The latest newsletter from o
ne of the Catholic Societies reached Hibaldstow this morning and it included the following:
“Those who join the Ordinariate must be supportive of those who remain in the Church of England to work for that honoured position; just as those who remain in the Church of England must be supportive of those who join the Ordinariate.”
A noble suggestion, but how exactly does it work? So far I know that various (Anglican) Catholic Societies have given money to the Ordinariate and some (former) clergy have been allowed to remain in their Parsonage Houses until July. Certainly, those who have joined the Ordinariate have ‘left much behind’ but they are now a part of the Roman Catholic Church – they are no longer Anglicans and, as previously stated, their (re)Confirmations and (re)Ordinations raise doubts that any kind of ‘equality of status’ can continue to exist between them and those who remain in the Church of England above and beyond our common Baptism (which some have been quick to acknowledge). Mutual support naturally requires some degree of ‘mutuality’ and I can’t help but wonder what kind of ’mutuality’ can or does exist between the two groups, other than a sense of ’shared history’?
Having acknowledged the people (and money) that have crossed the Tiber I can’t help but wonder ‘how’ the Ordinariate can hope to ‘support’ those who are staying in the C of E? What does it do for us? Yes, it puts flesh on the bones of the Apostolic Constitution, but if that wasn’t your cup of tea in the first place then what else can it do for you? The various Ordinariate Blogs appear to do little more than tell us how wonderful it all is, how terrible it all was, what it feels like to ‘come home’ and then urge us to join in the much-talked-of ‘second wave’.
Don’t get me wrong, I wish those who have joined the Ordinariate the very best for the future and rejoice that they have found somewhere that is right for them. But the ‘parting of friends’ is just that and one wonders if a bit of ‘distance’ might not be a positive thing even if it means some of the Catholic Societies ‘going to the wall’? By and large, the Roman Catholic Church does a wonderful job of supporting those who join it and I have to ask if Ordinariate Catholics really need the support of those they’ve left behind above and beyond our continued friendship, prayers and admiration?
We shouldn’t forget those Anglican Parishes that are now struggling financially and numerically (not to mention emotionally) having lost Priests and people to the Ordinariate. I can’t help but wonder if they are the ones who need our help and support, while the Ordinariate remains free to grow and develop under the wing (and watchful eye) of the Mother Church of Western Christendom?
Hybald
How can the Ordinariate “support” those who remain in the Church of England?
Well by offering them a welcoming home when they eventually come to their senses and realise that there is no such thing as being Catholic while refusing to be in communion with Peter.
I don’t believe any support for those who wish to remain faithful catholic anglicans will exist from those who have joined the Ordinariate.
Many of those who formally exercised a priestly or epsicopal ministry in the Anglican Church have come very near to denying the sacerdotal reality of their Orders as Anglicans (they must, otherwise to accept (re) ordination is a grevious blasphemy). Therefore they must regard those with whom they have parted as friends as no more than minsters exercising a grace filled ministry, but not a catholic one.
Edwin Barnes in his own blog refered to his Orders and an Anglican as ‘at best dubious’, and this from a staunch defender of the catholicity of the Church of England up until fairly recently. Short memory or possibly even amnesia?
What is Anglican about the Ordinariate? Surely nothing, it is a Roman Catholic initiative, and those who enter leave their Anglican indentity behind and become Roman Catholics. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this, but to suggest otherwise is unreal.
Yes we must pray for each other; yes we must still drink together and rejoice in our common baptism together; and we must continue to work towards the full visible unity of Christ’s Church. But submission, is not organic unity; Rome is Rome, and Canterbury is Canterbury.
Surely let us just part as friends, and leave it at that.
From the same publication that was quoted in the original post… “Triumphalisitc phrases such as ‘welcome home’ or ‘going home’ has no real understanding or meaning in our Christian pilgrimage” (written by a member of the Ordinariate).
“there is no such thing as being Catholic while refusing to be in communion with Peter”
In all fairness the Orthodox have been managing okay for some time!
Hybald
David: that is not even the RCC’s understanding of catholicity – what of the Orthodox?
It wasn’t meant to a triumphalistic statement, but rather a statement of reality. Those who join the Ordinariate WILL find a welcome home, this is simply a fact (and is a fact precisely because hospitality is a fundamental part of the “Christian pilgrimage”).
Likewise “where Peter is, there is the Church” is basic Catholic belief, and ecclesial communities not in Communion with Peter are therefore lacking the fullness of the Catholic faith such is Catholic teaching.
I suppose I could use weasel words and pretend otherwise, but that would be dishonest, and in the long term does not clarify the issues but only obscures them….
