Saturday, August 25, 2007

Talking to an Anglo-Papalist
Desire: Does Anglicanism want to be in communion with the Holy See?
Obviously most of it doesn’t, from the non-papalist Anglo-Catholics to the Central Churchmen to the Evangelicals (like the men overseas in charge of new arrangements in America) to of course the ‘Anglo-Liberals’ running the Episcopal Church. Anglo-Papalism is almost uniquely English but of course most English Anglicans aren’t Anglo-Papalists.
Necessity: Why should Anglicanism be in communion with the Holy See?
Because the Holy See is Catholic.

Because regardless of the controversy over the origin (man-made rank, a good thing; or divinely instituted Vicar of Christ?) and scope of the papal office, the Pope is Anglicans’ rightful patriarch and they were taken from him by force, by the king.
Change: What does Anglicanism need to do to be in communion with the Holy See?
Become Anglo-Papalist, not even merely Catholic, in its beliefs.
Reciprocation: Why should the Holy See want to be in communion with Anglicanism?
Tolerant conservatism, Catholicism with an English heart even when it wears Italian finery. The thing I most keenly miss when it’s not there. To me that’s what the language of the Prayer Book and Anglican music stand for. It’s as unknown in mainstream Roman Catholic circles, certainly in America (which doesn’t want it), as Novus Ordo-using Anglo-Papalism is among Episcopalians.

How to revive Anglo-Catholic worship?
In which the Silent Acolyte on the Ship states some good principles — Mass-and-office Catholicism and social action (the daily Mass is unique to Western Catholicism) — and at the end sums up ‘Our Present Duty’
God save us all, if Anglocatholicism is to be cramped and reduced to a matter of the chirping out metrical minor propers and faffing about with incense.

But the point is that if that's what it's all about, it ain't Anglo-Catholicism. It's dressing up. Dressing up can go very well with Anglo-Catholicism but they're not the same thing.
Of course I don’t agree with the liberal and ‘anti-tat’ positions of some in the thread but recognise the credal orthodoxy, commonality with me and good intentions of often younger people like Carys.

(On that note read Derek Olsen on Psalm 118/119.)
You do realise that to most North American Anglo-Catholics 'outmoded pre-Vat II practices' are what Anglo-Catholicism is all about?
If that’s what it’s all about one might as well go to the Society of St Pius X instead.

It’s true that the English version often is both far more extreme theologically and lower in churchmanship! (Imitating mainstream RC.)

See my answer to Warwickensis’s fourth question linked at the top of this entry under ‘Talking’.

(The easygoing ethnic Catholicism and mystical ‘kick’ you can find in the traditionalism of tsarist-bred Russian Orthodoxy, if you’re looking for those things, can be a fairly good approximation of what I’m talking about there. The second of the types I wrote about here.)

And re-read the Silent Acolyte’s first point on the office.
I also want to know what people mean by the "glory days" of Anglo-Catholicism. ... are we talking about singing Marian hymns on Westminster bridge in the 1920s?
In England a long time ago I met somebody who was there.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment