The Archbishop of Paris, André Vingt-Trois, and the Archbishop of Lyons, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, both consider that the needs of the traditionalists are fully met in their archdiocese.

The relevant question is whether the traditionalists consider their needs met. If you read various American episcopal responses to the motu proprio, you get similar responses from the usual suspects. It’s an interesting question whether, if positions were reversed, these same bishops would be all over themselves attempting to be “pastoral” to those wanting the Novus Ordo.

Here’s the money quote, which explains all the drama surrounding this very small step. This really is why Catholics get so exercised about the liturgy:

“The traditionalists consider the Latin Mass as the flag of a wider cause,” said Cardinal Ricard, “since a religious rite is more than a liturgical expression, it is a political vision of the Church and the world.”

Cardinal Ricard might have been a bit more honest and admitted that liberals believe the same thing.

The Pope has done a lot to reign in those who want a more worldly teaching of the Gospel and the historical core doctrines.  For many, this is a good and welcomed thing. I’m one of them.

Unfortunately, this same Pope, while still a Cardinal,  persued a course of pre-Vatican II “conservatism” that can not be found in the Gospels.  Decades of Ecumenical work was essentially thrown out the window by his statements that only the RCC is the true Christian Church, and rejection the Anglican Orders.

Bringing back the old Latin Mass may sound like a “wonderful” thing.  Good for nostalgia.  But the nagging question from the pre-Vatican II era still remains.  How can one Worship and learn about God in a long dead and out of use language?  At one time, Catholics were totally ignorant of the Bible (discouraged even from reading it!).  It would seem that the Pope wants to bring back those days.

I see a short interest in the Latin Mass before the pews return to the current empty status.

H

Things never stand still. In the 1960’s and 1970’s ecumenism became a fad and needed corrective to some of the friction
between Christians. But at that time the Mainstream Protestant churches had not become as fanatically liberal on so many issues of traditional Christian morality and practice as some have since become.
    After Vatican II, I would have considered those traditionalists (as mentioned in this article) worried about the Catholic Church becoming much more accomodating and respectful of Protestant teachings and practices as “right-wing troglodytes.” But now I can see many of their worries were correct.                        For since those early days of Post-Vatican II ecumenical euphoria various Mainstream Protestant churches have:: not only reluctantly accepted divorce, but made it into a virtual sacrament with liturgies or ceremonies to celebrate them in a few cases; begun to regard abortion as a right instead of a heinous evil; endorsed homosexual marriage and elevated those living in open homosexual arrangements to high church offices; and become female ordination factories wherein some denominations may very well have only female clergy in a few decades.
      And, as these actions virtually put many Protestant denominations on another planet from the Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox), the Mass Media lays all the blame on the Catholic Church for the growing distance between Ps and Cs because Rome won’t toss basic Catholic and Christian Traditions out the window for the sake of ecumenism and fellowship and become just another Christian group folllowing the tides of public opinion manipulated by society and the media.   
      How about some blame being tossed in the Protestant direction for being callous and virtually contemptuous of what their actions might do to ecumenical relations??

Okay come now, HowieG.  Even Anglicans had Latin masses and offices until a few decades ago.  The Protestant principle was not that worship should be in the vernacular, but that worship should be in a language “understanded of the people.”  In the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, Latin was used because it was ‘understanded of’ the students and professors.  So what’s wrong with people worshipping in Latin if (1) they understand it and (2) they want it?  You make it sound like the Swiss Guard are going to be standing at the back of every church; but the Moto is clear that this is for communities that want it.  Repeat: want it.  If you don’t want it, then don’t attend.  Simple as that.

HowieG: your second paragraph does not correspond to reality. The Catholic church has never recognized the validity of Anglican orders. The present pope has not “turned the clock back” in this regard. Nor has the Catholic church ever taught that it is but one among many true churches of Christ.

Post-1962 developments in Catholic official teaching are that although Anglican orders aren’t valid, nevertheless they may confer some character upon their recipients (although not a character defined by the Catholic church); and that although some non-Catholic churches may not be churches in the full Catholic sense, yet they may still possess some ecclesial reality and some efficacy for salvation. Nothing the present pope has said has done anything to undermine these recent developments.

Nor has the present pope said anything to dissuade the faithful from reading Holy Scripture. And I would challenge you to substantiate your accusation that the Catholic church ever discouraged the faithful from the practice.

The “decades of ecumenical work” to which you refer have borne great fruit. They are exemplified in official Catholic teaching.

