Anglican Catholic Church Chief Says No to Rome's Offer
Anglicanorum Coetibus attracts Anglicans desperate to get out of Anglican Communion
By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org/
April 4, 2011
The Metropolitan of the Anglican Catholic Church, (ACC) the Most Rev. Mark Haverland, says his Continuing Anglican body is not the slightest bit interested in taking the Pope up on his offer of an Ordinariate as a safe harbor from the tribulations facing world Anglicanism.
Writing in The Trinitarian the official gazette of the ACC, Haverland said the pope's terms, which include a total rejection by Rome of the validity of Anglican Episcopal acts and, therefore, also require re-confirmations and re-ordinations of all Anglicans, was of "no significant interest". While there may be some sympathy within the ACC for Anglicanorum Coetibus which has gone unvoiced, his experience has shown that there is little interest by his priests and people in the Pope's offer.
"From the Roman Catholic perspective the papal offer is generous. The offer permits the continued existence, at least for a time, of elements of traditional Anglican worship within the Roman Church. It also permits married Anglican 'ministers' to be ordained as Roman priests while still married. These things are not new, as they already existed within the Pastoral Provision in North America. But the new Constitution extends these concessions to England and elsewhere and in addition offers leadership in organized quasi-dioceses (Ordinariates) by former Anglicans."
Haverland described these concessions as "trivial". He said there is no attempt to reconsider the rejection of Anglican Orders by Rome in the light of recent Roman Catholic (much less Anglican) scholarship.
"There is no deepening of reflection concerning the papal office to help accommodate the concerns of traditional Eastern Orthodox or Anglican Christians, though John Paul II opened the door to such a truly exciting possibility. There is nothing, in fact, of any theological significance about the offer. The offer, therefore, cannot be of interest to ACC members on the level of theological principle it can only attract Anglicans who are desperate to get out of Anglicanism."
Haverland opined that the numbers of those seeking union with Rome are overblown. "In late 2009 the champions of the papal proposal spoke confidently of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of converts to Rome. Now they are speaking more of "tiny remnants" and of seeds from which something substantial may eventually grow."
Haverland further commented that he saw those converting to Rome as falling into two camps. "First, there are those, particularly in England, who have either never worshipped using classical Anglican forms or who long ago abandoned such forms. Many English Anglo-Catholics use the Roman Catholic Church's liturgies. If one is already dieting on the mess of pottage which is the Novis Ordo, conversion is liturgically easy. But such people will not reconstitute Prayer Book or Anglican Anglican missal (even if "corrected") worship in the Roman Church. They will just improve the quality of the music a bit and perhaps for the sake of of an occasional nostalgic kick might sing Evensong and Benediction in an Anglican fashion. In a generation this group will probably assimilate fully into existing Roman diocesan and parochial structures. The converts in question do not really value their liturgical patrimony, because they willingly abandoned that patrimony years ago. For such people conversion is a matter of finding a safe berth after their comfortable jobs and guaranteed incomes in the Church of England become too costly for conscience to permit them to continue to enjoy."
Haverland believes that in North America and elsewhere very few people will take up the [Pope's] offer. "Those who do, however, will tend to be more traditional liturgically than the English converts. They also will tend to be unhappy with their current Church homes. They will tend to belong to 'Continuing' Churches that are unstable or poorly led or they will come from the Episcopal Church or other bodies of the old Canterbury Communion.
"Whether in England or elsewhere, those who take up the papal offer will be fleeing something very inadequate. They will not be leaving sold traditional Anglicanism or the faith summarized so well in the Affirmation of St. Louis. Few people now seem to feel it necessary to flee the ACC."
Haverland thinks that the profound lack of interest in the papal offer by ACC members is a sign of stability, maturity, and contentment. "We are not refugees looking for a perch on which to settle. We are adherents to one of the great traditions of Christendom, whose treasures we value and will preserve. Some day Rome may care to talk to us as happy traditional Anglicans, not as wannabe Roman Catholics."
END
Anglicanorum Coetibus attracts Anglicans desperate to get out of Anglican Communion
By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org/
April 4, 2011
Writing in The Trinitarian the official gazette of the ACC, Haverland said the pope's terms, which include a total rejection by Rome of the validity of Anglican Episcopal acts and, therefore, also require re-confirmations and re-ordinations of all Anglicans, was of "no significant interest". While there may be some sympathy within the ACC for Anglicanorum Coetibus which has gone unvoiced, his experience has shown that there is little interest by his priests and people in the Pope's offer.
"From the Roman Catholic perspective the papal offer is generous. The offer permits the continued existence, at least for a time, of elements of traditional Anglican worship within the Roman Church. It also permits married Anglican 'ministers' to be ordained as Roman priests while still married. These things are not new, as they already existed within the Pastoral Provision in North America. But the new Constitution extends these concessions to England and elsewhere and in addition offers leadership in organized quasi-dioceses (Ordinariates) by former Anglicans."