David wrote: ““where Peter is, there is the Church” is basic Catholic belief, and ecclesial communities not in Communion with Peter are therefore lacking the fullness of the Catholic faith such is Catholic teaching.”
A basic Roman Catholic belief in a ‘modern’ sense certainly, but a quick look at / read of a Diarmaid Macculloch’s ‘History of Christianity’ would suggest that, historically, that would be a statement with a debatable pedigree.
Hybald
I was reminded in a letter today of what the late and great Michael Ramsay said to the Lambeth Conference at the end of the 1960s:
‘so our love for Canterbury melts into our love for Christ whose shrine Canterbury is; and our love for what is Anglican is a little piece of our love for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; the love of any of us for our own heritage in country, culture, religious experience or theological insight, all subserves the supreme thing – the reality of God who draws men and women and children into union with himself in the fellowship of the Son’.
“St Hybald”
I’m not sure that Diarmaid Macculloch is an unbaised observer (granted neither am I).
However it isn’t just a modern belief… for example:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses also the highest and full primacy and authority over the universal Catholic Church, which she recognises in truth and humility to have received the fulness of power from the Lord himself in the person of Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the apostles, of whom the Roman pontiff is the successor”
The Second General Council of Lyons (1274)
My most dear friend in God- Hybald- the publication you refer to also reached Sempringham today when I have been occupied all day interviewing for a post at the Abbey School here!
I do wonder though whether in your disquiet, if you have not taken too materialistic a view of what “being mutually supportive” is here encouraged. The writer speaks about avoiding “harm and hurt” and that while it is bad if hurt is unintentional, it is indeed shameful where it is intended.
I think, my dear friend, that the experiences of the terrible times of 1993-1994 are very much the background to this, and the “Support” that the writer hopes each party can give is the support of prayer, encouragement and fraternal love and charity in Christ Our Lord.
Eighteen years ago when there was a similar parting there was much acrimony and great bitterness. Cruel words were spoken, with much hardening of hearts and there was little or no attempt towards the understanding of difficult positions and hard choices.
Indeed even without any quarrels or intemperateness on either side, I still found myself parted from some of my best friends and dearest companions- whom I have never seen or spoken with since that time. A priest who was godparent to one in my family never acknowledged his godson’s existence after he left the Church of England.
Aware of that history, there seems a determination, in charity, this time to understand and accept that priests and laity are in different places, that the situation is not easy for either group and that for both the future is far from secure. The “support” we can give one another in prayer and fellowship (even if sadly not sacramental fellowship any longer) is far more valuable than any of the money people seem so concerned about. We are friends parting, friends and not enemies. And I, at least, want to support all my friends: those like you, dear Hybald, still with me in this church, and as well those now parted from me in another; and I know I need and will always cherish, what support they can in turn, give me.
With best wishes in the Lord from Sempringham to you in Hibalstow,
Gilbert
Gilbert asked: “I do wonder though whether in your disquiet, if you have not taken too materialistic a view of what “being mutually supportive” is here encouraged.”
The reason I ask the question is really down to ‘dynamics’. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church has said, on a number of occasions, that it believes the catholic tradition should be maintained and fostered within the Church of England – not as a way to encourage converts, but because the catholic tradition within the Church of England is of value in itself both to the C of E at large and to ecumenical relations (something that history bears witness to). Here we see a degree of what I would call ‘mutual support’ where Rome encourages Anglo-catholics to ‘keep on keeping on’ and in doing so Rome itself can appeal to the catholic identity that the Church of England espouses in ecumenical dialogue (as indeed Cardinal Kasper did when he addressed the House of Bishops on the matter of Women and the Episcopate and both Popes and Patriarchs have done in the wake of decisions to ordain women made back in the 1990s).
The Ordinariate fundamentally changes this kind of ‘dynamic’ as its existence not only questions whether that catholic tradition can continue to be maintained within the Church of England, but it also (understandably) weakens it by drawing people and resources from it. The movement and the dynamic is, as far as I can see, very much ‘one way’. It may seem churlish to say it (and I am speaking figuratively here) but, as the Ordinariate’s ‘stock’ goes up, so Anglican-catholicism’s inevitably goes ‘down’ and that is what leads me to question the idea of ‘mutuality’ in the absence of any kind of ‘equality’ or ‘equilibrium’. How then can the Ordinariate ‘support’ those who stay when it effectively relies on people leaving in order to maintain (and justify) its existence?
