Standing on My Head

The Anglican Ordinariate in History

2009-11-27T18:20:00.001-05:00

It has rightly been observed that to be realistic the number of Anglicans who take up the Vatican's offer of being part of an Ordinariate will be few. I agree with this.

What I do not agree with is the importance of this probable fact. Large numbers and huge grass roots movements are important, but they almost invariably begin small. Seemingly insignificant seeds are planted. A few courageous individuals step out and do something in simple obedience to a call of some kind. Most often they never intend to start a movement or to influence world history. They simply respond.

It is through small movements and courageous individuals that the world is changed. In our modern society we tend to look for large and instant results. The Catholic instinct is not to look immediately for instant result or to judge an action by its 'success' or 'failure' Instead we judge according to the truth of an judgement, the morality of an action and the faithfulness of the person. Rome has not come up with the ordinariate in order to attract huge numbers of Anglicans. It has responded generously to the comparatively small number of Anglicans who wish to come into full communion.

Now the question remains, "What will come of this ordinariate?" The answer is, we don't know. It may be that very few Anglicans will respond, and that the whole thing will be a bit of a flop. Or it may be that a few will begin the ordinariate and within a generation or two they will be absorbed into the mainstream of the Catholic Church and the whole thing will have served a temporary function in the church, but it will remain a footnote in church history.

On the other hand, it may be that the courage, faith and sacrifice of those who take this step will lay a foundation for a hitherto unimagined renewal of the faith, and the ordinariate will become a bridge into full communion for a whole range of Protestant Christians who would not have found their way into the Church otherwise. It could be that within a hundred years the only church recognizably Anglican will be the Anglican Ordinariate. They may be a flourishing part of the church, or an ethnic remnant like some of the Eastern Rite churches.

The fact of the future we do not know. What we do know is that the Catholic Church takes the long view and the future results of the Apostolic Constitution will not be known ten years from now or even fifty years, but most likely it will be our grandchildren who begin to see the true fruit of Pope Benedict's initiative.

Women's Ordination in Context

2009-11-27T10:15:00.003-05:00

Here's a quotation from a comment by an Anglican vicar who visits this blog. This is how he perceives the Catholic position: it is as if we are saying to the Anglicans...

You can't be real Christians like us because you believe that women can serve God in the ordained ministry.

The vicar says this honestly. He is expressing his frustration with the Catholic Church's apparent obstinacy on the issue of women's ordination. I understand this and don't mind his frank expression. However, let's look at the statement and try to understand the underlying Anglican attitude.

First of all he thinks Catholics are saying that Anglicans are not 'real Christians.' This is probably the vicar's subjective and emotional response to certain Catholic statements rather than a thought out position based on the whole of Catholic teaching. Do we believe that Anglicans are 'real Christians'? Of course we do. The Catechism states clearly that those who are baptized and have faith in Christ are our brothers and sisters in the faith.

Nevertheless, it is a widespread gut feeling amongst non Catholic Christians that Catholics believe they are second class citizens. This conclusion might be drawn from Ratzinger's document Dominus Jesus in which certain non Catholic ecclesial structures were deemed not to be 'proper' churches. It might also be the continued resentment on the unchanging Vatican position that Anglican orders are 'null and utterly void.' This is understandable, but it should be clear that the Catholic Church is not saying that Anglicans are not Christians. They are. We are re-affirming, however, something which Anglicans themselves would fight for--the simple truth that they are not Catholics. That we understand their not being Catholics to be a deficit for them is natural. We also hold that we are poorer without them, and that all of us are wounded by the brokenness of the Body of Christ.

The second point is more revealing. It is suggested that we consider Anglicans to be second rate Christians (or not real Christians at all) because they have admitted women to the ordained ministry and that this is not of the same order as disbelieving the resurrection. The basic attitude is, 'women's ordination is a side issue. It doesn't really matter that much.'

What is revealed by this attitude is the whole shooting match concerning, not just 'women's ministry' but the nature of the priestly ministry, the sacrifice of the Mass, apostolic succession, the validity of the sacraments, and the nature of authority in the church, the nature of human sexuality and therefore the sacrament of marriage. For the Anglicans these things too must be 'of a second order' because women's ordination touches all these matters, and I'm afraid the vicar has expressed the Anglican view all too well, for the typical Anglican doesn't see how all these things are connected, and more troubling, if he does see how they are connected he doesn't really think these other matters are crucial either.

He does not because, as I have outlined in a recent post, the typical Anglican considers all theological expressions to be provisional. They are metaphorical, not real. If a fellow wishes to consider himself a sacrificing priest that is fine for Anglicans, but no one (not even most Anglo Catholics) would argue that such a view is mandatory. That is why the Anglo Catholic is quite happy to be ordained by the same bishop on the same day in the same rite as an Evangelical Anglican whose theology is virtually Presbyterian. Likewise, if a fellow wants to think that his Eucharist is a 'sacrifice', the Anglican attitude is, 'Well if it works for you, that's jolly nice," The same applies for apostolic succession, and the validity of the sacraments and the question of where authority lies in the church. The typical Anglican attitude is that these are arcane questions which can never really be answered, so you go ahead and take whatever position seems best to you. That's why the mainstream Anglican is so angry with the Anglo Catholics who will not budge and insist that these are important issues.

