Not only do I not believe that the Traditional Anglican Communion will be erected into a Personal Prelature (never mind a Uniate Church), but I believe most emphatically that it must not be. It is certainly not the case that any number of those presently in the main Anglican body would join such a thing.
The TAC preserves a sort of 1950s Anglo-Catholicism, whereas most Anglo-Catholics have not worshipped like that for several decades, if ever. They use the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, or something very like it, in exactly the sort of tasteful, traditional way that the present Pope wishes to encourage.
Their theology is likewise Vatican II in the true sense, i.e., deriving from and according with the Conciliar documents themselves, rather than presupposing some canonisation, which did not and cannot happen, of mid-twentieth-century secular humanism, itself now a thing of the past. Again, just we need, just what the Holy Father wants, and, as with the Liturgy, just what the rising generation both of clergy and of active laypeople wants as well.
As for the TAC and others of like mind, rather than some confected translation of the Tridentine Rite into Cranmerian English, as mainstream Catholics they would be perfectly free to celebrate the Extraordinary Form itself whenever they liked.
Both groups traditionally emphasise the sanctification of the world rather than the secularisation of the Church, sanctification of and through ordinary work, the living of a contemplative life in the middle of the world, the taking of everything that one does with liturgical seriousness, the definition of Christian freedom in the Aristotelian and profoundly Biblical terms given definitive Catholic and commonsensical articulation by Saint Thomas Aquinas, divine filiation as recognition of oneself and every other human being as a Child of God, adoption by God’s grace so that everything one does is therefore part of the world’s redemption, a very high understanding of the dignity of each and every human life, a strong imperative towards evangelisation, the taking up of the Cross, and a profound joy quite unlike any momentary chemical or sexual “high”.
Therefore, if anything, they should be looking to the one Personal Prelature that already exits, that of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei, mindful that the principal Anglo-Catholic clerical organisation is already called Societas Sanctae Crucis. But no less mindful that a Personal Prelature is not in fact “a global diocese without borders” or anything like that, and that the priests of Opus Dei celebrate and its laypeople attend the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite. I do not know if Opus Dei operates within the Eastern Catholic Churches, but I certainly hope so.
Links with the FAITH Movement, with Communion and Liberation, with the Una Voce affiliates in this country, with Youth 2000, and with the Eastern Catholic Churches would also be very good for them, as for all of us.
Not least including those either attached or attracted to Lefebvrism. The TAC is allegedly active in “66 countries”. But which ones, exactly? One of their clerics may have declared himself the Bishop of Africa or whatever, but so what? Likewise, where are the world’s “one million” Lefebvrists?
But however many of them there really are, there is no way that their four bishops (if bishops they be – ordaining bishops without Papal permission is one thing, but doing so in express violation of Papal instruction is quite another, so I await the word of the Holy Father on this one) will ever be permitted to ordain successors without incurring excommunication again.
So that takes care of the Richard Williamson problem. The other three would not now so ordain. But he still would, and I confidently predict that at some point he will, taking with him whatever tiny faction concurs with his views on the Holocaust and other matters. He even looks and sounds like David Irving. Are they related?
Meanwhile, shorn of him and his, full reconciliation with the Petrine See will await those exemplified by the Lefebvrist church in Gateshead, which has excellent relations with its very Jewish local community, and where a distinguished scholar of Judaism plays the organ.
(I also believe that, based on a very high doctrine of the Priesthood, Anglo-Catholic presbyters who are not bishops will eventually do as the High Churchman Wesley once did and ordain anyway. Some sedevacantists have already done this, as some Russian Old Believers did. Williamsonian Lefebvrists may very well be next.)
And what of Fr (soon to be Bishop) Gerhard Maria Wagner? It turns out that in fact he talked, in thoroughly Scriptural and Traditional terms, about God’s judgement on sinful cities, and made specific reference to prostitution and abortion. Have you got that? Prostitution and abortion. The two go together, of course. Which is a very good pro-life argument for the anti-war position: war zones are always centres of prostitution, and prostitution cannot function without abortion. Ad multos annos, Bishop Wagner. Ad multos annos.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There have been traddy Anglican parishes (or one, at least) in America before, brought over en masse (so to speak). There's no real reason to suppose the same experiment couldn't be repeated on a larger scale.
ReplyDeleteThere is no "true sense" of Vatican II. Vatican II was a set of agenda, not a doctrine. Arguing over whether or not Vatican II is "true" is utterly pointless. One might as well argue over whether the Inquisition was “true” - or the Iraq War, come to that.
Why should Anglicans want to "celebrate" the "Extraordinary Form"? In all likelihood they'd continue with the Anglican usage, as already approved by the Vatican.
Sacramentally the Lefebvrite bishops are bishops. That's why they were "excommunicated". They have no episcopal status though (though watch this space).
