being anything else. Myself among them.

Meanwhile, those who are trying to go to Rome have a liturgy of their own which is not in step with Rome (or anyone else, for that matter), have ideas of their own which are not in line with Vatican II, and have demands which Rome may well find unrealistic. They far outRome Rome in their idea of what Catholicism is, in other words. From experiencing worship with such people (and many of them are lovely, lovely people) I would say their approach to faith equates to Disney Catholicism; it is not a return to any golden age, it is a completely new creation, in cartoon form.

I suspect, therefore, they will be told that they would be welcome as individuals, but not as a job lot. Not least because Rome would have to accept a whole bucketload of married clergy, whose reactionary views will make the Pope look like a rabid anarchist.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

I agree. But I think it unlikely that the communion as a whole will reunite any time soon.

 

[Catherineanne]

I suppose this is why most Continuers here are put off by the Hepworth initiative. It's not that they see it having any impact upon them personally or upon the movement, but while they easily appreciate that Anglicanism has its Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, and even Charismatic parties, this Romeward move strikes them as two-faced. That's why many say, I think, that if you (ACA) feel this way, just join the RCC and be happy. Claiming to have discovered the real soul of Anglicanism on behalf of the rest of us dunces who are content to be Anglicans strikes many as just a little too much.

Or, as my Anglo Catholic priest friend poetically puts it, 'If they want to ****** off to Rome, then good riddance!'

 

[Catherineanne]

Good question. One would hope that the Anglican liturgical tradition is maintained (use of an Anglican liturgical rite or two), as well as married clergy and Anglican hymnody.

The Anglican liturgical tradition has already been rejected. These churches (some at least - I cannot speak for all) no longer proclaim absolution during the Eucharist; it is replaced by a lay form of prayer in the first person plural, rather than the absolution in the second. I am told this is because the priest cannot be sure that all those he is absolving are actually fully repentant. The implication is that communicants are expected to make confession separately and privately, preferably before each Eucharist.

This ignores the fact that, in our faith, absolution is always dependent on the recipient being right before God, and that the priest never knows, even in confession, whether apparent contrition is real or not. It makes the priest not just the bridge to God, but the judge of repentance.

This is way beyond Rome.

 

[Albion]

Considering that the Anglican communion world-wide claims about 80 million adherents, it might be a small number but it's more people than many, if not most, denominations.

I agree. My comment concerned TAC. If the AC has 80,000,000, that's significant. If TAC has 400,000 that's probably not. This is also why Rome is still keeping its options open with the AC but will not jeopardize that IMO by regularizing/ recognizing--whatever you'd call it--a schismatic Continuing Anglican church of such relatively small numbers. Certainly that assessment would apply to all the other Continuing churches and moreso, except that they aren't candidates for union with Rome.

At least the Murray is a real place, with genuine geographical boundaries. LOL What on Earth is the Southern Cone?

Well, I guess that refers to some imaginary geographical slice of the globe that takes in the far-flung regions served by that province. Anyway, I do share your feelings about that title; I was just saying that it's an AC province, not some weird concoction of a Continuing Anglican church--and "we" have indeed come up with some verbal oddities, I admit (such as an "archbishop" for what is little more than a one-man church! What is the precedent for that?)

In my area, the TAC has had nothing to do with it. It's really about attracting certain types to your services- like attracts like. Still, I'm perplexed at times by the development.

I'm not sure what you are telling me there. Is it that the ACC in Australia feels that it needs to appeal to former RCs?

 

[Secundulus]

The Anglican liturgical tradition has already been rejected. These churches (some at least - I cannot speak for all) no longer proclaim absolution during the Eucharist; it is replaced by a lay form of prayer in the first person plural, rather than the absolution in the second. I am told this is because the priest cannot be sure that all those he is absolving are actually fully repentant. The implication is that communicants are expected to make confession separately and privately, preferably before each Eucharist.

That is not true in the ACA-TAC (USA). I don't know about anywhere else, but it sounds kind of strange to me. Maybe that is only true of the English Anglo-Catholics still in the Anglican Communion.

We still say the confession and absolution verbatum from the 1552 BCP (only the spelling of the words is updated in the 1928 BCP.) We have no intention of giving up our liturgy and adopting the Roman Novus Ordo.

 

[Secundulus]

Actually, I think the Via Media has been packaged (by Roman and Anglo-Catholics, and even Orthodox) to appear as an Elizabethan compromise. I don't think it is or was ever intended to be. A close study of the doctrines inherent in Anglicanism since the earliest times shows that the Via Media is consistant with British Church history. In other words, the Via Media is an illusion of sorts, which only comes into focus when one takes into account the excesses of the extreme views that developed around it over the centuries.

The Via Media represents the stream of Orthodoxy prevailing before and after the Reformation. It encompasses the high ground in theology, rejecting extremes on either side which clearly were later developments.

The Anglican understanding of dogma is that it is authentically Catholic. It is the faith believed at all times and in all places by all Christians. However, this orthodoxy, when put side by side with theological extremes an developments in history appears in the imagination with hindsight to be "somewhere in the middle". In more recent times it has been redefined as a position of theological compromise, a redefinition that has opened up the way to all kinds of errors and heresies- a position it was never intended to be.

