To begin with Andrew Bartus (erstwhile of All Too Common) asks every Anglo-Papalist the following questions:
- Who is the final authority in Rome? The Magisterium?
- Well who interprets what is and is not infallible? The theologians whose opinions change with the breeze? The Apostolicae Curae example is the most obvious.
- If you reject these two and still are an Anglo-Papalist, then how can you stay out of communion with the Holy Father, considering Unam Sanctam?
- There is but one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation; but one body of Christ with one head and not two.
- That head is Christ and His representative, the Roman pope; whoever refuses the pastoral care of Peter belongs not to the flock of Christ.
- There are two swords (i.e., powers), the spiritual and the temporal; the first borne by the Church, the second for the Church; the first by the hand of the priest, the second by that of the king, but under the direction of the priest (ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis).
- Since there must be a co- ordination of members from the lowest to the highest, it follows that the spiritual power is above the temporal and has the right to instruct (or establish--instituere) the latter regarding its highest end and to judge it when it does evil; whoever resists the highest power ordained of God resists God Himself.
- It is necessary for salvation that all men should be subject to the Roman Pontiff--"Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis".
Well, first, what is the identity of Anglo-Papalism? Anglo-Papalism exists in order that it should not exist which is rather unique when it comes to ecclesiology. It sees itself first and foremost as a transitional body seeking to bind Catholicism from its inherent schisms. That in itself is its problem theologically and ecclesiologically. Anglo-Papalism exists because Schism exists and without Schism there is no Anglo-Papalism. Thus Anglo-Papalism exists where there is contradiction over the differences which keep the Schism alive. Anglo-Papalists accept Unum Sanctam but they are not out of communion with the Holy Father, rather the Holy Father is out of communion with us. That sounds petty, but what this means is that the Pope once chose to excommunicate the antecedents of the Anglo-Papalists and, in the Anglican melee, he does not see the movement as being sufficiently indicative of the desire of all Anglo-Catholics to resume those that communion.
The Anglo-Papalist subjection to the Roman Pontiff is manifested in its drive to steer Anglicanism back to Rome, not to be absorbed by Rome but to bring with it that same Anglican character which pioneered the view of Confession that the Roman Church has today. As Fr. Brooke Lunn says, there is no disloyalty of Anglo-Papalists to Anglo-Catholicism, but rather the opposite. We're not advocating "wholesale surrender to Rome" but rather seeking to first bridge and then close the Schism preserving both of these Catholic identities.
As I intimated below, Anglo-Papalists accept all the Infallible statements of the Pope. There have only been two - the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady. The Pope has not yet said infallibly that the Anglo-Papalist position is untenable If he does, then clearly we must secede. However, I don't believe that he is able to make that pronouncement infallibly!
I do agree with Andrew Bartus, the whole of Anglo-Papalism has a confused ecclesiology and that is because it has the ecclesiology of contraditions. However, these contradictions may turn out to be (in the ideas of Bernard Riemann) removable singularities, on the other hand they may not. However it is our hatred of Schism within the Catholic Church that makes Anglo-Papalism exist and we must exist. So here's praying for our non-existence!
4 comments:
Thank you for taking time to answer these questions in a more substantial way than I've ever received from an Anglo-Papist before (as opposed to the usual "unfortunate historical accident" gloss-over).
As I am no longer running All Too Common, I cannot respond in the usual way (I am now at Nashotah House), but I will think about this longer and may respond on here, if that's okay.
Thank you again for taking the time to offer a response.
Andrew (Andy) Bartus
As much as I love Anglo-Catholicism including Anglo-Papalism - see my earlier comment on Catholicism with an English heart, tolerant conservatism, something I dearly miss when it's not there - as I see it, logically Anglo-Papalism is holding for dear life onto two words: DUTCH TOUCH. That is, orders imported by having Old Catholic bishops as (co-)consecrators and ordainers, men whose orders are recognised by Rome. Thanks to it Apostolicæ Curæ, though probably true, is irrelevant.