Haverland described these concessions as "trivial". He said there is no attempt to reconsider the rejection of Anglican Orders by Rome in the light of recent Roman Catholic (much less Anglican) scholarship.
"There is no deepening of reflection concerning the papal office to help accommodate the concerns of traditional Eastern Orthodox or Anglican Christians, though John Paul II opened the door to such a truly exciting possibility. There is nothing, in fact, of any theological significance about the offer. The offer, therefore, cannot be of interest to ACC members on the level of theological principle it can only attract Anglicans who are desperate to get out of Anglicanism."
Haverland opined that the numbers of those seeking union with Rome are overblown. "In late 2009 the champions of the papal proposal spoke confidently of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of converts to Rome. Now they are speaking more of "tiny remnants" and of seeds from which something substantial may eventually grow."
Haverland further commented that he saw those converting to Rome as falling into two camps. "First, there are those, particularly in England, who have either never worshipped using classical Anglican forms or who long ago abandoned such forms. Many English Anglo-Catholics use the Roman Catholic Church's liturgies. If one is already dieting on the mess of pottage which is the Novis Ordo, conversion is liturgically easy. But such people will not reconstitute Prayer Book or Anglican Anglican missal (even if "corrected") worship in the Roman Church. They will just improve the quality of the music a bit and perhaps for the sake of of an occasional nostalgic kick might sing Evensong and Benediction in an Anglican fashion. In a generation this group will probably assimilate fully into existing Roman diocesan and parochial structures. The converts in question do not really value their liturgical patrimony, because they willingly abandoned that patrimony years ago. For such people conversion is a matter of finding a safe berth after their comfortable jobs and guaranteed incomes in the Church of England become too costly for conscience to permit them to continue to enjoy."
Haverland believes that in North America and elsewhere very few people will take up the [Pope's] offer. "Those who do, however, will tend to be more traditional liturgically than the English converts. They also will tend to be unhappy with their current Church homes. They will tend to belong to 'Continuing' Churches that are unstable or poorly led or they will come from the Episcopal Church or other bodies of the old Canterbury Communion.
"Whether in England or elsewhere, those who take up the papal offer will be fleeing something very inadequate. They will not be leaving sold traditional Anglicanism or the faith summarized so well in the Affirmation of St. Louis. Few people now seem to feel it necessary to flee the ACC."
Haverland thinks that the profound lack of interest in the papal offer by ACC members is a sign of stability, maturity, and contentment. "We are not refugees looking for a perch on which to settle. We are adherents to one of the great traditions of Christendom, whose treasures we value and will preserve. Some day Rome may care to talk to us as happy traditional Anglicans, not as wannabe Roman Catholics."
END
12 comments:
Archbishop Haverland said:
"We are not refugees looking for a perch on which to settle. We are adherents to one of the great traditions of Christendom, whose treasures we value and will preserve."
It just doesn't get any better than that! I am so thankful to be a part of the Anglican Catholic Church!
Don+
That pretty much nails it. One of the things I have come to appreciate very much about the ACC-OP is, in its official doctrines and pronouncements, its theological and intellectual coherence and consistency. It has remained remarkably free from one of the old, besetting Anglican sins, what I have called "Anglican fudge" - such as the incoherent belief that "Anglicanorum Coetibus" offers a way to be both Anglican and Roman Catholic (in fact it is nothing more than a fig leaf to hide conversion to Roman Catholicism). I am done with Anglican fudge. As an ex-TACer, I urge my former brethren, and everyone else outside the St. Louis churches, wherever they may be, to join us in the ACC-OP where, as I think Fr. Hart once said, the door is open, there's a fire in the hearth, and the soup's warm (and, I would add, nourishing)!
Might you still post the entire editorial for us? I'd like to read it. Thanks!
Theologically coherent, yes indeed.
My only regret as I look back on 30+ years in the Continuum is all the years I was not within the safety and sanity of the ACC.
Michael, you may want to subscribe to the Trinitarian. Subscription information is posted on the ACC's web site. I tried to post the address by re-keying it from the Trinitarian. The post exceeded maximum length allowed. I will try to post in pieces.
The papal offer a year later.
In late 2009 Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Catholic Church opened a door for Anglican converts through an Apostolic Constitution called Anglicanorum Coetibus. My official comments on the matter were published in The Trinitarian and may be read on the ACC's website. I also addressed the issue at Provincial Synod in October 2009. At the time of my comments the Constitution had not yet been widely distributed, and I worked from the available summaries of its contents by official Roman Catholic sources. The summaries were reliable, and nothing of substance was altered by the actual text.