No, the idea that the Church is going to go through this whole "excommunication" farrago every generation or so is ludicrous. The 1988 excommunications were the final step in a long, drawn out process of the Vatican Secretariat of State's trying to destroy the SSPX. Once they're properly erected, with the protection of Canon Law, they'll have won and their enemies will have lost. More to the point, four bishops are better than one, and so they’ll be in a significantly stronger position “next time”. The example of Campos shows that Rome is actually quite agreeable to letting an insider be ordained bishop – though obviously we can hope that the Lefebvrites’ next generation will be slightly brighter than Bp. Rifan.
Having met Bp. Williamson I can say with some confidence that he is not going to be going into "schism". In person he’s actually a charming, shy, approachable man. He's not the roaring defender of the Faith he pretends to be but he's also not the rugged Nazi bruiser he's painted as. On the contrary he's actually a quite a gentle soul. He’s clearly easily led, but seems unlikely to lead very many other people anywhere of his own accord. Those that do leave the Society will (as usual) drift off (to the SSPV, or Bp. Dolan, or whithersoever) for other reasons under a pretence of principle.
No, I don't believe Williamson and Irving are related, though apparently they are quite chummy. (That's according to Irving of course, so I wouldn't set too much store by it: the poor old kook has invoked any number of unlikely people as “good friends” over the years.) The important point to make about Williamson is that he's been ostracised by the "Catholic" mainstream for two decades, if not most of his life. My suspicion is not that he actually believes his guff about the gas-chambers but rather that he's imbibed that sort of thing from the people he's been mixing with. If everyone else in a church hall believes Auschwitz was a lie then you either leave pretty quickly or, by a sort of intellectual osmosis, it starts to seem quite reasonable that Auschwitz might indeed have been a lie. (And yes, I have “been there” myself: the subject was 9/11, and I legged it pretty sharpish.) What we're talking about here is a hugely charismatic and intelligent man with a strong personality but a weak character and actually quite a lowly sense of himself. It's particularly unfortunate then that he's only ever preached to crazies.
"There have been traddy Anglican parishes (or one, at least) in America before, brought over en masse (so to speak). There's no real reason to suppose the same experiment couldn't be repeated on a larger scale."
ReplyDeleteThere is every reason, both beacuse it has not been a happy experience for anyone concerned, and because there is simply no need over here, where the sort of themepark Anglo-Catholicism that predominates in the US (and which is embodied in the Anglican Use) now exists only as a very range fringe oddity in Britain.
"There is no "true sense" of Vatican II. Vatican II was a set of agenda, not a doctrine. Arguing over whether or not Vatican II is "true" is utterly pointless. One might as well argue over whether the Inquisition was “true” - or the Iraq War, come to that."
Thus speaks someone with no theological training whatever. If you have and you wrote that, then you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
"Why should Anglicans want to "celebrate" the "Extraordinary Form"? In all likelihood they'd continue with the Anglican usage, as already approved by the Vatican."
Thus speaks someone who knows nothing about the Anglo-Catholic movement, except perhaps the fringe oddities referred to above.
"Sacramentally the Lefebvrite bishops are bishops. That's why they were "excommunicated". They have no episcopal status though (though watch this space)."
They'll be readmitted as priests or not at all. There is no way that they could be readmitted as bishops - the possibility of another schism would be too much to countenance. These are not men in a schismatic succession going back centuries. These are the original schismatics themselves.
As to whether they really are bishops, if the Holy Father said so, then fine. But Orthodox, Old Catholics and sedevacantists do not ordain bishops contrary to the will of a Pope whom they believe to be the Pope within the understanding of the Catholic Church. Lefebvre did so ordain. How could he possibly have had a Catholic intention when doing such a thing? As I say, if the Holy Father said so, then fine. But not before.
"No, the idea that the Church is going to go through this whole "excommunication" farrago every generation or so is ludicrous."
Why? It only takes one.
"Once they're properly erected, with the protection of Canon Law, they'll have won and their enemies will have lost."
That's not the victory they want, nor is it any victory for which they would settle.
"More to the point, four bishops are better than one, and so they’ll be in a significantly stronger position “next time”."
Four is still not very many. And, I say again, it only takes one.
"The example of Campos"
A defined territory, not the whole wide earth.
"(That's according to Irving of course, so I wouldn't set too much store by it: the poor old kook has invoked any number of unlikely people as “good friends” over the years.)"
So, have you removed that link to him from your blog?
"My suspicion is not that he actually believes his guff about the gas-chambers but rather that he's imbibed that sort of thing from the people he's been mixing with...I have “been there” myself: the subject was 9/11, and I legged it pretty sharpish."
And what sort of man wouldn't? Certainly not the sort who could be accorded episcopal status.
Well, firstly, what has "a happy experience" got to do with anything? The Church's business is the salvation of souls. Despite being almost the last person in the world to defend the last Pope's record, this at least does seem defensible. And are these churches (here, here, here, here and here, to give just a few examples) really "unhappy"? As to what goes on "over here", frankly who cares? The Anglicans we're talking about, I understand, are mostly in Africa.
