There is much about the Roman Catholic Church that I have come to appreciate over the years: Catholic colleagues whose fellowship has been the source of much blessing, occasional opportunities at Catholic worship that have enriched, and joint projects with Catholics that have been fruitful. Having grown up with a somewhat negative Protestant attitude toward the Church of Rome, I have come over the years to benefit from their particular graces and charisms.

Yet, alas, there seems to be almost an imperialism about the Catholic tradition that allows for little variance from their church’s dogma.

Given the concerns Pope Benedict has about the secularism and godlessness of Europe (and so out into all the world), it seems that some kind of common front under the charmanship of the Bishop of Rome would be of great benefit to the churches. This, of course, would require a measure of acceptance of the differing emphases of other Christians by Catholics, especially those of us who are rooted and grounded in the historic creeds and statements of faith of the church. However, it is sad that Rome is not able to stretch that far.

The whole recent flap around the Pope’s overtures to dissident Anglicans is an example of this. I understand very well that there are fellow-Anglicans who have lost confidence in the Anglican tradition, and if their own faith is more happily accommodated in the Roman setting, then so be it. But as we mull over the small print it seems to be more hard line than the gentle invitation of concerned fellow-Christians.

A genuine, fraternal invitation, for example, would at the very least turn the expectation of re-confirmation and re-ordination into conditional rites, but Rome seems unwilling to reconsider the 1896 declaration that Anglican orders are, in effect, no orders at all. This un-churching of Anglicans has a tang of dishonesty about it because on the ground in most settings Anglican and Catholic clergy work alongside one another, mutually accept one another’s status as ministers of word and sacraments.

The Apostolic Constitution makes it quite clear that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is definitive theologically and doctrinally for all those who move along the path Rome is offering, which, in effect, obliterates theology that is distinctively Anglican and nullifies the richness of the Anglican tradition. You can come in, we are being told, but you have to leave what we perceive to be Protestant baggage at the door.

As I read the small print of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, it is phrased in such a way as to suggest that only certain Anglican liturgical texts will be acceptable for use by those who want to make this transition, which would suggest that anything that does not dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s of Roman Catholic eucharistic theology, etc., will be unacceptable. This would then probably declare out of court much of the historic Prayer Book tradition which has been the foundation of Anglican life for nearly half a millennium.

While I don’t really wish to nitpick to death this document that codifies an invitation that some are likely to take up, the more I look at it the more I suspect the spirit in which this invitation has been made. It comes from a mindset that because it believes it is the one true expression of the Christian faith, it possesses the trump cards, and can demand rather than entering into conversation accepting the graces and charisms of another tradition.

Last week I cooperated with the most gracious Roman Catholic priest in the funeral Mass and burial of my nominally Roman Catholic brother-in-law. The priest was a prince among men, godly and caring, and the manner in which he presided over the Eucharist was both sensitive and genuinely moving. He was genuinely embarrassed that he could not invite to the Lord’s table those Christians of other traditions, so there I sat behind the altar, with my faithful Anglican extended family sitting in the pews (together with a few family Baptists), while the handful of Catholics present took participated in the sacrament.

This to me was an acted parable of the situation in which we find ourselves as two Communions that maybe respect one another, but nevertheless talk past each other. By excluding Anglicans from their sacramental life they are treating us as non-Christians, while at the same time in the day-to-day elements of church life in local communities considering one another to be believers. The are plenty places in the world where Anglicans and Catholics even share the same buildings. If the Catholic priest had not thought me a Christian, would he have allowed me to preach in his church, and would he have accepted that committal by me according to the Book of Common Prayer was appropriate in any shape or form?

In the Apostolic Constitution the Roman Catholic Church is saying, “Well, if you jump through the hoops we think necessary then we will accept you,” while all the time jumping through those hoops is a negating of what are already our convictions—in which they may see inadequacies, but little fundamental heresy.

