This text has been edited from Fr Keith Newton’s address and answers to questions from the floor at a day of exploration hosted by the South London Ordinariate Group in Kennington on 29 January, 2011.
Now that it has been transcribed with the approval of the Ordinary, we offer it as a valuable snapshot of a particularly exciting period in the Ordinariate's gestation - from the processes being put in place as people were looking forward to them, to the kind of questions and concerns in people's minds as they contemplated a journey to make the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham a reality.
Indeed, this may be useful and informative for those planning the establishment of an Ordinariate in other parts of the Church.
What is the Ordinariate?
Fr Keith Newton
Talk at Kennington Park, 29 January 2011
Preparing the Way
As I begin to say something about the Ordinariate, you must realise that I have been living and sleeping this for the last fifteen months, ever since the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus was published in November 2009. A lot of things have been going on and my part in it has been relatively small, despite what some of the press might say. Bishop Andrew Burnham and I had not been involved in any way in producing that document. When it arrived, what was in it was as much of a surprise to us as it was to many other people. We had indeed been to Rome; and we had been told that problems for Anglo-Catholics who wanted to be in communion with the See of Peter were a matter that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was going to be taking very seriously. Thus it ended up producing Anglicanorum Coetibus. Over the year since, what we have done - including, in my case, several trips to Rome - has always been with the knowledge of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have been quite upset by the press at times, when it has been suggested that we have been going behind the Archbishop’s back. You may remember, for instance, when we went to Rome in April 2010, that, as we were on our way back, the Sunday Telegraph published a front page article stating that neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Archbishop of Westminster were aware of it. They were not only well aware, they gave us their blessing. So, as I was saying, I have been planning and thinking about this for a long time.
In September 2010 there was an interesting article - I cannot remember who wrote it, but it may have been Ruth Gledhill in The Times - about going to the Ordinariate, in which the reporter said she had spoken to a senior Anglican figure, who could not hide his delight in telling her that the Ordinariate project had been put on the back burner and that Rome was back-pedalling like mad. I remember thinking that this was not true; but I also thought that in a sense it was, because, if any of you do any cooking, you know that you put things on the back burner not to forget them but in order for them to simmer, so that they are ready when you are ready and you can just turn up the heat to finish the cooking and everything is fine. So the Ordinariate was on the back burner, simmering nicely, ready for the heat to be turned up - and this is now what has happened.
People say that Rome works in centuries. What has been amazing to the Catholic clergy that I have been having conversations with about the Ordinariate is just how rapid this process has been, both in terms of the ordination of Father Andrew, Father John and myself and also the programme to erect the Ordinariate and begin the entrance of those groups who wish to join it. It is proving to be a very rapid process and it is making my head spin. I was still the Anglican Bishop of Richborough until 31 December last year. Then I was received into the Catholic Church on 1 January 2011 and on 15 January we were ordained priest, having been ordained deacon two days before. In the speech I made at Archbishop’s House after our ordination to the priesthood, I said that this was almost as quick as Cardinal Manning. But the Archbishop of Westminster pointed out, “No, you were much quicker than Cardinal Manning. He took two months and you took two weeks!” This is amazing in itself; but the reason is because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was very clear that it was important for us to be ordained to be ready to meet those groups that were going to join us, to prepare the way - and a lot of work needs to be done - and make sure that this thing runs smoothly.
The Path to Reception and Catechesis
Since I became a Catholic, I have not been able to do very much really except work on the Ordinariate. My mail box is overflowing. But you will know that some things are becoming clearer now. The timetable is that those who wish to join the Ordinariate will leave their Anglican congregations by the Sunday before Ash Wednesday and from Ash Wednesday until Easter there will be a period of catechesis, of learning what it means to be a Catholic. That will take people through to Holy Week. The clergy who have been involved with groups will remain with them and, depending on the Catholic diocese people are in, the catechesis will either be delivered totally by the Anglican priest, or in some dioceses totally by Roman Catholic priests – but probably in most cases it will be by a combination of both. Then people will be received ideally on Maundy Thursday - but it could take place before Maundy Thursday, perhaps on Holy Tuesday, or at the Easter Vigil. But the best time will be on Maundy Thursday. Those to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church will probably be received by their own parish priest and then they will be able to take part in the Triduum - Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter. This way will be better, because you will know that in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults the completion of initiation, confirmation and Holy Communion is deeply linked with the experience of going through the Triduum and its climax at the end of Holy Saturday in the Easter Vigil. Now, the RCIA is for new Christians; and so it is very important to distinguish between those who are being baptised (or who are coming into full Church life more or less for the first time) and those who are long-standing members of the Church in another denomination, but who are now coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. So we will not be using the RCIA process, or rite. Instead there will be a small rite of reception and confirmation in the Catholic Church that is appropriate to the groups of already practising and their members. After Easter, catechesis will continue, probably for several weeks leading up until Pentecost. Thus there will be a sustained period of catechesis before and after Easter.
Already many of the groups have been using Evangelium, which is a course on Catholic teaching and practice lasting something like 26 weeks. They are really enjoying it, so we are even now seeing how good catechesis in the Christian faith and discipleship may be as an ongoing feature of life in the Ordinariate. Cardinal Levada is very keen for the Ordinariate laity to be well catechised - many other Catholics will not have done much catechesis in their recent experience, but that is no reason for us not to; and perhaps it will be a strength that the people in the Ordinariate can offer to the rest of the Church. The Sevenoaks group is maintaining its identity as a Walsingham cell, meeting monthly for a mass, a talk and a meal. This will mean a continued structure arising from their Anglican patrimony, but it also offers an appealing way to provide ongoing catechesis. This will also provide a good structure on which to build future growth and development.
Ordination of the Ordinariate Clergy
As for the priests, they will also join in and contribute to the catechesis with their groups; but at the same time they will start a process of formation for ordination. That will take place in London for all the clergy on one day a week from Ash Wednesday until Pentecost. At some point in the Easter season those whose petitions for ordination have been accepted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and when a number of other steps have been followed) will be ordained to the diaconate shortly after Easter and then to the priesthood around Pentecost. Their formation will continue further for up to two years.
It is not that those priests who are coming into the Catholic Church for the Ordinariate are going to get a much quicker or shorter formation than any other ex-Anglican priest who becomes a Catholic and is eventually ordained. I know a number of people from my old Richborough area, who are now at a seminary and who will presumably be ordained in about two years’ time. So the process is equivalent and it is just that ordination comes at a different place in it. We also need to be clear (because I have heard one or two comments in which this is misunderstood) that those clergy who are petitioning for ordination in the Catholic Church in the Ordinariate will have to go through a very similar process of discernment to that of anybody else who seeks ordination in a diocese and who thus wants to become a seminarian in the Catholic Church. For instance, I have just been to St Luke’s Centre in Manchester for a few days to see the assessment and discernment that our clergy have to undergo. Additionally, necessary references will have to be taken up and the local diocesan Catholic bishops will also have to be happy with candidate clergy, since they will have to serve both the Ordinariate and the local diocese. All these things, including CRB checks, are now in hand.
Space to Discern the Nature of Being a Catholic Christian
So, that is the point at which our preparations find themselves and it is not long - about six weeks - to Ash Wednesday, when the process will begin. At that point the lay people will have to decide whether belonging to the Catholic Church in full communion is what they want to do. They will not need to make their final commitment until just before they are actually received, so there is plenty of opportunity for exploration and discernment in good faith and without pressure. But when the moment comes for making a commitment, it will be after a great deal of thought and prayer. The form it will take is that they will have to profess the Christian faith, usually by saying the Nicene Creed, and also agree that they believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches, signing a declaration to that effect. Then they will be received and chrismated, thus receiving the sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church.
It is worth saying at this point that there is no such thing as a second class Catholic. This is very important to emphasise, because I have heard it said even by the Archbishop of York in a debate that, if he was going to become a Catholic, he would rather be a proper one and not a second class one. Let me tell you that that is nonsense – there are no second class Catholics. You are only a Catholic by belonging to one particular group or another – a diocese, or a religious order or some other kind of structure suited to a purpose, or group of people. First or second class does not enter into it. The Ordinariate is simply one of those ways in which you belong to in the Catholic Church. So I cannot see what point Archbishop Sentamu was trying to make. Perhaps he does not understand that the Catholic Church is much more diverse than most people realise. This is what makes it Catholic. I happened to be in Rome in October last year at the end of the Synod of Bishops of the Middle East. The final mass at which the Pope presided was very interesting, because normally, when you see a Papal Mass, it is all very beautifully choreographed and all the vestments match, and so on. But for the mass at which the Eastern Bishops concelebrated everyone was wearing something different - they were representing so many parts of the Catholic Church, from the Maronites of Lebanon, the Catholic Copts, the Melkites – there are all sorts of people, belonging to many different Churches in the one Catholic Church. And the Ordinariate in England & Wales is just one new part of her diversity.
Ordinariates further afield
We are mostly looking at the situation here in England. But do not forget that the Apostolic Constitution is not just for this country, it is for the world. Anywhere in the world where there are groups of Anglicans who want to come into full communion with the Catholic Church, they can form a possible Ordinariate group. The only groups being formed at the moment are in England and Wales, in Canada and in the United States. In Australia they are slightly behind us, but they are catching up and there could be one formed this year. For the time being, any Scottish groups will be linked to the Ordinariate in England and Wales, until such time as there is a large enough group to have its own Ordinariate within the territory of the Scottish Conference of Catholic Bishops. If there were groups in Ireland, they would need to go to their own local bishops in the Church in Ireland and say they wanted to form an Ordinariate; and the bishops would have to respond to that. But, as far as I know, nobody has done that yet. At the moment we have no group in Wales, but it would be possible. I have even had someone mention to me the possibility that there may be a group in South Africa too. Again, this is all possible. Wherever people are, all it takes is for them to approach the local bishop, say they wish to form a group and then he will have a conversation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and they will see what can be done. So an Ordinariate is not just a special arrangement for people in England and Wales, or for that matter in North America or Australia. It is universal and thus provides a new canonical structure for people to belong fully to the Catholic Church. In this, no one is “second class”.
Identifying Anglican Patrimony – Worship and Theology
Now let me turn to some of the questions people have asked. What about “Anglican patrimony” and how exactly can it be identified? It has often been said that a distinguishing mark of Anglican identity, as distinct from the usual Catholic practice, is receiving communion in both kinds. I have to say, however, that I have not been to a Catholic church recently where the laity was not invited to receive the sacrament in both kinds. Obviously, in Westminster Cathedral, where there are enormous numbers, that is not normally feasible, but at most Catholic parish churches that I have been to the option is there. Not everybody takes it up, but it is more and more usual to do so; and I imagine that in most churches it is encouraged and not really an issue. Certainly in Ordinariate parishes I would expect that it would be the norm.
Beyond questions of custom and usage, much more difficult is the underlying question about what patrimony means and what makes it. I do not think we will really get to flesh this out until we start to live it out. It may be something about the way we do liturgy; it may be something about the words of the liturgy. Currently there are people who are working on an Anglican form of worship for the Ordinariate to use. It will not be exactly like other Anglican forms of worship, because it must conform to Catholic doctrine and, more than that, express it clearly. This means it will need to have been ratified by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Americans already have an enormously thick Book of Divine Worship. If you go to one of the Pastoral Provision parishes you will be given one of these to use, but it is so thick that it hardly fits in the pew. It is also nearly twenty years old and is not going to be reprinted, partly because of the new opportunity created by Anglicanorum Coetibus and partly because in the light of two decades of experience it could benefit from revision. There is a group of people here in England working on a liturgy for us that has an Anglican flavour about it and that will inform, and be informed by, thoughts in other parts of the world where there will be an Ordinariate using Anglican patrimony in their Catholic worship. There is also something about hymnody.
Then there is the spiritual history that we are bringing with us. I think it is very interesting that, if one becomes a Catholic, normally you say “I’m going to become a Catholic” and you take on a new history, the history of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. The history of the Catholic Church from 1500 to 2000 is something people should know more about and it is going to form part of people’s history if they join the Ordinariate. But becoming a Catholic in the Ordinariate does not mean people will be putting aside their own history – they will be taking it with them. They will also be taking spiritual writers and theologians. For instance, I was taught by the great Eric Mascall, who was much revered by many Catholic theologians too. There are other great teachers in the Anglican Communion. I had a meeting with Cardinal Schönborn a couple of years ago and it came out that he is an incredible fan of C S Lewis. So there is such a wide range of experience, culture, theology, spirituality, people, worship and history that all goes into making up the Anglican patrimony.
Identifying Anglican Patrimony – Laity and Governance
Another side to Anglican patrimony is our tradition and systems of governance. That prompts the question of what involvement in the Ordinariate the laity will have. What needs to be understood is that there were two documents produced in November 2009. There was the Apostolic Constitution which is, as I understand it, basically about canon law; and to go with that were the Norms. The Apostolic Constitution cannot be changed, but the Norms can be altered by the Governing Council of the Ordinariate. There may be part of those norms concerning which we might say, “Is it possible to do it this way?” So there is room for adaptation and development, given particular conditions. Nevertheless, even now, in the Norms as well as the Apostolic Constitution itself there are certain things that have never happened in the Catholic Church before. I do not think people realise how enormous these changes are. For instance, the Holy Father has decided who is going to be the first Ordinary. It was his choice to make at the beginning, but in future the Ordinary will be chosen by the Holy Father on the recommendation of three names sent to him from the Governing Council of the Ordinariate. Now, that does not happen elsewhere in the Catholic Church. Generally when a diocese is vacant, it is the nuncio who makes consultations and produces the terna of names that he sends to the Congregation for Bishops in Rome. In our case, however, there is a more democratic aspect to it that has never been there before. The Governing Council, which is made up of clergy, some appointed by the Ordinary, some elected by the priests of the Ordinariate, will produce the terna.
