I guess I should apologize for my post on TAC, FCA, GAFCON and whatever other Anglican Acronyms are out there.
It seems that TAC is not totally AngloCatholic in structure, but has a rump of more low church conservative members. Similarly, FCA (the global fellowship that has come from GAFCON) is not uniformly Evangelical and anti-Anglo Catholic. Indeed there are some AngloCatholic members of FCA. In addition to this, while some of the Anglican breakaway churches are uniformly Protestant or AngloCatholic, many try to replicate the ‘big tent’ approach of a range of ecclesial, theological and liturgical customs.
Goodness! this only makes it more complicated. If TAC really were uniformly Catholic in its understanding of church and theology, then an en masse conversion might be contemplated, but this simply isn’t the case. While the leadership of TAC are taking themselves toward Rome, it is likely that many member churches and member denominations are not happy about this and will jump off the train before it gets to the station.
Even if the whole thing does come to some sort of group conversion, what shall we do with all the many folks who are good solid members of their church, but do not have a clue about Catholic theology or customs. As it happens, the little Anglican Church here in Greenville where I was baptized is a member of the TAC, and I was speaking to a sweet old lady who has been a member there for years. She is a solid, old fashioned Episcopalian Southern lady. A real steel magnolia. However, she doesn’t understand or even like the Catholic Church, and she is rather dismayed and alarmed that she might wake up tomorrow and find herself Catholic.
Shall we simply accept all these people into the Catholic Church? Surely they must be catechized. Do they all understand Catholicism? Do they want to be Catholic? What do we do about all their irregular marriages? What shall we do with their married bishops? I know wonderful things can happen, but the practical difficulties really are pretty immense.
Because of these difficulties each bishop, priest and layperson will have to be dealt with individually. Where groups have already come over with their priest (as with the Anglican Use group in Scranton) each person has to be catechized and received into the church. Likewise each TAC bishop and priest will have to have their application for ordination processed individually. Their clergy will be a very mixed bag. Some are v. well trained and formed in the Catholic tradition. Many others are not. Some are married, some not. Some clergy will have been in former marriages. Some may be former Catholic priests who left to get married. The point is: each person will have to be processed (at least up to a point) individually, so why not simply say: “Let each person sign up for their local RCIA and join their local Catholic Church?”
As Catholics we must be very realistic about the Anglicans. Already Rome has bent over backwards to give Anglicans who are interested in the Catholic Church everything they have asked for. You want married priests? You got it. You want your own liturgy? You got it. You want your own Anglican Use parishes? You got it. This has been an enormously generous move on the part of Rome. It has been creative, flexible and proactive to an amazing degree.
What has been the response? Next to no enthusiasm for the Anglican Use liturgy. Significant, but not major uptake on married men converting to Rome. Numbers of Anglican laypeople who want the Anglican Use to prosper and grow? Minimal. There are a hundred breakaway Anglican churches out there. Many of them could come into the Catholic Church lock stock and barrel very quickly by going to a Catholic bishop and saying, “We want to be an Anglican Use parish here in your diocese.” We have three Anglican breakaway parishes here in Greenville. They have their own church buildings, their own pastors and their own congregations and budgets. With a sympathetic bishop they could feasibly become Catholic parishes tomorrow. The Catholic population here is growing. We need them. But this possibility is not even on their radar. They know about the option, but they don’t want to pursue it.
Let’s be frank: Anglicans who want to be Catholic should convert just like everybody else. This in itself exhibits the humility, simplicity and good will that is required for conversion. While I think a corporate reunion of some sort is exciting and I would work for it and with it, on the other hand I, for one, am tired of Anglicans who flirt with the Catholic Church.
They say in lofty tones, “We think, if we wait a bit longer we might be able to come over in a large group. We would like to discuss with you ways in which we might retain our ministries and our special gifts. We have a responsibility to our flock.” All well and good, but maybe the best thing you can do for your flock is act according to your beliefs and leave the Anglican Church and become Catholic. You think you can bring them all with you? You won’t. However, the ones who are already with you will follow you to Rome. You can still bring all your gifts and abilities and love for Christ’s true church into the Catholic Church in a much quicker and efficient way:
I faced this truth in my own life. I was praying for Church unity. Then I realized that the one, simple and most effective contribution I could make to church unity was for me to be unified with the Church. So I became Catholic.
If you’re an Anglican who is interested in the Catholic Church and you are reading this, I apologize for the blunt tone, but my advice is this:
Quit your church tomorrow, start going to Mass and sign up for RCIA.