A couple of examples to the contrary for discussion's sake:
Rome always at least conditionally ordains such former Anglican clergy, which it doesn't do with Easterners or Old Catholics.
And how far can you take 'lines of succession'? Vagante shenanigans make the Orthodox objection to the West's concept of 'valid orders outside the church' look good. In America and Canada the Episcopalians/Canadian Anglicans and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (a largely liberal church, but with a robust conservative faction like the C of E, that outnumbers Episcopalians two million to one - lots of ethnic Germans and Scandinavians in the upper Mid-West!) are now in a merger in all but name. They maintain separate identities and clergy rosters but ministers are completely interchangeable. In fact in Canada an Anglican (woman) priest just got elected Canadian Lutheran presiding bishop! Anyway my point is when ELCA consecrated a new presiding bishop, Mark Hanson, he was consecrated by Episcopalians who passed on their Dutch-touch claim. Non-episcopally ordained ELCA pastors are grandfathered in for now - essentially declared priests by fiat. From now on, like for Bishop Hanson, all ELCA ordinations will pass on the Episcopal/Dutch claim to succession.
(More disturbingly the Anglican-Methodist intercommunion agreement that barely lost in England in 1968 has sort of won in the Episcopal Church 'on a trial basis'. Methodist ministers are now priests by fiat not apostolic succession. Episcopalians may receive Communion from them.)
Despite the possibility of vagante orders, you nevertheless have the glaring problem of jurisdiction in the Anglican Church - jurisdiction only exists as derived from some apostolic authority and not as a consequence of orders itself. Further, it seems to me rather silly to wait to "bridge the gap" in order to preserve the proper elements of both Rome and England - what "proper" elements are there? The very thing being bridged is the SCHISM, not the differences of rite or custom or devotion, ect. One cannot simultaneously, in my mind, want the schism to disappear as well as want the practical effect of the schism to remain. Either Rome is a central authority binding on the whole Church by reason of their apostolic perogative of supreme jurisdiction and exclusion from communion with them impairs communion with the Church, OR Rome isn't and one calls into question any necessity for an episcopal or (at extremes) hierarchy at all.
Al, I understand your concerns about jurisdiction. I do think however about St. Ignatius of Antioch's notion of the bishop as the centre of unity for the Church is the immediate and temporary solution in Anglicanism, or at least in Continuing Anglicanism where the bishops aren't as deeply entrenched in heresy. But it's a stop gap until we have Anglo-Papal unity.
I'm a little concerned by your comment:
"Further, it seems to me rather silly to wait to "bridge the gap" in order to preserve the proper elements of both Rome and England - what "proper" elements are there? "
It seems to give the impression that Anglo-Papalism is about sitting back, twiddling thumbs until unity magically appears. If an Anglo-Papalist is not praying, or promoting the dialogue between Ecclesia Anglicana and the Holy See, nor trying to work around the obstacles, such as that of jurisdiction, then the epithet is a misnomer.
Scripture makes it absolutely clear that each body of Christians needs every other body, and that need is not always apparent. Schism is an abhorrence, there is too much between Rome and the East and Rome and the Catholic communities in the West. Not all of the issues are immediately reconcilable, but work must go on. This is why comments like yours and Andy Bartus are incredibly valuable:- they highlight obstacles which need to be overcome. However, my main argument is that Anglo-Papalism can only be seen as a dynamic entity and not as a body absolutely entire of itself as some see Anglo-Catholicism (in the sense of "Catholicism-without-the-Pope"). You present me with an "either-or" situation which may not necessarily be an exclusive pair of statements if we raise our understanding into higher dimensions of dialogue and reason. I believe that these dimensions exist, but then I am attracted a bit of theological Kaluza-Klein theory.
It may seem as silly as trying to square a circle but both a square and a circle can be legitimate shadows of a higher object. While the Church is visible, she is not visible in her entirety. I pray that we may have the vision to see over our obstacles hidden in the depths of her reality.
Post a Comment