My position is that we as Anglicans must recapture the true orthodox ground of the catholic faith- which is, in the broad spectrum of doctrine, the middle (and also consistant, straight) way.

What you have witnessed is the abuse of the via media, and in fact it is no middle way at all- it is the way of liberalism. It's not the doctrine that is at fault- it's the application and understanding of it that is faulty.

Thanks for that explanation.

 

[No Swansong]

That is not true in the ACA-TAC (USA). I don't know about anywhere else, but it sounds kind of strange to me. Maybe that is only true of the English Anglo-Catholics still in the Anglican Communion.

We still say the confession and absolution verbatum from the 1552 BCP (only the spelling of the words is updated in the 1928 BCP.) We have no intention of giving up our liturgy and adopting the Roman Novus Ordo.

My friend I may be mistaken but I think she is referring to those Anglican Churches that have already been absorbed by Rome. They were granted the "Anglican Use" liturgy which was only approved after the change that she referred to was accepted. I would have to check but I am pretty sure that the "Anglican Use" liturgy that was approved did indeed remove the general absolution.

 

[Albion]

My friend I may be mistaken but I think she is referring to those Anglican Churches that have already been absorbed by Rome. They were granted the "Anglican Use" liturgy which was only approved after the change that she referred to was accepted. I would have to check but I am pretty sure that the "Anglican Use" liturgy that was approved did indeed remove the general absolution.

That seems logical enough, but I don't believe that there are any Anglican Use parishes in the UK, are there? If there aren't any, I'd doubt that this is what she was referring to.

 

[No Swansong]

That seems logical enough, but I don't believe that there are any Anglican Use parishes in the UK, are there? If there aren't any, I'd doubt that this is what she was referring to.

Well I was under the impression that there are but I suppose I could be wrong.

 

[Albion]

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.

Sec, there is a report from Rome that has been reprinted on David Virtue's website (Virtue Online) in which the Vatican has stated that there will be no Anglican niche made for them if a number of British Anglican priests want to defect to the RCC (The Anglican Use provision would be the way recommended, apparently).

This is viewed by some readers as another nail in the coffin of the Hepworth proposal. However I didn't study the report very closely myself. If you haven't read it, I thought you might want to.

 

[ContraMundum]

The Anglican liturgical tradition has already been rejected. These churches (some at least - I cannot speak for all) no longer proclaim absolution during the Eucharist; it is replaced by a lay form of prayer in the first person plural, rather than the absolution in the second. I am told this is because the priest cannot be sure that all those he is absolving are actually fully repentant. The implication is that communicants are expected to make confession separately and privately, preferably before each Eucharist.

Explain who you are speaking of, could you?

 

[ContraMundum]

This ignores the fact that, in our faith, absolution is always dependent on the recipient being right before God

That's not correct as I have been taught. Any sacrament is not dependant on the recipient's faith to be valid in and of itself. It is grasped by faith, yes, but it is not dependant on faith to be genuine.

 

[Secundulus]

Sec, there is a report from Rome that has been reprinted on David Virtue's website (Virtue Online) in which the Vatican has stated that there will be no Anglican niche made for them if a number of British Anglican priests want to defect to the RCC (The Anglican Use provision would be the way recommended, apparently).

This is viewed by some readers as another nail in the coffin of the Hepworth proposal. However I didn't study the report very closely myself. If you haven't read it, I thought you might want to.

Thanks for that article. I read it and it looks like it is the Jesuit's opinion of what he thinks is happening. Maybe he is correct, but the article didn't seem to indicate that he was speaking officially for the Vatican.

I do wonder though, that if he, and others, are correct in this matter why the Vatican wouldn't just come out and say it. They have nothing to gain by dragging this out unless either details are being worked out for some other arrangment or if they remain simply undecided.

Time will tell.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for that article. I read it and it looks like it is the Jesuit's opinion of what he thinks is happening. Maybe he is correct, but the article didn't seem to indicate that he was speaking officially for the Vatican.

I do wonder though, that if he, and others, are correct in this matter why the Vatican wouldn't just come out and say it. They have nothing to gain by dragging this out unless either details are being worked out for some other arrangment or if they remain simply undecided.

I agree, and there's also one consideration TAC could hang its hopes on. I am referring to the fact that these priests are just an unofficial assortment of UK priests, whereas TAC is looking for a one-on-one deal with another church body--and presumably a lot bigger than this UK situation which involves clergy but no guarantee of any parishioners.

Time will tell.

That's the real "bottom line," but I think that it might be a long time, since that just seems to be the Vatican's way of doing things (play it close to the vest, don't act in a hurry, we've been here a long time and don't make abrupt decisions, we don't want to deal with anything transitory, etc.).

 

[Secundulus]

That's the real "botton line," but I think that it might be a long time, since that just seems to be the Vatican's way of doing things (play it close to the vest, don't act in a hurry, we've been here a long time and don't make abrupt decisions, we don't want to deal with anything transitory, etc.).

Like my Priest told me, Vatican time is measured in decades, if not centuries.

Look how long it took to actually settle Arianism, which was orders of magnitude a much bigger deal than this.