Also, there is to be a Pastoral Council. As I understand it, the Pastoral Council of a Catholic diocese is voluntary and at the discretion of the Bishop. It is advised, but not mandatory. But in the Ordinariate it is mandatory and it will involve laity in the governance of the church; and that, too, is something quite new in a Catholic setting. My reading is that this is a national, not an area or group, Pastoral Council, designed to work with the Ordinary and he with them. There will be a mandatory Finance Council that lay people can also be involved in – it is not limited to clergy. Furthermore, I expect that the Pastoral Council and Finance Council at the level of the whole Ordinariate will be reflected in local parish groups too. So every parish will have a Pastoral Council and Finance Council in which the laity are to be involved. Thus one of the things about the Anglican patrimony that we will be bringing to the Catholic Church will be this involvement of lay people. Not that we want Synods like the General Synod – God preserve us! – but there is a legitimate and proper role in evangelism, in mission, in finance and organisation which the laity should take part in. This is not concerned with arguments over doctrine, liturgy and the order of the Church, but the rightful role of the laity in living out their Catholic faith through the work and witness of their Church.
If you read the commentary that accompanies the Apostolic Constitution by Fr Ghirlanda, who is a canon lawyer and Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, he makes the point that there are certain things that are very clearly identifiable as aspects of this or any local Catholic Church, but there are additional attributes that are part of the Anglicanism we bring, that other Catholic Churches have not known and yet will be intrinsic to the Ordinariates. He clearly names the involvement of the laity in the governance of the Church. It is something I want to encourage. As much as it forms part of our patrimony, it will also be very new to us, because we will not be doing it in exactly the old way as in the Church of England, but in accordance with Catholic canon law. It will also be new to our fellow Catholics, and they will be very interested to see how it works and possibly what can be learned from it. So lay involvement as part of the patrimony we bring is something we should want to develop properly.
The Need for a Distinctive Body, “united not absorbed”
Another question concerns why a separate Ordinariate is needed – why cannot Anglicans becoming Catholics just join in together and contribute to their existing local parishes and dioceses? Will members of the Ordinariate lose out on the experience of belonging to the mainstream reality of the Catholic Church in this country? Is there a risk that they will define themselves too tightly and just look inwards to themselves, rather than outwards to others in the Church, Christians in other Churches and, perhaps more importantly, to people in the wider world?
Someone recently impressed upon me that the prophetic side to the Ordinariate that Pope Benedict is hoping for might get lost. Well, to me it would be a tragedy if we in the Ordinariate, lay people and clergy alike, became so absorbed with finance, administration and ritual rubrics that we failed to look outwards with our Catholic faith that has, after all, brought us this far. Yet, unless we form a grouping in our own right, there are certain purposes that the Church needs that we will not be able to serve. We have to play our part alongside our fellow Catholics in service and in mission by adopting a distinctive role. And that includes taking our place in the Catholic Church’s ecumenism. We have to be a bridge. Building a bridge is about linking up two sides; and we cannot begin to perform that function unless we are connected as part of the wider Catholic Church and it is connected as part of us. That is going to take a bit of time to settle down; but I do believe passionately that that is what we should be and that is what the Holy Father wants of us. I do not want us to be defined as ultra-rightwing traditionalists or “more catholic than the Pope” – that is not true of is in any case. For the true story is not about our separateness, but our journey more deeply into the Catholic faith and the fullness of the life of the Church.
For me, this has been going on since I was a young Anglican priest, who passionately wanted to be in communion with the rest of the Catholic Church. I had always hoped and imagined that full communion and unity between Anglicans and the See of Peter was going to turn out in a different way, but God works in ways that we do not really know; and so the Ordinariate is the answer God has given to our prayers. He has his reasons. And it will be up to the people joining the Ordinariate to make sure that they too have the same spirit of belonging to the whole Church - and serving as one of its links to the Anglican tradition and its vital sense of its place within wider English society too. As I said in my statement at the press conference, “I’m all for building bridges, not burning them down”. But it will all take time, not least because there is some rawness felt among Anglican church people about the Ordinariate and those who may be leaving to join it. But I think with time it really will be possible for the Ordinariate to be a point of contact and friendship between Catholics and Anglicans and even an instrument in the ongoing work of reconciliation.
Sacred Places
One place where it might be possible is Walsingham itself. I cannot believe for one minute that Our Blessed Lady wants two separate shrines. Yet at the moment there are two; and I hope that there will be an opportunity for the members of the Ordinariate, when we go to Walsingham, to form that bridge, a bigger bridge than there has been before. Certainly, since I have had conversations with the Guardians of the Anglican Shrine about how that might be possible, I can hope that when ordinary Catholics go to Walsingham they will be as much at home at the Anglican shrine as at the Catholic one. And we have already seen how members of the Ordinariate can still be part of the Anglican Shrine through maintaining their Walsingham cells. This could be our bridge to link the Catholic Church and the Anglican Shrine.
This leads into another question about people’s contacts with the Anglican people and the Church building they have known and loved, once they become Roman Catholics in the Ordinariate. People will need to leave their church and their Anglican worshipping community with their priest on Ash Wednesday. There has to be a genuine “moving on”, in becoming a Catholic in full communion. It is not simply going to be “business as usual”, because not all of people’s friends and fellow Christians desire or feel called to Catholics. We were hoping that there might be a possibility of sharing buildings, even providing for the Roman Catholic priest who is to say mass for the groups in the period between Ash Wednesday and the moment their own priest is ordained to the priesthood, to do this in the group’s accustomed place of worship. But this is looking less and less likely, because the Church of England has put out a legal position to address such an eventuality already. The suggestion is that, if there is to be any sharing of buildings by Catholic former members of a congregation, it would have to be agreed with the new incumbent and the PCC of those who remained in the Church of England. So it looks as if sharing is not going to work; certainly not in the short term.
The Costly Value of Moving On as well as Bringing Patrimony
Clearly there is something about leaving and moving on in becoming a Catholic. This is hard, but in fact it is part of our journey: no one said it would be easy. In the 1980s, I was a missionary in Malawi and I remember to this day being at Gatwick airport. I had two young children - four and one - and my wife. She never wanted to go to Malawi. When she was interviewed, they said to her, “Why do you want to go to Africa?”, and she said, “I don’t!” They said, “Then why are you going?” She replied, “Because my husband sees it as his vocation.” They then asked her, “Do you do everything that your husband tells you?” “No, I don’t,” came the reply. But she felt that it was very important to support me in what I thought was my vocation, to go and serve in a different part of the world. But she will tell you that, as we walked through that big airport, she felt it was like going into a prison. We had no idea of what life would be like. We had never been to Africa in our lives. We did not know where we were going to live. We did not know if people wanted us there. We did not know whether we would be welcomed. We did not know whether we would manage, whether we would be paid – I was going to earn only a third of what I was earning in England. There were all those unknowns; but we did it. And in truth, there was no point in all the time that we were there that we felt on our own. In life, you just sometimes have to take a step into the unknown and trust that God is going to hold you up. It is an act of faith.
Now, between Ash Wednesday and Easter Day people preparing to be received will be asked not to receive Holy Communion. For some people that is a sticking point; but certainly Fr Andrew Burnham, Fr John Broadhurst and myself did exactly that during Advent. I stopped receiving Communion in the Church of England just before Advent and during Advent I went to mass in my local Roman Catholic parish. It was far from easy, as I sat in the pew. But it was an important part of the process for me, a really important journey of change; because, by the time we had got to the end, we were longing, just longing, to receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. That is an experience that we all need to go through. Remember, anyway, that the obligation on Catholics is not to receive Communion, but to be at Mass every Sunday. I think we have got into a position, even within the Catholic Church, in which everybody thinks that the point of coming to Mass is to receive Communion. It is not – it is to take part in the re-presentation of Our Lord’s saving works. Holy Communion is the fruit of that and we encourage everyone to receive. But it is not always necessary. So, those preparing to be received I urge to take that period between Ash Wednesday and Easter as a period of growth. Having gone through it myself, I think they will find it a very necessary step to have taken on their journey. Where the groups of new Catholics in the Ordinariate groups will worship (if, as seems likely, they cannot worship in their old church) will be decided by the local Catholic Deanery, in consultation with the Ordinariate priest. Probably through the first part of the catechesis period it would be best to join in the worship at one of the local Catholic parish’s major liturgies alongside your own pastor, who will be doing the same, at least until he is made a deacon and can take a liturgical part. But it would also be good to meet as a group in your own right, to pray together once a week, or say the office together. Thus, as well as being part of the Catholic Church near you, you should still keep together as a group.
Remaining obligations to Anglican parishes
What about people who have positions of lay responsibility in their Anglican parishes, who are keen to join the Ordinariate, but for whom moving is complex, given certain legal obligations? Well, as a matter of fact, there has been some advice from the lawyers about this. Those who are church wardens need to hold the public annual parish meeting earlier. This can be done at any time and it does not have to coincide with the annual general meeting of the congregation. This will enable the election of fresh church wardens for the parish. As for a Treasurer or Secretary of the Parochial Church Council, there is no need to wait for an AGM; and those joining the Ordinariate should pass these responsibilities in Anglican congregations on now. Of course, there would be nothing wrong with a period of handover from a distance for a few months, if that would help the situation. We do not want to be seen as those who went away, forgot about those who were left, did not care and left others to pick up pieces. This all wants to be done as smoothly and helpfully as possible. Someone asked me at the press conference, “Don’t you care about those who are not coming?” I said, “Of course I care about them. I wish they would follow me. Not all of them are following me at the moment and more will follow as time goes on. I do care about them.” The way we deal with this will be important as we do not want to be seen to be the cause of bad feeling. But people resign and hand over tasks all the time, so there is no reason why this should not be handled in the same way. There are slight anomalies concerning elections of PCCs, as technically Catholics and members of other Churches, too, can be members. But I do not think that would be particularly helpful.
I understand how difficult it is for people to make the decision to move from what they know and love, especially if they have been closely involved through friends, schools and family connections. It has been the same for me. But if acting on a call to go forward on the journey to be a Catholic is what we really want, then we need not fear the unknown. Christ is there for us whatever trials we have to face; he is with us in our agonised decisions, with us on our journey as we trust him to lead us, and he is there to welcome and guide us wherever we go. He is always there for us and it is he for whom we are Christians.
The important thing is for everyone, Anglican and Catholic, to focus now on where the Lord is calling them to serve him and thus where they ought to be in the Church. There will always be plenty of jobs going in the Ordinariate groups, so I don’t think we will allow anyone to get away with doing nothing!
Individuals not belonging to Groups
What about individuals who are isolated from where potential groups are based or who live out in the sticks? Of course, the Ordinariate is for groups of Anglicans, so, obviously, if people can become part of a group, or at least be associated with one, that would be best. The Ordinariate website has them all listed. It is a list that is growing all the time, as people are becoming more public about them. But there remains a major problem for isolated laity and I have raised this specially with Bishop Alan Hopes, the Episcopal Delegate for the Ordinariate from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales. It is quite clear that when Fr Ghirlanda wrote about the Ordinariate he said it was both for groups and individuals. So no one should miss out on belonging to the Ordinariate who wants to, just because they cannot belong to a group.
So, individuals who live where there is no group can still be part of the Ordinariate, but they worship at a local diocesan church. Already three or four people have been in touch with me to say that – amazingly - there is to be no group in Brighton. My advice has been to go and see the local Catholic priest as a first step and we can take it from there. In the case of Brighton, I have sent people to Fr Ray Blake, who I know is passionate about the Ordinariate and will welcome them with open arms. People should ask if they can be catechised and received into the Catholic Church at Easter and register not as a member of that local parish but as a member of the Ordinariate. This is entirely possible. Individuals would thus worship in the local diocesan Catholic Church and perhaps sometimes go and visit an Ordinariate group elsewhere for contact and support. It may even be possible to register with a group at a distance, even though a person would not normally worship with it. We hope that, should a group form in Brighton (and that may be possible if we get 5 or 6 people at least), it could form a nucleus around which more Church life could grow into a viable regular congregation. The number constituting a group is not defined, but it is meant to be a “little church”. Until a group can form itself with some strength and momentum, an individual would still be a member of the Ordinariate, although normally worshipping at an existing local Catholic Church. That is the best that can be done at the moment, but we can see how things develop in the time ahead.
So, nobody should say that, because they have no group nearby, despite dearly wanting to be part of the Ordinariate and not a diocese, they will need to wait for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 years until a local group finally emerges. Those who feel God is calling them in the direction of the Ordinariate should come. They can be received into full communion with the Catholic Church through the local parish and in due course, I am sure, groups will begin to form. I do not doubt that that will include Brighton. If people experience real problems with what I have suggested, they should come back to us and we will not lose track of people seeking to join the Ordinariate. Beyond what I have mentioned, I do not know how just yet; but it is work in progress. In the meantime, nobody should be left behind waiting for a group to form in their area.
