![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Card. Kasper to Anglicans: Are you Protestants or Catholics? Time to decide!
The Catholic Herald has a fascinating article by our friend the persistent interviewer extraordinaire Anna Arco:
Anglicans must choose between Protestantism and tradition, says Vatican
By Anna Arco
6 May 2008
The Vatican has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.
Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity".
He told the Catholic Herald: "Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?
"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium, Catholic and Orthodox, or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."
He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.
Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.
"We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis."
His comments will be interpreted as an attempt by Rome to put pressure on the Church of England not to proceed with the ordination women bishops or to sanction gay partnerships, both serious obstacles to unity.
They have come at an extremely sensitive time for the Anglican Communion, as cracks between different factions in the church are beginning to show ahead of the conference in July.
Dr Rowan Williams faces rebellion from conservative and liberal Anglicans over homosexuality and women bishops.
The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Anglican bishop of New Hampshire, whose attempts to enter into a civil union with his gay partner have angered conservative Anglicans, plans to attend the public events of the conference despite the fact that he has not been invited by Dr Williams.
On the other side of the spectrum, rebel conservative bishops, headed by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, dismayed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s refusal to condemn homosexuality outright, plan a rival conference in the Holy Land in June.
Ecumenical dialogue between Rome and the Anglican Communion ground to a halt in 2006. Cardinal Kasper said at the time that a decision by the Church of England to consecrate women bishops would lead to "a serious and long lasting chill".
But last month the Church of England’s Legislative Drafting Group published a report preparing the ground for women bishops, who are already ordained in several Anglican provinces.
I think the Cardinal’s point is well taken. However, I think the Roman Church has spent a lot of unnecessary time on Ecumenism. I think Ecumenism is great
Comment by TJM — 6 May 2008 @ 8:12 amfrom the standpoint of not hurling invectives at each other but I think it’s delusional to think Anglicans are going to come around to a truly
Catholic point of view. We certainly shouldn’t accomodate our beliefs and praxis to accomodate them. We tried already and it was a failure. Tom
His Emminence is exactly right…ever since the Oxford Movement the Anglicans have attempted to stand in between Protestantism and Catholicism. The heretics among them have forced the the Anglo-Catholics’ hands, they will have to choose union with Rome, or suffer the ignominy of a slow death.
I agree with the idea that Anglicanism “can” be a “way to be Catholic” just like the Easter Rite churches. It’s disingenuous, however, to attempt to pretend there is real unity when there is a real barrier.
Comment by Mickey — 6 May 2008 @ 8:27 am“Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium Catholic and Orthodox – or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.”
I don’t see how such a statement is even plausible. There’s nothing about Anglicanism that is not protestant. They have the mere trappings of apostolic succession, but not the thing itself.
***
“We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.
“We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decisionmaking back because it only extends the crisis.”
This is a good statement; for dialogue to be possible, we must know where they stand. The longer ambiguity prevails, the worse the situation becomes.
Comment by Chas — 6 May 2008 @ 8:28 amThe question is interesting, but I think that the whole protestant demeanour of the Anglican Communion is linked to a question that has been already resolved: that is, the lack of a true priesthood and of a valid Eucharist.
Without the grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and of the Most Blessed Sacrament, how can the Anglican eccesiastical community (not a Church, cf. Dominus Iesus ) compare with the “ancient Churches of Rome and Orthodoxy”, as the article puts it?
The link between the Orthodox, that have valid Orders and the gift of the Eucharist, and the true and only Church of Christ, that is the Catholic Church, is much closer, whereas the so called “Church of England” toguether with that mockery called “Episcopal Church USA” and other “Churches” of the Anglican Communion, are, without a true priesthood and the Eucharist, nothing more than the other protestant sects.
And, in my view, the lack of the grace of those Sacraments is what propells the Anglicans down the road of huge errors.
Comment by Prof. Basto — 6 May 2008 @ 8:29 amAs for the Anglicans, I think it is too little too late. Those who choose to move away from the teachings of the Church are already past a point of no return. Those who adhere to the Bible are largely Evangelical in outlook and practice. The Anglo-Catholics are largely gone from Anglican Communion to splinter groups or the Catholic Church itself.
