From the Toronto Star:
After 475 years, the Vatican is calling Anglicans back into the fold.
In a move that sent shock waves to the very top of the Church of England, the Vatican on Tuesday announced a new structure within the Catholic Church – sort of a church within a church – to make it easier for disaffected Anglicans to convert to Catholicism.
Pope Benedict XVI approved the new structure with little warning to either his own church or the 77-million-strong Anglican Communion, which has been discussing closer ties to Rome.
Vatican commentators saw the move as a blow to the Anglican Church.
“For people who harbour the vision of Anglican unity, this will be a great disappointment,” said Vatican analyst Francis X. Rocca, of the Religion News Service. “But it may also help to let off steam within the Anglican Church. If disaffected traditionalists leave, then they will lower the tensions over issues like gay marriage and women clergy.”
Caught off guard, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, downplayed the move and said it wasn’t a Vatican commentary on Anglican problems.
“It has no negative impact on the relations of the communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole,” he said.
The move, however, marks a significant effort to open the doors of the Catholic Church to Anglicans, who split with Rome in 1534.
Breakaway conservative Anglicans in Canada, however, showed no interest Tuesday in joining the Pope’s new church.
“This is not just a matter of wearing different clothes or having a few more rules,” Bishop Don Harvey of the Anglican Network in Canada said in a phone interview from his home in St. John’s, Nfld.
“If you go this route, you cannot say you are Anglican of some sort – because you are not.”
Rev. Ray David Glenn, who leads a breakaway Anglican parish in Milton, called the move a reflection of disorganization in Anglicanism after years of conflict over same-sex marriage and gay clergy.
The Catholic and Anglican churches of Canada did not return requests for comment.
Harvey said while conservative Anglicans share many theological beliefs with Catholics – both oppose same-sex marriage and gay clergy, for instance – there are still many differences between the two.
Anglicans, he said, would chafe at any notion of the infallibility of the Pope, and do not accept Catholic teachings about Mary’s immaculate conception, her assumption body and soul into heaven or the transfiguration of Christ.
Before breaking formal ties with the Anglican Church of Canada, Harvey’s group was for years the unofficial conservative wing of Anglicanism in this country. As such, he said, it has already tried being a separate entity within a larger structure. It didn’t work then, he said, and he doubts it will work now.
“This would be out of the frying pan and into the fire,” he said of joining the new Catholic structure.
Under the new plan, existing Catholic churches would be able to set up a church within a church, to be called personal ordinariate, where former Anglicans could worship under former Anglican priests.
The priests, in turn, would be allowed to follow any Anglican traditions and teachings that don’t clash with Catholic doctrine. Married priests could remain married, but could not become bishops.
Harvey said that would make them “second-class priests” in the Catholic Church.
The Vatican’s top doctrinal official said the move was made because so many Anglicans seemed to want to become Catholic.
“Those Anglicans who have approached the Holy See have made clear their desire for full, visible unity in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church,” Cardinal William Joseph Levada said.
“At the same time, they have told us of the importance of their Anglican traditions of spirituality and worship for their faith journey.”
Two years ago, former British prime minister Tony Blair, who appointed the currently liberal Archbishop of Canterbury to his post, made headlines by converting to Catholicism.
Although Anglicans split with Rome when King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment, the 16th-century schism was, in fact, part of the Reformation that also saw the evolution of Lutheranism in Germanic countries.
“Breakaway conservative Anglicans in Canada, however, showed no interest Tuesday in joining the Pope’s new church.”
Not true. The media coverage about this suggests that this was a surprise move, something cooked up by the Pope to rustle Anglican sheep into his fold during a time of crisis in the Anglican Communion.
However, there are many traditional Anglicans who have been outside of the Anglican Communion for three decades or more. Many of these Anglicans have been extremely active in working for some form of Anglican-Roman Catholic unity in the past, and continued to work towards this type of solution.
