On the Brink
Those interested in following the current agonia of the Anglican Communion would do well to bookmark Articles of Faith, the weblog of Ruth Glendhill, the religion correspondent for the London Times. Also interesting is a thoughtful analysis of the conflict posted on the First Things blog by Jordan Hylden. That a post on FT would be critical of the TEC position is not surprising, but Hylden also has some pointed things to say about the “brinksmanship” of Archbishop Akinola and his fellow evangelicals.
The Anglican Communion’s internal struggles clearly have implications for the Catholic Church. The Anglican Communion is not the only Christian community where the global South is playing an increasingly influential role. A breakup of the Communion would probably strengthen the hand of those within the Church who are skeptical that ecumenical dialogue with the churches of the Reformation will bear much fruit. It also does not bode well for those who would like to see, for example, stronger national churches that have more authority over everything from the translation of texts to the appointment of bishops. Those who oppose such reforms will almost certainly point to the Anglican experience as a cautionary warning. Those who support them had better have a good response.
Those who favor Roman centralism and the unabated power of the Vatican bureaucracy to micromanage will resort to any argument, however specious, to oppose change. This should be no surprise. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said.
The Anglican Church was originally virtually a department of the English govenrnent. The spread of the Anglican church throughout the British empire changed all that, especially once the the Bishops of London ceased to maintain jurisdiction over the colonial church as it spread and independent episcopacies were established. It seems to me the Anglican Church has become in many ways like the British Commonwealth.
The situation in the Roman Catholic church is quite different. The power of the bishop of Rome to appoint has been vastly augmented since the 19th century. The results have not been happy. We are never going to return to a world in which Catholic monarchs had a say in ecclesiastical appointments. But in a democratic age the people of God should have some say over who becomes their local bishop. Someone will say: “the Church is not a democracy”. Evidently not. But where is it written that it must be an absolute monarchy. One need not go from absolute power to mere anarchy. Constutional government is always possible. It might even lead to something positive. Shared responsibility need not be opposed to the divinely appointed role of the bishops of Rome. Certainly it was not thought to be for much of the history of the Church.
Hyldan makes some ridiculous claims:
“In essence, the theological position represented by Schori has reached the point at which it no longer exists in the same thought-world as traditional Christianity.” Then Spong is invoked to “prove” that TEC members no longer believe in the resurrection or other anchors of the faith.
Hylden ignores the fact that Spong is not a liberal Episcopalian. He is an extremist whom many liberal Episcopalians reject.
Hyland again: “Time and again, Anglican evangelicals have accused Episcopalian liberals of defying Scripture, while catholics have accused them of defying tradition and church order. But since neither scriptural nor ecclesial authority are primary points of reference for Episcopalian liberals, such arguments have had no avail, nor will they ever.”
Hyland goes to far. Episcopalians rely on Scripture, tradition AND REASON to inform their decisions. You can certainly argue that liberal Episcopalians have substituted sentiment or progressivism for reason informed by Scripture and tradition in making decision on some issues, e.g., homosexual ordinations. But to say they have rejected these cornerstones of their faith is to overreach the argument.
Moreover, Hyland also ignores the fact that Episcopalian evangelicals have rejected tradition and reason entirely, relying wholly on fundamentalist-like Scriptural interpretation to remonstrate with liberal Episcopalians. I would argue that evangelicals within the Episcopal Church are not really Episcopalians at all.
I do agree with Hyland about Akinola: “… unfortunately for Williams, Akinola has so far not shown a great deal of interest in preserving the communion’s historic unity. In fact, he has at every possible opportunity telegraphed his willingness to cut ties if his conditions are not met, not least at the present meeting.”
I think it’s clear Akinola wants to be ABC, or at least the ABCof the South.
Sadly, Anglicanism is what Catholicism would look like without the CDF and papacy. And while we oughtn’t to be blind to the very human failings in these institutions, the miracle is that these flawed vessels have preserved the sacred teachings of Jesus Christ.
