In his book England and the Holy See, Fr. Spencer Jones outlines 28 observations that constitute the basic tenets of Anglican Papalism. I believe that these should set the tone for Anglican relationships with Rome.
- That Christendom is divided against itself.
- That a house divided against itself cannot stand,
- That our Lord meant us to be one.
- That it is our duty, therefore, to compose our
quarrels. - That he has endued us with the power to do so.
- That this power discovers itself in the work of the Holy Spirit on the part of God, and in prayer and labour on the part of man.
- That it was to the Church regarded as one that our Lord vouchsafed the promise of His presence.
- That the enterprise of Re-union is, therefore, genuine since its purpose is divine.
- That a "divine ideal must be capable of fulfilment."
- That as a matter of history no other form or principle of Government has been able to come near to the Holy See in its power to keep together in the bond of a living fellowship so many thousands of Christians.
- That the Communion of Rome is conspicuous in the records of Scripture ("I thank God that your faith is spoken of throughout all the world") ; and appears at once unique and conspicuous in the subsequent records of the Church.
- That the See of Rome is the Apostolic See and is destined to become the visible centre of Christendom.
- That Rome is in fact the mother of English Christianity.
- That Reunion, for the English Church, signifies Reunion with the Church of Rome.
- That England cannot formally remain as she is except in so far as she is infallible.
- That Rome cannot formally cease to be what she is since she claims to be infallible.
- That two cannot continue to agree except they walk together.
- That fellowship and communion are therefore necessary if faith is to continue one.
- That two cannot walk together except they be agreed.
- That it is therefore necessary to study the belief of other Communions before we oppose them or unite with them.
- That a more extended recovery of contact is calculated to destroy prejudice and thereby to prepare the way for Communion.
- That since "large changes and adaptations of belief are possible within the limits of the same unchanging formulae," explanation will be found in fact to remove misunderstandings and to reduce the distance between us;
- That time, which is an "element in all growth," has already effected much.
- That circumstances which alter cases do thereby, and so far determine duties.
- That movements, therefore, which may be inexpedient at one point of time may come to be wise and proper at another.
- That fair and free discussion as distinguished from the recommendation of practical steps will serve to prepare us for conjunctures.
- That Reunion has come at length to be frankly recognised both as an idea and a necessity among all Communities of Christians ; and that the same freedom of discussion must be allowed in relation to Rome as is universally permitted in all other directions.
- And that at all times and under all circumstances " love is the fulfilling of the law."
Articles 15 and 16 issue a rather interesting challenge to modernists and revisionists, don't you think?
3 comments:
As an AngloCatholic who does not subscribe to the Papalist position, I felt this needed some detailed comment -- mine in italics. Please read my objections against the background that I fervently seek reunion, but do not recognize that Rome can itself set the conditions.
1. That Christendom is divided against itself.
2. That a house divided against itself cannot stand,
3. That our Lord meant us to be one.
4, That it is our duty, therefore, to compose our quarrels.
5. That he has endued us with the power to do so.
Having the power, however, does not mean that we willingly do so. Of the objective has not been accomplished, either ALL the guilt lies upon one side, or both sides are responsible for disunity and therefore enmeshed in sin
6. That this power discovers itself in the work of the Holy Spirit on the part of God, and in prayer and labour on the part of man.
7. That it was to the Church regarded as one that our Lord vouchsafed the promise of His presence.
8. That the enterprise of Re-union is, therefore, genuine since its purpose is divine.
9. That a "divine ideal must be capable of fulfilment."
Again, the fact that something CAN be done, in no way implies that it WILL be done
10, That as a matter of history no other form or principle of Government has been able to come near to the Holy See in its power to keep together in the bond of a living fellowship so many thousands of Christians.
Nor, in the opinion of many, including myself, has any system been nearly so productive of division, wrought by the enforcement of additions to the Apostolic Tradition
11. That the Communion of Rome is conspicuous in the records of Scripture ("I thank God that your faith is spoken of throughout all the world") ; and appears at once unique and conspicuous in the subsequent records of the Church.
12, That the See of Rome is the Apostolic See and is destined to become the visible centre of Christendom.
11 is undoubtedly true, but it does not follow from that that 12 is equally true. Many would maintain that Rome is only AN Apostolic see, worthy of preeminence, but not rulership, and that for reasons of historic origin and not necessarily of Apostolic authority,
13, That Rome is in fact the mother of English Christianity.
True to a large extent, but not exclusively so. The more tenuous connection of the Celtic church with Rome and the unsolved problem of the role the Eastern churches may have had make this claom a bit less certain
14, That Reunion, for the English Church, signifies Reunion with the Church of Rome.
While this reunion is desirable, it is of limited meaning if East and West remain separated. The Church will, in that case, still not be one
15, That England cannot formally remain as she is except in so far as she is infallible.
16. That Rome cannot formally cease to be what she is since she claims to be infallible.
If, as many of us believe, Rome's claim here is inaccurate, then ot becomes Rome that needs to change.
17. That two cannot continue to agree except they walk together.
18. That fellowship and communion are therefore necessary if faith is to continue one.
19. That two cannot walk together except they be agreed.
But does this mean perfect agreement in all things? If that be true, then all hope of unity is vain, and what unity appears to exist in actuality does not. Until omniscience is achieved, humans will disagree about many things. Therefore part of the agreement necessary to walk together is an agreement as to what are the areas in which we may legitimately disagree.
20. That it is therefore necessary to study the belief of other Communions before we oppose them or unite with them.
21. That a more extended recovery of contact is calculated to destroy prejudice and thereby to prepare the way for Communion.
