Newman, Patten and Piety

 

A reflection on how Orthodoxy must influence practice of the Faith and not the other way around.

A confession with regard to the self-identification of female dogs

I have many sins which I commit again and again which I am not prepared to confess here, yet. But there is one that I ought to admit to because I think it is a character flaw that is perhaps common to many Anglo-Catholics, and one I believe should be excised certainly from my own character. I think that confessing it publicly may help me to be on guard and perhaps allow my readers to put me to shame if, as and when I relapse. I hope also to encourage others to do a better job of living the Christian life than I do.

 

I have a tendency to be... for want of a better word... bitchy.

 

Regular readers will probably have picked up on that rather unpleasant business of me being rather spiteful in my criticism of others. Obviously, that is a term that ought to give offense to folk of gentler dispositions. Rather than referring to the verb and adjective formed from referring to a female dog, I will return to Holy Father Benedict and the word he uses for this activity - murmuring.

 

I do notice it in the circles in which I move which leads me to wonder why it is that Anglo-Catholics, or Anglican Papalists like me, seem to be the best murmurers. Why be so complete and damning in one’s criticism of others? Why go overboard and assassinate someone's character when a simple, objective and fair criticism would do? Why cultivate such thoughtless malice?

 

This is not even restricted to English Anglo-Catholics, but across the pond too, and, admittedly, it is unpleasant and must put people off joining Churches of Catholic descent. This is another reason for good self-examination and a commitment to repentance.

 

I do think, however, that English Anglo-Catholics are best at it because we do passive aggression best. Essentially, many Anglo-Catholics have had a fight on their hands in recent years. Since Forward in Faith rather let the ball slip in the CofE with regard to a Third Province, there is no real Catholic presence in that Church to challenge the mores. Forward in Faith have pulled up the drawbridge and resigned themselves to an eventual disappearance. The Roman Catholic Church has its own problems and incipient divisions over faith and morals, as do the Orthodox Churches. There is a war being waged!

 

I find that Anglo-Catholics are necessarily better educated in history, philosophy and apologetics on the grounds that they have had, in the past, to wage a war on historical and philosophical lines. The business of being Catholic means that an all-round education is needed to ensure that Catholicism is maintained. The trouble with being intellectual and English is that we have to be dreadfully agreeable to our opponents. Thus, when we are in our "safe" circles of friends, the class come out to vent that frustration. Murmuring seems to be a way of letting off steam, venting fury, and poke fun at the object of one's ire. Such behaviour is two-faced, it must be admitted.

 

The trouble is that, if we are not willing to poke fun at our offender to his face, then we risk making him a figure of fun within people who share our bias. A joke is only truly funny if everyone who hears it and can understand it can laugh. In murmuring, our offender is reduced to a caricature or, worse, demonised. Perhaps murmuring is the omega male's way of fighting wars with alpha males. It’s interesting that it is murmuring that is perhaps characteristic of cliques of teenage girls. I was once given a bit of an education in this when I was made to watch the film “Mean Girls” with Lindsay Lohan. What I saw there, I can see in my own life. Just as a school community was damaged in that film, so can real communities be destroyed by such behaviour.

 

St Benedict says that our works of obedience mean nothing if we do so with murmuring:

 

But this same obedience will only then be acceptable to God and pleasing to man when that which is ordered be carried out neither with trepidation nor tardily and lukewarmly, nor yet with murmuring and the back answer of one unwilling; for obedience yielded to superiors is an offering laid before God: for Himself He has said: “Who hears you, hears Me.” And with good-will should disciples yield it because it is the cheerful giver God loves. For if it is with ill-will the disciple obeys if even he murmur in his heart and not only by actual word of mouth, though he fulfil the command yet will he not now be accepted as obedient by God, Who regardeth the heart of the murmurer And for such act he earns no reward; but rather he incurs the murmurer’s penalty, unless he amend and make satisfaction. (Chapter V of the Rule)

 

As I say, murmuring is easy to do because it is natural and a way of letting off steam. We see psalms of complaint, but the Christian must make the object of complaint the proliferation of evil, not the person who offends in some way.

 

What should I do?

Well, clearly I need to stop poking fun at people behind their back. I may question their actions, but not their dignity as human beings. Thus, I intend to follow a bit of a better programme.

 

1)       First, as in all things, a prayer to God each day for the grace to see Christ in all whom I meet, especially those who offend me in some way.

2)       If I need to call Herod a fox, then I should be prepared to do that to his face.

3)       If I am tempted to poke fun at someone unjustly (i.e. beyond calling Herod a fox) then I need to find some aspect of that person I truly admire. 

4)       If I find someone’s action irritating, then I need to look and see how that action might be a better reflection of my own actions.

5)       If I see sin in another person then my first duty is to look for that sin in myself and perhaps chastise that in myself before I admonish another. I must also remember that admonish comes from the Latin admonere meaning to warn, not castigate (the Latin for castigate is castigare) Admonition literally means to direct someone to think, consider or mind. Remonstrate should mean to direct someone to rethink, reconsider or remind.

 

Not being an American alpha male, the ability to rebuke a colleague is not well-developed within me, and perhaps that’s a good thing. I am quite capable of issuing rebuke to schoolchildren, though even now that ability has diminished somewhat since my “retirement” from the classroom. If I must rebuke, then that will come to me from God and certainly not from myself. I do see some of my earlier posts do indeed lend to rebuke, particularly of the heresies committed, sanctioned and glorified within the Established Church. These heresies can be clearly seen from Holy Scripture and Tradition.

 

If the Church is to become a home for people for people fleeing from Evil, then they need to be able to see that the Church is dealing with evil at the personal level. It must begin with the individual: it must begin with me. I beg your prayers and request, humbly, that you might consider joining me in making the Catholic Church (in all its colour) a purer lens through which to see the light of Christ. Jesu, mercy! Mary, pray!

 

Holy Church and Sacred Heart

I notice that the readership of this blog has plummeted dramatically since my departure from Facebook at the beginning of the year. According to the statistics, fewer than twenty people read what I post here. My past popular posts have been ones that have been critical of the Church of England, and I’m not sure that this is a positive comment on this blogling. Whether this readership is due to a shared and visceral concern for the spiritual decline of the CofE or due to some of a more liberal persuasion sharing my posts between friends to say that I am persona non grata, I don’t know.

I am at present reflecting on my life and work in the CofE, seeking to understand why resentments still remain for me and why I just can’t let go of the last few years of my time within her cure.

While I was a more Ultramontane Anglican Papalist (which sums up my churchmanship from about 2001-2011), it was my understanding that Anglican Papalism exists because it shouldn’t. The fact of the matter is that the Church of England was spawned from the Church of Rome from the beginning when the first missionaries hit these shores very probably in the first century. Of course, it’s debatable to say that the Roman Catholic Church existed at that time, primarily because the existence of the Papal Office is debatable. Even today, we question whether, in order to be a Catholic, one needs to be in communion with Rome. I argue not and I make my point from the existence of doubt. Both the One True Churches (as Fr Hart would call them) have a shared history and cite the same Undivided Church. Therefore, the points of doctrine where these two bodies differ are highly unlikely to be truly Catholic Doctrine in the sense of St Vincent of Lerins. I believe that both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid branches of the Church, but they fail to recognise any but themselves as being part of the Church. To be honest, that’s their problem.

As of 12^th June, I will have been in the Anglican Catholic Church for seven years and do not regret my decision in the slightest. As far as I see it, the ACC is another instance of something existing because it shouldn’t. We exist because we hold fast to the Catholic Faith in this country of England and which has been brought into the former colonies along with the British culture. We are not Greek and so cannot be Greek Orthodox. We are not Russian, so we cannot be Russian Orthodox. We are not Armenian, Egyptian, Syrian, et c. and so if we are truly to be Orthodox, where can we find the Orthodox Doctrine of our ethnicity?

