What do you think of Anglo-Papalism?

[Albion]

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.

I'd agree with that and only add that, in my perception, the RCs who are excited about it fall into one of two main groups. Either they are excited to think that a bunch of Protestants has at last owned up to their false theology and decided to return, hat in hand, to Holy Mother Church--certainly not the "coming together" mindset that TAC folks have--or else they vastly overestimate the significance of TAC, even confusing her with Anglican Communion itself.

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.

On this matter, I'm less confident of my answer. However, I think many are biding their time and not making specific plans. Many, I suspect, of those who do not want to go to Rome are thinking that the prospects of the plan going through are not good, meaning that they need not do anything--and certainly not make a big issue of it in public--since they may never need to.

They are happy with the Catholic orientation of their church but just don't want to be united with Rome, so if everything falls through, they'll go on as before. I do frequently hear, it seems, from one corner or another, that this or that ACA parish certainly will not go along if the plan is approved, and this goes for individuals also. If it does, some individuals will be able to switch to another Continuing church (or Southern Cone church), which as you said is not an option in Australia. And if the whole parish balks, it can easily petition to join a different Continuing jurisdiction in the USA.

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.

Extremely small and brand new, from what I can tell. They (the "Archbishop" in Australia) has a website. If you have not seen it, its on the AnglicansOnline not-in-the-communion page.

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.

A very interesting point. While Anglicanism in Australia has been the main church (lately challenged by the RCC), the American equivalent has never had much of a membership, even though it has counted many prominent persons in our national history as members.

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.

I understand, but it still means a renunciation of what has been seen to be the truth in the church one is still claiming to be a part of (all the while trying to move it into union with another).

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.

 

[Timothy]

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.

I would venture to suggest that the conservative evangelical wing of the CofE feels exactly the same way.

 

[AllSeeingEye]

Sexual Healing

 

[AllSeeingEye]

Drugs should be ruled legal

 

[ContraMundum]

I'd agree with that and only add that, in my perception, the RCs who are excited about it fall into one of two main groups. Either they are excited to think that a bunch of Protestants has at last owned up to their false theology and decided to return, hat in hand, to Holy Mother Church--certainly not the "coming together" mindset that TAC folks have--or else they vastly overestimate the significance of TAC, even confusing her with Anglican Communion itself.

I don't think the TAC is as small-fry as you appear to believe. There's a lot of members- mostly African- and this does represent a pretty big group of people. Last count, it was around 400k+.

On this matter, I'm less confident of my answer. However, I think many are biding their time and not making specific plans. Many, I suspect, of those who do not want to go to Rome are thinking that the prospects of the plan going through are not good, meaning that they need not do anything--and certainly not make a big issue of it in public--since they may never need to.

They are happy with the Catholic orientation of their church but just don't want to be united with Rome, so if everything falls through, they'll go on as before. I do frequently hear, it seems, from one corner or another, that this or that ACA parish certainly will not go along if the plan is approved, and this goes for individuals also. If it does, some individuals will be able to switch to another Continuing church (or Southern Cone church), which as you said is not an option in Australia. And if the whole parish balks, it can easily petition to join a different Continuing jurisdiction in the USA.

One thing's for sure, the continued fracturing of Anglicanism is producing some really ridiculous names. "Southern Cone"? For goodness sakes.

Extremely small and brand new, from what I can tell. They (the "Archbishop" in Australia) has a website. If you have not seen it, its on the AnglicansOnline not-in-the-communion page.

Yeah, I've seen it. I must admit the idea of "The Most Reverend and Right Worshipful" as a title a man with an infant church would take makes me gag on my gefilte fish. It is worrying. I think the Lutheran Confessions were right about that kind of approach- but that's another story.

A very interesting point. While Anglicanism in Australia has been the main church (lately challenged by the RCC), the American equivalent has never had much of a membership, even though it has counted many prominent persons in our national history as members.

Yes- 'tis true.

I understand, but it still means a renunciation of what has been seen to be the truth in the church one is still claiming to be a part of (all the while trying to move it into union with another).

...but the Anglican communion as a whole has been trying to enter into communion with Rome, so I don't think that's a fair call- unless of course one is opposed to it and has left the Canterbury communion for that reason.

Still, philosophically, you make a good point about all or any moves to unity with Rome.

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.

I know of a few in the TAC who joined as evangelical Anglicans. Back then, it was a true "continuing" Church, in as much as it took Anglicans of all persuasions who rejected modern innovations like women in ministry. I think in recent years it has attracted only Anglo-Catholics, and in doing so has become less and less a representative of the breath of the historic Anglican communion.

 

[No Swansong]

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?

