Insightful, compelling, salutary. Thank you for writing this. But if I was an Anglo Catholic, I'd be saying something like, "Well, this is what we've been saying all along. Through various historical contingencies, none of which have necessarily been the Pope's fault, the role and status of the Holy See has become inflated and quite far removed from what it was in the first millenium and prior to the Reformation/Counter Reformation. We respect and revere the Petrine Office, but we long to return to a time when there was a wider spread of powers and things weren't such a 'one man show.'"
Something like that. I'm not an Anglo Catholic btw. I'm a Roman Catholic like yourself, but this history does seem (to me at least) to lend weight to their claims.
This is also essentially one of the main arguments the Orthodox have.
The other Orthodox arguments are related, however, in that they boil down to noting that the Papacy, in responding to very real and serious crises often not of their own making, unilaterally altered what had been previously universally accepted theology in ways that were expedient, but with long-term deleterious ramifications for church unity, and whose ripples necessitated yet more unilateral changes later on.
Pretty sure it means what Anglicans mean by it. ...
"on the "high-church" end of the Anglican spectrum, Anglo-Catholics believe that the 16th-century Reformation did not start a new church, but rather preserved the ancient, universal ("catholic") church in England. Consequently, their theology deeply emphasizes sacraments, apostolic succession, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, while their worship is famously traditional, featuring elaborate vestments, incense, and bells. Although their services look and feel nearly identical to Roman Catholic Masses, they remain Anglican, meaning they do not answer to the authority of the Pope and often hold different views on clerical marriage, women's ordination, and church governance."
Okay…that is what I originally thought. But setting it up against “Roman Catholic” makes it look like it is in someway equivalent to “Eastern Rite Catholic”. They think they are Catholic, but they aren’t. And, thank you for these articles. They have been very informative—you write well and should continue your long form articles-in my humble opinion!
no, that's just the way Anglicans talk. They have a great deal of difficulty with the concept that things have fixed characteristics that allow definitions. They are, at the fundamental level of metaphysics, the most confused people on earth in my experience. (not to say that John is an Anglican, but using Anglican terminology always conveys their problems of metaphysics, ie; generates confusion)
Yes, I think that’s a fair summary of Anglo-Catholicism and Anglicanism in general. My thinking on the subject has been formed to a large extent by my experience of the Liturgy in the city where we live (Adelaide). The RC parishes (even the Cathedral to an extent) are often bland and insipid in their worship, while the Latin Mass alternative can feel like a panicked, head-based response to the general desacralisation that’s going on. It feels forced to a degree, like everyone’s trying too hard. Both Masses and the atmosphere surrounding them seem essentially modern to me. Miles away, in their different ways, from the liturgical vision articulated by Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy.
But in the Anglo-Catholic church near us isn’t like that. The place has quite a pre-Reformation feel to it - Sarumesque almost. It has the air of the church in Eliot’s Little Gidding - ‘a place where prayer has been valid.’ There’s a depth and stillness and richness which we’ve not been able to find here so far in the Catholic world. Though things are different and better elsewhere in Australia, especially Sydney.
So, yes, I’m sympathetic to Anglo-Catholicism in many ways. Can you be Catholic without being in full communion with the Pope? They’d say yes. ‘We are Catholics in the Anglican tradition.’ That’s what they say.
But none of this is really the point. The point is the emptying out of the sacred in our Catholic Churches and the void this creates. As Hilary says, this isn’t something that’s happened only since 1965. It’s been going on for centuries and this is the root, I feel, of the metaphysical malaise that so many of us feel.
I loved going to the Anglo-Catholic parish in Halifax when I lived there, St. George's Round, and got on famously with my weird and wacky, kind and hilarious Anglican friends. And I know exactly what you're talking about. I miss them still. They were very kind to me in a very difficult period of my life.
True enough. And this is an excellent historical summary. But after getting this history right (I bet there are some westerners who still think the Donation of Constantine was real and made up), the next steps are adjudication (what is good, what is less good but perhaps tolerable, what is bad that perhaps is tolerable, and what is bad that must rectified) and then prescription (what should we do about the truly bad). And finally, prediction (You have diabetes, your processed food and white sugar intake is killing you, so stop eating Frosted Flakes and drinking soda, else you will die a slow, painful death at 68 you could have avoided). I read very few people who make predictions, so here's mine: if Pastor Aeternus is not rejected by those who despise Vatican II, is reforms and the Novus Ordo, all that they hate and despise will continue unabated for generation after generation. Pastor Aeternus is the problem, and so must die.