Guidance for Receiving Individuals into the Catholic Church in the Ordinariate
One of the problems in the minds of some people may be that not all local diocesan Catholic priests are as supportive of the Ordinariate as others; or they do not understand its procedures, or the purpose it is supposed to serve. I am in discussion with Bishop Alan about the necessary instructions to priests on how to respond to individual enquirers and this may take the form of a letter from the local bishop. It would be important, for instance, to steer priests away from channelling people to the RCIA. By now RCIA courses will have been up and running since September and normally new enquirers will be encouraged to wait until the next sessions being in autumn 2011. As we were noting earlier, however, the RCIA is not appropriate for already baptised and practising Christians – especially Catholic Anglicans – and the agreed aim is in any case to prepare people for reception in Holy Week. I am sorry that some people have already had the mistaken advice to wait and join the RCIA process, but I can confirm that the Catholic Church in this country understands that people coming into the Catholic Church from the Anglican Church are in a different category and need to be treated in a different way.
For instance, in the catechesis of a practising Anglican, you would not need to spend a lot of time on the Nicene Creed. A well instructed Anglican would believe and comprehend it in any case, otherwise they would hardly be at the point of seeking to belong to the Roman Catholic Church. That said, however, there are real differences between the Anglican and Catholic Church: different ways of doing things and different ways of expressing and understanding the faith. For some this may be problematic and need to be worked through. So a more suitable catechetical programme is being formed and there is no reason why this could not be available to diocesan priests asked to prepared and receive individuals who wish to join the Ordinariate (and we have already mentioned how useful the Evangelium course has been for those who are already well versed in their Christian faith and Church life). As long as priests have the right advice from us and access to the right resources, I suspect that in practice they use their own judgement as to what is necessary.
It is worth saying that any enquirer as an individual or in a group is under no pressure because they simply wish to explore possibilities. If someone goes through the course and then says that they are not quite ready, that is fine. If may be that they feel ready later on and I should have that that they could be received then, perhaps following a further conversation with the priest who was preparing them before as an individual, or the priest who leads the group to which they wish to belong. Once the Ordinariate is set up, reception will be the responsibility of the Ordinariate priest, not the diocesan priest. But I am sure that taking time for discernment will be respected and taken into consideration as a real part of a person’s experience that leads to reception.
At the moment, enquirers have been asked to fill in a little form on which we record people’s details. This includes a place for them to sign, confirming that they believe all that is taught by the Catholic Church to be true. Some people have told me that they are not ready to sign it yet, so I have said “Don’t sign it.” It is not necessary for people to do so until they are ready to be received, and the period of exploration and discernment is still under way. So there is plenty of time yet. Besides, it is a personal profession of faith that has to be right for each person. People are not joining the Catholic Church just as a group – they are fundamentally making an individual profession of faith. People may be planning to do this together, but there is an individuality on which it all depends. Fr Andrew Burnham had said it is a bit like going on a pilgrimage to Walsingham: you all pay for it separately, but you get on the bus and go together.
The Sisters from Walsingham
At this point it seems fitting for me to pay tribute to the sisters from Walsingham. It was not just the three former bishops and their families who left our positions in the Church of England. We were accompanied with the advice and preparation of good Catholic priest-friends and our fast from the Eucharist was barely the month of Advent. But the sisters went without Holy Communion for three months, as they waited on the Lord. Sister Wendy tells me that, usually in the past, when she had gone to a Catholic mass she had been quite upset not to receive Communion, because she thought, “I’m being refused Jesus here and I really can’t stand it.” But she says that three months was easy, because the sisters knew what the end result was - receiving Communion in full communion with the Catholic Church with the Successor of Peter. What if they had held back and come later? Would they have spared themselves a great deal of heartache? But this was a great sacrifice they offered in order to be faithful to our Lord. I think it was God’s will, and this is why they are an inspiration. It was so pleasing to us to have them with us at our reception too. And then to find out that the Ordinariate is to be called the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham reveals how God has been in it all the way.
Second and Third Waves?
When will the second or third wave be organised, if people are not ready to go at the moment? Well, there is no closure on the Apostolic Constitution. It is now a permanent part of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. It will be part of the Catholic Church in other parts of the world, too. There is no closed door. Once we have opened up the way this time round, we then have to start to deal with others who come after. Hopefully, we will learn something from the process we have undergone, particularly with regard to the clergy in planning with the theological educators on how it is going to be done and what is needed in the future. It seems to me that you cannot start up a new process of formation for clergy every month. You would have to arrange it in semesters, or something like that. Already there are more priests coming to me and asking, “How do I join the Ordinariate?” Probably they are a bit late to join at the moment, because the process for discerning clergy for ordination is well on its way. So I doubt if anyone coming to me now, particularly if they have a group with them, will be able to be ordained in the first wave. But I am sure it can be organised well for a future point. There will be no problem over the catechesis or reception of lay people, but the practical difficulty will concern the formation, time and resources needed for the ordination of clergy. That is part of a conversation we need to have with the bishops and the theological educators in the seminaries, so that we are sure we can devise a process that runs smoothly.
Retired Clergy
What about retired Anglican clergy – will they be able to belong to the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate and continue to serve in a priestly ministry? Anglicanorum Coetibus is for groups of Anglicans, although, if you read Fr Ghirlanda’s commentary, he says it is for individuals as well as groups. But the questions that have to be answered about individual priests not linked to a group is (a) are they useful to the Ordinariate or could they be?; and (b) are they useful to the local diocese or could they be? It is quite possible for someone to be ordained within the Ordinariate, who would normally exercise his ministry within the diocesan context because he is not linked to a group and has no group he can be linked to. But it would require me to have a conversation with the local Catholic bishop about that person from the beginning, as it would be a question of whether he is going to be useful and work alongside the other priests in the diocese.
There is also the question of how the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will look at applications from people who are not in groups. I doubt whether they would say they could be ordained purely on the grounds that they want to say mass privately since that is what they have done all their life. In any case, there needs to be a pastoral process of discernment for each of the priests who enter the Ordinariate and that will always involve a conversation with the local Catholic bishop about his views and needs. That is because we do not expect the Ordinariate clergy to be confined to ministering within the Ordinariate. They cannot be. If they only have one congregation to look after 30 or 40 people, then they have the time on a Sunday or a Saturday night to help with the local diocese; and so they should. Diocesan priests are overworked and they have a lot of pressure on them. There are big congregations and the more the Ordinariate clergy help the local clergy, the more the Ordinariate will be accepted as part of the natural Catholic life of the Church in England and Wales. Even now, if there are any Catholic priests who are complaining about the Ordinariate, I have not met them yet. All of them have been so enthusiastic, want to be helpful, want to be encouraging and hope that we will equally want to be part of the local Catholic life. The best way forward is for there to be reciprocal support between the clergy of the Ordinariate and the clergy of the diocese – and in the case of all our Ordinariate priests, those with groups and those who are isolated, the local diocesan bishop will need to be happy. But I think this will be quite possible.
Funding the Ordinariate
What about the finances of the Ordinariate – how will it be funded? We are currently trying to set up a charitable trust, which will take a little bit of time. There are two ways of giving to the Ordinariate at the moment. The first is to give directly to CaTEW, the Catholic Trust for England and Wales, which is a Catholic fund held by the Bishops’ Conference, of which I am now a voting member. They have ring-fenced a fund for the Ordinariate within their accounts, so that anybody who sends money to them for the Ordinariate can be assured that it will be devoted to this purpose alone. We already have £250,000 given by the Catholic dioceses of England & Wales; we have been offered some money by Forward in Faith and the Catholic League, too, is offering assistance.
Very interestingly - and I am very touched by what happened - in November I went to Pluscarden Abbey near Inverness, which has great Anglican links through Aelred Carlisle, who had been a monk on Caldey Island. When he left the Anglican Church, the Caldey monks divided into two. Most of them became Catholics and formed Prinknash Abbey, while some remained and formed Nashdom Abbey, which became Elmore Abbey and is now in the Close at Salisbury. The Prinknash monks founded Pluscarden Abbey in Scotland; and, when you go into their chapel there, you will see a picture of Aelred Carlisle and several others in the community with Anglican backgrounds. Once I had resigned as Bishop of Richborough, I went there to get some rest away from it all for a moment. For example, there had been a lot of press interest surrounding our resignations. But, when I sat down for our first meal, I was greeted by what the monk began to read from the lectern during supper. He said, “News from The Tablet – three Anglican bishops have resigned ......” Afterwards, the Abbot said, “We know you here for a rest, but would you like to talk to the Community about the Ordinariate?” So I talked to them for an hour or so. When I got back, the Abbot wrote to say they wanted to send a donation to the Ordinariate and that has gone into the CaTEW fund. The problem with CaTEW is that the fund they are holding for us will be for the Ordinariate’s general purposes and it is not possible at the moment to hold individual accounts for distinct parish groups. But I am grateful to the Catholic League, which has set up the Newman Fund to provide this facility for us. Thus it is possible to earmark people’s donations for particular parishes and groups, as well as attract Gift Aid tax relief. Once we get our own trust going, we will be able to operate like every other Catholic diocese. But we are only a few days old and it takes a bit of time to set things up.
The Principal Church of the Ordinariate
What about identifying the Ordinariate’s principal church and headquarters? At the moment we do not have a principal church; nor have we identified where the headquarters will be. This may be because it will have to be where I live; but I do not know yet where that will be either. I am supposed to be leaving my present house on 31 March and we are currently looking for a suitable house for me to live in somewhere around London. Until we know where that is, we can assume that the headquarters will be where I live, providing it is big enough to accommodate the administration. For the moment, the Bishops’ Conference has given me an office next to the chapel at its building in Eccleston Square.
We have not yet identified a principal church. The Tablet suggested that it was going to be St James’ Spanish Place, which was unwelcome news to its parish priest! I do not think we can put out the congregation of 1400 for a group from the Ordinariate. But I am sure something will be found. It is all in God’s hands.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Some Thoughts on Present Disorder in English Society
It is quite clear that the riots and looting by children and young people in scores of towns and cities are not borne of grievance at systemic exclusion from education, or access to economic prosperity, nor because of the suppose racism or oppressiveness of the police, or the failure of power to listen to disaffected youth. People of many ethnic origins are involved - just as they are in the police and fire services. It seems, too, that a good proportion of those involved are students, or in work. Furthermore, whatever our problems in England, this country has an education and schools service that is the envy of children in, for instance, India and South Africa, where only a fraction of the resources we enjoy are available' and yet children there work hard to achieve, get themselves and their families out of poverty and go on to improve their villages, cities and wider society. It is shaming to think that, in a country with so much - one of the richest in the world - where young people have more going for them than almost anywhere else in the world, a tiny minority have unleashed their utter self-absorption in a feast of violence and unruled wills that has not even remembered the taboo of preserving life, ahead of the self-indulgence of acquisition - of something for nothing.
Most young people are not disaffected. They have strong senses of identity, aspiration, hope, love and duty. Most young people have a clear sense of dignity, worth and self-respect. They want to be understood as indiviudals with thoughts and ambitions that matter. Most want to make their families proud of them through their achievements, hope for a good job and a happy home and family life of their own. A lot of young people have heart-breaking obstacles in their path; some have made terrible mistakes; a few others face terrible dangers from involvement crime, gangs and drugs. We may not always get the solutions to many of these problems right; but this country, from the government to the energetic world of self-sacrificing charities, bends over backwards to try and put things right and make them better. Everywhere there are signs of hope, as young people at risk find out who they are and what they want to be in life - through arts, sports, inspiration, reading and imagination, finding what they would love to do for a job, learning about their health and threats to it, choosing their own future rather than having it dictated to them by cowards, and learning the skills that make them effective as contributing members to society, with voices that deserve to be heard and are worth hearing.
The rioters in the streets are in a class apart from the glorious young people who are our country's future and who continually make our country a dynamic place to live. It is most unfair to them for the public and media discourse to blame them for the transgressions of a few. Whatever the faults and setbacks, most young people take pains to overcome them and we every reason to be proud of them and confident of the future.
There is much comment about root causes to the problems of the last few days, relating to social disaffection and financial exclusion owing to the state of the economy and the public spending cuts. There are grains of truth in this, but the true problem is the entrhonement of the paramount self in the formation of some young people. The Judeao-Christian tradition, to build social cohesion through the community of faith, has answered this in a very few short phrases that, formerly, we learned more or less by heart. Not that this wild and strange children will listen for years to come, but it is worth repeating them:
Most young people are not disaffected. They have strong senses of identity, aspiration, hope, love and duty. Most young people have a clear sense of dignity, worth and self-respect. They want to be understood as indiviudals with thoughts and ambitions that matter. Most want to make their families proud of them through their achievements, hope for a good job and a happy home and family life of their own. A lot of young people have heart-breaking obstacles in their path; some have made terrible mistakes; a few others face terrible dangers from involvement crime, gangs and drugs. We may not always get the solutions to many of these problems right; but this country, from the government to the energetic world of self-sacrificing charities, bends over backwards to try and put things right and make them better. Everywhere there are signs of hope, as young people at risk find out who they are and what they want to be in life - through arts, sports, inspiration, reading and imagination, finding what they would love to do for a job, learning about their health and threats to it, choosing their own future rather than having it dictated to them by cowards, and learning the skills that make them effective as contributing members to society, with voices that deserve to be heard and are worth hearing.