Since the late 1970s, it has been increasingly unlikely that the Anglican Communion would be able to come into full communion with Rome as a whole, due to major doctrinal changes in many Anglican churches. However, why should this prevent those who always aspired to this type of Christian unity from entering into it? The idea here is to actually reach sacramental intercommunion – finding complete unity while respecting legitimate differences – as opposed to simply saying nice things about each other…
Moreover, the Toronto Star should realize that a number of conservative breakaway Anglicans in Canada (namely, the ACCC), were among the most active in working towards this type of solution. Bp. Robert Mercer, a former Anglican Communion bishop in Zimbabwe, and the former diocesan of the ACCC, was involved in Anglican-Roman Catholic ecumenical work for decades. Mercer, along with current Canadian diocesan Peter Wilkinson, were among the bishops who personally presented a formal request for this type of unity arrangement to the Holy See. Bishop Craig Botterill, an ACCC suffragan in Halifax, and diocesan chancellor, has also been extensively involved in this process.
So, to sum up: the Vatican is requesting to appeals from conservative Anglicans that have been going on for years, and Canadians have been at the forefront of this.
This is truly a very significant initiative by Rome. While it may (and should) strike fear into the hearts of the leadership of Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, the ACNA should view this initiative as a wake-up call to itself as well. The ACNA consists of a loose association of “evangelical” and “anglo-catholic” Anglicans who have set aside (for the moment) their theological and doctrinal differences in the face of the hersesies coming out of TEC and the ACoC. For those in the ACNA who have serious reservations regarding innovations such as womens ordination, lay presidency, etc., issues which ACNA has decided not to address at the present time for the sake of unity, this Papal initiative opens up a new and potentially attractive option which heretofor did not exist. It is my humble opinion that the ACNA leadership would be foolhardy to underestimate the implications of this initiative on its future. May I suggest that ANiC and the other constituent parts of the ACNA would do well to steer their new “province-in-formation” in a far more orthodox direction than has been evident in the past if they want to have a future. Hey guys, it’s time to realy walk the orthodox talk. Orthodox talk alone isn’t going to cut it anymore. Comments?
One thing to reflect on is how little understanding the mainstream media have of “who’s who” in the wider Anglican world.
The Vatican item directly
I think it is a win win situation, actually. People who want to keep Anglican styles of worship, but whose hearts yearn for Rome, and don’t have a problem with Papal infalibility and RC beliefs about Mary, now have a real alternative. People who love the smells and bells and are Anglo Catholic in the way that Bishop Don Harvey is (ie subscribe to Reformed theology, and do not subscribe to certain aspects of the teachings of the RC church), will be at home in ACNA. How is this a problem? It isn’t a salvation issue, at least I don’t believe it is.
Winter Traveler (#2), I can’t comment without understanding what you mean by “orthodox.” It’s one of those slippery words that’s hard to pin down (I’m also guilty of using it without bothering to define what I mean). The meaning I attach to it doesn’t extend much beyond full acceptance of the Nicene and Apostle’s Creed, and a high view of the authority of Scripture. It has little to do with ecclesiology or church tradition. My hunch is that you have something else in mind.
Henry (#3 and #4), I don’t understand your comments.
Winter Traveler:
1. I know of no movement towards lay presidency in ACNA. Do you?
2. I think it would be a mistake to attempt to catholicize ACNA (which is what I believe you mean by wanting to make it more orthodox) to prevent people from jumping the ship. People who accept most of Romanism but want to keep Anglican trappings will go; others won’t. No point in trying to ‘outbid’ the Pope here. Anf it would be wrong anyway. People who believe WO is right should not agree to something they believe to be wrong (eliminating WO) to placate others. ACNA already guarantees that it, as an organization, will not arrempt to change any of its component units’ policies in this matter.
Trying to make a church more orthodox, or to “make” it more anything, actually, never works. The church is what it is, and should always make its decisions based solely upon its understanding of what God has called it to be – it’s not a market positioning thing.
All Christians are called to unity. Not just those who are crazy about smells and bells. My great hope is that over the next couple of decades, as this movement becomes established, that it will truly have the potential to be a bridge between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants – the bridge that Anglicanism often thought itself called to be. If this is so, and if there is further progress towards unity between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, we could see a substantially united Christian Church within 25 years.
