Catholicism in Anglicanism

[CanadianAnglican]

This was a bit of an interesting discussion that began in the other thread, and in an effort not to divert Raylight's thread, which was posted for him to ask a few questions and seek advice, I thought I might post a new thread specifically for the purpose of discussing Catholicism in the Anglican context.

In brief, the other thread discussed the question of Anglo-Catholicism. What was interesting is that it became central to the discussion that there is no authoritative definition of what constitutes an Anglo-Catholic. It had a historical origin, however there is no particular authority today that can tell someone, "well, you aren't really Anglo-Catholic because you do/don't believe X."

Historically, it has its origins in a combination of movements that are usually collectively referred to as the Oxford Movement. The Tractarians began writing on a particular theology, in reaction effectively to the Puritan dominance in Anglicanism throughout the 18th century which found its expression in a historical and also modern Low Churchmanship and evangelicalism. Their theology sought to restore Catholicism to prominence within the Anglican tradition. At the same time, the ritualists found a way to express this largely in the re-adoptions of many Roman-styled ceremonies and rituals which had been abandoned under more Puritan and protestant influences.

In the other thread, I provided a link to a resource I find to be a useful summation of the "distinctives" of Anglo-Catholicism with respect to its theology. It is a modern resource, having been written by Fr. John Alexander in the 21st century, but it's particularly useful in that it is presented in a general format rather than trying to pin down what do Anglo-Catholics believe about X or Y? http://anglicanhistory.org/alexander/alexander6.html It is also useful in that it can be contrasted with JI Packer's six distinctives of Evangelicalism.

I by no means present this as being authoritative or in any effort to curtail discussion, it merely reflects my own position. I know traditionalists who describe Anglo-Catholicism as anyone who still likes the BCP (in Canada or the UK; the '28 BCP if you're in the US) or to mean anyone who prefers a higher degree of ritual and ceremony (smells and bells) regardless of theology.

I posted a link to a blog post by a member of the Society of Catholic Priests in the United States who was writing about things such as the ordination of women, the ordination of gay priests in a same-sex marriage/relationship, etc, being part of the Catholic tradition (http://reidandwrite.com/?p=2421). When I first read the post when it was brought to my attention a few weeks back it actually puzzled me, because I have no idea what that particular priest means by the word Catholic.

If you look at older Anglican documents such as the Solemn Declaration of 1893 or the Lambeth Quadrilateral, what is Catholic is effectively summed up as holding to the canon of Holy Scripture, the faith of the early Church articulated primarily the the Creeds and ecumenical councils, the sacramental life lived out primarily through Baptism and the Holy Eucharist and finally the three-fold order of Apostolic Ministry. This definition could probably be accepted by Catholics from every tradition, East and West, though they wouldn't necessarily agree that other traditions remain in the Catholic tradition (ie a Roman Catholic would probably accept this definition, but would not accept that the Eastern Orthodox or Anglicans are fully within Catholic tradition, and similarly the Eastern Orthodox would not accept that Roman Catholics and Anglicans remain in the fullness of the Catholic tradition).

So again, my question is for folks like the blog post author from the Society of Catholic Priests, how would they define Catholicity? How do others here define it? Do you view it primarily in terms of doctrine and unity or in some other way (such as ritual and ceremony)?

 

[Yardstick]

Thanks for continuing this interesting discussion!

I think this distinction is actually what makes Catholicism unique within the Anglican tradition. As you have pointed out, for Rome and for Orthodoxy anyone who has deviated at all from their tradition has lost out on the fullness of Catholicity. Anglicans are the only ones who affirm that the others are also truly Catholic.

This is why I think the term Anglo-Catholic can't be regulated as well as you may hope. Anglo-Catholics have to recognize that there have been changes between the different branches (otherwise, why wouldn't they just join the one branch that has made no change?). In recognition of that fact, the Anglo-Catholics have to in some sense accept that there can be innovation in doctrine while still being legitimately Catholic.

