Sunday, June 20, 2010

Anglican (?) Use Society

The following is objective fact, neither criticism nor an argument. This data was collected and sent via email, about the Roman Catholic Anglican (?) Use Society:

Their website publishes copies of their IRS Form 990.

In 2007 (for a rolling year from June 2006 to May 2007) they reported
Income: Dues $4,528 Contributions & Gifts 17,713
Membership: total 174 Attendance at Annual Conference 80

For same period 2008, No report posted

In 2009 (rolling year June--May)
Income: Dues $5305 Contributions & Gifts 10,271
Membership: total "more than 150" Attendance at Annual Conference 140

For recent Annual Conference just held, total attendance reported at 105 (including 4 TAC bishops).

This does not look like a truly thriving group.

22 comments:

Canon Tallis said...

What I resent the most is their use or misuse of the term "Anglican Use." They ceased to be anything resembling Anglican the moment they began kissing the pope's toe. They wouldn't have any idea of the difference between an Anglican and a Roman ornament or ceremonial than (unfortunately) the average priest or minister of the Continuum.

We know so little of our own heritage and that we do, we have for the most part rejected.

The Rev. Robert T. Jones IV said...

And, with the advent of AC, it is a totally unnecessary one.

aftercatharine said...

"And, with the advent of AC, it is a totally unnecessary one."

Or ... the so-called Anglican Use makes the AC redundant.

I think we can say it until we're blue in the face and it will make no difference whatsoever to the current situation, but I too reiterate: Roman Catholics do not believe Anglicanism to be a true form of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith; and true Anglicanism is a via media which rejects papist accretions. Pretending otherwise is silly and makes both terms (Roman Catholic AND Anglicanism) into semantic nonsense.

Anonymous said...

For those who sincerely and seriouly wish to be Roman Catholics
(an aspiration I do not condemn out of hand), the way to do so is simple and straighforward. Talk to your neighborhood RC padre. He will be happy to explain the procedure.

So while I agree ewith the question mark after "Anglican," I would place a double question mark after the word "Use," or perhaps even change it to Useless.

While I respect the sincerity of the AUS group, plainly it has not been successful or effective in winning the world for Tridentinism. The Ang. Coetibus movement will hardly fare any better. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is an excellent definition of insanity.
LKW

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that the society is not the same thing as a church, and its annual conference not the same thing as a synod.

Our Lady of the Atonement, the first Anglican Use parish to be established, has a membership larger than that of most continuing Anglican dioceses.

John A. Hollister said...

I have no problem with people of Anglican backgrounds transferring themselves into the Roman Communion, if that is what their consciences compel them to do, provided only that they do so honestly, that is, with a clear understanding of both what they are getting into and what they are leaving behind.

Nor am I in the least surprised that even those who feel compelled to make that transition are still nostalgic for the aesthetic, liturgical, cultural, and theological glories of the authentic "Anglican patrimony".

I just find it extremely sad that those who feel that emotional attachment will be able to retain so little of what they admired in Anglicanism and that they will almost certainly be submerged in the overwhelmingly majority Irish/Italian culture that dominates the "Latin" church in English-speaking countries and that is, historically and politically, largely hostile to Anglicans and Anglicanism.

That is why there are only eight -- count 'em, eight -- "Anglican Use" parishes in the U.S., the only country where they were permitted to function (but always and only at the pleasure of the local Hiberno-Italian ordinary, most of whom were clearly not so pleased). Even in those eight, there is very little that is identifiably Anglican, at least as far as what that term meant prior to 1976.

Somehow the story about trading one's birthright for a mess of pottage comes ineluctably to mind....

John A. Hollister+
"mechest"

Fr. Robert Hart said...

has a membership larger than that of most continuing Anglican dioceses.

That is most certainly not what these figures reveal.

Anonymous said...

"That is most certainly not what these figures reveal."

I suggest you take a look at their parish website. 700+ families at an average of 4 members each equals 2800 members: that's larger than the ACC in the USA. They also have a K-12 school with daily Mass and 6 student choirs that out-compete Texas public school choirs. Pictured in their recent Corpus Christi procession are more people than the ACC can boast for its entire diocese of the south.

http://www.atonementonline.com/index.php

You're just green with envy at how well these Anglican Catholics are doing despite the lack of episcopal support nationwide. They would be larger but local RC bishops won't allow them to exist. The Pope has now provided a means around local bishops. In five years, all Christians who call themselves Anglican will be in full communion with the See of St. Peter. Hopefully this site and its chums will have repented by then.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Anonymous wrote:

...2800 members: that's larger than the ACC in the USA

Where did you ever get such a silly idea as that? You don't have a clue.

You're just green with envy at how well these Anglican Catholics are doing despite the lack of episcopal support nationwide.

Presenting facts and figures now indicates envy? How so? So, now to present objective data is a sign of some hidden evil motive? And, the lack of episcopal support is hardly something to the credit of the RCC.

In five years, all Christians who call themselves Anglican will be in full communion with the See of St. Peter.

