Anglo-Catholic Justification Question

[jinc1019]

I don't self-identify as Anglo-Catholic, but I've been a sympathetic fellow-traveller in that stream for a while.

My sense of the Anglo-Catholic take on this (at least, in Australia, which may have its own quirks), is that if a person dies with a true, living faith, that person will be in the nearer presence of God after death. (I am carefully avoiding saying "go to heaven" as I think that's problematic, but read for that whatever you understand of that).

If a person has unorthodox beliefs outside the essentials of the faith, or has done something wrong from which they have not (yet) repented, but which is not in itself a rejection of God, that is not enough, in this view as I understand it, to condemn a person after death.

I think I understand, thanks!

 

[Paidiske]

Certainly the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as a rule of faith (a way of understanding what Scripture says) would be included in what is essential for Anglo-Catholics. Beyond that it's hard to say with certainty as there isn't a documented standard.

 

[jinc1019]

Certainly the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as a rule of faith (a way of understanding what Scripture says) would be included in what is essential for Anglo-Catholics. Beyond that it's hard to say with certainty as there isn't a documented standard.

I think your analysis here is correct.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I identify as an Anglo-Catholic. I'd say the Nicene and Apostles' creeds along with loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, & strength and your neighbor as yourself pretty much cover it. The rest are mere details.

 

[jinc1019]

I identify as an Anglo-Catholic. I'd say the Nicene and Apostles' creeds along with loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, & strength and your neighbor as yourself pretty much cover it. The rest are mere details.

Sounds good to me. Would you say your decision to identify as Anglo-Catholic is based on your views of the sacraments and liturgy?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Sounds good to me. Would you say your decision to identify as Anglo-Catholic is based on your views of the sacraments and liturgy?

Yes, but also likely strongly influenced by the church I attend which is high church, Anglo-Catholic.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

A High View of Anglicanism. We affirm that the Anglican Churches are truly part of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church. The prophetic vocation of Anglo-Catholicism has been to bear witness to the catholicity of Anglicanism. Yet it can be an uncomfortable vocation that requires us to take unpopular stands against developments that threaten this catholicity. Since the days of the Oxford Movement, our standard has been the faith and practice of the ancient, undivided Church. Our vocation as Anglo-Catholics remains one of holding ourselves, and our Anglican institutions, accountable to the higher authority of the universal Church.

Quoting this from the link I provided. The Holy Scriptures are what must be believed, but Holy Tradition is the lens through which the Scriptures are interpreted. That includes in particular the Creeds and Councils of the Church, the Sacramental life of the Church and the role of the Church itself (again see the other points on a High view of the Church and Creation).

There is no standard or authority that speaks for Anglo-Catholicism, but essentially this quoted point helps to highlight the essentials. Anglo-Catholicism is the Anglican tradition as seen through the interpretive lens of the Oxford Fathers rather than the low churchmen that had begun steering the Church away from the Patristic interpretation and towards are more Reformed tradition.

 

[Fish and Bread]

This link doesn't directly address justification, but I found it when searching some of the concepts mentioned in prior posts, and I thought it might be of general interest:

http://www.stmarymagdalenoxford.org.uk/what-anglo-catholicism

 

[jinc1019]

All great stuff, thanks for providing the resources!

 

[jinc1019]

Quoting this from the link I provided. The Holy Scriptures are what must be believed, but Holy Tradition is the lens through which the Scriptures are interpreted. That includes in particular the Creeds and Councils of the Church, the Sacramental life of the Church and the role of the Church itself (again see the other points on a High view of the Church and Creation).

There is no standard or authority that speaks for Anglo-Catholicism, but essentially this quoted point helps to highlight the essentials. Anglo-Catholicism is the Anglican tradition as seen through the interpretive lens of the Oxford Fathers rather than the low churchmen that had begun steering the Church away from the Patristic interpretation and towards are more Reformed tradition.

I think this is a very helpful description, thanks!

 

[Albion]

I think this is a very helpful description, thanks!

