And, even beyond things they consider "Anglican," they are ready to throw away something ancient and thoroughly Catholic, namely the Vincentian principles of Antiquity and Universal Consensus. This will be replaced by Cardinal Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development, or as schoolchildren call the same game, "Simon Says."
______________________
One of our readers whose comments are always in disagreement with my position, a mystery reader who uses the handle, Cherub, insists that I am wrong for laying more blame for Anglicanorum Coetibus on Forward in Faith, United Kingdom (FiF/UK) than on the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). First of all, let me be clear that I am assigning not credit, but blame. I am not impressed by people whose convictions appear to be lukewarm at best, even convictions with which I am in disagreement. As I have pointed out, people who believe in Rome's claims have no business hanging around either in the Anglican Continuing churches or the Anglican Communion in the FiF. Having explained my reasons already, I will not take more space for that here.
The 2007 petition of TAC seems to have supplied the final push that helped move Rome to a faster conclusion. Granted. Nonetheless, the efforts of FiF/UK should not be underestimated in terms of the final result, the new constitution. Furthermore, it seems that the TAC does not see in this constitution the full reply to their petition.
Looking again at the ACA website where Archbishop Louis Falk made his remarks, in light of recent statements made to me by a TAC apologist, we can piece together the loose ends and see some kind of logic after all. The meaning, having finally emerged from within a heretofore enigmatic set of promises, is that the Roman constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus, does not meet the specific request of the TAC after all. Let us revisit Abp. Falk's exact words once more.
"An initial set of Complementary Norms has been issued by the Confraternity [sic] for the Doctrine of the Faith, which we be [sic] discussed in detail by representatives of that body and of the TAC College of Bishops within the near future. We are now asking members of the ACA (and other TAC provinces) to study the Norms and then pose such question [sic] as may occur. (Some already have, such as: Question: Will we be able to continue to have married priests indefinitely? Answer: Yes. Question: Will those of us who were formerly Roman Catholics be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariates? Answer No. Question: Will we loose control over our Church finances and property? Answer: No) There will be more. These can be sent to your own Bishop, and he will see that they get to the appropriate TAC representatives. Your concerns, as well as your thoughts and prayers, are an essential element and a vital part of this process."
The initial meaning that readers gave to this was that he referred to the existing Complementary Norms. Thus I understood it, assuming the statement was prepared in advance. Therefore, it was entirely justified to point out that he was promising the impossible, inasmuch as the Constitution and Norms not only fail to provide a basis for his promises to the Anglican Church in America (ACA) and other TAC members, but even stand in sharp contradiction to what he promises. But, now I am told (by two different sources) that he will be vindicated before Christmas when Rome institutes new Complementary Norms to Anglicanorum Coetibus specifically for the TAC/ACA, and that these new Norms are expected to give them what they want, and what he promises.
Here we have certain loose ends still untied.
1) So, why the TAC arch-episcopal jubilation over the initial constitution?
2) Why the lapse of time?
3) May we expect the Complementary Norms to serve as Contradictory Norms in those areas where Anglicanorum Coetibus shoots down the TAC hopes?
4) If so, why would this not be a double standard from Rome, one for one group, and one for everybody else?
______________________
One of our readers whose comments are always in disagreement with my position, a mystery reader who uses the handle, Cherub, insists that I am wrong for laying more blame for Anglicanorum Coetibus on Forward in Faith, United Kingdom (FiF/UK) than on the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). First of all, let me be clear that I am assigning not credit, but blame. I am not impressed by people whose convictions appear to be lukewarm at best, even convictions with which I am in disagreement. As I have pointed out, people who believe in Rome's claims have no business hanging around either in the Anglican Continuing churches or the Anglican Communion in the FiF. Having explained my reasons already, I will not take more space for that here.
The 2007 petition of TAC seems to have supplied the final push that helped move Rome to a faster conclusion. Granted. Nonetheless, the efforts of FiF/UK should not be underestimated in terms of the final result, the new constitution. Furthermore, it seems that the TAC does not see in this constitution the full reply to their petition.
Looking again at the ACA website where Archbishop Louis Falk made his remarks, in light of recent statements made to me by a TAC apologist, we can piece together the loose ends and see some kind of logic after all. The meaning, having finally emerged from within a heretofore enigmatic set of promises, is that the Roman constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus, does not meet the specific request of the TAC after all. Let us revisit Abp. Falk's exact words once more.