I wish more Episcopalians would consider their true home in the Catholic church. But I don’t think the tenor of Catholicism today is really that welcoming to Episcopalians, not when some of our conservative friends are urging the church to give up on mainstream Christianity and make friends with fundies and pentecostals.
I think Jean’s comments are most perceptive.
I wonder, however, if in our own Church, under the radar to many, some inplosion is also at work.
I also think the glue tha holds many of us together are the sacraments and our fellow Catholics and that leadership is still remote in the building of the unity we need to have
Joseph,
When I hear these kids of arguments against Vatican authority, I feel the need to ask why would we expect the Catholic Church to be united when every other western Christian sect has not been? Why would we not split into hundreds of denominations in just a few decades?
Jean,
I happen to think it’s fair game to bring up Spong. The man was a bishop of a major diocese in the Episcopal Church, and remained so for years after he espoused heretical beliefs. I think Hyland’s purpose in bringing him up, and Hyland does say that Schori doesn’t agree with many of his teachings, is to show that if TEC tolerates this within not just its membership, but its leadership, it is moving to a point where it will be alien to traditional Christian thought.
An aside
Joseph Gannon wrote:
“The situation in the Roman Catholic church is quite different. The power of the bishop of Rome to appoint has been vastly augmented since the 19th century. The results have not been happy. We are never going to return to a world in which Catholic monarchs had a say in ecclesiastical appointments. But in a democratic age the people of God should have some say over who becomes their local bishop.”
Does “Roman Catholic Church” mean only the Latin Church or does it include the other churches which are in full communion with Rome? Because here in Kerala, India we have two churches, the Syro-Malabar and the Syro-Malankara which are headed by Major Archbishops (what the eastern churches call Patriarch) and whose bishops are elected by their Synod. They do have to get an assent from Rome before the actual appointment. There is a post in ‘Whispers in the Loggia’ about the latest such election, in the Syro-Malankara church.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
(Posting of February 10th titled ‘ The Pope’s “Major” Assent’ )
The Major Archbishop of the Syro- Malabar Church, (which I belong to) is a Cardinal.
And thanks to Ann O of the Commonweal Yahoo group for the link to ‘Whispers in the Loggia’ in the above post
Sean, with all due respect, as a former Episcopalian, the fact that Spong was not tried for heresy–this was discussed–is because of the Bishop Pike debacle, not because liberal Episcopalians thought he was so great.
Moreover, Spong espoused his heretical notions at the end of his career, when he had less to lose.
Just a personal note: Do you ever agree with anything I say? The only time you ever respond to me is to let me know you think I am in error.
As a convert I often feel I’m not a “real” Catholic most of the time, and especially after I read one of your responses.
Whether that’s good or bad, I leave for you to decide.
Today’s “Washington Post” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/metro/Archive_1.html has profiles of two of the leading figure in the incipient schism within the Episcopalian Diocese of Virginia. Who owns the property is a big point at issue–it’s not just Catholic Cardinals who think the issue important.
In addition to Gledhill’s excellent articles on the internal stresses in the Anglican Communion, be sure to read her article on RC again becoming the dominant religion in Britain, largely as the result of the large influx of Catholic immigrants from other European countries. As Gledhill so aptly puts it,
“the church founded on the divorce of a King is caught up in the mess of its own internal divorce, barely able to think about anything except gays, while the Church it supplanted in the first place is set to regain its ancient supremacy.”
Also, thanks to Sunil for the link to the article about the Syro-Malankara Church. I had never heard of that church or the Syro-Malabar Church and their full communion with Rome. As a Latin Rite Catholic, I’m embarrassed to admit that I know so little about the non-Latin rites and their rich histories. If anyone knows of a good book that sets forth background on all of the various rites in the Catholic Church, I’d appreciate hearing about it.