Sorry I didn't get back sooner my friend. The first link you provided at a cursory glance appears to be the Uniate Churches. As I wrote earlier; most people outside of Rome see very little difference between the Uniates and Rome. While the Uniates may have an Eastern or even Byzantine flair, they still must look to Rome for approval of Bishops, formation of Dioceses etc. Most would argue that while they are permitted in some cases to retain their preferred liturgy (which is unlikely for Anglicans) the Uniate churches have been effectively "Romanized".

I personally have no problem with TAC if they wish to become Roman Catholic but I do see little hope that Rome will enter into any type of intercommunion without insisting upon at least the same type of relationship they have with the Uniate Churches. Additionally it doesn't seem to me that they are really all that interested in that particular status in this case anyway.

Now I fully admit you and our friend Albion are much closer to this situation than I and most of my information comes from reading what very little has been made public.

I have one other question for you; what would make TAC distinctively Anglican, what would be left to retain of its Anglican identity if it does assent to such Roman doctrines as Papal Infallibility etc?

 

[ContraMundum]

I have one other question for you; what would make TAC distinctively Anglican, what would be left to retain of its Anglican identity if it does assent to such Roman doctrines as Papal Infallibility etc?

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.

Beyond that I'm not sure I can think of anything that makes Anglicanism unique. After all, wasn't it the saying of one former ABC that Anglicanism had no unique doctrine of its own?

Funny thing- I heard one of the bishops say that perhaps the only way to preserve the Anglican tradition is to be under the protection of the Bishop of Rome- (in all fairness it certainly isn't safe in Canterbury). I'm still not sure about that.

 

[Secundulus]

I have one other question for you; what would make TAC distinctively Anglican, what would be left to retain of its Anglican identity if it does assent to such Roman doctrines as Papal Infallibility etc?

From the mind of a semi-educated layman. What is historic Anglicanism? Does it begin in the first century, or at the declaration of independence by Henry VIII, or under the compromises of Elizabeth I?

Each of these is claimed to be the historic Anglican Church but each of these looks very different.

Does Anglican history begin with Cranmer in 1549 or does it begin earlier?

I think that how one answers this question makes a huge difference with how one views the future.

I think that for many here, historic Anglicanism begins and ends at the Reformation. Personally, I take a longer view of the 2000 year history of the Church in England. Who is right?

 

[ContraMundum]

I think that for many here, historic Anglicanism begins and ends at the Reformation. Personally, I take a longer view of the 2000 year history of the Church in England. Who is right?

I don't think the Reformers had any different a view. This is why the succession was maintained, and so forth. I think the difference is that the Reformers pretty much tried to eliminate various Medieval doctrines while still maintaning ancient links and theologies. When one compares the Conservative Reformation (Anglican, Lutheran) with the more radical Reformation (Calvinist, Anabaptist) one can see that the Conservative Reformers saw the Reformation in the light of a continuing historic church.

Perhaps it is the modern Anglican that has difficulties in this area? What does the forum think?

 

[No Swansong]

Indeed a good point, I think that no matter where one marks the genesis of the Anglican Church one cannot dismiss her entire history. Within that history has been the varying doctrines that are allowable under the umbrella of the Via Media. I think that most Anglicans would assert that regardless of where one begins their understanding of Anglicanism "Via Media" is a very distinctive and definining attribute. If one enters into intercommunion with Rome, Rome will insist that her doctrine is assented to, that is a given. TAC will not have the option of retaining the idea of Via Media within her doctrine.

If one takes the view that you mention does one simply dismiss Via Media and other important distinctives that have defined the differences between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism? I am sure Rome will insist upon it. If so then I ask again what exactly will be distinctively Anglican?

btw I do not mean this as confrontational I am truly curious as to what it is that TAC wishes to retain?

 

[Secundulus]

Indeed a good point, I think that no matter where one marks the genesis of the Anglican Church one cannot dismiss her entire history. Within that history has been the varying doctrines that are allowable under the umbrella of the Via Media. I think that most Anglicans would assert that regardless of where one begins their understanding of Anglicanism "Via Media" is a very distinctive and definining attribute. If one enters into intercommunion with Rome, Rome will insist that her doctrine is assented to, that is a given. TAC will not have the option of retaining the idea of Via Media within her doctrine.

If one takes the view that you mention does one simply dismiss Via Media and other important distinctives that have defined the differences between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism? I am sure Rome will insist upon it. If so then I ask again what exactly will be distinctively Anglican?

btw I do not mean this as confrontational I am truly curious as to what it is that TAC wishes to retain?

Again, from my laymen's point of view only.

Via media is only a part of the recent history since Elizabeth I. It worked well with the power of the English State to enforce it.

Since the Power of that State no longer enforces it, it no longer works. Thus we see increasing schism.