"An initial set of Complementary Norms has been issued by the Confraternity [sic] for the Doctrine of the Faith, which we be [sic] discussed in detail by representatives of that body and of the TAC College of Bishops within the near future. We are now asking members of the ACA (and other TAC provinces) to study the Norms and then pose such question [sic] as may occur. (Some already have, such as: Question: Will we be able to continue to have married priests indefinitely? Answer: Yes. Question: Will those of us who were formerly Roman Catholics be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariates? Answer No. Question: Will we loose control over our Church finances and property? Answer: No) There will be more. These can be sent to your own Bishop, and he will see that they get to the appropriate TAC representatives. Your concerns, as well as your thoughts and prayers, are an essential element and a vital part of this process."
The initial meaning that readers gave to this was that he referred to the existing Complementary Norms. Thus I understood it, assuming the statement was prepared in advance. Therefore, it was entirely justified to point out that he was promising the impossible, inasmuch as the Constitution and Norms not only fail to provide a basis for his promises to the Anglican Church in America (ACA) and other TAC members, but even stand in sharp contradiction to what he promises. But, now I am told (by two different sources) that he will be vindicated before Christmas when Rome institutes new Complementary Norms to Anglicanorum Coetibus specifically for the TAC/ACA, and that these new Norms are expected to give them what they want, and what he promises.
Here we have certain loose ends still untied.
1) So, why the TAC arch-episcopal jubilation over the initial constitution?
2) Why the lapse of time?
3) May we expect the Complementary Norms to serve as Contradictory Norms in those areas where Anglicanorum Coetibus shoots down the TAC hopes?
4) If so, why would this not be a double standard from Rome, one for one group, and one for everybody else?
.
5) The promise of new Norms does not, of course, square with Abp. Falk's words, "We are now asking members of the ACA (and other TAC provinces) to study the Norms and then pose such question [sic] as may occur." The implication supports my initial reading-but my source knows better.
However, this means that an explanation is needed as to why a response supposedly mainly addressed to TAC meets the needs of FiF/UK and not the request of the TAC-as evident in the need for something more.
Just be patient
The answer should be most interesting. However, all of the people who still place their trust in the TAC/ACA bishops will be asked to extend that trust a bit longer. How much longer is uncertain, because the new, additional TAC Norms will be known only to their bishops until the bishops have completed their very thorough review of the same. The people may or may not even know when the bishops receive these Norms, as they will be informed on a need to know basis, that is, when the bishops need for them to know what the plan is.
So be patient, hang in there, and keep waiting for the word. Meanwhile, of course, other would-be former Anglicans may enter the Pope's Communion at will.
The particular Anglican gifts to the larger Church
We have been assured that Anglicanorum Coetibus is very generous, because it gives Anglicans an opportunity to be in communion with the See of Rome (or as "Doc" Holiday calls it, "Holy Mother Church"). We are told that it preserves Anglican distinctives under the protection of the Roman Patriarchate. If asked how it does that, and what particularly "Anglican" things from our patrimony will be preserved, we are told that it is all found in the "generous" constitution.
This begs the question, "What, specifically, is being preserved and/or protected?" From the constitution, can anybody give us concrete answers? What exactly, what specifically, concerning things "Anglican" in substance, are the AC Tiber swimmers going to get to take with them and keep? I cannot find in the constitution any reference to the distinctively Anglican things I would value most, and I see the requirement to sacrifice theological principles. I do not see where the swimmers may have their cake and eat it too, be both Anglican and Roman at the same time.
Unspinning Article 6
Not our Article VI, but Rome's new Article 6, in Anglicanorum Coetibus. Other than "married clergy" it appears that some future swimmers (whenever they get the word from arch-episcopal and episcopal leadership) have no real idea of anything that they regard as "Anglican." And, even beyond things they consider "Anglican," they are ready to throw away something ancient and thoroughly Catholic, namely the Vincentian principles of Antiquity and Universal Consensus. This will be replaced by Cardinal Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development, or as schoolchildren call the same game, "Simon Says."
But, about married clergy (the only thing they regard as "Anglican" apparently) we have pointed out that Anglicanorum Coetibus merely broadens the Pastoral Provisions. That is, the only married clergy it provides for are former Anglican clergy, something good for the here and now, but not for more than about one generation. To this, I am told, the second point of Article 6 is the only relevant point:
"VI§2.The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See."
