On confusion still abounding... "Quo vadis?"

So, the old debate that has gone on for thirty years, that has divided parishes, dioceses, provinces and even families is still raging on in the world's third largest denomination of Christianity: Anglicanism.  The following article was published in the New York Times where in the USA the debate has moved on apace to the ordination of homosexuals; here in England, we have yet to ordain women as Bishops, having taken twenty years longer than our American counterparts to ordain women to the priesthood. So Ms Kramer gives her expose on the state of the argument in the CofE... A Canterbury Tale...

Interestingly Ruth Gledhill, Religious Affairs Correspondent of , "The Times" has blogged highligthing some of the more interesting quotes from the people interviewed by Ms Kramer:

"I’m eager to see women ordained [bishop],' he said, 'and at the same time very reluctant to see a decision made that will cost us some very, very valuable people. . . . There is something in that Catholic tradition, which is where I come from, which would be much poorer if we lost [them]." ++Rowan Cantaur

Well indeed, yet, and I know this is controversial, there are very very few really Catholic-minded folk left in the CofE. The trouble is that some confuse aping Roman Catholic ceremonial with Catholic Faith and Tradition, yet these are not synonymous; wearing a chasuble and asking for Our Lady's intercession are indeed part of the "Catholic" cultural tradition, but they are not truly "Catholic" unless combined with traditional Faith and Praxis.  This is the fundamental "problem" with the concept of the ordination of women as priests i.e. presbyters, this is not the "received tradition" of the Church and more than that, it is not and could never be a part of the "Catholic Faith".  The best and perhaps only argument for the ordination of women is presented by Ms Kramer...

"The legal argument runs this way: given the Church’s [sic. CofE] special status, priests are functionaries of the state, and, because of this, its claim to a “religious exemption” in regard to women in the episcopate violates both Britain’s and Europe’s anti-discrimination laws. The Scriptural argument, in brief, is this: there is nothing in the Gospels that precludes women from priestly service; Christ called men and women “equal in my hands,” and when conservatives in the Church counter that if Christ had wanted women bishops he would not have made all his apostles men, the women ask them why, then, did Christ choose two women to witness and announce the Resurrection." [ref. Jane Kramer]

...however, the assertion that "there is nothing in the Gospels that precludes women from priestly service" is flawed. The reason why women cannot be priests is not limited to the fact that Christ didn't choose women to be his Apostles but rather is dependent on a fully Catholic understanding of the Mystery of the Incarnation, the meaning of "in pserona Christi" in the Mass... even the Pope can't change that!  [I'll repost an older entry I made on our Parish Blog which illustrates all that!]

"She also interviewed Father Geoffrey Kirk, describing him as an 'unabashedly misogynist London vicar who is the national secretary of Forward in Faith.' Father Kirk told Kramer that for him, the tipping point was TEC's’ election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as their presiding bishop. He called it 'a fundamental scandal' and added, 'I think Mrs Jefferts Schori is a layperson. It’s not my doing. They decided.' He said that a shoplifter was 'more qualified, per se,' to be a bishop than a woman was, so long as the shoplifter didn’t say that shoplifting was good, or that he was a Marxist spreading the wealth around." [ref. Ruth Gledhill]

Well, an unfortunate choice of words and analogy and very out of character for one usually so erudite!  Fr Kirk does betray here however a lack of appreciation for the Catholic Faith and Tradition.  There are many, I know, who would "shoot me down" for suggesting that Fr Kirk of all people is "less than Catholic" but his argument that Katherine Jefferts Schori's primatial election was for him the proverbial "last straw" is to my mind, pretty poor.  Rather, the ordination of women as priests in the CofE let alone twenty years prior in the States with the CofE remaining in communion with PECUSA [now TEC], should've prompted him to seek a more ecclesial and orthodox situation for himself far sooner. Quite why he and others are now hammering on the door of the Holy See for an accomodation when they've happily put up with unorthodox praxis and remained "in communion" for this long, is beyond me...

"Kramer also offers interesting insights on the behind-the-scenes deals done here in England between conservatives and evangelicals.

