Sunday, July 30, 2006

The rush to welcome disaffected Anglicans home...

I know it's stupid for me to say "I told you so" on such an obvious point (that is, my post of June 20, observing that the true Bishops will do nothing to bring the Anglican lost sheep, futher scattered by recent events, home to Holy Mother Church).

It's especially stupid because 90% of the people who look at my blog agreed with me to begin with (the others quit reading long ago, except for Todd).

But I don't care.

I'm saying it anyways.

I TOLD YOU SO.

On one hand, we have stories like this (one of dozens):

Episcopalians: Feud over gay bishops intensifies
By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer
NEW YORK A Pennsylvania diocese that is the epicenter of conservative Episcopal dissent over gay bishops rejected the authority of the incoming head of the denomination last week but stopped short of a full break with the Episcopal Church.

On the other hand we have this evidence of Catholic Bishops publicly reaching out to bring "traditional" Anglicans into communion with Rome:

I would really have rather eaten crow here, and made a public apology to the few strong Bishops out there (Finn? Chaput? Bruskewitz? Doran? Finn? Yanta? Myers? Finn?) who made public invitations to disaffected Anglicans to return to the One True Church. I invite anyone who has evidence that I'm wrong--bold public actions that didn't make news, or even internet buzz--to comment or email me about this.

But unless someone (happily) corrects me, the answer is "no, to a man, they're leaving the lost sheep to drop off cliffs, or be taken by wolves, one by one."

Way to go, guys!...ahem, should I show more respect?...Way to go, Excellencies!

One other observation, while I'm at it: I notice that it seems (at least to some degree) that the "best" of the sects' dioceses are in the same locations as the worst dioceses of the true Church, and the worst of the sects' dioceses are in the same locations as the better dioceses of the true Church. For instance, the Episcopalian diocese of Springfield, Illinois is refusing to follow that chick who was just elected their primate; and the Catholic diocese of Springfield is a notorious den of iniquity. On the other hand, the Catholic diocese of Newark seems to be better than most--at least these days; while the Episcopalians there are loopier than most. The Pittsburg Catholic diocese is a mess (which, of course, didn't stop Wuerl from getting to go to cocktails regularly with the Kennedys and the Kerrys in D.C.), but the Pittsburg Episcopalians seem to have at least one heretical foot on the ground.

I don't know about other dioceses, but do please test my theory: the Fort Worth Episcopalians are pretty solid, even to the point of recognizing that a woman isn't valid matter for Holy Orders (wrongly presuming that they have valid orders to begin with, of course), and I think a former "bishop" of Ft. Worth actually became Catholic. The Catholic diocese of Dallas, next door, is a disaster. What do y'all know about Ft. Worth? Any other examples that support or run counter to my hypothesis?

23 comments:

WOLFTRACKER said...

Great post. I think you need to post it again as an "Open Letter" to the bishops you named and ask then directly as to their plans to reach out to "traditional" Anglicans.

WOLFTRACKER said...

I meant "ask theM directly . . ."

Anonymous said...

I will tell you what the problem is… political correctness!

There are a great many things this side of heaven that are black and white. I wish that our shepherds would be courageous and show us right from wrong, true from false. The Apostles laid down their lives for the Truth. What are our bishops laying down these days?

St. Catherine of Siena save us form political correctness in our mother the Church!

Joe Six Pack said...

I think sadly that you are probably right that nothing is being done to bring the Anglicans home to Rome, because that would go agains the Spirit of Vatican II.

I do hold out a sliver of hope that Bishops like Finn are doing things "beneath the radar" to facilitate full communion with our "separated brethen." :)

Dr. Bombay said...

Doesn't the Cathedral in KC-St. Joe have some sort of eccumencial agreement with the Episcopalians a couple of blocks away to hold joint religious "services" of some kind a few times a year? If Finn started trying to bogart disaffected prots, that whole Spirit of Vat II initiative would be right out the window.

In the Old Roman Rite, we pray for the conversion of prots and other heretics, we don't just pray "for" them. **Sigh** Springtime.