This is the time to work and pray harder than ever for that – there is a real possibility. Sacrifices will need to be made. This is the time for a new type of martyrdom – where people do not lay down their physical lives, necessarily, but do give them up to a greater cause, maybe putting career and family life on the line, being willing to risk every personal dream that they have had, for the chance to participate in a work of the Holy Spirit to renew the church. This is something that God is doing.
I remember that when I was a kid, my evangelical mother told me that she grew up thinking that Roman Catholics could not be real Christians – or, at least, probably would not be. Then, when I was nine years old, we moved next to an RC family, and the mother of the family became my mother’s regular prayer partner. Does it mean that my mother is now a Roman Catholic? No… but, there was a tremendous coming together. I think that God wants us to be willing to seriously consider the possibility of going even further.
If people have disagreements with Roman Catholicism, but aren’t completely sure where they stand – maybe they have questions, or want to hear more – this is the time to explore that. This creates incentive for a real dialogue, because people who come to the place where they are comfortable being united with the Roman Catholic Church now have a real option – they can be part of the Catholic Church while still keeping an Anglican identity. This may be an attractive option not just for some traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, but for Evangelical Anglicans, and even some other Evangelical Protestants…
If you were interested in ecumenical dialogue before, this is the call to become dead serious about it – because it means that Rome is actually willing to allow other churches to move towards full communion.
Michael David 8: I would suggest that this is a blow to ecumenism and no progress whatsoever toward Rome allowing other churches to be in full communion with it. It is an abandonment of serious work at ecumenism with the Anglican Communion, which Rome has clearly given up on. People taking advantage of this provision must renounce (many of the) beliefs of their previous church and adopt all of Rome’s. Very different than full communion between two bodies.
#9 Exactly. Besides, why should we assume that when Jesus prayed for us to be one, that He meant only one denomination? Why does unity necessarily mean giving up denominational identity? As far as I am concerned, anyone who confesses with his or her mouth that Jesus is Lord, and follows Him, is my brother or sister in Christ. Why couldn’t that have been the unity that Jesus was praying for?
I’m with Kate – the announcement sounds good to me, I don’t view it as threatening at all. It’s better than trying to keep up the pretense of Ecumenical talks that really don’t go anywhere.
For those folks who are happy to accede to RC doctrine and retain an Anglican veneer, good for them.
For those who cannot accede to elements of RC doctrine, or where the liberal Anglicans have taken the church in NA, ACNA remains a viable option.
Live and let live, I say.
Michael David [#8], you seem to imply that Eastern Orthodoxy functions as a contiguous bloc. This is not the case. There are divisions between Eastern Orthodox Churches (particularly Russian and Greek) that are every bit as deep as those between these Churches and Rome. It would be good to see more visible union and unity between the Churches, but there’s still a lot of work to do on all sides before this becomes a realistic possibility.
Warren (#6) Toral (#7)
My point exactly. The term “orthodox” in the context of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) in general and ACNA in particular is used widely but has never really been defined. For me it it goes beyond the creeds to include faithfulmess to biblical authority and two thousand years of accepted Christian tradition. ACNA talks about biblical authority and going back to our Anglican roots, but then conveniently tiptoes around the hard and potentially contentious issues like women’s ordination, remarriage after divorce, and other relatively recent innovations. In my previous post I used the innovations mentioned as examples. I am not aware of any specific movement regarding lay presidency within ACNA itself but I believe that within some self-identified “orthodox” dioceses worldwide, (+Peter Jensen’s Diocese of Sydney for example) lay presidency and open communion are currently under debate in the context of being secondary issues. Sound familiar? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting making the ACNA more Roman Catholic. However, I am suggesting making it more biblically faithful and historically traditional in it’s theology and doctrine. The anglo-cathloic element in the ACNA struggles with innovations like WO far more then perhaps the evangelical element. All I am suggesting is that if ACNA refuses to deal with these matter, our anglo-catholic brothers and sisters in ACNA now have a way to leave these innovations behind and still retain some semblence of their Anglican heritage and worship style.
#13 ACNA isn’t tiptoeing around the WO issue. The bishops have decided that it is a secondary issue, and the component members of ACNA are free to make their own decisions about it. That is dealing with the issue. Our Anglo Catholic brothers and sisters now have a choice, that is true. I don’t see that as a bad thing.
