I’m someone who defines myself as an Anglo-Catholic. On a superficial level, this means I am an Anglican who loads up my Protestantism with a lot of Roman Catholic flair. Yet it is more than that. As an Anglo-Catholic my doctrine and spiritual practice share many things in common with Roman Catholicism (and in a way Eastern Orthodox) doctrine and practice that are alien to much of the Protestant world. This leads a lot of people, especially Roman Catholics, to ask me “if you're already an Anglo-Catholic why haven't you decided to take the plunge and become Catholic?” The answer to this question is that as an Anglo-Catholic I believe I am already standing in the Catholic tradition. That means I practice and believe many things most Protestants don’t, but that doesn’t mean I buy into all of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. Specifically, while I do believe there is great importance to be accorded to the Petrine See, I am not convinced of papal infallibility, nor of the claim that all bishops depend upon the Pope for their authority.
Anglicanism as
Catholic
What does it mean to be Catholic? The early Church referred
to itself as “Catholic” in many places, including its creeds. By this it meant
that it was the universal Church, both the Bride and Body of Christ in the
world. Yet, the religious movement adhering to the ecumenical creeds continued
to splinter as history moved on, and with reformation the Roman Catholic Church
(being those churches in unity with the Bishop of Rome) defined itself as the Catholic Church and all others as
apostates and schismatics
.
As the Anglo-Catholic writer Fr. Matthew Kirby has aptly described
it, typical modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology holds that
“Any break in communion that discontinues the visibility of unity between one
Christian body and another, if the two groups were previously united within the
Catholic Church, must leave one group outside the Catholic Church until that
breach is visibly healed.” While this is certainly a logically tight position,
it doesn’t actually account for the historical reality we find in the church.
Fr. Kirby has compiled several
examples of this, two of which I’ll summarize here:
- During the Meletian schism, there were two rival bishops of Antioch. Meletius was recognized by Eastern bishops, but not by Rome. Yet, after the death of Meletius, his claim was universally recognized. “[V]isible unity was broken without either side being considered by anyone in hindsight as outside the Church.”
- During the Western Papal Schism when there were several claimants to the papacy, clear visible unity in the western church was broken, yet the Roman Catholic church has canonized saints on both sides of the schism, and even today no official binding declaration has been made as to which were the true Popes.
The Anglo-Catholic response to this reality, therefore, is
to argue for something often called the “Branch Theory.” Critics of this theory
often believe it claims that the Anglican Communion, the Orthodox Church, and
the Roman Catholic Church are three branches of one catholic (universal) Church
tree. This implies that they are organic developments of one core “trunk,” and
so each is perfectly fine as it is. But this is not really the Branch Theory as
originally formulated. The actual
claim of the Branch Theory is more minimal than this. Branch Theory claims
that catholicity is established by some basic adherence to:
- Scriptural truth
- the Traditions of the primitive Church (particularly those enshrined in the seven ecumenical creeds)
- The right administration of the sacraments, including apostolic succession through the “laying on of hands.”
Anglo-Catholic theologian Edward Pusey has put it even more
minimally: “the only principle really involved in [Branch Theory] was that
there could be suspension of intercommunion without such schism as should
separate either side from the Church of Christ.” This idea that there can be
breach of intercommunion within the Church without separating from the Church
established by Christ is not unique to Anglo-Catholic thinking. Orthodox
thinker David Bentley Hart has pointed out that during the Council of Florence “both sides spoke of the division between East
and West as a wall of separation erected within
the one universal Church” (“The Myth of Schism,” emphasis mine). Schism between
bishops (and even Patriarchs) does not necessarily
create an ontological breach in the Church. As far as I can tell, the historical
reality supports this understanding much better than the official positions of
the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church (that the One Holy Catholic Church
is coterminous with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox communion
respectively). This is not to say schism is all well and good. It is scandalous,
but the Anglo-Catholics don’t accept that this sad reality gives us no right to
call ourselves Catholic (see
this article for more on this point).
The Validity of
Anglican Orders
Even if one accepts the Branch Theory as I have described
it, the question of why I don’t convert to Roman Catholicism isn’t necessarily
settled. After all, maintenance of apostolic succession was one of the
conditions I mentioned as necessary for a communion to be part of the universal
Church. Thus, the catholicity of Anglicanism would depend upon the validity of
Anglican orders, something the Roman Catholic Magisterium denies. I believe it
is vital to salvation to be part of the Church universal, so if the Roman
Catholic rejection of our orders is correct, I ought to convert to a communion
with valid orders.
So what of the Roman Catholic argument that our orders are
invalid? The goalpost for why they
are invalid has
moved. At first, it was claimed that the line of succession was broken.
This was not historically accurate, and eventually the claim was dropped. Then
it was argued that there was an insufficiency of form on the basis that much
theology had argued that the chalice and paten which the Roman church had taken
to presenting to candidates for ordination was the matter of the sacrament.
This, however, was shown to not hold when it was firmly established that this
was not the practice for the first thousand years of the church. The argument
was thus forced back onto claiming that the “intent” of the ordination was
wrong and invalidated our orders. This, we Anglo-Catholics do not accept. Since
intent is an internal matter, the burden of proof for claiming a lack of intent
must rest with those claiming it is lacking, and we are not persuaded by Roman
Catholic arguments that there was a deficiency of intent. As with the sacrament
of Marriage, validity should be assumed unless the lack of intent can be
definitively proven.
Specifically, the Roman Catholic claim is that the changes made to our ordinal during the
Reformation were meant to create a non-sacrificing priesthood, and so there was
a “defective idea of the priesthood,” thus invalidating our orders. Yet, the
intention of the Anglican Church during the Reformation was not to create a
non-sacrificing priesthood, but to return to antiquity because of a perceived imbalance
in late medieval Christianity. During the late medieval period, the priest’s
dual role as minister of word and sacrament had almost entirely been subsumed
into the sacramental aspect of the ministry. This was a problem even Trent
recognized. The intent was thus not to remove the priest’s sacrificing role,
but specifically to “continue those orders which had been in the Church from
the days of the Apostles, namely Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the same
sense as they had always existed.” The intent in removing specific mention of
sacrifice was to restore the priest’s sacramental role into balance with its
other aspects. Nothing else. With such an intent, sacrifice is necessarily
included in the intention of our ordinal, for the Anglican Church “means her
orders to be those of the New Testament. As such she confers upon her priests
authority to 'minister the Holy Sacraments'. This includes the celebration of
the Eucharist. Here again her intention is that the Eucharist shall be all that
the Lord intended it to be. The sacrifice of the Eucharist is not something
additional; it is the Eucharist itself in one of its chief aspects.”
Therefore, we consider ourselves to be a church that has
validly maintained apostolic succession and apostolic doctrine (both Scripture
and Sacred Tradition) and so to be part of the Catholic Church.
But Why Not Convert?
What I have said thus far should make it clear that I don’t think
it is as necessary to leave the Anglican Communion and join the Roman Catholic
Church in order to be part of the universal Church. Yet, as I said above, the
fact that there are different communions within the one Catholic Church does not
mean those communions are equally valid. Otherwise, I might as well hedge my
bet and join the Roman Catholic Church. There are areas in which I believe the
Roman Catholic Church has erred from apostolic doctrine in ways that are aberrations
rather than valid developments. I do not believe these are fatal, they don’t
invalidate the Roman Catholic Church as a church, but they are significant
enough to keep me from joining the communion and proclaiming that “I believe
and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims
to be revealed by God.” Chief among
these is the claims of the Roman Church regarding the role and authority of the
Pope.1 As such, the question of “why not just go all the way and become
Catholic?” is somewhat moot. I do
not see myself as having gone part way to a goal but stopped short. I see
myself as faithfully living out the Christian religion as a member of the
universal Church. As one article has put it “Let us suppose that a man
believes, on grounds which seem to him sufficient, in the doctrines of
Transubstantiation, the Invocation of Saints and the Blessed Virgin, Auricular
Confession and Purgatory; that he finds spiritual value in the use of rosaries,
scapulars, relics, images, incense, holy water and what not; that he believes in
one authoritative Holy Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation,
commissioned and empowered by God to preserve and transmit the faith and to
administer the sacraments. It does not follow by any rule of logic that he must
also believe that the criterion of catholicity is submission to the authority
of the Bishop of Rome and acceptance of his infallibility” (Review of “Why
Rome?” Christian Century, vol. xlvii., No. 51, December 17, 1930). But why don’t
I accept the claims of the Bishop of Rome to be the guardian of the Church’s
infallibility and apostolicity?
