I wonder how I might be reacting to the news of the Pope’s offer to Anglican Catholics if I were a supporter of women bishops? With the proclamation coming like a bolt from the blue there is a danger that, alongside the conservative Catholics, emotions might be running high and threatening to eclipse level thinking. I would probably feel a sense of indignation that ++Rowan was not consulted sooner. I might be alarmed at the prospect of long term damage to the Church of England. And, quite possibly, a deep rooted and very English brand of ‘anti-papalism’ might be causing me to grind my teeth.
But as my shock ebbed a little I might pause and reflect. Could this actually be a blessing and not a curse? It is far to early for any decisions but let us imagine that the vast majority of FIF want to go. Might it be possible to work WITH the Vatican in creating space for those who in good conscience cannot accept the ordination of women? After all this group of people, many of them principled and decent, are clearly journeying on a very different path to the wider Church of England. A path which is clearer in closer sympathy with the teaching of Rome.
A generous working together would send out a wonderful message of love to the wider world who are watching us with fascination. It would also bring our churches closer together and, wonderfully for those in favour of the move, it would allow for women bishops to be consecrated with (almost) immediate effect. Naturally the revision group would still need to find a solution for evangelicals who oppose this innovation but a ‘headship argument’ is surely easier than an ‘ecclesiological argument’ to sort out practically?
I plead with everyone to look accross the pond to America and see that fighting over fabric and going down a bitter path of litigation is hugely destructive to ALL. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of involved, surely NOBODY can think slashing mission budgets to fund lawyer’s fees is a good way for Christians to spend their money? Ask those who divorce if avoiding lawyers is beneficial? All will agree that they are best avoided, but in order for this to happen fairness on both sides of the dispute is vital.
so I would suggest that we divide the spoils and graciously allow people to decide where God is calling them. Some FIF priests will have to admit that their congregations have no desire to leave, they should resign and respect that decision. But where the vast majority do want to go, why not let them?
I do not have a legal brain but it seems churlish to suggest that a truly conservative Catholic church does not belong to its people in the pews. The congregation are the ones who built it, maintained it, cleaned it, worshipped in it, paid the bills and continue to use it day by day. Whereas the majority of those who oppose our brand of Catholicity have never set foot in it and already have a vast range of churches to choose from within the locality. Any churches which are a hung parliament could have futures decided pastorally between Diocesan and flying bishops. Heaven forbid- we might even SHARE church buildings -leading to chances for social interaction and sharing of bills.
In truth the number of ‘C’ parishes is fairly small. The wider church would not really miss buildings it has no wish to worship in and clearly the people leaving will need somewhere to pray. We are not blessed with strong finances after all, many of us worship amongst the poor and the outcast.
So I am praying for a measured and reasonable response from all sides. It is not hard to see that those who uphold a traditional theology of priesthood have not left the Church of England behind, rather it has been leaving them behind. Everyone knows we are holding irreconcilable beliefs in tension. We all accept that an in-house victory for FIF is a blow to the full ecclesial power of women bishops and that a victory for women bishops is a fatal blow to those unable to accept this move. We have hit stale mate. Perhaps God himself just threw a dignified ‘get out of jail free’ card onto the table. But to get out free we need to abide by his laws. And that means loving neighbour as self, loving those we hate and giving not just the shirt from our back but even more to appease our brothers and sisters in need.
For God’s sake and for the sake of his church. Let us stay friendly and reasonable as we look to the future together.
At last! Something we can agree upon – the need to avoid litigation. I see the point of letting you (not assuming you’re going!) take buildings with you. After all the C/E has been burdened with an over supply of buildings for many years. Whilst it might make sense in Tunbridge Wells where there are far too many churches of all denominations, it would leave those Anglo Catholics who wish to remain in the C/E in Tunbridge Wells with no spiritual home.
It would be almost impossible in the rural situation where the Parish Church is the only building. Any suggestions?
Yes a good suggestion. Why not SHARE the building. One cummunity meeting at 9 the other at 11 and sharing social, fabric and other concerns?!
You well know that if it came to a choice between their parish church and Rome most laity will choose their church. Which is a strong indication that they should not therefore be moving to Rome in any case.
