One would expect the reaction from liberal Anglicans to Rome’s offer would be less than positive, but many conservative Anglicans have also been up in arms about the offer, including bishop Don Harvey of a network of conservative Canadian Anglicans associated with ACNA (Anglican Church in North America). Personally, I find the generous response of evangelical Anglican Matt Kennedy to be better. His response is basically, “even though I don’t agree with the pope, this is a generous and courageous offer for those Anglicans that do happen to agree with the pope.”

Bishop Harvey is not so impressed, and lets his frustration be known:

“Apart from being an intrusion at the very highest levels of one major church into the internal affairs of another, under the guise of being ecumenical, this invitation offers very little that is new,” Bishop Don Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, told the group’s annual synod Thursday morning…

“I find the words in the official joint communique referring to ‘the Catholic Church and the Anglican Tradition’ offensive in the extreme and reporters who suggested that this may be a solution to the Network’s needs are not really aware of what we truly profess,” he said.

I do understand why some conservatives would dislike this offer. Even though the pope’s offer to Anglicans was precipitated by a request by the Traditional Anglican Communion, it still can be seen as “cutting in” on the game of traditional Anglicans, who, let’s face it, are not exactly unified in their response to TEC’s liberalism. There are various options available to those who oppose TEC, which include joining ACNA and staying in TEC. Adding another option, from Rome no less, into the mix, cannot be great news for conservative bishops who are having trouble shepherding the faithful.

On the other hand, Bishop Harvey and anybody else who speaks of ecumenism these days need to understand a certain reality about ecumenism: the old way of doing ecumenism is dead (except perhaps in some quarters of the Academy and in the offices of some church administration buildings). Spending loads of money and time to utter niceties to one another, coming up with nebulous statements of common belief, is out. Watering down churches’ beliefs until no church believes anything meaningful anymore, is the way ecumenism used to be done. It is not the way postmoderns do ecumenism, because it isn’t very genuine.

Serge has a good take on ecumenism, and I wrote about my approach a few years ago which is very similar to his (which I call “blog level ecumenism”). Personally, I would much rather do “on the ground” ecumenism with an Orthodox Christian who tells me he wants me to join the true Church (in his eyes, the Orthodox Church), than an official mainline ecumenical officer who will feed me some line about what they believe, only to publicly deny such a belief later. I respect churches and faiths that stand for things (peacefully and charitably, of course), whether Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, or whatever. Bishop Harvey  needs to understand that Rome does ecumenism differently, which is to say, we view ecumenism as both evangelization and working toward unity. It’s not the way the mainlines do it, but then again, Catholics aren’t mainline Protestants.

So basically, I understand the negative reaction to this offer, but on the other hand, I would not be offended if Calvinist Anglicans made a similar offer. After all, if Calvinist Catholics (!) approached the head of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church about accommodating them, I would expect the head of that church to help them out, and would not be offended because of that.

The Vatican has released the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, as well as Complementary Norms for the same document, which provide the guidelines for incorporating Anglicans into the Catholic Church. I will look over the document more fully later, but wanted to make it available for our readers. We certainly live in exciting times!

Update: Brother Stephen has some very informative initial thoughts.

My former Episcopal diocese, the Diocese of Southern Ohio, is now instituting same-sex blessings. The diocese of Southern Ohio used to have a pretty strong conservative presence. Now, the ranks have been decimated. I thought it would take longer for this to happen in the diocese of Southern Ohio, but then again, many of the leaders I knew there were just waiting for the diocese to catch up with the other mainline Protestant churches.

Fr. David Bailey,  a friend, and priest in the Southern Ohio diocese has fought within the system to prevent this, or at the least, allow the traditional voice to be heard within the diocese. Fr. David is NOT given to exaggeration and histrionics, so when he says conservatives barely had a voice in the discussion on this decision, then I believe it to be true. But honestly, there probably isn’t much to discuss anyway, since most Episcopal leaders and influential laity, nationally and probably in Southern Ohio, are happy to have same-sex blessings.

Anastasia, an Anglo-Catholic Anglican, has a great take on this recent Vatican gesture toward Anglicans: Benedict XVI is being extremely charitable and ecumenical:

I’ve spent a good deal of time in the last couple of days reading and having conversations with other Christians about the the Vatican creating a new structure for Anglicans. Huge pieces of the conversation are premature since we don’t have the actual document outlining the plan yet–where is that, by the way?

In a sense, I can’t help but be involved and invested given that this Vatican initiative is directed at me. It says, why hello, Catholic leaning Anglo-Catholics! We want you! I have to pay attention.

