So after a night’s sleep what is there to say about ‘Be Faithful’? Sadly nothing overly encouraging, as might have been expected. Our Evangelical brothers and sisters, sincere, upright and worthy of our friendship though they may be, are wanting to progress down a path that is more not less protestant than is presently the case. And, as ever, whilst the determination for mission is strong, the understanding of ecclesial theology is weak. If this is to be the future of Anglicanism….what role would Anglo-Catholics have to play?
Because yesterday, despite seeing a hand of friendship extended , no real desire was shown to include Anglo-Catholics. The worship, style, presenters, intercessors, examples of good practice, decisions concerning what constitutes primary and secondary issues all reflected an evangelical mindset. We Catholics had been invited but not really embraced and that is a shame.
+Edwin Barnes, one time Bishop of Richborough and one time principal of S. Stephen’s House Theological College sent me his following reflection:
All who prayed during the performance were Evangelicals. Why no Catholics? Equally, all who spoke of church growth &c… yet I could have provided (and the PEVs even more) numerous examples of good practice.
Why was everyone so censorious? “There were no Bible-believing Christians in that area, so we planted….” But I KNOW Headington and two of the priests there. Why undermine them?
It was good to hear John Hind speak of Church order; but others referred to women’s ordination and consecration as second order matters, not comparable to Gospel defining issues. Not for me they’re not.
I was dismayed at Jim Packer’s lauding of the Articles. Bashing us with them seems little different to me from bashing Americans with the Canons. Man-made, of one time, and not Gospel.
After all this I cannot see how there can be common cause between Catholics and Evangelicals. We are looking to going home to the Universal Church, in Communion with the Holy Father and half Christendom. They seem to want to perpetuate a sixteenth century accident.
If I blogged, this would be on my blog. Instead I shall send it to a few friends to see how you respond.
God bless.
Ever, +Edwin
I would have to agree with +Edwin. Whilst we share concerns with Evangelicals over abandonment of the faith from within, and whilst we both can say the creed and believe it, there is simply so much we disagree about. Not least our vision for what the church should be- whilst Catholics dream of a day when Christendom is united under the papacy, our Evangelical brethren dream about lay celebration and church planting without the permission of Bishops!
Thus the Fellowship of Continuing Anglicans can be assured of my prayers and best wishes. I think this fellowship will play a very significant role in the future of Christianity on these shores. But once again it seems we Anglo-Catholics are alone, a tiny group who might fall down the gap created when the liberals and evangelicals tear apart from one another.
More than ever we must stand together and pray, trusting God to provide for our future. Which is not all bad; standing together can be great fun as the final photographs demonstrate. Above all yesterday was a delightful opportunity to catch up with my brother priests, who are very dear to me. Wherever my future lies, it is with them:
NB: I am grateful to John Richardson, an Evangelical and familiar face from my time in Brentwood, for sharing his views. Interestingly he upholds much of what is said here. Read his comments here
Fr Ed
Many of your concerns were mine as well, particularly bearing in mind some of the talk such as that Fr Ivan had to endure which fortunately I did not hear repeated on the day.
Just speaking as an evangelical, many have not been exposed to anglo-catholic practice and theology, although flying bishops have provided security it has produced something of a ghetto mentality and left the rest of us in ignorance.
So I would say if you have concerns tell the evangelicals about them – loudly. They may just be ignorant! The best way of doing this is by blogging and you and Anglican Wanderings are leading the way in this.
One of the reasons I went yesterday was on your prompting. Wish we had met up – I could have done with a drink afterwards.
[btw for those who hung on to the bitter end there was a perfectly traditional communion presided over by Bishop Nazir-Ali although an hour late]
On balance I am glad I went.
I, too, received the e-mail from Bishop Edwin and have replied to him sympathetically, since I shared the same anxieties as he expressed and as are expressed here. (See my blog for further on this and other reflections.)
Overall, although FCA included Anglo-Catholics in its organization, many of those on the platform did not seem to have included Anglo-Catholicism in their thinking (though I believe some had tried!).