I cannot speak for TAC but I see no future in via media. It is every where spinning out of communion with itself.

 

[Albion]

I don't think the TAC is as small-fry as you appear to believe. There's a lot of members- mostly African- and this does represent a pretty big group of people. Last count, it was around 400k+.

Just between you and me, I don't believe those figures for a moment. They seemed to double in just the last few years and -- as you said, most are Africans -- by which I mean phantom numbers of people who are estimated, not counted. In the third world, it often turns out that numbers are not arrived at as we would count them and, also, when they are located it turns out that these people "belong" to as many Western churches at once as will send some aid. The Vatican knows this too, I suspect. So, the number of TAC members in North America, Australia, and the UK is what?...10-15,000, or less than 5% of the claimed membership.

HOWEVER, my skepticism is not something I'm dedicated to. I'd be happier to be proven wrong. The real point is that all of the Continuing Churches are quite small. Even if 400,000 is correct for TAC, that's really a very small number as churches go, whatever the denomination.

One thing's for sure, the continued fracturing of Anglicanism is producing some really ridiculous names. "Southern Cone"? For goodness sakes.

Well....that's the name of the Anglican Communion's province. The Continuing Churches and any continued fracturing of Anglicanism had nothing to do with the adoption of that rather unusual name. The Diocese of the Murray always sounded a bit odd to me.

Yeah, I've seen it. I must admit the idea of "The Most Reverend and Right Worshipful" as a title a man with an infant church would take makes me gag on my gefilte fish. It is worrying. I think the Lutheran Confessions were right about that kind of approach- but that's another story.

Yep.

...but the Anglican communion as a whole has been trying to enter into communion with Rome, so I don't think that's a fair call- unless of course one is opposed to it and has left the Canterbury communion for that reason.

But TAC isn't trying for communion with Rome; she's trying for union with Rome, and on Rome's terms (doctrinally). To the average Anglican, that's a huge difference...or so I think.

I know of a few in the TAC who joined as evangelical Anglicans. Back then, it was a true "continuing" Church, in as much as it took Anglicans of all persuasions who rejected modern innovations like women in ministry. I think in recent years it has attracted only Anglo-Catholics, and in doing so has become less and less a representative of the breath of the historic Anglican communion.

I agree. The question I'd have is, "How much of that owes to a deliberate attempt to bring TAC into accord with Rome so that a re-union with her would have a chance?"

 

[Albion]

I don't think the Reformers had any different a view. This is why the succession was maintained, and so forth. I think the difference is that the Reformers pretty much tried to eliminate various Medieval doctrines while still maintaning ancient links and theologies. When one compares the Conservative Reformation (Anglican, Lutheran) with the more radical Reformation (Calvinist, Anabaptist) one can see that the Conservative Reformers saw the Reformation in the light of a continuing historic church.

Perhaps it is the modern Anglican that has difficulties in this area? What does the forum think?

I guess I'm on your side of this, but I'd add that I don't see Anglicanism as the "type O" of religious blood types. IOW, to say that we don't have any doctrines of our own doesn' t mean that just any doctrine at all that some other church holds is compatible with Anglicanism. What we mean is more that we are the main road of Christianity, thanks to having rejected the Medieval excesses of the Roman Church WITHOUT having adopted the new theology of the Reformation's Left Wing.

And what I object to most with the extreme wing of modern Anglo-Catholicism is that they speak as though the Reformation was a momentary mistake in the history of the Church in England, hardly to be considered part of our history at all. To me, that's self-deception, because it surely isn't church history.

 

[No Swansong]

Again, from my laymen's point of view only.

Via media is only a part of the recent history since Elizabeth I. It worked well with the power of the English State to enforce it.

Since the Power of that State no longer enforces it, it no longer works. Thus we see increasing schism.

I cannot speak for TAC but I see no future in via media. It is every where spinning out of communion with itself.

While I disagree with you about Via Media, I am once again brought to the question. What precisely then is it that TAC wishes to retain?

As for Via Media being an innovation what exactly would you call Papal Infallibility if not an innovation? If much of what is distinctly Anglican is to be rejected because it is not of the Ancient Church then why accept PI?

 

[Secundulus]

While I disagree with you about Via Media, I am once again brought to the question. What precisely then is it that TAC wishes to retain?

As for Via Media being an innovation what exactly would you call Papal Infallibility if not an innovation? If much of what is distinctly Anglican is to be rejected because it is not of the Ancient Church then why accept PI?

Thanks for responding. Again, I cannot speak for the Bishops, but can only communicate my own conclusions.

Personally I wish to reinstate Christian unity. I think it is what Christ desired and what is necessary in the world today.

