Just something I've been thinking about recently I think that religious communities could be key in re-evangelising England, especially the youth. I was thinking about our cathedrals earlier, and how many of them were built specifically as/attached to monasteries. Westminster abbey, for example, (although not a cathedral) was built, as the name suggests, as a religious house for Benedictines. The amount of people who visit the place is staggering, and imagine them being told they have the chance to literally live there as a monk - I'm certain there'd be no lack of vocations there! The same can be said, perhaps to a lesser extent, of other British cathedrals. You can be totally agnostic about the church, but the thought of being able to walk through a cathedral cloister, or sit in its chapter house, &c, whilst all dressed up in habit on a dull rainy day, in a building a millennum old and of such size and beauty, is surely immensely attractive. I think I'd join one of given the chance! On a spiritual note aswell: religious communities have been the backbone of western Christianity for centuries, and more specifically have been the backbone of our cathedrals. At the reformation, the loss of them must have been devastating. You simply can't have the same graces as were previously had when such a large number of people, who's job it was to pray day and night specifically for the church, were striped away from society. Surely we're yearning for them now more than ever. I wonder if it's possible in the future for such communities to be re-established in cathedrals. What an enormous blessing that would be. At the end of the day, it only takes a few people with a vision for it to happen. Anyone got any thoughts on this?
I think that the problem with most visitors of cathedrals is that they view the place as a piece of history, as if they are in a castle or museum. They don't understand (and they aren't to blame for this) that it is a real, living body. Monasteries may change this view, but wouldn't evangelise England (I don't believe anything would, as I said in another thread).
You are totally correct in that people view cathedrals (and most churches) as buildings confined to the past, museums almost. Still, you can't say nothing will re evangelise England - that would be to deny that God has the power, and is willing, to do so. And surely something spiritual is the best way to go about it; the task is impossible of our own power, but "with God, all things are possible". And, as St Paul says, hope must be had at all times. Monasteries attached to cathedrals would change this dynamic of viewing cathedrals as history entirely though, imo. People would be eager to be apart of history, but living very much in the present.
If I have understood the Bible correctly, the 'with God, all things are possible' refers to salvation. I would disagree with the idea that God wills to evangelise England; surely God wants people to choose to believe in him, not to be forced. But I would agree that the numinous experience felt in a cathedral or church has the ability to move anyone, and can probably convert more people than preaching or argument; but I just don't see this happening on any sort of noticeable level.
Indeed. You wouldn’t even need to change anything with regards to the praxis of the ancient church; the Cathedrals and Abbeys/Collegiate Churches of England, Wales and Scotland historically were monastic, but in different capacities. Specifically, Cathedrals had Canons, that is to say, avowed religious rather than secular clergy, under the leadership of the Cathedral Chapter, which managed the Cathedral for its respective Bishop or Archbishop. These canons were not uniformly organized under a single monastic rule of obedience, like the Rule of St. Benedict, but were organized in different ways, and indeed, if we look at Roman Catholic religious orders, we will find Canons Regular of several varieties, including most notably the Augustinians and Norbertines (Praemonstratensians), who can be distinguished by their habits (the former are attired in the manner of Martin Luther during his Catholic era, as he was a member of that order, and the latter wear all white habits). The Praemonstratentians also have their own liturgical rite which differs from the standard Roman Rite in minor details, much like the Dominican Rite or indeed the Sarum Rite. However, most Cathedrals did not even have these chaps in their Chapter; their canons were rather a part of a religious order specific to the Cathedral. Now I have to confess I can’t fully support monasticization of the Cathedral Chapters in Anglicanism, for the simple reason that in the Orthodox Church, cathedrals tend to be run by Archpriests and various subordinate priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers, psaltis and altar boys, and the priests are usually married, with some exceptions; the two classes of parish where you might be slightly more likely to encounter a hieromonk or hierodeacon serving outside the walls of a monastery are a cathedral, and a mission parish or other very small parish (the reason for that being that monks are much more affordable for a small parish than a married priest, who will often have a large family and be entirely dependent on the Church to pay his salary). However, if the Collegiate Churches or Abbeys in Westminster, Tewkesbury and elsewhere could once again become abbeys per se, I think this could do a lot to remind people that these are sacred spaces. Perhaps these abbeys could also function as clergy training facilities; in the Coptic church, people chosen to be priests are sent after the fashion of our Lord’s journey into the Desert, for 40 days, to a monastery, during which time they fast (not abstaining from all food, but from meat, dairy products and so on) and are trained in the liturgical practicum by the monks (of which there is a lot in the Coptic Rite; only a small percentage of the manual acts of the clergy are documented in the rubrics, and newly minted priests are also taught how to do things like swing their thurible 360 degrees, a visually impressive sight which, alas, older parish priests often cannot do due to arthritis, et cetera). This system actually works very well; Coptic clergy, despite usually not going to a seminary, tend to do a much better job preaching than most other Orthodox clergy, which is even more surprising when one considers that the liturgies served in Orthodox monasteries seldom if ever contain a homily (with the exception of the Paschal Homilies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Athanasius the Apostolic, the former used by most of the Eastern churches and the latter used by the Copts). However, there is also the severe shortage of vocations that one has to contend with in the Anglican churches outside the realm of traditional Anglicanism; my understanding is that the Anglican monastic orders have not been spared, and indeed, in California, after