Whatever parallels there are between the position of the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Churches, two reservations must be entered: firstly that the Bishop of Rome is patriarch of the West in a way he never has been of the East; and secondly, that in deciding to ordain women, the Anglicans have taken a decided step away from unity. To Catholic Anglicans these two things matter a good deal.
The first one means that, as quiavideruntoculi noted in his first comment on yesterday’s post, all Catholics in the West ‘owe’ allegiance to the Pope, even if they do now all ‘own’ it; that was a good point, well-taken. This is not so in the East. No Greek or Egyptian Christian ever acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and no Bishop of Rome ever claimed it in the time before the Schisms. An Orthodox Christian can, in good conscience, claim the sanction of antiquity for his attitude to the Pope; no Western Christian can do likewise. Indeed, in the end, for me this was the decisive factor in crossing the Tiber. If I were Orthodox and asked what my forefathers had done with regard to Rome and was I doing likewise, I could have said ‘yes’; I am not, and as an Anglican Catholic I had, or so it seemed, and seems, to me, perforce to answer that I was not doing as my forbears had done. The reasons for this seemed to me inadequate. Did I accept that Infallibility in faith and morals was inherent in the See of Peter, even if not always made explicit in the past? Yes, I did. Did I accept that a dogma such as the Immaculate Conception could be properly derived from Scripture by the right authority? Yes, I did, and I accepted Rome as that authority. The question of the Procession of the Holy Ghost – the filioque – weighed heavily with me, but did I accept that Rome did not teach and never had taught the double procession of the Holy Ghost? Yes, I did. At that point it was clear – there was no honest alternative for me other than to seek out my parish priest and talk to him.
The point about the ordination of women was not, for me, and for others I know, decisive in quite the way some thought. I am not closed to the idea that the Holy Ghost might lead us to an understanding which would allow the ordination of women. I am certainly not convinced by the arguments usually used for this – they are too close to secular ones to convince me. The priesthood is not a job, it is a vocation. I am not closed to the idea that those women who feel the calling have a genuine one – who am I to judge? But, and this was the decisive point, this was not the practice of antiquity, and it is not the practice of the Catholic Church, or of the Orthodox Church. So, either our brothers lack the Spirit, which I do not believe for a moment, or the Anglicans were following a Western fashion and finding dubious arguments from doubtful theology to support them; it seemed clear where the answer lay.
Even then, I did not, and if I examine my conscience, do not, say that on the issue in question, the Anglicans were wrong. I think they were, but I am far from being convinced by all but one argument. That one argument is the women who say they have a vocation. I know some, and more patently holy people than some of them, you couldn’t hope to find. But that is not the point. All of that is about what I think and feel and about what some women think and feel. If we are part of the Apostolic Church, we cannot go with just that. We owe a duty of obedience to the whole Church. So, it was the unilateral decision which did it for me. In saying it had the right to take such a decision, the Anglican Church was implicitly saying that was not part of the Universal Church – or, at the least, that being so was not as important to it as the feelings of many of its members. That was not, and is not, how the Church has proceeded. It is the Bride of Christ, not a sole trader who can decide to go its own way. There are some things we cannot change. Decide to change them and, for me and for many, you decide you are not bound by what binds the Universal Church. God knows, we have made the business of ‘being one’ hard enough, without adding further obstacles.
In some of his comments on my post yesterday, quivideruntoculi opined that I should hate Anglicanism because it was ‘evil’. We are all entitled to an opinion. For my part, I follow the authority of the Catholic Church. According to UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO promulgated in 1967, which deplored the differences which divide so many from the One True Church, but went on to say that
in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
So, in advising us to call Anglicanism ‘evil’, QVO is advising us to say rather more than ‘fool’ to our brothers; he might care to refer to the wise words of Jesus on this, if he will not accept the word of the Church that Anglicans are our brothers. Yes, of course, there are real differences between Catholic Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Most of them, on examination, boil down to the position of the Pope and the validity of Anglican orders. These things keep some Catholics in the Anglican communion, but the gap between them and their fellow Anglicans is wide and will widen still. Standing on the bank of the Tiber yelling ‘evil’ at them is not only un-Christian, it is counter-productive. Christ used love and suffering to redeem us – not harshness. Let us go and imitate him in this, as we should in all else.
——————————
21. Cf. CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VIII (1439), Decretum Exultate Deo: Mansi 31, 1055 A.
22. Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299
Struans said:
Lots of interest here. Presumably Eastern Catholic liturgies do not have filioque. Are there `western` rites that do too? Also, fascinated as I am by the saintly Anglican status of King Charles the Martyr, what is the Catholic positions as to veneration of monarchs Mary, Charles I and especially James II?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I have certainly been to Eastern Rite liturgies which used the full St John Chrysostom – that is without the ‘filioque’. At some point, in I think the 70s, the Anglicans agreed it was not necessary, but did not, I think, follow it up.
