Only within the Canterbury Communion can we find a church with a Catholic heritage and yet which deems heresies as being consonant with the faith. What can one reasonably do when the institution on which you have relied makes the wrong move? There seems to be only two things that can be done: stay or go.
Who stays?
- Those complicit in the heresy;
- Those who are elderly or infirm;
- Those who are too frightened or tired to undergo such upheaval;
- Those who intend to fight from within;
- Those who intend to honour a commitment despite the heresy.
Who goes?
- Those who want to send a clear signal that heresy is wrong;
- Those who feel that the integrity of the church has been irrevocably compromised;
- Those who wish to preserve the purity of the church;
- Those who cannot associate with heretics;
- Those who believe that the grass is greener on the other side.
These lists are neither exhaustive or exclusive, but merely representative of the feelings and thoughts of those whom I have met. There are deep passions blazing within the chest of the Anglo-Catholic and the Anglo-Papalist which only manifest themselves after too great an imbibing of port or the sight of a woman who appears to be wearing a dog collar, but maybe it's just a roll-necked jumper.
The main trouble is that the Bishops are constantly presenting us with choices, notably the preference of Schism over Heresy. When one side cries "schism", the other invariably cries "heresy" and the two sides get further apart.
What is clear from the Lord's teaching is that He will send his angels to separate wheat from tares. What is not so clear is how this separation wil take place and how the agents of this separation will be. From the Apocalypse we are aware that each Church has its angel, and it may possibly be that it is these guiding angels who will draw away the righteous from the payers of lip-service. However, we still do not know!
For me, it is important that members of the Anglican Continuum and Communion at least engage in some prayer together in an attempt to heal the rifts. I see in myself too great a desire to withdraw from those with whom I disagree. The temptation is always there to demonise and to allow the memories of others to become bitter in the soul. While Mrs Jefferts-Schori, Gene Robinson, Bishop Spong, and others may hold heretical beliefs - which they do when measured up to the Catholic Faith however much they try to justify their learning - they are still deserving of kind words, loving gestures, gentle discussions and holy prayers, not because of themselves but because of the God who desires to sit and eat with us.
The Benedictine Rule advocates the idea of excommunication - the setting apart of folk who have erred from the way.
Capit. XXVI
Si quis frater praesumpserit sine iussione abbatis fratri excommunicato quolibet modo se iungere aut loqui cum eo vel mandatum ei dirigere, similem sortiatur excommunicationis vindictam.
If any brother presumes without instruction from the Abbot in any way to associate with an excommunicated brother or to speak with him or direct a command to him, let him be issued with the same punishment of excommunication. [My translation]
In this, we see that there is a definite need for the separation to be distinct. The abbot must make sure that the offender is kept apart from the community, and that the community is protected from the damage caused by recalcitrants. However St Benedict makes it quite clear that the Abbot is still responsible for the excommunicated, and indeed that the excommunicated is still part of the community.
Capit. XVII
Omni sollicitudine curam gerat abbas circa delinquentes fratres, quia non est opus sanis medicus sed male habentibus (Matthew ix.12). Et ideo uti debet omni modo ut sapiens medicus, immittere senpectas, id est seniores sapientes fratres, qui quasi secrete consolentur fratrem fluctuantem et provocent ad humilitatis satisfactionem et consolentur eum ne abundantiori tristitia absorbeatur (II Corinthians ii.7), sed, sicut ait item apostolus, confirmetur in eo caritas (II Corinthians ii.8) et oretur pro eo ab omnibus...
With every solicitude, the Abbot must show concern about offending brothers, because they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. In in this way, as a wise physician, he must use all skill to send senpectae, that is, older and wiser brothers, who console the erring brother as if in secret, and guide him to a satisfation of humility and to console him lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow but as the Apostle also says that ye would confirm your love toward him and that all might pray for him ... [My translation interspersed with the bible references from the AV]
Dialogue must therefore continue across a schism, but only between the wiser and more senior. This need not be the best educated - indeed it may be preferable that this not be the case particularly with those filled with intellectual pride! It should include those whom the whole church would regard as living a holy and spiritual life.