As Catholics we believe the question of women's ordination is vitally important, not for the utilitarian, sentimental and political reasons which are often brought up by its proponents, but for the theological, historical and organic reasons. In other words, it matters because Truth is unified, and every aspect of truth is connected. Weaken one part and the rest are weakened.

Anglo Catholics who believe the same should become Catholics as soon as possible--either through the Ordinariate when it is set up or by joining the Catholic Church now. The reason they should do so is not because they will be able to maintain their lovely liturgy and not have women priests. It is because they share an underlying philosophical and theological agreement with Catholicism which they do not with Anglicanism. If they do not share this underlying agreement with the Catholic worldview, then they should remain in the Anglican Church and make the suitable compromises (for it is the nature of Anglicanism to compromise) and stop grumbling.

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-25T23:32:00.000-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving!

The English Ordinariate

2009-11-25T19:48:00.004-05:00

The English Catholic bishops have established a commission to advise the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate in England. It seems they are preparing for large scale group conversions to the Catholic faith. This is good news. The bishops in charge will be McMahon (Nottingham) Longley (Archbishop designate of Birmingham) and Hopes (auxiliary in Westminster and a former Anglican priest) This is good news. I never met McMahon, but both Bishop Hopes and Longley encouraged me on my path to ordination.

Perhaps the most important question after "How will the whole thing be financed?" is the question of where the new Anglican Ordinariate congregations will worship. The situation in the United Kingdom is very different from the United States. Here are some options:

1. The Church of England allows them to use their existing parish churches. Many of the Anglo Catholic churches are in areas of town that are otherwise 'no go' areas for Christians. They were built in the slums by the Victorian slum priests and no one else will really want to occupy them.

The Church of England has far too many churches. Many of them are huge Victorian buildings which are a drain on the Church of England. Without the Anglo Catholics to look after them they will only decay and have to be closed. The C of E should hand them over and realize that to do so will be a win-win. A Christian presence will be maintained in these areas, the Anglo Catholic tradition will be retained (albeit with a different hierarchy) and this act of charity and generosity will resound to the credit of the CofE.

2. The Church of England could offer the Anglican Ordinariate buildings that are surplus to requirements. Every English town of any size has too many Anglican churches. There was a huge wave of church building in the nineteenth century and the Church of England should be glad to find occupants for them. They needn't hand them over lock stock and barrel. They could lease them to the Ordinariate congregations. It would be of benefit to the Church of England to have tenants, and the fledgling Anglo Catholics will have a home, and the generosity and charity of the offer will strengthen links between the churches.

3. The Catholic Church could offer the Anglican Ordinariate congregations some of their churches. In many dioceses the Catholics are struggling with a priest shortage and are facing the closure and merging of parishes. Why not take a parish church that would otherwise close and ask the Anglican Ordinariate to take over? The newly ordained former Anglican priest could live in the presbytery, celebrate the Anglican Use at one hour on the weekend and the Latin rite for the other Masses. Immediately the Catholic Church would solve a priest shortage, welcome new members and also keep parishes going that would otherwise close. They would also have an immediate infusion of enthusiasm, strength and the gifts of the newcomers.

4. Churches could be shared with other denominations. The Anglican Ordinariate could share a church not only with the Catholic parish, but share with the United Reformed or Methodist or Anglicans.

5. Redundant churches could be bought and converted for Anglican Ordinariate congregations.

Whatever the solutions, what will be required is creativity, generosity and genuine Christian charity. Catholics should not be triumphalistic about this step and Anglicans should not be bitter. They should see the departure of Anglo Catholics as a win-win situation. If I were a feminist Anglican on the General Synod I would see this as a wonderful opportunity to be rid of my opponents and I would make every effort to facilitate their departure.

We are at a juncture in church history where we are being given increased clarity. People are beginning to see very clearly where they are and where they are going. Let us combine clarity with charity and assist one another on the path we have chosen. This will be for the good of all and for the eventual purification of Christ's church.

Catholic Origins of Thanksgiving

2009-11-25T16:35:00.002-05:00

Taylor Marshall reminds us here of the Catholic origins of the First Thanksgiving...

Anglicanorum coetibus - what next?

2009-11-25T11:34:00.001-05:00

John Allen, the excellent and fair journo for the National Catholic Reporter writes here about the hype and the reality surrounding the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. He quips that there are probably more articles written about the Constitution than there are Anglicans willing to take advantage of it.