I don’t think the RCC has a position on the Stuart monarchs – even James II. In terms of Mary, she is recognised as someone who did her best to reintroduce the true faith, but her failure tells against anything more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Struans said:
Re James II, I take it that these news items are known to people here: http://www.herald.ie/news/pope-who-betrayed-church-moved-out-of-grave-to-make-room-for-john-paul-ii-27978257.html. http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/state-papers-ian-paisley-demanded-a-picture-of-the-pope-blessing-king-billy-for-his-office-29868823.html.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t know about our American readers, but I was. I think the first is somewhat exaggerated – but that is only because the Vatican Press Office said so – as it would.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Struans said:
I wonder if the Glorious Revolution had never occurred then the Dominion of New Rngland and Maryland would not have been so influenced by Puritanism. The red serge may have been worn today much further south than Ottawa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Struans said:
England
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
An interesting reflection. It would have had interesting ramifications for the events of the 1770s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I think that’s easy to overstate. The only thing more Puritan than New England (from its founding) is Cromwell’s Army, Granted by the Glorious Revolution it was weakening some, but it was still plenty potent. But its influence was paramount in our Bill of Rights taken almost verbatim from the English one.
As for the Revolution, The cause they don’t like to talk about lies in the French and Indian (Seven Years) War, and its aftermath. When Parliament passed the Quebec Act, it came very near to having the Revolution then and there, simply because they attempted to establish the Episcopate in New England. New England agreed with New York on very little, and Pennsylvania even less, but on this they did. This is the true start to The English Civil war 2.0
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
I saw something about them, not enough to really interest me since it seemed like somebody needed something (in both cases) to yell about. They are interesting, though.
As for the women priests, I pretty much agree with all you say, but I also note my church solved the problem 500 years ago – by abolishing the priesthood, but also noting, we’re still arguing about female clergy, as well.
As for QV’s nonsense, if I were an Anglo-Catholic looking to convert to the Ordinariate, or even individually, unless I had had very strong convictions, I would think long and hard before I subjected myself to that attitude, especially as in the case of the ordinariate, the earthly experience is indistinguishable, Why bother? I think I would simply throw myself on the Lord’s Mercy and pray for the Pope at home.
Not that I’m belittling your struggle and process, and yes, your stubbornness. I respect them all. But you are exceptionally well equipped to make and informed, valid choice, most aren’t so lucky (unlucky?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thanks Neo. It would have been much easier for me had the Ordinariate existed when I converted. That said, in my locality, there isn’t a branch within an hour’s drive, so it may not have been.
QVO’s attitude is yet an other symptom of convertitis. Those suffering from it seem to find my lack of it an affront – an attitude I try not to reciprocate unless pushed too far! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Yeah, C. I easily understand. Why am I still in the ELCA? Well, it’s near on an hour to the nearest LCMS, and 90 minutes to the Confessional one. That said, I suppose Rome is a possibility for me, but it’s not a call I really feel, it’s all NO and mostly in vernacular – Spanish. And so here I stay, undecided. 🙂
Re: QV.It is, indeed. And it’s not just Catholics, of course. I’ve wondered whether its a form of self-reproach for taking so long to decide themselves. Sadly if not checked it can do real damage to all concerned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
If you don’t feel any call, then you most certainly shouldn’t do anything 🙂 No doubt that makes me a bad Catholic. I can’t see through God’s eyes any more than the next man, but the God in whom I believe is not going to send anyone to lake of fire for loving him and doing their best to be a good Christian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I fear my lack of call has more to do with worldly things than is meet, but it is what it is. I do feel called to a different form of Lutheranism, and circumstances appear to be making that become possible, so we’ll see. My God sees things very much like your God, suppose it might be the same God? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I should think it is. Mind you, we may both be dreadful heretics – but we’re in good company!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I do as well. Indeed, if nothing else the discussions will be good!
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, and whatever the noise, there will be some voices I shan’t miss.
I have two more on this theme coming up!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Quite. Good, this is, I think, a good theme for us, where we can showcase our strengths.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I am hoping so. It is easy to forget that the Latine Rite is not the whole of the Catholic Church!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
How true that is for us all. I went to a Lutheran service a while back, same/current liturgy and all, but it just seemed wrong, quite wrong – and then it hit me, it wasn’t in its proper native English, it was in German. If it has used a different format – well, the thing people do! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
bozoboy87 said:
A wonderful picture of Semiramis and Nimrod.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That spirit in you …!
LikeLike