August 7, 2003
Triumphalism
Remember, we must love the Anglicans as individuals. They are in communion with the Druid of Canterbury for any number of reasons, culpable and non. When we attack the institution of the Church of England or its Franchises in the former colonies, we must NEVER attack the members. We do not want to see the Church of England crumble into dust as any sort of proof of our righteousness (we still have to answer for a number of our own bishops, whose fall, in that they are validly ordained, is even more outrageous), rather we want the Church of England to crumble FOR THE SAKE OF the Anglicans themselves.
Now, Steven Riddle has made a good point that the refugees from HMS Canterbury may head to the error of Evangelical Protestantism (or be disgusted by the hypocricy of the C of E and drift into paganisms, Mohammedanism, Communism, pansexualism, whatever). However, they are already doing this. England is frightfully secular and Koran-infested.
One could point out that France, Italy, Spain, all of these Catholic nations are merely following along, and one would be absolutely correct. So we cannot sit back and point fingers. Our work is cut out for us. We must re-evangelize our own communities, then go out and spread the Gospel to the Nations (more on this in the context of Modern Art later).
Furthermore, I think it is better for the Anglicans to leave an idolatrous and heretical sect (who really do worship simple bread and wine) for a sect that is simply heretical. At least the Evangelicals are committed to preaching the Gospel (insofar as they can understand it).
I have to say I sometimes surprise myself with the vehemence of my anti-Canterbury position. Especially as a traditionally-minded (but not Radical Traditionalist) Catholic, I admire the sense of the beautiful found in the Oxford Movement, for instance, the dignity of their ceremonies. I love much of the literature that has come from C of E members (with the exception of most of C.S. Lewis, who I find mind-numbingly awful); I even like their anthems and carol services, and all of that. But when taken from the context of valid sacraments, these things become dark and dangerous.
Even as I applaud the Church of England's efforts at spreading the Gospel in Africa and India, I recognize that its day as a missionary sect is over and it is time to pray for it to close shop and for the Anglicans to follow Ven. Cardinal Newman home to Rome. But I do not pray for this to simply happen. I pray for the strength, guidance, clarity, etc. to do my part in drawing these people to the True Church!
So, with that, here is the little bit of Triumphalism as promised in the title! Thinking of the High Church Anglicans always makes me think of this great line from Brideshead Revisited:
"Beware of Anglo-Catholics - they're all sodomites with unpleasant accents."
Posted by erik at August 7, 2003 2:44 PM | TrackBackHello--
I don't know where you live but you might try looking for an Anglican Use Roman Catholic Church in your area. There are a few in Texas and Massachusetts. These were established by John Paul II under a pastoral provision for converts. They use a revised Anglican liturgy that has been approved by the Vatican. The liturgy is very well done and the sermons are usually quite good.
Here's the website for the one I go to and it has links to a few others.
www.walsingham-church.org
Posted by: Marty at November 1, 2003 6:48 AMJeff,
A Catholic who unknowingly attends an invalid mass at least is presumed to be in good faith going to a valid mass, as long as the priest is in communion with his bishop who is in communion with the Holy Father. The cases where the Jesuit, I mean, priest does not confect the Sacrament are those where I expect the Holy Spirit to provide.
In the case of the Anglicans it is stickier. Certainly there are probably some valid priests, due to the reasons you stated. I have not been to an Anglican service in years, so I do not remember if they follow a valid form, but if they do, and the priest has been validly ordained, then certainly the Eucharist is valid. Of course with more and more women playing bishop, the likelihood of this diminishes greatly. You raise some good points, though.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at August 8, 2003 11:43 PMThe old Anglican service (1928) follows a valid form for the consecration, (I don't know about their novus ordo) but there was a papal decree several decades ago that declared officially that there was not Apostolic succession. I don't remember the details as I am not home and near my reference texts.
The autobiography "Plus Sign on the Roof" has some good commentary on the whole Anglo-Catholic experience.
As an ex-Anglican, I stay away from their services because they are so compellingly beautiful to me that they become a near occasion of sin. I miss, horribly, the Anglican liturgies, and I have yet to find anything in the Roman rite that moves my emotions to the same degree. Latin or NO mass, it still doesn't do it. But I came over not for beauty or emotionalism or for 'better clergy' - but for one simple fact. Truth.
We may each be entitled to our own opinions (maybe!) and certainly de gustibus non disputandum, but neither taste nor opinion can triumph over truth. Wishing does not make it so. I pray for my poor misguided Anglican friends and family.
Well, OK, but two points:
1. Is it really better NOT to believe in the Real Presence at all than it is to believe in the Real Presence and be mistaken about where it is? What about Catholics who unknowingly attend an invalid Mass?
2. I know I'm a fire-breathing rad-trad and all, but I'm not willing to say, absolutely, that there is no possibility of transubstantiation taking place on Anglican altars. In the first place, some lines of Anglican orders are probably valid due to Old Catholic and ICP lines of succession. In the second place, God can make it happen even without valid orders (not that it is very likely in any case).
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath at August 12, 2003 11:36 AMDear Erik,
Speaking as one whose dearest friend (other than my dear wife) is an Episcopalian, you'll probably be quite surprised to hear that I don't disagree with your anti-anglicanism all that much. I look down upon them for the crimes of the past that have settled in the present. The Martyrs St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More as well as St. Edmund Campion and St. Robert Southwell are all one their heads as a communion, not to mention the many dreadful depredations that followed. (Yes, i know to be raised to Martyrdom for Christ is a great honor and privilege in heaven, but it doesn't stop me from being selfish and wishing that their work had been allowed to continue.)
But I do not crow over this self-destruction because of the grave nature of the insult to Christ. Many Episcopalians do love God, deeply, sincerely, and completely, and yet they are so fuddled, they do not realize that this blasphemy they crow is another slap in the face to Jesus. This is a grave and serious crime against humanity and God, and in it there is nothing good.
Its stain is upon this land and like so much toxic waste, it will trickle into the ground to contaminate the groundwater for a great many years to come. One triumphalist Episcopalian was quoted as saying that now the Episcoplal church can lend its moral weight to the debate on gay marriage. You and I recognize that as infinitely risible. Unfortunately the majority of American people and even a sizable minority of Catholics probably view this a sterling example of truth and courage.
So, you'll pardon me if I don't crow along, I am too saddened by yet another crime against the God I try so hard to love.
shalom,
Steven
Posted by: Steven Riddle at August 12, 2003 11:35 AMWilliam,
Part of why I am so vehemently anti-Anglican is that I can see the appeal to it. The little stone church with the magnificent choir and the rector with the island accent who stops in for tea and intelligent conversation. I mean, it is all so, well, civilized, and you don't have to really worry about all that hard-nosed stuff from the likes of Cardinal Ratzinger.
Do not give up on your parents. Pray for them! I imagine that argument is pointless. What would make them leave? Probably complete disorder and chaos within the Anglican communion - so pray for that as well(which is my point - the institution is terrible, the people in the church not).
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at August 12, 2003 11:35 AMHope you don't get too much email from C.S.Lewis fans. Could you work on my parents? They're stuck in this quaint little Epicopalian parish, don't like many of the changes underway, but cannot roust themselves from their seats. I've given up.
Posted by: William at August 12, 2003 11:34 AM