The challenge facing us is missional, and it gets more pressing as each day passes. While accepting that each church has its own ordering that should be respected and taken seriously, it would seem that the time has come for Rome to be willing to enter a conversation with the same generosity as is expected of Anglican Christians.
View the original post

Dear Richard,
As ever I appreciate your analysis.  For the very reason that I am a protestant, reformed Anglican, notwithstanding being a convinced Evangelical Christian, I could not move to Rome.  Having said that - the invitation is not really to me.  I understand it to be made to those who are already in their minds and hearts “Catholic.”  They have sought to maintain this spirituality and belief in the Anglican Church which has been their home for their lives and over 400 years of Anglican expression. 
These dear friends of mine, remaining in TEC and the C of E, have been progressively sidelined, maligned, harassed and persecuted.  The latter notably in the USA recently, but in the past I remember stories of stones and rocks being thrown in Oxford at the Tractarians.  Their treatment in the General Synod last year was abhorrent and I am relieved at the hope they have been given recently for legislative/statutory protection.  In the USA we have seen the three “Catholic” dioceses leave TEC in the hope of getting away from the viciousness with which they have had to endure since the ordination of women became a mandatory.  Since then they and we more Protestant/Evangelical ones have resisted the propagation of the false gospel of radical inclusivism and the false doctrines that now lie at the heart of the revisionists and reappraiseers who now dominate TEC.
For these dear friends and colleagues this is the lifeline that they have needed.  I believe it to be graciously made.  It is generous, clearly spoken and filled with compassion.  The RCC has never made any pretense at being different from what they are.  They are “THE Church” and if we want to swim the Tiber it is on their terms.  I would not find it too difficult to be reconfirmed and re-ordained were I of a mind to swim.  I would not take this as a rejection of my past but a step to a new future.  I note that in the case of those clergy who swim the other way, while we “receive” them, thus recognizing their ordination we do in fact sent them to seminary for a year of Anglican studies so as to “condition” them. 
For those dear brothers and sisters who left in the seventies over women’s and Prayer book issues, who have never accepted the innovations of that era, they have long wished for this kind of invitation.  Already we see that TAC has accepted the invitation.  God bless them and God speed.
As to the practical issues that you raise with respect to the recent funeral I share your sadness.  I encountered the same with respect to a Lutheran funeral I attended in Wisconsin a couple of years back.  With respect to RC relations I have been warmly accepted by my RC colleagues from the time we worked together on a College campus in Massachusetts in the seventies.  Together we stood in the rain and welcomed and worshiped with John Paul 2 in Boston.  It was to get better and better, though there was the occasional road block.  Last year as I went to Arequipa, Peru as part of my taking on the new vocation of SAMS missionary I was blessed.  I was traveling on the same plane as another cleric and so we talked.  He was the RC Archbishop of Arequipa and there I was an Anglican missionary.  He invited me to call him should ever I need his assistance.  In other words I find a continued generosity towards us and our ministry.  However I know that if I should want to swim the Tiber then I would be done with due regard to the teaching of the RCC.  It would not be done casually.  It could not be done casually.

I welcome this offer as generous.  I wept with thanksgiving when we heard in 2003 at Plano from then Cardinal Ratzinger.  We are fighting the same fight against the revisionism and reappraising heresy and apostasy that has taken over parts of the Anglican Church.  For many this is an invitation to “come home.”  As such I welcome it on behalf of my “catholic” friends and colleagues.  It is not for me, but then again God has sent us to work in another part of the vineyard.
Blessings - Ian

I welcome this offer as generous.  I wept with thanksgiving when we heard in 2003 at Plano from then Cardinal Ratzinger.  We are fighting the same fight against the revisionism and reappraising heresy and apostasy that has taken over parts of the Anglican Church.  For many this is an invitation to “come home.”  As such I welcome it on behalf of my “catholic” friends and colleagues.  It is not for me, but then again God has sent us to work in another part of the vineyard.
Blessings - Ian

One just has to love it Ian, you complain about your dear friends being maligned by folks in TEC and then in this quote paragraph, as well as others in this missive,you repeat the calumnies of false gospel, apostasy and heresy.  Once again, these are inflammatory words, widely used by the schismatics, who then whinge and whine when they get severe blowback.  It is, moreover a smear of all the good and faithful folk who worship and minister in TEC.  If you wonder why “conservatives” are being marginalized, read your last paragraph to yourself a few times.

Some strongly negative reactions from continuers, all taken from/through the Continuum blog:

First, from Archbishop Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church:

Anglican and Orthodox Christians look for union and full communion without “conversion,” submission, and effective absorption and for an exercise of the Petrine Office that is compatible with the actual situation of the Church of the first millennium. The new Constitution will do nothing to forward that goal.