It is after breakfast, so I am not trying to believe six impossible things. Nonetheless, I wish I could be as optimistic as Anonymous is, that the See of Rome will be reformed enough to be in communion with us within so short a space of time.

Brian said...

In five years, all Christians who call themselves Anglican will be in full communion with the See of St. Peter.

All? Really? Well, I hate to blow it for you, but I won't be. That's enough to kill this statement, but even changing "all" to "most" wouldn't make it any more probable. Who would convert first, the hardcore liberal protestants of ECUSA, or the charismatic hand-wavers of Duncan and company?

John A. Hollister said...

A truly anonymous Anonymous wrote:

1. "They would be larger but local RC bishops won't allow them to exist."

I'm grateful to have that confirmed by someone who is, quite obviously, on the inside over there. It's what I've always said: the current Hiberno-Italo-"Latin" Rite (the one that tried to ban the use of Latin) is hostile to traditional Catholicism. That is a fact any would-be transferees need to take into consideration.

2. "The Pope has now provided a means around local bishops."

One would have hoped so, but that is not what "Anglicanorum Coetibus" says. Read its text: each national counferences of Latin Rite bishops will have substantial say, indeed probably a veto, over how the "Ordinariate" in its country will function.

3. "In five years, all Christians who call themselves Anglican will be in full communion with the See of St. Peter."

I would be thrilled were we able to negotiate intercommunion with Antioch in that short a time.

John A. Hollister+
"gyress"

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I received this from someone who is also on the inside:

"The Anglican Use parishes freely admit that most of their members are cradle Catholics. The Anglican Use has been taken up by considerably less than O.1 per cent of American Episcopalians. They told the Vatican in 1982, up to 250,000 would join."

David said...

"I would be thrilled were we able to negotiate intercommunion with Antioch in that short a time"

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! That was awesome (and historically accurate)

As an outside observer I would have to call foul on anonymous. You have not presented evidence with citations I can research to determine the validity of your claim.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

The following is from someone named Anonymous. Mr. Anonymous, so boldly identifying himself, has made statements that beg a reply. Therefore, his remarks (unedited ) will be in italics, with responses from me inserted.

There are so many Continuing Anglican churches, actually too many to count and most are not in communion with each other.

The Freedom of Religion in most modern countries makes imitation endless, legal and impossible to prevent. We have listed the Continuing Churches we recognize here on the blog. We recognize that some others have gone their merry way, many have valid sacraments, but they are not part of the Continuing Church which is, properly, the ACC, UECNA and APCK which have a very real concordat.

I called one and the priest/Bishop of this one said his parish had been in existence for 20 years. I asked how many members did he have and he said 20. That doesn't show much growth does it?

That is a parish in trouble. Is that supposed to prove something beyond the simple fact of conditions in that one church? It sounds like a one parish diocese, so it is not a parish of the Continuing Church. That does not make it bad, invalid, or heretical. It makes it separate for whatever reason.

There are so few of these parishes around and I live in a large state. There doesn't appear to be any reason why there can't be hundreds of Continuing Anglican parishes, there is nothing to stop them as in the Anglican Use the Bishops in most dioceses would not allow them.

Nothing to stop them? I agree.

Of course now it has been taken out of their control and I see that in time there will be many.

It appears that the subject has changed to that of RCC bishops and AU parishes. If this means that Mr. Anonymous (or Mrs., or Miss, or Mizzzzz) expects a huge amount of Ordinariate churches, he/she/it will be disappointed.

Many Latin Rite Catholics belong to these parishes and once Catholics are aware that they have a choice to join them I feel sure that they will grow, just as traditional Catholic parishes are few, people come from all around to attend. Also many former Anglicans/Episcopalians who have already converted will have an Anglican Use parish to go to. We are just waiting for them and there are many of us.

Well, don't hold your breath. The amount is not going to be very large, and the geographical territory will be very spread out. Most ACA people are not going with Rome.

In addition were two rather meaningless and childish insults that Anonymous reminded me of. If he/she/it really wants to bring dishonor on the name of Anonymous, he/she/it may request that I include them.

Anonymous said...

“Many Latin Rite Catholics belong to these parishes and once Catholics are aware that they have a choice to join them I feel sure that they will grow”

Always assuming, of course, they are allowed a choice, and that they meet the criteria; From Article 5 of the Complementary Norms of the AC;

“Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate”.

I seriously doubt that there will be any large number of membership transfers to these new Ordinariates allowed. Anyone here think that any Roman Bishop will give his blessing to the practice of “robbing Peter to pay Paul”?

DJ+

Anonymous said...

"I suggest you take a look at their parish website. 700+ families at an average of 4 members each equals 2800 members:"

So what?

Since when do numbers indicate a right faith?

I know a Mormon Church here that exceeds that as well as a Charismatic church that teaches the Prosperity Gospel.
You Romans better go convert quick they have congregations larger than 400+ families!

Anonymous anonymous anonymous! AAA!

AFS1970 said...

"There are so many Continuing Anglican churches, actually too many to count and most are not in communion with each other."