Kirk apparently told her that he and the other Forward in Faith priests hedged their bets with the Vatican by making a marriage of convenience, or, in his words, 'co-belligerency', with their most conservative evangelical counterparts in the Church of England.

The understanding was, according to Kramer, that the evangelicals, who she describes as Biblical fundamentalists who consider homosexuality an abomination, would lead the fight against gay bishops, while the conservative Anglo-Catholics, as the fundamentalists of tradition, would do the same with women." [ref. Ruth Gledhill]

Indeed, and here we have it again, the absolute argument why so-called "traditionalists" or "orthodox Catholics" in the CofE should actually remain "Anglican" and not become Roman Catholics!  Clearly betrayed here is the fact that the desire to become Roman Catholics is motivated not solely by a desire to be in communion with the Holy See but because actually they now have lost the "battle" in the CofE to keep the "status quo".  This was made clear when Fr Kirk suggested in his opening address at the Foreward in Faith Extraordinary Assembly of October last year, that Anglicanorum Coetibus was "plan B"!

Quo vadis?

"Quo Vadis?" "Where are you going?" These were the words of St. Peter to our Lord, as tradition has it, as St. Peter was running away from Rome in A.D. 64.  When Jesus responded, "I am going to Rome to be crucified again." St. Peter questioned, "You will to be crucified again?" Jesus: "Yes, I shall again be crucified." St. Peter, ashamedly: "Lord, I will return and follow you." At that Jesus ascended into heaven and St. Peter was crucified, upside down since he deemed himself unworthy of being crucified as was our Lord.

St. Peter was running: running from that to which God had called him, running from the Cross. Each of us has those moments in our lives when we hear the voice of the Lord gently or boisterously asking, "Where are you going?" One of the most important ways in which our Lord asks us this is in regard to our vocation. Where are you going? What are you doing? Do you hear my voice calling you? Perhaps we even hear him asking, "Why are you running? Do you not know that all is well for you in my providence?"

Now, I know there are many who might be upset by what I have suggested here, particularly with regard to the motivations of others. I have many that I regard as friends, brothers even, who are "traditionalist Anglicans" and are members of the CofE. I appreciate that there has been and remains, considerable soul-searching within the hearts of those who were born Anglican, found the Catholic Faith even within Anglicanism and now are forced to reconsider and re-evaluate what being "Catholic" actually means. 

However, there are others who realised much sooner, or who followed their consciences far earlier, who have now already become Roman Catholic, or indeed fully Anglican Catholic, Old Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic expressing the Faith received from the First Millenium of the Tradition. I myself, am one, who found the fullness of the Faith in the Anglican Catholic tradition of the CofE, but who has now found another home more closely aligned to the culture, teaching and praxis of the received Apostolic Tradition.  None of this happened without a full sharing of heartache and soul-searching, of blind alleys and false starts, indeed, a lot of pain and angst, not a few mistakes and wrong turnings!  However, I and others have done it and "did not count the cost" in doing so... there comes a time when actually a "leap of faith" needs must be taken with regard to material concerns, as Our Lord Himself indicated [Matt 19:27-29]. I may not have a nice house, a rich stipend and expenses, but yet the Lord has provided me with a ministry, a place to live and money enough to put food on my table.

One is minded of the type of scenario a Spiritual Director might face with one who has been contemplating the Religious life and is ready to take that final step... "Embrace freedom, my child" the SD says, "but I will lose everything" replies the postulant, "no, my child, you will gain everything"! Talk to any Religious brother or sister and they will explain that in surrendering everything, embracing poverty, they felt a tremendous sense of freedom, of liberation from the constraints of the material world. They threw themselves into God's Providence by embracing the Religious life and in so doing, gained everything and lost nothing...

This is how I feel, a little, with some of my CofE friends. It is a scary prospect to decide to leave security for Providence. It seems imprudent, foolish even. Yet, it generally is the most liberating and exciting of experiences and God never lets anyone down who puts their trust in Him. It is a leap of faith. It is a step forward into the dark. It is a leap into the unknown.