The recent CDF document (which I think may be part of the cause of your displeasure expressed above) was not an ecumenical document, but one aimed at an extreme traditionalist faction that has been holding that Rome has abandoned its historic faith and that ecumenism generally is a sign of heresy. Yet even within that document, the above ecumenical principles were expressly affirmed - effectively saying to the extremists: “we continue to uphold our traditional doctrines, but we have found that they are reconcilable with the ecumenical project and a recognition of what is good and holy in non-catholic ecclisial bodies”. In short, the CDF document tells the extreme traditionalists that they have been mistaken in thinking that ecumenism represents a watering-down of the faith, and that backtracking on ecumenism is not on the Catholic agenda.

I do hope that these reassurances will put your misgivings to rest.

Of course people who cared understood what was going on in the old Mass, Latin notwithstanding. Side-by-side English/Latin Missals and simple repetition took care of that.

The real question is whether people hearing Mass in the vernacular know what is going on. As always, the people who care do.

#5 CPKS says:

Nor has the present pope said anything to dissuade the faithful from reading Holy scripture. And I would challenge you to substantiate your accusation that the Catholic church ever discouraged the faithful from the practice.

All I have is anecdotal evidence; but I have talked to at least a couple of people who grew up pre-Vatican II Catholic, and they’ve told me that in their experience lay people were strongly encouraged to let the priest interpret Scripture to them, rather than to read it themselves and reach possibly uninformed conclusions.

I don’t know what the official teaching of the church was on the matter; and no doubt the actual practice varied from place to place.  But it clearly did happen at least some places.

All I have is anecdotal evidence; but I have talked to at least a couple of people who grew up pre-Vatican II Catholic, and they’ve told me that in their experience lay people were strongly encouraged to let the priest interpret Scripture to them, rather than to read it themselves and reach possibly uninformed conclusions.

#7: I see nothing wrong with this.  Not every interpretation is valid and not every opinion is worthwhile.

#7 For that matter, one might call this the situation in today’s Episcopal Church.  After all, reading Scripture oneself would lead to some uncomfortable conclusions when compared against the ECUSA party line - especially since the most inconvenient parts have been stricken from the lectionary.

A quick response here.
#5,  I believe you misread my second paragraph.  It is true that the RCC never recognized the Anglican Order (edict from 19th century.), but as with many positions of the RC, they have changed over time (think Galileo).  The Pope, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, made a declaratory statement about 10 years ago re-affirming the Church’s position while the two Churches were very close in resolving a few of the most pressing issues between the Churches.  This statement was done while the RC Cardinal in London(?) was welcoming the Anglican Leadership for a major Church event. (I don’t recall which one it was, sorry.) The embarrisment, though was well noted.
As for your second point.  The Vatican issued a statement about 2-3 weeks ago that re-iterated that the RCC was the olny True Church.  This, statement is not going to sit well with any other Christian Church, Eastern or Western.

As for the Church’s position on non-clergy not reading the Bible, I actually read in a family Bible (Douay version from the 1920’s) that the people (non-clergy) should not read the Bible because they may mis-interpret it.  I suppose, the idea of having a Bible study was never considered??? Most likely not.

#8 You make a valid point if the Bible reader read the Bible like a novel.  This may be the case for some, but, only a fool would read the Bible without help aids.  Even some major old English novels have glossaries to help with the language usage.

H

As far as I know, the faithful (Roman Catholic) have always been encouraged to READ the Bible, but that the interpretation was to be left to the teaching magesterium of the Church, to prevent errent and heretical mis-interpretations:

Pope St.  Gregory I   (died 604 AD)
“The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage—and yet you neglect to read them eagerly.  Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator.  Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.”   
[Letters,  5, 46.  (EnchBibl 31)]

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 AD) 
Doctor and Father of the Church.
“The person who thirsts for God eagerly studies and meditates on the inspired Word, knowing that there, he is certain to find the One for whom he thirsts.”
[Commentary on the Song of Songs, Sermon 23:3.]

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903 AD)
“The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us…to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation (the Bible) should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ”

Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914 AD)
“Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.”

Pope Benedict XV   (1914-1922 AD) 
“... all the children of the Church, especially clerics, to reverence the Holy Scriptures, to read it piously and meditate on it constantly.”

Pope Pius XII   1943 AD
“...This author of salvation, Christ, will men more fully know, more ardently love and more faithfully imitate in proportion as they are more assiduously urged to know and meditate the Sacred Letters, especially the New Testament…”
[Divino Afflante Spiritu]

And of course, John Paul II was an ardent supporter of individuals studying the Bible, alone and in group study.