I see his point and agree. Those of us who understand the situation never imagined that the entire Anglican and Episcopal churches would be cramming across the Tiber like lemmings. Neither was that the intent of the Vatican in issuing the Constitution. It is clear from the opening paragraphs that this is a response from a significant, but small number of Anglicans who genuinely want to be in communion with the Holy See. What interests me is that Rome is willing to make provision for all sorts of small groups, and doesn't mind dealing with a little group of Chaldeans here, an order of Anglican sisters there, a congregation of Ukrainians or whatever. This is a similar provision.

However, in the midst of Allen's realistic article is the opinion of one bishop who doubts whether there will even be a need for an Anglican Ordinariate in the USA. This is worrying. While the numbers are small, they are still significant. This initiative must not be sidelined by people who do not understand the Anglican situation and are cynical about the Pope's offer for whatever reasons (and there are a whole range of different reasons why Catholics will be opposed to this measure) Happily, the Ordinariate will not be set up by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, but by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

While we wait and see what action is taken by Rome, I think this is the time for interested parties to start organizing and talking. Episcopalians, continuing Anglicans and former Anglican Catholics should take an interest, get involved, meet with one another and see just how much interest there is. Communications should be established with the local bishop so that they (and Rome) will start to see just how much interest there is. Individual clergy should be in contact with friends, start networking, get things going at the local level. The success of the ordinariate will depend on people having some enthusiasm, having an entreprenurial spirit and a willingness to make sacrifices for this to work.

One thing everyone who is interested can do is to plan to attend the Anglican Use Conference in Newark NJ in June. Keep in touch with developing details on this through the website of the St Thomas More Society.

The Anchoress lets fly

2009-11-24T22:39:00.000-05:00

The Anchoress blogging over at First Things let's fly a terrific rant about why the mainstream left biased media can't afford to report on what's being called Climategate--the revelation that ummm guess what, the Global Warming guys have been manipulating statistics, bullying scientists who criticize the Global Warming theory, and trying as hard as they can to suppress the fact that for the last ten years the planet has been cooling not warming. She includes lots of great links for people to follow the whole story.

Mantilla the Hon on Girl Servers

2009-11-24T18:15:00.004-05:00

Special guest blogger, Mantilla Amontillado, writes on matters of ecclesiastical etiquette and haberdashery.

OK, hon, I'm going to step on a few toes here, so if you're not wearing your work boots you better watch out.

I was visiting some friends named Cindy and Bob for the weekend and we go to Mass on Sunday and I'm not real happy about what I see. First, we pull up in the parking lot and I'm saying, "What is that building there? It looks like a big cow flop made out of concrete you know what I mean?"

"Mantilla!" says Bob. "That's the church!"

"You mean a Catholic Church?" I'm asking. I'm looking over at their kids, Jimmy and Mitch and Sally. They're all giggling at me.

"That's right." OK, hon. I don't say nothing, but when we go in it's all soft lights and carpet and these men who are bald, but with long hair and big bellies are playing guitars and singing into microphones. I think they are maybe singing something about walking on a beach with Jesus.

"We made a mistake." I say to my friend, "this is a nightclub but in the daytime."

Now they are laughing at me. "No Mantilla, this is our church. We are getting ready for Mass now." But nobody is kneeling down or anything. They're just sitting around talking to each other.

"I'm hungry." I whispered to Sally. "Maybe somebody will come around soon with some cotton candy or a hot dog or something?"

Then the doors open and these girls come walking in wearing those white cassock albs. You know at first I think they were maybe late for Mass and they were still wearing their nightdress, but no, they are the altar servers. "Where are the boys?" I'm asking Cindy.

"They don't have boy altar servers anymore" Cindy says. "They all quit when the let the girls in."

I'm poking Jimmy in the ribs, "Hey Jimmy why don't you and Mitch be altar servers?"

"Nah," says Jimmy, "That's girly stuff."

So these girls come marching up and one of them is skinny and little and is wearing a ponytail. She's real cute, but the cassock alb isn't doing her any favors. It's way too big and she's trying not to fall over it. Then a big girl is carrying the cross and she is wearing dangling earrings, and she's maybe too pudgy you know? She's wearing bright green sneakers, and the cassock alb doesn't help. Then the other one is maybe seventeen and she's very good looking and she has her alb hitched up so you can see she has pretty nice legs, and she's wearing some nice high heeled shoes with her toes sticking out and with sparkles on. I can see Bob is leaning over to get a better look, and I don't think he's thinking much about Jesus.

So what is this with the altar girls? I can tell you hon, I think it's a mistake. You know, whatever they look like, you're wondering about their clothes and make up and not thinking about Jesus. I send an email later to Monsignor Quixote, my old professor of Ecclesiastical Haberdashery at Salamanca University.

He says, "Madre de Dios! This is a crime. I know the Holy Father says it's okay, but that makes me question papal infallibility I can tell you." He alway make me laugh, Monsignor. Hon, he say to me, "This should be for the boys because the altar servers, they are like little deacons. They serve at the altar and many, many boys first sense their vocation to the priesthood when they altar serve. How is this going to help us get more vocations if they let the girls do it? You see, boys don't want to do things with girls. They want to do things with their buddies and with the men. Then all they do is think that Mass is for girls."

