Revelation of these discussions comes at a critical moment and may have been timed as a warning to the liberal majority that they risk a major schism if they push too hard. But its also worth noting that the threat of schism is not simply implied. At least 600 clergy have vowed to bolt (most probably swimming the Tiber) if women are consecrated as bishops without a so called safe harbor for conservative Anglicans. It has been widely reported that a number of bishops are similarly updating their resumes with at least one having already made the decision to go no matter the outcome of the synod.
Also worth keeping in mind is the ongoing saga of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) which petitioned Rome for full communion last year with the hope of being granted status as a uniate Anglican Rite somewhat analogous to the Ruthenian (Byzantine) Rite Catholics. If this were to happen it could create the framework for the absorption of a large scale exodus of High Church Anglo-Catholics and provide these spiritual refugees with a place to go.
Some might wonder why aren't any of these bishops talking to us? Of course I am Orthodox and would prefer them to embrace Orthodoxy. However I am obliged (with pain) to acknowledge that there are simply huge barriers to a mass conversion of Anglo-Catholics into the Orthodox faith. We can start with the question of whom to talk to? Britain suffers from the same jurisdictional squabbling (on a smaller scale) that we do here in the United States. Then there is the widespread controversy over the very idea of an Orthodox Western Rite. Huge numbers of Orthodox dismiss the concept of Western Rite Orthodoxy out of hand and by implication suggest that the only legitimate form of worship is the Byzantine rite. Thats all well and fine of course if we have zero interest in embracing a potentially huge defection on the part of Anglo-Catholics. For that matter we are pretty much writing off most Christians with a western cultural background.
The simple truth is that all these Anglicans are not going to become Byzantine rite. Thats just not a realistic expectation. They have their own history and spiritual traditions not all of which are incompatible with Orthodoxy. Indeed many aspects of Anglican ecclesiology would be much closer to that of Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism with its monarchical form of government. Expecting them to all renounce their history and culture is not only unreasonable, it's frankly rather insulting. However, at present there is little enthusiasm for a viable Western Rite outside of the Antiochian Patriarchate. So we are basically saying to them abandon your heritage and become Byzantine, or go to Rome.
Given the circumstances I can not fault them for their choice. Although not Orthodox, Rome is a vast improvement over where they are now. I wish I could say that this is likely to light a fire under the various hierarchs out there and make them realize the damage being done by our disunity and ethnocentrism. But I am not that sanguine.
8 comments:
I beg to differ; the logical Orthodox churches to approach are the Moscow Patriarchate and the Antiochian. Creating a western rite episcopate is certainly a possibility, since it happened in the past. By the way, where was the picture of the Western Rite Communion taken?
Very interesting scoop.
I think the fact is that few could possibly have imagined an appeal of this nature being made; and further that even fewer would have conceived of an appeal of this nature being received. Rome has often deferred to a preference for discussions of this nature to go through Cantebury... "as if". Benedict has been open to this "revised" angle for a longer period of time; and equally, the Antiochian Patriarchate has equally been active in rapprochements and I think was equally reticent after the schism to break relations with Rome.
My guess is that not all who look will "buy"; so the deal is not "done" by any means. Moscow and Antioch are indeed open... but then again, many anglo-catholics would describe themselves as "anglo-papalists"... so as you say.. they are a divided lot.
...many anglo-catholics would describe themselves as "anglo-papalists"... so as you say.. they are a divided lot.
Last month I attended the American conference of the Fellowship of Ss. Alban and Sergius. One thing which really jumped out at me was exactly what you say -- conservative Anglicans by no means agree with each other on what they want to be. Some consider themselves Anglo-Catholics; some "Catholic Anglicans" (or, as you say, "Anglo-Papists"); some seem to just want to be Lewisian "mere Christians" who happen to follow the BCP. A Rite I Eucharist which was served as part of the conference drew much grumbling from some people because the Ordinary was sung in Latin by a choir using a Byrd setting; "Too many people fought and died for the right to say those parts of the Mass themselves in their own language for us to trot out a concert in Latin and act like that's representative," was what I heard from more than one person.
My further (rather rambling) reflections on the conference, with photos, etc. here:
http://leitourgeia.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/fellowship-of-ss-alban-and-sergius-day-one/
http://leitourgeia.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/fellowship-of-ss-alban-and-sergius-days-2-3/
http://leitourgeia.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/fellowship-of-ss-alban-sergius-days-2-contd-3-contd/
http://leitourgeia.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/fellowship-of-ss-alban-sergius-day-4/
http://leitourgeia.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/fellowship-of-ss-alban-sergius-more-pictures/
Richard
"Some might wonder why aren't any of these bishops talking to us?"
I think the fact is that a lot of these Anglican Bishops are far more interested in Rome than us. To a certain extent that is an issue caused by the current state of Orthodoxy and the limited reception that the Western Rite has received but fundamentally it is because most Anglicans still regard Rome as their "natural home". Of course a lot of these people will unfortunately get a rude awakening but that being said I do think we could be more inviting. I am sure if these Anglican Bishops would get a hearing from the Antiochians and the Russians as well but I am not sure that will change things fundamentally. There is a vast difference between Anglican Bishops looking for a "way out" and their becoming Orthodox. If you would take a hard look at what a lot of these Bishops have been saying there still is a vast gulf between us and them. They may be making valid points but opposing out and out apostasy does not mean that someone has become Orthodox. I wish it were otherwise but don't forget for one to have continued as an Anglican for so many years effectively means that one has been swimming in polluted water for a long time. Most people won't do that if they have not been accustomed to the stench to begin with.