Regarding Anglican orders: Graham Leonard, the former Anglican Bishop of London, was accepted into the Catholic Church as a priest without reordination. This was, as far as I know, a unique exception; but the one exception shows that the Catholic Church did not, at that time, have a uniformly negative view of Anglican orders. This policy of the Catholic Church has now changed, and today no Anglican priest would be accepted in his orders.

Regarding the reading of Scripture by the laity: The Catholic Church’s policy on translating the Scriptures into the vernacular has also fluctuated. King Alfred the Great personally helped in the translation of the Gospels into Old English. A few centuries later, however, men were executed for presuming to translate the Scriptures into the vernacular. While their translations might have been defective in some respects, in the late middle ages and early renaissance Rome maintained a strict policy against any translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular. They wanted to discourage the uneducated laity from reading the Scriptures for themselves. This policy later shifted once again.

It should also be noted that the Catholic Douay-Rheims  English Bible beat the English “KJV” Bible to publication by 2-3 years (1609-1610).

The English “Rheims” NT was actually published in 1582.

It wasn’t the translation into English that was the difficulty, it was WHO was doing the translating (i.e., with or without official approval).

Given this concession:

While their translations might have been defective in some respects,

I’m not sure how this conclusion:

They wanted to discourage the uneducated laity from reading the Scriptures for themselves.

follows from this premise:

in the late middle ages and early renaissance Rome maintained a strict policy against any translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular.

It seems you’re refuting your own conclusion by giving the Catholic Church a VERY good reason for discouraging folks from making their own translations and printing them for general use.  Also, remember that most literate folk at this time were literate in Latin (and often Greek), so the Vulgate was not exactly foreign to those fortunate enough to be educated.

By the time the Douay-Rheims was published, the genie was out of the bottle and Rome could no longer prevent the publication of English Bibles. The KJV was actually the third in a series of official English translations. It was preceded by the Great Bible (mostly Coverdale’s work) and the Bishops’ Bible. Rome only decided to play the game when they realized they could no longer prevent it.

It seems you’re refuting your own conclusion by giving the Catholic Church a VERY good reason for discouraging folks from making their own translations and printing them for general use.  Also, remember that most literate folk at this time were literate in Latin (and often Greek), so the Vulgate was not exactly foreign to those fortunate enough to be educated.

Chris - I’m not going to bother addressing your cut-and-paste treatment of my argument. Regarding your last sentence, “literate” folks could, by definition, read Latin. Being able to read the vernacular in that era did not constitute “literacy” as the term was then used. As for Greek, it was a specialized language for scholars, not for the educated laity, or even for most of the clergy.

And add to this that a large majority of the people WERE illiterate.  The only way they could know scripture was in the hearing and sermons.  Although the rise of ‘morality plays’, artwork and especially stone work on cathedrals gave the common people at least a passing familiarity with key stories from Scripture.

One criticism oft heard is ‘the people didn’t have access to Bibles, why even the church chained the Bible to the pulpit so the people couldn’t have access to it!” Wrong! the Bibles were so expensive (before the advent of the printing press, and even then!) that they were chained to the pulpit to keep them from being stolen so that the (educated) people could come in and read from it when they desired.

#12: Graham Leonard received a papal dispensation to receive a *conditional* ordination to the priesthood, because he was able to demonstrate that his orders descended from Old Catholic lines, as well as Anglican.  It was the Old Catholic pedigree that won over the Holy Father, not the Anglican.  Anglican Orders are still, according to Rome, ‘absolutely null and utterly void.’

But these days all Anglican priests can trace their orders to Old Catholic sources. That is why, for a time, there was a tendency to think that Anglican orders might have achieved “validity” by Roman standards. And it is why Rome has had to re-state its policy that Anglican orders are invalid.

I’m not going to bother addressing your cut-and-paste treatment of my argument.

That’s unfortunate.  I’d be very interested to see some kind of proof for the common supposition that “they wanted to discourage the uneducated laity from reading the Scriptures for themselves” for any reason more nefarious than the prevention of erroneous interpretations.

#19: That’s an interesting idea, but I’m wondering if you can substantiate it.  I was an Anglican priest for ten years, and I never saw that my Orders were in any way descended from the Old Catholics.  And believe me, I looked.  Toward the end, I was grasping at many different straws in an effort to prove to myself that my Orders were valid.