The forthcoming Constitution is in effect addressed to those who are already essentially Roman Catholic. We are not. We wish nothing but the best to Roman Catholic converts when they act in good conscience. But persons already convinced of the truth of Roman Catholic teaching in its fulness should become Roman Catholics promptly with or without the Pastoral Provision, with or without a liturgical “Anglican Use,” and with or without the new Ordinariates. We see in this Note an offer which is merely prudential and practical in its nature and effect, and we do not see anything to attract persons who are not already essentially Roman Catholic in faith.

Second, from Fr. Robert Hart, also in the ACC:

In matters of simple polity, Rome’s very thick bureaucracy stands between all Tiber Swimmers and the kind intentions of the Pope himself; and that bureaucracy shows no signs of mortality, let alone a speedy demise. The new Constitution reaffirms it on every level, and offers nothing to Anglicans who are accustomed to having a voice in the administration of parish business affairs, election of bishops, and matters that pertain to the pastoral care and education of their own children.

The sight of Cardinal William Levada presenting the news, on October 20, would have been ironic in a humorous way, if only this whole thing were not so very serious. His reputation in the United States is very bad, inasmuch as he shielded and reassigned priests who sexually abused boys; as did Cardinal Bernard Law. We have many reasons for saying to Anglicans who are Purgatory-bent on the Tiber, you are trusting a huge bureaucracy that has yet to set its own house in order. But, the most glaring reason of all, as to why such trust is misplaced, is that some of the same people who let the wolves loose on Catholic children (children who were Catholic by any proper standard), are still active in the system. Furthermore, even after the enablers are dead and gone, in spite of the Pope’s most sincere desire to clean up the system, there remains evidence that Rome’s inner corruption is yet unreformed, rather than signs of a better day ahead. The bureaucracy with all of its secrecy and corruption is, in many practical ways, unchanged.

Archbishop John Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) claimed that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome, has promised that married men from among the Roman Catholics in the “Ordinariate churches” may be ordained in the future. The Constitution says the opposite. About the issue of married clergy, we see now that nothing other than the same old Pastoral Provisions will be offered. Anglican Church in America (ACA) websites have been telling their people that what Rome offers is inter-communion: But the Constitution offers no such thing; rather, it lays down the conditions for “conversion.” Those conditions are unacceptable to to anyone who has true Anglican convictions.

Finally from the Rev. Canon Charles H. Nalls, also in the ACC, we have a point by point commentary which unfortunately defies excerpting for the most part. However, I would point to the comment on the very first paragraph of the constitution: “The very definition of Church in the document includes the principle of Papal Supremacy.”

- - -

The level of anger in these responses exceeds my tolerance at points, but for those of us who are rooted in Anglicanism, I think their warnings need to be taken seriously. The constitution is a program for assimilation, not for union.

Michael Russell - 10 November 2009 01:03 PM

I welcome this offer as generous.  I wept with thanksgiving when we heard in 2003 at Plano from then Cardinal Ratzinger.  We are fighting the same fight against the revisionism and reappraising heresy and apostasy that has taken over parts of the Anglican Church.  For many this is an invitation to “come home.”  As such I welcome it on behalf of my “catholic” friends and colleagues.  It is not for me, but then again God has sent us to work in another part of the vineyard.
Blessings - Ian

One just has to love it Ian, you complain about your dear friends being maligned by folks in TEC and then in this quote paragraph, as well as others in this missive,you repeat the calumnies of false gospel, apostasy and heresy.  Once again, these are inflammatory words, widely used by the schismatics, who then whinge and whine when they get severe blowback.  It is, moreover a smear of all the good and faithful folk who worship and minister in TEC.  If you wonder why “conservatives” are being marginalized, read your last paragraph to yourself a few times.

It is the heretics who are the schismatics.  NOT those who protest and oppose false teaching.  I will continue to protest as I took an ordination vow to protect against “all false teaching contrary to God’s Word.”  Somehow this is “whining!”  One of the nice things about growing up outside TEC, in the C of E,  and now ministering outside TEC is that I find that the majority of Anglicans are of the same mind about the TEC innovations - heretical, apostate, a new religion, they may call it Anglican but Christian it is not.  Happily I now work in a part of the AC that has severed communion with TEC.  The “orthodox” are certainly marginalized in TEC - I spend my time back in the US trying to encourage those known to me who remain.