"That's right! That's what Jimmy said."

So anyway hon. Maybe I'm making you mad, but you know what I mean? I think the girls should find other ways to serve God. What is this crazy thing anyway when everybody think that to do something for God you have to do something at the altar? This is for the priest.

Why can't people be happy doing other things for Jesus? These girls should be like me. I'm wanting to serve Jesus so I'm starting up this little business making miters and birettas and zuchettos and maybe even I'll try to make a saturno.

I'm trying to think of a name for this business. You have any ideas hon?

10 Reasons Why Modernist Christianity Will Die

2009-11-24T09:39:00.003-05:00

Modernist Christianity must eventually die or cease to be Christian. At this time modernism still wears Christian clothes in the mainstream Protestant churches and in parts of the Catholic Church. This cannot last much longer for some very simple reasons:

1. Modernists deny supernaturalism and therefore they are not really religious. Now by 'religion' I mean a transacton with the supernatural. Religion (whether it is primitive people jumping around a campfire or a Solemn High Mass in a Catholic Cathedral) is about an interchange with the other world. It is about salvation of souls, redemption of sin, heaven, hell damnation, the afterlife, angels and demons and all that stuff.

Modernists don't deal in all that. For them religion is a matter of fighting for equal rights, making the world a better place, being kind to everyone and 'spirituality'. It doesn't take very long for people to realize that you don't have to go to church for all that. So people stop going, and that eventually means the death of modernist Christianity. The first generation of modernist Christians will attend church regularly. The second will attend church sometimes. The third almost never. The fourth and fifth will not see any need for worship. They will conclude that if religion is no more than good works, then the religious ritual is redundant.

2. Modernism is essentially individualist and not communal. Each person makes up his own mind about matters. Therefore when it comes to religion the fissiparous nature of modernist religion will become more and more acute. Individuals with firm opinions will form ever smaller and more passionate groups with like minded people and the smaller the groups, the more they will eventually wither and die.

3. Modernism is also subjective and sentimentalist. It eschews doctrine and favors individual spirituality and sentimental responses to doctrines and moral issues. It is not long, therefore, before the individualist and sentimentalist inclinations drive a person from a church that is dogmatic and demanding. Modernists will prefer their own spirituality and emotional experiences to any sort of formal religious commitment. Thus the modern admission, "I'm interested in spritituality but not religion." When this attitude prevails, modernist religion dies.

4. Modernism is historically revisionist. They re-write history according to their prejudices. In religious terms this means they are cut off from tradition. They are therefore cut off from the life-stream of real religion. As they cut themselves off from the tradition they will only have the latest religious gimmick, fad or adaptation to contemporary culture. Such an ephemeral attitude cannot provide for long term sustained religious longevity.

5. Modernists contracept and abort. They don't have enough children to train up in their religion, and those children they do have are often taught that freedom of choice is a higher virtue than commitment or duty in religion. So they will lose the next generation to either real religion or paganism.

6. Modernism makes no great demands for its devotees to be religious. Ask any modernist, "Why should I come to Church?" What would he answer? "You don't have to come to church. It's there if you want it. If it does you good, and makes you feel better, we're here to serve you." Modernist Catholic priests wring their hands and wonder why no one comes to Mass anymore. It's because for forty years they've been saying, "It's not really a mortal sin to miss Mass. You should come because you love God, not because you fear him." While this sentiment may be laudable, they shouldn't therefore be surprised if no one comes to Mass.

7. The modernist himself does not really understand why anyone should be religious. He started out as a religious man believing in sin, redemption and the supernaturalist story. He became modernist gradually and all the time continued his religious practice, but he has never stopped to ask why such a thing should be necessary. If he is honest and asks himself the question he will soon stop the practice of his religion too. Unless, of course, he is a clergyman. If he is a religious professional he would have to get another job, so it is easier to keep the show on the road.

8. Modernists allow for moral degeneracy and that saps the strength out of real religion. Devotees of all supernaturalist religions demand moral purity, self discipline and restraint. Real religion requires self discipline. The modernist sees religion not as self denial but self fulfillment. Hedonists will soon realize that religion--even in its watered down modernist form--is not worth the trouble.

9. Modernists aren't actually much fun. In my experience they're a joyless lot, always on some sort of serious, smug and self righteous campaign, not infrequently with a whiff of the conspiracy theorist about them. That can't last.

10. Modernists are dull. They've so little imagination and are so literal about everything. They do not rejoice over the seeming absurdity of religion. In fact, they are frightfully respectable. They always go with the crowd, especially if that crowd pretends to be 'radical' or 'subversive' in a 'chattering classes' kind of way. That attitude is the kiss of death to real religion.

So, what will happen to modernist Christianity? It will die out or cease to be Christian. The un-Christian forms this will, unfortunately, still borrow Christian terminology and customs, but like some horrid fantastic beast, it will continue to transmogrify into ever more monstrous forms while still continuing to dress in a Christian costume.