These calls for negotiation are done in the full knowledge that unless you manage to take the building with you very few in the pew will follow you to Rome. Perhaps your constituency should have been more careful with the accusations of heresy, insulting references to ‘priestesses’, and the general denigration of the CofE now that you wish to ‘negotiate’ for property.
Anglican, I DO know that buildings matter. But the flip side might be:
Why hold an authentically Catholic congregation hostage within a church that opposes their theology and also refuses them structural provision?
It seems mean to me. IF losing a few parishes was the sacrifice needed to allow women bishops is it not worth paying. Your attitude suggests you want to have cake and eat it.
Finally the Pope’s move allows us to keep our Anglican patrimony so it is designed FOR those who struggle with where the Anglican church is heading but who endorse a Catholic Anglicanism. They do not need to GO to Rome that is the point.
One of your more measured pieces – you make some sort of effort to enter the mindset of ‘liberals’, just as some of us ‘liberals’ have tried to do with you, sometimes eliciting a sympathetic response, sometimes less so.
Obviously, there are huge problems here. Personally, I doubt that many FiF congregations will follow their priests, if the latter ‘pope’. I certainly know some that most certainly will not. As for the argument that church buildings should belong to their congregations, there is some force in that, but the assumption that such congregations will go with their existing priests is again moot and even more the assumption that past generations were working towards this end. On the other hand, no one can deny that there are too many churches, and I feel – as I have said before – that relations often improve after formal separation. On a larger front, I have no doubt at all that the present Vatican regime is out of step with most of its flock on WO, as on practically everything else, and out of step also with any serious attempt to keep religion compatible with other truths. Consequently, sometime in the future (rather soon, I think) there will undoubtedly be many RC converts returning to the much superior church or the Roman church itself will be so transformed that many of the present polarities will dissolve. From that point of view, if you are living amicably alongside the rest of us Anglicans, it will be in practice much easier for you to recognise your error and return to the better church. It will be nice to have you back.
I agree with the basic premise of the post: there may well be opportunities and benefits for all sides as a result of change. However, it will take time to see and to understand what these opportunities are. But if this whole process is to be conducted in an atmosphere of mistrust and an assumption that the only worthwhile outcome is the status quo, why don’t we give up now?
The secular world would like nothing more than to see organised religion implode in the this country. And that is the risk here. I would far prefer it that any fire is saved for those who would rather that atheism took over from Rome as the universal “faith”.
Thanks for the more conciliatory tone, which is much needed on all sides. And for putting yourself in the shoes of those with whom you disagree – this is never easy. Lobbing insults never makes for the sort of constructive discussion you are calling for. Maybe a bit more empathy towards you, at what is clearly an exciting time, from those of us who do not share your Rome fever, would not go amiss.
But we do need to be honest about what is being proposed, which I think you are playing down too much. You say that people do not need to go to Rome, that they will not become Roman Catholic, but that is precisely what is on offer. They will become fully Roman Catholic, in communion with Rome. They will no longer be in communion with Canterbury. I am not saying that this is in itself bad, it may be right for some, but absolutely clarity is needed about what is being presented to congregations.
The sharing a building. While that is probably an unrealistic pipe dream, but I must admit the very concept of it made me smile.
As an American Episcopal Priest, this is the first time I can ever recall in the ongoing saga here over property litigation and all that, that I have heard ANYONE float that idea. Actually sharing in the building, as we all share in the one bread.
Now that is truly refreshing.
I have found that there is a lot of bitterness in some mainstream C of E circles about the move by the Vatican, others are indifferent to it and Anglo Catholics are quietly miffed by mainstreamers who are getting shirty about it. Our diocese has far more ordained women than men; congregations could not be much smaller and the exodus has already happened. The sticking point is buildings, I cannot imagine the C of E giving up churches, rectories and parish land to what they will invariably class as a schism. A sharing arrangement is probably the only route, but there seem to be all sorts of issues with that, albeit ones that should not be a problem to a Christian.
Very very few will go. A handful of ‘priests’, and that’ll be that. Bluffs have been well and truly called. Hey ho.