Indeed it is the person of the Abbot who has the authority to inspect and adjust an issue of excommunication. It is therefore important that the Abbot himself should closely follow Benedictine principles as laid down in the Rule. In practice however, there has been many an Abbot go off the rails. Likewise, in this day and age, we see Bishops - sources of Unity - rely on the integrity of their own belief rather than the Faith of the Church and use their roles of unification to damage and rend the Church.
This is in part why I have developed into an Anglo-Papalist. In viewing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ following in the succession of St Peter, he is an object of unity in obedience to the Catholic Faith. He is also, I believe, the one who could heal the rift of the Reformation quite easily. As successor of Peter and keeper of the Keys, he is able to bind to himself branches which have become severed. As the Vicar of Christ, he can graft together that which has been torn apart for whatever reason. Apostolae Curae (whoever this is more problematic for) can easily be circumvented through such a binding - a Papal declaration of regularity conditional on communion with the Holy See. Whether it has been broken off at the Reformation or not, there is a temporal branch of ordination which links every Anglican Bishop, Priest and Deacon and which can be made to be valid in the eyes of Rome by binding that branch to the living branch of the Holy See, just as the Lord himself spoke about grafting branches onto Himself as the true vine.
I'm an idealist. I apologise. Indeed there are still many obstacles of doctrine and jurisdiction. It is not enough to say "Why can't we just all try to get along?" particularly if there is a wave of heretics muddying the waters. There must be a greater level of trust built up between the Holy See and the Anglican Continuum - both sides must realise in full the others' concerns and work at addressing those barriers together in love and prayer.
I'm afraid the Anglican Communion will never be able to enjoy such a relationship on her present course because she does not perceive that what she is raising are indeed almost insurmountable hurdles to reconciliation. But nonetheless, the Continuum must act, sending senpectae to this ailing body. The distance of excommunication must remain until the recalcitrants are brought back, but there must be this level of ongoing dialogue!
Excuse me while I wallow in my idealism!
7 comments:
I suppose this is some combination of items 1 and 3 under who stays, but I would have a separate category for those clergy who have not a vested pension, and are willing to put this version of Mammon ahead of anything else. Sadly, not rare.
I have never really understood Anglo-papists and I believe that I originated the term a good many years ago. If one wants to be a papist, one goes and does just that, but if one wants to be an Anglican, a real Anglican, you put away papal and Romanist things and ideas and seek obedience to the classical prayer book tradition in its fullness.
One does not see Anglicans attempting to claim papist writers, scholars or intellects as their own. We are glad to acknowledge them when they are right and criticize them when wrong but we never pretend that they are anything but what they are. On the other hand papist have this interesting tendency to attempt to claim Anglican writers such as C. S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers for their own just as they have attempted to claim scholars such as the Rt Rev'd Walter Howard Frere as theirs. Indeed, the modern Roman Church without repudiating any of their heretical initiatives of the late 19th and early 20th century, seem to be moving in the Anglican direction. They have accepted the principle of liturgy in a language understood of the people and are attempting to find in every language an equivalent of that of the classical prayer books. They have attempted to purge themselves of the ugliness of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries "Roman bad taste" while following Anglican returns to more classical vestments and who knows when the present or some future bishop of Rome will begin to actually read the Bible and take St Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus seriously. Of course, considering the speculations in German and Italian newspapers, it probably won't be Benedict XVI. But even I have to approve of what he has done in the Sistine Chapel.
Have you considered reading Hooker, Andrewes, Laud, Littledale and Gore on the Roman question and are you willing to face the reasons why the Orthodox churches are unwilling to accept the Roman claims? It just might be worth the effort.
Canon Tallis (brilliant surname by the way) thanks for commenting.