The rioters in the streets are in a class apart from the glorious young people who are our country's future and who continually make our country a dynamic place to live. It is most unfair to them for the public and media discourse to blame them for the transgressions of a few. Whatever the faults and setbacks, most young people take pains to overcome them and we every reason to be proud of them and confident of the future.
There is much comment about root causes to the problems of the last few days, relating to social disaffection and financial exclusion owing to the state of the economy and the public spending cuts. There are grains of truth in this, but the true problem is the entrhonement of the paramount self in the formation of some young people. The Judeao-Christian tradition, to build social cohesion through the community of faith, has answered this in a very few short phrases that, formerly, we learned more or less by heart. Not that this wild and strange children will listen for years to come, but it is worth repeating them:
- Thou shalt do no murder
- Thou shalt not steal
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house ... nor anything that is his
- Cursed is he that removeth his neighbour's landmark
- Cursed is he that smiteth his neighbour secretly
- Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth
- Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them
- Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength
- Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Friday, 5 August 2011
John Allen Interviews Fr Mark Woodruff for the National Catholic Reporter
This interview with our priest-director forms part of the blog, All Things Cahtholic, of the distinguished journalist senior correspondent of the American National Catholic Reporter, and is found here, starting about half-way down the page.
John Allen writes:
While I was in London recently, I had the chance to speak with several people about the new “Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham,” a structure provided for by Pope Benedict XVI two years ago to welcome groups of Anglican clergy and laity into the Catholic fold, which is now a going concern in the U.K.
The ordinariate currently numbers roughly 900 laity and 60 clergy, including some newly minted Catholic priests who had already retired from Anglican ministry at 70.
One of the more interesting conversations came with Fr Mark Woodruff, a former Anglican who entered the Catholic church long before the ordinariate, but who has served as an advisor for some of its groups. A veteran ecumenist and a deeply thoughtful soul, Woodruff sketched some of the promise, and the challenges, facing the new venture. Woodruff not only took the time to answer my questions in person, but he also fleshed out his thinking in e-mail correspondence. The following are excerpts from our exchange.
What does the ordinariate mean?
I think it’s genuinely an attempt to signal that in the universal church, which we believe subsists in the Catholic Church, there is endless space, with the possibility of embracing Christian tradition in its entirety and its integrity. … This is an immense affirmation of Anglicanism and its riches. It’s possible for them to be in communion, united not absorbed tout court. Furthermore, we as a Catholic Church can to some extent internalise Anglican tradition and make it our own. This is an immensely valuable tool ecumenically that we have not had before. It’s not about poaching, it is about internalising in the Catholic Church what already belongs to it, the ultimate dimension being the visible unity of the whole of Christ’s body.
What’s the background to the ordinariate?
The practical shape and detailing of it has been under discussion for twenty years or more. There were negotiations for something along these lines in the late 1980s. A grouping called the Congregation for the English Mission was involved in discussions with Cardinal [Basil] Hume when there was a crisis for Catholic-minded Anglicans and papalist Anglicans in those days.
At that time, the Catholic bishops here didn’t want a multiplication of jurisdictions. They wanted an integrated diocesan structure. The effect was that, when there was an influx of Anglicans in large numbers in the early 1990s — since that time we’ve had about 500 priests in England and Wales who have come from the Anglican tradition — it broke up relationships, traditions and shared outlooks, as people made their own way. They did so in great number, but you lost that esprit de corps.
What did that say about what we really thought of ecumenical reconciliation? Our message was that, to be in communion with the Catholic Church, you had to relinquish your old life together and simply ‘convert’ to Roman Catholicism. As we lost sight of the principle of corporate reunion, we also lost sight of our own principle that the church is a community of communities. That communion has not been broken up this time around. You’ve got some kind of ecclesial, Eucharistic, corporate identity, and that’s something to build on.
There are 900 laity and 60 clergy in the ordinariate. Ten years from now, what will those numbers be?
Partly, it depends on finding resources and buildings from which the Ordinariate parishes can conduct their mission. Perhaps there will be some sharing with other denominations, or existing Catholic parishes. A big concern is how to pay the clergy too, not least those with families. There are hospital, school, and prison chaplaincies that can help with this, and some have arranged to take secular employment, as permitted by the norms.
The liturgical rite is being developed and hopefully will be in use early next year. In my view, it’s a risk not to have it ready now, as inevitably people may drift from their groups into the parishes where they are now getting accustomed to church life. But when it is in use, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be a draw to other Christians who want to be built up in this way. Other Catholics will be free to attend and take part and, it may even be that, with this rite as normative, the Ordinariate will be among the most enduring manifestations of the Anglican tradition in this culture and country.
I believe that God has not gone to all these lengths for something that is merely transitional.
Is it an open question how large the ordinariate may become?
I happen to think that if the ordinariate project gets its liturgical life together, and it maintains a distinctive Anglican theological and spiritual tradition, it will be a great addition to the Catholic church in this country. It will embody something to which people will respond. It will have classic Anglican liturgy, it will express Catholic faith in a classic Anglican way, and it won’t have the sort of dichotomy within itself between orthodoxy and relativism that I think is troubling the Church of England.
Are the members of the ordinariate right-wing ideologues?
No, I don’t think they are. I think most people have been ordinary Anglican churchgoers coming from the broad range of Anglican-Catholic traditions. Externally, some will be used to a fairly elaborate liturgy, others will be coming from a more choral-civic ‘Prayer Book’ tradition, others will have been very consciously ‘Vatican II’ and not theologically all that different from Roman Catholics. Sociologically and demographically, they will have different perspectives, but from what I have seen there is both the sheer normality of the people and clergy, and also a range of views and their expression – from very conservative, to very academic, very ‘Anglican’, very pastoral, very spirituality-focused, to very social gospel-focused, to everything else that we can find in our regular Catholic churches.
What’s been the Anglican reaction?
I think there has been a great deal of neuralgia. In the English situation, the Church of England does not quite occupy the position in national life that it once did, but it still has this important position of leadership and engagement with the state and with civil society that is vital, I think, also to the mission of the Catholic church. We are absolutely bound to work together and, besides, we respond to different parts of society, and they respond to us. There has to be a partnership.
We mustn’t settle for the Ordinariate as the last word in somehow embracing an Anglican tradition within the Catholic community. The work that still needs to be done is the union of all Christians, and that has to be happening because it’s the will of Christ. The Church of England entire and the Catholic church entire have at some point to be in complete union.
I’ve stressed time and time again to these friends of mine who have come into the Catholic church: I do not want you to come in and pull the ladder up. This is not about you finding a safe haven. You are now somebody who is embedded within us, who adds something to us in terms of our understanding of Anglicanism, which helps us reach out and embrace and be friends and collaborate even more deeply. We want you, therefore, to be part of that ecumenical outreach and engagement.
It is clear to me, too, that the church in this country cannot simply go on as it is, with all of our ‘denominations’ experiencing a declining grip on the imagination of people. No one church can address the deepest longings in those imaginations on its own. We need each other, we relate to people differently, and even though we are disunited we urgently need to collaborate and realise more and more an ecumenism of life.
There’s also an ecumenical vocation to the ordinariate?
If it forgets that, it must fail. It has to be about unity, because it really does have to be about the struggle for the soul of Europe and re-evangelization. It has to be at the centre of that. Otherwise, it’s just going to be an ‘ecclesiastical granny flat’. No one wants that.
While I was in London recently, I had the chance to speak with several people about the new “Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham,” a structure provided for by Pope Benedict XVI two years ago to welcome groups of Anglican clergy and laity into the Catholic fold, which is now a going concern in the U.K.
The ordinariate currently numbers roughly 900 laity and 60 clergy, including some newly minted Catholic priests who had already retired from Anglican ministry at 70.
One of the more interesting conversations came with Fr Mark Woodruff, a former Anglican who entered the Catholic church long before the ordinariate, but who has served as an advisor for some of its groups. A veteran ecumenist and a deeply thoughtful soul, Woodruff sketched some of the promise, and the challenges, facing the new venture. Woodruff not only took the time to answer my questions in person, but he also fleshed out his thinking in e-mail correspondence. The following are excerpts from our exchange.
What does the ordinariate mean?
I think it’s genuinely an attempt to signal that in the universal church, which we believe subsists in the Catholic Church, there is endless space, with the possibility of embracing Christian tradition in its entirety and its integrity. … This is an immense affirmation of Anglicanism and its riches. It’s possible for them to be in communion, united not absorbed tout court. Furthermore, we as a Catholic Church can to some extent internalise Anglican tradition and make it our own. This is an immensely valuable tool ecumenically that we have not had before. It’s not about poaching, it is about internalising in the Catholic Church what already belongs to it, the ultimate dimension being the visible unity of the whole of Christ’s body.
What’s the background to the ordinariate?
The practical shape and detailing of it has been under discussion for twenty years or more. There were negotiations for something along these lines in the late 1980s. A grouping called the Congregation for the English Mission was involved in discussions with Cardinal [Basil] Hume when there was a crisis for Catholic-minded Anglicans and papalist Anglicans in those days.
At that time, the Catholic bishops here didn’t want a multiplication of jurisdictions. They wanted an integrated diocesan structure. The effect was that, when there was an influx of Anglicans in large numbers in the early 1990s — since that time we’ve had about 500 priests in England and Wales who have come from the Anglican tradition — it broke up relationships, traditions and shared outlooks, as people made their own way. They did so in great number, but you lost that esprit de corps.
What did that say about what we really thought of ecumenical reconciliation? Our message was that, to be in communion with the Catholic Church, you had to relinquish your old life together and simply ‘convert’ to Roman Catholicism. As we lost sight of the principle of corporate reunion, we also lost sight of our own principle that the church is a community of communities. That communion has not been broken up this time around. You’ve got some kind of ecclesial, Eucharistic, corporate identity, and that’s something to build on.
There are 900 laity and 60 clergy in the ordinariate. Ten years from now, what will those numbers be?
Partly, it depends on finding resources and buildings from which the Ordinariate parishes can conduct their mission. Perhaps there will be some sharing with other denominations, or existing Catholic parishes. A big concern is how to pay the clergy too, not least those with families. There are hospital, school, and prison chaplaincies that can help with this, and some have arranged to take secular employment, as permitted by the norms.
The liturgical rite is being developed and hopefully will be in use early next year. In my view, it’s a risk not to have it ready now, as inevitably people may drift from their groups into the parishes where they are now getting accustomed to church life. But when it is in use, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be a draw to other Christians who want to be built up in this way. Other Catholics will be free to attend and take part and, it may even be that, with this rite as normative, the Ordinariate will be among the most enduring manifestations of the Anglican tradition in this culture and country.
I believe that God has not gone to all these lengths for something that is merely transitional.
Is it an open question how large the ordinariate may become?
I happen to think that if the ordinariate project gets its liturgical life together, and it maintains a distinctive Anglican theological and spiritual tradition, it will be a great addition to the Catholic church in this country. It will embody something to which people will respond. It will have classic Anglican liturgy, it will express Catholic faith in a classic Anglican way, and it won’t have the sort of dichotomy within itself between orthodoxy and relativism that I think is troubling the Church of England.
Are the members of the ordinariate right-wing ideologues?
No, I don’t think they are. I think most people have been ordinary Anglican churchgoers coming from the broad range of Anglican-Catholic traditions. Externally, some will be used to a fairly elaborate liturgy, others will be coming from a more choral-civic ‘Prayer Book’ tradition, others will have been very consciously ‘Vatican II’ and not theologically all that different from Roman Catholics. Sociologically and demographically, they will have different perspectives, but from what I have seen there is both the sheer normality of the people and clergy, and also a range of views and their expression – from very conservative, to very academic, very ‘Anglican’, very pastoral, very spirituality-focused, to very social gospel-focused, to everything else that we can find in our regular Catholic churches.
What’s been the Anglican reaction?
I think there has been a great deal of neuralgia. In the English situation, the Church of England does not quite occupy the position in national life that it once did, but it still has this important position of leadership and engagement with the state and with civil society that is vital, I think, also to the mission of the Catholic church. We are absolutely bound to work together and, besides, we respond to different parts of society, and they respond to us. There has to be a partnership.
We mustn’t settle for the Ordinariate as the last word in somehow embracing an Anglican tradition within the Catholic community. The work that still needs to be done is the union of all Christians, and that has to be happening because it’s the will of Christ. The Church of England entire and the Catholic church entire have at some point to be in complete union.
I’ve stressed time and time again to these friends of mine who have come into the Catholic church: I do not want you to come in and pull the ladder up. This is not about you finding a safe haven. You are now somebody who is embedded within us, who adds something to us in terms of our understanding of Anglicanism, which helps us reach out and embrace and be friends and collaborate even more deeply. We want you, therefore, to be part of that ecumenical outreach and engagement.
It is clear to me, too, that the church in this country cannot simply go on as it is, with all of our ‘denominations’ experiencing a declining grip on the imagination of people. No one church can address the deepest longings in those imaginations on its own. We need each other, we relate to people differently, and even though we are disunited we urgently need to collaborate and realise more and more an ecumenism of life.
There’s also an ecumenical vocation to the ordinariate?
