Having a cup of tea with Mrs Longenecker, I was discussing an email from an Anglo-Catholic who asked if they may attend Mass at St Mary’s and receive Holy Communion.
“Yes and No” was the reply.
I said to Mrs. L with some exasperation, “The dear old Anglo Catholics think they’re so close to us. They see the gap and think it is so narrow, but in fact it’s not narrow. It’s wide.”
“Not wide. Deep. Very Deep” says Mrs. L.
She’s quite the theologian in her own way.
Fr.,Would you mind elaborating on the specifics? Why is the gap deep? I am admittedly ignorant of the reasons for the separation, and perhaps there are others like me who would benefit from the explanation. Thanks.
Father,Perhaps you could explain what “width” and “depth” refer to in your anecdote?Certainly many Anglo-Catholics have one or more (and perhaps quite a few) theological differences with the Church, but not all.
Yes, please do, Father explain your posting.Forgive me, but it seems to lack “charity”; particularly to a significant contingent of your former but “separated brethren” who number amongst your following?One might express in similar vein too, in “like for like” sentiment, “only a convert would state such a thing”…?Please do explain your comment which is far removed from the sensitivity or wit of one whom you seem to try to emulate; who himself is a convert from Lutheranism but who restrains himself, whether from charity or common decency, from making similar statements regarding his former brethren on his blog.
When I was an Anglo-Catholic, I found myself accepting everything in Catholicism: authority of the Church, supremacy of the See of Peter, Infallibility of teaching, validity of all sacraments and a Catholic understanding of them. But, I found myself very, very separated from anything Anglican, which is when I gave up and “crossed the Tiber.”… Where I found that there were a lot of dissenters who would really have been happier Anglicans where they could believe whatever they wanted. Am I weird or is this what you were talking about? AnneG in NC
You are so right Father. On an Anglo Catholic website (one you referred us to) I read the priest’s history and found out that he was married and had been a Catholic but became Anglican so he could be a priest.This says it all!He had obviously no real understanding of the Catholic faith, if he could sell out Papal authority and the Church’s celibacy rule simply to satisfy his desire to be a priest.This sort of thing is what forced me to stop “mucking around” with pretending to be Catholic while I was an Anglican and make the step. The Catholic Church is One. The Church’s authority and rule cannot be split up into what we feel like accepting and what we don’t feel like accepting. Anglicans can have all the outward “trappings” of Catholicism in the world but while they don’t accept ALL of what Jesus gave us in His Catholic Church then they are kidding themselves. The gap between them and us appears narrow but it is actually quite deep. It comes back to pride. As Anglicans people can pick and choose what parts of the faith they want to accept and what parts they want to leave out. This is no different from any other Protestant denomination.When you surrender that pride you say to God: “I am becoming a Catholic – that means I accept your Church fully and completely. I accept that its authority comes from You. I accept the teachings I understand and the teachings I don’t yet understand.” It isn’t always easy, but it sure beats the alternative. It ultimately brings a peace and a sense of belonging to God’s Church that being an Anglican did not even come close to achieving!
He had obviously no real understanding of the Catholic faith, if he could sell out Papal authority and the Church’s celibacy rule simply to satisfy his desire to be a priest.Indeed! Priests who aren’t celibate are very bad indeed!Irony, thy name is the internet…
I have to reply to Paul Goings comment on my post.No Paul, I did not say that a married priest was bad. There are special provisions for those men who in good conscience married as Anglicans and were priests. They were breaking no rule or practice of their church. Therefore, if they later convert, Rome allows them to be considered for ordination as Catholic priests, even though they are married.This is completely different from the case of a Catholic, who knowing the Church’s rule of clerical celibacy, deliberately chooses to renounce his faith and become Anglican simply so he can be ordained. This is completely cynical and shows a total disreagrd of what the Catholic faith is all about.Fr Longenecker did not do that. He was an Anglican first, a married clergyman in good conscience, who followed the difficult path to Rome and was then graciously allowed by Rome to be ordained into the Catholic priesthood.I am sure that under those circumstances he makes a wonderful priest and that he uses his experiences as a married man to help in his ministry.