My emotionally-charged source informed me that this will be on what is strictly an "as needed" basis. Somehow, that means, that "married clergy are guaranteed in perpetuity." Sadly, this is what is being spread around out there. In fact, what this really means is the following:
1. Anglicanorum Coetibus places the former Anglicans in the discipline of the Latin Church.
2. Petitions to the Roman Pontiff for each married cleric will be on a case by case basis. In practice, the review takes months, sometimes years, for each man.
3. This is exactly the same as the Pastoral Provisions, and gives nothing new (except that local bishops cannot block it because of the Personal Ordinariate-but how much is that in step with real Catholic order?).
4. Even if this were on an "as needed basis"-which wording is not in the Article- how would that work in the real world? For example, in Nigeria it is estimated that for every 1.6 million Roman Catholic laity there is one priest. Nonetheless, the Nigerian Roman Catholic need for married clergy has never been treated, by Rome, as a "need."
5. The entire Article places this second clause in the following context:
"VI. §1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law13 and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments14 may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 4215 and in the Statement In June16 are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1."
What part of "Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law13 and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments" do they not understand? What part of the word "May" eludes their grasp? About having married clergy in perpetuity, what part of "Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1" is too subtle for them?
Besides, reducing the riches and glory of Anglicanism's particular gifts to the Universal Church simply to married clergy, is an insult. It is also a great pity. The depth, the beauty, the clarity of truth, the profound expression of worshiping the Lord in the beauty of holiness, the Biblical Rule of Life in the Book of Common Prayer, that Anglicanism is, are lost on these so-called Anglicans.
They ought to go to Rome right now. They have no clue about where they been all these years, and no appreciation.
24 comments:
Please explain Father, what would you consider a good deal? In other words what would it take for you to want to be in communion with Rome? Or.....are you not desirous of Church unity at this point in time?
I thought that, with Richard Hooker's help, I made that clear. Organizational unity-or unity in polity-requires resolution of theological differences. Otherwise what might appear to be "unity" exists at the expense of conscience. One of those differences is the bloated claims by the Papacy itself, a point of debate that they have also with all the Eastern Patriarchs.
Fr. Hart wrote: This begs the question, "What, specifically, is being preserved and/or protected?" From the constitution, can anybody give us concrete answers? What exactly, what specifically, concerning things "Anglican" in substance, are the AC Tiber swimmers going to get to take with them and keep?
Art. III of the Apostolic Constitution lists three things specifically, in connection with public worship:
1.) Holy Eucharist
2.) the other Sacraments
3.) the Liturgy of the Hours
"...and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared." (Emphasis mine.)
First, the Ordinariates will retain the Prayer Book tradition, even if in modified form. Now, the Anglican Use Book of Divine Worship (BDW) has been criticized from many quarters, and it certainly has its faults; but a revision has been in the works for years (partly held up by the revision of the Roman Missal texts), and now that Anglicanorum Coetibus has been promulgated, it is all but certain that the BDW will be dramatically recompiled by those in the Ordinariates.
"...so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church."
Fortunately the word maintain is in the body of the Constitution and not simply in, let's say, prefatory remarks of some kind. That means it counts.
Please notice that reference is distinctly made to (1)liturgical, (2) spiritual and (3) pastoral elements of the Anglican patrimony. These traditions are not enumerated here; nor should it be necessary to do, I think, so in the context of general norms. Many of these traditions are already widely recognized as uniquely Anglican. One Benedictine (and former Anglican), for example, has praised the "monastic quality" of Anglicanism.
"...as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared."
At least as far as the spirit of the Constitution is concerned, I believe that statement above speaks volumes.
The depth, the beauty, the clarity of truth, the profound expression of worshiping the Lord in the beauty of holiness, the Biblical Rule of Life in the Book of Common Prayer, that Anglicanism is, are lost on these so-called Anglicans.
Lost? It would of course greatly help your argument if the few Anglican Use particular parishes were celebrating "LifeTeen" Masses presided over by Sr. Mary Stretchpants. The reality, of course, would suggest that here again the charges and imputation are unfounded. And if Anglican Use parishes have managed (quite well, thank you) to maintain a distinct Anglican liturgy and spirituality for almost 30 years now -- operating under a provisional structure, with little or no support from the U.S. hierarchy -- then the outlook for the Ordinariates does not seem nearly as bad as The Continuum would obviously have it.
