Perhaps it's inevitable that Anglo-Papalists should be confused. Fr. Vervoorst, before he went to Rome was the definitively Seriously Confused Anglo-Papalist.
I've been considering my position in the C of E for a long time, and my intention was to make my final decision as to whether to stay or go when the first woman "bishop" was brought into a very dubious idea of being. My thoughts there were that I would be joining a host of others who would be leaving at the same time. So have I changed my mind?
Well, it's difficult to say because my own position is more murky than ever. In the space of a year or so I have become a part of the Continuum, yet without being part of the Continuum, i.e. remaining as a Reader in a Church of England Parish yet not really regarding myself as a full member of the Church of England. Now quite reasonably my friends in the Continuum are desirous that I shake the dust off of my feet at the Church of England. But I don't just have friends in the Continuum, I also have some very good friends in the Church of England.
So do I move to the Continuum just to appease one bunch of friends, or do I remain where I am to appease the others?
Well, clearly neither. I don't stay or go just to satisfy the concerns of friends but I stay or move according to the will of God and I stay or move to the places where the Truth is being taught and they know and appreciate that fact because they love me unconditionally, a fact that I cherish dearly. Personally I'm amazed at how long I've managed to stick out my present parish.
But you see I'm an Anglo-Papalist.
I'm not a Romanizer, though I do love the Tridentine way of doing things, but the Anglican Tradition, as it has always stood, is rich and deeply spiritual. For me Anglo-Papalism is a refusal to take the idea of the schism of the Church lying down. Yes, there is a schism between Canterbury and Rome, and the Catholicism of the Anglican Church is not complete without communion with the Holy See.
So I watch as the Anglican Church schisms again. The effects of this schism has seen the appearance of the Continuing Anglican Parishes which seek to continue the Anglican Tradition. However many of these are not in Communion with each other which seems to suggest the presence of some schismatic influence which may or may not be a feature of the history of these Parishes. Personally, I feel that if there are schismatic issues here in the Continuum, then they result from the way that the Anglican Communion has moved away from the Anglican Continuum.
As an Anglo-Papalist, schism worries me.
My main worry about the Continuum is a fear that I have that the reasons for the separation are an intellectualisation which covers the and underlying "do it my way or I sha'n't play" attitude. That's quite a horrid thing to say on my part, and I'm sure that it is not the case since there is much integrity within these parishes. However, by and large there is a marked convergence between what the larger of these Jurisdictions teach and believe. The fact that there seems to be little desire for the Continuing Jurisdictions to talk and seek ways of unification, or at least conversation, does seem to lend weight to the argument that my fear could be true.
For me, the attraction of the Continuum is a stability of doctrine. That doesn't mean an atrophy of doctrine, but rather I see in each of my Continuum friends a desire to seek the truth within the confines of a system of dogmas, something that I hold very dear. Unlike mathematics which is based on axioms, our faith is based on dogmas. Mathematics builds on axioms whose truth cannot be disputed and results in theorems. Our faith is built on dogmas whose truth can be disputed and the act of dispute has a hand in unpacking those dogmas and revealing deeper, more intricate and beautiful truths. Thus heresy has a vital role to play in Christianity provided that the heresy is a means of sharpening our picture of the Truth. I wrote recently about the ACC and its guarantees that her priests are priests and that her Sacraments valid. That is something that cannot be said about the C of E.
What I do appreciate about the Church of England has been its historical struggle to hold together opposing viewpoints in some coherent way. Where it has failed has been in revising the Prayerbook in such a way as to diversify Common Prayer to the extent that the different wings of the Church started to pray differently from the others and subsequently lost touch. I blame the issues of condoning abortion, the "priesthood" of women and all the other divergences in doctrine on this revision. But still, in this, the province of my upbringing, there are signs of Christian love and charity, there are still validly ordained clergy who do uphold the Christian Faith, and there are still folk who inspire in me a deep admiration and reverence. In my conscience, the light of the Catholic Faith still burns in the C of E.
I am an Anglo-Papalist.
This means that I have no option but to try to hold the Holy See, the Continuum and the Church of England together in my heart and offer them all my love and support. What do I foresee? The only thing that I can foresee is that I end up ripped to shreds. I think I would rather that happen than for me to accept a quick-fix solution and denying the possibility that there is Truth outside that solution. I will be accused of trying to serve two masters. I don't see how since my only master is Christ. I'm trying to be Catholic, and since Catholic means "according to the whole" I am trying to be just that. I don't see why I should have to choose between Catholic Christians. One day I may take my rear from the fence: it will not be without thought, regret and tears.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting post! I sympathize with your struggle which can be soul destroying and calls one to risk everything. But it is God who calls!
As a somewhat confused Anglican Papist I think the issue comes done to Theological Method: is there a theological method which is solidly Anglican and which can be reconciled with the Catholic Faith? Anglicanism must be more than a cultural movement for this to be true and have something to add to the Universal Church for it to have a reason for its existence. This method will have as its natural end the Truth and the truth.
The next question, of course, is whether this method is alive and active within either the Church of England or the Continuum.
A further 'next' question, of course, is whether Anglo-Papist ecclesiology is coherent, not only contextually, but also foundationally. I suspect you know my answer to this, but if not, I suggest you read this essay if you haven't already.
Anglo-Catholics must embrace the great qualities of Anglo-Papalism (such as the liturgy, the 'Western ethos', etc.) but we need to let go of the confused ecclesiology inherent within Anglo-Papalism. If one truly believes that the uniquely new developments within Rome are of God and that Rome is exclusively who She claims she is, then one should not hesitate or delay to go there! However, if one believes, as the Catholic Church has always said, that Holy Tradition is a conciliar matter and that the 'rock' upon which Christ built the Church is faith (and not the Apostolic seat of S. Peter), then remain where you are and help us contend for the faith once delivered!
I hope you pray about this further and decide where you must be. Like you said, you shouldn't sit on this fence long. This problem has eroded the souls of many good Catholics and left them useless in promoting the Gospel and in fighting the heresies of the age. I pray that this does not wear you down like that also.
Email me if you ever want to engage these ideas further or need prayers or just someone to talk with who completely understands your situation.
In Christ,
Andy
thecommonanglican@gmail.com
Jonathan, this is a truly powerful statement of the anguish of soul that comes upon real seekers after God in these times of increasing apostacy and increasing schism among those that are refusing the heresies. What to do? There are no very clear and obvious answers. There is heresy, some of it truly grievous, and there is schism, and both are directly in opposition to the will of God for His people. Neither is acceptable, and neither is precisely avoidable. Unless a church declares itself to be the only church and refuses the name to any other, its refusal to be in a state of full communion with others that it recognizes as churches (no matter how justified such refusal may seem) is a formal state of schism. By this definition even the RCC is schismatic. After a long and problematic pilgrimage, I've settled into the Continuum, which required me to decide on what jurisdiction might be more acceptable. Here I am, and here I've run into other problems I thoroughly dislike, but here I stay, and here I belong.
I'm not an Anglo-Papalist, and don't believe the Pope merits more than a first-among-equals status, but I hate being out of communion with him, though that probably won't be solved for some long time.
It's time for Catholic Christians to come together and work to reach this thoroughly apostate world, and, until that comes to pass, there simply won't be a comfortable place for a really thinking Chruistian. We've got to muddle though and find our way as best as we can.. God help us!
ed
Post a Comment