These horrors are already with us on the fringe of modernist religion. Expect them to become even more mainstream.

San Clemente

2009-11-23T14:17:00.001-05:00

Blessed Miguel Pro

2009-11-23T09:37:00.000-05:00

Nice detail that today-- the day after the Solemnity of Christ the King-- we remember Bl. Miguel Pro the martyred Mexican priest who died proclaiming Viva Christo Rey!-- 'Long Live Christ the King.' Learn more about him here.

Modernism and the Magisterium

2009-11-23T08:59:00.002-05:00

After analyzing the modernism in the Anglican Church it was pointed out that there's plenty of modernism in the Catholic Church too. True enough, and because blog posts should be short and punchy, I left this issue for another day.

It is true that all the problems I outlined in the post on Modernism in the Anglican Church are present in the Catholic Church. In many ways the effects have been even more devastating. At least the Anglicans with their good taste have preserved beautiful liturgy, architecture and sacred music in the midst of the modernism. Many Catholics have been even more gung ho on the dumbing down of Christianity, the vulgarization of the liturgy, art and architecture that is the philosophical offspring of modernism. The moral crisis among Catholic clergy which has caused so much pain and scandal is the direct effect of mixing clerical celibacy (which modernists simply cannot understand) with modernism and the moral relativism of the sexual revolution. The resulting cocktail was disastrously poisonous.

However, there are two distinct differences in the circumstances of Anglicanism and Catholicism. The first is that, while the Catholics have fallen into the same moral morass as Anglicanism, what they are doing has not been condoned and sanctioned by the Church. Yes, there are Catholic homosexual priests, Catholic bishops and priests and people who support women's ordination, Catholic people who favor abortion, remarriage after divorce etc. etc. The Church teaching, however, is clear and uncompromising. So in the Catholic Church you find Church teaching which is firm and clear and traditional, but some Catholics dissent and have their own opinion which is liberal. In the Anglican Church is is virtually the reverse: the Church teaching is either non existent, open ended or actually sanctions the modernist stance but you have individual Anglicans who choose to hold to the traditional, historic faith.

The second fact, on which the first is built is that while Catholics are besieged by modernism, we still have the magisterium of the Church which repudiates modernism and offers the guide for authentic historic Christianity in the world today. We have a Catechism which states the church's teaching clearly and positively. The Popes hold the line, defending, defining and teaching the faith in the face of modernism, and in opposition to it. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church defends historic Christianity and those of the faithful who go adrift do so knowingly. They are sheep who have strayed from the fold and from the Good Shepherd.

Individual Anglicans, on the other hand, are sheep without a shepherd. Without a clear authority structure they must make up their own minds, and while there is certainly some value in such independence of mind and action, it must be said that if one is going on a journey it would be possible to wander to the destination asking directions along the way, but it would be more sensible to use a map.

This brings me to the accusation that many non-Catholics make about Catholics: that we are unthinking zombie clones who are drinking the Kool-Aid and marching in lock step behind the Master. To be sure there are some Catholics who switch off their brains (as do many modernists) but this is not the expectation or the ideal. What is the proper relationship to dogma and infallible authority? It must be that the dogma, the moral code and the infallible authority are means to an end--they are not the end in themselves.

For a Catholic the dogma and the moral code which is given by the infallible authority of the Church is simply the ladder on which we climb. They are the map for the journey; the signposts on the way. They are vitally important, but it is the pilgrimage to heaven which is most important, and the final goal in this life is to get to the point where we walk on this pilgrimage so formed and guided by the dogmas and moral code that we no longer rely on them. We have learned to run on the path of God's perfection with the perfect delight of love, doing all those things which were once burdensome with the simplicity of freedom and the beauty of holiness.

Lewis Anniversay

2009-11-22T21:28:00.000-05:00

Today is the 46th anniversary of the death of C.S.Lewis

Rest Eternal Grant Unto Him O Lord

And May Light Perpetual Shine Upon Him

Why I Left Anglicanism

2009-11-22T21:06:00.002-05:00

I'm often asked why I left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic. Was it women's ordination or some other issue? Well, the debate over women's ordination was an influence. It made me re-examine the question of authority in the church. I have written about my conversion several places, and these articles can be found on my website under the 'articles' tab.

However, the more I think about the reasons for my conversion, the more I realize that the real problem was not women's ordination, nor was it, at depth, the question of authority in the church. Women's ordination was a problem and the authority of Rome was the answer, but there was a deeper, underlying problem with the Anglican Church as I experienced it. The problem is modernism -- a philosophical and theological position which is deeply opposed to historic Christianity.

