Anglicanorum cœtibus

There's been some degree of negative press, too often from those ordinarily of an inclusive sensibility I fear, about the recent papal bull on Anglical personal ordinariates. The Archbishop of Canterbury has (I think not fairly, as some even over at the highly-informative Anglo-Catholic agreed) been accused of sharing this sentiment. I think it's important to remember that the groups involved are Anglo-Papalists of the old school, a large proportion of whom found themselves unable to continue in altar fellowship with us long before this development. The rest are largely Anglicans, primarily in the provinces of Great Britain, who have been in functionally impaired with their diocesan bishops for over a decade. Affirming-minded Anglicans have been known to grumble about the cadre of Papalist-minded clergy "holding things up." We can hardly turn round and condemn them for embracing the Magisterium of Rome. They have fulfilled the great Anglo-Papalist dream, which was thought dead not long ago. Their decision is perfectly appropriate for them. Meanwhile, the Papacy, often regarded with suspicion by liberals over a combination of real and perceived inflexibility, has extended an offer whose intended audience regards it as being on highly advantageous terms.

Moreover, no one is hurt. We continue to remember the Lund Principle, whereby we do apart only that which conscience requires (sometimes taken to some highly innovative extents). Why should not Anglicans congregations in communion with Rome and Canterbury join together for, say, services of Solemn Evensong & Benediction? There would admittedly be an asymmetry in the standards of practice required on either side, but it is not canonically impossible. Roman Catholics, meanwhile, will benefit from the Anglican patrimony in their midst as they do from their Byzantine brothers and sisters, and we from the Mar Thoma Church.

When I was in Hamilton (for those from elsewhere: the next city over from Toronto), I visited the local Reformed Episcopal church for their monthly north-ender. They were engaged with an ecumenical consortium of churches in the area in outreach to nearby McMaster University students. All of these opportunities for ministry (dare we say Fresh Expressions?) will continue to be available and ill-will is really unnecessary, even though I will miss being able to make my communion at the Cathedral of the Annunciation when in Ottawa. The Continuum blogosphere is relatively low in content related to its estranged bodies of origin, in contrast to the Realignment-wave separation, which feature a high editorial emphasis on the evils of "Mrs Schori" and the Bishops of Niagara (theologically conservative correspondents in Niagara hailed his election as the choice of the most fair-minded in a pool of liberal candidates) and New Westminster (who ratified his diocesan synod's third resolution calling for a local option for the blessing of same-gender unions). Here again, however, I cannot see why communities with two viable congregations could not arrange to share the "physical plant," or to negotiate mutually profitable terms of sale where it would otherwise go unused. Here in Toronto, the church of St Clement, Riverdale, goes unused as far as I know, while the congregation of St Clement of Rome meets for Morning Prayer & Holy Communion from the Reserved Sacrament in the hall of a United church in Leslieville, with a deacon from the Independent Anglican Church Canada Synod (which uses a redaction of the 1549 prayer book as its official liturgy).

So while the secular press enjoys trying to dissect the vagaries of ecclesiastical polity, and as we of all confessions continue to engage in self-reflection over the ethical character of our church leadership through our history, I hope that for those of us within the Church life will continue to go on more or less as it has, and perhaps even start to look up if recent signs of opportunity for rapprochement are indicative.