Okay, now…it was the result of a series of requests from groups wanting to come into Rome and I was not part of any of those groups. So, no. Not directed at me. And yet, in a grander sense, yes. This is about me and people who think like me.

I wrote in my previous post on patrimony that the Holy Father is hitting the right notes in terms of evangelism.* He has my attention. He has me rethinking (again, yes) whether or not I can accept RC dogmas. I’ve been blogging about it and discussing it with the incomparable Literacy-Chic over email and had just come around to “RC dogmas….yeah, I don’t think so.” I went from “I don’t think so” to “You know…I think I could” in 20 seconds flat upon reading the headline: Vatican Creates New Structure for Anglicans.

It’s easy enough to read this uncharitably. I’m too stupid to realize this still means accepting RC dogmas. Or maybe His Holiness has nearly tricked me into accepting his primacy (bwahahaha) by giving me a case of the warm fuzzies.

I don’t think either is the real appeal for me. I wrote about the in terms of patrimony, but there’s another way of saying it. I’ll get to the pithy statement, but let me lay out some pieces before I do.

First, let us take note that the Pope is being nice. Holy crap, when is the last time Christians tried that as a strategy? This is way nicer than just about any Catholic has approached me as far as the relative value of Anglicanism. He’s focused the discussion around the grace and beauty present in my traditions, rather than, say, pointing out the deficiencies and telling me my problem is that I”m too proud to submit…Read it All

There have been some fine analysis about the recent gestures from the Vatican toward Anglicans. Kendall Harmon and others have made some excellent observations. I would like to add some of my own observations.

1. The Anglican Communion is a mess. This is not to say the Catholic Church has its house in complete order, but, considering half the Anglican Communion is not in communion with the other half, and the list of re-alignned acronyms of conservative groups seems to grow larger by the day, the communion is in a rough spot. Living in this situation can’t be easy, and the pope recognizes this.

2. The Episcopal Church is going in a very liberal direction. With conservatives leaving, and progressives celebrating victories, TEC’s moral and theological vision is looking more like just another mainline Protestant church than anything Catholic or Orthodox. Of course, many liberal leaders and laypersons of TEC are absolutely fine with having more in common with liberal Presbyterians than with the ecumenical Patriarch (just go over to Fr. Jake’s blog). Anglo-Catholics don’t think this way, which creates a problem.

3. Rowan Williams, while (in my humble opinion) a decent theologian and thinker, is not the type of leader the communion needs to deal with this crisis. In the Academy you can nuance an issue to death and synthesize the position of all sides, but in the real world, the communion needs leadership that provides real direction. The pope has provided leadership. Some could argue the Anglican communion is not his business, but the pope saw a mess, and provided a generous way to help people (who want out) get out of it. It seems to me that the Vatican has put more real, concrete, work into dealing with this crisis than the Archbishop of Canterbury has.

4. Anglo-Catholics are struggling to find a home among conservative groups. It is strange (at least to me) that many Anglo-Catholic groups and leaders stood strong in TEC against women’s ordination and sub-Catholic ecclesiology, yet, these same Anglo-Catholics have joined up with fellow “conservatives” in ACNA and in other dioceses throughout the world, who support women’s ordination and have a Calvinist view of the Church. To me, unifying under the banner of  “we think TEC is wrong” is no way to have any sort of long-term unity.  The majority of conservative Anglicans worldwide are evangelical Calvinists. How long an Anglo-Catholic can handle “re-alignment” Anglicanism probably depends on the individual. ACNA seems to me to be just like what got TEC to this point: a loose unity of groups holding mutually exclusive positions, and failing to agree on fundamental issues like ecclesiology.

5. The pope is offering to accommodate Anglicans (primarily the Traditional Anglican Communion, who asked for this), but the offer stands for those Anglicans who wish to accept the Teachings of the Catholic Church. In other words, the Catholic Church isn’t going to be accepting the 39 Articles any time soon.

6. Nonetheless, the pope is recognizing the rich spiritual and liturgical heritage that Anglicanism offers, and recognizes that the Catholic Church will benefit from this heritage. Heck, I think we will benefit from this across all rites. A friend and I were talking on the way to a meeting yesterday how we would love establishing an Anglican-Use service at our parish.