However – and this is a big ‘however’ – we do have to face the fact, well put by Jim Packer in my view, that the Church of England did embrace the Reformation, that the Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer establish this in terms of our ‘Confession’ and our Liturgy, and that Anglo-Catholicism involved, from the outset, a conscious ‘friction’ (to put it no more bluntly) with these historical facts and theological statements.
This is not to proclaim a Protestant ‘triumphalism’, but it is to observe that if FCA is to embrace Evangelicals and Catholics in true cooperation, certain facts have to be faced and, at least in part, resolved. It is no good, in other words, Evangelicals simply ‘agreeing to differ’ with Anglo-Catholics because we both dislike women bishops, and it is equally no good Anglo-Catholics saying they’ve never really had a problem with the Church of England because it is just a vestibule of Rome.
I have often reflected sadly on the fact that many Anglo-Catholics probably do belong in Rome and will probably go there. It saddens me because (a) I think this is a mistake on their part (otherwise I’d be a Roman Catholic myself) and (b) I would genuinely hate to see them go. A rapprochement within Anglicanism is, I believe, possible. But it is going to take some tough talking.
Perhaps what is needed now is an Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical consultation of the kind that almost got off the ground a few years ago.
In friendship – and sorry I didn’t get to share one of those pints.
Thanks for these comments. I think we do well to pause and celebrate the clear DESIRE both here and on the day, for mutual understanding and co-operation. That in itself is a wonderful thing.
I think your idea concerning serious consultation is essential John. And I think there are serious things that need thrashing out, not least this bizarre suggestion that women’s ordination is somehow second order.
So much to do, a mountain to climb indeed, but I believe it worth the effort. If what began yesterday could end in a bringing together of Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical and prayer book middle roader, as an orthodox reflection of the church we were raised in -but now seems lost- it would be fantastic.
But, for now, that looks remote….perhaps we need to see what God has in store for us, pray for each other and KEEP TALKING!
And a shame you did not both join us for a pint…it was most delicious!
One of the many difficulties of the present situation is that divisions aren’t clear-cut but many people have ‘patch-work’ loyalties. ‘Traditionalists vs Liberals’ OK, but many ‘liberals’ are Anglo-Catholic (in some sense), Evangelicals include those who support and those who oppose WO, etc. etc.
‘Above all yesterday was a delightful opportunity to catch up with my brother priests, who are very dear to me. Wherever my future lies, it is with them.’
That’s a fine sentiment. Another ‘division’ insufficiently acknowledged is that between priests and their flocks. I know people who go to very evangelical churches who completely disagree with their priests’ views on homosexuality, I know FiF members who attend non-FiF churches, I know people who attend FiF churches who have no problem with WO, etc. etc. I would be surprised if most Anglicans didn’t have the same experiences.
My point is that, if FiF priests migrate to Rome, I am not convinced that many will take their congregations with them (again: I know some FiF congregations that most certainly would not). So I think that FiF priests, like everybody else in this complicated situation, have responsibilities to people they don’t wholly agree with. I include myself (very Liberal) in this. I think I have resonsibilities both to women priests (whose validity I accept) and to those who oppose them. So I am pleased when I hear Wally Benn. I don’t think his remarks were ‘blackmail’ (standard Liberal charge – already made on ‘Thinking Anglicans’): I think they make sense – the only sense.
Cheers.
I suggest an Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical consultation over a pint.
I derive much comfort from the fact that FiF priests generally seem to drink bitter, not lager. Now, if one could be assured that the same was true of Evangelicals, all disagreements could be resolved amicably.
As for the lager-drinkers, let’s just excommunicate them.
Dear Administrator,
I understand the demands of group loyalty. But this is a public medium which you have chosen.
‘This is not for Affirming Catholics, who are neither Catholic nor affirming, nor is it a movement for Liberal Evangelicals, who are neither liberal in the true sense or evangelical! This is a robust society for bold Christians.’
OK, a paraphrase of one of the speakers, but a speaker whom you have commended. It’s actually offensive.