Read my last two posts on the other TAC/Catholic Bog post where we have been having a discussion. I could easily “revert” back to the Catholic Church no RCIA, I was Baptised and Confirmed Roman Catholic, all I have to do is go to Confession. but please do read my post about “accept” and “agree” on the other Blog post Fr. Longenecker.
Father let me play Devils Advocate here as to the how easy it would be to set up Anglican Use ParishesI know that you follow these situations. But I really wonder if perhaps you are taking what is Diocese’s viewpoint and thinking and applying it nationwide.I am not so sure this is so easy. Is it fair to say that a number of Catholic Bishops don’t want to create waves with their Episcopal Bishop friends in their own Diocese? Reunions are great but they also come with pain and some controversy on a local level. Also there might be a quite bit of Catholic Bishops that think as an overall ecumenical matter that this is mot good relations on the local or has major implications on the national level(I disagree with that).It seems to me that Anglican Use Parishes and in fact the coming in of Episcopal Priest under the Pastoral provision seems to be located a lot in some areas and absent in others.I have a viewpoint that Episcopal Churches become or are more Anglo Catholic the more Catholics that are around. This is not just from Catholics swimming the Thames either. We see that a good bit in Louisiana. I find it strange that if this was so easy that there is not one Anglican Parish in Louisiana. Especially around Lafayette, Baton Rouge , and New Orleans.Looking at the Anglican Use Wilki page again it seems to be just in some Dicoese but for instance a lot in Texas. Do Texas Anglcians have some longing that for the RCC that is not found elsewhere?I am a big fan of the Anglican Use and the Pastoral provision but I do wonder at times is the problem them or us.
I have to agree with James H in what he said about Anglican Use parishes. I’m an Anglican convert. I was AngleCatholic but ultimately you can only site on the fence for so long. It was either the Prayer Book I lvoed or the Real Presence.But in the 26 years since it has been a pain in my heart that the words I loved are not the words of the worship I hear.In most parts of the country dioceses don’t approve Anglican Use parishes. Here is Northern California the closest one is in Palm Desert,a eight-hour drive away.If I was almost any one of the Uniate rites I would be able to worship at a church somewhere in the area which was my rite.But because I worship in English I am denied that rite by my bishop and all the other bishops in my state (except for one or two).Those who want the the EF Mass don’t have anywhere near this difficulty. (I know, we fought for a year to get our Mass and still have difficulties with the bishop).Father, you are lucky in Greenville to have several Anglican Use parishes. But most of us are not so lucky. It’s not for the lack of laypeople wanting this Mass, it is for lack of bishops willing to approve them.
I am honored to be in the company of Longenecker and Newman. What is the quotation from Sherlock Holmes we like so well: “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” The Catholic Church places such stringent restrictions on who may take Communion that, for thirty years, I refused to join it in protest. Meanwhile, I attended mass and busied myself in finding some intellectual alternative. I learned in RCIA why those restrictions were in place—reasons which seemed for so long to be vastly improbable. It took me thirty years to eliminate the possibilities and, in doing so, to establish what was impossible and to eliminate it. This was something RCIA cleared up totally in just a few meetings of explaining the meaning and objective power of the sacraments. For thirty years my own research brought me continually back to the Catholic Church. In thirty minutes, a priest relieved my anxiety and helped me understand that the very restrictions the Church places upon the administering of sacraments establish the very objective effects I had sought so diligently; and this, in turn, prepared my heart for the subjective effects. When all the impossibilities are eliminated, all that is left is conversion. I feel it’s a small price to pay.
Amen, Father! As a fellow convert, my advice to anyone pondering a move to Rome is to choose the most humble and glorious approach – merely and meekly present yourself to a Catholic pastor. Do the will of God and do your part for unity – enter the Catechumenate/RCIA at a local Catholic parish. Wait no longer -come home to Rome!
As a convert—Nth-generation Episcopalian, active in my parish, lay reader, verger, delegate to diocesan convention, yadda, yadda, yadda—Fr. Longenecker is basically right on. Anglicans who want to convert should just go ahead and do it.Could Rome make the road home smoother? Certainly. But the biggest steps the Catholic Church could take without sacrificing her own integrity (which would make the exercise meaningless) are steps that need taking anyway—better liturgy, more rigorous translations, and so on.In my own case, the straw that broke the camel's back was when I realized that my staying out of the Roman Catholic Church had more to do with my own pride than with any truly principled objection. Ultimately, if you want the unity for which Christ prayed, you really have to quit insisting that it happen on anything like your terms—even if the folks on the other side aren't perhaps as welcoming as you suppose they might be.Peace,–Peter
Many people seem to be talking as if Rome just has to put out the Welcome mat for TAC to come in but aren’t there large problems with their clergy?Many (most?) of their bishops are married. From what I’ve read elsewhere more than a few of their priests are Catholic priests who left the Church in order to marry. Would all these people have to be vetted individually?