7. Converting is difficult. It is not as easy as “Anglo-Catholics should have gone to Rome years ago,” as some evangelical Anglicans have suggested. The struggle to become Catholic (or any change in belief) is more difficult than some people think. The triumphalist convert often just thinks “The Catholic Church is so great, why don’t Anglo-Catholics just convert already?!” Such is not life, and denies the complexity of conversion.

I came across some more details about the recent Vatican gesture towards Anglicans which provides some exciting information about the steps Rome is willing to take to accommodate Anglicans (from America). Details are below:

The new canonical structure has the technical name of a “Personal Ordinariate”, which according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) “will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony”. The Ordinary — canonically, that means the one with power of governance — would normally be “appointed from among former Anglican clergy”, the CDF says.

The Apostolic Constitution establishing these Personal Ordinariates offers “a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application”, the statement continues. Among its features:

1. The Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop;

2. The Ordinariate provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy;

3. The Ordinariate allows seminarians to be trained in separate houses of formation in order “to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony”.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster told journalists this morning that the new Apostolic Constitution was a response to various approaches made in the past three or four years by groups in the United States, Australia and the UK. Some were in communion with Lambeth, while others — such as the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), which claims 400,000 members worldwide — were not.

The Personal Ordinariates would allow for the pastoral care of lay people, clergy and religious in a corporate body under an Ordinary, but in collaboration with existing dioceses. Their geographical scope would correspond to the territory of a bishops’ conference. It would be a “cumulative jurisdiction”, meaning that the jurisdictions would overlap — insofar as the activity pertained to the wider Church, the authority would rest with the bishop of that diocese; insofar as it pertained to an internal activity, it would be a under the Ordinary of the Ordinariate. The process of reception of married Anglican priests would be unlikely to differ much from the current system, he said. Nor would he expect transfers of church property as part of the process of corporate reception.

The new structure allows for the safeguarding of Anglican traditions of liturgy and rites — but approval of the Holy See would be needed for separate liturgical texts and rites that differed from the Roman norm. Archbishop Nichols said the Constitution was an attempt to achieve a “balance between a corporate identity and the need to be embedded locally”, but stressed that the details of this could only be worked out once an Ordinariate were established. In the event of an application being made to establish such an Ordinariate in England and Wales, he said, “we will work very closely with colleagues in the Church of England. It is important that we do this together”.

Knowing all of this, I take back what I said earlier about this possibly seeming small to some people.  This is big, and the implications are big. Anglicans have converted to Rome before, but there has been no official, worldwide, structure to accommodate Catholic-minded Anglicans in the Catholic Church. It seem such a structure is now in place.

The Vatican announced plans to allow for the greater and easier conversion of Anglicans to Catholicism, apparently expanding the Anglican Use provision available in the U.S. According to the announcement, Anglicans who convert (including married priests) will be given their own pastoral supervision. The press release also indicates the Catholic Church hopes to preserve important aspects of Anglican spirituality:

“In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.”

Wow. This may seem small, but it is a pretty significant gesture.

Reportedly, the Vatican will announce important news tomorrow relevant to Anglicans. Could this be information about bringing in the Traditional Anglican Communion into communion with the Catholic Church? Could it be, as Tito suggests, setting up an Anglican Use throughout the whole world (as opposed to just in the U.S.?). I guess We’ll have to wait and see until tomorrow!

A new blog has sprung up, dedicated to the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio. It is called the Episcopal Oysters of Southern Ohio. Having been in the ordination process in this diocese, and having resided there in the past, I still take an interest in the diocese.

When I was an Episcopalian, the bishop of the diocese, Herbert Thompson, was a known conservative, although not as conservative as say Robert Duncan or Keith Ackerman. However, the clergy of the diocese were not nearly as conservative as the bishop, and it figured that the diocese would go in a more liberal direction after Thompson’s death (and after the departure of many conservatives in the diocese to either Rome or Anglican break-off groups). Episcopal Oysters of Southern Ohio chronicles the fight for orthodoxy within the Episcopal diocese of Southern Ohio.

Bishop Spong is at it again.

When I was an Episcopalian, after they found out I was studying theology, many well-meaning older priests and laity would bring up John Spong. “Oh, isn’t he great” they would say, or something similar that implied how cutting edge Spong was, and that being young, I must really love the guy. Umm, no. In fact, I strongly believe that Spong should not be a bishop of any church, period, let alone a bishop in one that says the Nicene Creed weekly. To me, this is basic boundary keeping. Most organizations and entities would not allow someone who denies the most basic beliefs of that entity to have a leadership role, and most people wouldn’t be so vain as to think they should even be a leader under such pretenses.  But then again, even priests I know who like Spong have told me the guy has an ego the size of a basketball (exact quote), so that explains that.