I apologize if I am being unclear, as these are preliminary thoughts inspired by your post.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Here's a thought spurred by your reply.

Because Anglicanism never claimed to be the whole of the Catholic Church, as historically has been the case in the East and in Rome, Anglicanism never claimed authority to innovate on its own. The English Reformation claimed the authority to remove itself from Papal jurisdiction, which had never been universally accepted, and further remove some medieval innovations from the faith in an effort to return to some of those basic principles of Catholicity which remain well-defined today in documents like the Solemn Declaration or Lambeth Quadrilateral.

Since the 1970s, however, some provinces of the Anglican Communion have definitely been innovating. I saw an article in the Anglican Journal today (ACC's national monthly newspaper) claiming their is an episcopal glass ceiling because of 700 bishops in the Anglican Communion, only 33 are women. My immediate response was, no, it's simply that the vast majority of the provinces in the Communion hold either to the view that they do not have the authority to alter the Apostolic Ministry in order to ordain women, or they do not believe it to be justified in the Catholic faith.

In the ACC/TEC/CoE, however, we have unilaterally gone from saying "we hold to the Catholic Apostolic ministry handed down from Christ himself" to saying, "Anglicanism [in our province] is going to ordain women." What does that suggest about what is Catholic? What is the measure by which we now judge Catholicity that not only was this manner of ordination not received in the Early Church or in the two other traditions recognized as similarly maintaining some Catholicity, but it is also not received (and indeed rejected) by the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide.

Fr Reid in that article I posted suggests that he is happy about the new orthodoxy of The Episcopal Church with respect to the ordination of women, practicing homosexuals and the modification of the Holy Matrimony to extend it to same-sex couples. Again the question becomes by what measure does that remain Catholic (as he later in that same entry describes it). Does orthodoxy there simply mean "what is approved by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church" or is there still some element of universality to it in that it extends beyond TEC, beyond even the Anglican Communion?

There are plenty of folks on this board that describe themselves as Catholic (and not necessarily Anglo-Catholic) so I am curious for some more folks to contribute their thoughts.

 

[Yardstick]

If innovation is contrary to Catholicity (or atleast to the traditional Anglican/Anglo-Catholic understanding of Catholicity), then in what sense can we say that Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are Catholic?

 

[SteveCaruso]

Yes, each and every denomination, regardless of affiliation, has evolved and innovated to some degree. Much like how the old linguistics joke goes ("What do you call a language that isn't changing?" -- "What?" -- "Dead.") the same can be said here.

The question is the threshold of what constitutes something genuinely "new."

For example, saying "our province is going to ordain women" when qualified with "because we have rationale and examples of similar things in early Christianity (like Junia and others) and these new priests are going to be held to every other standard of ordination within the tradition -- the sole exception being their gender" for some is a huge innovation, where for others is merely flipping a single bit and keeping 100% of "everything" intact.

Even so, regardless of how such a threshold resolves, it is less useful compare to how the monicker of "Anglo-Catholic" is used in a practical sense. If one wants to get overly technical with a widely-recognized and applied term, outside of generally understood boundaries, then it becomes little more than a pedantic distinction.

 

[Albion]

It's a good question, and I'd think the answer would be, "It depends upon what's being changed." That was a central issue when women's ordination split North American Anglicanism--'Does this rupture Apostolic Succession,' etc. versus 'It's no different than whether or not to allow married (male) priests.'"

 

[CanadianAnglican]

If innovation is contrary to Catholicity (or atleast to the traditional Anglican/Anglo-Catholic understanding of Catholicity), then in what sense can we say that Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are Catholic?

I think it's a good point in that no one fully or exclusively follows the faith, order and tradition of the early Church. Indeed, even when we say the one canon of Holy Scripture there are always caveats in that since the time of the early Church there has been division East and West over the canon of the Old Testament, primarily after the publication of the Vulgate.