Thanks for the reply Rod. The answer though lies in the middle, yes people will become 100% RC BUT not a variety anyone would recognise. This would be a brand new variety of RC with a recognizably Anglican tradition and patrimony. Hence it IS fair to state that those worshipping at S Barnabas, for example, would not notice ANY difference from one Sunday to the next
“Hence it IS fair to state that those worshipping at S Barnabas, for example, would not notice ANY difference from one Sunday to the next.”
You cannot possibly state that with any certainty, since you don’t know what liturgy you would be permitted to use by Rome (and also you presume that you would be ordained – you might not be, but if you were it certainly would not be immediately, and you would not be permitted to say Mass until you were.)
If you currently use the Roman Missal then Rome can rightly ask just what it is that makes you liturgically ‘Anglican’. And they may well insist that you use their approved liturgy for the Ordinariate. When asked at the Vatican press conference what liturgy the Ordinariate would use, di Noia held up a copy of the US Anglican Use “Book of Divine Worship”, and said it would be based on that model. How ironic would that be – that many of you refused to use ‘Anglican’ liturgy while in the CoE but would have to do so when in the Ordinariate.
Fascinating and helpful stuff. I write as a catholic Priest of the Church of England, but at present resident in Brisbane Australia.
While a Parish Priest in England in the 70′s, I had the great delight of sharing our new Church (in an urban deprived area) with the local Roman Catholic Community. Unfortunately after 5 years they felt the need to build their own Church building (to our great regret).
So it is perfectly posssible to find creative ways to share resources, and the possibilities are endless.
I often tell the story of how we had to work hard on Maunday Thursday to find a way to Reserve the Blessed Sacrament from the two communities to be ready for the Liturgy on Good Friday. It is all perfectly possible, but it does depend on good will, and a love of the brethren!
I cannot beleive that it is beyond the wit, or the Christian charity of the Church of England to be generous and flexible in finding solutions to such delicate issues.
Personally also I cannot think that there is no possibility for a creative solution of a genuinely “bridge” church, where those who choose to avail themselves of Benedict’s offer are also assured by ABC that they can remain as loved brethren of the C of E. Now what a joy that would be! (I dream!)
Best wishes as you think and pray all this through.
I’m still not sure what to make of all this, being from a different ‘tradition’ within the CofE, but something has been puzzling me, I wonder if you could help.
Sorry if this seems an incredibly basic question, but why are Anglo-Catholics members of the Church of England, and not the Roman Catholic church? I listened to some of the FiF podcasts, with several people referring to the ‘Holy Father’ as if he were their principal spiritual leader, and to the Roman church as if it were their spiritual home, rather than the Anglican church. Is it that Anglo Catholics would have been Roman Catholics were it not for particular aspects of RC teaching, but these have been eclipsed by changes in Anglicanism? What motivates people like yourself to be Anglicans, rather than Roman Catholics?
This isn’t a loaded question, I’m just trying to understand things better.
Having been torn from Peters Church and having been created by man, the Church of England will be bound to failure.
In the end Barnabas of course went his own way too.
It is a good question! The answer is that since the Catholic revival a form of Catholicism has thrived within the Church of England. However strange it may seem the Anglican church taught me all I believe, it nurtured me as a Catholic. as this has happened I have grown acutely aware tha it is an anomoly an that we don’t really fit the mould! This tension has become more acute since the C of E became more liberal. Ironically the more inclusive it has tried to be the more narrow the Anglican church has become and it has now got to the point where it finds Conservatvie Catholic theology intolerable, mainly because it is patriarchal and authoritative and counter cultural, Et voilà – we end up with the strange situation we are now in!
One of the comments made here is correct in that modernism and relativism is well represented amongst members and the clergy of the Catholic Church. This is to be expected (if deeply regretted). However the difference between the Church and the CofE is that no-one expects that they will be invited to vote on whether or not these views should be reflected in the Catechism. The Church’s counter-culturalism (especially in these times) is undoubtedly a mark of its status as The Church. Our modernists keep believing that things will change with the every Papal election and they never do! Deo Gratias.