I think you have a moral duty as a Christian and as a priest to come out of your protective shell and respond (yes, actually, respond) to the points I have made. Please don’t wimp out.
You wrote:
What was written was not paraphrase but a direct quote. I suggest you take up the point with +Ackerman. And if he is being slightly grumpy, you might consider that he has been deposed recently- that is removed from the church of his baptism. He has genuinly suffered dreadfully and the last few years have taken their toll. Trust me, he is a very genuine chap and has been treated disgracefully by TEC (theology aside)
Fortunately that scenario is not the case in the UK and we can hope for better. That said I would question the Catholicity of Aff Cath (they seem to promote notions that lead us ever further from both Rome and Constantinople) and at last summer’s General Synod they showed a frightening inability/unwillingness to affirm those who oppose WO on theological grounds.
But let us stay friendly. I really appreciated your posts and will take you up on that beer anytime.
Many thanks. Agree entirely with your last para.
I wholeheartedly agree with what John has said on this and earlier posts. Particularly about the primacy of the eucharist/mass – this is the thing that should unite catholics of all shades, rather than an unholy alliance with conservative evangelicals. Is it really a surprise that this is not working out?
I must say that the comments about Affirming Catholics (quoted or otherwise) are disingenuous and sound like sour grapes. We will inevitably disagree, but we should at least respect each other’s ingegrity.
Admistrator above commented on +Ackerman’s treatment by TEC viz: “And if he is being slightly grumpy, you might consider that he has been deposed recently- that is removed from the church of his baptism. He has genuinly suffered dreadfully and the last few years have taken their toll. Trust me, he is a very genuine chap and has been treated disgracefully by TEC (theology aside)”
In fact, Ackerman’s treatment has more to do with polity than theology. Ackerman is deposed for violation of the Canons of The Episcopal Church. In the U.S., his removal from church roles (the deposition process) is pro forma. Given that TEC argues it is a hierarchical church, a logical consequence is the Church is responsible for the actions of its clergy. The deposition process removes the clergyperson from the church thus removing the Church from any responsibility for his or her further actions.
Rod I am with you regarding generosity and respect. But we must also ask the tough qeustions. What is the Mass is and what validates it, a love of smoke does not make a Catholic.
Affirming Catholicism has -sadly -evolved ever more into a group that passionately defends gay rights, passionately pushes for women in holy orders….but is almost entirely silent on promotion of Catholic doctrine.
When everything this group stands for leads the Church of England further AWAY from both Rome and Constantinople and the clear teaching of the Church throughout the ages…how can we claim them to be Catholic? Or put another way – where IS the Catholicism they claim to Affirm?
Seriously it poses a real problem because it is paper thin theology. Or being wicked ‘all chasuble but no knickers’ When at Westcott I saw all manner of people signing up to Affirming Catholicism- many of whom disbelieved in the real presence (!)- it was just viewed as a political move to liberalise the establishment.
Finally I would draw attention to the very notion of respect you speak of. The manner in which this group has dealt with FIF etc is tragic…..after all WE are not consistently voting for their extinction but sadly they ARE voting for ours….as was clearly seen in last July’s Synod.
The proof is in the pudding.
Clearly there is no love lost between Fif and Aff Cath – I wouldn’t pretend otherwise. But I take issue with your “closed shop” definition of catholicism which would exclude anyone who is not hardline on WO and abortion.
As for the “validity” of the mass – what is the position of the Church of Rome these days on this and Anglican orders? You would know better than I.
There is love lost as it happens. Many of my contempories were AffCaffs and some remain friends. I am not ‘closing the shop’ on what constitutes Catholicity just enquiring how a movement that seems totally at odds with the teaching of the church down the ages, and the teaching of Rome AND Constaninople can possibly said to be ‘Catholic’ Especially as many of its members do not even claim to adhere to even the most basic Catholic doctrines….that is not everyone of course but a good many. Let me be generous and admit that others DO yearn for a greater Catholicity…yet I am not sure they will find it here. Ultimately it is VERY telling that the group gets LESS Catholic the further down its chosen road it moves….and that is something many of my liberal Catholics friends accept with heavy heart.