To take a particular example, though, Rome has added to the Nicene Creed with the filioque. Does that impair their Catholicity? Yes. Does it remove it entirely? No. Anglicanism has similarly added through such innovations. Again my view is that it impairs Catholicity, but does not in and of itself remove that Catholicity.

The Articles of Religion inform this view:
XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

In my mind, you could amend that to say As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, [Constantinople,] and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome[, and Canterbury] hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

The reality is that no one is going to get it perfect... St Paul reminds us all fall short, and why would we expect the Church to be any different. When we have erred, it's not necessarily for bad reasons. It's usually because we are trying to extend Christ's love or God's grace to someone or a group of people, but in our earnest desire to do so, we ultimately do so in a way that God or Christ did not ordain or endorse. In doing so we fall short of what we were called to, and in the case of the Church it moves away from what was received. When a Christian falls short, they do not cease immediately being a Christian; neither does the Church immediately cease being Catholic.

Over time if a Christian does not struggle to avoid sin, identify sin and repent of sin, then there is an issue, and so too with a Church if it continues to innovate, fails to recognize that it is moving beyond what has been received, it will eventually have moved so far beyond what was received that it cannot any longer be considered part of what is Catholic. The trouble, much like the question of defining Anglo-Catholicism, is who is the authority that decides whether or not a Church is Catholic?

 

[Yardstick]

It's a good question, and I'd think the answer would be, "It depends upon what's being changed." That was a central issue when women's ordination split North American Anglicanism--'Does this rupture Apostolic Succession,' etc. versus 'It's no different than whether or not to allow married (male) priests.'"

I think this is exactly right. For the Society of Catholic Priests, they view themselves and Anglicanism as part of the Catholic Church and put an emphasis on many of the more 'Catholic' theological positions. So from their own point of view it makes perfect sense to refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic. It's only if we have already decided that issues such as women's ordination are deal breakers (while other issues are not) that we can question the legitimacy of their use of that term.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

I think marriage of priests is a poor example, since you can point to Scripture and the practice of the early Church to show it was permitted. It's only later than disciplines of celibacy were developed as they were thought to improve the holiness of the priests for different reasons.

Perhaps a better comparison would be remarriage after divorce? That's an issue of doctrine which was changed, and few people seem to make an issue of it. I had to admit I'm not entirely familiar with the debates on it as it occurred in the Anglican Church of Canada, but it certainly was a departure from what was received.

Yardstick, I think you may be on to something there, however at that point aren't they simply using personal judgement? When the one priest there declares that TEC's position towards homosexuality is the orthodox Christian position, on what is that based? Similarly, if Catholicism no longer has any standard by which it is to be measured, does it have meaning?

SteveCaruso mentioned with respect to the Ordination of Women that the argument can be made that there is Biblical. There is also historic precedent showing that it was a practice at least in parts of the Early Church, and that even where it was not the practice of the Church it was not disputed, implying reception. Setting aside whether or not these arguments were indeed the basis for the decision being made to authorize the ordination of women (as it wasn't in some places), the real point there is that the Bible and practice of the Early Church remains the standard by which the action is judged to be a return to the Catholic practice or an innovation.

Yardstick, to go back to the SCP, this is a musing that just occurred to me while I was writing this response, and it could well be way off base. What if, when members of the SCP describe themselves as Anglo-Catholic, what they more mean is to emphasize not continuity with those four elements of the Patristic Church, but some form of continuity with Roman Catholic influence on Anglicanism, and it's their way of saying we hold the ceremonies and practices of Rome, but having reformed their doctrines and theologies, not simply in terms of medieval excesses which were targeted during the English Reformation, but current-day doctrines where they believe the Roman Catholic Church has erred (which would account for any and all innovations). Does that strike anyone as being at all close to the mark?

 

[Albion]

I think marriage of priests is a poor example, since you can point to Scripture and the practice of the early Church to show it was permitted.

I realized at the time I wrote it that that was not the best example, but mainly because it applies only to Roman Catholic practice. I'm sure you can think of other examples that make the same point, however.