I have seen the text of the Anglican Use liturgy. The changes in it from the Book of Common Prayer are, frankly, offensive. The changes were many, and quite unnecessary. Much of what is deleted or substituted should have been left intact (including the Gospel context of the sacrifice, spelled out in the opening to the canon of Consecration). Some of the changes seem arbitrary and even arrogant.
Furthermore, we are also brought to the question Fr. Wells has raised a few times about the Gospel itself, and our message.
Of course, as you may have noticed, leaving behind the Vincentian principles that I spelled out, replacing them with Newman's theory (that now seems to govern RC thought) is entirely unacceptable. I see no real way to preserve the essence of Anglicanism until Rome treats theological matters (none of which are so very different from Antiquity and Universal Consensus) with respect, and also with a good deal more humility.
It seems that the differences here are so fundamental. Arguing the finer points is futile. Isn't it prudent to agree to disagree. I believe those sincerely seeking communion have done it prayerfully and are now responding to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Come Holy Spirit! Fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your Love!
If I were asked, I would say that I passionately desire to be in communion with Rome, and raise not the smallest objection to that in anything I say, do, or believe, and that I see no obstacle to that other than a stubborn insistence on Rome's part to treat debatable matters as essentials that they (not we) have judged to be a bar to such intercommunion. I see no reason whatever that full communion needs to wait upon the solution of these differences, or worse, on forcing one side to accept the other's view as the only acceptable view. We could be in communion with Rome today were it not for the same kind of attitude that brought about the schism of 1054. A "good deal" requires some change in this kind of attitude. You may say that such a thing cannot happen -- if that be true, then perhaps the gates of hell have prevailed and the whole enterprise has failed after all -- but I do not believe such a thing for a moment. I believe God wants it to happen and that it must, can, and will -- but when the time is ripe.
ed
I think the debate here, save for any new developments, is finished.
All that remains to be done is for those who accept the papal claims, concerning the magisterium and his ability to speak infallibly, to convert as quickly as possible.
What remains for the rest of us to do is to publish and disseminate the texts of these debates so that the clergy and laity of the ACA can see clearly what lies ahead, and make their own decision on which course of action is the best one.
Unless, of course, the TAC will be offered a separate and improved deal by the Pope. The Vatican could do a lot to assuage the anxiety of the clergy and laity of the ACA by simply announcing such. I wonder what makes them hesitate? If they would just give one word it would prevent many parishes and people from departing.
I think Susan has misunderstood the Anglican position. From our perspective we are in communion with Rome and its Patriarch. It is they who have erected the obstacles, and they who are credited with "generosity" every time they remind us of those obstacles, treat us as inferior Christians in less than a real Church, and offer to repair us and remold us after the pattern of their innovations. But we do not want to repair what is not broken (from my perspective as a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church).
We wait for the See of Rome to repent of its innovations and embrace the Catholic Faith in its fullness again. Then they will see that we already are in communion with them, and they with us. That may appear to be snide, sarcastic or in some other way an attempt at humor. But, I am being completely serious.
Thank you for your insight Fr. Hart. God Bless you for your sincere convictions and love of the Church. I too love the Anglican tradition and see it's need to be preserved. I struggled for many years as an Episcopalian and then a Continuing Anglican before crossing to Rome. My experience however, was never hearing a consistent voice. I have watched the "pruning" and splintering. My hope is that the beauty of the Anglican tradition will be preserved in "Holy Mother Church" I realize you take issue with this title!
You spoke earlier of the Eastern Church and their issues with Rome. I realize this is another complex issue. But....reading of their struggles within, it would seem they have a difficult time staying in communion with one another.
For me it all comes down to authority. Without it there will always be division. Obviously I am no theologian, BUT I have spent years praying for this hour to come!
I pray for the day I am able to attend an Anglican Rite as a Roman.
Father Hart wrote: "That may appear to be snide, sarcastic or in some other way an attempt at humor. But, I am being completely serious."
And for that I completely and seriously thank God. The people who believe that the bishop of Church that created the conditions which resulted in the breaking of East and West could possibly be the center of unity - well, I will to the end of my days be and remain astonished.
I also completely agree that those who no longer believe in the classical Anglican position but have instead accepted the teaching of the Roman Church should leave immediately and have ceased the celebration of the sacraments which they no longer believe in as soon as they lost their faith. To have done otherwise is completely dishonest.
I would like to briefly comment on Fr. Hart’s invocation of St. Vincent of Lerin’s interpretative rule that only such doctrines be accepted that had been always, everywhere and by all, as justification for his non-Roman stance.