Old Catholics only date from the 1850s-1870s ... that seems like hardly enough time for every Anglican priest in the world to be able to claim Old Catholic descent.  Msr. Leonard was able to *prove* his Old Catholic lineage.  I don’t know that many Anglican priests can do that.

Regarding Anglican orders: Rome has not had to re-state its policy. It’s not a “policy”. The bull Apostolicae Curae was describing the state of Anglican orders conferred by the Anglican ordinal (AO) by bishops who where themselves ordained by the AO. Ability to trace “succession” to validly ordained bishops is not the critical factor: rather, it is the use of the AO. But (as I understand it) a number of Anglican clergy have in fact been ordained using either a non-Anglican ordinal, or a modified AO - modified in order to cure the defects identified in Apostolicae Curae. It’s important to understand that the official Catholic position does not commit Catholics to the belief that if someone is Anglican and ordained, then ipso facto that ordination is invalid. If, for example, a validly ordained bishop participated in the ordination of an Anglican clergyman according to a recognized ordinal (or possibly the AO amended so as to remove the defects), then the orders conferred would be regarded as at least potentially valid. I think this may have been the situation in Mgr Leonard’s case.

As regards the accusation that the Catholic church has ever taught that the laity should not be allowed to read the bible: vague memories of anecdotal evidence are not adequate to support such a claim. The Catholic church does not teach through prefaces in long-lost books or sermons by long-forgotten clergy (although of course some misguided members of that church may have mistaught in that way). Because the Catholic church intends its teaching to be learned and remembered, what it officially teaches is a matter of record; so if people wish to allege inconsistency in the teaching of the magisterium, the burden is on them to produce proper references to properly authoritative documents. It is possible that some clergy or some theologians have at some time in the last 2000 years said that lay people shouldn’t come up with their own interpretations of scripture but should be guided by their clergy: but this is absolutely not the same as the Catholic church denying lay access to the scriptures.

In particular, we should be grateful to libraryjim for bothering to collate a number of quotations from official church documents that clearly set out the true position; Roland’s airy and imprecise assertions (e.g. that “a few centuries” after King Alfred, “men” were executed for “presuming” to translate scripture into the vernacular), coming as they do in response to a reasoned and substantiated case to the contrary, evidence a want of the mutual respect that would make the prolongation of this thread attractive to people with a sincere desire for the truth.

As I understood it, Anglicans were stung by the papal bull Apostolicae Curae in 1896. This propelled them into action in various ways. Besides a direct refutation of the facts on which the bull was based by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, they sought validation from Eastern Orthodox churches (with some success) and set about infusing their orders with pedigrees whose validity was recognized by Rome.

I have been told that this last effort was largely successful. But maybe it was only Anglo-Catholics who cared enough to pursue this infusion of Old Catholic orders. It could be that all the clergy I have regular contact with can claim Old Catholic orders, while those of other churchmanships can not. (In other words, perhaps I was taken in by Anglo-Catholic propaganda!)

#23: I think that’s very likely.  I know that men like Bp. Grafton of Fon du Lac did their darndest to ‘validate’ their Orders.  But can you imagine the snake-belly low bishops of South Carolina following suit?  Or the bishops of the Pacific Northwest?  Me neither.

CPKS:  The Anglican Ordinal that was declared defective in Apostolicae Curae was used only from 1552 until 1662. This defect was repaired in the 1662 ordinal by adding such words as, “for the office and work of a priest.” The only problem with ordinations after 1662 was that the priestly hierarchy had become extinct during these 110 years, and therefore it no longer had valid orders to convey after the ordinal was fixed.

The conditional nature of Graham Leonard’s reordination suggests there was, at that time, uncertainty (at the very least) about the invalidity of Anglican orders with an Old Catholic pedigree. Obviously, the rite itself was no longer considered defective.

A conditional reordination like Leonard’s would not occur today. The Catholic Church has changed its policy once again.

And I think policy is the correct word. The Catholic Church has not changed its teaching regarding ordination. It has simply adjusted the application of the teaching to changing circumstances. Among Anglicans these days, circumstances seem to change frequently . . .

#24: All it would have taken is two Presiding Bishops in succession with Old Catholic orders to convey OC orders to most of the bishops in PECUSA.

Why do people who have, shall we say, not been scrupulous in submitting to the Roman Pontiff give a [insert vulgarity here] whether the Roman Pontiff says that their orders are valid according to his definition?  Particularly since Anglicans don’t seem to agree on whether that definition is meaningful in the first place?