If it forgets that, it must fail. It has to be about unity, because it really does have to be about the struggle for the soul of Europe and re-evangelization. It has to be at the centre of that. Otherwise, it’s just going to be an ‘ecclesiastical granny flat’. No one wants that.
Sunday, 17 July 2011
For the Record: Anglican Papalism, by Fr Brooke Lunn
January 2006
Anglican Papalism is a movement, from schism to unity, with a clear idea of our starting point, and a definite sense of direction. The movement’s antecedents go back to the schism, and its future goes forward to its destiny - full communion with the Roman Apostolic See. It is the expression, in a particular historical and geographical context, of the desire for unity in accordance with the expressed will of Our Lord Jesus Christ [John 17].
The usage - Anglican Papalism - goes back scarcely a century, though what it indicates, namely, efforts to heal the break with Rome, go back to the break itself. Because of widespread misunderstanding of it, it is necessary to be clear about its precise meaning.
My dictionary gives:
Thus Anglican Papalism is not to be confused with Romanizers. The former belongs in the realm of ideas, the latter in the realm of phenomena. The phenomena of Romanizers are relatively easy to perceive. The idea of Anglican Papalism requires much more application in order to begin to comprehend it.
Anglican Papalism - essential points
1. Christian unity
Unity is a fundamental concept running through the Holy Scriptures.
a) The story of Adam and Eve illustrates the essential unity of the whole human race.
b) We are created in the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity, the perfect society, the model of unity in diversity.
c) The story of Cain and Abel illustrates the social responsibility aspect of the essential unity of the whole human race.
d) The struggle to establish Jerusalem as the centre of unity of God’s people over against the high places, and the focussing of this unity on the Temple, is a central theme of the Old Testament; and is still very much present today.
e) Along with this goes the emergence of ethical monotheism in God’s revelation.
f) Jesus’s concern for the unity of God’s people is expressed in various ways, particularly in John 17: ‘that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.’
g) Ephesians 1:9-10 reads: ‘For he (God) has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.’
h) From this follows the need for Christian unity. The French catholic priest Paul Couturier, who has become known as the Apostle of Unity, saw in the prayer of Jesus in John 17 the basis of his own understanding of prayer for unity, so he produced for his Week of Prayer the formula that the visible unity of the Kingdom of God may be such as Christ wills and achieved by whatever means he wills.
j) God’s will, as Ephesians says, is to unite all things in heaven and on earth, so unity also means the unity of the whole human race, through, amongst other needs, inter-religious dialogue.
k) It also means the unity of the whole creation…ecology, the ‘green movement’, and so on.
Unity is the primary motivation of Anglican Papalism. The understanding of what unity means continues to develop, but the basic motivation remains.
2. Rome
Anglican papalists are convinced that the fulness of the Church is to be found both in the local Church, the bishop and his people, and in the universal Church, the communion of all the Churches with the Church of Rome, the Apostolic See. It is not a case of either/or, but of both/and. Thus full communion with Rome is not just some optional extra, which might be helpful, but is essential for the fulness of the Church. Rome holds a unique place in the unity of the Church, over and beyond the fact that unity necessarily involves all Churches and ecclesial communities and, indeed, everyone of good will who professes the Christian faith.
Section 23 of the ARCIC Agreed Statement Authority in the Church I reads:
3. Prayer
Prayer is very much to the fore in Anglican Papalist work for unity. The Church Unity Octave, first observed in 1908, originated with two Anglican papalists. The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity developed from this. Couturier, the ‘Apostle of Unity’ was first brought to England through the efforts of Anglican papalists. Today the Catholic League is active in promoting prayer for unity. A special edition of The Messenger of The Catholic League, no. 280 October 2003 – February 2004 was dedicated to the vision of Paul Couturier as part of the observance of the fiftieth anniversary of his death. Also from the Catholic League comes the Christian Unity Prayerbook.
4. Doctrine
It is fundamental to Anglican Papalism that an essential prerequisite for full unity is agreement in the essentials of Christian doctrine. Until Vatican II this was identified in the Creed of the Council of Trent. Today the touchstone is the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1994. The work of ARCIC is recognised as of great importance in the search for unity.
5. Liturgy
Lex orandi - lex credendi - lex vivendi…worship, faith, life…Christianity is all of a piece, and all the parts belong together in its wholeness. The catholic Church, as distinct from many ecclesial communities which express themselves primarily through ‘Confessions’ [Augsburg, Westminster, etc.] expresses herself primarily through liturgy. Thus Anglican Papalists give due significance to their convictions through liturgy. This is not the same as saying that Anglican Papalism is primarily about liturgy. It is not. There are many Romanizers who are most definitely not papalists; and there are Anglican Papalists who would scarcely merit the description of Romanizer. The difference between papalist and Romanizer is fundamental, yet there remains much confusion. Yet indeed many Anglican Papalists are Romanizers. Issues raised by this are dealt with in a Catholic League publication, Liturgy and Unity.
6. Loyalty
Anglican Papalists have been on the receiving end of much unjust criticism - that their position is irrational, hypocritical, disloyal, etc. Where such criticism has been just, and this seems to be very rare, the object of such criticism has been exceptional and untypical of Anglican Papalism. Geoffrey Curtis CR, not a papalist himself, in Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ [p. 163] gave a fair appreciation which questioned the charge of disloyalty. This is considered further below.
One of the most frequent grounds for the allegation of disloyalty is the adoption of practices of the Roman Catholic Church. This ground is refuted in Liturgy and Unity, already mentioned above. Another ground is that Anglican Papalists stress the importance of bishops but then don’t do what their bishops tell them to do. There is more than an element of truth in the waggish observation - unlike most Anglicans, I have a high doctrine of episcopacy, but low expectations; whereas most Anglicans seem to have a low doctrine, but high expectations; and I am the one who is least often disappointed! Put another way, I do not subscribe to a doctrine of the infallibility of individual bishops!
Pope Paul VI, who succeeded John XXIII, and had the task of seeing the Second Vatican Council through to its completion, is almost definitely the Pope with the best knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of Anglicans since the ferment of the sixteenth century. He said, at the canonisation of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales in 1970, that on the day when the Church of Rome would embrace firmly her ever-beloved Anglican sister in the one authentic communion of the family of Christ ‘no offence will be afflicted [sic] on the honour and sovereignty of a great country such as England. There will be no seeking to lessen the prestige and usage proper to the Anglican Church’ [Rome and Canterbury Through Four Centuries, Bernard and Margaret Pawley, pages 341-342]. Anglican Papalists, loyal to all that is of good value in our Anglican heritage, say a heartfelt ‘Amen’ to that.
I now live in retirement in the London Charterhouse. The very first of those Forty Martyrs canonised in 1970 was Saint John Houghton, Carthusian Prior of the London Charterhouse. He was martyred, viciously, on 4th May 1535, because he refused to accept Henry VIII as head of the Church in England. To accuse Saint John Houghton of disloyalty to the Church in England because he supported the papacy would be a manifest travesty. 'Anglican' and 'Papalist' are terms that came into usage later, but Anglican Papalists today look to Saint John Houghton, along with many of his contemporaries, as true witnesses, even unto death, to the conviction which we share with him.
7. England
Anglican Papalists recognise both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England as rightfully claiming descent from the undivided Church in England before the sixteenth century schism. We do not accept derogatory epithets such as 'the Italian Mission' or 'the immigrant Irish Church' to describe the Roman Catholic Church in England.
One of the powerful motivations of Anglican Papalism is the Christian mission to the people of England, of whatever racial, religious or cultural background. We perceive the present disunity among Christians in England as a scandal, a stumbling block to the mission of the Church in our land. It is not just some historic scandal [Henry VIII and all that], but a continuing scandal, an actual scandal, here and now, in which the Churches and ecclesial communities in England today participate. Reunion and unity, for us, mean one visible Church in England, with a common identity, not a stifling uniformity but unity in an acceptable diversity. What that means for us has been explored in, for example, Liturgy and Unity, already mentioned above, and Reuniting Anglicans and Rome - a special issue of The Messenger of the Catholic League from October 1994.
8. Individual reception
Recognising Newman’s dictum about the primacy of conscience, Anglican Papalists see this as applying not least to those Anglicans who enter individually into full communion with Rome. The Catholic League, in recognising this, logically opened membership to all who agree with the four objects of The League and with the doctrinal basis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
9. Ecclesial communities and corporate reunion
Those Anglican churches, including the Church of England, which have formally moved away from the catholic teaching and practice of apostolic succession in holy orders [as taught in the Ordinal with its Preface accompanying the BCP 1662] are now Ecclesial Communities rather than Churches in the proper sense. This leads to a substantial change in the basis for seeking corporate reunion with the Roman Apostolic See. In no way does it diminish the need for reunion. In so far as Rome recognises ecclesial communities, then this reunion will properly be corporate.
10. Unity of creation
Unity includes Christian unity, unity with other religions and life stances, and the unity and harmony of the whole creation. This is added in as a reminder that our own particular motivations need to be seen in the overall context of God’s will for the unity of the whole creation, to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth.
Two Classic Texts
I elaborated the above ten essential points from my own personal experience and understanding of Anglican Papalism over more than half a century. It is an understanding at the beginning of the third millennium. Basic to it are two classic texts of Anglican Papalism - England and the Holy See, by Spencer Jones in 1902; and The Church of England and the Holy See (the 1933 Centenary Tractates of the Council for Promoting Catholic Unity).
I take a glance at these two texts below, as they are critical evidence for the true nature of Anglican Papalism. A recent book and the reviews of it reveal the extensive ignorance of the true nature of Anglican Papalism, and the prejudice, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and false judgements deriving from this ignorance. The reason why so many commentators on Anglican Papalism who are not themselves Anglican Papalists are so hostile is complex. This is a challenge to Anglican Papalists. This present article merely attempts to throw some light on what Anglican Papalists themselves understand it to be.
Anglican Papalists’ true home in mainstream Christianity
Anglican Papalism is a movement from schism to unity, from the margins to the centre, from a backwater into the mainstream of Christianity. As such it is the very opposite of extreme. So how is it that it is so frequently misrepresented as extreme ? Extreme depends on what one identifies as the norm. If you perceive the Church of England to be The Norm of Christianity, with Dissent wandering off from this norm in one direction, and catholics refusing to come into line with the norm in the other direction, then clearly Anglican Papalists are out of line with this norm. The term nonconformist makes the point, having been used to describe both Dissent and catholics.
The evidence does not support the view that the Church of England is the norm of Christianity. It does support the view that the catholic Church is the norm. This is not so much because she is overwhelmingly the largest body of Christians, but more because of her faithful witness to God’s revelation down the ages. That there is a gap between the faithful teaching of the Church and all too much of the actual practice, not just of individual members but also of the members corporately, is recognised in the teaching by the model of the Church as the pilgrim people of God rather than as the perfect society.
This proper norm was recognised by the English Church down the ages until the state imposed an alternative norm in the sixteenth century. Yet the arms of the Archbishop of Canterbury to this day incorporate the Pallium, the symbol of authority conferred by the Pope, thus indicating the proper norm. The Gospels of Saint Augustine of Canterbury, probably brought to England by Saint Augustine himself when sent by Pope Gregory, being used at the enthronement of Archbishops of Canterbury, including our present Archbishop, likewise indicate the proper norm. The ARCIC process has helped to acknowledge the proper norm [e.g. Authority I.23]. The second half of the twentieth century has seen much progress in acknowledging the proper norm of Christianity, though there is still much more to be done here.
A key principle in Spencer Jones’s England and the Holy See is that of proportion. Thus, to treat the Church of England as the norm of Christianity is to get things seriously out of proportion. To treat the catholic Church as the norm is to restore a sense of proportion. Anglican Papalism, with its conscious desire and commitment to pursue the expressed will of Our Lord Jesus Christ for unity, and our recognition that this necessarily involves full communion with the Roman Apostolic See, places our true home right at the heart of mainstream Christianity.
Loyal Anglicans
The loyalty of Anglican Papalists to our Anglican heritage is second to none. Spencer Jones’s England and the Holy See is a classic Anglican text, written for Anglicans by an Anglican. The overriding purpose of the Centenary Tractates of 1933 is to demonstrate that the true home of the Church of England is full union with the Holy See - which they demonstrate most effectively. The title of the series is - The Church of England and the Holy See.
The loyalty of Anglican Papalists to our Anglican roots is seen in many ways, of which the following are some:
1. Anglican Papalists have a good knowledge, understanding and appreciation of our Anglican heritage; usually better than that of fellow Anglicans. The two texts referred to above demonstrate this very clearly.
2. Anglican Papalist clergy and laity have a fine record of devoted work, often in the pastorally tougher parts of The Lord’s Vineyard. I note in The Catholic Herald of November 11, 2005, "H.J.Fynes-Clinton, one of the prime movers [of Anglican Papalism], rarely had a good congregation at St. Magnus the Martyr."
I was a server at St Magnus from 1951 to 1959, when I went off as a student to Trinity College, Dublin, months before Father Fynes died. Latterly, I served the 8am weekday Mass, occasionally attended by local office workers, as well as the lunchtime services. I myself worked in Barclays Chief Foreign Branch just up the road. For the 8am Mass Fr Fynes would catch the underground from St James Park, near where he lived, to Monument, close by St Magnus. He was in his eighties. His GP had told him that this was too much for him, and when Fr Fynes carried on nonetheless, his GP said: ‘Well, you’re on your own.’