What all this boils down to, jinc, is that there are self-described "Anglo-Catholics" who do indeed accept every article of Roman Catholic doctrine other than the authority of the Roman Catholic Church over them. That means that their view of the issue you are asking about is exactly what Luther opposed. But, at the same time, there are self-described "Anglo-Catholics" who disagree with Rome on X and Y, and there are others who disagree on X, Y, and Z. There is no absolute standard (as several of us have noted).

What this leaves us with is this: Are you interested in knowing if the belief you asked about is believed by ANY Anglo-Catholics...or is it characteristic of Anglo-Catholics as a whole? If it's the first of these, the answer is "yes." If it's the second of these, we'd only be guessing.

 

[Paidiske]

My hunch is that jinc is trying to work out whether or not he could find himself at home as an Anglo-Catholic. So perhaps we should also ask, jink, what your view of the issue is?

 

[jinc1019]

Thanks for the questions. My concern is actually the opposite. While I respect Anglo-Catholics and have even worshipped with them in the past on occasion, I am not sure if I can be in communion with them. The reason I say that is because I don't believe the view that a person, regardless of their faith, must do certain actions in order to be justified is the Gospel. In fact, I think it's the opposite. If a person dies in true, real, living faith, that person is justified. The RCC doesn't agree with that statement (at least, not absolutely), and some Anglo-Catholics don't either. Other Anglo-Catholics hold to a view that I would be willing to be in communion with.

I think an Anglo-Catholic who holds to the RCC view is a bit hypocritical; the whole reason the Reformers argued they had to separate from Rome was because they said the Gospel was no longer being taught. If, however, you believe Rome does teach the Gospel, then what valid reason does one have to rebel against Rome's authority? If other, secondary issues are the cause, then one has to wonder how the church can ever have any authority at all. I imagine there are all sorts of possible responses to this, but that's my view of the issue.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Rome teaches the Gospel+. Some of what Rome teaches de fide cannot be proven conclusively by Scripture, but it doesn't necessarily contradict Scripture either. For instance, Rome teaches de fide that the BVM was assumed bodily into heaven. There are a lot of arguments (outside of Roman dogma) that would support that view. There is Scriptural evidence of the assumption of others where it is explicit or implied. There is nothing contrary to the Gospel about it, but because it cannot be conclusively proven, Anglicanism says it cannot be taught de fide.

That said, you really seem to be splitting hairs over works and faith in my book. Can you give an example of a situation in which the work itself is the issue and not simply evidence of a lack of saving faith (which was the argument/example I presented back on the first page).

 

[jinc1019]

The example I used on page 1 is more than sufficient. If a person rejects a Marian doctrine, or papal infallibility, or any number of other required teachings (willingly and without ignorance), they are damned. They must seek penance (a work) for salvation. Without seeking penance, they go to hell. Pretty clear.

Another example would be not going to church on a holy day of obligation. That would be a work that if not completed, the person needs penance in order to restore the state of his or her soul. It doesn't matter, according to the RCC's own councils, etc., how much faith that person has. If they don't think a holy day of obligation is a legitimate teaching, they're damned (again, unless there is ignorance or coercion or something).

 

[jinc1019]

In the end, you need faith, yes, but not just in Jesus. You need faith in the infallibility and absolute authority of the Magisterium. By their own teachings, Anglo-Catholics would be damned (unless there is ignorance).

 

[Paidiske]

I think an Anglo-Catholic who holds to the RCC view is a bit hypocritical

I think it is fair to say that there are some (please note the emphasis on some) Anglo-Catholics who are hypocritical in their faith or practice. That is, they align themselves formally with the Anglican church despite explicitly rejecting its formal doctrine and defying its disciplines around worship. (This is also true with Anglicans at other extremes, of course).

I have some sympathy for them in that they are in an awkward position, in that there might not be a church in which they could be members with complete integrity, but nonetheless this is the path they've chosen to pursue.