Jean,
First, on the personal note. Couldn’t I say the same of you? By definition, you disagree with me as often as I do with you. It is not my intention to give offense or to make you feel like you are not a “real” Catholic. It has been my experience that most converts are more devout and certainly more knowledgable about the Faith than cradle Catholics like me. I have never considered anyone not a “real” Catholic for that or any other reason. I am sorry if you feel that way. It is certainly not my intention.
In point of fact, I agree with your statement regarding the papacy and the CDF, which is why I asked the question I did of Joseph.
I am sure you know more about the inner workings of the Episcopal Church, but Spong was writing articles and books questioning the resurrection more than six years before he retired. Certainly that is at the end of a career that was so long, but it is also an awfully long time to tolerate heresy by a bishop, unless you have decided that nothing is heretical. That is how I understood Hyland. Not that he thinks Schori, and other liberal Episcopalians, agree with Spong’s teaching, but that they see it as just another disagreement. Schori, I believe would even call it “healthy” disagreement. If this is so, I think he is right in concluding TEC will be unable to communicate with traditional Christians.
Sunil,
Apologies! I am provincial enought to say Roman Catholic Chgurch when I should speak of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks for the reminder!
It’s reported that the 7primates of the Global South refused to take communion wth Bishop Schori.
My first reaction was. ” how sad ..see how these christians love one nother.”
Contrast this with the report at whispers in the Loggia about the (Soho) Mass in England.
I did want to ask Jean, though, that if Bishop Schori were a man, would the treatment have been the same?
Sean, I have no statistics I can cite, but in the less divisive days of the church, talking about what was wrong with Spong was one of those things that actually united Episcopalians at coffee hour.
If Spong is a reason Episcopalians can’t talk with each other, it’s because some conservatives insist on mentioning Spong in the same breath with liberal Episcopalians. Which many liberals resent.
Something similar occurs when liberal and conservative Catholics argue, and somebody decides to lump the conservatives in with the Inquisition and the Crusades. It’s just not a fair association.
So I think that Hylden (whose name I misspelled repeatedly above, how embarassing) is baiting the liberals with the Spong reference. Or, more charitably, has picked up the Spong reference unwittingly from other liberal-baiters.
There are so many facets to this situation. Conservative Episcopalians have been talking about, but have refrained from, splintering from ECUSA for over a decade. They’ve shown a certain amount of forbearance there.
But conservatives have also been fixated on “Gene Robinson, the last straw” rather than on the theology that allowed for his ordination. This has allowed liberals to make conservatives look like they’re attacking an already besieged minority group.
ECUSA blew off conservative concerns at its last conference, refusing to be intimidated by threats of schism. My guess is that they thought that Akinola, who has called for criminal penalties for homosexual behavior, is so far right that few parishes would be interested in joining him (and, so far, few have).
It’s just sad.
Bob, I don’t know. I suspect Schori’s gender matters less than that Gene Robinson is one of her bishops.
Sean,
You speak of my arguments “against Vatican authority”. I don’t see myself as having made any. In fact II did not mention “Vatican authority” and I find the concept rather elusive. I do choose my words carefully even if I sometimes misspell them. What exactly are you suggesting I said that would give you an occasion to ask your question?
I suspect those, like me, who support the status quo are, in your words, “Those who favor Roman centralism and the unabated power of the Vatican bureaucracy to micromanage will resort to any argument, however specious, to oppose change.” I think the status quo is proper exercise of Vatican authority, you appear not to.
My question is, if the local layity takes part in electing bishops and has a greater role in establishing the liturgy etc., why will we Catholics not end up like everyone else – Presybeterians, Congreagationalists etc – who governs themselves this way and split into hundreds of new sects? You say moving to a “constitutional” form of governance need not result in anarchy – perhaps not, but I would argue that it would certainly not be a Catholic church any more.