22. That since "large changes and adaptations of belief are possible within the limits of the same unchanging formulae," explanation will be found in fact to remove misunderstandings and to reduce the distance between us;
Amen! However, lacking omniscience, it will also be necessary to identify what problems are insoluble and which of these can safely be left unsolved.
23. That time, which is an "element in all growth," has already effected much.
24. That circumstances which alter cases do thereby, and so far determine duties.
25. That movements, therefore, which may be inexpedient at one point of time may come to be wise and proper at another.
26. That fair and free discussion as distinguished from the recommendation of practical steps will serve to prepare us for conjunctures.
27. That Reunion has come at length to be frankly recognised both as an idea and a necessity among all Communities of Christians ; and that the same freedom of discussion must be allowed in relation to Rome as is universally permitted in all other directions.
28. And that at all times and under all circumstances " love is the fulfilling of the law."
Articles 15 and 16 issue a rather interesting challenge to modernists and revisionists, don't you think?
To be honest, I don't think so. Modernists and revisionists are not the least bit interested in either asking or answering those questions. Nor, for entirely different reasons am I, or many other traditional Anglicans. If Rome is incorrect in its claims of infallibility, then, as I said above, it is Rome that has to make the major change here. I believe that to be the case.
ed
Given a choice between what Holy Scripture commands and what Rome is unwilling to give, I think any true Anglican or true Christian must side with the Bible against the Roman See. The problem with Father Spencer Jones's observations is that some of them are simply untrue. Rome was not the mother of the English Church; it was already there when St Augustine came and it had produced saints which even now are included in the calendar of same. I am sure that you could name a few and perhaps more than a few.
Some of the greater sins which are a hallmark of the Roman Church and Romanism in general were largely absent from the English Church before the rise of Anglo-papalism. This in itself causes one to wonder if the love of the papacy and things papal came from those sins or whether those sins came as the direct result of the 'high camp' of anglo-papalism?
Jerusalem, where our Lord died and rose again from the dead, and which the Roman armies destroyed, was the first Apostolic See and given the evidence of St Paul's Epistle to the Romans, there is a good case to be made that the Roman church is other than apostolic in its founding. Certainly St Peter was not there when Paul wrote and there is little or no credible evidence that he was ever there. See Littledale's The Petrine Claims.
Let me be frank. I admit to a biased view. I have seen too much of the Roman Church and at too close a range to intimidated by its mythology. Historically its myths are baseless and no more than evidence of its desire for a return of the imperial power lost when Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople. They never moved nor impressed the better educated and more literate people of the Eastern portion of the empire.
If you truly believe that Rome is what it says it is, then you have a duty to your conscience to submit to the Roman See which will put you through a humiliating series of acts before taking you in. But that is the price which you must pay - that is, if you truly believe that Rome represents the fullness of Christian truth. But you should know that the grass is not greener on the other side of the Tiber and that you are very likely to be Anglican haunted forever.
Canon Tallis wrote:
"If you truly believe that Rome is what it says it is, then you have a duty to your conscience to submit to the Roman See which will put you through a humiliating series of acts before taking you in. But that is the price which you must pay - that is, if you truly believe that Rome represents the fullness of Christian truth. But you should know that the grass is not greener on the other side of the Tiber and that you are very likely to be Anglican haunted forever."
Again I say, individual secession does not solve the problem of the schism between the Roman and Anglican Churches. Anglican Papalists are in the process of returning to the Holy See, but maintaining the Anglican way. It will take time, possibly all time, but that is our duty. It is our duty to both churches to do so.
Rome is our Mother in the sense that we split from Rome - we were under Papal jurisdiction, albeit for 600 years - and it is with Rome that there is a wound that needs healing. Clearly England and Rome were in union to the extent that the Papacy was occupied by an Englishman in Adrian IV after the schism with the Eastern Churches.
That Rome gave the Benedictine culture whence sprang much of English spirituality in and amongst the Celtic Tradition. But then all children have more than one parent. To say that Rome is our mother is a testament to the shape that the Anglican Church had prior to and indeed after the split from Rome.
Yes there are wounds with the Eastern Churches as well, Anglican Papalists are not ruling out reunion with them either. There are wounds with the Protestant Churches, but these are of a doctrinal nature and not political, and must be healed later when the Catholic Church is united.
The Holy See already sees me as a member (paragraph 818 of the CCC) of the Church but does not recognise Anglicanism as an autonomous body, unlike the Eastern Churches, so I have no need to convert, though there exists a barrier of excommunication, a barrier that Anglican Papalism is working and praying at coming down. I am fully aware that the grass is not greener on the other side. I have been to Roman Masses, and have found them in just as an appalling state as the C of E’s.
I am an Anglican still whether you believe me to be or not, proud of my Anglican heritage, Anglican thought and Anglican brethren whose very Anglicanism is not defined by 39 Articles, prayer-book and polity, since the parents of the post-reformation Church of England existed prior to these. However, the 39 Articles, prayer-book and polity do speak in the voice of Anglicans, and very beautifully express the integrity of the Anglican way. I do not ignore these, but cherish them, but they do not make anyone Anglican.
I believe wholeheartedly that in the Roman Catholic Church is the fullness of truth. I also believe that members of the Roman Catholic Church do not have full knowledge of the fullness of truth. I believe that there is the very same fullness of truth in the Anglican Church, but that in order to express it she must return to her parents whomsoever they may be. Those parents lived together once; they can do so again.
As long as there is a schism, I will always be an Anglican Papalist. Of course I am willing to listen and be convinced otherwise. It's just that I have heard no compelling arguments so far.
Post a Comment