When I was Eastern Orthodox I attended a “Western Rite Orthodox” parish in the Antiochian Archdiocese. It was a former Episcopal parish–and they took being high-church Anglican very seriously. My priest emphasized the importance of praying for reconciliation between the Orthodox and Rome. I finally got tired of waiting for the hierarchy and decided if union with Rome is that important, why wait? So I was received into the Catholic Church last year.
I converted from Anglicanism via an ACA parish, which is a member of the TAC. The statement regarding this possibility on their website hasn’t changed (http://www.acahome.org/petition_facts.htm) and really leaves me wondering just what it is they want. I think much of what you say in this post is true–if Christ is calling you home to the Catholic church, following means submitting oneself to it (and months of banal RCIA classes, in my case, along with mourning the loss of all the beautiful trappings of Anglican liturgy). Once I was convinced that Christ was present in the Eucharist, there was nothing–even bad catechesis and having to sing “Eagles Wings”–that could keep me out of the Church. I sense no such urgency from the traditional Anglicans, for reasons many and varied. I pray that real unity may be some day achieved, though.
No, John, you cannot merely “go to confession” and authomatically revert. Confession means repentance. It’s not just saying words. You must mean what you say, and the words you must say are:I am sorry. Nothing has changed, nothing is new. Christ gave us the formula: “Repent and be saved.” The procedure is the same now as it was then.Now, you can say, if you must, “I do not *agree* with this priest’s having the authority to act in Christ’s name and forgive my sins, but that doesn’t matter if you *accept* that authority.You can be a Catholic and argue theology all you want–God knows, we all do. But the distinction is critical: we can argue and disagree till hell freezes over (lovely thought), but we all *accept* that we are *not* the authority. In fact, operating within those parameters is extremely liberating. And I can’t tell you how grateful I am that the cosmos does not hang on my judgement.I might think that a stop sign at North Avenue is stupid. That does not give me the right to run the stop sign–just because I don’t AGREE with it. I ACCEPT the authority of the city to put a stop sign there. And I stop. My ego can handle the fact that they didn’t consult me.
I am afraid the biggest obstacle to be overcome here is ….PRIDE.One of the greatest attractions to being an Anglican is that you can pick and choose what you want to believe and accept. You can, in fact, be your own pope! Anglicanism is simply the whole history of Protestantism in one movement. By being an Anglican you can “supermarket shop” your faith. A bit of Catholicism here, a bit of Calvanism there, a dash of Luther here, a pinch of Zwingli there, a bit of Eastern Orthodoxy here, a dash a Charismatic there – what a fun time an Anglican has, literally creating THEIR OWN RELIGION.They can’t afford to submit to the authority of Rome, because that would mean giving up their ability to be their own pope and choose their own custom made religion.Father, you are right. Rome has bent over backwards to accomodate these people. The time has come now for the fooling around to stop. If they call themselves Catholics then they must come home.I spent some years in my search. I am so glad to be long out of the Anglican Church and to be in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Sure individual members of it are sinners (so am I!), sure various priests let down the faith by their aberations at mass – but it is SO GOOD to be in a Church that, at its heart, continues to teach the unwatered down faith of the Apostles and Church Fathers, that defends the unborn, the aged, marriage and all God’s Commandments without apology.I am proud to be a Catholic.
By being an Anglican you can “supermarket shop” your faith. A bit of Catholicism here, a bit of Calvanism there, a dash of Luther here, a pinch of Zwingli there, a bit of Eastern Orthodoxy here, a dash a Charismatic there – what a fun time an Anglican has, literally creating THEIR OWN RELIGION.Thats news to me! I belong to the Reformed Episcopal Church and what you describe certainly isn’t what we do.I used to be Roman Catholic and let me tell you that Catholics do the same thing and more so than they do in the REC. I have spoken to MANY Catholics, some who are very involved in their parishes and they pick and choose a la carte what to believe. Catholics are just as guilty of the same thing except they hide it better.but it is SO GOOD to be in a Church that, at its heart, continues to teach the unwatered down faith of the Apostles and Church Fathers, that defends the unborn, the aged, marriage and all God’s Commandments without apologyGee I could say the same thing about the Reformed Episcopal Church.We also say and do the same thing. We also have taken a strong stance on Abortion on the Pro-Life side. We hold to “faith once delivered to the Saints”. We have added nothing to the Faith. We reject the novel doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, Indulgences, Mariolatry. We reject the Neo Semi-Pelaginism as espoused by Rome since Trent.