I’m not being completely rhetorical here; I just don’t understand why some Anglicans care so much about it, but still won’t reunite with Rome.

#25: Apostolicae Curae took the line that the original AO was incapable of conferring valid orders, and that subsequent revisions (as in 1662) were not capable of restoring it owing to the defective “native character and spirit” of the original. This is often misunderstood and I apologize for having earlier given the wrong impression that modifying the AO would in principle restore its capability to confer orders. To be clear, according to the logic of Apostolicae Curae, the AO, even as modified in 1662, is not capable of conferring “valid” orders, irrespective of the credentials of the bishop(s) using it.

What I don’t know is whether some further modification (made after Apostolicae Curae) might be such as to overcome the defect in the AO. My opinion is that it might, but my opinion counts for nothing.

What I understand some Anglican bishops have done is to use some other ordinal, not derived from the AO, e.g. the Old Catholic ordinal. That would circumvent the difficulty, and if a validly ordained bishop were to use it, he would confer valid orders.

I do not know which ordinal was used in the case of Mgr Leonard. I suspect that it was doubts about the ordinal, rather than the ordainers, that was operative in his case. But as far as I know, neither the particular facts of his case nor the rationale for its resolution have ever been published.

Good question, #27.

I just don’t understand why some Anglicans care so much about it, but still won’t reunite with Rome.

Even Anglo-Catholics who had no desire to unite with Rome tended to share the Pope’s opinion of the Protestant nature of the 1552 BCP and Ordinal, as well as his view of the sacraments.

Most Anglo-Catholics do not believe the Pope is infallible, but they believe his opinion is often correct nonetheless - and always to be considered carefully, even when wrong.

Hmm.  Well, they are in a church that does not officially share those sentiments, and includes an awful lot of people who reject them emphatically.

Ed, I imagine people care because most don’t like being talked down to or told they’re not good enough.  If I posted a comment here calling you a moron, you might feel compelled to answer, even though I’m sure you don’t much care what I think about you.  It’s the same reason a lot of people got in a snit over the recent restatement of Rome’s view of other Christian communities.  Perceived arrogance or superior airs doesn’t play well.  It’s that simple.

#22 wrote: “It is possible that some clergy or some theologians have at some time in the last 2000 years said that lay people shouldn’t come up with their own interpretations of scripture but should be guided by their clergy: but this is absolutely not the same as the Catholic church denying lay access to the scriptures.”

Ahh, but that is a problem.  It is only until recent times that the laity began to question the teachings of the Church (e.g. birth control).  Before then, very few would dare question anything that a Priest or Nun said. (I still remember the fear of God that the Mother Superior would instill in us… or was it the fear the of the Mother Superior?? )  As a adult, I took advance religious ed (for a teaching certificate) that examined some of the “teachings” of the Church that were absolutely false (e.g. Mary, protect me from the wrath of your Son, Jesus.)  The issue is that too many people believed the erroneous teachings. The Problem is that the Church never publicly corrected these teachings as it should have done.  To say that the Church never actually denied the laity’s access to the Bible may be true, but it is a far cry from what the laity actually believed or still believes.

H

#29,  Roland, the problem with “papal infallibity” by most non-Catholics can be traced to their lack of knowledge of exactly what the concept means.  I’ve had that arguement many times, and I still can’t get them to understand the difference between a position of the Church (social teaching, an opinion, etc.) as opposed to a Statement of Faith or dogma (Jesus IS the ONLY Son of God.), and who and under what conditions, exactly states it.  (Not going into this thread.)  Again, the erroneous teachings about the Churches (mainly un-official teachings), both inter and intra, is mind boggling.

H

Phil,

Every Protestant church, those of the Anglican communion included, possesses from the time of its founding authoritative documents that may not exactly call the Pope “a fat cannibal in a white dress” the way Louis Farrakhan did, but say something close in spirit.

Holy Orders in particular seem to be an odd point to insist on, since all Protestants reject enough of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist such that being told that your ministers can, and quite possible do, re-present the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner and confect upon the altar the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, would be as offensive as sacramental confession and absolution would be to Baptists.

While I understand the normal emotional reaction to hearing someone say your club is not as good as his, the Reformation kind of started, at least rhetorically, with the premise that the Big Club was the Soprano Family of Christianity.  It just sometimes surprises me that the Reformation’s heirs value the Pope’s good opinion.