A good congregation? City of London parishes were viewed by many as sinecures. Fr Fynes viewed the parish of St Magnus as the very opposite, a most demanding ‘cure’ of souls. Far from being sinecures, City of London parishes are seen by diligent pastors as among the toughest pastoral assignments. Fr Fynes led the way in weekday services in the City. Our community of worshippers in the 1950s at St Magnus had a powerful influence on me, for good, as I believe; and the inspiration for this was Fr Fynes. I wish to say much more on this, but now discipline myself; except to say that the comment which provoked my response I consider to be unworthy, and ignorance is a poor excuse.
3. Our recognition that we are in schism is an honest self-appraisal, not disloyalty. Were St John Houghton and his fellow Carthusian martyrs being disloyal to the Church in England when they took their stand against the tyrant Henry VIII ? Was St Thomas More likewise being disloyal? Was St John Fisher also being disloyal? They were not Anglicans in schism. We are. But the issue is the same.
4. A true, thorough, critical evaluation of all that is good and worthwhile in our Anglican heritage is a necessary exercise of the principle of proportion.
5. The willingness to persevere in the face of misunderstanding, unfair treatment and misrepresentation is a test which demonstrated the loyalty of our forebears who were actively persecuted; and continues to be a test for us today.
6. Anglican Papalists, notably Spencer Jones and Fr Fynes-Clinton, expressed themselves very clearly
about the responsibility of bishops to exercise a ministry of unity in witnessing faithfully to God’s revelation. They were absolutely clear that the mind of the Church took precedence over the vagaries of individual bishops. For this they have been criticised as inconsistent, disloyal and undisciplined. Yelton, in Anglican Papalism puts it thus: ‘This was a fairly typical attitude to bishops by those who on the other hand sought to uphold church order, displaying one of the ambiguities which has plagued the Catholic Revival throughout its existence.’ Which prompts the question: 'Was Athanasius wrong to confront the Arian bishops?' Was Athanasius ambiguous? What nonsense!
When it comes to charges of disloyalty, those who have in our times changed the fundamental nature of our Anglican heritage should become aware that they are in a very vulnerable glass house.
How others see us
About thirty years ago the local council of churches decided to hold the Week of Prayer service in our church. It was their first visit. The secretary of the council came around to arrange things, and I shewed her the church. ‘The council won’t like this’, she said, as her nose twitched at a suspicion of incense in the air. ‘Shrines, candles…’ - the usual list of aids to worship in catholic churches which so upset the anti-catholic prejudice nurtured in the English since the sixteenth century. ‘But’, said I, ‘the local catholic Church is an active member of the council of churches, and you have held services there?’ ‘Yes’, she replied, ‘but then we expect such things of them. We expect you to know better.’
Even to this day we should be well aware of just how deep-seated is anti-catholic prejudice and ignorance. In so far as this has declined, this has coincided with a decline in the place of religion as a whole in our society. So, Anglo-Catholics, and Anglican Papalists even more so, are criticised because we ought to know better.
An appreciation is given by Geoffrey Curtis CR in his Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ, 1964 [p.163]:
That is a gracious appreciation, but I am greatly puzzled that Fr Curtis sees Anglican Papalists as willing ‘to submit to Rome as she now is’ [his book was published in 1964], and so jeopardize our own good Anglican heritage. Submission is the Roman Catholic approach to Anglicans wishing to enter into full communion with the Roman Apostolic See. It is difficult indeed to see how this is compatible with the Anglican Papalist principle of corporate reunion. In number eight of the Centenary Tractates of 1933, Fr Fynes-Clinton has a section headed ‘Corporate Return’. In this he emphasizes: ‘Our schism from Rome was Corporate: the remedy must be Corporate’. Fr Corbould, in the same tractate [pages 25-26…quoted later and see previous post] lists eight Anglican aspects which might be agreeable to Rome in the cause of reunion.
Fr Curtis was clearly sympathetic to the cause of unity with Rome. This is seen in his biography of Paul Couturier. Also, Fr Curtis was a prime mover in the recognition at the London Charterhouse of the Carthusian Martyrs. What is it about Anglican Papalists that Fr Curtis found to be ‘rather sadly disproportioned’ ? He is not alone among those of goodwill who seem to misunderstand us. Does some of the problem lie with us, and our possible failure to communicate clearly what our principles are ? I remain genuinely puzzled. This is not because I believe that our movement is above criticism. Yet I suspect that some of our critics are more familiar with the fringe elements rather than with the essence - not a sound basis for fair judgement.
There is also the phenomenon, still very much with us today, of anti-papalism amongst strongly traditional Anglo-Catholics. Amongst these would be found those content to be called Continuing Anglicans.
A more bizarre hostility is found in a Jesuit reviewing Yelton’s book. His review takes up so much space with abuse of Anglican Papalism that he leaves himself with no room at all to substantiate his false accusations. Briefly damning with faint praise - ‘occasional intellectual brilliance’ - to heaping abuse - misconceived, travesty, dishonest, parasitic, pastorally disastrous…what is it about Anglican Papalism that draws out such unfairness? But one point above all in that review suggests that time should not be wasted on it. ‘For Catholics, papalism is a position which few will understand.’ Recall the dictionary definition of papalism - ‘a supporter of the Pope or the papacy’. A Jesuit, whose fourth vow is one of special obedience to the Holy Father in the matter of accepting missions, not understanding papalism ? Let’s move on quickly.
A completely opposite and very positive view of us is seen by many Roman Catholics. Witness, for example, the warm relations we have enjoyed for many years with our contacts in the monasteries and diocese of Bruges where we visit annually in the hope of and furtherance of Anglican-Roman Catholic unity. A key ingredient of such good relations is friendship.
Fair minded Roman Catholics acknowledge that Anglican Papalism has drawn some of the anti-catholic prejudice away from Roman Catholics. A fair number of Roman Catholics learnt their catholic faith and life in the Church of England. Amongst these only a few ‘kick the ladder away’ or ‘bite the hand that fed them’. The Catholic League, once exclusively Anglican Papalist, now has Roman Catholic members, including Officers and Council members. We are in good heart.
Anglican Papalism since 1960
I take the date 1960 from Yelton’s Anglican Papalism - A History 1900-1960 [p.16]: ‘The real undermining of the Papalist tradition came in the period after 1960, which is not dealt with in detail in this study.’ This judgement is supported by reviewers of Yelton’s book: ‘He has written a study in failure’; ‘A lost cause’; ‘the coup de grace’; and so on. So, given the precise meaning of ‘Anglican Papalism as a movement of members of the Church of England or any Church in communion with it in support of the Pope or the papacy’, consider the evidence.
On 3rd December 1960 Dr Geoffrey Fisher visited the Pope. This was the first ever visit of an Archbishop of Canterbury to the Pope since the sixteenth century schism. Subsequent Archbishops of Canterbury, including our present one, have visited the Pope. Since 1960 the Second Vatican Council led to great improvement in Anglican-Roman Catholic relations. The Vatican 2 Decree on Ecumenism said [13]: ‘Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican communion occupies a special place.’ Since 1960 ARCIC was set up, and continues to do valuable work towards unity. Pope Paul VI, from a position of considerable knowledge and understanding, expressed a most gracious and generous appreciation of our Anglican heritage.
The Catholic League took Vatican II totally on board, and subsequently took the Catechism of the Catholic Church [1994] as our touchstone of orthodoxy. The League’s publications, including The Messenger, continue to promote the papalist cause. Notable here are two special issues - Reuniting Anglicans and Rome in October 1994; and The Unity of Christians: The Vision of Paul Couturier in February 2004.
The Congregation of the English Mission was an initiative of The League regarding corporate reunion, whose explorations for three years to 1990 are briefly described in Reuniting Anglicans and Rome. Much of the work and prayer for unity goes on at the grassroots level and doesn’t make the headlines. A good example is the inauguration of the Emmanuel Chapel in the Begijnhof guesthouse in Brugge, for which the League provided the monstrance and the icon of the Mother of God. The years since 1960 have seen some of the most positive gains in the search for unity. Sadly, the last few years have seen a significant turning away from unity with Rome on the part of the Church of England.
For several centuries the religious life of England was largely to be identified with the Church of England, hence Anglican Papalism. The continuing marginalisation of the Church of England in English society raises questions concerning the Anglican dimension of papalism. We may be moving towards a situation where the need would be better expressed as English Papalism. The 1933 text was The Church of England and the Holy See. The 1902 text, England and the Holy See, may now more accurately reflect the situation.
Whether it be Anglican or English Papalism, the movement remains as necessary as ever, new challenges notwithstanding. Seeking the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not a lost cause. Failure is not an option. The coup de grace ? A tradition undermined ? Inevitable flaws ? A lost cause ? Failure? Shades of Mark Twain: Reports of our death are an exaggeration.
Anglican Papalism is a movement, from schism to unity, with a clear idea of our starting point, and a definite sense of direction. The movement’s antecedents go back to the schism, and its future goes forward to its destiny - full communion with the Roman Apostolic See. It is the expression, in a particular historical and geographical context, of the desire for unity in accordance with the expressed will of Our Lord Jesus Christ [John 17].
The usage - Anglican Papalism - goes back scarcely a century, though what it indicates, namely, efforts to heal the break with Rome, go back to the break itself. Because of widespread misunderstanding of it, it is necessary to be clear about its precise meaning.
My dictionary gives:
- Anglican…(Anglicana ecclesia in Magna Carta)…Of or pertaining to the reformed Church of England or any Church in communion with it.
- papalism n., papalist n. & a. (a) n. a supporter of the Pope or the papacy; (b) adj. Of or pertaining to papalism or papalists.
- Romanizer n. a person, esp. an Anglican, who favours or adopts practices of the Roman Catholic Church M19.
Thus Anglican Papalism is not to be confused with Romanizers. The former belongs in the realm of ideas, the latter in the realm of phenomena. The phenomena of Romanizers are relatively easy to perceive. The idea of Anglican Papalism requires much more application in order to begin to comprehend it.
Anglican Papalism - essential points
1. Christian unity
Unity is a fundamental concept running through the Holy Scriptures.
a) The story of Adam and Eve illustrates the essential unity of the whole human race.
b) We are created in the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity, the perfect society, the model of unity in diversity.
c) The story of Cain and Abel illustrates the social responsibility aspect of the essential unity of the whole human race.
d) The struggle to establish Jerusalem as the centre of unity of God’s people over against the high places, and the focussing of this unity on the Temple, is a central theme of the Old Testament; and is still very much present today.
e) Along with this goes the emergence of ethical monotheism in God’s revelation.
f) Jesus’s concern for the unity of God’s people is expressed in various ways, particularly in John 17: ‘that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.’
g) Ephesians 1:9-10 reads: ‘For he (God) has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.’
h) From this follows the need for Christian unity. The French catholic priest Paul Couturier, who has become known as the Apostle of Unity, saw in the prayer of Jesus in John 17 the basis of his own understanding of prayer for unity, so he produced for his Week of Prayer the formula that the visible unity of the Kingdom of God may be such as Christ wills and achieved by whatever means he wills.
j) God’s will, as Ephesians says, is to unite all things in heaven and on earth, so unity also means the unity of the whole human race, through, amongst other needs, inter-religious dialogue.
k) It also means the unity of the whole creation…ecology, the ‘green movement’, and so on.
Unity is the primary motivation of Anglican Papalism. The understanding of what unity means continues to develop, but the basic motivation remains.
2. Rome
Anglican papalists are convinced that the fulness of the Church is to be found both in the local Church, the bishop and his people, and in the universal Church, the communion of all the Churches with the Church of Rome, the Apostolic See. It is not a case of either/or, but of both/and. Thus full communion with Rome is not just some optional extra, which might be helpful, but is essential for the fulness of the Church. Rome holds a unique place in the unity of the Church, over and beyond the fact that unity necessarily involves all Churches and ecclesial communities and, indeed, everyone of good will who professes the Christian faith.
Section 23 of the ARCIC Agreed Statement Authority in the Church I reads:
If God’s will for the unity in love and truth of the whole Christian community is to be fulfilled, this general pattern of the complementary primatial and conciliar aspects of episcope serving the koinonia of the churches needs to be realized at the universal level. The only see which makes any claim to universal primacy and which has exercised and still exercises such episcope is the see of Rome, the city where Peter and Paul died.
It seems appropriate that in any future union a universal primacy such as has been described should be held by that see.
3. Prayer
Prayer is very much to the fore in Anglican Papalist work for unity. The Church Unity Octave, first observed in 1908, originated with two Anglican papalists. The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity developed from this. Couturier, the ‘Apostle of Unity’ was first brought to England through the efforts of Anglican papalists. Today the Catholic League is active in promoting prayer for unity. A special edition of The Messenger of The Catholic League, no. 280 October 2003 – February 2004 was dedicated to the vision of Paul Couturier as part of the observance of the fiftieth anniversary of his death. Also from the Catholic League comes the Christian Unity Prayerbook.
4. Doctrine
It is fundamental to Anglican Papalism that an essential prerequisite for full unity is agreement in the essentials of Christian doctrine. Until Vatican II this was identified in the Creed of the Council of Trent. Today the touchstone is the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1994. The work of ARCIC is recognised as of great importance in the search for unity.