And, despite our heritage, we are not Roman Catholic even if we regard the Bishop of Rome as being the legitimate Patriarch of the West. Rome requires of us more than the Orthodox Doctrine of the Undivided Church stipulates.

Thus, we in the ACC stand apart from these two One True Churches because we believe that, holding the Catholic Faith of the Undivided Church, we are already Orthodox and that to be Catholic one does not need to be Roman Catholic – indeed a Roman Catholic might really not be Catholic if the Universal Supremacy of the Papacy is not a truly Catholic Doctrine.

And we are not in the Church of England because, as the last forty years of walking apart has shown, we have a very different theology with a very different understanding of what “Catholic” means in the Creed.

The result is that we are a very tiny Church in this country which tries to do the seemingly impossible. We exist precisely because we should not. In a perfect world, the Church of England would be properly Catholic, the Pope would be a primus inter pares and the Eastern Orthodox Church would not be defined by ethnicity. That cannot be because I am in the world, I am not perfect, therefore this is not a perfect world. Thus, I am duty bound not to join a perfect Church.

What is called for is the Sacred Heart of Our Lord.

I appreciate that Romans, Easterns, Anglicans and Anglican Catholics have to walk apart due to differences of history. We cannot unite if to do so compromises the Truth. But we can be compassionate. We can unite ourselves in the sufferings and sorrows of Our Blessed Lord on our behalf, and those sufferings and sorrows of Our Lady the Theotokos. We need to recognise in each of us the facts of History, the times when we have been horrible to each other through stake, halter and sword, the times of persecution at the hands of pagans, the times when each one of us stood up an preached the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation to the world and the salvation that this Incarnation offers us.

To often, we belittle the others and fail to see that, even if we cannot accept the theology, the Holy Spirit can and is doing work. My most recent experience of that is the deeply unkind, unreasoned and unreasonable blogger whom Fr Anthony often confronts. This one refers to the ACC as a “comic opera” and regards us in no uncertain terms with the greatest contempt without even thinking through his arguments nor addressing any counter-arguments without some kind of ad hominem dismissal. This chap is a Roman Catholic, but I’ve seen the same behaviour in the Eastern Orthodox, CofE, the ACC and even, mea maxima culpa within myself. It’s clearly a reaction which comes from being defensive: we seek to defend what is precious to us.

The trouble is that the Sacred Heart scandalises us fully by demonstrating the opposite. Our Lord does not defend Himself against His enemy: He defends us against His enemy. The heart that we see has not even been protected by the body of Christ. It has been invaded by the lance through Our Lord’s side and pierced through so that we might partake of blood and water even as we partake of His body.

Of course, the Communion is something that we seem to deny each other, though it has to be said that both the CofE and the Anglican Catholic Church do not have any barriers to Communion. Anyone baptised and who loves Our Lord may receive at our tables. I do rejoice in that because it does give the responsibility for holiness back to the communicant. However, what will disconcert the most deliberately exclusive Catholic zealot of any stripe is that there is only One Body of Christ, only One Sacred Heart. If that zealot truly wants to be united to Christ in the most Holy Sacrament and find Divine Compassion pouring out of the pierced Heart, then that one will also be united to all who receive the same. If one person from each of the Roman, Eastern, Anglican and Anglican Catholic Communions truly does receive Him, then all four jurisdictions are sacramentally united in that One Christ regardless of any boundary that has risen between us. We cannot know who is in Heaven until we are there: the Catholic Church cannot possess the Mind of God –  the late Professor Hawking is wrong: it cannot be known by mortals. The Church is the Body of Christ: Christ is the Head of the Church. The Body does not know the Mind unless that is communicated to the Body by the Head.

Unlike Fr Anthony’s unpleasant critic, let us be kind. We don’t need to accept one another’s theology to be kind to each other. Let us call each other’s priests Reverend or Father, even if we don’t believe that we share the same priesthood and let us do so remembering that these titles refer to God and that God can work His will through each one of us regardless of whether we are ordained – in fact regardless of whether we are Christian or not. If we are true to the image of God, then we will see that image in the face of each person even if they scandalise us. And God will scandalise us – indeed I pray that He may cause me to repent as much as I pray that He will cause Fr Anthony’s detractor to repent so that he and I and as many people with whom I come into contact with may know the true joys of Heaven and escape the horrors of the Hell of our own making.

Thus, I beg you to pray with me on behalf of all Christians.

Almighty and eternal God, consider the Heart of Thine well-beloved Son, and the praises and satisfaction He offers Thee in the name of sinners; and appeased by worthy homage, pardon those who implore Thy mercy, in the name of the same Jesus Christ Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.

Then, please say an Our Father on behalf of all those who have said no prayers today.

Why I don't use the Book of Common Prayer

The title of this post is likely to put the backs up of many of my fellow Anglican Catholics as well as many of those who identify as Anglican from outside the Continuing Church. I must beg your indulgence. As it is, I heard the following interchange:

A: I use the Anglican Breviary.
B: The only Anglican Breviary is the Book of Common Prayer. Use it.

I found B's response arrogant, blinkered, patronising and unhelpful. It added nothing to the discussion rather than an air of authoritarianism that made me want to reply, "No. I will not use the BCP because of your attitude." As it is, I do not use the Book of Common Prayer for what I believe to be good reason.

I hope that my previous postings have made it clear that I follow the school of thought within Anglican Catholicism which regards the 1549 Book of Common Prayer as the standard of liturgical worship, but subordinate to the doctrine of the Primitive Church as was intended by those who compiled it. I do believe wholeheartedly that the BCP is uniquely Anglican and wholesome for any Christian in their conversation with God. However, the BCP does point outside itself to encourage those who continue the Catholic Faith through the lens of English and Anglophone History to make spiritual progress through Mass, Study, Office and Devotion.

And that's where I sort of come from. My history is entwined with the 1662 BCP. While I make no apology for my Anglican Papalism which came from a parish built on the work of one of the first Bishops to take up the Ordinariate, my choral life was centred around the BCP at Choral Evensong and (occasionally) Choral Mattins. My life at University and having to deal with the lumping-together of Anglican and Free-Church worship meant that I recovered some of my sanity by recourse to the BCP. However, I found it a book that pointed outside itself, as you would expect a book of prayer to do.

However, I discovered that the 1662 BCP is not as full as it should be. The truncated Eucharistic Canon, the truncated hagiography, the desire to hold Catholic teaching with a form of Calvinism, all of these made it difficult for me to continue to just use it for my offices. Couple that with my Benedictine Oblation, and you may perceive that I find a better conversation through the use of the Monastic Diurnal. Yes, it is true that the genius of the BCP is Benedictine. However, that the ferial offices of the Hours doesn't change over the week does make it easier to memorise large chunks of the psalter. I am, like many other Benedictines, able to say the Office of Compline completely from memory which does help after a busy day.

Yet, that is the desire of the BCP, that great chunks of Holy Scripture and tradition get absorbed into the system. I have my daily scripture reading from the lectionary for my study and my Mass is in keeping with the English Translation with the Gregorian Canon following the English Missal which is bound up with the Collects and Readings, and all translations from the Book of Common Prayer of 1549. I baptise using the 1549 Rite which is effectively the old Western Rite.

Essentially, there is a wealth of material that comes from and is consonant with the 1549 Book of Common Prayer which is all consistent with the Catholic Faith that the Church in England received once delivered to the saints. Now, the CofE has their modern liturgical text called "Common Worship" which has so many Eucharistic Prayers, so many rites for this, that and the other. What it lacks is the consistency that the BCP has in how it points beyond itself and allows the Continuing Church to be a truly Broad Church without overstepping the bounds into Liberal and Modernist Heresy.