“I have spoken to MANY Catholics…and they pick and choose a la carte what to believe. Catholics are just as guilty of the same thing except they hide it better.”John, I refer you again to the distinction between agree and accept. The Catholics you speak of ACCEPT the authority of the Church; they may think whatever they please. Agreement has nothing to do with it. If they’re normal human beings, their opinions of various ideas change anyway. To be unable to accept that with which you do not agree is tragic.
Ok, I understand the distinction between “accept” and “agree” so there fore I “accept” that the Catholic Church holds to “Papal Primacy” and “Papal Infallibility” but I don’t “agree” with it because the Papacy was built on greed and lust for power, use of political statecraft and intrigue and by the use of fraudulent and forged documents. The Eastern Orthodox even called Rome “the home of forgeries”
To a limited extent, John, we’ve been having a discussion of semantics, not to say “mere” semantics because semantics is the science of word meanings. There is nothing “mere” about meaning.If you do not accept the teaching of the Church (which we call the magisterium, or the teaching authority), then you reject it.Now, please notice something: You accept some parts of the teaching–for example, the resurrection, the virgin birth, maybe, and several other parts of it, including Scripture. But you reject other parts of it. In accepting some of it and rejecting some of it, you claim for yourself the authority to judge. We are not talking here of anything mundane–like politics, or some other temporal topic. No. We are talking about Divine Truth. Have you never in this life been humbled by the discovery that you’ve been WRONG about something? Have you truly never encountered your own human fallibility? If your answer is no, then I’d like to meet you; you must be God. If your answer is yes, then I ask you: Are you willing to gamble your immortal soul on a judgment that you know from direct experience to be faulty?I relinquish authority to sources that I know are better informed than I am. The city puts a stop sign at North Avenue. I think it’s stupid (take your choice of translation here: I don’t “agree” with it, or maybe I just don’t like it because now I have to stop). But I know that the city knows more about the accident rate, the traffic, than I do. I accept their authority. Imagine what would happen if I didn’t accept it. What would happen to the drivers I refused to stop for? What would happen to me?I don’t have to agree in order to accept. You don’t have to agree with the Church in order to accept her authority. Are you really certain that your authority is greater than that of the Church? Your judgment is superior? You know more than all the saints? You know more than two millenia (so far) of all the Church has ever taught? If so, you, John, are God. Congratulations.
Estiel Said:I don’t have to agree in order to accept. You don’t have to agree with the Church in order to accept her authority. Are you really certain that your authority is greater than that of the Church? Your judgment is superior? You know more than all the saints? You know more than two millenia (so far) of all the Church has ever taught?Good if I can “Accept” Church Authority without “Agreeing” with what that Authority teaches about the Papacy, Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences and I can show others that those doctrines contradict Scripture, History AND the UNANIMOUS consent of the Early Church Fathers then sure I’ll “Swim the Tiber”.I am not going by “my Authority”, my “authority” is the Infallible Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, the “tradition” of the early Church, the 1st 4 Ecumenical Councils and the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers, all of which CONTRADICT much of what Rome holds as Dogma.
I know of a TAC affiliated church in Kentucky which is very high church, and one in Florida which is low church. One uses Roman missals the other uses the 1928 BCP. The problem with the early Continuers is that because they have no magisterium, and because they no longer understand authority as we in the Roman Church do, they are constantly fragmenting, re-organizing, breaking away and re-affiliating with one another. They can be as tiresome as TEC. The essential problem with the Continuers in general is ‘pride’.Is TAC ready for re-union with Rome? I don’t know, but it is likely that individual parishes will depart from TAC should it come to pass. More importantly, we must continue to pray for re-union, and invoke the intercessions of Our Lady of Walsingham and Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman.