The foundational problem with modernism is that it is anti-supernaturalist. The most foundational difficulty with the anti supernaturalism of the modernist is that he has an anti-Christian conception of God. For the modernist God is either totally immanent. That is He is 'down here' and not transcendent, or he is so totally transcendent as to be a sort of deist God who is 'out there' and does not intervene. What the modernist theologian cannot believe in is a God who is both immanent and transcendent--a God who is 'out there' but who touches this world and ultimately enters this world through the incarnation.

The modernist cannot believe in this kind of God because that would introduce miracles and the supernatural, and for the modernist such things are impossible. The effect of this distorted deity is also an un-Christian view of man. If there is no supernatural, if God is either totally 'out there' or totally 'down here' then man is definitely a creature limited to this world only. His only hope is to find the God who is 'down here' which means he invariably goes on a search for the 'God within each of us' or he decides that religion is about making this world a better place.

From the distorted deity of the modernist and the un-Christian anthropology comes an un-Christian understanding of Christ and the gospels. The modernist cannot accept the old supernaturalist understanding of a Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Atonement and the Resurrection. These events must be 'de mythologized' and re-interpreted. Consequently, the whole understanding of the salvation of souls is totally eviscerated. Jesus Christ's death on the cross is nothing more than the martyrdom of a good man. For the modernist it cannot be a saving sacrifice. Such metaphysical and medieval concepts are impossible given his faulty theology and anthropology. At most the sacrifice of Christ is a symbol of human selflessness and sacrificial love, but even this is a nonsense if all we have is the senseless death of a political prisoner.

If this is true--if Jesus' death is no more than symbolic image, then the entire ecclesiological structure and sacramental system is no more than an archaic symbolical structure. It is a historic mythology that, at best, unlocks something within the human subconscious. It is a human construct that helps people to transition through their lives. Indeed, the vicar in the next door parish to me in England in the late 80s said as much. He said, "I see myself as a sort of shaman of the tribe. I'm there to offer them rites of passage."

What strikes me now is how honest my fellow clergy were about their paganism. Unfortunately, their honesty was rare and usually not conscious. More often they indulged in a kind of dishonesty which I can only now admit is really a lie from Satan himself, for what they did was to use the traditional language of the historic Christian faith while not believing the historic Christian faith at all.

So when they said they believed in the Incarnation they actually believed that "Jesus Christ was the most fulfilled human who ever lived. He was so self actualized that he achieved a kind of divine status. He, more than anyone else, was one with the god within." When they 'affirmed' the Virgin Birth they really meant that Mary was an especially pure young woman before she had intercourse with Joseph or a Roman soldier. When they proclaimed from their pulpit on Easter Day, "Christ is Risen! He is risen indeed!" what they meant was, "In some sort of wonderful way I would want to say that Jesus Christ continued to inspire his followers after his tragic death."

I used to think that his lie was simply being told in the halls of academia, that the rot was really only in the universities, but of course it was not only there. It had been disseminated throughout the Anglican Church through the education of the clergy for the last fifty or sixty years. Of course there were pockets of true belief and there are still. In making this critique of Anglicanism I am not damning all Anglicans.

However, Catholics who are involved in ecumenism should be aware that this is the real nature of the people they are talking to. The Anglican theologians will talk a Catholic language, but they mean something totally opposed to Catholicism when they do. They will talk a Christian language, but they mean something totally opposed to Christianity when they do. We must not imagine that this modernism is held only by radical theologians and heretical bishops. It is the mainstream.

Finally, allow me to say why it is the mainstream. It is the mainstream because it fits so perfectly with the philosophical and theological foundations of Anglicanism. The Elizabethan Settlement established Anglicanism for what it is, and that is that it must not be a dogmatic religion. It is to be a flexible religion. When you read Anglican history you will find the principle of dogmatic compromise in every age. From its conception Anglicanism has been wedded to the spirit of the age. From the beginning Anglicanism has adapted its language according to its practical needs. From the first Anglican reformers onward the heritage of Anglicanism has not been a fearless search for truth and a proclamation of the truth at any cost, but a fearful search for compromise and a proclamation of any truth that would please as many people as possible.

I want to say, "Ah, but these are only the members of the liberal wing of the church. The Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals, they have not bowed the knee to Baal." Unfortunately the rot of modernism has also touched many who follow the Anglo Catholic and Evangelical modes of being Anglican. Furthermore, another whole essay could be written about the philosophical underpinnings of the Anglican Evangelicals and Anglo Catholics. Are they not able to stay within a church where both parties hold diametrically opposed beliefs because they too believe that theological language is merely metaphorical and that the language of belief is provisional? While they profess to believe in a dogmatic religion, they can only remain Anglicans recognizing the ministries of one another (while believing opposing things about sacraments and ministry) because they too really believe that dogma is unimportant.

I realize these are harsh words. I also realize that there are many of our brothers and sisters in Christ who have true faith, who love the historic faith and are unaware of the depth of deception at the heart of their most beautiful and venerable religion. I do not wish to offend them, but I offer my thoughts on why Anglicanism is at once so desirable and yet so often dishonest.

PS: I am well aware that the same sort of modernism has poisoned the Catholic Church too, and will post on this soon.