I recently set myself the task of working one week solely with the 1662 BCP that I grew up with just to see how I would cope with it. While it brought back memories of singing the wonderful alto line in Adrian Batten's Evening Service from the Fourth Service, I found myself up against the brick wall of the Reformation. Anglican Catholicism and I go back further than that. Of course, the material of the Book of Common Prayer does too, but it is so bound up with that turbulent time, and excises so much in the way of the prior Catholic devotion, that I simply could not continue save only in the spirit of its creation.

I hope, then, I have acquitted myself of any charge of despising what is certainly a truly Anglican and beautiful resource, even if I don't use it. I bow to its unifying principle and recognise it in my Offices of Lauds and Vespers. If there are those who will denounce me for not being an Anglican because I don't use it, I remind them that I am not an Anglican - I am an Anglican Catholic and the Anglican Catholic Church accommodates a generous but firm latitude when it comes to Liturgical Worship.

And, again, to B, I say. "No! Sha'n't!"

What a naughty boy I am! ☺

On rejection from Walsingham

I must confess that old feelings about the CofE have come back to me, and they are not pleasant. It seems that one of my confreres in the ACC has been barred from saying Mass in the Guild of All Souls simply because we are not in communion with the CofE. This has come as a bolt out of the blue a fortnight before a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. Essentially, the administrators have decided only now to enforce a ban on those outside the communion of the CofE which has apparently been in place for five years. As far as I know, there has been no attempt at any dialogue with us, but rather a blanket and ignorant enforcement of a directive which hitherto had been passed over.

We must, of course, try to work rationally and use the principle of charity here, despite feelings of fury and indignation at this decision. We must remember that, at the present time, the CofE is in a "state of emergency" with the conservative group GAFCON seeking to plant missions in the country and put forward their alternative to the CofE in its thrall to the Liberal Agenda. In the light of this incursion, it makes sense for a party fearing invasion to pull up the drawbridge. We see this already in Society in which many people live in fear of the levels of immigration especially from countries where terrorists and insurgents are active and posing a threat to lives in the West.

We must remember that many of us left the CofE in order to continue an expression of the Christian unaffected by the Liberal Agenda. Our theology is different from that of the CofE, even if we share much of its history. Yet, in leaving the CofE, we have tried to do the decent thing and be honest about what we believe, nailing our colours to the mast and admitting that the impairment of communion between us is sufficiently severe as to form a schism. Of course, the CofE blame us for that schism, and we have good grounds to suggest that the blame is not with us. This has enabled the CofE to walk its way without our influence, and for us to walk our way which we believe wholeheartedly to be the Catholic Faith given to us by Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Nonetheless, there is an element within the CofE with which we in the ACC find much sympathy, and seek to support with our prayers even if we stand on opposite sides of the schism. Given that the Shrine in Walsingham was refounded by Fr Patten, a man of great Anglican Papalist tendencies, it makes sense that the Shrine itself is supported by Forward in Faith and the conservative Anglo-Catholics and even the remaining Anglican Papalists within the CofE. We had hoped that their influence might have swayed a degree of leniency when it comes to our celebration of the Mass in Walsingham.

The CofE boasts inclusivity, and yet excludes those who disagree with its theology. There is a certain logic there, but it is the logic of the liberals who see in any dissent from their thinking a threat to the free world. I agree, the ACC is a threat to liberal logic, but not to free thinking in its proper place - namely in the study of Philosophy rather than Theology. If their theology is truly threatened by our presence saying Mass in their buildings, then perhaps it suggests that they are like the Brexiteers and even Donald Trump in the expulsion of those whom they see to be so different as to be unacceptable.

Of course, I could be wrong here, and that there is a good reason for our rejection from Walsingham. I just hope that those who have made this decision would seek to engage in dialogue with us in the common desire to seek the Kingdom of God and the blessing of Jesus Christ, Our Lord. Yet, they must understand the hurt that their decision has caused us - a hurt which brought about our existence as a separate body in the first place. Given the presence of the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church, it is only fair that such a dialogue be entertained in the spirit of Oecumenism that the CofE seeks to champion. I leave it with them, and pray for a happy resolution to this whole, sorry affair.#

Jesu, mercy! Mary pray!

Managing Mediating Muddles

Yes, I’ve been arguing with Protestants again. There are many, many Protestants that I do really like, who appreciate that things aren’t as clear cut and with whom I disagree profoundly, yet know that they are visibly motivated by the Holy Ghost. There are others who tear their bibles to bits to prove their points and do so in a way in which they become as infallible as the Pope that they are demonising. These will rail at the “false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church” and declare that it is leading people into Hell. With the death of Jack Chick, that ardent and spectacularly ill-informed champion of all things anti-Catholic, this has been much on my mind. The tendancy that some Protestants have for throwing the baby out of the bathwater when declaring the Church of Rome "Hell-bound" is unhelpful and shortsighted.

If I believed that the Roman Catholic Church is never wrong, then I would be damnably (literally) foolish not to join her ranks. As an Anglican Papalist, though, while I stand alongside my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in many ways, there are issues which I simply cannot defend. In that sense, I believe that Rome does have false teaching which embellishes the faith more than necessary. Yet, if I were to accept the basic assumptions of the Papacy which go beyond the definitions of the Councils, logic would dictate that what the Roman Church teaches is necessarily true. It is because I believe that what she teaches is not necessarily true that I cannot accept those basic assumptions of the Papacy which go beyond the definitions of the Councils.

That makes me and the Pope mutual heretics in the technical sense of the word, but I strongly renounce any pejorative sense here.

One issue is that of the role of Our Lady. Pope St John-Paul II calls Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces, and this troubles the Protestant soul. There is also the notion of Our Lady as Coredemptrix which started out as a largely medieval expression of Our Lady’s role in our Salvation. It was this notion that certainly the Reformers took pains to reject and, it has to be said, even though it took on a louder voice at the time of the Second Vatican Council, it has never been dogmatic Roman Catholic Teaching.

The argument for the Mary the Coredemptrix can be summarised as:

1)      Mary agrees to become the mother of Jesus.
2)      Jesus is our Redeemer.
3)      In freely saying “yes”, Our Lady plays an active part in our redemption.
4)      In freely saying “yes”, Our Lady is uniquely united with her Son.
5)      Thus Our Lady shares the title of Redeemer with Our Lord.
6)      Therefore she is Coredemptrix.

The trouble is that this argument can be used of St Anne and St Joachim in respect of Our Lady, mutatis mutandis and, by an inductive argument, the whole lineage of Mary all the way back become Coredemptors and Coredemptriges.

The issues lie in 3 and 4. Our Lady is not the primary cause of our redemption. She is a secondary cause, just as her ancestry are all secondary causes. The primary cause of our redemption is Our Lord. I cannot say that the hammer is a co-smasher of the vase, nor can I say that it was my brain that smashed the vase. These are arguments that lead schoolchildren into detention!

As worthy as Our Lady is of all honour pertaining to her unique position as Theotokos, she simply cannot receive the title of Coredemptrix. This takes things too far. We are all participants in our own salvation, but not in our redemption. Lumen Gentium is very clear on the subordinate role of Mary in the ministry of Our Lord.

What about the troublesome Mediatrix of All Graces?

Again, this can be spun too much by some Catholics. Did Pope St John-Paul II go too far when he declared Our Lady to possess this title? This depends on what he means by mediation.

Catholic teaching is clear. There is only one Mediator between God and Man. St Paul, in writing to St Timothy says:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. (I Tim ii.1-8)

Yet it seems there is a bit of a quandary there. At times, haven’t Moses and the prophets interceded for us? Have they not acted as mediators on our behalf? Mediation implies a two-way street between the two parties through the mediator (in the Greek literally the one standing in the middles). We have Abraham pleading for the city of Sodom. We have Moses pleading for the Israelites. Do these not count?