Insightful, compelling, salutary. Thank you for writing this. But if I was an Anglo Catholic, I'd be saying something like, "Well, this is what we've been saying all along. Through various historical contingencies, none of which have necessarily been the Pope's fault, the role and status of the Holy See has become inflated and quite far removed from what it was in the first millenium and prior to the Reformation/Counter Reformation. We respect and revere the Petrine Office, but we long to return to a time when there was a wider spread of powers and things weren't such a 'one man show.'"
Something like that. I'm not an Anglo Catholic btw. I'm a Roman Catholic like yourself, but this history does seem (to me at least) to lend weight to their claims.
Looking forward to Part 3.
This is also essentially one of the main arguments the Orthodox have.
The other Orthodox arguments are related, however, in that they boil down to noting that the Papacy, in responding to very real and serious crises often not of their own making, unilaterally altered what had been previously universally accepted theology in ways that were expedient, but with long-term deleterious ramifications for church unity, and whose ripples necessitated yet more unilateral changes later on.
I am curious how you define “Anglo Catholic”…do you mean Anglican? Do you mean Ordinariate? Or is there some other group?
Pretty sure it means what Anglicans mean by it. ...
"on the "high-church" end of the Anglican spectrum, Anglo-Catholics believe that the 16th-century Reformation did not start a new church, but rather preserved the ancient, universal ("catholic") church in England. Consequently, their theology deeply emphasizes sacraments, apostolic succession, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, while their worship is famously traditional, featuring elaborate vestments, incense, and bells. Although their services look and feel nearly identical to Roman Catholic Masses, they remain Anglican, meaning they do not answer to the authority of the Pope and often hold different views on clerical marriage, women's ordination, and church governance."
Okay…that is what I originally thought. But setting it up against “Roman Catholic” makes it look like it is in someway equivalent to “Eastern Rite Catholic”. They think they are Catholic, but they aren’t. And, thank you for these articles. They have been very informative—you write well and should continue your long form articles-in my humble opinion!
no, that's just the way Anglicans talk. They have a great deal of difficulty with the concept that things have fixed characteristics that allow definitions. They are, at the fundamental level of metaphysics, the most confused people on earth in my experience. (not to say that John is an Anglican, but using Anglican terminology always conveys their problems of metaphysics, ie; generates confusion)
Yes, I think that’s a fair summary of Anglo-Catholicism and Anglicanism in general. My thinking on the subject has been formed to a large extent by my experience of the Liturgy in the city where we live (Adelaide). The RC parishes (even the Cathedral to an extent) are often bland and insipid in their worship, while the Latin Mass alternative can feel like a panicked, head-based response to the general desacralisation that’s going on. It feels forced to a degree, like everyone’s trying too hard. Both Masses and the atmosphere surrounding them seem essentially modern to me. Miles away, in their different ways, from the liturgical vision articulated by Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy.
But in the Anglo-Catholic church near us isn’t like that. The place has quite a pre-Reformation feel to it - Sarumesque almost. It has the air of the church in Eliot’s Little Gidding - ‘a place where prayer has been valid.’ There’s a depth and stillness and richness which we’ve not been able to find here so far in the Catholic world. Though things are different and better elsewhere in Australia, especially Sydney.
So, yes, I’m sympathetic to Anglo-Catholicism in many ways. Can you be Catholic without being in full communion with the Pope? They’d say yes. ‘We are Catholics in the Anglican tradition.’ That’s what they say.
But none of this is really the point. The point is the emptying out of the sacred in our Catholic Churches and the void this creates. As Hilary says, this isn’t something that’s happened only since 1965. It’s been going on for centuries and this is the root, I feel, of the metaphysical malaise that so many of us feel.
I loved going to the Anglo-Catholic parish in Halifax when I lived there, St. George's Round, and got on famously with my weird and wacky, kind and hilarious Anglican friends. And I know exactly what you're talking about. I miss them still. They were very kind to me in a very difficult period of my life.
True enough. And this is an excellent historical summary. But after getting this history right (I bet there are some westerners who still think the Donation of Constantine was real and made up), the next steps are adjudication (what is good, what is less good but perhaps tolerable, what is bad that perhaps is tolerable, and what is bad that must rectified) and then prescription (what should we do about the truly bad). And finally, prediction (You have diabetes, your processed food and white sugar intake is killing you, so stop eating Frosted Flakes and drinking soda, else you will die a slow, painful death at 68 you could have avoided). I read very few people who make predictions, so here's mine: if Pastor Aeternus is not rejected by those who despise Vatican II, is reforms and the Novus Ordo, all that they hate and despise will continue unabated for generation after generation. Pastor Aeternus is the problem, and so must die.