I'm sorry but I'm afraid I disagree with your premise that to be an Anglican you have to accept the prayer-book. Anglicanism produced the prayer-book in order to define an identity after splitting with Rome. However, the identity it spawned was ambiguous and we see the results of that ambiguity in the Church of England today. The Prayer Book is a wonderful resource and has produced a wonderful system of piety, but it is the result of a political battle, not a religious one. The Articles are too ambiguous to define a position or dogma, and sometimes are just plain wrong. The Pope has jurisdiction in the Realm of England, admittedly only in the Parishes in communion with him, but nonetheless, the Papacy is here.
I was once a Prayer-Book Catholic myself, but I've long since realised that Anglicanism is just not adequately encapsulated within it.
I am certainly happy to reread Hooker, Laud, Andrewes, Littledale and Gore on the Roman problem when I have time, but I'm assuming that you in turn have read Newman, Keble, Pusey and Fr Spencer Jones on the matter.
As for the Orthodox Churches, I am happy to investigate into their theology and learn why they do not accept the Papacy, but Anglicanism has had a longer walk with the Holy See and again, the split was political, unlike that of the Orthodox Church. However, if Anglican-Roman reunion can be achieved first by reunion with the Orthodox Church, you will get no complaint from me.
I'm not expecting you to understand my position, save only that you understand that APs only exist because there is a schism which in itself is inconsistent.
Can I, a former Anglican priest, now reconciled with Peter, urge a reality check here? Within Anglicanism there is no desire to heal historic rifts...witness the persistent moves ever deeper into heresy. Nor is there anyone to negotiate corporate reunion. Lord Halifax had this thought in the 1920s and his grandiose plans came to nothing. The fact is Anglicans are essentially congregationalists.
Well, Father,
(I don't know whether you now use such a title or not, but I still believe you merit it, and it would be helpful, since your identity is part of your testimony, if you would give some indication of who you are)
I'm very sympathetic with much of what you say, but find it an oput-of-balance viewpoint. You completely ignore the consistent reaching out toward Rome of a sizeable part of Anglicanism, reaching an official level in ARCIC. You also completely ignore the fact that Rome has effectually been holding out (but for a few exceptions) a call for individual 'conversions' rather than a true corporate reunion, and has almost always equated reunion with absorption. Frankly I see far more interest in actually dealing with the causes of separation and bringing about healing on the Anglican side than I do on the Roman.
Now, I am not a part of what is called the "Anglican Communion", but of "Continuing Anglicanism", specifically of the TAC. You rightly observe a movement deeper and deeper into heresy. That is why we are not there. However, the roots of separation between us and Rome still remain, and, in fact, have worsened in the 500 years since the breach. This is partly because Rome has changed dramatically in that period. The church from which circumstances separated us in the Tudor period, is not what we are being invited to be absorbed into, but something rather strikingly different, far more centralized, with many doctrines defined in ways that were not required of anyone before the separation, headed by a Pope in whose infallibility one is required to believe.
There are indeed dramatic differences between traditional Anglicanism and Rome, and not all of those are ancient history. It is not a case of returning to what once was. What once was is no more, and it's a whole new game.
"Congregationalists?" Is that any less true of the Roman Church? Yes, there is a massive central organization, but it has been a long time since one could confidently predict what would be seen or heard in a Roman parish, at least aroubnd here. There is no essential loyalty to the doctrine or discipline the RCC professes, and the advertised unity is effectively a shambles. I'm far more likely to find consistency between Continuing Anglican parishes, even if of competing jurisdictions, than I am to find in USA Roman Catholicism.
Yes, Father, I seek unity, with passion, but by means of facing and reconciling the real differences between us, and not by means of a fiat that says, "submit."
ed pacht
Just a very small point: it is the Traditional Anglican Communion that is seeking communion with Rome.
Well now, Marco, you're just being a picky INTJ ;-)
Post a Comment