Fr Longenecker On Anglicanism

Ever since he visited our parish for its Lenten mission, I've followed Fr Dwight Longenecker's blog (on my blogroll) with interest. As a former Anglican priest, I appreciate the major difference between him and all the other Anglican, Anglo-Catholic, or ordinariate blogs -- he represents himself as a Catholic who happened to be Anglican in an earlier life, not as someone with a special Anglican whosiwatsis. He makes it plain that he is neither an OCSP priest nor one in the Pastoral Provision, but a married Catholic priest who availed himself of precedents dating from Pius XII.

As such, he isn't weepy about the Anglican patrimony, as precursors like Frederick Kinsman and Ronald Knox were not. Here are some remarks on Anglicanism from a recent post on his blog:

When I was an Anglican a relative used to quiz me and say, “Dwight. Tell me. What do Anglicans believe about (for example) infant baptism?”

I’d say, “First pick your Anglican. Then I’ll tell you what he probably believes, but then again maybe not, and it could of course be the other and I would not wish to say in any real sense that it could be true except in a metaphorical understanding which, all things being equal could also mean that of course I am not saying that there is such a thing as objective theology which means (if ‘means’ means anything) that the other could be true if you are able in any real sense to make a definition, but we surely all accept that such definitions are divisive and therefore we suggest that one allows a certain latitude of interpretation. . .” you get the idea.

This is a basic problem I see with the so-called "Anglican patrimony", especially if we let in some additional vague interpretation beyond the specific references CDF authorities have made to DW liturgy and certain music that's now widely accepted in Catholic worship. Everyting else opens the door to the noted theologians Gyapong, Schaetzel, Chadwick, and every other fringe "continuer", simply because this is what's happened within Anglicanism for centuries.

I find the whole idea that there should be some special provision, compartment, generous gesture, or however you may wish to characterize it, that treats former Anglicans as some sort of privileged group (and the special treatment by definition makes them privileged) a matter of serious concern. But I also think that Bp Hewett's insight into the long-term viability of breakaways, whether the Church of England, the PNCC, or "continuing Anglicans", applies equally to Anglicanorum coetibus. The ordinariates aren't likely to outlast the "continuers".