Sean, Your pose this question:
“My question is, if the local layity takes part in electing bishops and has a greater role in establishing the liturgy etc., why will we Catholics not end up like everyone else – Presybeterians, Congreagationalists etc – who governs themselves this way and split into hundreds of new sects?:
I don’t know what you mean by “establishing the liturgy” and in fact I said nothing about the liturgy. The words that you seem chiefly to be reacting to are these:
“But in a democratic age the people of God should have some say over who becomes their local bishop”
Well in 17th century France, for instance, the monarch had some say about who the occupants of the French Sees would be. Those were the days of monarchy. Now we have what is called democracy. I am suggesting that the clergy and the laity in a diocese today might have some say over who their local bishop might be. I deliberately did not specify a particular process. I would assume that the Bishop of Rome might retain the right to veto a nominee. Of course a bishop, once chosen, would still have the same role that bishops properly have now. I don’t see much here that resembles a Protestant church. If you do, I do not know how to explain that, nor do I see any reason why I should try. By the way neither Ambrose, nor Augustine nor John Chrysostom nor Basil nor many others were chosen by the same method that the Bishop of Rome lately has begun to use. Were they crypto-Methodists or proto-Lutherans? I don’t think so, and I suspect neither do you.
“Church founded on the divorce of a king”?!
I get SO sick of hearing Anglicanism characterized this way.
I don’t think people nowadays appreciate the extent to which monastic charters essentially set up two English governments, one under the crown and one under the abbots–separate courts, taxation, property rights–and how canny the abbots were at extending the charter priveleges to monastery-owned properties.
Kings of England sought redress from the Pope which was never forthcoming. Henry VII was especially instrumental in dismantling some of these charter priveleges on his own to diffuse the situation because he didn’t want a schism, though the Pope was quick enough to send him nasty notes when the monks complained.
The fact that the English people loved their church is evident in the fact that the Anglican liturgy kept reverting back to RC rubrics. In the countryside, people stripped down the churches before Henry VIII’s people could come and smash the glass and statuary. And much of that glass was later restored after Elizabeth I ascended and stopped the ruination of the churches.
If I didn’t think the schism was ultimately a mistake, I woudln’t be in the Catholic church now. But to blame the English reformation on Henry VIII and his divorce is just simple-minded. Moreover, to ignore or disparage some of the reasons for the reformation is to let it happen again.
Perhaps this speaks a bit to Sean’s concern that the laity not “drive the boat” with regard to liturgy and electing bishops.
In the early Middle Ages, bishops were selected with an eye toward who would best fit the populace, depending on how recently they’d converted. One of the weaknesses of St. Augustine of Canterbury was that he “didn’t know the territory,” and tried to impose all church teaching on new converts at once. You can sense the irritation in some of Pope Gregory’s letters to him about not “feeding” the people on the “strong food of faith” until they’d been weaned from the “milk” of the main ideas.
Moreover, St. Augustine sowed the seeds of dissent in the early English church by snubbing the Welsh and Irish priests, who’d been isolated from Rome and were not up to speed on the latest practices, but had kept the faith alive nevertheless and had already made some inroads in converting the English.
A bad bishop could make or break the inroads made in conversion then, and I think a bad bishop–or the wrong bishop–now can make or break the extent to which people feel the faith is truly the repository of Jesus Christ.
One last Protestant Moment rant:
When a synod was held in 688 to decide whether to go with Roman or Celtic church practices, the feeling of most people was with the Celtic church, but they were pragmatic enough to know that Rome was the dominant force on the continent.
Having chosen the Roman rites freely, the English felt that much more betrayed when Rome didn’t bother to listen to their pleas against the monastic abuses.
I just want to add two interesting notes to this thread:
viz. at the gathering, a lengthy paper was circulated urging Anglicans to find ways to reunite with Rome!
-The Archbisjhop of Canterbury (citing Ignatius of Antioch) noted the bishops to be reverenced most were the ones who practiced silence.
Interesting, Bob! Were Catholics circulating this paper, Bob? Do you have details?
My main source on this is Whispers in the Loggia.
Also today came a post from a Tom Marlarky to the VOTF on-line discussion group at VOTFN@yahoo.com with an article about the paper being circulated.
Personally, I was much more interested in and hopeful of Rowan’s statement – but that “s just one man’s view.