As for Validity Rome has classed us all null and void. But in reality you will find a much greater openess and respect for orthodox Anglo-Catholics than for others. The message to us is often…come home. That would not be the message given to AffCaffs
I do not intend to be mean but just want to point out that one cannot have one’s cake and eat it. Either you adhere to Catholic (universal) teaching or you don’t…
‘Either you adhere to Catholic (universal) teaching or you don’t…’
Dear Father Ed.,
I find it terribly depressing when people resort to such polarities. They don’t reflect reality. They don’t reflect your own reality. Oftentimes I feel that I’ve been too abrasive with chaps such as yourself, trying to winkle you out, trying to get it spelled out what you would settle for. I am guilty of such abrasiveness. On the other hand, guys such as yourself constantly trot out these non-negotiable polarities, which consign guys such as myself (that doesn’t greatly matter – I am a marginal liberal) and Affirming Catholics to outer darkness. It’s terrible. It’s a gross and ignorant over-simplication. It is deeply, deeply unChristian. Jesus would have despised – does now despise – its grossness. It doesn’t properly reflect your own complexity, inter multa alia member of a cell group that includes women priests, whose priesthood you do not accept.
Best wishes.
Hold your horses John! I am condemning nobody to outer hell here!! I am merely arguing, quite logically I think, that even under the most generous of descriptions-AffCaths are not really very Catholic. CHRISTIAN they may be, wonderful you may find them, but it is not a recognisably Catholic spirituality or doctrine they follow. Otherwise they would seek to obey even where it rankled, conform even where it challenged and seek unity with the church of the ages and the teaching of Rome and Con.
As to the validity of what IS being espoused….it is not for my judgement. But pretty much any def. of Catholic that goes deeper than ‘someone who likes vestments and Mass’ will suggest that the policy of Affirming Catholicism sits out there on the margins…tis all I am pointing out. Affirming Liberalism (with a love of beautiful liturgy) might be a more apt name for this group. And nothing wrong with that
Dear Administrator,
I’m not particularly an admirer of AffCaths (though I have friends who are AffCath). I plough my own little furrow. But I do want all shades (well, pretty well all) to get on and remain in communion. Hope you’ve read A.T. Lincoln’s recent piece in ‘Ecclesia’ persuasively arguing that for Paul ‘koinonia’ did not require absolute agreement and conversely that to refuse ‘koinonia’ to fellow Christians because of disagreement was absolutely wrong. Present Pope seems unlikely to accept that, but, interestingly and ever so significantly, it is the much-maligned C of E that has intuited this truth, offering comunion to ‘all who normally receive communion in their own church’. What a magnificant church it is! How I love her!
I’m glad you added ‘Con’ to Rome – most of you guys are besotted only with Rome. I’d add too Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostalists, Sally Army, and others. There aren’t sufficient reasons to accept the Vatican’s claim that it (and only it) represents Catholicism (the ‘see of Peter’ etc.). Indeed, boring academic as I am, I think it’s an elementary category error, confusing physical location with spiritual (Jesus’ body, which is also the body of all Christians).
Can you be the same ET who wrote on TA? There you seemed to use the term ‘the church’ in the sense of the Church of England. An awful lot of this wrangling could be short-circuited if you guys accepted that that, actually, was your church.
John.
“… we do have to face the fact, well put by Jim Packer in my view, that the Church of England did embrace the Reformation …”
I am a Roman Catholic, so I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I am a historian of 16th Century England, and well-enough read in intra-Anglican debates, and I would like top suggest that the point of disagreement, factually as well as theologically, cones with thwe word “embrace” in John Richardson’s comment.
