The Bitter Pill (aka The Tablet) Can't Swallow this Sweet Pill

The Tablet launches a bitter and ignorant attack on the Pope's Apostolic Constitution

By Damian Thompson

The Tablet’s editorial this week is a wretched attack on the Pope’s Apostolic Constitution, arguing that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (read: the Pope) doesn’t understand Anglo-Catholicism.
The article is a bitter and partisan piece of work, reflecting the wounded pride of English bishops who were not consulted about the Apostolic Constitution for the very good reason that they would have tried to sabotage it. The editorial says:
Perhaps because of lack of consultation with both Catholic and Anglican authorities in England, the CDF seems to have failed to grasp what Anglo-Catholicism is really all about.
What about the CDF’s years of consultation with the bishops who lead the Anglo-Catholic conservatives in England? Do you think that Bishops John Broadhurst and Andrew Burnham failed to communicate what Anglo-Catholicism is “really all about”? The Tablet continues:
[Anglo-Catholicism's] fundamental aim was to reassert the Catholic credentials of the Church of England as the “ancient Catholic Church of these lands” identical in essence to the medieval English Church. It is from this foundation that derive all those characteristics of its style that the CDF is keen to preserve – the interiors of its churches almost indistinguishable from Catholic churches, the use of “Father” as the title for its clergy, and devotion to a Catholic type of spirituality including honouring the Virgin Mary. But unless one counts use of the Roman missal in some of their churches, there is no distinctive Anglo-Catholic liturgy.
Anglo-Catholicism is going through a profound crisis precisely because it is losing faith in its central principle. Anglicanorum Coetibus is offering to let incoming Anglo-Catholics hang on to the incidental symbols of that principle, while relinquishing what lies behind it. Does that make sense?
Well, no, it doesn’t make sense – if you accept the Tablet’s ignorant account of Anglo-Catholicism, a phenomenon it has never remotely understood. There isn’t space to go into detail here, but the Anglo-Papal strand within the movement was not chiefly interested in recreating medieval English Catholicism (as some other Anglo-Catholics were) and made sure that its liturgy reflected post-Reformation (and post-Vatican II) developments in Roman Catholicism.
Then we get the old argument that, because English Anglo-Catholics use the Roman liturgy, they would be just “hanging on to incidentals”, even that “there is no distinctive Anglo-Catholic liturgy”.
Can you imagine the Bitter Pill – and it really is bitter this week – insulting any other religious tradition in this fashion? The distinctiveness of the English Anglo-Catholic liturgy arises partly from its ethos, which reflects a solemnity that has been lost by so many Roman Catholic parishes in this country. There is nothing “incidental” about this ethos. In Anglo-Catholicism at its best you find a way of celebrating ancient feasts in an English manner that draws authentically on the medieval Church: it is one of the “treasures” that the Holy Father wishes to see reincorporated into Catholicism.
And it is he, not the CDF, who is the author of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. So let us be very clear about this. The Tablet is attacking the Pope, rubbishing a project that is very dear to his heart and central to his ecumenical mission. The magazine also contains a sour, biased analysis of the Constitution by ex-priest Nicholas Lash, criticising it for the way it cites The Catechism of The Catholic Church – “a useful if uneven compendium of Catholic teaching. It has little or no authority in itself…”
And yet still The Tablet has the nerve to call itself Catholic.

___________

Meanwhile Fr. Z has his own inimmitable (Memo to Bishop Trautman: That means can't be imitated.) take on the Bitter Pill's rantings:

The Tablet’s Anglican Provision: No Popery!

The attacks on the Holy Father and his provisions for Christian Anglicans are getting worse… right on schedule.

The liberals are having a grand mal twit.

England’s ultra-dissenter fishwrap RU-486 (aka The Bitter Pill aka The Tablet) has this with my emphases and comments:
Editorial

The other path to Rome

"The apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus has now been published by the Holy See, and no one will read it more avidly than members of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England and Anglicans of similar mind abroad. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome has devised it, with Pope Benedict XVI’s blessing, [so… to attack it, is to attack the Pope… but read on…] to meet the needs of Anglicans who wish to preserve some of their traditions and heritage while moving into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Anglo-Catholics will have to ask themselves whether this is a good proposal or not. [And there it is. Remember: liberals want to define ecumenism. They want to be the ones to determine who is worthy of dialogue. They don’t want unity that involves submission… unless it is submission to their liberal agenda. Liberal: someone with whom you are only free to agree.]