More Good News

2009-11-22T19:11:00.002-05:00

Another poll reveals the slow but sure progress of the Pro Life cause in the United States: Go here.

The Crucified Rabbi

2009-11-22T19:05:00.004-05:00

I'm trying to work through a pile of books that have been sent to me for review, and have just finished Taylor Marshall's excellent The Crucified Rabbi. Taylor is a former Episcopal priest. Married with five children, he is a doctoral candidate at the University of Dallas. He's also written The Catholic Perspective on Paul and he blogs at Canterbury Tales.

I first met Taylor when he was assisting Mgr. William Stetson at the office of the Pastoral Provision. I had to complete my studies for ordination as a Catholic priest and Taylor helped steer me through the process. We've bumped into each other on other occasions--most recently by phone and email to discuss the new Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.

Taylor has written a very readable and accessible book explaining the Jewish background of the Catholic faith. As an old farmer said about his Oxford educated parish priest, "He's learned, but it don't show." Marshall begins by showing how the Jewish Messiah is the Catholic Christ and goes on to outline step by step how the Jewish Kingdom aligns with the Catholic Church, how the Jewish ceremonial washings parallel baptism, the Passover points to Eucharist and how the priesthood, the vestments, the holidays point to their Catholic equivalents and even how the temple and synagogue point to cathedrals and parish churches.

This is a fascinating book full of interesting details. I was especially interested to read about the connection between Jewish ceremonial washing and baptism as well as the Biblical connections between the Jewish kingdom and the Catholic system. The Crucified Rabbi should be required reading for every student of the Catholic faith. It would also be a great read for catechists and RCIA leaders--helping them to understand the intricate links between Old and New Testament and the Old and New Covenant. I believe it was Augustine who said, "The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is made manifest in the New." Taylor's book illuminates this truth clearly.

Taylor goes over some of the same ground as Scott Hahn in his books, but he does so in a concise and readable way--giving a good, popular overview where Scott Hahn goes into more depth and detail. Highly recommended.

Silent Monks SIng Hallelujah Chorus

2009-11-22T12:23:00.001-05:00

From Salt of the Earth

2009-11-22T10:24:00.001-05:00

Today's news is that Bishop Tobin of Providence RI has told Patrick Kennedy not to receive communion. Here's a quote that sheds light on the news:
Ratzinger: (on his appointment as an Archbishop) The words of the Bible and of the Church rang in my ears, those sharp condemnations of shepherds who are like mute dogs; in order to avoid conflicts, they let the poison spread. Peace is not the first civic duty, and a bishop whose only concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive.

Christus Pantocrator

2009-11-22T10:18:00.000-05:00

Long Live Christ the King

Grumbles

2009-11-21T21:12:00.001-05:00

An Anglican priest commenter on this blog writes,

what I find too often on this blog, both in the original articles and in the comments that follow, are attitudes that - in my opinion (heavily underlined!) - dismiss the CofE as unimportant, patronise it, misunderstand it, misrepresent it and mock it unmercifully; and then go on to do the same with our Archbishop. All this, of course, while appearing to be blissfully unaware of any faults, contemporary or historical, that might be found here or there within Roman Catholicism.

I think he has a good point. I admit that I do get pretty snarky about the Anglican Church. Some of our commenters are worse. We really should strive to conduct ourselves with charity and we should try to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

However, to put the other side, I sense that among Catholics--especially Catholics in Britain--there is a huge amount of historical resentment towards the Anglican Church. In my experience as an Anglican priest I think Anglicans have a genuine and sincere blind spot about how they are perceived by Catholics.

Rightly or wrongly, Catholics in Britain perceive the Anglican Church like this. (If I am wrong I ask British Catholics to correct me)

First of all, they do not buy the idea that the Anglican Church is the 'Reformed Catholic Church in this land' one little bit. Instead they believe the Anglican Church was created four hundred years and fifty years ago as a monstrous schism by a lustful and rapacious tyrant. They think the Anglicans forcibly closed their monasteries, grabbed the cathedrals and churches, stripped the riches out of them, stole the land and gave it all to the King and his cronies. They believe the Anglican Church and her hierarchy has lived richly off these rich pickings for four hundred years and does so still.

They believe that for three hundred years the Anglicans continued to mercilessly persecute Catholics--depriving them of their freedom, their land, their riches, their rights and their entitlements as British subjects . Even when Catholics were granted freedom they continued to be prejudiced against--even to this day in the formal laws of the land supported by the Anglican establishment. They are well aware that Anglicans looked down on them as foreigners, that they were called 'the Irish and Italian mission' a church that was 'for Irish naavies and Italian waiters'. Even now the prejudice exists and the Catholic Church is for 'Philippino nurses and Polish plumbers.'