Does God want strife, stress, compromise for His Catholic children? I think not. I write as one with experience of having given up everything to follow God. I write as one for whom life has not been easy but for whom God has done marvellous things; I have a home, I live out my vocation, I have a moderate income and I am not alone. This Parish, the fraternity of priests I belong to, the sense of fraternity and family around my Bishop, the many friends I have found since trusting myself to God, all confirm for me that embracing Him is the only real and tangible way of existing as a Catholic in the 21st Century. Forget "Shrine Churches" and rambling Presbyteries... embrace LIFE and live it! Embrace The Faith and live it!

Papalism without Infallibility

Orthodox Old [Roman] Catholicism

It would seem opportune, whilst the great debate about Anglicanorum Coetibus rages on, to propose the consideration of another option. "Pro-Roman" or "Pro-Papal" does not, I propose, have to mean an acceptance of Papal Infallibility, at least not as presently defined by Pastor Aeternus. It is possible, I would assert, to express a deep love, affection and respect for the Successor of Peter without becoming a Roman Catholic.

Orthodox Old [Roman] Catholicism i.e. the tradition derived from the Old Roman Catholic Church of the Netherlands (that Church which was usurped by the institution of an alternative hierarchy by Pope Pius IX illegally i.e. Canonically) is, I would counter, an option for Anglicans of a "Pro-Papal" bent but who are unable in good conscience to submit to Papal Infallibility as it is currently defined and required as dogma.

Whilst there are many who call themselves "Old Catholic" churches and clergy, there are very few who really are. Regrettably, of course, that includes the Union of Utrecht Churches who have individually fallen into or condone apostasy for erroneous beliefs and praxis such as the ordination of women as Sacred Ministers. There are then a plethora of "episcopi vagante" clergy of various stripes, who, claiming descendence through Old Catholic Apostolic Succession (however obtained) fail to understand the contradiction in terms in describing themselves "independent Catholics"! There are then within that stripe "Liberal" and "Theosophic and even "Gnostic" supposed "Old Catholics" etc who fail to recognise or understand the requirement for adherence to the received Catholic Faith as necessary for validity - both ecclesiologically and Sacramentally; let alone the nutters, hypocrites, soothsayers and intellectually challenged who claim to be "valid" Old Catholics even though it is clear from their praxis they haven't the faintest idea what being an "Old Catholic" means?!

Let us first understand what "Old [Roman] Catholicism" is. It is in fact not a tradition based on the idea of independence from Rome. In the first place it was the defence by the national Church of Holland to it's right to jurisdiction and self-governance, granted it by ancient custom and Papal favour. This inalienable right was trounced upon by several Popes with an "ultramontane" agenda (from 1700) until eventually Pope Pius IX instituted another Roman Catholic hierarchy (1853) and refused to recognise the pre-existing Roman Catholic hierarchy in the Netherlands. Hence the term "Old Roman Catholic" used to differentiate in Holland between the continuing pre-existing Catholic Church and that imposed anew by Pius IX. (For a more complete history of the events that led up to this situation, please read this comprehensive account.)

Thus, Old Roman Catholicism initially referred simply to the ancient Catholic Church in Holland, until 1870 when other Roman Catholics, unpersuaded by the arguments for Papal Infallibility promulgated at the First Vatican Council, petitioned the Archbishop of Utrecht for episcopal and Sacramental care and oversight. The "Old Catholic" movement was thus born, bringing together Catholics on the Continent from Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere into communion with the ancient See of Utrecht and out of communion with the perceived erring See of Rome. However, these "Old Catholics", so called as they perceived themselves to be practising Catholicism as it was pre-1870 without the addition of Papal Infallibility, nonetheless were themselves to begin to follow a path that would take them away from the purpose of their first ideal. Rather like the Reformation on the Continent and in England some three hundred years earlier, some of the "reformers" of Catholicism began to take things a bit too far in their strive to research, practice and redefine "primitive" Catholicism.

It wasn't enough simply to continue to practice the Roman Catholic faith and tradition without the addition of Papal Infallibility (and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) but the "Old Catholics" sought to "reform" other customs, traditions and beliefs also. So that, by the turn of the 20thC, Old Catholicism had not only reverted liturgical language to the vulgar tongue, but advocated the cessation of asking the intercession of the Saints and auricular Confession also. These "reforms", the two latter particularly, were the reason why the progenitor of contemporary Old [Roman] Catholicism, Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew, declared his independence from the See of Utrecht in 1910 (the Centennial of this event is 29 Dec 2010).