I must thank you, Polycarp Sherwood, for your comments as it has saved me a great deal of time. As one of those "accustomed to the stench" who was encouraged by the musings of Ad Orientum, and was considering Orthodoxy in lieu of swimming the Tiber... you're most ungracious and uncharitable posture concerning Anglicans who have been wrestling with the crisis in their church has given me pause. Perhaps the Bosphorus is not as inviting, or clean, as I had imagined. God's peace to you.
To the most recent anonymous.
I would respectfully encourage you to refrain from acting on any matter of great importance in life, especially spiritual matters and decisions in haste or the throws of emotion. A decision of the kind your talking about (irrespective of whether or not you become Orthodox) should be approached thoughtfully and prayerfully.
I have at various times received requests for advice from persons considering conversion. My advice may vary somewhat depending on the particulars but a couple of points never really change. Start with reading whatever you can find on the subject of Orthodoxy. Visit as many Orthodox parishes as you are able to. If you can spare the time also take a long weekend and go on a short retreat to an Orthodox monastery. All of this should be accompanied by prayer and fasting. Finally check out the competition. I suggest visiting a Roman Catholic parish and see what they are about. If you are more drawn to Rome it's better to find that out sooner than wait until after you convert to Orthodoxy.
With respect to the comment by Polycarp, I can only note that if your seeking a church that doesn't have people who will grate on you or even sometimes offend you, you are likely setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment in life. The Orthodox Church is not one made up of saints, though we do have them in spades. But rather it is made up of sinners who are every day falling short of the Glory of God while on the road (hopefully) to sainthood.
As one of the monks at a nearby monastery once related to my God son... He (the monk) was once asked by a non-Orthodox visitor what the monks did all day at the monastery. He replied "We fall down and get back up again."
That is the essence of the struggle of the Orthodox Christian. We suffer from all the faults, vices and foibles (including triumphalism) that exist in every other community and church. But we recognize them and are, to the best of our ability, fighting the good fight against them.
My own words in reference to the situation in TEC and Anglicanism have often been rather sharp. Sometimes sharp words are called for. But they should be spoken or written with care. And I admit that I have not always shown that care.
Wherever your journey takes you please be assured of my prayers.
Yours in ICXC
John
Dear Anonymous.
Really I don't want to beleaguer the point and most certainly I don't want to come across as "ungracious" or "uncharitable" but there have been waves of folk leaving for over 30 years and it seems that some simply have a higher tolerance than others and have stuck it out. If you are offended by the word “stench” I can assure you that word is mild compared to many who left under demonstratively less degenerative circumstances. I am not suggesting that there may not be extenuating circumstances for some (like my late grandmother who was simply confused about what happened and did not have the psychic energy to change gears) but I do wonder why people stick around when it is abundantly clear that the die is cast and there is no possible recovery from apostasy. While in individual circumstances there may be cause for one delay or another, certainly no one is going to argue at this point (at least in the North American context) that there is anything to salvage. Sadly this reluctance to depart is typically more tied to inertia, love of this or that building or social grouping, or liturgical flavor. I can understand a priest sheltering family and one's children from hunger and adversity, etc. but typically this is not the case. Frankly in a lot of ways the Bosphorus is not that inviting to begin with and the sooner that people realize that the better. I don't think the argument for Orthodoxy is made by asserting that all is well, and that all Orthodox are nice cuddly people and that we live in some Pollyanna. Personally I don't seek to berate my Anglican friends but I do wonder sometimes. I can see why some would rather go to continuing Anglican bodies, or go to Rome, etc. I think they are wrong but it is understandable. Why one would choose, and for most people (although I will admit not all) it is a choice, and that being the case why they would choose to be in communion with out and out apostates is beyond me. If you are so fragile about my frank observations so be it. I have two Anglican priests in my ancestry and my wife has at least 5. Between the two of us we have spent over 100 years in the Anglican Church and believe me in many ways I am heartbroken about what has happened but I am not one to hold that everyone's choices, even taken with “deliberation and prayer”, are of equal moral value. I will boldly say there are wrong choices. People can make a wrong choice out of ignorance, and that is one issue, but when one clearly is faced with apostasy I don't know how one can be a lover of God much less your fellow man by staying.
Reader Polycarp, I may be wrong, but the situation in England with regard to the Orthodox offering possible sanctuary to Anglo-Catholics is even less clear cut than you suggest. The Russian Orthodox Church in England has had a troubled history since the death of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, a most remarkable, some would say saintly, leader here for so many years. Two main factors make me say this – firstly there was a most unedifying struggle, conducted in the full glare of the media, between his successor and some members of the diocese, ending up with a substantial number of clergy and people being placed under His All Holiness Bartholomew. Secondly, the diocese, until then largely made up of English converts, with services in the local tongue to facilitate them, changed in character. With the fall of communism substantial numbers of Russians came to Britain and wanted the church to reflect more closely that which they knew in Russia. This caused further discord. Finally there is a perception in the UK, right or wrong, that the Russian Church carries a great deal of cultural baggage that does not travel well – issues around nationalism, anti-Semitism and a number of other matters that make it distinctly unappealing. By comparison, Antioch is hardly visible here at all and the most visible church, the Greek Orthodox, is, understandably, still steeped in Greek (and Greek Cypriot) culture, making it somewhat alien to many English Christians. Finally, I think you criticism of Anglicans is not sufficiently nuanced and perhaps even somewhat uncharitable. Many of them have been striving faithfully in this part of the vineyard every bit as hard as those in traditionally Orthodox places. After all, as Ad Orientem admits with gracious humility, things are not perfect even within Orthodoxy!
Many Years, Gregory
Post a Comment