Setting aside Spong’s personality and position, his science and theology are typical enlightenment rationalism taken to the extreme, a trend popular in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, read this excerpt from the article, and you might be wondering what position Spong is actually arguing against:

But such notions [of an afterlife, etc], he says, cannot survive the insights of astronomer Galileo, physicist Isaac Newton and evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin. Through them, says Spong, we discovered that the Earth is not the centre of the universe and that there’s space (not heaven) above us, that the workings of the world are due to basic physics (not Godly intervention) and that humans evolved from other creatures.

“We are related to the plankton, the cabbages and the great apes,” says Spong.

Instead of the traditional concepts of heaven and hell, he takes a fresh reading of the Christian gospels – particularly John – and concludes our eventual demise makes it more important to think about this life than the next.

“The goal of religion is not to prepare us for the next life,” he writes. “It is a call to live now, to love now, to be now and in a way to taste what it means to be part of a life that is eternal. … It is the presence of death that actually makes my life precious.”

Spong rarely gives traditional Christians any credit, and seems to be in a constant battle with the fundamentalism of his youth. The cosmology of some ancients (in which heaven is “up” and hell “down”) is really irrelevant as to whether there is an afterlife. Even my junior high students grasp that  although we use spatial language to describe afterlife “locations,” heaven really isn’t “up,” since we live within space-time, and God does not. It often “makes their brain hurt” to think about possible reality outside of the space-time continuum, but they tend to understand it, and that is that. It’s not a big deal. And physics? Don’t get me started. As I have studied physics (I read the Elegant Universe and the Physics of Consciousness over the summer), I have found the universe far more dynamic and amazing than I  ever imagined. The Big Bang (basically hypothesized by a Catholic priest), the behavior of quantum particles (or strings, if you accept that premise), in my humble opinion, points to a creator, not away from one.

The false dichotomy John Spong creates between science and faith doesn’t really hold true for most Christians who have moved beyond a fundamentalist/black-and-white-approach to the faith, one that, unfortunately, Spong himself and some of his fundamentalist skeptic buddies, have not moved past. If Spong and his ideas are so relevant, then why are churches that embrace his ideas dying faster than my garden after the first killing frost?

The Telegraph is reporting that the Queen is unhappy with the recent craziness in the Anglican Communion and is a behind the scenes supporter of traditionalist movements. This should not come as a surprise for many reasons. The article also mentions that she has grown very sympathetic to Catholicism.

None of this really counts as news since many, many Anglicans are unhappy with the direction of the communion and find Catholicism a nice alternative. However, also like many disaffected Anglicans, this does not mean that the Queen is on the verge of converting. If Tony Blair’s conversion had potential to be messy, imagine the Queen! Still, it would be an amazing event to see the Queen of England formally become Catholic in my lifetime. The first Elizabeth had an opportunity to reconcile England with Rome, but didn’t take it. It would be excellent if another Elizabeth did.

The Episcopal House of Bishops has concurred with the deputies by passing a resolution calling for the development of liturgies for same sex couples. The vote was pretty overwhelming too. The Episcopal Church has passed into a new phase, one that represents a choice to ignore worldwide Anglicanism  and  jettison Catholic morality.

I’ve been critical of the effort to start a new Anglican Church in North America, predicting its eventual failure, but this General Convention seems to justify that action. TEC has gone off the rails and there is no conservative voice to slow it down. It’s not just morality. One resolution was amended to avoid referring to Christ as “he” which is a basic denial of the Incarnation. And, I’ll bet the call for a PC revised hymnal is a sure thing to pass.

This is a slow motion train wreck. I’m sure Rowan Williams has quite the headache.

I mentioned previously that without the voice of conservatives at General Convention, the progressives are firmly in charge, and the General Convention lacks the kind of diversity it once had (and I can assure you that conservatives did not feel like they had a real voice, but they did provide a counter to the strong left in TEC). This is showing itself in the resolutions that are being carried, and the margin of support. I had already mentioned that a controversial resolution that could damage TEC’s relationship already passed the House of Deputies. It recently passed the House of Bishops as well, essentially paving the way for even more difficulties with the worldwide communion. TEC deputies have also rejected a resolution calling for finding good ways to share the gospel of Christ with others “through Christ alone” in a  multi-cultural society. There are more too, and my brother has listed the links for those who wish to see what is going on. There are two good things resulting from this situation. First, the convention is not contentious, because there are few dissenting voices left. Second, at least TEC is now being honest, as opposed to saying something like “we regret our course of action, and urge people not to take it, but ‘what the hell,’ let’s take it anyway!” which past resolutions on sexuality seemed to sound like.