Winter Traveller (#13):
What does accepted mean? Accepted by who? Accepted by how many? The terminology problems never seem to end. Sigh.
Kate #14
Are you sure? I understand that, there being no consensus, the bishops agreed to disagree for the time being and to put the WO issue on the back burner for now for the sake of unity. Somehow I don’t think +Iker,+Schofield, and +Ackerman have agreed that WO is a secondary issue.
That is the general impression I have from following the news over the course of the formation of ACNA. If they hadn’t agreed that WO is a secondary issue, I don’t think ACNA would have got off the ground in the first place.
#15 Exactly. That is why I think it is dangerous to put tradition on the same footing as scripture.
Traveler – #2,13,16. I’m with you all the way! His Highness the Pope of Rome has forced the issues from secondary to primary. ACNA has been talking the talk on Orthodoxy. I have been concerned about the future of the founding fathers – Common Cause, especially ANiC. who woulda thunk His Majesty would be the one to turn on the front burners?
Kate #18 as I’m sure you know, according to our (ANiC) Bishop Don WO is a fait de compli as far as ANiC is concerned
Warren #15 c’mon enough of your red-herrings, do the math for cryin out loud!!!
Sorry In my last your reference # should have been 17.
As for 18 are you saying 2,000 years of tradition on scriptural matters doesn’t have a part to play?
#1 you said “However, why should this prevent those who always aspired to this type of Christian unity from entering into it? I would humbly point out that what is being talked about here has nothing to do with Christian unity, but church unity – a much different kettle of fish.
Stuck (#21), if I could even list them, do you think that everything I accept as valid Christian tradition (stretching back to the early church) would be equally acceptable to you? If you posted a laundry list of your “accepted” tradtions, do you think they would be received without controversy? ‘Nuff said.
The responses by Hiltz and RW are laughable. The RC are stealing anglican sheep right under their noses. RW and Hiltz, instead of taking on the roman challenge with an expose of Roman excesses in terms of a full fledged defense of the Biblical faith, are whimpering about and sounding foolish! Frankly with leaders like Hiltz and RW its understandable if “Anglicans” go to Rome.
Warren 22 “if I could even list them, do you think that everything I accept as valid Christian tradition (stretching back to the early church) would be equally acceptable to you?” Absolutely, provided those traditions are backed up with scripture. Whenever a church decision such as our current SSB’s is not adequately supported by scripture a portion of membership re-aligns/breaks away/reforms (pick your choice) we have many examples from July 16 1054 right up till tomorrow. Generations become hardened, truth suffers. This is why I so enjoy Lightfoot’s “Pride of Man” – “Turn around, go back down, back the way you came”
I am satisfied this answers your second question as well.
I don’t understand your “nuff said” – you didn’t say anything!
Kate #14 – “I don’t see that as a bad thing.” Have you ever heard the axiom; United we stand divided we fall? You do not necessarly have to subscribe to this, however it is my understanding that Jesus did.
Yeah right, Stuck (#24). Just like we can all nicely agree about what constitutes a sacrament, the mode of baptism, whether or not baptism should be restricted to professing believers, the signficance of the elements in the Lord’s Supper, how often communion should be administered, who can partake of communion, whether or not church membership should be formal, the role of the laity as opposed to the clergy, etc., etc., etc.. And I haven’t even touched on the really contenscious traditions such as hymns versus choruses, organs versus drums – and on and on ad nauseum. And proponents of every tradition will point to Scripture for support.
Of course, maybe I’m just blowing smoke. Why don’t you list those “traditions” that you believe have been broadly accepted by Christians over the past 2000 years and we’ll see if we can agree. I think my list would taper off very quickly after Sunday worship (of some form), preaching of the Word, baptism (of some form), and communion (of some form).
#25 On another thread you chided someone for confusing Christian unity and Church unity. Make up your mind, Stuck!
#26 The Salvation Army doesn’t baptise or have communion. So Christians don’t even all agree about that!
http://www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uki/www_uki.nsf/vw-sublinks/C28E39B2CA06E8F98025708A003D9FAC?openDocument
Kate (#27), good point! They aren’t against them, though (according to friends who spent several years in the Salvation Army).