"There are so few of these parishes around and I live in a large state. There doesn't appear to be any reason why there can't be hundreds of continuing Anglican parishes, there is nothing to stop them as in the Anglican Use the Bishops in most dioceses would not allow them."

Does anyone else see the obvious conflict with these two statements? If there are truly too many to count, I would assume that mythical number to be much larger than anything implied by the word hundreds.

I also wonder about the idea that given a currently finite number of Anglicans, and Anonymous’s assertion that we have no church growth to speak of, how adding more congregations will help things? Using this theory would just spread out the existing parishioners among the new (and old) parishes. How is making that 20 person parish into ten 2 person (or even two 10 person) ones a good thing?

I am thinking that Anonymous is nothing more than that internet phenomenon of a troll, perhaps we should consider following the common internet advise of simply not feeding the trolls.

Michael said...

The problem is that you cited the low membership of the Anglican Use Society as indicating that they weren't exactly a going concern.

Others have pointed out that these figures are not representative of the health of the movement, that the number of parishioners is much higher than the number involved in the Anglican Use Society. Some of us have pointed out that the membership of one of the Anglican Use parishes is larger than some continuing Anglican jurisdictions.

You've reacted by calling a foul, saying that the differences in size don't mean anything about doctrinal truth or spiritual health...

I'm sure that nothing of the sort was meant, just as nothing of the sort was meant when you suggested that the Anglican Use Society was dead in the water...

I'm also sure that those in the Anglican Use, or who intend to enter an Ordinariate, would agree completely with the following statement I hear constantly in the Continuing Anglican movement:

"We are not called to be successful. We are called to be faithful."

I would hate for a discussion of such seriousness to be reduced to an argument about whose [insert whatever you want] is bigger...

Anonymous said...

The whole of Anon Anon's argument regarding the size of any given church is ridiculous and out of touch as is are any of our defenses.
It is all quite beside the point.

All churches are losing membership and struggling to get new members or evangelize (yes there is a distinct difference). I know at least a couple dozen former RCC families who have left that church for Protestant churches in disgust. But not a one left because Rome did or did not recognize Anglican Orders and not a one had any issue with Anglican orders. In fact they are not interested in any of this more than any other such topic. What they want is a relationship with Jesus Christ and they did not get it at the local RCC (or Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian etc). What they want is a way to defend their children from the claims of the new state religion/philosophy- Naturalism.
What they want is their college age kids to return home with their faith intact.
What they want is to learn how to defend their faith from false claims from 'Science disproves religion' and know our 'truth' claims are in fact true.
So while our churches may be sparse and our jurisdictions may be small and scattered it's not because we do or do not agree with Roman pronouncements however bizarre or outrageous. It is because we have decided not to cave into secularism, tambourine banging, Nuns wearing pants suits and running up and down aisle-ways doing liturgical dance to the strains of some 70's folk music.
Our challenge to grow has nothing to do with kissing Rome's err.. ahh .. ring, yea ring. It has everything to do with teaching one family at a time the tenants of the Faith once delivered, sanctity, and how to defend against the zeitgeist.

Our way forward is not looking for Rome to do us some alleged favor b adsorbing like some great blob. It is to demonstrate their is indeed A God. He came into this world for our salvation. Miracles do happen. Truth is objective and yes you can trust the Bible's veracity.
At the end of the day all this nonsense over the Coetibug is a diversion from evangelism to a world that desperately needs Christ.

Perhaps this blog should consider at least a balance of topics I for one am sick of reading yet another report on the obvious.

Anon, anon, anon.
A small ACC parish that does evangelize in the public arena.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

The reason for publishing the facts was to 1)clear up misinformation, and 2)to provide the correct information. I made it clear that it was not posted as an argument at all, since the figures prove nothing about anyone's sincerity or orthodoxy. However, it does end attempts from certain quarters to make the AU look like something that it is not.

Steve Cavanaugh said...

Dear Fr. Hart, et al.

"However, it does end attempts from certain quarters to make the AU look like something that it is not."

I'm not sure which arguments you're trying to counter with the information you posted. It might be helpful, or at least clearer, to post the argument and counter argument.

That said, the Anglican Use Society's primary purpose is to give support to the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite. It does this through its annual conference, the publication of its quarterly journal Anglican Embers and support of Episcopal clergy who enter the communion of the RCC and are accepted for ordination under the Pastoral Provision. The Society is small, but the membership is fairly stable, and really doesn't reflect the size or vitality of the individual parishes. As for the number of people at the conferences, this year's was held in Newark, where there is no AU parish: we were pleased that so many did make the trip without a local base for support.

You may not care for the liturgy used in the Anglican Use parishes (as reflected in your manner of putting the word Anglican in quotes or in this case following it with a question mark), but really, there's no other reasonable name for this particular liturgical expression: it is a use of the Roman Rite, and it is clearly based on the Anglican liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer.

Steve Cavanaugh, editor Anglican Embers

Fr. Robert Hart said...

...and it is clearly based on the Anglican liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer.

I cannot agree. It is reminiscent of the tone of the BCP, and of its style. Nothing more, however, can be said for its alleged likeness to the BCP.