5. Liturgy
Lex orandi - lex credendi - lex vivendi…worship, faith, life…Christianity is all of a piece, and all the parts belong together in its wholeness. The catholic Church, as distinct from many ecclesial communities which express themselves primarily through ‘Confessions’ [Augsburg, Westminster, etc.] expresses herself primarily through liturgy. Thus Anglican Papalists give due significance to their convictions through liturgy. This is not the same as saying that Anglican Papalism is primarily about liturgy. It is not. There are many Romanizers who are most definitely not papalists; and there are Anglican Papalists who would scarcely merit the description of Romanizer. The difference between papalist and Romanizer is fundamental, yet there remains much confusion. Yet indeed many Anglican Papalists are Romanizers. Issues raised by this are dealt with in a Catholic League publication, Liturgy and Unity.
6. Loyalty
Anglican Papalists have been on the receiving end of much unjust criticism - that their position is irrational, hypocritical, disloyal, etc. Where such criticism has been just, and this seems to be very rare, the object of such criticism has been exceptional and untypical of Anglican Papalism. Geoffrey Curtis CR, not a papalist himself, in Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ [p. 163] gave a fair appreciation which questioned the charge of disloyalty. This is considered further below.
One of the most frequent grounds for the allegation of disloyalty is the adoption of practices of the Roman Catholic Church. This ground is refuted in Liturgy and Unity, already mentioned above. Another ground is that Anglican Papalists stress the importance of bishops but then don’t do what their bishops tell them to do. There is more than an element of truth in the waggish observation - unlike most Anglicans, I have a high doctrine of episcopacy, but low expectations; whereas most Anglicans seem to have a low doctrine, but high expectations; and I am the one who is least often disappointed! Put another way, I do not subscribe to a doctrine of the infallibility of individual bishops!
Pope Paul VI, who succeeded John XXIII, and had the task of seeing the Second Vatican Council through to its completion, is almost definitely the Pope with the best knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of Anglicans since the ferment of the sixteenth century. He said, at the canonisation of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales in 1970, that on the day when the Church of Rome would embrace firmly her ever-beloved Anglican sister in the one authentic communion of the family of Christ ‘no offence will be afflicted [sic] on the honour and sovereignty of a great country such as England. There will be no seeking to lessen the prestige and usage proper to the Anglican Church’ [Rome and Canterbury Through Four Centuries, Bernard and Margaret Pawley, pages 341-342]. Anglican Papalists, loyal to all that is of good value in our Anglican heritage, say a heartfelt ‘Amen’ to that.
I now live in retirement in the London Charterhouse. The very first of those Forty Martyrs canonised in 1970 was Saint John Houghton, Carthusian Prior of the London Charterhouse. He was martyred, viciously, on 4th May 1535, because he refused to accept Henry VIII as head of the Church in England. To accuse Saint John Houghton of disloyalty to the Church in England because he supported the papacy would be a manifest travesty. 'Anglican' and 'Papalist' are terms that came into usage later, but Anglican Papalists today look to Saint John Houghton, along with many of his contemporaries, as true witnesses, even unto death, to the conviction which we share with him.
7. England
Anglican Papalists recognise both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England as rightfully claiming descent from the undivided Church in England before the sixteenth century schism. We do not accept derogatory epithets such as 'the Italian Mission' or 'the immigrant Irish Church' to describe the Roman Catholic Church in England.
One of the powerful motivations of Anglican Papalism is the Christian mission to the people of England, of whatever racial, religious or cultural background. We perceive the present disunity among Christians in England as a scandal, a stumbling block to the mission of the Church in our land. It is not just some historic scandal [Henry VIII and all that], but a continuing scandal, an actual scandal, here and now, in which the Churches and ecclesial communities in England today participate. Reunion and unity, for us, mean one visible Church in England, with a common identity, not a stifling uniformity but unity in an acceptable diversity. What that means for us has been explored in, for example, Liturgy and Unity, already mentioned above, and Reuniting Anglicans and Rome - a special issue of The Messenger of the Catholic League from October 1994.
8. Individual reception
Recognising Newman’s dictum about the primacy of conscience, Anglican Papalists see this as applying not least to those Anglicans who enter individually into full communion with Rome. The Catholic League, in recognising this, logically opened membership to all who agree with the four objects of The League and with the doctrinal basis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
9. Ecclesial communities and corporate reunion
Those Anglican churches, including the Church of England, which have formally moved away from the catholic teaching and practice of apostolic succession in holy orders [as taught in the Ordinal with its Preface accompanying the BCP 1662] are now Ecclesial Communities rather than Churches in the proper sense. This leads to a substantial change in the basis for seeking corporate reunion with the Roman Apostolic See. In no way does it diminish the need for reunion. In so far as Rome recognises ecclesial communities, then this reunion will properly be corporate.
10. Unity of creation
Unity includes Christian unity, unity with other religions and life stances, and the unity and harmony of the whole creation. This is added in as a reminder that our own particular motivations need to be seen in the overall context of God’s will for the unity of the whole creation, to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth.
Two Classic Texts
I elaborated the above ten essential points from my own personal experience and understanding of Anglican Papalism over more than half a century. It is an understanding at the beginning of the third millennium. Basic to it are two classic texts of Anglican Papalism - England and the Holy See, by Spencer Jones in 1902; and The Church of England and the Holy See (the 1933 Centenary Tractates of the Council for Promoting Catholic Unity).
I take a glance at these two texts below, as they are critical evidence for the true nature of Anglican Papalism. A recent book and the reviews of it reveal the extensive ignorance of the true nature of Anglican Papalism, and the prejudice, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and false judgements deriving from this ignorance. The reason why so many commentators on Anglican Papalism who are not themselves Anglican Papalists are so hostile is complex. This is a challenge to Anglican Papalists. This present article merely attempts to throw some light on what Anglican Papalists themselves understand it to be.
Anglican Papalists’ true home in mainstream Christianity
Anglican Papalism is a movement from schism to unity, from the margins to the centre, from a backwater into the mainstream of Christianity. As such it is the very opposite of extreme. So how is it that it is so frequently misrepresented as extreme ? Extreme depends on what one identifies as the norm. If you perceive the Church of England to be The Norm of Christianity, with Dissent wandering off from this norm in one direction, and catholics refusing to come into line with the norm in the other direction, then clearly Anglican Papalists are out of line with this norm. The term nonconformist makes the point, having been used to describe both Dissent and catholics.
The evidence does not support the view that the Church of England is the norm of Christianity. It does support the view that the catholic Church is the norm. This is not so much because she is overwhelmingly the largest body of Christians, but more because of her faithful witness to God’s revelation down the ages. That there is a gap between the faithful teaching of the Church and all too much of the actual practice, not just of individual members but also of the members corporately, is recognised in the teaching by the model of the Church as the pilgrim people of God rather than as the perfect society.
This proper norm was recognised by the English Church down the ages until the state imposed an alternative norm in the sixteenth century. Yet the arms of the Archbishop of Canterbury to this day incorporate the Pallium, the symbol of authority conferred by the Pope, thus indicating the proper norm. The Gospels of Saint Augustine of Canterbury, probably brought to England by Saint Augustine himself when sent by Pope Gregory, being used at the enthronement of Archbishops of Canterbury, including our present Archbishop, likewise indicate the proper norm. The ARCIC process has helped to acknowledge the proper norm [e.g. Authority I.23]. The second half of the twentieth century has seen much progress in acknowledging the proper norm of Christianity, though there is still much more to be done here.
A key principle in Spencer Jones’s England and the Holy See is that of proportion. Thus, to treat the Church of England as the norm of Christianity is to get things seriously out of proportion. To treat the catholic Church as the norm is to restore a sense of proportion. Anglican Papalism, with its conscious desire and commitment to pursue the expressed will of Our Lord Jesus Christ for unity, and our recognition that this necessarily involves full communion with the Roman Apostolic See, places our true home right at the heart of mainstream Christianity.
Loyal Anglicans
The loyalty of Anglican Papalists to our Anglican heritage is second to none. Spencer Jones’s England and the Holy See is a classic Anglican text, written for Anglicans by an Anglican. The overriding purpose of the Centenary Tractates of 1933 is to demonstrate that the true home of the Church of England is full union with the Holy See - which they demonstrate most effectively. The title of the series is - The Church of England and the Holy See.
The loyalty of Anglican Papalists to our Anglican roots is seen in many ways, of which the following are some:
1. Anglican Papalists have a good knowledge, understanding and appreciation of our Anglican heritage; usually better than that of fellow Anglicans. The two texts referred to above demonstrate this very clearly.
2. Anglican Papalist clergy and laity have a fine record of devoted work, often in the pastorally tougher parts of The Lord’s Vineyard. I note in The Catholic Herald of November 11, 2005, "H.J.Fynes-Clinton, one of the prime movers [of Anglican Papalism], rarely had a good congregation at St. Magnus the Martyr."
I was a server at St Magnus from 1951 to 1959, when I went off as a student to Trinity College, Dublin, months before Father Fynes died. Latterly, I served the 8am weekday Mass, occasionally attended by local office workers, as well as the lunchtime services. I myself worked in Barclays Chief Foreign Branch just up the road. For the 8am Mass Fr Fynes would catch the underground from St James Park, near where he lived, to Monument, close by St Magnus. He was in his eighties. His GP had told him that this was too much for him, and when Fr Fynes carried on nonetheless, his GP said: ‘Well, you’re on your own.’
A good congregation? City of London parishes were viewed by many as sinecures. Fr Fynes viewed the parish of St Magnus as the very opposite, a most demanding ‘cure’ of souls. Far from being sinecures, City of London parishes are seen by diligent pastors as among the toughest pastoral assignments. Fr Fynes led the way in weekday services in the City. Our community of worshippers in the 1950s at St Magnus had a powerful influence on me, for good, as I believe; and the inspiration for this was Fr Fynes. I wish to say much more on this, but now discipline myself; except to say that the comment which provoked my response I consider to be unworthy, and ignorance is a poor excuse.
3. Our recognition that we are in schism is an honest self-appraisal, not disloyalty. Were St John Houghton and his fellow Carthusian martyrs being disloyal to the Church in England when they took their stand against the tyrant Henry VIII ? Was St Thomas More likewise being disloyal? Was St John Fisher also being disloyal? They were not Anglicans in schism. We are. But the issue is the same.
4. A true, thorough, critical evaluation of all that is good and worthwhile in our Anglican heritage is a necessary exercise of the principle of proportion.
5. The willingness to persevere in the face of misunderstanding, unfair treatment and misrepresentation is a test which demonstrated the loyalty of our forebears who were actively persecuted; and continues to be a test for us today.
6. Anglican Papalists, notably Spencer Jones and Fr Fynes-Clinton, expressed themselves very clearly
about the responsibility of bishops to exercise a ministry of unity in witnessing faithfully to God’s revelation. They were absolutely clear that the mind of the Church took precedence over the vagaries of individual bishops. For this they have been criticised as inconsistent, disloyal and undisciplined. Yelton, in Anglican Papalism puts it thus: ‘This was a fairly typical attitude to bishops by those who on the other hand sought to uphold church order, displaying one of the ambiguities which has plagued the Catholic Revival throughout its existence.’ Which prompts the question: 'Was Athanasius wrong to confront the Arian bishops?' Was Athanasius ambiguous? What nonsense!
When it comes to charges of disloyalty, those who have in our times changed the fundamental nature of our Anglican heritage should become aware that they are in a very vulnerable glass house.
How others see us
About thirty years ago the local council of churches decided to hold the Week of Prayer service in our church. It was their first visit. The secretary of the council came around to arrange things, and I shewed her the church. ‘The council won’t like this’, she said, as her nose twitched at a suspicion of incense in the air. ‘Shrines, candles…’ - the usual list of aids to worship in catholic churches which so upset the anti-catholic prejudice nurtured in the English since the sixteenth century. ‘But’, said I, ‘the local catholic Church is an active member of the council of churches, and you have held services there?’ ‘Yes’, she replied, ‘but then we expect such things of them. We expect you to know better.’
Even to this day we should be well aware of just how deep-seated is anti-catholic prejudice and ignorance. In so far as this has declined, this has coincided with a decline in the place of religion as a whole in our society. So, Anglo-Catholics, and Anglican Papalists even more so, are criticised because we ought to know better.
An appreciation is given by Geoffrey Curtis CR in his Paul Couturier and Unity in Christ, 1964 [p.163]:
We are beginning to see that Anglican Papalists have been unfairly judged. Abbe Couturier saw this very clearly. They are accused by English Roman Catholics of failure in logic and by many of their fellow Anglicans of disloyalty. There may be Anglican Papalists who are a law unto themselves and who ignore the force of the ordination pledges and are thus disloyal to our Church and to its bishops. There may well be an Anglo-Roman underworld as there have been Protestant and Modernist underworlds and, for all I know, an Inferno of ‘Moderation’. But the true Anglican Papalists are not of this calibre. They are a small group with a long lineage in our Church, and many are of the salt of the earth. Their particular standpoint many of them have recognized as involving a call to a life of reparation. Contrary to average opinion this small group is notable for its intellectual power as well as for its holiness. Perhaps the books of Anglican theology of this century that have been most widely read abroad have been books by Papalists - Spencer Jones’ England and the Holy See and Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy; Dr S.H.Scott’s great work, Eastern Churches and the Papacy, is used by scholars in most parts of the world.