Not quite; they are indeed mediators in the sense of negotiation, but there is another mediation needed for our salvation. Remember that Our Lord is unique in His mediation: He stands between God and Man by being both! It is through this unique position that Man can be reconciled with God through the entirety of His Holy Incarnation and most visibly in His death on the Cross. This makes His mediation absolutely unique and absolutely effective for the salvation of all people. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, et c. could never make this mediation, nor could Our Lady.

This means that as Mediatrix, she can only ever act as a mediator between us and Christ the Mediator. She can only ever bring us to the Person who alone saves us through His mediation. This is actually vital, for St Paul in the above text urges prayer and supplication for all men. He urges all Christians to act as mediators, a knotted string of mediation that stretches back and forth through Time and Space binding people to God in Christ Jesus. This is why the Church that the Mediator built is necessary: both sides need to approach the Mediator for true mediation to occur.

But Mediatrix of All Graces? As we always say “Hail Mary, full of grace”. But how does that mean ALL graces? This, I contend, comes from her position of giving birth to Our Lord and through this act, bringing the Cause of all Grace into the world. Through this act of Our Lady’s mediation, we are given Him Who sanctifies the waters of Baptism by being Baptised, Who gives the sweet wine of Holiness to the wedding guests at Cana, Who forgives sins, Who calls disciples, Who gives the gift of the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifies the deathbed with His own body, Who gives us His very flesh and blood to eat and drink so that we might be truly whole. If there are any other graces to be received, then we receive them only at the hands of God Himself via Christ our Mediator and then through the mediation of the Church as the body of Christ.

The position of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces is clear and encouraging, for we in all things should seek to emulate her example by bringing the Great Mediator to all people so that they might receive His Grace, Salvation, and Blessing. Our Lady shows our duty and our joy by showing us Christ. May we learn to do the same!

ACCidents of history

I still regard myself as an Anglican Papalist. This largely reflects my set of pious opinions in addition to the doctrine of the Early Church. In my days within the Established Church, I took up the Anglican Papalist cause for the simple reason that Anglican Papalism exists precisely because it shouldn’t. The schism of the Reformation has wounded both the Roman and Anglican Churches to the extent that both have spun wildly out of control, both claiming authority that neither possess. Of course, this isn’t the first schism, and the Schism between East and West has hurt the Church, the Eastern Church suffering more precisely because of her lack of political power. The Eastern Church has suffered much at the hands of Islamic warriors and even at the hands of Western Christians who were supposed to be defending Christianity. Perhaps this dreadful history has at least prevented them from the politics to the extent that Western Christianity has become inveigled. Schism always seems to go hand in hand with bloodshed. It is my firm belief that there must be a reunification of all Orthodox Catholics who share and who wholeheartedly believe fully the doctrine of the Church before the 11th Century and who are willing to recognise the Patriarch of the West, i.e. the Venerable Bishop of Rome, as the primus inter pares of the Church, yet not as “Bishop of Bishops” which is a title and office reserved only for the Divine Christ Himself and cannot be assumed by any of His vicars.
That is, I hope, as comprehensive a statement that I can make about how I perceive the issue Church Unity at the moment, though I hope I may be able to flesh it out more as I learn about the Church.

One of the big obstacles that faces the Anglican Catholic Church in the United Kingdom is the fact that it is not recognised as a Church. Much of that is historical accident, of which little is our fault. Since the Norman Conquest, our history has been identified with the Roman Catholic, thus the Orthodox Churches of the East do not regard us as being properly orthodox. Since the Reformation, our history has been identified with the Established Anglican Church, thus the Roman Catholic Church refuses to recognise us as properly Catholic and denies our orders. These refusals of recognition are not the fault of the ACC, but rather just the way history has unfolded. The refusal of recognition that one may argue is our fault is the refusal of the Anglican Communion to recognise us as authentically Anglican. As I’ve argued before , any accusation from Canterbury that Continuing Anglicans are schismatic is actually an indictment of Canterbury’s own schism via heresy. Let’s be clear here. Continuing Anglicans walked away from the jurisdiction of the Lambeth Communion because the Lambeth Communion had already walked away from the Catholic Faith. We had no other option. The resulting fragmentation was a terrible indictment of how much confusion there was within ECUSA at the time and how influential personalities caused more splits and jurisdiction when there needed to be clarity. However, given that under the Anglican umbrella there were Anglo-Catholics, Anglo-Protestants, Anglo-Calvinists, Anglo-Articulists (sorry, a little neologism of mine. I mean one who holds to the XXXIX Articles having a confessional status), Anglo-Antarticulists (i.e. ones that don’t), Anglo-Latitudinarians, Anglo-Baptists, et c. fragmentation was very much on the cards.

For us Anglican Catholics, the only way was to stick to our understanding of what “Anglican” means. By the term, we mean Anglo-Catholic, i.e. there is a continuity of the Anglican Church before the Reformation with that Church after the Reformation, that “Anglican” means “English” and that our Orthodox standing is as a Western Rite Orthodoxy. Perhaps our way forward is to flesh this out, to develop an understanding of this as a full integrity that the 40 years of our existence as a body separate from the Lambeth Communion has not yet allowed us to do. The 1970s was a new reformation for us, and the dust hasn’t really settled yet.

Canterbury has Resolution IV.11 in its 1998 Lambeth Conference with regard to Continuing Anglicanism that dialogue should be set up between us. Clearly, there can be no return to communio in sacris until the Lambeth Communion returns to orthodoxy, so what the formal dialogue could achieve would really be little more than an agreement not to get in each other’s way. At the local level, friendships between ministers and priests would be the means in which we can work together. Christian Charity can never be sacrificed being, as it is, the heart of any form of Orthodoxy. Our Lord preferred sinners to Pharisees after all. It’s better to recognise ourselves as sinners rather than infallible.

Nonetheless, in our tiny state, the fact that we have no recognition from Orthodox or Roman Catholic circles does hurt for the simple reason that we have some affinity with them that we simply don’t with the Lambeth Communion. Since we do honestly believe we’re right, should we simply put our heads down and say “we’re right, we’re right, we’re right” into the long night? Perhaps we’re just unfortunate with the fact we are so small.  It’s all very well to say “It’s their loss” and carry on regardless, but our size does not help us in this respect. There are talks between Lambeth and the Vatican with regard to ordination. The fact that we are a tiny Church means that we will be excluded from these talks despite the fact that we can legitimately claim to have preserved Anglican Orders more authentically than the Established Church. Of course, we do trust in God to increase us, but perhaps we do need to play our part. That’s how covenants work.
Thankfully, in America, we do have the recent developments between the ACC, the APA, and the ACA meaning that the accidents of the history of the 1970s and 80s are starting to heal. That relationships are becoming better between the TAC and the ACC is also of comfort. In this country, we have very congenial terms with the Old Roman Catholic Church as well. The hand of friendship is being seen and I hope we have seen the last of the ACC being an angry Church.

Every day, we have the opportunity to create more accidents in history. The way to make those accidents happy is to ensure that we look iconographically at our opponents, to see God in them and His work. This is so hard, but perhaps we need more practice, beginning as we should with those immediately around us. We’re living at an age in which it is very easy to dehumanise people who do wrong. Indeed, stripping people of their humanity is precisely how ISIS can commit their crimes. Yet these militants are someone’s children, and will at some point have demonstrated that innate lovability. They want us to forget that so that we, too, will hate them with the same passion. That’s a truly satanic trick. We need to stop that temptation dead otherwise the accidents will continue, the schisms will continue and the fragmentation will continue.