Conservatives who have decided to stay within TEC (all 10 of you) are probably disappointed, while those who wish to see the church turn into a mirror of Western, upper-middle-class social society, i.e. stuff white people like (to borrow reasoning from young fogey) must be celebrating. Who would have thought it was the conservatives the kept TEC moderate?

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams expressed his concern that the Episcopal Church’s house of deputies voted to overturn a piece of legislation from 2006 General Convention, which urged bishops to show restraint when electing bishops that could fracture the state of the Anglican Communion. The 2006 legislation was enacted in response to calls from the Anglican Communion for the Episcopal church to be considerate of the entire communion, after TEC elected (and approved) Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003. Robinson is openly gay and lives with his partner. The house of deputies at this general convention is viewed as super-progressive, even much more so than the bishops of the Episcopal church. This is demonstrated by the fact that the resolution was passed 151-66. The bishops have yet to vote on this, and there is no certainty that Episcopal bishops will vote for something that very well may fracture their relationship with the rest of the Anglican communion, thereby reducing the Episcopal church to basically a congregationalist church of 2 million (although who is in communion with whom within Anglicanism these days is tricky, so it is likely quite a few Anglicans worldwide will still be in communion with TEC).

Since many conservatives have left the Episcopal church since 2003, including a few dioceses, and many entire parishes, it is no surprise that there are very few conservative voices at this General Convention. In some ways, the real losers may be the moderates, because conservatives have rarely been successful getting their views heard, but they did function to moderate the far left in TEC liturgically, morally, and theologically.

The Episcopal Church determines its policies, liturgies, etc. through regular (every 3 years) meetings of bishops, clergy, and  laity called General Convention. It was at a General Convention in 2003 that openly gay and partnered Gene Robinson was approved as bishop, starting off the worldwide firestorm in the Anglican Communion. TEC this time around is wrestling with same-sex blessings, how to embrace (or not) homosexual activity, liturgical concerns, and social questions. Clearly the biggest issues for TEC revolve around sexuality, but for many people, myself included, the liturgical questions are the most interesting.

Since I cannot cover all the topics myself (nor would I want to since this is a Catholic blog), I thought I would link to various resources on the event:

BabyBlueOnline
TitusOneNine (General Convention 2009)
Stand Firm in Faith (GenCon 2009 search)

I know many of us have strong feelings about TEC and wonder what the point of praying would even be. But, I still think we should pray for those in TEC and their General Convention.

Young Fogey has blogged that most of the All Saints Sisters of the Poor are soon to become Catholic. Two sisters will remain Episcopalian for the time being, although the rest have apparently made the commitment to swim the Tiber. It turns out that the chaplain of the sisters is a former pastor of mine, Fr. Warren Tanghe, from when I attended an Anglo-Catholic parish in Atlanta. Word is that he too is coming Romeward, which is not surprising given his theology (although I do recall him having a discussion with a supply priest from the parish, who eventually swam the Tiber himself, about the role of the pope, and Fr. Tanghe was not the “anglo-papalist” that this supply priest was). The sisters have a rich history, and a very traditional understanding of themselves and their vocations; they also make and sell holy cards, if you are interested in their products.

YF also mentioned rumors about the Vatican setting up some sort of generous plan for Anglican parishes worldwide that wish to become Roman Catholic. This falls under the “I’ll believe it when I see it” category, but I think Anglicans, when they are traditional, do liturgy very, very, very, well, and we will be much richer if even a few Anglicans take us up on such an offer.

UPDATE:

Here are a few links that provide more information on the All Saints Sisters becoming Roman Catholic:

Home to Rome

Anglican Convent of All Saints Sisters to be Received in Full Communion

As a former Anglican,  I still see a lot of the good in my former tradition, most especially the dignity in liturgy as shown in the Book of Common Prayer. Fortunately, the Catholic Church, through the Anglican Use, has “Catholicized” the Book of Common Prayer. It is now the Book of Divine Worship and is mostly the BCP with more Catholic elements such as prayers to the Saints. The book is huge and costly, but you can also find it online (warning: 900 + page .pdf). It may be especially appealing to those of us who used to be Anglicans.