Ed,
It’s the “you can’t go home again” syndrome.  No matter how much one might disagree with family members, one forgets the disagreements and still goes home for Thanksgiving.  Often, a good time is had by all, but sometimes the old arguments flare up, resulting in feathers being re-ruffled.

The same with the Children of the Roman Church, the reformation churches.  They are now looking with fond memories of the Roman Catholic Church, the unity once had, and thinking, “gosh, maybe the ‘old man’ wasn’t so bad after all”. 

Of course, once they sit down to the table to talk about ecumenical relations, things are different.  Sometimes they work out (like the statement on salvation by the Lutherns and the RC recently, and the agreement on Mary) other times they stay strained (like the relationship with the Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholics).

But that’s why, in my opinion “the Reformation’s heirs value the Pope’s good opinion”.

I may or may not be right, but it’s my own parable. 

Ed,

Most Anglicans do not consider themselves “Protestant.” Also, according to ARCIC, there is substantial agreement between Roman Catholics and Anglicans on the nature of the Eucharist. There are, of course, Evangelical Anglicans who would object to both of these statements, but there are also Roman Catholics who don’t really believe in transubstantiation. If we’re looking at the official Anglican consensus, as opposed to individual opinions, the latest Roman description of Anglicanism is incorrect - it does not accord with Anglicans’ official self-image.

Most Anglicans hold an ecclesiology that involves some variety of “branch theory,” which depicts the Anglican Communion as a branch of apostolic Christianity that is, unfortunately, currently out of communion with the other branches. This being so, Anglicans naturally want to reduce impediments to future reconciliation with the other branches. When Rome points out such an impediment, the natural reactions are 1) to refute the allegation, or 2) to set about minimizing or removing the impediment. These are simply the responses demanded by Anglican ecclesiology. And when Rome attacks Anglican ecclesiology itself, a defense is obviously called for.

While the Pope might have every right to define his own church, he he has no right to make dogmatic statements defining other churches. That is the height of presumption, and it will always upset members of churches that he characterizes incorrectly.

I realize that traditional Anglican ecclesiology is becoming increasingly untenable, with Evangelicals and Revisionists tearing Anglicanism in half and both halves looking quite Protestant. (That’s why I’m on my way to Orthodoxy.) But Anglican ecclesiological instincts are not dying as quickly as Anglicanism itself.

Most Anglicans do not consider themselves “Protestant.”

Once again, Roland, you can’t make such broad unsubstantiated claims.  I too wanted to believe that most Anglicans didn’t consider themselves Protestant—and found, once I was out of seminary, that I was dead wrong.  There is a vocal minority of people within Anglicanism who insist they are the truest expression of Catholicism, a vocal minority on the other end who insist, like Paul Zahl, that Anglicans are the truest expression of Evangelicalism, and then the great mass in the middle who will check ‘Protestant’ on the hospital check-in chart every time, simply because that’s what the believe themselves to be.  Either that or they simply don’t care one way or the other.  Read Newman’s Apologia, if you haven’t already: it’s a funny form of catholicism, where the people don’t know that they’re catholic, don’t believe that they’re catholic, and don’t care that they’re catholic.

Glad to hear that you’re on your way to Orthodoxy though.  To which jurisdiction are you headed?

Most Anglicans who think about ecclesiology at all - and that’s probably a higher percentage than in other churches, including Catholicism - subscribe to some sort of branch theory, which explicitly depicts Anglicanism as being in the same club with Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

The Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral lists the Creeds, the Sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist), and the Historic Episcopate right next to the Scriptures as essentials of Anglican identity and states that Anglicans will unite only with churches that have these essentials. The Quadrilateral is as official as any pan-Anglican statement can get.

Meanwhile, Puritans have been leaving the Anglican Communion because of these Catholic elements at least since the Restoration. The Reformed Episcopal Church split from PECUSA in the 19th century because it thought Anglicanism had become too Catholic.

One can maintain a purist-Protestant stance in Anglicanism only by averting one’s eyes from educated consensus, official policy, and history. I don’t doubt that some people can still manage to do so - it’s no crazier than agnostic bishops or same-sex marriages, both of which seem to be well established now in some provinces - but it would take either a lot of work or a lot of ignorance.

I am scheduled to be chrismated in the Antiochian Orthodox Church in October. No one who knows me is surprised since I was pretty outspoken about my Eastern theological leanings the entire time I was Anglo-Catholic.