As a basic matter I
have no problem with primacy of the Pope. It seems to be a matter of primitive
doctrine and has clear scriptural warrant. Yet primacy is not the same thing as
being able to define dogmatic truth infallibly. The idea of the Pope as the
infallible Vicar of Christ (in its positive definition) is undeniably a development
of doctrine. To call it this is not to make any judgment on it as such.
Explicit doctrine develops from the deposit of faith. The question then
becomes, “What determines authentic development versus aberration?” The Roman
Catholic claim is that it is the Pope (in concert with the mind of the Church)
that determines what qualifies as authentic development.
The Anglican position, in contrast, is that that it is
Scripture, as rightly interpreted by the mind of the Church (chiefly
represented by the seven ecumenical councils) that determines what qualifies as
authentic development. We believe that the bishops of the Church are the
guardians of faith, any particular bishop, including the Roman pontiff, can err
(even in official pronouncements). Roman Catholics often appeal to the
historical claim that no pope has ever officially defined heretical dogmas as a
defense of their position, yet as an apologetic claim this is fairly useless,
because it is tautological. There are many things Popes have officially taught
which Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, etc. consider to be in error.
The historical claim thus proceeds from the doctrine rather than proving it. This
doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it does mean it’s not very persuasive to those of
us who don’t already accept it.
Instead of Papal Primacy as the control of Development of
Doctrine, the Anglican Communion affirms a sense of Sola Scriptura. Some affirm
it in a very Evangelical sense, but Anglo-Catholics do not see it this way.
Scripture is not the source of doctrine. That is obvious because doctrine
existed as Tradition before Scripture. Scripture is written down Tradition and
so it can serve as a test of Doctrine, and thus as a safeguard (along with the
interpretive guide of the Creeds and the Fathers) against illegitimate
doctrinal development. So Scripture, rightly interpreted by the primitive teachings
of the church and the ecumenical councils, is a corrective to human error. From
what I have seen in my study of the early Church Fathers, they seem to be
operating on this principle. When they argue that a doctrine they are teaching
is part of the unchanging deposit of the faith, they bring Scripture forward as
their primary witness. Naïve sola Scriptura this is not, but rather is what the
Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas defended when he said “only canonical
Scripture is a measure of faith (quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei)”
(Thomas's commentary on John's Gospel). I am not claiming that Scripture can be
separated from the rule of faith and interpreted scientifically to discover true
doctrine. I am claiming that Scripture is the canon by which doctrinal
development is measured and that this is what we see the Church Fathers doing.
The Pope, because of his connection to Peter, has long been an important
authority in rightly measuring doctrinal development against Scripture, but
that is not the same thing as saying he is infallible.
I further have a problem with the Roman Catholic claims
regarding the Pope because they seem to functionally make all other Bishops
mere local representatives of the Petrine See in the same way that priests are
representatives of their bishop. This seems to undermine, rather than develop,
primitive understanding of the Episcopal office. Authentic development must
always deepen understanding of the unchanging deposit of faith, rather than undermine
it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I am Anglo-Catholic because I believe in the
importance of catholicity for genuine Christianity, that is, union with the
original universal Church established by Christ. This means I accept the idea
of Sacred Tradition as an authentic vehicle of divine revelation, in contrast
to many other Protestants, and so believe and practice many things that are
often considered Roman Catholic distinctive (for example: auricular confession).
Yet, I do not accept Papal infallibility. Rather, I believe Scripture, rightly interpreted
by the rule of faith, is the measure of authentic doctrinal development.
Crucially, I believe that Anglicanism is authentically part of the universal
Church. I would, in fact, say that Anglicanism is authentically Catholic. Again,
I don’t expect to persuade any Roman Catholic by these claims. I am explaining
why I am not Roman Catholic, despite being Anglo-Catholic. For my part, I would
become a Roman Catholic if I ever became convinced that these Papal claims are
correct, or if I became convinced that it was no longer possible for me to be
an orthodox and Catholic Christian in the Anglican Communion. Given the way
certain parts of that Communion are headed, this is certainly a foreseeable
outcome.
- I focused on papal infallibility in this essay, but my concerns with the papal claims extend to the entire apparatus of the infallibility of the church as connected to the Pope. Since the Roman Catholic Church believes that licit apostolic authority requires communion with the Pope, it follows that the entire infallible Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church depends in some sense on the Pope.