I view Papal infallibility and perhaps some other doctrinal differences we might discuss as secondary to unity.

Not that I would desire unity under something other than ancient Christian beliefs. However, I cannot see in the Catholic Church anything contradictory to those beliefs. Perhaps the Vatican has further developed these beliefs, but I do not think that they contradict them. (This idea I get from Newman.)

I believe that Christianity faces many challenges today from both Secularism and Islam. I do not think that we can make an effective counter-argument from a house divided.

My beliefs are really this simple and do not derive from either a love of Rome of an aversion to the Reformation.

I wish for the further unity of all Christians who continue to believe in the ancient faith although I realize that my dream may never be actual until Christ returns.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for responding. Again, I cannot speak for the Bishops, but can only communicate my own conclusions.

Personally I wish to reinstate Christian unity. I think it is what Christ desired and what is necessary in the world today.

I view Papal infallibility and perhaps some other doctrinal differences we might discuss as secondary to unity.

Not that I would desire unity under something other than ancient Christian beliefs. However, I cannot see in the Catholic Church anything contradictory to those beliefs. Perhaps the Vatican has further developed these beliefs, but I do not think that they contradict them. (This idea I get from Newman.)

I believe that Christianity faces many challenges today from both Secularism and Islam. I do not think that we can make an effective counter-argument from a house divided.

My beliefs are really this simple and do not derive from either a love of Rome of an aversion to the Reformation.

I wish for the further unity of all Christians who continue to believe in the ancient faith although I realize that my dream may never be actual until Christ returns.

Personally, I can't imagine how Papal Infallibility and Newman go together, since the former was not proclaimed until after Newman....but I do have to say that you have been consistent over the past months in saying that, for you, a united front against the growing threats of Islam and Secularism is so important that you'd be willing not to question some of Rome's teachings, believing that, at least, there's an argument that can be made for them all.

Of course, I am horrified at such a view, but so what?...we all have to make choices. What I do think, however, is that there's a real shortcoming in that idea because TAC in no way represents any united front, being but a drop in the bucket of Anglican membership, and there's also no likelihood of the rest of the Anglican world being moved by TAC's initiative. Oh well, that's just my two cents.

 

[ContraMundum]

Just between you and me, I don't believe those figures for a moment. They seemed to double in just the last few years and -- as you said, most are Africans -- by which I mean phantom numbers of people who are estimated, not counted.

The doubling of the TAC numbers is largely due to the 350k+ Umze Wazi Church of Sth Africa joining- it more than doubled the number of the communion in one hit.

In the third world, it often turns out that numbers are not arrived at as we would count them and, also, when they are located it turns out that these people "belong" to as many Western churches at once as will send some aid. The Vatican knows this too, I suspect. So, the number of TAC members in North America, Australia, and the UK is what?...10-15,000, or less than 5% of the claimed membership.

While you are correct, if we apply that suspicion about numbers to the TAC's claims we also have to apply it to everyone else's- including Canterbury's and Rome's. It doesn't seem to be a very profitable excercise in that light.

HOWEVER, my skepticism is not something I'm dedicated to. I'd be happier to be proven wrong. The real point is that all of the Continuing Churches are quite small. Even if 400,000 is correct for TAC, that's really a very small number as churches go, whatever the denomination.[/quotte]

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.

Well....that's the name of the Anglican Communion's province. The Continuing Churches and any continued fracturing of Anglicanism had nothing to do with the adoption of that rather unusual name. The Diocese of the Murray always sounded a bit odd to me.

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

I agree. The question I'd have is, "How much of that owes to a deliberate attempt to bring TAC into accord with Rome so that a re-union with her would have a chance?"

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.

 

[Catherineanne]

I wonder what reason they feel for staining in the Anglican Communion, and not transferring to the Roman Catholic Church.

I doubt if Rome would take them on the terms they would expect. Any one of them is free to become Roman if they want, but that is not what they want, is it? They want whole communities to be accepted, as job lots, together with their married clergy. And chances are, they would want to exist in a pre-Vatican II dreamland.

I very much suspect this would mean more trouble than they are worth to Rome.

 

[ContraMundum]

Again, from my laymen's point of view only.

Via media is only a part of the recent history since Elizabeth I. It worked well with the power of the English State to enforce it.

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.

I cannot speak for TAC but I see no future in via media. It is every where spinning out of communion with itself.

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.

 

[ContraMundum]

I doubt if Rome would take them on the terms they would expect. Any one of them is free to become Roman if they want, but that is not what they want, is it? They want whole communities to be accepted, as job lots, together with their married clergy. And chances are, they would want to exist in a pre-Vatican II dreamland.

I very much suspect this would mean more trouble than they are worth to Rome.

Not much of that seems to be true on the ground.