Alison said...

Having a friend who was an Episcoplian priest, converted and then spent about 20 years trying to become a priest and is now finally a traditional one at that, I can see some of the problems. Many of them, like my priest friend alleges about C.S. Lewis, think that they are already Catholic. They don't see the need to convert. It took my friend awhile to see that his orders weren't valid etc. The long wait after that was caused by opposing a liberal bishop. I had another friend who was a layman and it was the same problem. He just took him a long time to convince him he wasn't Catholic. This being said,I think that we need to work harder at conversion in many areas.

By the way, how come when you refer to Bishops, you do not use their titles but just their last names? This is not an attack but really I believe the office deserves better and it annoys me and some others who read this blog. It's your blog and your call so please don't take offense.

Curmudgeon said...

I do frequently refer to them as "Bp. So-and-so." But frankly, how well would my post above read if I did so in each an every case? Eh? Eh? Pretty lousy, eh?

Note also that the word "Bishop" did occur immediately before my list. Pretty obvious I wasn't talking about the Oklahoma football defensive line, wasn't it? Notice also that the word is capitalized for the real Bishops; not so for the make-believe ones).

You're right, I don't style each episcopal reference as "His Excellency, the Most Reverend Francis X. Smith, Bishop of North Southland" There are a lot of reasons why not. When there's a list of them, it doesn't sound natural and it doesn't read well, does it? Also when I'm being critical, it's criticism of the man, not his office. So why emphasize the office is such a negative context? And to some extent, my way of writing about Bishops serves intentionally to blow away some of the mystique surrounding some of these fellows. Mind you, not to blow away the authority...just the excess mystique. A little mystique is valuable, I know (I'm a Latin Masser, after all). But too much of it tends to obscure vision and judgment, both ways. Think about it . . . part of the problem we've seen with all the pederasty stuff is that the mysts were so heavy surrounding the Bishop that he frankly couldn't see his flock well enough to wield his apostolic authority as he should have.

Ultimately, though, it's because it's my blog, and it's how I write. There isn't a man in the episcopal college whose ring I wouldn't kiss as a sign of respect for his office (although it would be hard with Mahoney and Brown and Trautman, to be sure). But by the same token, they're men. I don't have a medieval court mentality, and I think that mentality (i.e., one driven by flattery and obsequy) is one traditional thing that we don't want to bring back if and when the cultural restoration comes. I know there are traddies who go to one extreme (e.g., some who refer to a Bishop archaically as "His Lordship") and neo-Catholics who go to another (e.g., the EWTN folks--excluding Mother Angelica herself--who dare not speak a word against the most outrageous actions of particular Bishops). I disagree with both of them.

And so it comes down to the fact that this is my blog; and that is how I write. I guess if you really loved everything about my blog except the way I sometimes refer to Bishops, you could set up an alternative blog (the "Deferential Curmudgeon's Cave"), copy all my stuff over, and edit it. You have my permission to do it, but I have to admit I won't be visiting your site often, and I doubt other readers will, either. I'm gonna keep referring to Bishops as I have all along, and while I'm at it, I'm going to keep purposefully misspelling Mahoney's name as I have all along (except when I want my post to be picked up by a Google search, in which case I'll spell it right once in the post).

And no, I'm not offended by your asking.

Curmudgeon said...

Allison, it just occurred to me that I misinterpreted your question? Were you taking exception to my reference to the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. as "that chick"?

Just kidding, of course, but compared to "that chick," I'm pretty deferential to the real successors of the apostles, aren't I?

Alison said...

Honestly, you do mostly show great deference to Bishops. Also, what you have pointed out in style is true for this post. I could care less what you call any Episcopalian bishop. My case would probably best be made for the comment section of your blog. You also do this to priests. I don't think that you mean too. My guess would be that if you have a son and he becomes a priest that you would be happy to call him Father. I have not the time to go through and give you every example but you do it to your own priests or any desire to become a Nihil Obstat (although I was a great fan). I am sure it is not meant in disrespect as I am positive you love these priests. I am sure you know what post I am talking about but in the comments you call Fr. Bisig just Bisig. Sorry, it has just been bugging me. This is truly meant not to be a discussion or debate of your personality. I also did not mean to take you off subject. Lucky for you I am losing my computer for a week so I am finished.

