Anglican bishop denies merger with Catholics

AM Australia ^ | 20 February , 2007 | Rafael Epstein

[Claud]

I think you've nailed it. Many Anglicans are not all that comfortable thinking of themselves as an invisible body of believers not attached or in communion with anyone else. When you have a "high" ecclesiology, you definitely don't want to be off in la-la land as a Pope/church of one. Here's an interesting excerpt from a statement written by Hepworth of the TAC in January 06:

Having had our communion with the Anglican Communion shattered, we cannot remain "a church on the loose". To hold the catholic faith requires that faith be exercised in communion. Bishops cannot exist cut off from the mainstream of the church's life. Unity is not an option. Jesus commanded it.

More here:

http://www.thetraditionalanglicanchurch.org.uk/hepworthjan06.html

And the truly beautiful liturgical praxis that Anglo-Catholics have...that old '28 Prayer Book spirit that is now--sadly--that's almost totally missing in the English speaking Roman Catholic Church. So I wonder myself how this will shake out. It is hard to imagine an Anglican "Rite" that can rise to the level of the 5 traditional Patriarchates, but some sort of preservation of the best of Anglo-Catholicism is absolutely vital to Roman Catholicism today.

Speaking of African accents, is there ANY accent in the English world that is more melodious and beautiful than an African one? LOL

[Claud]

That's my understanding too, sitetest. Unfortunately so.

[livius]

That's unfortunate - I know there is a low-church branch of Anglicans who really do consider themselves to be more Protestant than Anglo-Catholic, and I'm sure they wouldn't be interested in going to Rome. But the two African bishops I met (who were brought along by an American Episcopal priest or bishop) were definitely not evangelical in tendency, so maybe some of them would be considering it, on a church by church or diocese by diocese basis.

[livius]

"a church on the loose"

That's a great phrase! I have been thinking a lot about this because I went to Rome recently and visited the Scavi, the excavations under the Vatican. Never have I seen so clearly the "roots" of the Church: that is, the fact that the circus of Nero, scene of many Christian martyrdoms, was on that site, as was the necropolis where the body of the martyred St. Peter was buried, and the clear evidence that the very earliest Christians were visiting that spot from the very earliest times. And now we have the great dome of St. Peter's Basilica, directly crowning the very spot where St. Peter was buried those two millenia ago. I can't imagine how anybody could be anything other than Catholic, for all the current problems of the Church, because when you go to that place, you see the seed and the root of the great tree that grows up and out through the centuries. It must be very sad to be part of a "church on the loose."

[sitetest]

Dear livius,

I'm sure that any generalization about African Anglicans has exceptions.

However, my understanding is that there's a difference between low church, high church, and broad church, vs. Anglo-Catholic and evangelical. My understanding is that high vs. low is more about liturgy, and Catholic vs. evangelical is more about theology (although, to me, logically, high church would seem to fit better with Anglo-Catholics and low church with evangelicals).

I've pinged AnAmericanMother who can give a better, more detailed explanation.


sitetest

[Claud]

It is a great phrase, isn't it? :)

And you're right...Italy quite literally compels one to face history. I felt it strongly when on the subway in Rome and seeing the stops....place-names 2000 years old!

Have a holy, profitable, and penitential Lent, my FRiends! I'm on computer fast, so you probably won't see me here again until the glorious alleluias of Eastertide.