As I used to pray that Anglican Papalism would cease to exist, I now pray that the Anglican Catholic Church will cease to exist for, when it does, the Church will be united once more and to be Anglican Catholic will be the same as being Roman Catholic and the same as Orthodox. Here’s to non-existence!

Branching out of Yggdrasil

Norse Mythology is very rich in its imagery and has inspired much that still has a cultural reference today in Britain. The days of the week are still 6/7 Norse and 1/7 Roman in origin; the stories of the Wild Hunt still enthral rural areas of England and Wales; we still describe long running affairs in life as sagas.

At the centre of Norse mythology is the great tree Yggdrasil, the Ash Tree which supports the nine worlds and at the roots of which, the great dragon Níðhöggr lurks gnawing away at the Great Tree. Does this cosmic dragon living at the bottom of the world not chime with popular views of Hell being "down there" somewhere? Even in English Churches and Cathedrals we still see the remains of Norse Theology, woodwoses and Green men, runic writing and Saxon windows. The images are very green, very mossy, and even very English.

Also unique to the English Church is the notion of the Branch theory of Anglicanism's relationship with other Apostolic Churches as a branch from the great undivided Church. The idea is that, though there is schism between Churches, one may still be part of the Catholic Church provided that there is conformity with the undivided Church. Now, this is not accepted by the Orthodox Church who see that can only be Schism from the Church and not within it. It is certainly not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states in Dominus Jesus:

there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.

These two Churches certainly agree that the Anglican Church is not part of the Catholic Church. But they do not really recognise each other in their claims to be the One True Church! There are clear doctrinal differences between the Churches and these differences need to be assessed as to whether they do indeed result in endangering the souls of the people within.

Not to accept the Authority of the Pope as Supreme Monarch of the Church is clearly a heresy to the Roman Catholic Church, but to accept it is indeed a heresy for the Orthodox Church and for many Anglicans. The Anglicans are excluded from Communion with the Orthodox Church for precisely the same reason that Roman Catholics are. Indeed, to the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church is just as Protestant as Baptists and Methodists, Apostolic Succession or no.

There is clear division between the Churches today who hold to the Apostolic Succession, these being Romans, Anglicans and the Orthodox, all claiming that they hold fast to the roots of the Undivided Church. If the larger two Churches hold that Branch Theory is false, does this mean that it is indeed false?

To check on what is Catholic, we do need to go back to the great Vincentian Canon which is part of the Undivided Church, St Vincent of Lerins himself dying in the 5th Century.

Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike. (Commonitorium Cap ii)

The Canon was written after the Council of Ephesus and before the death of St Cyril of Alexandria and this places it in about 434AD before Pope St Leo the Great.

So what needs to be established for Branch theory to be true? What do we need to do to show that one can be part of the Catholic Church, despite being in schism, provided that one holds to the doctrine of the Universal Church and preserves Apostolic Succession?

Well, there is a principle of continuity: holding to the Catholic Doctrines and consecrating Bishops with the same consecration as the Holy Apostles in principle guarantee true doctrine and valid sacraments no matter what the age. All is passed on securely. The sticking point is the state of being "in schism". If it can be shown that the origin of the schism is due to the difference between accepting and rejecting a truly Catholic dogma, then those who reject the Catholic dogma are schisming themselves out of the Church and are necessarily heretical. If the dogma is not Catholic, then the schism is over issues of piety which are insisted upon. While this should not be the cause of schism, human nature is fallen and still both parties could be described legitimately as branches until an eventual reconciliation exists.

Now the Schism between East and West is apparently over the West adopting the filioque, the double procession of the Holy Ghost. However, the person of the Pope as Patriarch or Supreme Pontiff is in doubt. One will have it as Catholic Dogma, the other will not. Both sides appeal to the Vincentian Canon here to prove their point. Thus, we now have another factor entering into the mix - doubt!

The issue cannot be proved absolutely to be black or white. I, like my Bishop and my dear colleagues in the Anglican Catholic Church, are convinced by the historical evidence which shows the Pope to be the Patriarch of the West and Successor of St Peter as Bishop of Rome, being worthy of much honour, respect and deep affection in this Office. However, we are unconvinced by (in my case, I grew to doubt) the evidence for the claims to universal jurisdiction which constitutes the Supremacy of the Pope.

Doubt is not the enemy of Faith here. It is an admission that we do not have Divine Knowledge. The Body of Christ is not the Head for that is Jesus Our Lord. We are not complete without Him. While the Holy Spirit does inspire us, there is still room for doubt as to whether things are as they appear.

There is recognition between many Orthodox Churchmen and Roman Churchmen that they are hewn from the same rock, that they have a commonality as Christians which they share deeply. They see in their worship something which they agree is common and they feel the sense of God’s presence. The same is true of Roman and Orthodox visitors to the Anglican Catholic Church who recognise that same numinous sense. While all three might be in schism, there is still the recognition that there is the same stuff at our roots. This is not doubt in Christ, nor doubt in the Doctrine of His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, this is doubt about the truth of the separation of Christians who share an understanding of what it means to be Holy Catholic and Apostolic. It is certainly doubt that the other is truly condemned to the utter sterility and eventual damnation of those who wilfully reject the Love of God.

It is this very doubt that reinforces the idea of Branch Theory. If we cannot prove absolutely that the schismatic parties are indeed outside the Church – a judgement that is surely reserved for God alone on the Day of Days) – then, out of simple charity, we must regard them as part of Christ’s body and treat them accordingly.

True English Catholicism holds to its claims that it is apostolic and subscribes to the Undivided Church. These assertions are disagreed by the Romans and the Orthodox, who themselves mutually disagree about the other. Yet, there is a growing recognition and respect between these three that there is something fundamentally common as truly Catholic. With no absolute decree on the nature of our schisms, save in the mind of God Himself, the idea of branches still holds, though perhaps not in the eyes of those who stick to the letter of Canon Law.

Rather than allowing Níðhöggr to gnaw at the Church and at the roots of our Charity, let’s just keep praying for each other, administering the sacraments, and holding fast to the Faith of Christ. Perhaps the branches join at the End.

Communicating Catholicism

The trouble with adjectives is that they can become malleable in meaning. I'm yet really to get into the philosophy of nominalism and discussions about what it means to mean something in my amateur sojourn through the philosophical universe. I notice from Fr Hart's blog that there is a big discussion about the confusion as to what "Catholic" means. From Anglican Papalist quarters, there is the question of what it means to be Catholic when one isn't in communion with the Pope. Indeed when many people hear the word, their mind immediately leaps to Roman Catholic.

Now, the Holy See officially denies the appellation "Roman Catholic" because it believes itself to be THE Catholic Church and all who refuse to be in communion with her to be non-Catholics. Yet for those outside, particularly in the Orthodox and Anglican Churches, the "Roman" epithet is quite reasonable because of the affiliation of the Holy See with the Patriarch Bishop of Rome. It is possible that one could hear of the Antiochene Catholic Church or the Alexandrian Catholic Church, et c, only for these they feel no need to stress the idea of Catholic. It's already part of their make-up.

The squabble is mainly over the ownership of the word "Catholic" and who has the authority both to define it and to make the judgement as to who or what is Catholic and who or what is not. So what does "Catholic" mean?

Many of you who read this will have a better understanding of what the word means than I do and I would be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs were I to make statements that "Catholic" comes from the Greek kath holos meaning "concerning the whole". Again, many of you will be familiar were I to mention the Vincentian Canon that the Catholic Faith is "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." Catholicism is to do with wholeness, what the whole Church has always believed everywhere and yet, as Fr Hart notes, the word in Anglican circles is used to separate the "Catholic" High Church from the "Protestant" Low Church. That which is supposed to unite actually divides.