Comment by Jacob — 6 May 2008 @ 8:33 amWhatever beliefs the Anglican communion may have or not, the fact the of matter remains that it was founded as the result of an adulterous marriage! Consequently throughout history its position has always been compromise with the prevailing ideologies of the times, and today is no exception. The only thing that really keeps the original Church of England together is the fact that it is the established church of the state. Otherwise it has no valid orders and no real coherent body of doctrine.
Comment by The Expectation of Our Lady — 6 May 2008 @ 8:38 amHaving been raised in Episcopal Church, I understand that not for nothing is it called The Church of the Real Absence.
I will quote one of my late Angelicum profs, a Swiss, who was an expert on the “Anglican Question” and consultor to the SCDF, the SCDW, and the SCClergy:
There are ecumenical meetings where we send bishops and priests, and they send lay people who think they’re bishops and priests. This is a problem.
Comment by RBrown — 6 May 2008 @ 9:10 amWhen I consider the Anglican/Episcopalian denomination, I can’t help but ponder:
They led the charge for mainstreaming divorce.
They led the charge for mainstreaming contraception.
They led the charge for women’s “ordinations.”
They led the charge for mainstreaming homosexuality.
What’s next?
Comment by Carolina Geo — 6 May 2008 @ 9:15 amThat’s a really good point, Carolina. Besides the doctrinal problems, there are serious problems with the Anglican conception of morality. At this point, I think the moral problems are primary.
Comment by A Philadelphian — 6 May 2008 @ 9:35 amAnglicans now have valid orders but I agree the Anglican church needs to decide where it stands. Lambeth will not decide anything as the thing holds together by compromise. However, the best of Catholic Anglicanism is close to the Catholic Church of Pope Benedict: patristic scholarship, decent and reverent liturgy the hermeneutic of continuity. A number of people I know who have attended the more traditional Roman Catholic masses in England have said “it’s so Anglican.” Indeed, it is the bad liturgy of some RC churches which holds some Anglicans back!
Comment by Robert Tickle — 6 May 2008 @ 9:53 amAnglicans now have valid orders but I agree the Anglican church needs to decide where it stands. Lambeth will not decide anything as the thing holds together by compromise. However, the best of Catholic Anglicanism is close to the Catholic Church of Pope Benedict: patristic scholarship, decent and reverent liturgy the hermeneutic of continuity. A number of people I know who have attended the more traditional Roman Catholic masses in England have said “it’s so Anglican.” Indeed, it is the bad liturgy of some RC churches which holds some Anglicans back!
Comment by Robert Tickle — 6 May 2008 @ 10:01 amMy first thought upon reading the title of the post was, “Need to ask that to a lot of Catholics too, including many bishops.”
But in some sense, are Anglicans as a whole just sort of middle of the road? It seems like they are either extremely “protestant” or extremely “high church.” I really don’t seem to see much of a middle ground.
Most of the “high church” Anglicans seem to almost be Catholic anyway aside from the “pope thing” (yes, I know that is an over-simplification). But is there really any authority in the Anglicans. I really can’t see Anglican stepping up and really saying “this is the way it is!” whether it be conservative or liberal doctrine. They seem to be trying to please everyone while at the same time not really pleasing any of their members.
Of course I’m sure the media will pick up on this and say “the Catholics are trying to tell people what to do again.” But maybe it is Providential for Cardinal Kasper to light a fire under the Anglican authority’s figurative rear end.
Robert Tickle said “Anglicans now have valid orders…”
No, Anglican orders are still invalid.
Comment by Roman Sacristan — 6 May 2008 @ 10:16 amWhen I was a Baptist teenager and went looking for the Catholic church, I
Comment by Austin — 6 May 2008 @ 10:28 amended up joining an Anglo-Catholic parish (this was in Africa). I was impressed
Eucharistic piety—the Anglicans had a beautifully celebrated High Mass,
Benediction, Corpus Christi processions. I wanted to venerate the Mother of God:
the Anglicans taught me the rosary, the Marian prayers, had May celebrations.
