The proposed Anglican Covenant is, in part, an attempt by the Archbishop of Canterbury to gain the approval of Pope Benedict and ease the way into a closer relationship between the Vatican and Canterbury. You see, we Anglicans are, at present, a diverse lot, a messy communion of autonomous churches, and Rowan wants to gather us into a 'real' Anglican church vis-a-vis the church of Rome. He should know that the attempt is similar to the old cliché of trying to herd cats. Besides, no matter what Rowan does, the pope will not accept him as a 'real' archbishop, nor will he accept Anglican orders as valid. Even if the ABC joined the ordinariate or converted to the RCC, he could not be a bishop, much less an archbishop, because he is married.
Anglicans decided nearly 500 years ago that they preferred an autonomous church, the Church of England, which was not under the authority of Rome. Why is Rowan so anxious to curry favor with the RCC, especially after the recent shabby treatment of only very short notice by of the powers in the Vatican before the predatory RC ordinariates were set up in England to woo away disaffected Anglicans? Why try to foist the covenant on the churches in the Anglican Communion partly to 'relate' better to Rome? We (at least a good many of us) want to be in communion with other Anglican Churches, but we do not want to be a worldwide Anglican Church.
Clever and very funny photoshop from The MadPriest Internet Chop Shop.
Aha, the plot thickens. This is the first time I've read of this particular motivation for the Covenant. You know, I like bells and smells up to a point, but some folks are so enamored of the whole Catholic thing that I have felt like saying, why don't you step across the street and join it? Come out of the damn closet already, if that's what you really want to be. Anglicanism is a distinct and different thing, and that's why I'm here, not over there.
ReplyDeleteAnd your last sentence is quite right. A parallel with the foundering European Union springs to mind.
IMHO, Father Jack said it best;
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R89oERKCaU
Russ, you will see ease of ecumenical relations mentioned in the commentary by proponents of the covenant, but, as I see it, the main ecumenical relations Rowan seems to care about are those with Rome and the Orthodox churches, the 'Catholic' churches. He seems to be so often begging for attention at Rome's door, which I find annoying. If I wanted to be Roman Catholic, I would never have left.
ReplyDeleteWade, yes and in a very few words.
A Homily, not a Sermon...
ReplyDeleteYes, well, there's been an undercurrent of crypto-Catholicism in the English church ever since Newman's time . . . which some find very appealing no doubt for complex psychological and sociological reasons, the CofE being the state church and all. For me, growing up in the Deep South in a succession of low-church Protestant outfits, which were ultimately unsatisfying on several levels, the via media of Anglicanism suits me just right, like Goldilocks. But of course, de gustibus non est disputandum. I just think people should be what they really want to be, and not pretend otherwise, to themselves or others.
ReplyDeleteRuss, there's much for which I'm grateful in my RC upbringing, but long before I made the formal break, I had an uneasy alliance with the Roman church because of the heavy-handedness and rigidity of the hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, folks should just be what they are. For all that some may think me 'out there', mine is quite an orthodox faith with respect to the core beliefs.
There's a great deal of joy and hope and inspiration in the Anglican message, isn't there? Which may in some respects have to do with the lack of a rigid, I would say ossified, hierarchy. Yet don't you find it very strange that our own laid-back hierarchy - relatively speaking, of course - makes no discernable attempt to put that message out to the general public? After going through some evangelical churches when I was finally drawn to the Episcopal Church, I remember being shocked that there was no single Sunday school curriculum, no national magazine or television broadcast, and no desire for such things. Not long after I was confirmed, the powers that be declared that the 1990's would be the "Decade of Evanglism" by ECUSA - do you remember that?
ReplyDeleteAnd did you ever in that entire decade hear or see one single piece of Episcopal evangelism, outside of the occasional - very occasional - bulletin insert?
In time, I came to realize that's just the way things are - God's frozen people, and all that - and really, with our broad-church ethos, it's nice not to have to squeeze all us square pegs into round holes, you know - yet there is something lovely in the Anglican way that perhaps would be helpful to some unchurched people - and now with YouTube and other things, it would be easier than ever to get that out - instead of all this bickering and conferencing which can't be anything but a turnoff to people who aren't already Episcopalians - oh but why am I running on about all this now.
The residual Episcopalian in me is distressed that more and more, people on the left characterize ALL Christians as fundamentalist fanatics and fascists - but how should they think otherwise, when you never hear the reasonable mainstream churches quoted on the internet or the evening news? But - I guess things will just roll on the way they are going, not something I can do anything about.
Especially when my own diocese here is allied with those who would have me jailed or executed as an abomination. So I'll just shut up about all that.
Russ, your comment is powerful evangelizing. You're not a churchgoer, and you put me to shame. The Episcopal Church seems to be pretty much a well-kept secret. I believe we have much to offer people of faith who are not fearful of thinking for themselves, but we're not good at getting the word out.
ReplyDelete"A well-kept secret" - you sum up my rant very nicely in that small phrase (sorry I went on a tear above).
ReplyDeleteWho was it said something about hiding a light under a bushel? . . .
Russ, no apology necessary. I like your tear.
ReplyDelete