It is good for people who set themselves up in judgment, as you do Ian, to whisper to themselves from time to time “I could be wrong.”  As I have said many times the language you use insures that you will not persuade and when you do not succeed in coercing and suffer the consequences of the attempt y’all whine.  You twist and manipulate the scriptures just as your spiritual ancestors, the Pharisees did.

Accusations of heresy and apostasy are outrageous.  You have no authority to make such judgments and tossing around these shibboleths only reveals the true heart of your part of the Christian family.

Michael Russell - 10 November 2009 04:47 PM

It is good for people who set themselves up in judgment, as you do Ian, to whisper to themselves from time to time “I could be wrong.”  As I have said many times the language you use insures that you will not persuade and when you do not succeed in coercing and suffer the consequences of the attempt y’all whine.  You twist and manipulate the scriptures just as your spiritual ancestors, the Pharisees did.

Accusations of heresy and apostasy are outrageous.  You have no authority to make such judgments and tossing around these shibboleths only reveals the true heart of your part of the Christian family.

I am not attempting to persuade you Michael, I am not sure that would be possible.  I am trying to state a fundamental truth that is that TEC has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.  Both by a majority of the Communion and - to use +++Rowan’s recent expression, by the Church Catholic.  I stayed as long as I could but left before this last Summer’s round of General Convention innovations.  This does not mean that I cannot be wrong.  I am not sure I was not wrong to stay that long.  Now I try to strengthen those who remain in TEC and are faithful.  For those who have had enough then the invitation of Pope Benedict is timely and very welcome in its graciousness and generosity.  I am sure that many will be blessed to take advantage of this offer of shelter and succor.  There are also other places of succor and safety.

Michael Russell - 10 November 2009 04:47 PM

Accusations of heresy and apostasy are outrageous.  You have no authority to make such judgments and tossing around these shibboleths only reveals the true heart of your part of the Christian family.

Michael, I just as well deny your authority to deliver this doctrine. The reality is that there is some error that can be lived with, and some that cannot; and if we name the latter “heresy”, the name is suitable.

Goodness, I didn’t think that what I wrote would unleash such a torrent of fervent discussion! My concern, as much as anything, was to point out that the Roman Catholic Church cannot both have its cake and eat it. I did use the word ‘assimilation’ as Charles does, but it was certainly on my mind. It is the mission of the whole church catholic that concerns me, I am not really interested in making sectarian points, and I wished to make the point that the actions of the Pope and the Congregation for Doctrine were not the olive leaf that they appeared to be—and that is not helpful when we all together face a world that is growing ever more hostile to the things of Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict has clearly identified the pressing issues presented to Christians by the wholesale advance of relativism, but this is a wrong kind of prescription to address the problem.

I recognize with my old friend, Ian Montgomery, that the proposals made by Rome were not intended for the likes of me, but the point is that they were aimed at the likes of me for they are addressed to all Anglicans, of whom I happen to be one. What we are hearing in the Apostolic Constitution, in effect, is an unwillingness to consider any of the insights of the Reformation, the movement that parented Anglicanism, as having significance and validity. “Come home to Rome,” is their invitation, while our response should be “We are home already, but are there ways that our two houses can be drawn closer together?” I don’t see the Roman Catholic Church able or willing at this point to make an adequate answer to such a question—and this saddens me.

Richard Kew - 11 November 2009 05:05 AM

What we are hearing in the Apostolic Constitution, in effect, is an unwillingness to consider any of the insights of the Reformation, the movement that parented Anglicanism, as having significance and validity. “Come home to Rome,” is their invitation.

  Thank you Richard.  For my part I did not expect anything less Roman than what we got.  I believe that the RCC has seen reform and has benefited in some ways from the Protestant Reformation.  They are however firmly of the belief that they are the Church, we are the separated brethren and that is that.  They have always wanted reunion under the primacy of the see of Peter.  I still see this as a generous offer.
As to the issues of recognition of our orders, again I am not really of the same mind as you.  When I became a citizen of the USA I renounced “all foreign potentates and powers.”  In other words the playing field has lines upon it according to the game and according to the rules of that game.  I could not have my cake and eat it!  Rome is inviting all of us even if some of us are very unlikely to take the offer - the terms are crystal clear and without nuance or dissembling.  Rome has not changed her beliefs but is making some accommodation to those who want to come.  Again I see it as a generous offer and a generous response to the initiative of some “Anglicans.” 
Blessings - Ian

There has been - and will continue to be - discussion of Rome’s offer. As someone who is not at all interested in leaving the Episcopal Church, I do see two possible areas of discomfort.