Curmudgeon said...

I wouldn't say I show "great" deference to Bishops. Maybe "some," but not "great."

And Bisig? Well, I don't know that I love Bisig. He isn't my priest, and I've never met him. He may not be very lovable. But I do respect him, both because he's a priest and because he's stood firm through some treachery. Now, as for my own priests, I've never mentioned them by name...

Well, like I said, you're welcome to do a deferential and sanitized version of the blog. Sounds boring, but have at it! In the meantime, I'm gonna keep writing like this. Enjoy the holiday from the computer.

Joe Six Pack said...

I've heard that Bishop Finn has made contacts with SSPX parishoners and I suspect clergy as well. He's the type of man that will do the right thing for the sake of the right thing and not seek out media attention. Especially since in this case media attention will bring even more harrassment down upon him. The more I think about it, the more I believe he is making contacts with protestants as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see some major conversions start coming out of the KC, MO diocese.

Curmudgeon said...

That may be true with regard to Bp. Finn, and he is to be commended for it as for so many other things (thank you, Lord, for setting him over us!), but in a case like this, it would seem necessary and appropriate to do this on a larger scale. I'm not saying that I have to find it on the internet to deem the effort adequate; I just can't imagine a worthy effort that wouldn't generate some buzz.

Steve said...

So you mean I am NOT supposed to be ecstatic about (Bp)Wuerl being the guy who came to rescue us from (Card)McCarrick? 'Cause I was getting ready to throw a party...

Climbergareth said...

[last posted as "Anonymous" above]
I honestly pick up on a fair amount of clear, but un-outrightly-spoken criticism of bad behavior of some of the episcopacy from some on EWTN. (Raymond Arroyo comes to mind) What EWTN needs is more of the spirit of Mother Angelica, who was a stanch herald of the truth. As a result, many bishops didn’t/don’t like her.

The reason EWTN wastes expensive airtime carrying coverage of the USCCB conferences is so we all can see why we need to pray for our bishops and pray hard.

Am I biased? Absolutely. I’ve met face to face with Mother Angelica on several occasions; I was a postulant for a time with the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word; I’ve spent plenty of time around the EWTN studio. The network isn’t at all perfect, but it bears plenty of good fruit.

Anonymous said...

You can make your point very clearly without being disrespectful towards women by using the word "chick." Using a word like that undermines your point.

Dotte said...

How about these "chicks"?


http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/local_woman_to_be_ordained_priest_in_unsanctioned_catholic_service/

Dr. Bombay said...

I agree with Anon.

"Dames" or "dolls" is much better than chicks.

Steve said...

What about "broads"?

Lee said...

Why would disaffected Episckies want to trade the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. for the Roman Episcopal Church (I love to use that term for the Church in the States!), when they could just as easily join one of the many very conservative offshoots of their own family - like the Anglican Catholic Church or some other?

Lee said...

Oh, and how about using the word "twists"?

Curmudgeon said...

I'm sticking with "chick," but only in cases where I intend to be disrespectful to a particular woman. Women in general, I have the utmost respect for, and refer you to GK Chesterton's What's Wrong with the World, where my sentiments are expressed more eloquently than I could do so myself.

"Dame" or "Broad" is too rat-packish and 50s-ish. I'm not that old. I'll stick to the demeaning lexicon of the late-60s and 70s, which I have to think irritates the Bishopettes and priestesses and other Gloria Steinem-types more than the more archaic forms.

And why would they want to join us? Well, exactly; our hierarchy is not giving them a reason to.

Anonymous said...

Did you read the piece in the St. Joseph News Press on Bishop Finn. The reporter ask him specifically about evangelization.

Curmudgeon said...

I did not see the St. Joseph piece, and I invite someone to send me a link or email it to me as a scanned PDF.