Comments on: The Anglican-Catholic Hoopla: Open Thread

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:34:35 +0000

As an anabaptist who was brought up pentecostal, attended an Evangelical college, married a Catholic, and now is a member of an Episcopal church, I must say that ecumenism is indeed unintelligible (even though I am living it).

By: Hill

Hill — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:10:13 +0000

Couple of remarks to Doug: what may be distinctly “conservative” in the radical conservatively Catholic tendencies of Anglo-Catholics might not necessarily be good. You could think of it as a kind of hyper-Ratzingerian impulse without any of the checks on it present in Roman Catholicism (it’s a disservice to Ratzinger to equate him with conservatism, but I’m trying to make a point). Second, Anglo-Catholicism is largely a theory. While I know that Anglo-Catholic parishes exist, they are very often participating in a bizarre kind of anachronistic aestheticism that is only better than the baroque version of phenomenon in Roman Catholicism because the gothic sensibilities present in the Anglo-Catholic version are better than the baroque sensibilities that inform most Roman Catholic traditionalism. The problem is that this sort of traditionalism is a fringe movement (one that I admittedly participate in to some degree) within Roman Catholicism, while it is constitutive of actual Anglo-Catholicism (on the ground, at least).

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:25:54 +0000

But isn’t there another way to see this altogether – a way in which, far from effing Protestants, Anglo-Catholics have historically been the most conservative Catholics of all time and that those who accept il Papa’s gambit will have moderated themselves in order to align with Rome? I say this, as neither Roman nor Anglo Catholic, after an ecumenical Catholic theologian with deep ties in the Vatican suggested to me in another context this past summer that the most conservative Catholic position would be to obey the local bishop, even where their positions went against the Pope’s – a sort of chain of command theory. He said he’d never met such a Catholic (btw, the context was a bit of a snide swipe at Catholics such as Weigel who would elevate national interests over the Vatican on matters of national security). Having duly read my St. Ignatius, I saw the logic of his remark immediately. I now wish I could have a conversation with him and say, hey what about Anglo-Catholics?

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:31:53 +0000

How about effin?

By: Daniel Imburgia

Daniel Imburgia — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:17:19 +0000

Scott, perhaps it’s also worth mentioning the ‘Lord’s Supper’ in relation to the Sabbath/Passover meals? A comprehensive political theology of eating should include the 1954 convocation of Rabbi’s convened in Cleveland to determine if Jell-o could be eaten by Jews. Not eating Jell-o, which was considered quintessentially American, caused some Jews to be ostracized and their patriotism called into question during the hyper-patriotic 50’s. Many Jews, already under suspicion as contaminated by communism felt that their restrictive diet was contributing to their alienation. The area from Utah to Arizona is still known as the “Jell-o corridor” because of the Mormons fervent, and patriotic consumption of this jiggly dessert. All this is to say, lot’s of folks consider, who eats what, why, and when, and with whom Important, (of course, who doesn’t get to eat at all is also worth thinking about). obliged

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:38:16 +0000

Kim is my papa

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:36:19 +0000

YES!

By: Glenn D

Glenn D — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:06:25 +0000

Several bloggers have also noted the remarkable timing of Pope Benedict’s offer to the Anglicans–that of the feast of St Paul of the Cross, founder of the Passionist Order.

The Catholic Encyclopedias entry on St Paul of the Cross explains how he prayed for over 50 years for the conversion and reconciliation of England, and he encouraged his spiritual sons to do the same.

Perhaps the timing of this offer by the Pope on St Paul of the Cross’ feast day was intentional, given Paul’s fervent desire for the reconciliation with the Church of England.

I did a bit of research and wrote a brief article concerning St Paul of the Cross and his desire for the reunion of the Anglicans. For those interested it can be found here:
http://www.saintpaulofthecross.com/2009/10/rome-vatican-pope-reaches-out-to.html

Glenn D.

By: Hill

Hill — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:25:37 +0000

They just have a wildly alternative metaphysics… or something? Like if Aquinas had been a dairy farmer or something… the Radical Reformation might not have even been necessary. I’m working on a proposal to change the official classification of the Mennonite sect to “schismatical” from “heretical.” What a tragic misunderstanding.

By: R.O. Flyer

R.O. Flyer — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:04:09 +0000

Why? Because Mennonites aren’t protestant!

By: Scott Coulter

Scott Coulter — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:52:53 +0000

IMO: Not only is the Lord’s Supper grounded in the Last Supper with the disciples, it is grounded in Jesus’ practice of table fellowship with “sinners”. The invitation to eat with Jesus was always open. Why should the invitation to eat Jesus be restrictive?

I’m curious — was my imagination missing the mark when I read something like this point into Halden’s (sarcastic?) remark: “Oh hell, yeah. You can’t really love anyone Jesus-style without [pastoral excommunication]” ?

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:43:37 +0000

It’s more complicated than that, Kim. See the conversation directly above your post.

You see, I once had a long argument with an RC about the vaginocentrism of the sanctuary. They thought the primary aesthetic emphasis was phallic. We couldn’t come to an agreement, and it for things like this that different communions simply cannot receive the Eucharist at the same table.

Trust me, the original manuscript of 1 Corinthians featured a chapter emphasizing this very point. It got deleted in the 2nd century by the Phallicists.

By: Scott Coulter

Scott Coulter — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:31:06 +0000

This is a fascinating and educational conversation; thanks Halden & everyone!

@ Paul — Great questions; I like them! Would you mind if I borrowed them to insert into another conversation elsewhere? :)
I hope that my non-gay-affirming brothers and sisters in the Mennonite Church USA would howl as loudly or more so if any of those positions were taken by pastors, congregations, as they do at us “Pink Mennos” & others who are welcoming & affirming (of LGBT folk) making noise & calling for change.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:18:27 +0000

There’s a very important different between the way Anglicans originated versus the way the rest of Protestantism originated in that the institution was preserved mostly intact and with (arguably) apostolic succession. Retaining institutional continuity that can be traced back to the apostles is a huge difference over the rest of protestantism.

Add to that the fact that Anglicans have largely (though obviously not even close to completely) remained loyal to the catholicity, sacramental practice, aloof from “sola scriptura” and other distinctively reformed beliefs makes it hard to call the Anglican church protestant in any unreserved sense.

And the origin of the Anglican church, while influenced by the reformation on the continent was a distinct historical phenomena (as Henry VIII insisted).

By: myles

myles — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:44:07 +0000

Seriously??? Someone’s bringing up the Donatist thing again?