It is a pity that universal consensus was as in such short supply in the early church as it is today and as a result makes the rule unworkable as an objective interpretation. This was witnessed, as Newman pointed out, by the fact that the pre-Nicene fathers were not unanimously clear even on the Doctrine of the Trinity which necessitated the formulation of the Nicene Creed.
The Christological crisis which Arius spearheaded was not the only place where universal consensus was lacking. Perhaps, let us consider Vincent’s own semipelagian stance against Augustine’s doctrine on grace and free will another time.
That said, St. Vincent’s rule is valid for subjective consensus on studied vagueness, although this comes at the price of considering plain facts. I would imagine that this might be welcomed by ‘classical’ ecumenicists and any communion which considers unity as an agreement to disagree freely. It will be interesting to see how the election of soon to be Bishop Mary Glasspool affect matters for the Anglican Communion.
Could it be that using St. Vincent’s rule as a “lowest common denominator” approach to Doctrine is an excuse do with tradition, what the sola scriptura approach has already done to the written word of the Bible – submit it to private interpretation? Let’s not forget that it was St. Augustine who stated that he believed in the Gospels only because the “authority of the Church vouched for them”… “Roma locuta, causa finita”.
It is not a coincidence that both St. Vincent and soon to be St. Newman viewed development as seed that contains the full grown tree and its fruit. However, in vain will one find in St.Vincent’s rule guidelines that control genuine conceptual development. I wonder how Bishop Glasspool interprets St. Vincent’s rule? St. Augustine wasn’t the only one who praised the role of Rome in discriminating between genuine development and its spurious kind. It is the role of Rome as bearer of Peter’s Keys to free believers from doctrinal agnosticism.
I consider you all my friends and I recognise that it is not easy to be an Anglican at this time. I pray that we will be unified, if not by Anglicanorum Coetibus, then by some other means. St. Augustine, pray for us.
Fr John is absolutely right: the debate between the "Former Anglicans" (to use the name the Holy Father applies to them) and the Continuing Anglicans is completely over.
An argument could be made, in fact, that it never even began.
From the Louis era until the present, there have been those who believe the old slogan from the
60's "the end of the Anglican Communion is the End of the Anglican Communion." Originally, that meant absorption into some kind of pan-Protestant merger such as COCU. Now it seems absorption into either Rome or EO (two competing and equally unacceptable proposals.)
Things are becoming very clear. There are some who see the Anglican faith (I am uncomfortable with the suffix "ism") as Reformed Catholicism, the faith of the early centuries as clarified and re-asserted by the revival of the Gospel in the 16th century. This is the faith (the Body of Divinity, the theological system, the doctrinal position) of the great Elizabethan and Caroline Divines.
There are others who (being largely uninstructed in that Faith and having no commitment to it) think of Anglicanism as hardly anything more than the Baltimore Catechism with an English accent, the Novus Ordo in ersatz Cranmerian English. For them the "Anglican patrimony" is nothing more than a liturgical style.
Anglicanorum coetibus will surely turn out to be a blessing to all of us if it clarifies the difference in these two positions. But why do we even bother to talk about this?
We have seen so far no mad rush to jump on the train which has left the station, to use Cardinal Kasper's happy phrase. That train does not seem to have many passengers. Those passengers mostly seem to be a small group of clergy who are currently frantic to capture some "moral high-ground" of pious cant and sanctimonious platitudes. But in the whole affair a sizable number of innocent people are likely to get hurt. The vast majority of laity and even clergy in the TAC-ACA phalanx are perfectly wonderful people. These are laity who have spent years of faithful service building churches and doing their best to keep the faith of their fathers. Their wish, since St Louis, has been simply to worship, believe, and serve in the historic manner. They do not deserve the deceitfulness to which they are currently being subjected.
A Continuing Anglican does not wish to be a Former Anglican. There is a vast difference between the two. Someone must be ready to rescue the involuntary passengers who are about to be kidnapped on the train engineered by Hepworth and Falk. That is why we bother.
LKW
I have been through the long discussion on papal authority repeatedly on line with Roman laymen. Believe me when I tell you they are historically ignorant about the history and development of the papacy. They don't even know their own Church history.
They can't figure out that we do not object to the title "Holy Mother Church," for we are in her. What we object to is their oft stated belief that the Roman branch of the Church alone is entitled to the name Holy Mother. The Church in the East is also Holy Mother Church, as are we.