I just read, via A Conservative Blog for Peace, that Fr. Jeffrey Steel, Anglo-Catholic Anglican priest, is swimming the Tiber. I am not surprised, As Fr. Steel has leaned in the Romeward direction for some time. From Fr. Steel’s post:

My PhD studies really set me on my Catholic journey in a deep theological way though I did not realise it at the time. I have been looking at Bishop Lancelot Andrewes as a catalyst for ecumenism with the Catholic Church in the area of Eucharistic sacrifice. Andrewes was in regular dialogue with S. Robert Bellarmine SJ and it is in this dialogue and Andrewes’ other writings that I saw how Catholic he was with regards to the Eucharist being the Christian offering which consisted of more than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It was and is propitiatory as well as other things.

Through my time of study in Catholic sacramental theology and viewing my own priestly ministry within this theological framework the question of communio began to frequently come to mind. I had fully embraced Catholic sacramental theology and believed that I could be a Catholic in the Church of England and planned on retirement from the C of E later in life. With all that is going on around the Anglican Communion presently, and particularly within the C of E and how she makes decisions on matters of doctrine, I began to ask questions about authority. As a theologian praying for reunion with the Holy See the question I was now asking was, ‘on whose terms does this reunion take place?’

What I became aware of was that it was almost impossible to say ‘the Church teaching is’ within the Anglican church because there are so many various opinions on matters of sacraments, liturgy, morality, scripture etc. What I did not want to experience anymore was proclaiming the teaching of the Church only to end up defending myself rather than the Anglican church defending me. This has become an ever-increasing impossibility that is no secret to the entire Anglican world. My preaching would always be seen as a matter of personal opinion rather than having the authority of the Magisterium that backs up what I teach publicly. Of course there is dissent in the Catholic Church but it is always that, dissent towards what Mother Church proclaims as authoritatively true. It is the truth of Mother Church that I embrace as my own deep personal faith.

In January of this year I began to seriously pray about my journey and was moving deeper into the question of communio. What was God saying to me and why did he bring me all the way to England to have me consider the possibility of becoming a Catholic? What about the last 19 years of my life and the pursuit of serving him in full-time ministry? What do I do about the ever-increasing reaffirmation and sense of call to vocational priesthood? These items I took to prayer with Ss Bede and Cuthbert at the Durham Cathedral each Friday during Lent. There I prayed for requests given to me by people from around the world and my own spiritual journey was a part of this prayer ministry. I gave myself to Mary and her Son and said ‘please lead and guide in the way you want me to go either by remaining a priest in the C of E or a move to the Catholic Church’. At this time I scheduled my retreat during Easter week to make a spiritual journey and pilgrimage to Rome. I had a number of meetings there with priests and a former Episcopal bishop (Father Jeffrey Steenson) who had converted from Anglicanism as well as an American Catholic priest who is in Rome finishing his PhD on the Pastoral Provision of the late Pope John Paul II.

In my heart, I knew that I had grown to love and believe the Catholic faith as it was taught in the Catholic Catechism. On my final day in Rome on 17 April 2009 I went to the tomb of S. Peter and knelt and prayed for quite some time. I knew in my heart I was a Catholic and asked what it was that was keeping me from converting. All sorts of fears ran through my head and I felt very restless there and at times just knelt quietly asking S. Peter to pray for me because I didn’t know how or the way to go. At the end of this time I went over and knelt at JPII’s tomb and asked him to please pray for me as I was scared to make a journey like this with a wife and six children not knowing how God would provide for us.

After praying with JPII, I got up and went to S. Peter’s tomb again and there with conviction of heart signed the Roman Catholic Catechism stating ‘This is the Faith of the Church and this is my Faith’, and signed my name with the day’s date. Before leaving the Basilica I walked over to the statue of S. Peter with the key in his hand, rubbed his foot, and said, ‘I am going out to find the way, open the door and make this happen and pray for me as I make this journey.’

One week later I was in a meeting with a couple of Catholic bishops in London. I had made the commitment in my heart that coming home to the Catholic Church was God’s plan for me. I have now made the biggest jump I have ever made in my life and I am trying really hard not to struggle too much as I fall while waiting for God to catch me. The one thing that has not changed in my heart but has only grown over the past nine years is my desire to remain in England as a Catholic. This desire has been confirmed through much prayer and discernment and all signs point to us remaining in England for the entirety of our lives. For numerous reasons, I am discerning God calling me to the southern region of the country, which has been my plan for three years. London will be our new home and if I am ever to be priested in the Catholic Church it is where I will be incardinated…

Maybe we’ll call it an [un]even exchange for Fr. Cutie…

According to the recent tally at Stand Firm, it is becoming more and more unlikely (although still possible) that Kevin Forrester, dubbed the “Buddhist Bishop-Elect” will be approved by the Episcopal church. This is because Forrester has been ordained from a Buddhist community, and also seems to like fudging classical Christian doctrine. Even more traditionally progressive (how’s that for a phrase??) dioceses and bishops are opposed to his election.

