• RSS Subscribe to Blog

  • PAGES

  • RECENT PONDERINGS

  • RECENT COMMENTS

    Steve on SAINTLY?
    Paul Nicholson on SAINTLY?
    RGE on Calling the Shots
    Walter J. Tanner on MARRIAGE EXTENSION
    franiel32 on IN THIS COMPANY
  • ARCHIVES

  • BLOG STATS

    • 111,965 hits

COMMUNION WITH WHAT?

It seems that some Anglican Primates, members of something called the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) wish to replace the primacy of the See of Canterbury with an elected chairman, one of their own number, to serve for four or five year terms. For as long as there has been an expression of Christianity termed ‘Anglicanism’ the primary mark of identification is that a bishop (not a Province) is in communion with the See of Canterbury. The rest of us are authentically Anglican because our bishops enjoy this fraternal relationship. Of the other marks of our unity, termed Instruments of Communion, only the Lambeth Conference of bishops enjoys an historic track record, and the committee of primates is the latest edition to these ‘instruments’. The Lambeth Conference, in that it is a sort of synod, has traction as a body with deep roots in ecclesiology – the teachings about how we recognize the reality of the Church. Committees, however useful, are ad hoc groups, servant bodies of the church. They are not the Church. It is perhaps good that our primates get together to take counsel, but our authenticity as Anglicans in no way depends on such meetings, or with whomever chairs such meetings. Every national church or super-national province in our Communion originates through and by the activity of the See of Canterbury. It’s cathedral is our mother church.

 

The Gafcon primates seem to have concluded that an archbishop of canterbury is a symbol of British Imperialism. It should be noted that their provinces originate in actions finally approved by archbishops of canterbury. It is appalling to see such inverted racism used as justification for dismembering the Communion. These Primates really should come clean. Their proposal to replace Canterbury with a committee chair is really all about power. They have been disappointed by Dr. Williams and they fear that his successor might not be sympathetic to their vision of ‘confessing Anglicanism’. If they had played their part in the drama which has played out in the past few years, their collective authority and weight might well have provided them with most of the things they work for. Instead they have stayed at home and sulked, boycotted the last Lambeth Conference and even the last Primates’ meeting which they would have dominated.

 

Instead they have taken the road of schismatic Roman Catholicism of the type once led by Archbishop Lefevre, who refused to recognize the occupant of the see of Rome as pope. If the Gafcon primates persist in seeking to establish their alternative Communion, led from time to time by one of their own, they will further divide orthodox opinion in the Communion, and particularly those of us who believe that ecclesial authenticity for us is to a large degree expressed by our communion with an historical archiepiscopal see with roots in the undivided church of the first six centuries. Certainly authenticity depends more than on ecclesial genealogy; it depends on Scripture as witnessed by the Tradition and apprehended by sanctified Reason, by faith in God in Trinity through the saving work of Jesus and the presence of the Spirit. But ecclesial identity is not a ‘matter indifferent’.

 

Sadly one senses the same sort of ecclesiastical nationalism which typifies those who affirm provincial autonomy over global interdependence and communion. But of course those on the extremes of our comprehension often provide mirror images to each other.

DOUBTS

DOUBTS


Next Sunday we encounter Thomas the Doubter. The first point to note is that the story is told at all. After all, like Peter’s betrayals, it must have been embarrassing for these first followers and friends of Jesus to be portrayed in an unfavorable light. Even if they were both dead before written copies of the Gospels were in circulation these incidents must have been well known to the scattered church. 

The second point to note is that neither Thomas, nor Peter, were excluded because of their failures. Thomas expressed his doubts that Jesus had risen but was back again the following week. He wasn’t shunned. Peter remained with the disciples after he denied he knew Jesus, was one of the first at the empty tomb -John defers to him and allows him to enter first – and stays with the company of believers until Jesus recommissions him by the Sea of Galilee: “Feed my sheep”.

The third point to note is that both men had the courage to live with their fallibility. They didn’t shrink away, or try to get their stories edited for publication, or make excuses. They are so unlike the sort of leaders we are used to and oddly we treat them better than we do our fallen heroes. They are unlike our leaders because they don’t make excuses or ‘air-brush’ their stories. We treat them better because we neither dwell on their scandals nor hold them against them. 

The fourth point to note is that both ‘saw the light’ by direct encounters with Jesus. Thomas touched Jesus and found that although Jesus was transformed, his body was real enough: his wounds were still there. Peter eats breakfast by the lake with Jesus and is forgiven. 

So if you doubt, reach out and touch those wounds. They are real enough. They were inflicted by you and the human race, but they have changed everything. Touch them and know that Jesus is Lord and God. If you have betrayed Jesus, look to eat with him, here, at Mass and hear him forgive and re-commission you to service.