The pope could not even stop Charlemange and his Spanish bishops from inserting the filioque into the Nicene Creed, eventually playing catchup by reluctantly inserting it into the Roman liturgy where it remains to this day.
As in the case of the validity of Anglican orders, this is more a question of history than of theology. Face it, the Bull of Leo XIII was Rome's attempt to interpret historical events and not theological ones, that is why there was no papal response to the rejoinder of the Archbishops of England, which, by the way, was written in perfect Church Latin.
Armed with this knowledge, how could any Anglican bishop sign the RC Catechism?
Here is something we all can agree on: "He who has not the Church for his Mother, has not God for His Father."
Jakian Thomist is marching to a drumbeat that is just a bit more syncopated than is the one the rest of us seem to hear:
1. "The Christological crisis which Arius spearheaded was not the only place where universal consensus was lacking."
"Universal consensus" does not mean that every single Christian was in absolute agreement at every moment in the past. We have a name for those who turn out to have been out of step with what the whole Church teaches: in mild cases of divergence, we calll them "heterodox" and in serious cases we call them "heretics".
What "universal consensus" means is that, when we look back over the portions of the Church that we can see were, and have remained, within the mainstream of the Faith, all such portions have agreed on the essential elements of that Faith.
And when those recognizably orthodox portions do not so agree, that is a pretty good indication that the issue over which they vary is not, in fact, of the essence -- as is so clearly the case with the overblown Roman jurisdictional claims.
2. "It will be interesting to see how the election of soon to be Bishop Mary Glasspool affect matters for the Anglican Communion."
As Ms. Glasspool can never be a bishop, and as the Lambeth Communion has already departed so greatly from the Catholic Faith that its opinions on any matter are essentially worthless, I can muster absolutely no interest whatever in what she or it may do.
3. "Could it be that using St. Vincent’s rule as a 'lowest common denominator' approach to Doctrine ... [will] submit it [presumably, Doctrine] to private interpretation?"
No. The interpretation to which St. Vincent looked, and to which we look, is that of the entire orthodox portion of the Church. In this context, the opinions of individuals are essentially irrelevant.
4. "St. Vincent ... viewed development [of doctrine] as seed that contains the full grown tree and its fruit."
Please provide quotations, with citations to sources, to justify the assertion that St. Vincent even considered the issue of "development of doctrine", let alone held Newmanite views on that subject.
5. "In vain will one find in St.Vincent’s rule guidelines that control genuine conceptual development."
That may be because St. Vincent's rule aims to describe what the Church has already been led to recognize as essential doctrine, not to justify idiosyncratic departures from that consensus that were intended only to foster the political and financial aspirations of one diocese.
John A. Hollister+
Susan wrtoe:
You spoke earlier of the Eastern Church and their issues with Rome. I realize this is another complex issue. But....reading of their struggles within, it would seem they have a difficult time staying in communion with one another.
The Eastern Orthodox preserve national churches, and can tend to appear overly ethnic; but, they are all in communion with each other, and see themselves as one Church.
For me it all comes down to authority. Without it there will always be division.
Authority can bring uniformity; but only the truth brings unity, and then only among those who love it.
JT wrote:
It is a pity that universal consensus was as in such short supply in the early church as it is today and as a result makes the rule unworkable as an objective interpretation. This was witnessed, as Newman pointed out, by the fact that the pre-Nicene fathers were not unanimously clear even on the Doctrine of the Trinity which necessitated the formulation of the Nicene Creed.
Yes, and the obvious absurdity of Newman's position is self-evident in that the bishops at Nicea actually did produce the Creed-unanimously as a matter of fact-both at Nicea and six decades later at Constantinople. The further silliness of Newman's position is demonstrated by the fact that the Universal Church has not been able to hold an Ecumenical Council since 1054, thanks to an over bearing Roman Patriarch who tried to claim universal jurisdiction. But, thank you for demonstrating that the See of Rome has abandoned the Catholic faith by setting its claims against the Universal Church.
The Christological crisis which Arius spearheaded was not the only place where universal consensus was lacking. Perhaps, let us consider Vincent’s own semipelagian stance against Augustine’s doctrine on grace and free will another time.
Are you actually citing the Arian heresy as proof that the Vincentian Canon does not work? The bishops met and condemned his heresy once they received proof of what he was teaching. They came with a unanimous consensus on doctrine, and judged him for heresy (no matter what Dan Brown says). The Nicene Council of 325 proves thatQuod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est was the measure they were judging him by. How can you possibly miss that? Also, that is how Augustine, with all his warts, won the battle over Pelagius. How can you miss that too?