Warren, long ago at #6 – the original reporting of this (CBC, others) was about the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCoC), which doesn’t seem to be part of ACNA. The ACCoC is part of the “Traditional Anglican Communion”. They are the 1970′s split-off, not to be confused with the Reformed Episcopal Church, the 1870′s split-off, which is a Common Cause partner and part of the Federation of Anglican Churches of the Americas – and is part of ACNA.
Per the Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican_movement#Unification_with_the_Roman_Catholic_Church the ACCoC initiated a process with Rome in 2007 – that fact in itself cast some light on recent statements.
Warren 26; Consensus is the key. We may not agree on what colour to paint the sanctuary, but we all recognize the need to repair the roof, if for no other reason than to get the catch pails off the altar.
Stuck (#31), when I was a deputy warden, I learned it can even be difficult to get agreement on repairing the roof. Never underestimate the ability of Christians to disagree with each other (although I think it is often out of a sincere conviction of the truth rather than any animosity towards the person they are disagreeing with). I guess this lends credence to your frequent theme of unity.
You nicely dodged my question by the way. You have yet to list anything under the category of “two thousand years of accepted Christian tradition.” All you’ve done is said I threw out a red herring.
I subsribe to a “theological word of the day” e-mail and just received this (see #6 for context):
It works for me.
Warren # 33 It works for me too, and should answer your #14.
It seems to me to be fully supportive of Mr. Travellers #’s 2 & 13.
As for your #32 “You nicely dodged my question by the way. You have yet to list anything under the category of “two thousand years of accepted Christian tradition.” All you’ve done is said I threw out a red herring.” This to is answered by your excellent supplied definition – “the concept generally means recognizing and accepting the fundamental teachings and doctrines held by all Christians of all time, everywhere”. In this so called post-modern era three major shifts from “two-thousand years of accepted Christianity (read ‘orthodoxy’)” come to mind. 1. changes to biblical disciplines applied to marriage. 2 Women’s Ordination. 3 Same-sex Blessings.
To put it another way – all schism down through the ages is a departure from ORTHODOXY. Orthodoxy is the key to unity. Finally as has been said earlier in this stream by my new best friend Winter Traveller to which I have feebly attempted to defend, unless ANiC/ACNA start “walking the talk” on orthodoxy than that faith “Once given to the saints” NOTICE IT SAYS ONCE!!! will again be compromised.
AMEN?
P.S. – I sure would like to subscibe to that “Theological word of the day” – Care to share?
Theological word of the day website (part of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries through which I’ve taken a couple of online theology courses):
http://wordoftheday.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/
There is a “receive via e-mail” link on the right hand side that leads to this:
http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=TheologicalWordOfTheDay
The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada’s official items have been posted; start at http://anglicancatholic.ca/documents/romeanglican.htm which is a new item about the 2007 letter to the Pope. Then a press release is linked (pdf) at http://anglicancatholic.ca/documents/2009-10-23-ACCCresponse.pdf. There’s no actual date for a changeover given.
Henry (#36), your second link is corrupt. It has a period at the end that shouldn’t be there. This should work:
http://anglicancatholic.ca/documents/2009-10-23-ACCCresponse.pdf
So I’m wondering (with respect to the ACCC press release), since doctrinal differences with the RCC are seemingly unimportant, why was the ACCoC formed? Why didn’t people just hop over to the RCC directly? If biblical doctrine wasn’t an issue, why were differences in traditions, liturgy and ecclesial structure an impediment? Elements of evangelicalism occasionally get mocked on this blog for their divisiveness over non-doctrinal issues (e.g., worship style, music, acceptable Bible translation, etc.). It seems like a direct parallel can be drawn with the ACCoC.
Good question, I don’t know. Because they wanted to stay Anglican?
Sorry about that link.
It appears that the Traditional Anglican Communion as a whole is behind this; but I couldn’t chance to speak for them at all. One person I do know who moved to the ACCoC did so because of a) strong beliefs on the priesting of women and b) attachment to Anglican heritage/worship. That seems like an inadequate sample on which to have a conclusion; however, presumably both will be still there under the Apostolic Constitution.
But, I presume, that rejoined to Rome, TAC will have only 38 Articles?