In this parish, I learned contemplative prayer, read the writings of the great
saints of the Catholic Church, and grasped some of the social implications of
Catholic teaching. The priests had been ordained by bishops consecrated by Old
Catholics, I believe, so their orders may even have been valid. In contrast,
when I went to the local Catholic parishes, I saw a perfunctory NO Mass, heard
sermons that did not seem to deal with the Christian religion let alone Catholicism,
and, when I brought up some of the things I was interested in, was told that
these were “out of date.” I will always be deeply grateful for what I learned
about the Catholic faith among the catholic wing of Anglicanism. It is a deep
pity that liberalism has destroyed the Communion. Many of us truly believed in
the possibility of corporate reunion. That is now impossible, but there are
treasures in Anglicanism that are worth salvaging.
I am fairly convinced that the ABC’s solution to the gay bishop/splitting communion problem is to solve nothing. It’s the Anglican way to just take the big ugly problem, wrap in in a pretty ribbon and call the irreconcilable differences a virtue. The “virtue” of comprehensiveness, which is the political agreement to ignore the irrationality of holding mutually exclusive claims under one roof, has always been intellectually dishonest.
The ABC is behaving in the same way as his historic predecessors with cryptic messages which are descriptive rather than prescriptive. He is hoping that everyone will simply behave according to Anglicanism’s highest code, which is not the gospel, but priggish civility. If this can be maintained then the Anglican Communion is “saved” as an institution, all the while coaxing with courtesy and white-gloved graciousness all its beloved members along the road to perdition.
Comment by Fr. J. — 6 May 2008 @ 10:36 amIn 2007, the only remaining viable rump of the 500,000 member Anglican Communion, the TAC, petitioned Rome for acceptance, wholesale. At that time, Cardinal Kasper said in response that it’s not the “policy” of the Catholic Church to accept groups in this fashion, but that “individual” conversions were welcome.
In 2003, prior to his election as pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to a group of conservative Episcopalians gathered in Dallas. The letter offered encouragement to the group, which was seeking to overturn the Episcopal acceptance of sodomite marriage.
I think it’s clear from the latter, and from his quiet encouragement of the TAC, that the Holy Father would welcome a return to communion of any and all Anglicans willing to swim the Tiber. In fact, I’d go so far as to guess no only that this will indeed happen after Cardinal Kasper’s replacement is named, but that it’s definitely part of Benedict’s plan for a reform of the reform.
Imagine half a million orthodox, liturgically sound Anglo-Catholics, armed with the Knott Missal, sprinkled through the Church. It can’t be denied that one of the chief stumbling blocks to a complete revival of the TLM is the Latin language. Too many otherwise so-inclined folks simply are too lazy or have a phobia about it. If they could have access to a beautiful, reverent Mass according to the Traditional books, with traditional rubrics, in English. Just imagine what the impact be. It wouldn’t simply draw former Anglicans, but would act as the other side of a vice, couple with Summorum Pontificum, squeezing the Ordinary Form into place.
Marshall Plan, indeed.
Comment by Jon — 6 May 2008 @ 10:37 amIt sounds more like Cardinal Kasper is fighting to keep his job at the PCCU.
I wonder how much of this question deals with application of unity from the Traditional Anglican Communion. Could this result in a real Anglican Rite of the Catholic Church, headed by a Cardinal, with married priest (like the eastern Catholic rites)?
I think that could be very appealing to African churches. Again, I wonder what the impact would be in the United States.
Comment by Matt of South Kent — 6 May 2008 @ 10:47 amRobert Tickle said “Anglicans now have valid orders.”——————————————————————Apostolicae Curae
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders.
Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII.
36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, Our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
Comment by Angelo — 6 May 2008 @ 10:52 amI doubt that any new rite would be established. More likely than not, the Pastoral Provision from JPII would be employed to assimilate married Anglican clergymen into the Catholic priesthood, and allow for personal parishes to be erected. Subsequent pastors would be ROman Rite celibate priests who would simply offer the Mass according to the Book of Divine Worship (Anglican Use within the Roman Rite).
I think we could all see the danger a married priesthood saying an English Mass would pose to the current discipline of celibacy. The cultural identity of the Eastern Rites are of a distinct flavor from Western society. English “Rites” are not. There would little reason for an American seminarian to go “Roman” when he could go “English” and get married.
Comment by RichR — 6 May 2008 @ 10:58 am(I agree with most of the comments so far.) As a recent r