That said, St. Vincent’s rule is valid for subjective consensus on studied vagueness, although this comes at the price of considering plain facts.
An objective measure to aid subjectivity? Are you smoking something illegal?
Could it be that using St. Vincent’s rule as a “lowest common denominator” approach to Doctrine is an excuse do with tradition, what the sola scriptura approach has already done to the written word of the Bible – submit it to private interpretation?
Obviously, the answer is no, it could not. Could a calculator be used to prove someone's subjective notion that 4+4=5? Bringing up the Episcopal Church is also irrelevant. Do you really think they even know how to quote the Vincentian Canon? They probably assume it is a piece of music.
It is not a coincidence that both St. Vincent and soon to be St. Newman viewed development as seed that contains the full grown tree and its fruit.
That was how Newman viewed it in his Anglican days. But, that is not how it was completed, unfortunately; and, it is not what it means to his ardent fans today.
You can think more clearly than this-you usually do.
This might be of interest as it would appear to vindicate the position of the continuum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8405437.stm
Well said, Fr. Hart, though I have to question what looks like an overly rosy view of the East:
"The Eastern Orthodox preserve national churches, and can tend to appear overly ethnic: but, they are all in communion with each other, and see themselves as one Church."
unfortunatey there have been a number of instances of EO churches refusing communion with other bodies, and, just as among Continuing Anglicans, once one gets past the major jurosdoctions (however one defines that}, one fins oneself in the midst of a number of bodies more or less connected with the rest, sometimes recognized by other groups as legitimate and sometimes not. Again the freedom of religion issue manages to obscure the situation rather painfully. An old friend, once RC, then Anglican, became a priest in ROCOR at a time when that body (or at leat influential segments of it) claimed to be the only real Orthodox left, and was part of agroup that broke off, went under a Greek Old Calendar bishop, and now claims the other orthodox are all heretics.
My point? Not to denigrate anyone, but to point out that, while visible unity is a goal towards which we must be reaching, the reality is much more elusive than we'd like it to be. There just aren't any awfully good patterns extant.
ed
Regarding that BBC article...
I can only respond to Mgr. Faley's comments with a sigh of exasperation.
[A]nother task for the commission, he stresses, is to "maintain a good working relationship which we already have with the Church of England". The joint search for "the full unity of the Church" carries on, he says: "I think it's quite an important point, really."
Of course he would think so. Mgr Faley is humming Cardinal Kasper's tune, along with the rest of the RC hierarchy in England and Wales.
These are the very same folks who warned RC traditionalists not to get too enthusiastic about Summorum Pontificum. We heard the same warnings, in grave tones, that traditionalists must not become a "sect"; that they must "co-operate with their local bishop and the life of their local Catholic parish"; that they shouldn't be motivated by an opposition to bad liturgy (or priestesses, in this case). And then some bishops would even proceed to purposely misread the document so that its original intent was completely undermined.
I don't think anyone has any misconceptions regarding the kind of support of Anglicanorum Coetibus we can expect from the RC hierarchy of England and Wales. William Oddie's indictment of that lot in The Roman Option (1997) was damning enough; and if optimists remain, let them follow Damian Thompson's blog for a month or so and see if they can still manage a cheerful outlook.
Here's the thing with the Ordinariates: You know going in that you will face indifference and opposition from many RC clergy. That's a given. But you persevere, just as RC traditionalists have persevered. And as I've mentioned here before, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter faced many of these exact same obstacles when it was founded in 1988 -- and look where it is, and the eminent status the Fraternity enjoys, today.
Pope Benedict's program of reform is a ongoing battle. Sadly, it is a battle that often has to be waged in the face of clerical opposition. Tiber swimmers are fully aware of this reality; they need only look up to see Mgr. Faley and others chucking stones at them from the shore.
VeriWord: emenes, which (to me) almost sounds like Jiménez. Which is awesome.
There was one thing that the BBC interview highlighted for me. That was when Msgr. Faley inadvertently revealed the ad hoc, expedient, and unprincipled nature of Roman Curial decision-making -- the very decision-makers and decision-making-process upon which Tibur swimmers will be relying for all details of their ecclesial futures.