Those who accept the offer may have difficulty finding ways to speak about their work as Anglican clergy once they become part of a Church that considers that they were never really in holy orders. I know that many Roman Catholic priests, especially older ones, do not embrace their Church’s position on Anglican orders, but there is still a challenge for those who accept Rome’s offer.

Roman Catholic priests who find that their new colleagues are not required to be celibate may not be all that happy about the situation.

from Archbishop Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church

The forthcoming Constitution is in effect addressed to those who are already essentially Roman Catholic….persons already convinced of the truth of Roman Catholic teaching in its fulness should become Roman Catholics promptly with or without the Pastoral Provision, with or without a liturgical “Anglican Use,” and with or without the new Ordinariates.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Charles W. and Ian,

  In the end, heretics are those who lose in the court of power. In the ultimate end that will be with God in charge and not y’all. I am more than prepared to acknowledge I may be wrong and will happily be corrected by God. 
  I am sure it is wonderful to find yourself supported by parts of the church that choose now to persecute and imprison gays, perhaps even execute them. I am sure you are pleased to find support from a pontiff who has suborned pedophilia and ephebophila, choosing to scapegoat gays as the path out of the Vatican’s own negligent behavior. Not to mention his embrace of holocaust deniers and the havoc he and his predecessor have wreaked by condemning condom use in highly active HIV areas.
  This is all part of why I trust TEC will continue to seek to strip every alienated asset from reasserters.

Michael:  It seems to me that you find it as easy to label everyone you oppose in as sweeping and dismissive terms as you suggest “traditionalists” do by using the term “heretic”.  I find your strictures no more palatable than those employed by extremists on the right.  So where does this all get us?

Michael, if you are responding to me in particular (which I think you are not) your response is more than a little incoherent. I don’t think Anglicans in general should be going to Rome for any reason beyond that their have become convicted that they must, to the point that the drawbacks which I and various others have pointed out cease to figure in the matter. I find it increasingly irksome that every time the discussion comes around to this, you falsely accuse me of a sympathy with Roman theology which I do not have and which I have repudiated over and over.

There is a point at which I cannot stop being a Protestant, and that is the point at which I must vet the theology and practice of clerics with whom I have contact. I have no use for your power-play theory of heresy; the only theory I have for myself, as I said before, is that there is what I can tolerate, and what I cannot. As a pure layman, I have no power in the church; but by the same token I am bound only by the sacraments I take of it and the loyalty I give it. I have no bonds of fealty so that I should feel obligated to receive dogmatically the incipient teaching of the equivalence of homosexual and regular marriage.

What this has to do with the current discussion, though, is completely beyond me. Setting homosexuality aside, I suspect, Michael, that you and I hold similar views on why Rome has no hold and ought to have no hold over us, although I have a regard for catholicity which is incompatible with the theory of absolute ecclesiastical autonomy which you so frequently espouse. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you give me the impression of holding that this autonomy and (your) orthodoxy on homosexuality are the only dogmas of any consequence.

It would be useful to continued discourse if you would let me tell you what I think, rather than relentlessly lumping me in with your enemies and attributing their “heresies” to me. I should think my views vis a vis Rome are clear enough, but if you need further elucidation, try here and here and here.

I think that, in spite of what could be seen as intemperate language, there has been some clarity about the real differences between Rome and Canterbury. The centralization of authority - power? - in Rome would be a problem for many Anglicans. That authority is not only exercised in the appointment of bishops, but also in the silencing of theologians and the declaring that certain subjects, e.g., the ordination of women, are off-limits. While lay people may see themselves as having very little power in the Episcopal Church, they have considerable more than their Roman Catholic sisters and brothers.

I am sure that there are Anglicans who will find a new home in communion with Rome and will consider the loss of having a voice in the councils of the Church to be a small price to pay.