their old monastery was destroyed by a forest fire, the brothers of the Order of the Holy Cross received their current replacement in metropolitan Santa Barbara as a bequest, given to them in the will of the last sister from an order of Anglican nuns which sadly perished. One way to compensate for that would be to require Anglican bishops to be celibate and to recruit them mainly from the monastics, with a few being celibate parish priests of particular skill, and I think such a step, while a departure from Anglican precedent, would be a very good one, because several of the problems in recent years with self-interested diocesan mismanagement, for example, Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles, could be potentially be mitigated by having monastic bishops. Now, of course, someone will point to the decadent bishops of the Western Church in the Renaissance era which were correctly detested by the Reformers, but these men were not true monastics in any sense; the Borgias, their nemesis Pope Julius II, and the other overly indulgent Cardinals, Popes and Prelates of Roman Catholicism from the eleventh century until the 1800s or so (not all of the Roman Catholic bishops to be sure; there were some decent bishops like Carlos Borromeo of Milan, Ximenes of Toledo, and even some decent Popes), were secular clergy who were not bound by the rules of a monastic order, and to the extent they were avowed celibates, these vows tended to be ignored, in some cases, such as the Borgias, deliberately so as part of the imperious ambitions of Pope Alexander VI. Someone who has been a lowly monk for ten years, and a monastic priest or hieromonk working in mission parishes and so on for several more years, is unlikely to engage in that sort of detestable decadence. And indeed, as a rule I think bishops should only be recruited from the monastic ranks after twenty years or so of a life of prayer. Now some may also counter that such persons would be out of touch or unable to manage the church as a modern organization, but the real function of bishops is to represent Christ to their people, following his direction that whoever shall be the greatest among us must make themselves the least among us; they are to teach, rule and govern. But with regards to other managerial functions, even in Anglicanism today one has the ubiquitous Archdeacon, and in the East one will find Protodeacons as well as the expected range of management staff, including an Economos, in charge of the finances, a diocesan secretary, and various people in charge of things like organizing marketing, parish maintenance, HR and so on, and many of these administrative and managerial jobs are held by women. My understanding is there is already a semi-monastic community of sorts at Lambeth Palace; I feel like Lambeth Palace should become strictly a monastery, as it is unbecoming for an Archbishop to reside in palatial accommodations, but to the extent it would retain its current name, banqueting halls and so on, ideally the bedroom of the Archbishop might contain a simple cot rather than whatever amenities it features now.
One other thought specifically concerning Westminster Abbey; I have to confess my own preference is that it cease to be a Royal Peculiar and instead be restored to the role of Diocesan Cathedral which it briefly held in the 16th century, for the City of Westminster. As I see it, it would be a very good thing to have three diocesan bishops in Greater London, as at present one gets the sense that the Bishop of Southwark is of little consequence, whereas the Bishop of London has enormous influence as the first in the hierarchy of bishops behind the two Metropolitans of Canterbury and York (making him the third highest ranking bishop after the Archbishop of York). Creating a Bishop of Westminster, who would only be drawn from a monastic community that would be reinstalled at Westminster Abbey, and making him the no. 4 bishop in the hierarchy, while certain to tick off whoever presently ranks behind the Bishop of London, could be extremely beneficial, and this monastic Bishop of Westminster would also take over the responsibility of appointing the chaplains for Parliament, who would also be drawn from the monasticized Abbey, since St. Mary Undercroft (I think; whatever the parish is located in the Palace of Westminster) is a dependency of Westminster Abbey (IIRC). This alas would probably require legislation to accomplish, but perhaps this could go along with new legislation designed to strengthen the Established Church and the Anglican Church of Wales, and to protect it from having doctrinal or liturgical changes imposed on it by Parliament, so that the only external influence on it ideally would be the choice of clergy and the ordering of services in the remaining Royal Peculiars, the same applying to the Church of Scotland (although if the Church of Scotland were disestablished and each parish allowed to affiliate based on its doctrinal preferences, I would support that, because in the grand scheme of ecclesiastical political orientation in the UK, the Church of England as far as traditionalism is concerned is miraculously hanging in there, whereas both the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and the Scottish Episcopal Church have become like the Presbyterian Church USA and the Episcopal Church USA, respectively). Which is very sad. Of course we might also perhaps pray that a future monarch becomes filled with a spirit of righteousness, and, moved by true piety, and undaunted by the strident objections of British civil society, would set to work restoring the Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and indeed the Anglican Province of Ireland, re-establishing the latter two in return for funding in the early part of his reign, and in the later part of his reign, appointing pious bishops for the Anglican churches and pious Presbyters for the Church of Scotland, and demanding a national awakening of the conscience. And we might while we are at it pray that under such a system the administration of the BBC and Channel 4 be transferred to the Church of England. It is unlikely to occur, but we can certainly pray for it. After all, the Reformation in England was itself a miracle; who could have guessed that the marital infidelity of Henry VIII would lead to the restoration of apostolic traditions, the King James Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the revival of lay attendance at the Divine Office, the exquisite liturgical music of composers like Samuel Sebastian Wesley, George Dyson and Herbert Howells, the solid exegesis of JB Lightfoot and the theological contributions of divines such as Laud, Andrewes, Wesley, and the Tractarians, and so much else? More than anywhere else in the West, England managed to benefit from a proper restoration of things which had been neglected by Rome, whereas, alas, same things were discarded in places like Holland, Switzerland or Prussia.