The good Msgr. stated that "a man in the ordinariate who wishes to be considered as a priest 'would be ordained as a celibate priest; he wouldn't be allowed to marry.'
"And a married man who has not been an Anglican priest, could he apply? 'No, says Mgr Faley, 'A married man within the Catholic tradition cannot be ordained; the norm is celibacy.'"
Now just think about that: life-long Roman Catholics cannot be ordained as priests if they are married but converts can. That raises the first red flag: WHY is this dispensation given to newcomers but not to "birthright" R.C.s? Of course, the very fact that such a dispensation IS given at all underscores the insupportability of the general Roman clerical discipline of celibacy.
Then there is the second question: WHY is this dispensation given to "former Anglican clerics" but not to "former Anglican laymen"? After all, it is, as we all know, official Roman doctrine that Anglican clerics are NOT in fact clerics at all because their pretence of having Holy Orders is "absolutely null and utterly void".
So how does Rome justify giving their non-existent Orders credence to the extent of permitting them to be reordained even though married, but disregard those same Orders by requiring them to be reordained at all?
And how could this sort of insitutionalized cognitive dissonance possibly give the slightest degree of comfort and confidence to those who are considering placing themselves under the authority of such unprincipled overseers?
The old motto needs to be amended to say "Rome has spoken; the cause is concluded -- until the whims of change blow in another direction...."
John A. Hollister+
"metri"
Ed
The EO do have their vagantes. One of the most ridiculous is a bunch HQ'ed in Texas who call themselves the Celtic Orthodox Church. But, properly speaking, the authentic EO churches are under one of the Patriarchs (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Moscow, Constantinople), or like the OCA, autocephalous, and recognized by the Patriarchates. Whatever you do, never tell Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon that the EO is not one cohesive Church-he will give a sharp reply.
But, like Fr. Wells, I know that we do not need to blend into one or the other of the Two One True Churches. Real unity will not require the elimination of anyone's conscience. When it comes, that is one of the ways we will recognize it.
A Princeton Review article (from 1876) on the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and Anglo-Romanism -- the High Church Party and the Romanizing one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KZgFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA612&dq=anglocatholic&as_brr=1&cd=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
It gives some interesting perspective as voiced here, about some Anglicans' impulse to join Rome.
St. Worm
"The old motto needs to be amended to say "Rome has spoken; the cause is concluded -- until the whims of change blow in another direction...."
Roma locuta est, cause finita est, pro tempore.
LKW
"It gives some interesting perspective as voiced here, about some Anglicans' impulse to join Rome."
St. Worm
And it is indeed indicative of much that was written in that period before the very worst of the Romanizing movement began. But, like so much else written during that period except for some private letters, it does not address the main causes between the parties. The writer comes close to it when he states that Newman was "imperfectly balanced" but the cause of that mental or emotional imbalance is not stated. It may have been suspected but even in these days when the Roman Church is actively considering the beatification of Newman, only the necessary task of unearthing what remained of his body has caused some to address the most probable reason why Newman fled the Church of England.
But "G and B" seems unaware of precisely what the English Book of Common Prayer required by both its rubrics and canon law and had since the first prayer book of Elizabeth. All "ritualism" he assigns to the Roman party, but anyone familiar with the writings of the Cambridge Camden Society or the Very Reverend Vernon Staley had to be aware that one could not deal honestly with the prayer book without eventually addressing what the very text of that book taught and required and which the greatest of English divines beginning with Hooker himself had to say both about Rome and the Eastern Church. And it was for precisely this reason that Andrewes canon and Ken's deathbed profession were worded as they were. The looked back to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church of the first five centuries which they believed was the purpose of the English reform and the Elizabethan Settlement and did not of themselves break communion with Rome even as the English Church had long maintained ties to Constantinople after it and Rome had exchanged anathemas.
If we remember that one of real reasons for the Reformation was the moral revulsion at the state of the papacy at that time, something clearly stated by Luther but known to almost everyone else, we can have a much clearer view of why they so clearly felt the need for the Bible to be known and read by everyone and not just a clerical elite - witness last Sunday's collect. And knowing that, we should be able to find our way clearly to all those things which are clearly Catholic if not currently Roman, such as the belief of the early fathers that Holy Scripture itself the major source of Tradition.
Veriword: porkin
Veriword: meryoles
Thank you, Canon Tallis for throwing some light onto the article. I've learned to take most of these things with a grain of salt, but the main of the article was informative if not illuminating.
St. Worm
Post a Comment