I believe that this shows the power of the new communication. Without the internet, would anybody really care about what a tiny Episcopal diocese in Michigan does? Would most Episcopalians even know what was going on if it weren’t for the internet? I often wonder if John Spong would have been approved as an Episcopal bishop had the internet been as widespread back then as today. One of the great  things about the internet which many ecclesiastical wafflers hate is that the net shines light on theological and moral double-speak. You can’t say “I affirm Christ’s resurrection” to a group of average laypersons today, and then essentially say the resurrection is bunk a few weeks later to some academics, because this information WILL be available on the internet later for all to see. Score a point for clarity!

Let’s give credit here. The Episcopal church is setting boundaries. From a Catholic and Orthodox standpoint, TEC has pushed moral and disciplinary boundaries pretty far as of late, but in this instance, the Episcopal church is saying that doctrine does matter (at least to the degree that one cannot be a Christian bishop and an ordained Buddhist at the same time).

I recently came across the website of Anglican priest Fr. David Smith who is not only a minister in the Anglican tradition, but also a boxer and martial arts expert. It also seems that he has taken a bold role in speaking out in favor of Palestinian rights, especially for the Christians there. That takes a lot of guts too.

He has started a website called “Fighting Fathers” which is dedicated to fighting social ills and working for real change in the world.

He even runs a Christian fight club (physical fighting, not like the “fighting fathers”) and goes to great pains to assert that it is not a “gentle, touchy feely self-help group” but one that will actually train you to win competitions. They have their unique style of martial arts, but adhere to a general Christian philosophy of faith, fellowship, and fitness.

My thoughts on all of this? I love it. The Catholic Church and most mainline Christian denominations have become quite feminized. Don’t believe me? Look at the staffing at most Catholic parishes and schools. Sure, the priest is always a guy, but most of the support staff is inevitably women. Now, I don’t intend to demean women or the great work most of them do. In fact, it’s often because men do not step up to the plate that women do most of the day to day work, including education, activity planning, and liturgy design and implementation, in a parish. However, when their ideas and activities are too “touchy-feely” and alienate men this then leads to even fewer men willing to take on leadership roles. It’s a vicious cycle of male alienation and males, especially boys, lose out.

Some will say that Fr. Dave plays to male stereotypes. Perhaps; but most stereotypes have a bit of truth. And, from my teaching experiences, most guys love sports, especially contact ones. Most of them also think the martial arts are extremely cool. I agree myself. They don’t usually feel the same way about religion, since to them it’s mostly singing banal songs they would never listen to in their spare time, boring meditating or reflecting, or sitting still and being quiet for long periods of time. While religion does involve reflection, sitting still, and other not too “exciting” things, we need to show our boys and older men that religion and the Church can also include more masculine activities…like a Christian fight club run by a priest…and that these are legitimate.

Kudos to Fr. Dave. I just wish he were Catholic because we need guys like this.

This is an absolutely hilarious excerpt from the British TV show “Yes Prime Minister” on the definition of a modernist in the Church of England. It could apply to any community, though.

Hat tip: What Does the Prayer Really Say?

I haven’t really weighed in on Kevin Thew-Forrester, the Episcopal bishop-elect who claims to also be a Buddhist, but I thought now would be a good time.

First, the biggest problem doesn’t seem to be his high view of Buddhism, but his low view of Christ and traditional religion. His Trinity Sunday homily betrays an unorthodox (or at least shockingly unclear) understanding of Jesus’ divinity and his inclusivizing, new-agesque liturgical revisions indicate that he is no respecter of traditional religion. Is his Buddhist affiliation a problem? If he sees the good in Buddhism and tries to incorporate some aspects of Buddhist spirituality while remaining true to traditional Christianity, probably not. But, even with this approach, being the primary teacher in his diocese (which a bishop is, at least for Catholics) is problematic. However, if he promotes syncretism, then it would be a big problem, since Buddhism has many elements that are totally incompatible with traditional Christianity, e.g. the afterlife.