What a brilliantly thorough reply, liturgyworks. You have some very interesting thoughts. I entirely agree with you, that if religious communities were re-established in such a way, it would, or rather should, mean a fairly large restructuring for the Church of England. Having bishops drawn from a monastic order (whether it be properly monastic or a Canons regular type thing) would be immensely beneficial for the church. As you said, the bishop is not some kind of manager or administrator, but is a successor of the apostles, thus is a teacher and defender of the faith, and a shepherd to his flock. It is terribly unfortunate that this primary role of the bishop is now often relegated so that he can perform administrative tasks (as you say, that is the Archdeacons job). This problem would be entirely solved if they were selected from religious communities. It wasn't my thinking that these monasteries be re-established for primarily making people realise that the cathedral is "alive", though that is an obvious benefit. I was thinking much more along spiritual lines, as you have written about. Can you imagine a cathedral all of a sudden having several people whose very existence is to pray for and look after it - I think something truly miraculous would happen. There'd be no need for helter skelters or mini golf then! And indeed, it is faithful to the original design of these cathedrals, as so many of them were built to house a monastic order of some sort. It does suprise me somewhat that something like this hasn't already happened. We've seen the flourishing of Anglican monasticism that begun at the end of the 19th century (although we are now past that), and we've seen several buildings built to house these people. Why the cathedrals weren't used instead, who knows? I suspect people have had the idea but weren't moved to actually pursue it, or that the authorities weren't keen. As to vocations (which are of course fundamental to something like this working), I think that if a small group of like-minded men were able to establish something in a cathedral to start with, the numbers would come rolling in. For the first time in centuries, the religious life would not be hidden away, but would be very noticeable to people. This would be especially the case in some of the tourist-trap cathedrals and churches, such as Westminster Abbey. Of course, starting it off is the problem. I imagine you'd need to find a bishop who is truly invested in the idea to make it work. In the world of Church bureaucracy, getting the idea past the dean, chapter, bishop, and the rest of the authorities would be very difficult I imagine. Something like Westminster abbey would be even more difficult I imagine, with its ties to the crown and all. Still, I certainly think it's possible with a determined enough group, or if we had an especially zealous monarch or other authority, as you say. I really like the idea. It could be exactly what the Church needs in my opinion, as It would be a bastion of orthodoxy in a church gone mad. Who knows - I have, God willing, my whole life ahead of me. Perhaps myself and some like minded friends might one day bring the idea to fruition!
It looks like a few seeds have already been planted with a couple of English cathedrals forming new religious communities. Apparently there are others that are interested in starting. The General Synod has recently approved the introduction of a new Canon into CofE Canon Law dealing with religious communities.
I have heard of kinds of pseudo-religous orders being established by cathedrals. Hardly what you'd call monasticism, but a good initiative, and a good seed, as you have said.
I agree that God will not force anyone to believe in Him. That might be simply an unfortunate way of wording it, about God having 'the power and the willingness' to evangelize. God is always willing that all people might come to Him in faith. And He sometimes does supernatural things (like appear in a dream or vision to someone), but usually it's to a person who hasn't had the same opportunity most of us have had to hear the Gospel of Christ. For the vast bulk of evangelization, God works through His followers on earth. We are to be the light and salt of the world. People need to see Christ in us and hear about Christ from us; this is real evangelism. A building with a solemn, reverential atmosphere, in and of itself, is not very likely to draw people to Christ. Feeling drawn to the atmosphere is not equatable to being drawn to know God and to trust in Him; it's just an emotional reaction to the building. It might, I suppose, be an avenue by which those who are drawn to the atmosphere might then be moved by curiosity to ask questions and thereby be witnessed to by a believer; but it's been my experience that witnessing opportunities are just about as likely to arise in the coffee/tea shop, on the bus, in the doctor's waiting room, or even in the pub/bar. Maybe even at the clothing-optional hot spring, soaking in the water and nothing else. We just need to be ready for those opportunities.
Indeed. Of course I'm not suggesting that God would force anyone to believe, that's totally incompatible with our theology. I'm just saying that if God wills something, one must expect something to occur - Our history is full of revivals and renewals against all the odds. I'm not suggesting that cathedrals in and of themselves bring people to Christ. As you say, they are an aide, nothing more. My point about monasticism was specifically spiritual. If we have more people praying, more people will come to faith! That's all I'm suggesting really.