They do have an alternative – indeed two alternatives, counting staying within the Church of England. [Which is what RU-486 wants. They want to abort this act of Christian Unity. The Tablet is a sort of bitter morning after pill.] Or they could, as countless converts to Roman Catholicism have done before them including many former Anglo-Catholics, apply to enter into full communion through the normal processes. Nowadays that usually means enrolling in the parish-based scheme called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, or RCIA, which includes a rite for baptised Christians who want to become Catholic. [RCIA…. right. As run in most parishes? That would suit RU-486 just fine.]

After a journey of faith involving instruction from a parish catechist, [not a priest!] candidates follow a series of public steps leading to a ceremony of admission, with others who have made the same journey. [Doesn’t that just sound… romantic?] Individual ceremonies, after a period of private instruction from a priest, [ah! a priest] are also not ruled out. [?!?] A simple formula of doctrinal assent is required in either case, far less elaborate than adherence to every one of the Catholic catechism’s 2,865 paragraphs which the apostolic constitution envisages. [And THAT, friends, is the big problem. RU-486 and their crowd do not want people in the Church who actually believe what is in … gulp… the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Think of it! Believing Catholics with good liturgical taste!]

The RCIA experience is transformative, in that the person coming out of it at the end does not feel the same as the person going in. [Indeed yes… that is decidedly so. Form what I have heard from some who have gone through it in Tablet style parishes, they are never quite the same again. They don’t at all feel the same. Many, in fact, feel like they need delousing. But remember… we are talking about people who are committed traditionally minded Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics. Do they RCIA? Would the members of the SSPX need RCIA? These pills would probably insist on RCIA for SSPXers. What better way to keep them from unity!] They have changed one world view for another – the term “convert”, though deemed ecumenically insensitive, is not inappropriate. [HUH?! I am a convert. I am a CONVERT! That was the greatest act of ecumenism I made in my life. I don’t mind at all being called a convert. That is what it takes!] The CDF’s proposals seem designed to blunt that experience by reassuring those who choose that way that nothing much has changed. [You mean… aside from that whole Catechism of the Catholic Church thing.] They will be the same community with the same leaders, the same culture and liturgy and possibly even the same buildings. Anglo-Catholics who are attracted for that reason would do better to be wary of it, precisely because it does not demand enough. [As if the writer knows what this may cost.]

Perhaps because of [wait for it] lack of consultation with both Catholic and Anglican authorities in England, [It’s the old argument: Rome doesn’t know anything!] the CDF seems to have failed to grasp what Anglo-Catholicism is really all about. Its fundamental aim was to reassert the Catholic credentials of the Church of England as the “ancient Catholic Church of these lands” identical in essence to the medieval English Church. [Is this RU-486 defending separation from the Catholic Church?] It is from this foundation that derive all those characteristics of its style that the CDF is keen to preserve – the interiors of its churches almost indistinguishable from Catholic churches, [Many of the older ones are Catholic churches. Am I wrong?] the use of “Father” as the title for its clergy, and devotion to a Catholic type of spirituality including honouring the Virgin Mary. But unless one counts use of the Roman missal in some of their churches, there is no distinctive Anglo-Catholic liturgy. [?]

Anglo-Catholicism is going through a profound crisis precisely because it is losing faith in its central principle. [And RU-486 hopes they find it again!]

Anglicanorum Coetibus is offering to let incoming Anglo-Catholics hang on to the incidental symbols of that principle, [They are terrified of the liturgical influence, folks. Mark my word.] while relinquishing what lies behind it. [The bloody repression of Catholics in England? The social marginalization of Catholics loyal to Rome? No Popery!] Does that make sense? Would they not be better off just becoming Roman Catholics in the normal way, and joining an existing Catholic community they can enrich and be enriched by?"

This is a true mark of the liberal. They ask you to deny the evidence of your senses.

You are to call up, down…. front, back.

RCIA or staying in the Anglican Church… normal.

I must ask people more knowledgable than I: Is the Bishops Conference there propping up their circulation?