After all, in the 16th Century the organ of self-expression of the Church of England was the Convocations, which in practice meant the Convocation of Canterbury, as that of York, when it did meet at all, met usually well after the fact, as when in 1535 it had no alternative to accepting the Royal Supremacy, but death for treason, and the crown of martyrdom. The Canterbury Convocation accepted the Royal Supremacy in a sense in 1532, in that the rump of its Upper House did, but all future changes down to 1553 were simply forced on it by the Crown. In 1553 it overwhelmingly, after a free debate, endorsed the Mass and transubstantiation, and in 1559, when the Crown consulted it about “Reformation” it reaffirmed its three articles of 1553 and added to them two more: one upholding the authority of the papacy, and the other denying and repudiating the competence of the State to “reform” the Church.
Of course, the “Reformation” was forced on the Church of England regardless, and by 1562, once the episcopate, the cathedral clergy and the universities had been thoroughly purged of Catholics, those of Refomed sentiments who had been obtruded in their place, “embraced” the 39 Articles etc. I suppose that can be read as the Church of England “embracing” the Refomation, in much the same sense that the purged remnant of the House of Commons in 1648 can be said to demonstrate that Parliament “embraced” the execution of the king and the abolition of the monarchy, or that the first meeting in 1918 of the Congress of Soviets demonstrated that Russia had “embraced” Communism.
Of course, my remarks would be of “merely” historical interest if the Church of England had maintained a requirement of strict confessional subscription to the 39 Articles — but even in that case it would have been possible for ingenious souls to invoke the Royal Declaration of 1630 (subsequently prefixed to the Articles) which required an adherence to the grammatical and literal sense” of the Articles, together with that Canon of 1571 requiring that that the doctrine delivered in all “preaching and taching” be in accordance with that delivered by the “Catholic bishops and fathers” of the early Church, and to assert that the effect of this was to make the teaching of these Catholic fathers and bishops the criterion for interpreting the Articles, and not the views of their framers, or those of Cranmer and the other English Reformers. However, the Church of England has abandoned any requirement of “confessional subscription,” and that being the case, I do not see why Anglicans who view themselves as Catholics should have any scruples about trying to reverse the “usurpation” of 1559 by a Counter-Revolution, or Restoration, as auspicious, in ecclesiastical terms, as those political events of 1660 or 1991.
This is precisely my understanding of the situation. Writers such as Baverstock and Hole argued robustly that the C of E never ‘embraced’ the BCP, and I think that generally fits the facts, although the canons of 1604 could be used to worry this argument.
I had myself been contemplating trying to look at the accounts of the debates in Parliament, and of those in Convocation, in 1559 with a view to establishing that the latter were a direct response to, and thus definitive repudiation of, the Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy. Thus would the C of E be shown not only not to have embraced but formally to have rejected the Reformation.
E L Mascall says somewhere that those who most applaud the Reformation are ill-placed to assert the immutability of a status quo.
Thanks, Bill.
Fr. Hunwicke,
These, then, are your essential reading material:
*Faith By Statute: Parliament and the Settlement of Religion, 1559* by Norman L. Jones (London, 1982: Royal Historical Society), esp. pp. 96-7, but the whole is worth reading.
*The Cambridge Connection and the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559* by Winthrop S. Hudson (Durham, NC, USA, 1980: Duke University Press), esp. chs. VI, VII & VIII.
Both, however, are contradicted in some respects by the following article, “The Chapel Royal, the First Edwardian Prayer Book, and Elizabeth’s Settlement of Religion, 1559,” by Roger Bowers, *Historical Journal* 43 (2000), pp. 317-344.
Bowers is a musicologist, and his strongest evidence of what the Queen really wanted in 1559 comes from music manuscripts, but I think his reconstruction of what was going on in the House of Commons in February/March 1559, and in particular his suggestion that there may have been two separate bills, a government bill restoring 1549, and a “backbench” bill to restore 1552 (with the latter receiving surreptitious encouragement from a number of “front benchers” who wanted a more Protestant Prayer Book than 1549) has a lot to commend it (as opposed to Jones’ suggestion [pp. 91-2] that it is simply a matter of sloppy record-keeping, and that it is just a matter of two readings of the same bill).