I think the question is, do they then define their denomination, such that the fact that these people exist is enough to cause you to avoid the denomination? Do you not find hypocrites in every denomination?

I would argue that the question, "Should I be an Anglican or a member of another church in communion with Canterbury?" shouldn't come down to whether or not there are some Anglicans who test the extremes; but to whether the formally defined doctrine and worship of the denomination is one to which you can freely assent.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

In the example you provide, their repentance isn't what saves them: they are repenting of their sins, but in this case they are coming back to what the Roman Catholic Church proclaims as necessary belief for a saving faith, so in that case it is their saving faith and a willingness to repent of sins. How is it any different than replacing Marian dogma with the divinity of Christ?

If I reject the divinity of Christ and say he was just a man, I am sinning. If I repent of that and truly mean it, I have accepted Christ and am saved.

To come back to Anglicanism, Anglo-Catholics reject the teaching magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church. "The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary unto salvation" is something you cannot avoid if you maintain a high view of Anglicanism.

Many Anglo-Catholics have adopted Roman Catholic practices, and even, for instance, adopting RC views for things such as the assumption of Mary (versus more patristic arguments), but Anglo-Catholics wouldn't profess those views to be de fide in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does, nor would an Anglican suggest that the Church has the authority to add to the faith in the way the Roman Catholic Church does. Holy Scripture has primacy in the Anglican tradition, and is the source of all authority as God's Word. We reject the equivalency of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as separate sources of authority (which is what the RCC claims).

 

[Shane R]

The Roman Catholic and Lutheran World Federation Joint Statement on Justification:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

I was going to link that as well. It is deliciously broad in a way that should be quite appealing to Anglican scholars. I can agree with the statement.

 

[jinc1019]

I think it is fair to say that there are some (please note the emphasis on some) Anglo-Catholics who are hypocritical in their faith or practice. That is, they align themselves formally with the Anglican church despite explicitly rejecting its formal doctrine and defying its disciplines around worship. (This is also true with Anglicans at other extremes, of course).

I have some sympathy for them in that they are in an awkward position, in that there might not be a church in which they could be members with complete integrity, but nonetheless this is the path they've chosen to pursue.

I think the question is, do they then define their denomination, such that the fact that these people exist is enough to cause you to avoid the denomination? Do you not find hypocrites in every denomination?

I would argue that the question, "Should I be an Anglican or a member of another church in communion with Canterbury?" shouldn't come down to whether or not there are some Anglicans who test the extremes; but to whether the formally defined doctrine and worship of the denomination is one to which you can freely assent.

I don't disagree with much of your comments here; it's all fair. But there are a couple of things to consider: If we're just talking about members of the laity or some stray clergy; that's one thing. But there are bishops who hold some of these views as well (at least, that's what it looks like). Paul commands us in Galatians to "accurse" those who teach a contrary Gospel: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."

It's this very same view that the Reformers pointed to when justifying their decision to break communion with Rome, rather than stay and protest. The Book of Concord, the Lutheran confession, states this explicitly in a couple of places. If we should be tolerating a Gospel that is not "justification by faith alone" than why did we ever break away from Rome in the first place? We should have just stayed and tried to reform from within.

If rejecting justification by faith alone is tolerable, then what else is tolerable? It seems as though anything is tolerable, except for radical liberalism, and even that took far too long for orthodox Anglicans to break away from. I'm an advocate for a big doctrinal tent, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think drawing it at justification is fair, since that's what the Reformers did (in the beginning, they squabbled later on, no doubt) and that's what Paul commands.

This, of course, is just my opinion. I'm sure many Anglo-Catholics hold views on justification I might disagree with but would feel comfortable communing with. Some, however, do not.

Further, Anglo-Catholicism in and of itself is quite disingenuous on certain issues, such as their reinterpretation of the 39 Articles, which plainly advocates for justification by faith: "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
"
Anyone who reads that and tries to suggest it presents some other view is delusional, dishonest, or really confused. I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably read "faith only" and hear "faith plus works."