Monday, 21 February 2011

Ends and beginnings....

An interesting comment from the Tunbridge Wells Ordinariate Blog:
"......For those remaining Anglican the change is no less drastic. People will have to adjust to a huge shift in tradition as Solemn Mass gives way to Sung Eucharist and benediction, daily mass, rosary, holy hour and weekly sung angelus become things of the past. The diocese has decreed that a more Anglican future is needed, Affirming Catholic clergy are lined up for cover, suggesting a more liberal future and it is urged that resolutions are dropped...." [here]

If this is an indication of a general response to the setting up of the Ordinariate, then it's clear that the Establishment Anglican line will be that those leaving were never 'real' Anglicans at all and that the Church of England (et al) is better off without them. Anyone who knows a little bit about the Oxford Movement and its successor, the Anglo-Catholic movement (a diminishing number, it seems), will know that things have always been rather more complicated than that. But it seems to be becoming clearer in the way divided parishes are being treated that the future (and who is acceptably 'Anglican')  will be decided in a much more 'protestant' direction  liturgically and doctrinally whoever wins the international Anglican culture wars. This is a (somewhat) belated attempt to tidy up the looser ends of the Reformation settlement, perhaps? Many will take the view that Anglicans can do what they want in what is a separate "denomination," but that is precisely where the argument has always been - where does the authority of two forcibly sundered provinces of the Western Church derive? This difference in Anglican perceptions of self-identity is the real fault line for many of us.
I'll say it again, if what seems to be happening in the wake of departures for the Ordinariate is to be the 'official' Anglican policy, then the Ordinariate will be the only long-term home for traditional Anglo-Catholics which is even remotely recognisable. Ultimately (and, yes, I know some - clergy, that is - may just about be able to struggle on to retirement) the choice will be between buying into the package of a re-invented Anglicanism (liberal revisionist with all that will entail or firmly protestant evangelical) or making other more satisfactory arrangements.....
Clearly, and we need to be well aware of it, the status quo is not going to be an option for anyone.

There's nothing more frustrating than for a story to be given prominent billing and then suddenly drop out of the news without any follow up. This, sadly, seems to be the end of the long-running story about the parish of Thiberville in Normandy. [Here]

A political comment - the left's unwarranted assumption that those who find themselves (increasingly) on the right of the spectrum are "bad people." From Katharine Birbalsingh's blog at the Daily Telegraph [here]


  1. The only belief that will be required (either by direct affirmation or by acquiescence) is that women can be ordained as priests. Everything else is optional.

  2. "The only belief that will be required (either by direct affirmation or by acquiescence) is that women can be ordained as priests. Everything else is optional."

    Just like the Church of Sweden (and, to an increasing extent, those of Finland and Norway as well).

  3. I take the point entirely. One can sit lightly to almost anything else so long as one is prepared to bow the knee to that particular innovation. I would only add that, given what happens in the U.S. today seems to happen here tomorrow, WO may well not be the "only belief" required. As we know there are all kinds of other issues which come in the wake of WO and would seem to be required by it.


Anonymous comments will not be published