As I mentioned in my original post, my prayers, admiration and very best wishes go out to those who have joined the Ordinariate and I for one have, and would always seek to, maintain friendships across that divide (indeed it is my great hope that most Ordinariate Priests will still have room on their shelves for the BCP!). However, I also believe that care needs to be taken and a degree of honesty needs to be exercised in order to appreciate the subtleties of what has actually happened since the Ordinariate was established. I say this not to shock, stir or divide, but because it is only through truth and honesty that we can avoid the kind of hurt and harm that has already been mentioned and come to know the freedom that is ours in Christ. My personal opinion is that a bit of distance would be helpful in order to prevent the Ordinariate being seen by Anglo-catholics as a sort of second-rate ‘Plan B’ if it all goes wrong in Synod, and it would also help some of the more vocal Ordinariate folk from viewing those who are staying as being the ‘second-wave-in-waiting’.
We are, most definitely, ‘in this together’, but we are also ‘together apart’ – we are in different places and there is no shame in stating the obvious. I do think that a bit of clarity and a degree of distance would allow both the Ordinariate and those who stay to continue to maintain and build-up the Body of Christ with integrity while an uncertain future enfolds…
Hybald
As a life long Roman Catholic who ‘majored’ in Church history, can I suggest that calling Diarmaid MacCullough in evidence against an understanding of Petrine supremacy is to call a very tarnished and selective witness. His recent progamme on the History of Christianity left me open-mouthed in his skipping over of much of the recorded history of the early church in terms of the Church in Rome whilst tastelessly dismissing the faith of this community founded in great persecution as if it was no more than an upper-class affectation.
A senior Anglican priest and dear friend of mine was so annoyed by the anti-Rome bias that he said it threw into question all of Professor MacCullough’s conclusions if they were based on such a closed mind.
This friend is an Anglo-Catholic who has no intention of leaving the Church of England.
Personally I would like to say, all are welcome to join us, in the Ordinariate or otherwise. If you don’t wish to, then don’t. Not exactly rocket science is it?
Hello Fr Barry – thank you for joining the debate. The question that we’re wrestling with here is whether or not the Ordinariate is a new ‘development’ which offers some kind of mutual support to those of an Anglo-catholic background who have joined it and also to those who continue to witness to the catholic faith in the Church of England.
David Palmer reminded us that, for Roman Catholics, there can be no authentic ‘catholicism’ without being in Communion with the See of Peter. My response was to point out that the various Orthodox Churches (and indeed Anglicans themselves) would take a different view. I also suggested that there is much debate about ‘how’ and ‘when’ accepting what we would now understand as a ‘fully developed theology of the Papacy’ became tenant of holding the catholic faith – Macculloch is certainly not isolated in his criticism of the Papacy, but then neither are the likes Eamon Duffy in their defense of it.
Rocket science aside, the question remains – what can / does the Ordinariate ‘do’ for those who are working for a catholic future in the Church of England?
Hybald
The problem of quoting the Orthodox is that they are tied, in the manner of the state protestant churches, to the idea of being a National Church rather than extra-territorial (hence the problems which occur with the liberation of the states of the former Soviet Union).
As for what the Ordinariate can ‘do’ for those remaining in the Church of England, I suppose the answer, to some degree, is to create a sympathy for the understanding of Anglo-Catholic practise and culture which is not well understood in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.
With understanding comes empathy.
I have to say though that I struggle to understand how one can work for a Catholic future in the Church of England when, since the ordination of women as Deacons, the theological argument for a catholic understanding of Order has been lost. You can’t have a Church where some deny the orders of many of its pastors. Basic ecclesiology tells us that if the Church of England no longer accepts the sacramental understanding shared by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, then there is no Catholic future in the Church of England.
When a freind of mine left the Roman Catholic Church for a protestant evangelical one, which had no sacramental life – I could not deny the emotional wrench I felt.
It was as though she had left her family, and for a suitor who had little to offer.
I understand that Anglicans feel that same wrench when those they have been close leave for the Ordinariate.
Hybald writes ” I can’t help but wonder what kind of ’mutuality’ can or does exist between the two groups, other than a sense of ’shared history’?”
This history he refers to is,I presume the recent history of shared expereinces of parish ” family”.
What I think Anglicans do not always grasp, is the existance in the Roman Catholic psyche of a wrench to their “extended parish family” which split their parish family apart at the establishment of the Anglican Church.
In this sense the phrase to “Come Home” is one which cannot be measured in terms of relationships within living memory, but goes far deeper;
The Roman Catholic still feels the emotional wrench of their once fellow Catholics separating from communion with them; it echoes to their core like an aching wound. It longs for its seperated family to re-unite, and re-kindle the fire of their first love, no longer seeking comfort in others. (Hosea)
The “home” they refer to is not simply that of choosing another state institution, but as Fr. Gerry describes; “extra terrestrial” – An institution that is “Not of this world.”
the interface of our mutuality then must be to pray for understanding and the healing of wounds.