A few months after Synod I received a message from one of our priests saying that he thought my comments at Synod were too critical. However, after reading the actual Constitution, the priest continued, he concluded that I was correct. I have since that time not heard a single member of our Church, clerical or lay, express an interest in taking the pope up on his offer on the available terms. Those terms include a total rejection by Rome of the validity of Anglican episcopal acts and, therefore, also require re-confirmations and re-ordinations of all Anglicans. I recognize, of course, that there may be some sympathy within the ACC for Anglicanorum Coetibus which has gone unvoiced. My experience of our Church, however, is that people feel quite free to speak their minds. I conclude that there is simply no significant interest in the papal offer.
What does this utter lack of interest signify? Some thoughts:
1. From the Roman Catholic perspective the papal offer is generous. The offer permits the continued existence, at least for a time, of elements of traditional Anglican worship within the Roman Church. It also permits married Anglican "ministers" to be ordained as Roman priests while still married. These things are not new, as they already existed within the Pastoral Provision in North America. But the new Constitution extends these concessions to England and elsewhere and in addition offers leadership in quasi-diocese (Ordinariates) by former Anglicans. Yet from the perspective of Anglicans these concessions are trivial. There is no attempt to reconsider the rejection of Anglican Orders by Rome in the light of recent Roman Catholic (much less Anglican) scholarship. There is no deepening of reflection concerning the papal offer to help accommodate the concerns of traditional Eastern Orthodox or Anglican Christians, though John Paul II opened the door to such a truly exciting possibility. There is nothing, in fact, of any theological significance about the offer. The offer, therefore, cannot be of interest to ACC members on the level of theological principle. It can only attract Anglicans who are desperate to get out of Anglicanism. I think the ACC is sufficiently stable and attractive now that our members are not forced to look elsewhere for stability and hope.
(continued..)
(continuing Archbishop Haverland's Message from the March-April 2011 Trinitarian)
2. In late 2009 the champions of the papal proposal spoke confidently of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of converts to Rome. Now they are speaking more of "tiny remnants" and of seeds from which something substantial may eventually grow. From what I can see those inclined to convert under the terms of the Constitution are mainly of two sorts. First, there are those, particularly in England, who have either never worshipped using classical Anglican forms or who long ago abandoned such forms. Many English Anglo-Catholics use the Roman Catholic Church's liturgies. If one is already dieting on the mess of pottage which is the Novus Ordo, conversion is liturgically easy. But such people will not reconstitute Prayer Book or Anglican Missal (even if "corrected") worship in the Roman Church. They will just improve the quality of music a bit and perhaps for the sake of an occasional nostalgic kick might sing Evensong and Benediction in an Anglican fashion. In a generation this group will probably assimilate fully into existing Roman diocesan and parochial structures. The converts in question do not really value their liturgical patrimony, because they willingly abandoned that patrimony years ago. For such people conversion is a matter of finding a safe berth after their comfortable jobs and guaranteed incomes in the Church of England become too costly for conscience to permit them to continue to enjoy.
3. In North America and elsewhere very few people will take up the offer. Those who do, however, will tend to be more traditional liturgically than the English converts. They also will tend to be unhappy with their current Church homes. That is, they will tend to belong to "Continuing" Churches that are unstable or poorly led or they will come from the Episcopal Church of other bodies of the old Canterbury Communion. If they are coming recently from the Episcopal Church, then my comments in the previous point about lack of real Anglican heritage may apply.
Whether in England or elsewhere, those who take up the papal offer will be fleeing something very inadequate. They will not be leaving sound traditional Anglicanism or the faith summarized so well in the Affirmation of St. Louis. Few people now seem to feel it necessary to flee the ACC. And so I conclude, again, that the profound lack of interest in the papal offer by ACC members is a sign of stability, maturity, and contentment. We are not refugees looking for a perch on which to settle. We are adherents to one of the great traditions of Christendom, whose treasures we value and will preserve. Some day Rome may come to talk to us as happy, traditional Anglicans, not as wannabe Roman Catholics.
(I am hopeful this re-keying is 100% accurate.)
Fr Wells ..You could have found safety in the UEC or APCK as well.
I draw your attention to a statement, said to be from Archbishop Haverland, on the comment thread to this article on the David Virtue website, in which he says "The 39 Articles are not formularies of the Anglican Catholic Church." If that is the case, why has some much attention to them been given on this blog? Ought you not, rather, to be expounding and propounding the wholesome doctrine set forth in the King's Book of 1543?
Here is the statement:
Re: Anglican Catholic Church Chief Says No to Rome's...
From Archbishop Mark Haverland in response to postings by "Cyrus" and "Morrismpls" who, he says, are comprehensively mistaken.