The Church to which I belong is the Anglican Catholic Church. This causes a great deal of confusion to people. Am I a Roman Catholic? Does my Church exist to act as a holding bay for those taking up  the Ordinariate? Shouldn't that be Anglo-Catholic? Are we Anglicans or not?

But look carefully. If my church confuses people by being called the Anglican Catholic Church, then those people ask questions. If they ask questions, then they have started a dialogue with me and with my jurisdiction. I can then talk to them about the beliefs that I share, not just with my Bishop, my priest and my Diocese, but with all Christians who accept the Apostolic Faith as laid down in the Scriptures and in the Church Fathers and the first seven truly Oecumenical Councils. That confusion has been a great vehicle for me to talk to people, to listen to them and what their understanding of things is. I can strike up a friendship, or not, but at least there is an interaction.

Many people want words to mean the same to everyone. They want to say "I'm a Catholic" and for everyone to know what that means. The trouble with carefully defined adjectives is that they end conversation. No-one debates the meaning of what it is for a triangle to be "right-angled" because the definition is precise and pertains to an object which possesses an abstract reality rather than a physical reality.

On the other hand,Human beings are notorious for blurring boundaries of definition, often deliberately. So what a word such as "Catholic"means to one person can be very different from what it means to another. There are calls for Anglicans to fight to take back possession of the meaning of the word. But why? First, with the large number of Roman Catholics, that's rather tilting at windmills to get everybody in the world aware of the fact that we Anglican Catholics are just as Catholic. Second, it's a bit silly when many in the world are unchurched and don't really care what the word means in the first place. Thirdly, and this is my point, to make everyone aware of what Catholic means destroys the possibility of communicating with another person stone dead. The conversation becomes:

A: What religion are you?
B: I'm an Anglican Catholic.
A: Oh.

rather than

A: What religion are you?
B: I'm an Anglican Catholic?
A: Anglican Catholic? Don't you mean Anglo-Catholic?
B: Well,....
or

A: What religion are you?
B: I'm an Anglican Catholic?
A: Are you CofE then?
B: Well,....

or

A: What religion are you?
B: I'm an Anglican Catholic?
A: Is that possible? How does that work?
B: Well,....

The Anglican Catholic Church believes herself to be as properly Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church. We certainly do not believe that we are THE Catholic Church, but merely a visible part of it. Our sister churches of UECNA and APCK have similar beliefs but they are as much part of THE Catholic Church as we are and many other good Catholics who come under many polygrammatic acronyms. We are proud to have the word "Catholic" as part of our name and if this causes confusion among people, then good! We then have something to talk to them about, and, if we're good Christians first, we will talk to them in a way that is kind and generous and more interested in them than perhaps they are in us. Perhaps that way, we can show our Lord Christ according to the whole of our lives and not just in our intellects.

Re-ordering unity

Good grief! My 400th post!

I am grateful to Jakian Thomist for providing me with information as to how Anglicans can accept re-ordination in order to enter the Roman Catholic Church. I do take his point that

"there is a sense of 'talking-past' one another on this topic, RC's 'reducing' its significance while Anglican contributors feeling as if 'THE' point has been completely missed."

Well, perhaps we need to find some way of finding the actual issue here an insuring that we get it right.

There are essentially two issues which appear to be in conflict:

1) Reunion of Anglicans into Communion with the Holy See;
2) The Invalidity of Anglican Orders via Apostolicae Curae.

From Apostolicae Curae, we see that, at the very least, Rome believes that Anglican orders are not the same as Roman orders and that an Anglican priest is not the same as a Roman Catholic priest. Are the two notions really different?
Well, here, I think, is where the idea of Absolute Ordination and Relative Ordination come in - it is a question of doubt and thence a question of trust. If one accepts that Anglican priesthood can only be truly completed by ordination as a Roman Catholic priest, then one can in good conscience submit to the process of re-ordination as a priest in order to have one's orders completed.

The problem with this attitude is that it then describes Anglicanism as being incomplete in a manner in which most Anglicans cannot accept. In a very good sense our incompleteness is true, since all "Churches" are incomplete without the others and mutual excommunication is a scandal. Anglicanism does very much need to be in Communion with Rome for the health of both Anglicanism and Rome. However, the view is that Anglicanism is incomplete in the Catholic Sense. We are then left with the question just how is Anglicanism incomplete?

Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy all stem from the Undivided Church of the seven Oecumenical councils and all claim to be following the same Apostolic Succession and the same idea of Sacrament which has been drawn from following Christ Himself. Many scholars will try to deny that, but the history of the earliest Anglicanism as independent from Rome is well attested to. Since the various Schisms have torn us apart, we now have been saddled with doubt to the intentions of the other bodies with which we formerly enjoyed full communion.

As far as I understand, the Eastern Orthodox position (and I'm honestly not quite sure that I do since there seems to be more than one Eastern Orthodox Church!) with the return to Communion will also come the return of the recognition of Anglican sacraments as Orthodox.

With Rome, the Reformation has cast a sufficient doubt on the underlying integrity of the Anglican system that there is insufficient confidence in what we do is truly what we say we do. Given the turbulence of the 16th and 17th Centuries, that's not a completely unfair position to take, provided that it were seen clearly that Apostolic Succession and the ministering of the Sacraments really has changed from the Undivided Church. As Saepius Officio shows, there is at the very least no clear evidence that Anglicanism has fallen away from the Catholic Principles of the Undivided Church.

The underlying issue is then not really of the issue of orders, though this is how it manifests itself, but rather an issue of trust.

Admittedly, churches that profess Anglicanism have done themselves no favours. If a church departs from the teaching of the Undivided Church, how on Earth can it be trusted to be following the Catholicism what is at the very heart of the existence of that Undivided Church? Corporately, the CofE and ECUSA have managed to rid themselves of Catholicism in order to appeal to a Zeitgeist. This cannot be said absolutely as many individual parishes and organisations within these bodies are striving to be Catholic. How successful they are is doubtful, but their struggles to uphold their Catholicism need support from all Catholics.

What has been more successful at completing the Oxford Movement has been the profession of the Continuing Churches, especially in the fact that they keep to the same integrity of Anglicanism prior to any change to the Catholic Faith. This has been hard, especially since Catholicism is not a popular movement in Western Society. Continuing Anglicanism has been accused of "divide, degenerate, debate, divide, degenerate, debate (ad nauseam)". This seems to be rather an out-of-date view of the way that the Continuum is travelling given the substantial commitment to unity shown by the ACC, the APCK, the APA and UECNA. There will always be some floating bodies but the the commonality, indeed Catholicity of Anglicanism makes any boundaries more fluid - just like the Orthodox jurisdictions which are just as prone to "divide, degenerate, debate, divide, degenerate, debate (ad nauseam)" and just as able to reunite and reconfigure.

All of the Anglican bodies are still recognisably Anglican because they have kept a commitment to the Undivided Church and though it be indefinable, save in a Wittgensteinian sense, there is an Anglican Integrity - a trustworthiness that we follow Our Lord Jesus Christ in the same manner as his disciples in our different time, position, culture and milieu. Those who abandon the principles of the Undivided Church abandon that trustworthiness and thus separate themselves from that integrity.

Humility is about recognising the truth about oneself and one's condition and, given that the Continuing Churches look to regulate themselves in the light of what the Church has always been, there is humility. To be united in Christ is a goal well worth struggling for, but one must be careful in the way that one accepts that unity. If one finds an impediment in conscience because of a development subsequent to the schisms, then the offered unity cannot honestly be acceptable - to deny it is not humility because it is not true belief, particularly if it comes from the conscience. One cannot enter into unity with one's fingers crossed. Such an action is insincere and an insult to both sides.

Surely the parties to be united must look to themselves with regard to these impediments and trust the other that if the impediment exists then it needs to be examined very carefully from both sides. If there is no way around them, then the question must be about the quality of unity. Is this a suzerain-vassal covenant, or a recognition of mutual integrity?