To other Anglicans their position seems neither disloyal to our Church nor, given their convictions, contrary to the logic of charity, but rather sadly disproportioned. We believe that our own Anglican heritage possesses certain Christian values in trust and that these would be jeopardized if we were to submit to Rome as she now is.
That is a gracious appreciation, but I am greatly puzzled that Fr Curtis sees Anglican Papalists as willing ‘to submit to Rome as she now is’ [his book was published in 1964], and so jeopardize our own good Anglican heritage. Submission is the Roman Catholic approach to Anglicans wishing to enter into full communion with the Roman Apostolic See. It is difficult indeed to see how this is compatible with the Anglican Papalist principle of corporate reunion. In number eight of the Centenary Tractates of 1933, Fr Fynes-Clinton has a section headed ‘Corporate Return’. In this he emphasizes: ‘Our schism from Rome was Corporate: the remedy must be Corporate’. Fr Corbould, in the same tractate [pages 25-26…quoted later and see previous post] lists eight Anglican aspects which might be agreeable to Rome in the cause of reunion.
Fr Curtis was clearly sympathetic to the cause of unity with Rome. This is seen in his biography of Paul Couturier. Also, Fr Curtis was a prime mover in the recognition at the London Charterhouse of the Carthusian Martyrs. What is it about Anglican Papalists that Fr Curtis found to be ‘rather sadly disproportioned’ ? He is not alone among those of goodwill who seem to misunderstand us. Does some of the problem lie with us, and our possible failure to communicate clearly what our principles are ? I remain genuinely puzzled. This is not because I believe that our movement is above criticism. Yet I suspect that some of our critics are more familiar with the fringe elements rather than with the essence - not a sound basis for fair judgement.
There is also the phenomenon, still very much with us today, of anti-papalism amongst strongly traditional Anglo-Catholics. Amongst these would be found those content to be called Continuing Anglicans.
A more bizarre hostility is found in a Jesuit reviewing Yelton’s book. His review takes up so much space with abuse of Anglican Papalism that he leaves himself with no room at all to substantiate his false accusations. Briefly damning with faint praise - ‘occasional intellectual brilliance’ - to heaping abuse - misconceived, travesty, dishonest, parasitic, pastorally disastrous…what is it about Anglican Papalism that draws out such unfairness? But one point above all in that review suggests that time should not be wasted on it. ‘For Catholics, papalism is a position which few will understand.’ Recall the dictionary definition of papalism - ‘a supporter of the Pope or the papacy’. A Jesuit, whose fourth vow is one of special obedience to the Holy Father in the matter of accepting missions, not understanding papalism ? Let’s move on quickly.
A completely opposite and very positive view of us is seen by many Roman Catholics. Witness, for example, the warm relations we have enjoyed for many years with our contacts in the monasteries and diocese of Bruges where we visit annually in the hope of and furtherance of Anglican-Roman Catholic unity. A key ingredient of such good relations is friendship.
Fair minded Roman Catholics acknowledge that Anglican Papalism has drawn some of the anti-catholic prejudice away from Roman Catholics. A fair number of Roman Catholics learnt their catholic faith and life in the Church of England. Amongst these only a few ‘kick the ladder away’ or ‘bite the hand that fed them’. The Catholic League, once exclusively Anglican Papalist, now has Roman Catholic members, including Officers and Council members. We are in good heart.
Anglican Papalism since 1960
I take the date 1960 from Yelton’s Anglican Papalism - A History 1900-1960 [p.16]: ‘The real undermining of the Papalist tradition came in the period after 1960, which is not dealt with in detail in this study.’ This judgement is supported by reviewers of Yelton’s book: ‘He has written a study in failure’; ‘A lost cause’; ‘the coup de grace’; and so on. So, given the precise meaning of ‘Anglican Papalism as a movement of members of the Church of England or any Church in communion with it in support of the Pope or the papacy’, consider the evidence.
On 3rd December 1960 Dr Geoffrey Fisher visited the Pope. This was the first ever visit of an Archbishop of Canterbury to the Pope since the sixteenth century schism. Subsequent Archbishops of Canterbury, including our present one, have visited the Pope. Since 1960 the Second Vatican Council led to great improvement in Anglican-Roman Catholic relations. The Vatican 2 Decree on Ecumenism said [13]: ‘Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican communion occupies a special place.’ Since 1960 ARCIC was set up, and continues to do valuable work towards unity. Pope Paul VI, from a position of considerable knowledge and understanding, expressed a most gracious and generous appreciation of our Anglican heritage.
The Catholic League took Vatican II totally on board, and subsequently took the Catechism of the Catholic Church [1994] as our touchstone of orthodoxy. The League’s publications, including The Messenger, continue to promote the papalist cause. Notable here are two special issues - Reuniting Anglicans and Rome in October 1994; and The Unity of Christians: The Vision of Paul Couturier in February 2004.
The Congregation of the English Mission was an initiative of The League regarding corporate reunion, whose explorations for three years to 1990 are briefly described in Reuniting Anglicans and Rome. Much of the work and prayer for unity goes on at the grassroots level and doesn’t make the headlines. A good example is the inauguration of the Emmanuel Chapel in the Begijnhof guesthouse in Brugge, for which the League provided the monstrance and the icon of the Mother of God. The years since 1960 have seen some of the most positive gains in the search for unity. Sadly, the last few years have seen a significant turning away from unity with Rome on the part of the Church of England.
For several centuries the religious life of England was largely to be identified with the Church of England, hence Anglican Papalism. The continuing marginalisation of the Church of England in English society raises questions concerning the Anglican dimension of papalism. We may be moving towards a situation where the need would be better expressed as English Papalism. The 1933 text was The Church of England and the Holy See. The 1902 text, England and the Holy See, may now more accurately reflect the situation.
Whether it be Anglican or English Papalism, the movement remains as necessary as ever, new challenges notwithstanding. Seeking the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not a lost cause. Failure is not an option. The coup de grace ? A tradition undermined ? Inevitable flaws ? A lost cause ? Failure? Shades of Mark Twain: Reports of our death are an exaggeration.
For the Record: Fr Brooke Lunn on "The Centenary Tractates" of 1933 - The Church of England and the Holy See
A glance at the Centenary Tractates of the Council for Promoting Catholic Unity in 1933
Brooke Lunn, January 2006
Eight tractates were published, as follows:
1. What do the Celtic Churches say? by the Reverend Silas M. Harris, M.A. (36 pages)
2. What does the Anglo Saxon Church say? by the Reverend J.G. Morton Howard, M.A. (20 pages)
3. What do the General Councils say? by the Reverend S. Herbert Scott, D.Phil., B.Litt., F.R.Hist.S. (36 pages)
4. What did the Church of England say? by the Reverend J.G. Morton Howard, M.A. (32 pages)
5. What does the XVI century say? by the Reverend Spencer Jones, M.A. (40 pages)
6. What do English Divines say? by the Reverend L.F.Simmonds, M.A. (32 pages)
7. What do the Tractarians say? by the Reverend Spencer Jones, M.A. (44 pages)
8. What are we to say? by the Reverend H.J. Fynes-Clinton, M.A. and the Reverend W. Robert Corbould. (31 pages)
The purpose of the tractates was to demonstrate the integral relationship between the Church of England and the Holy See from the earliest times; how, since the sixteenth century schism, this integral relationship had not totally been lost from sight or remembrance; and, in 1933, celebrating the centenary of the Oxford Movement, the extent to which this integral relationship had been restored to sight, with progress towards its full re-establishment.
The tractates are of considerable scholarly merit, and bring before the reader a wealth of evidence which four centuries of anti-catholic propaganda had sought to suppress. For my part, they largely substantiate, as Spencer Jones says in the thirteenth of his propositions [see previous post] ‘that Rome is in fact the mother of English Christianity’. Here I wish to refer, briefly, to tractate eight by way of a corrective to certain misunderstandings currently circulating.
What are we to say?
In tractate number eight Fr Fynes-Clinton, referring to the Manifesto of October 1932, wrote:
That such ideas should be put forward in 1933 in a classic Anglican Papalist text should act as a corrective to false notions about Anglican Papalism still in circulation.
Brooke Lunn, January 2006
Eight tractates were published, as follows:
1. What do the Celtic Churches say? by the Reverend Silas M. Harris, M.A. (36 pages)
2. What does the Anglo Saxon Church say? by the Reverend J.G. Morton Howard, M.A. (20 pages)
3. What do the General Councils say? by the Reverend S. Herbert Scott, D.Phil., B.Litt., F.R.Hist.S. (36 pages)
4. What did the Church of England say? by the Reverend J.G. Morton Howard, M.A. (32 pages)
5. What does the XVI century say? by the Reverend Spencer Jones, M.A. (40 pages)
6. What do English Divines say? by the Reverend L.F.Simmonds, M.A. (32 pages)
7. What do the Tractarians say? by the Reverend Spencer Jones, M.A. (44 pages)
8. What are we to say? by the Reverend H.J. Fynes-Clinton, M.A. and the Reverend W. Robert Corbould. (31 pages)
The purpose of the tractates was to demonstrate the integral relationship between the Church of England and the Holy See from the earliest times; how, since the sixteenth century schism, this integral relationship had not totally been lost from sight or remembrance; and, in 1933, celebrating the centenary of the Oxford Movement, the extent to which this integral relationship had been restored to sight, with progress towards its full re-establishment.
The tractates are of considerable scholarly merit, and bring before the reader a wealth of evidence which four centuries of anti-catholic propaganda had sought to suppress. For my part, they largely substantiate, as Spencer Jones says in the thirteenth of his propositions [see previous post] ‘that Rome is in fact the mother of English Christianity’. Here I wish to refer, briefly, to tractate eight by way of a corrective to certain misunderstandings currently circulating.
What are we to say?
In tractate number eight Fr Fynes-Clinton, referring to the Manifesto of October 1932, wrote:
Under the heading of ‘The Catholic Life of the Church’ Fr Fynes writes:Constructively it asserted that the inevitable end of the Catholic Revival is the corporate return of the English Church to communion with the Holy See, and that this is the aim for which it is the duty of all Catholics to strive.
The English Church possesses those essential elements of the Catholic inheritance that make her a living part of the Holy Apostolic Church founded by Christ:- the Faith in her assertion that she adheres to the undivided Church and the Oeucumenical Creeds, and in her appeal to the early Councils and the consent of the Fathers: Sacramental Orders with her expressed intention that they be a continuation of those of the Primitive Church: her maintenance of Episcopal government and her ancient Canon Law.Further on, under the heading ‘Corporate Return’, Fr Fynes writes:
Beyond question she has much of value to contribute to the whole in her sacramental life, in her revived Religious Orders, in her historic continuity with the past and an intimate nexus with the national life and history that no other religious body possesses. In this lies a hope for immeasurable progress in the future in winning the allegiance of the English people back to their Catholic inheritance. The Church of England has unrivalled opportunities of reaching every village and household, of influencing the great interests and powers of the kingdom, and these opportunities involve the gravest responsibility.
To-day we see cause for great hope in the agreement that our state of disunion is intolerable. Schism from the Church or schism within the Church is sin. Our schism from Rome was Corporate: the remedy must be Corporate. Individual secession serves but to postpone reunion and leaves the problem where it was before. A corporate return made possible by an acknowledgment of the faults on both sides in the spirit of penitence, of prayer, of charity and determination. This is our aim: its glory our inspiration. The supreme need of the Church of England to-day is Corporate return to the Holy See, and this is but a return to her natural and original life.Fr Corbould, in the second part of tractate eight, regarding the acceptance of the Holy Father as the centre of unity for Christendom, writes:
But such an acceptance need not involve the great upheaval feared in our accustomed religious life. Granted dogmatic agreement, on Roman principles much variety could be allowed in practice, and much could be allowed of those things which are peculiarly English and which we have come to value. In a union effected on such a basis for instance, all the following concessions could be made without touching the basis of dogmatic agreement. We do not say they all would be: we do not even say that it is desirable that they should be, but at any rate they serve to show how large a field of negotiation remains after dogmatic agreement has been attained. Rome could concede:-
1. That the Archbishop of Canterbury be acknowledged as Patriarch of such Anglican churches throughout the world as should desire to enter into the union.
2. That until the Anglican Church shall ask for a change of relationship she shall be governed by her own canon laws, provided that these in no case override oecumenic laws or custom, under the authority of the Patriarch of Canterbury, with an appeal to the Holy See.
3. That liberty be granted to the Anglican Church to appoint her own bishops.
4. That an English rite be authorized approximating as nearly as possible to that familiar to our people, but revised so far as necessary to satisfy Catholic liturgiologists.
5. That the use of the Authorized Version of the Bible be allowed until such time as a revised edition of it can be agreed upon.
6. That the Pope himself shall regularize from his point of view the orders of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that the Archbishop should then secure the “regularization” of the rest of the clergy - no denial of the validity of their present orders being required of them. (It should be noted that such a means of satisfying questions as to orders was suggested by the Anglican bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 1920 and would follow the precedent of St. Chad and the Celtic Church.)
7. That the existing bishops and priests of the Anglican Churches adhering to the union should be secured in their present offices and status - including those who should be already married.
8. That communion in both kinds should be allowed as a permissive use.
That such ideas should be put forward in 1933 in a classic Anglican Papalist text should act as a corrective to false notions about Anglican Papalism still in circulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)