Despite the misfortunate and often unfortunate events of the life and career of ++Mathew, it was nonetheless his desire to return to the practice of the Old Roman Catholic religion without "additions" and later "reforms", that he sought to establish a continuance of his original mission to Great Britain, formerly authorised by the See of Utrecht and the justification of his consecration by that See. Whilst it is clear in his eagerness to succeed in his mission he in turn consecrated some dubious individuals, nonetheless, there still exist to this day, fruits of that ministry which he began, now in the USA and more recently again in the UK who follow in the same intention of their "founder". There are of course others, who followed those of lesser Catholic credit, who had variously persuaded or mislead ++Mathew as to the sincerity of their intentions when seeking his Orders and whose rotting fruit still exists and infects more souls to their eternal detriment [those in the "succession" of the Theosophists and Freemasons and who describe themselves as "Liberal" and "Gnostic" etc].

Of those then, the contemporaries of ++Mathew's intent to practice the Old Roman Catholic religion, there are but few and though in small number are easily recognisable by their adherence to the ancient Catholic religion. Most notably the Old [Roman] Catholic Church of America, the Catholic Apostolic National Church USA (formerly the Old Catholic Church of the USA) and the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America, each of whom derive from the original mission founded in the USA by Bishop Landes-de-Berghes consecrated by ++Mathew. Of the earlier "Old Catholic" movement (of the Utrecht Union that preceded ++Mathew), the last orthodox jurisdiction is the Polish National Catholic Church whose founder and first Bishop, +Francis Hodur had also received consecration from the See of Utrecht. [There are others in the first category who continue the tradition of ++Mathew, but who are not as well known or established.]

Of course, in recent years, these Churches have themselves, rather than remained "preservationists for preservation's sake" have developed liturgy and customs as other denominations have. However, in the main these few Churches use only historical Roman Catholic liturgies (the codified Latin Mass of Trent and a few the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, only the PNCC has developed it's own modern liturgy, but this itself may be understood as a variation of the Novus Ordo and certainly in sympathy with traditional concepts of matter, form and intention) and the majority the Tridentine Ordinal for the continuation of the Sacred Ministry and Apostolic Succession. In terms of faith and praxis, these Old [Roman] Catholic Churches maintain that "which was believed everywhere and by all" [Vincentian Canon] prior to 1870, with varying degrees of relaxation re some disciplines [e.g. clerical celibacy] and required personal custom [e.g. eucharistic fast, private Confession etc]. However, despite variances in faith and praxis, these Churches maintain an authentic expression of the "primitive" Catholic Faith (i.e. of the Church of the first millennium) instantly recognisable to Anglican Catholics and even the Eastern Orthodox.

The culture of these Churches, in Faith, liturgy and in personal custom and praxis, closely resembles that of most "Anglo-Paplists" or "Pro-Roman" Anglican Catholics and would seem, under the present circumstances, to lend itself to such as these unable to maintain membership of some Anglican Churches due to apostasy or submit to Roman Catholicism fully (i.e. with Papal Infallibility). Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are held by these Old [Roman] Catholics as matters of "personal pious belief" rather than as dogma, which means belief in them is not a bar to membership of these Churches and often these Marian Feasts are celebrated or at least commemorated. But more importantly, Old [Roman] Catholics pray the Mass una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro and demonstrate in so doing their desire for reconciliation with the Holy See.

Despite the fact that the possibility of reconciliation between the Holy See and the See of Urecht would appear to be impossible now, due to the latter having apostasized from the Catholic Faith; still it is the hope of those in the Old [Roman] Catholic tradition that a reconciliation of orthodox Old Catholics and the See of Rome might yet be possible. Obviously such a reconciliation would no longer be based upon the restitution of the ancient rights of the See of Utrecht, but yet it might upon the basis of recognised Catholics wanting to be reunited with the Successor of Peter.

To be continued...