So, what the issue boils down to is not of having the humility to submit to re-ordination for the sake of unity, but rather the trust that, when only God can be convinced of Absolutes, the other party has truly been seeking the same Catholicism that existed before Schisms occurred. If re-ordination were necessary then it needs to be at the very least sub conditione not sine conditione because the latter has the monopoly on the Absolute and this cannot be demonstrated as a fact because it is an Absolute. There is only one Catholicism: this is indeed an Absolute because there is is One Lord Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

We have to appreciate that there is much that we can trust. If we follow the Covenant, then we do forge a good relationship with God and we can be as sure of that as the strength of our faith. If we have faith in our Church Leaders to uphold the principles of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then we can be sure of the validity of the sacraments that they minister to us, and with that validity the Truth of God Himself whose Incarnation we celebrate at this wonderful time of year!

I hate to end on matters of contention. My prayer is for a corporate unity that comes from both sides - a recognition of the fidelity to the Catholic Faith and a statement in the truth of the orders of orthodox Anglicans.

May I wish you all a most happy, joyful, peaceful, fulfilling and fun 2012! God bless you all.

Blogday 2011: Anglican Papalism and Me

Wow! Another year and this one has been quite momentous for me. Eagle-eyed readers of this blogling will notice that I've removed my page linking to Fr Brooke Lunn's description of Anglican Papalism. Does this mean that I cease to be an Anglican Papalist?

Well, yes and no - a typical Anglican answer! I hope you will understand my equivocation. I have had to re-evaluate myself this year and what I really believe, and perhaps now is the time to start nailing my colours to the mast. While I was in the CofE, I was as much a slave to the inherent confusion as anything else. I would leave even my own services with a headache, let alone from Mass and this was in no small part due to my trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. I have now had time to think more clearly. I have sailed that sea and, though with my sails tattered and my mast broken, find myself on a more comfortable shore.

The main principles of Anglican Papalism are:

1. Anglicanism has made authentic and honourable contributions to the development of Catholic Christian practice (e.g., Week of Prayer for Christian Unity).


2. Petrine Succession and Primacy are authentic and honourable developments of Catholic Christian theology.


3. There is a legitimate place within Catholic Christianity for Christians seeking full Communion with the Apostolic See of Rome yet retaining Anglican practices deemed salutary by the Church's Magisterium.

I am not an Anglican Papalist if this means that I wish to take advantage of the Ordinariate. I cannot agree that the system that is in place preserves Anglicanism if it means that Anglican priests have to go through the unnecessary sacrilege of re-ordination. This is a blatant denial of the Catholic validity that Anglicanism has and which Pusey and the other members of the Oxford Movement saw when they rediscovered the orthodoxy embedded in Traditional Anglicanism. That Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman departed for Rome was not a problem for him because he doubted the validity of his own orders and ceased from practicing when he realised this. That he was also under much emotional pressure at the time is surely understandable. Likewise, I cannot condemn anyone entering the Ordinariate and I will explain why this is a good thing.

I am not Anglican Papalist if I have to hold to the Pope being anything more than a Patriarch and a Bishop with privileged see. Over the past few years, I have drifted further and further from the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and Supremacy as they stand defined in the First Vatican Council, on the grounds that (a) it is not a truly Oecumenical Council and (b) the doctrines doesn't make sense without it being a truly Oecumenical Council. The Infallibility comes from the Church and were the Church to hold a truly Oecumenical Council and for the bishops all to agree on a matter of faith and doctrine, then the Infallible position would then be ratified by the Pope. He would bang the gavel on the matter, as it were.

I do not hold to the idea that the Holy Father is a monarch of Christians, especially since, in the eyes of the Old Testament, the Covenant points to the Monarchy of God. I will willing hold to the Holy Father's primacy but not his universal jurisdiction, because it is not true. Either the Orthodox Churches who do not subscribe to Papal universal jurisdiction are not Catholic Christians (which Rome believes) or the Pope has universal jurisdiction (which the Orthodox Churches do not believe).

However, I am still an Anglican Papalist if I believe St Paul when he tells us that, in the Body of Christ, one part cannot reject another part and that I am still committed to the unity of the Undivided Church. I still hold to the Holy Father as my Patriarch, even if he himself denies it and goes so far to suppress that title. There is good evidence in the Early Church of the Primacy of the Pope, and that Anglicans do share very much doctrine with the Roman Catholic Church. I long for the Unity with the Holy See but I fear that Vatican II has ruined her more than Vatican I. Vatican I cut the Holy See off further from Anglicans, Orthodox and even her own ilk in the Old Catholic Church. Vatican II cut her off from her own past in an attempt to blow away the cobwebs. Moral: never open your windows to air your room when there's a Gale Force 9 Hurricane raging outside.

For unity to occur, there needs to be movement on both sides. The ACC did her bit in the 1970s when she came away from the heresies of ECUSA and again in the 1990s in the U.K. If Rome is serious about Church Unity, then she needs to look at herself to ensure that she is fit for unity rather than just assume that she is.

I am still an Anglican Papalist if that means I still defend the Roman Catholic Church where possible since, as I said above, Anglican Catholicism shares a very great deal of true doctrine with her. This isn't always possible when the hierarchy of the Holy See says some very silly things, usually from ignorance, but I certainly have her interests at heart. I have a great love and affection for her and the Holy Father and I certainly support the Ordinariate in that if Anglicans can subscribe to the extra conditions that Roman Catholicism imposes then they should take them up. It means that homeless Anglicans do find a sound spiritual home, though not without cost. It will also help the Roman Church see the value of Anglicanism and perhaps help her to play a better role in the unity of the Undivided Church. There are some very good and devout former Anglicans entering the Ordinariate, this can only be a good thing for all parties and I pray for its success and growth.

I am still an Anglican Papalist if that means that I recognise the contribution to Anglicanism that the five-hundred year walk with the Roman Catholic Church has forged with all its riches and colour as well as the inherent truth that Anglican and Roman Catholicism share. Although I recognise the need for its occurrence, I still find the Reformation one of the saddest and most abject periods in Church History and wish that it had never happened in the way that it did. I still hold to the pious opinions of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady and to the doctrine of Purgatory, though not as a place of punishment, but rather a painful "place" of personal reconstruction but filled with the light and love of God.

Looking back at some of my earlier posts I notice that I have changed much, but then who doesn't? I am not ashamed of myself for the times that I have been a bit more ultramontane than I am now. I believe it is the sign of spiritual growth in me and I praise God for it. However, I'm not convinced that I've changed all that much, just a dotting of the Is and crossing of the Ts with the loss of hair and increase of girth. There's still much more growing that I have to do, but I am happy to be in a place which allows that growth to occur in a nurturing and supportive environment.

Wittgenstein, Anglicanism and Patrimony

A few years ago, I started to wonder about what it means to be an Anglican somewhat prior to the events of what happened a year later. As I've grown older and read more and tried to be a better thinker, it struck me that there are more ways of defining something than giving an axiomatic definition. Wittgenstein's approach of family resemblances gives quite a fresh take on the situation.

The idea is that in a large family, it is clear that now two members of that family are identical. In a mathematical/axiomatic framework, a definition would require that two things would have the same defining category if and only if they satisfied all the requirements. This doesn't work for Art, Poetry, or Religion. Not all Religions have gods, not all Art is beautiful, not all Poetry rhymes.

Wittgenstein notices that one recognises people from the same family by resemblances that, while not common to all members of the family are common to some. Think of the old lady at the bus stop who makes the Wittgensteinian definition of the new baby with the words, "aww, he's got his father's eyes!"