They remember and resent the cruel and heartless oppression of the Irish people and the Stalinesque attempts of the English to stamp out Catholicism in that land. They resent the Whig version of history which portrays the Irish as sub human, Henry VIII as a 'jolly old English monarch' and the murderous Elizabeth I as 'Good Queen Bess' and Mary Tudor as 'Bloody Mary'.

Considering all this, when I lived as a Catholic in England I was amazed at the tolerance, forgiveness and patience of English and Irish Catholics. I experienced very little bitterness among them towards the English and the Anglicans. Instead they exhibited a forbearance, a gentle good humor and a wry amusement at Anglicanism with all its pretensions and ignorance.

For my part, I admit to hard feelings and I'm sorry for them. I wish I could be more saintly and will strive to be more charitable.

More on the Archbishop's Speech

2009-11-21T20:27:00.001-05:00

Now having had the chance to read the whole of the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech in Rome last week I am even more flummoxed. As far as I can make out the whole speech can be paraphrased thus:

1. The ARCIC talks have worked. We've made a lot of progress and we agree on all the basics.
2. We agree on the creed and the main points of the Christian faith.
3. Women's ordination really isn't such a big deal. We got used to it. You could too.
4. The way we get on is that we all agree to differ. We're good with that. It works. You should try it.
5. Sometimes we have to make a compromise and so we have flying bishops and 'impaired communion.' That works too. It's not so bad. You should try it.
6. Things are going fine. We don't know why you guys are still so uptight about women priests and bishops. I'm sure you'll probably have them one day too, and until then, lets have full communion and you can recognize our orders and we can all do things the Anglican way.

What I can't get my head around is that Rowan Williams really seems to believe this. Let's take his points one by one.

1. Has ARCIC been a success? Well it has helped to clear up some misunderstandings and there has been substantial agreement on many things, but the problem is, the 'agreement' is only between the few Anglo Catholic scholars who were involved in ARCIC. As soon as the really important ARCIC agreements hit the General Synod of the Church of England they were voted out soundly by the Evangelicals and Liberals. So the ARCIC agreements look good on paper, but not by any stretch can we say that a majority of Anglicans either understand them or accept them.
2. Do we agree on the creed and essentials of the faith? What bothers me here is that I am well aware of how liberals interpret the creed. They say they believe in the incarnation and the Virgin Birth for example, but when you listen closely they believe that the incarnation means, "Jesus was such a good human that he became godlike" and "the girl Mary was such a pure and innocent young woman when she became pregnant by Joseph (or a Roman soldier) that we say she was a 'virgin.'" The liberal theologians say they believe the creed, but they've so re-interpreted the creed (while still using the historic formulae) that it is unrecognizable.
3. Women priests were first ordained in the Anglican communion in the mid 1970s. Everyone was told that there would be trouble at first, but eventually everyone would see how marvelous it was and would accept them. Thirty years later there's still deep division in the Anglican Church over this issue. The disagreement over women bishops is even more bitter. Let's not pretend this is a relatively unimportant matter.
4. Do Anglicans all 'agree to differ'? No. They're splitting amongst themselves and the communion is disintegrating faster every day. This is the model for unity?
5. Help me here. Just what is 'impaired communion'? How are flying bishops a focus of unity in the church? These provisions that were once an uncomfortable embarrassment for the Anglicans now seem to be the wallpaper of choice to cover the cracks. It's all a sort of ecclesiological legerdemain, and it's being recommended to the Catholics as a way forward?
6. He doesn't get it. Shared communion and a recognition of Anglican orders is further away than its ever been.

National Catholic Youth Conference

2009-11-21T20:05:00.000-05:00

Such a shame that Catholicism is full of old people and is dying off fast. This is the National Catholic Youth Conference in Kansas City this weekend. More pictures here.

ABC You and Me...

2009-11-21T13:21:00.003-05:00

ABC: What's all this about a "Personal Ordinariate"? How dumb is that? I'm supposed to really tell you off for that one.

B16: Chust smile for ze cameras pliss. Ve only haff twenty minutes.

ABC: Twenty minutes!! I come all this way and sit around in a Pizzeria on the Pio Borgo all day Friday and all I get is twenty minutes?

B16: Don't vorry. It von't take me zat long to tell you vat I need to say.

Food for Thought

2009-11-21T12:32:00.004-05:00

This is from one of those inspirational round robin emails. I don't know if the statistics are real, but it makes you think...

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep you are richer than 75% of this world.

If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish, you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.

And if you get this on your own computer, you are part of the 1% in the world who has that opportunity.

If you woke up this morning with more health than illness .. . You are more blessed than the many who will not even survive this day.

If you have never experienced the fear in battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation ... You are ahead of 700 million people in the world.

If you can attend a church without the fear of harassment, arrest, torture or death you are envied by, and more blessed than, three billion people in the world.

An Answer to the Archbishop from 1935

2009-11-21T11:38:00.003-05:00

What's true is always true. Sub Tuum has an essay written in 1935 that answers the ABC. Go here. Jeffrey Steel comments on the Archbishop's speech and Anglican ecclesiology here.