1. The 39 Articles are not formularies of the Anglican Catholic Church. The Catholic and Orthodox sacramental and Eucharistic theology of the ACC are clear from our formularies, including our Prayer Books, Missals, the Affirmation of Saint Louis and our Constitution and Canons;
2. The Articles in any case do not say that ordination is not a sacrament, but rather that it is not a sacrament instituted by Christ as generally necessary for salvation. Cyrus and Morrismpls simply do not understand the terms of art with which that statement is filled;
3. Belief that an act is a sacrament and correct understanding of the act are not necessary for valid confection of the sacrament in question. Southern Baptists do not believe that baptism is a sacrament, nor do they believe in baptismal regeneration.
But Roman Catholic theologians do not doubt that Southern Baptist pastors who baptize people with water in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost baptize validly. Another comment on this thread, and an article to which it refers, remind us that valid marriages (another sacrament) from the Roman point of view are assumed to be confected by baptized Christians even when the Christians in question have inadequate, Protestant, or secular notions about marriage. That is, believing that marriage is not a sacrament does not invalidate the marriage sacrament. Sacramental intention that is sufficient for valid confection of a sacrament is usually quite minimal.
It may not be rocket science, but neither is it comic book theology.
+Mark D. Haverland
Derril:
That was a lot of work. Thank you.
William Tighe wrote:
"The 39 Articles are not formularies of the Anglican Catholic Church."
The Archbishop has also stated that they are theologically sound. However, which 39 articles would constitute a formulary for an international church? The edited American version? The C of E version?
The Archbishop knows that I respectfully disagree with his position on the legal status of the Articles anyway, inasmuch as I see the Affirmation of St. Louis (the basis of our Constitution) as giving us no choice. The affirmation of the 1928 American BCP is sufficient in my mind as making them an ACC formulary (as if written in stone), and the Canadian BCP 1962 as making the subject entirely moot.
Our purpose is exactly, however, what Fr. Wells stated:
"For the nonce, for the sake of the argument, I will yield the point and concede that the Articles are legally a dead issue among us, their canonical authority having fallen into desuetude. Promoting some disciplinary enforcement of the Articles is far from my purpose.
"I will argue instead that the Articles truly do possess authority, not necessarily a legal authority, but simply the authority of truth."
The ACC has never repudiated or denied the theology of the 39 Articles; in fact I would argue that The Affirmation of St. Louis affirms them (by way of affirming the BCPs, specifically naming the American 1928 and Canadian 1962), making them "binding." But, that is an academic matter in which I feel free to disagree with my own Archbishop (without fear-there is no intellectual tyranny here). And, it is indeed academic, because we still hold true to the same theology that actually is contained in them. The problem, however, is one of perception, indeed of mistaken perception.
Also, on the basis of Article VI, the Articles as a document, cannot be binding on anybody. Article VI requires that even the 39 be subjected to the Berean standard (which they meet very well).
The other problem, however, is that some Anglicans treat them as an exhaustive statement of doctrine. In fact, though much is to be learned form them, they are not a comprehensive statement of the whole Christian Faith. What they say is right. To a large extent, they met the needs of the age in which they were written, just as the original Nicene Creed met the need of its time, but was insufficient in what it said about the Holy Spirit, needing additional words in 381 at Constantinople.
Hello Fr. Hart,
I believe the ACC is broadly interpreting its own C&C and the Affirmation to render itself a pan-catholic, American church. This might include classical anglicans, western rite, and more tridentine anglo-catholics-- all falling under the rubric of so-called "center Tradition".
The problem with broad definitions like this is such can foster opinions that eventually led to actual splits or defections for Eastern or Roman churches, especially when sister churches set up pastoral provisions for Anglicans already wandering theologically/liturgically.
I understand the recent emphasis on the 39 articles at this blog to be an attempt to shore up Anglican identity so future crossings and departures don't happen. Since both Fr. Wells and yourself claim canonical justification through the solemn declaration found in the 1962 Canadian bcp, why not post the 1983 declaration as a high profile link for readers? Maybe a ranking between the Affirmation and Layman's Guide? After all, it's a pillar to the Guide itself?
1893 Solemn Declaration
Lastly, I ultimately believe minor amendment to the Affirmation will be needed if it's ever going to work smoothly with the 39 articles. The real difference between the seven sacraments and how article 25 reads is not so much the 'general necessity' of baptism and the supper but how the lesser differ in spiritual nature from the greater sacraments. I think this is an important point, critical to Anglican identity, yet it was something Newman purposely evaded or obscured despite misappropriate citing of Jewel in Tract 90. The Enriched St. Louis Affirmation Correcting Tract 90 rather simply rephrasing it is really what is missing in the Affirmation. Forgive my presumptions over your authorship, but I believe this gets to the heart of the matter.
Post a Comment