Art, for example might be defined by something which possesses features such as manufactured, designed to stir the emotions, to depict what's truly real, a painting, or a sculpture, or a manipulation of a medium, et c. The more of these features an object has in common with what we would recognise as being a Work of Art, the more easily it can indeed be identified as a work of art. Of course, we have to agree with what the resemblances of "Works of Art" are in the first place. I think it might be quite difficult to find anyone who would say that the Mona Lisa is not Art, so perhaps there is a general Wittgensteinian definition that would fit, at least in a sizable majority.

The same may well be true for this thing called Anglicanism.

In 2009, at the above link, I suggested that:

Listening to the people around me, I hear that one is Anglican

1) by continuing in the Apostolic Succession with Anglican Bishops;

2) by the continued use of Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason in
continuity with the great Anglican Divines – Hooker, Andrewes et al;

3) by agreeing with the principles ["of church polity" I should have added - a bit late now!] laid down at the Reformation;

4) by worshipping in the same places, in the same buildings as
antiquity;

5) by being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury;

6) by being a Christian subject of Queen Elizabeth II and her
successors

7) by adhering to traditional Anglican liturgies;

I might also be tempted to add:

8) by seeking some via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism;

9) by taking the XXXIX articles as the basis of one's dogmatic system;

10) by rejecting Apostolicae Curae;

11) by holding to the three Creeds and first seven Ecumenical Councils;

12) by recognising the Anglican Church is part of the One True Church and is only part.

I am sure that there are other criteria that one could meet. I would say of course that there is a necessary condition

0) by being a practising Christian.

Criterion (0) is certainly a sine qua non though there are some who would reject even this.

The more resemblances one shares with that which is Anglican, the more one can be recognised as Anglican and vice versa. Of course this rules out absolute certainty as to who is or isn't Anglican and then perhaps we can see how, unlike a mathematical definition, there is room in a Wittgensteinian definition for the principle of Charity and the need for listening to others. Does this lend us to a 13th criterion?

13) by attributing the only certainties that exist are fathomable by a Transcendent and Immanent God.

Did I leave anything out?

Post-Ordinariate Anglican Papalism

It is quite clear that Anglicanism is going through a great upheaval at the moment. By "moment", I really perhaps mean over the last 30-40 years as the Church tries to get to grips with its place in the present philosophical climate.

The major development over the past few years has, of course, been the generous offer of reunion between Anglicans and Roman Catholics via the Ordinariate. It has taken remarkable courage on the part of the Anglican Clergy and Laity to have been the pioneers of this movement and to give up livelihoods, much loved buildings and even relationships in favour of returning to Communion with the Holy Father. Surely this is the Anglican Papalist's dream come true?

I'm afraid I don't believe that it is. I don't want to detract from the respect that I have for all those who have taken the step to set up ordinariate communities, but the fact of the matter is that there are headlines talking about "ex-Anglicans" joining the Ordinariate. It's this epithet "ex-Anglican" that causes me to doubt the idea of "unity but not absorption" that has been the cry of joy uttered by the Ordinariate-bound. If "ex-Anglican" is how these folk are extrinsically regarded from quarters both within and without the Roman Catholic Church, then they have as yet failed to demonstrate unequivocally how they remain Anglican. Surely Anglican Papalism seeks corporate unity with the Roman Catholic Church whilst remaining distinctively Anglican?

I have always said that the existence of Anglican Papalism is intrinsically bound up with the schism in the Church: when the Schism goes away, then so does Anglican Papalism. Has the Schism gone away? That depends on whether there are still Anglicans who regard the Pope as the head of the Church on Earth. I'm not necessarily talking about the supremacy of the Pope, but rather his primacy. To regard the Bishop of Rome as being the Foremost in the Church is Papalism, though of course this comes with some very interesting flavours. There are still many Anglicans who accept this, but not some of the other statements about the nature of the Papacy such as possessing Universal Jurisdiction (which I understand as Papal Supremacy) or Infallibility. They will, nonetheless support the Pope, and pray for the furtherance of his work. That is still Papalism. So Anglican Papalists can still exist without necessarily taking advantage of the Anglican-Roman Ordinariate.

It is also interesting that there are Roman Catholics who do not accept Supremacy or Infallibility themselves, struggle to understand their implications and/or at least cross their fingers when they declare their "acceptance" these doctrines. Perhaps these are Anglican Papalists too, only wishing to reunite the Roman Church with the non-Catholic Anglicanism (if such a beast exists) of the mainstream CofE. Are these members of the Roman "Church of England"?

However, that leads to the question of how unity can be achieved. Now it is interesting that the Ordinariate has fared best in the UK but unsurprising. The Church of England has caused an insurmountable hurdle to be put in place which renders corporate union with the Holy See impossible, but then, it was certainly impossible for the CofE to reunite with Rome considering that there are movements within the CofE which would not reunite with Rome for all the Bibles in Texas. Reunion is only the hope of the Anglo-Catholics - the successors of the Tractarians and the Nonjurors whose fundamental belief in that Anglicanism retains in itself the structures which are inherent in the Catholic and Undivided Church.

However, Anglican Papalists cannot deny that the Schism never happened. That Schism has done much to both the Anglican and Roman Churches who have developed their own character in their long walk apart. The Christian language has developed distinct dialects and it is these dialects that perhaps cause the greatest problems.

I said below that it is the breakdown in language and common sense that has resulted in greater legalism between government and citizen. One can look at the recent Milly Dowler case in which, in order to defend the accused (subsequently found guilty), the defence launched lines of enquiry which grossly invaded the privacy of a family still grieving over the loss of teenage Milly. Common sense surely says something here. Does it really need legislation or have we lost unspoken bonds between human beings.

Likewise with the Church, the unspoken bonds that bound the Church have been disrupted and of course we are unsure about how they are ever to be restored. That must come from the invisible grace of God. What does not help the Anglican Church is the lack of any cohesive body which can offer any rapprochement to Rome, or to the Orthodox Church. Anglicans are apparently split into finer and finer denominations, but the Continuum exists and can be made visible if work is put into it.

If the Affirmation of St Louis can be demonstrated to be a fully Catholic understanding of Christianity, then there is an Anglicanism that can demonstrate its credentials to Rome. There will be many groups of Anglicans who have demonstrated that they do not wish to be included by the innovations which have rendered their idea of Catholicism invalid. A united Anglicanism (proper Anglo-Catholicism) that can demonstrate itself to be sincere in its membership of the Catholic Church would be a jewel in the crown of Christianity and a body with which the other parts of the Catholic Church could feel that they understand their position.

Of course, this presupposes that the Roman Catholic Church wants to reunite in this manner, affirming the continuing Anglicanism of those who would seek the reunion. At the present it is clear that she doesn't as she certainly has done nothing to suppress that epithet of "ex-Anglican". Yet, in setting up the Ordinariate she has shown that she is beginning to understand the position of Anglicans who show themselves to follow the Catholic faith. A clear body of Anglicans whom she can see follow Christ in His Rule would certainly calm any worries that she might have.

The Ordinariate has taken its toll on expressions of Anglicanism that have already had a clear idea of Anglican Catholicity. The TAC seems to be in some turmoil because, largely, they already could see there was a discrepancy between being a member of the Ordinariate and remaining obviously Anglican. There are many fragments of the TAC struggling to understand what to do. They need some clear body to which to align in order to stabilise their situation, and Anglican bodies must reach out to help and offer a hand of Love.

Anglican Papalism is still alive after the Ordinariate, though not really in the form it once was. Any Anglican who longs to be in Communion withe the Pope regarding his primacy will certainly have a claim to being a Papal Anglican, but it will only be those who work to reunite Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics whilst respecting their identities who embody what the first Anglican Papalists were trying to do.

John Henry Cardinal Newman and Fr. Edward Bouverie Pusey, pray for us.