ReplyDeleteI stand by what I wrote about Vatican II absolutely. I am not the slightest bit ashamed of that. You are quite right though. Apart from Denzinger, Jone, Ott, Gueranger, the Roman Catechism, St. Thomas's Summa (which I studied at university) and the Good Book (and AS-Level Theology!), I have no "theological training" whatsoever. But then I'm not a theologian. I'm a trainee tax adviser. The definition of truth though is hardly a theological matter necessarily.
You're quite right that I don't know anything about the Anglo-Catholic movement. But I would still have liked an answer to my question.
The SSPX bishops have already been readmitted. No one is predicting that they won't be permitted to pontificate - unless you've spotted something everyone else has missed.
And, obviously, they're not "schismatics", despite the official line from John Paul II. Schism in fact has a strict definition in the Code of Canon Law. It's worth looking up.
John Paul II pretended they weren't bishops. Benedict XVI has conceded that they are. So fine!
Lefebvre made his intentions quite clear at the time in numerous tedious press interviews. His objective was simply to preserve traditional Catholicism. The last Pope thought this was a Bad Thing. The present Pope now clearly thinks it was a Good Thing.
Now, where's that schism got to again?
The sight of a Pope apparently excommunicating bishops simply for upholding a faith and praxis that he himself was supposed to be upholding was deeply scandalous and damaging to the Church. (Hug a Hindu, kiss a Koran, excommunicate a traditionalist! It was all in day's work for the worst Pope of modern times.) The effort of dropping the excommunications has led to yet more fuss and nonsense. Yes, the next Pope could go for a re-run, just for fun. But it seems unlikely. The reality is that the world has moved on since the 1960s. There's simply no point in expending even more energy on its failed policies.
I meant their specific enemies in the Vatican's Secretariat of State. Obviously the Faith will always have its enemies, both without the Church and within.
OK, fine, it only takes one. But my bet would be that that "one" would have to be Williamson, and he doesn't have the cojones. (Is that what they say in Argentina?)
No, there are still plenty of links to silly old David Irving's site on my blog (I think). But I've cut down on most of the links in my sidebar simply because I don't use them very much anymore. (Irving's link I've actually moved to another blog.)
I've never bothered to look up the rules about Campos. But the SSPX have been offered the whole world. They will, I'm guessing, accept it. What actual jurisdiction they're going to have where, of course, is going to be a fun and thorny problem.
Well, perhaps I should try and end on a positive note! Bp. Williamson is the most erudite, charming, approachable, sincere, well spoken, thoughtful, prayerful, gentlemanly bishop I've ever met. He's also a twit, and I'm sure he suffers from a huge number of demons about what he actually believes. In the end, what seems most likely is that he'll be given the status of a retired bishop, with no jurisdiction and with no official position of importance within the Society. He'll be able to go on doing the sorts of things he likes doing at the moment, but on the understanding that he doesn't talk to any more journalists.
And the parties at David Irving's house might have to go as well.
"The Anglicans we're talking about, I understand, are mostly in Africa."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's something different. Many of those are Evangelicals, and many ordain women. It's homosexuality that they really don't like. The ones we're talking about are in England.
"But I would still have liked an answer to my question."
Which one.
"The SSPX bishops have already been readmitted. No one is predicting that they won't be permitted to pontificate - unless you've spotted something everyone else has missed."
They are still suspended a divinis. The idea of them lawfully standing in Catholic churches with mitres on is laughable. If they are ever properly reconciled, then it will be on condition that they dress, vest and generally besport themselves only as priests, and that those whom they have ordained be reordained sub conditione, in the Old Rite if they liked.
"Benedict XVI has conceded that they are [bishops]."
Where? He has only said that they are no longer excommunicate.
"Yes, the next Pope could go for a re-run, just for fun. But it seems unlikely."
It wouldn't be him. It would be them.
"His objective was simply to preserve traditional Catholicism."
It was rather more than that. And anyway, you can't have a traditionally Catholic way of disobeying the Pope.
"The last Pope thought this was a Bad Thing. The present Pope now clearly thinks it was a Good Thing."
He hasn't said that.
"OK, fine, it only takes one. But my bet would be that that "one" would have to be Williamson, and he doesn't have the cojones. (Is that what they say in Argentina?)"
I expect so. And the man is barmy enough to do anything. He is also by some distance the oldest of the four, and thus the most conscious of his own mortality. He'll do it.
"I've never bothered to look up the rules about Campos."
For all practical purposes, it's a traditionalist diocese parallel to the main one.
" But the SSPX have been offered the whole world. They will, I'm guessing, accept it. What actual jurisdiction they're going to have where, of course, is going to be a fun and thorny problem."
Easy. None.