John said: “I belong to the Reformed Episcopal Church and what you describe certainly isn’t what we do.”That is my whole point! John belongs to a group within Anglicanism. In other words – YET ANOTHER DENOMINATION. The Anglican Church has become a mess of denominations with each one picking and choosing what it wants to believe. But in reality that is what the Anglican church has always been – a group of denominations within one umbrella denomination. A “pick -your-own church”.And John, you said you know Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe. I have met many like that too. But they are not being at all honest to their faith. They are, through pride, not accepting the official teachings of the Church. My point is not that all individual Cathoilcs will be faithful but that the Catholic Church itself is faithful to God. You still haven’t told us John, why we should accept that your church, your denomination, out of 40,000 denominations, should be believed.
“my “authority” is the Infallible Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, the “tradition” of the early Church, the 1st 4 Ecumenical Councils and the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers, all of which CONTRADICT much of what Rome holds as Dogma.”Okay, John. You don’t accept the Church’s authority. You’ve said so ad nauseum. But it’s odd that all of what you cite as the authority that you do accept comes from that Church whose authority you do not accept. Whew. That’s like saying, “I believe what you say, but I don’t believe you.” Okay, John. Good luck to you. I have to leave this one.
…all of what you cite as the authority that you do accept comes from that Church whose authority you do not accept…Exactly Estiel! You have summed it up.I like you think that my debate with John has run into a brick wall and I need to have a rest from it.Our Lord founded One Church. Once people try to establish God’s will independently of His Church then they run into impossible contradictions.
Veritas: “Once people try to establish God’s will independently of His Church then they run into impossible contradictions.”Ultimately, Protestant Christianity is an oxymoron. That doesn’t mean, of course, that Protestants are damned–just illogical. Illogic doesn’t send a soul to hell, but willful self-deception does. One commenter pointed out to John that all his remarks were encapsulated in ad hominem language. Yes. Any explanation of one’s rejection of the Church can only be in such terms–even if those terms are in more polite language. “Protestant” is *anti-* by definition. If one chooses Protestantism of any brand, one chooses anti-Church. But no matter how one perceives the Catholic Church, it is inarguably the historical, factual and actual source of Christianity. You can’t be anti-Catholic without being anti-Christian. Nor can you acknowledge its authority in selected pieces. To do that is to make yourself the authority and thereby cancel that of the Church. And if you do that, you cancel the authenticity of the pieces you’ve selected. The Church can only be reformed from within herself via her own Magisterium. No one can change her from the outside without following that road to its inevitable conclusion. The destruction of the Catholic Church *is* the destruction of Christianity. Internal dissent (“disagreement”) is irrelevant to that reality, though it is a sad situation for dissenters because it signifies their own personal internal conflict. Until they cease dissent, that conflict remains. But the conflict is within themselves and not within the Church. They deserve our sympathy more than our condemnation. Instinctively, John refuses to say that he does not “accept” the authority of the Church but insists on saying he does not “agree”. He can’t disavow Church authority without denying the pieces of it that he’s selected. Conclusion: John may join whatever church he likes, but he remains a Catholic in dissent. That’s a painful place to be.
Estiel: “But no matter how one perceives the Catholic Church, it is inarguably the historical, factual and actual source of Christianity.”This is the crux of the matter. No matter what people may argue, the simple historical fact is that the ONLY Church that has a direct, unbroken line back to Jesus Himself is the Catholic Church. It wasn’t started by any other person. Its history is synonymous with the history of Christianity. It IS the Christian Church. Everything else is a breakaway from it. Therefore everything else has, to a greater or lesser degree, separated itself from God’ revelation.
…I can show others that those doctrines [Papacy, Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences] contradict Scripture, History AND the UNANIMOUS consent of the Early Church Fathers……my “authority” is the Infallible Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, the “tradition” of the early Church, the 1st 4 Ecumenical Councils and the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers, all of which CONTRADICT much of what Rome holds as Dogma.Okay John, put up or shut up. You say you can prove dogmas contradict Scripture, history and the “UNANIMOUS” consent of the Early Church Fathers so prove it. I hear a lot of swagger but what is backing it up? Show me how St. Gregory the Great (a Father) disproves the papacy; show me how St. Augustine or St. John Damascene (both Fathers) contradict Mary. Come on John, you’re so convinced of it so it should be easy.I hate to break it to you John, but there are more than 4 Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox accept 7; the Assyrians reject the third (Ephesus); the Copts, Syrians and Armenians reject the fourth (Chalcedon); no ancient church accepts only 4. So what kind of strange eclectic group do you belong to that is alone in the entire history of Christianity in only accepting 4?James G
Fr. Paul of Graymoore, ora pro nobis!