Second, I must add that I find this whole affair somewhat amusing and I often chuckle when I read about rich, white Westerners embracing Buddhism. They typically practice a therapeutic, feel good version of Buddhism that is about inner tranquility, peace, love, and hippy tendencies. This, of course, has little to do with actual Buddhism as practiced by most of the world’s Buddhists which is very supernatural and dare I say, superstitious.

So, should this guy be made a bishop? From a Catholic perspective, no way, primarily because of his views on Jesus and the liturgy. Of course, to be perfectly blunt, he would fit in well with what is currently the Episcopal mainstream. Those fighting his election are fighting in vain, I fear. TEC is closer to Mr. Thew-Forrester than the evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics.

Two bloggers, one an Episcopal priest, have some interesting theories about so-called institutional religion, and what they think will bring more people to faith in God (although they tell us we shouldn’t use the term “God”). Unfortunately, the article simply repeats what priests were learning in seminaries in the 1960s and 1970s (where they were trained by an institutional church by the way!). From the article:

What is happening? Are Americans losing faith, or merely losing faith in institutional religion.

Most Christian institutions cling to the dogma and doctrine established in 325 A.D. by a religious minority. They are not incorporating all the new facts that we have found in recent archeological digs or in recently discovered writings from the periods written about in the Bible. For instance, The Gospel of Thomas, written at the same time as the Gospel of John, yet excluded from the Bible since Thosmas[sic] did not include the Passion of Jesus Christ, gives us a different insight into salvation.

Fundamentalism in Christianity, or belief in the literal translation of the Bible (or belief in Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation), while providing a safe haven for many, EXCLUDES the majority of spiritual people. Progressive believers by living a metaphorical translation of the Bible are INCLUSIVE. They acknowledge the legitimacy of all religions.

We have all heard this before, although it is difficult to understand why these words would come from the mouth of Christians. While I am no fan of fundamentalism, and I wish the world religions would get along despite differences, I am also no fan of spirituality that is so gooey and vague, that it lacks substance. For many of us, Christianity is a challenge, especially in today’s world. If we wanted to take “the easy way out,” we would just believe like these two bloggers believe, that everybody is right, and nobody is wrong, and that the Bible says nothing offensive about anything or anybody. In today’s culture, this is the painless way to approach religion, but I also think it is a rather thoughtless way to approach it. After all, must a religion change to be compatible with our often vacuous culture? Don’t the same folks who want to sanitize the faith for our current culture criticize those who did so in the past?

Fortunately, the bloggers provide us with a sure fire way to grow a religion, which has definitely NOT worked for the mainlines over the last 40 years:

Until religious institutions understand this and change to become inclusive of these thousands of God, they will continue to die.

In other words, if every religion would just recognize that we all worship the same God, our problems would disappear! That is right. God the Father is equal to Moloch. “Love your neighbor” and child sacrifice…it’s all good!

I respect the rights of these individuals to believe what they want. However, maybe it would be wise for the Episcopal priest writer to take off his collar and get out of an institutional religion, if he feels so strongly about it. If I believed as he believes, I think I would find another church, one that doesn’t say the Nicene Creed every Sunday. Of course, if you found a church that accepts thousands of gods, composing a creed may be a little difficult…

Anglican leaders worldwide are not too enthusiastic about the prospect of a conservative North American province. You will recall that recently some Episcopal dioceses have pulled out of the Episcopal church, and associated among themselves. This has led to the creation of a new province that overlaps with the Episcopal church’s province.

Even though in 2004, many of us believed the Primates would “save Anglicanism” from the influence of extreme modernism, the reality is that the Primates, as a whole, have been pretty lukewarm across the board in their response to recent Anglican events. I have said it once, and I’ll say it again: Anglicanism does not have the authority structures in place to produce the type of church that many Anglican conservatives want. The system itself is the problem.

The internet is buzzing with rumors that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith may offer the Traditional Anglican Communion (a continuing Anglican church) status of personal prelature. There is information available from The American Catholic. There have been many rumors about what may happen with the TAC. They have sought some sort of greater communion with the Catholic Church, and the rumor-mill has been very active speculating what exactly the Vatican will do. If they are indeed offered the status of personal prelature, this will be a major, major, decision. Some are speculating that thousands of of alienated Anglo-Catholic Anglicans in England may become Catholic under such a system. I am reluctant to get too excited over this (and I am also excited about the liturgical possibilities of having an Anglican-like prelature in the Church!), because rumors are flying both directions about the future of the TAC in the Catholic Church, but this is rather interesting.