Struans and I have been continuing an occasionally waspish (as is our fashion) discussion in the comments boxes on an old post of mine, here. He is a ‘candid friend’ of Rome who, as is the case with those who style themselves such (and I take that claim seriously) tells it as he sees it; that is good for us all. In the spirit of Geoffrey’s advice on how to disagree, let me try to say something on the other side of the case.
For me, as for all Roman Catholics, the issue is one of ‘by whose authority do you say these things?’ Struans comments here:
As to bishops and definitive teaching, there is indeed a definitive authority in the catholic church – bishops in ecumenical council. That is why your jibe about there being no definitive teaching in Anglicanism is a shot that is far wide of the mark. Anglicans don’t claim to be able to issue definitive teaching for themselves and the rest of the church – whereas Romans do.
Two things come to mind here: deciding to unilaterally change the teaching of the Universal Church on who can be ordained a priest is changing a definitive teaching; one can play with words all one likes, and Anglicans are masters of it, but that is claiming the authority to change something formerly agreed upon; by what authority do they do it? The second is the old Orthodox saw of ‘bishops in ecumenical council’; when was the last time any Church save that founded on the faith of St Peter held one of those. Struans is fond of bringing up ancient Catholic documents and quizzing us as to whether they are still in force, but that last time Canterbury took part in an ecumenical council was when? That would be when it acknowledged the authority of Rome, and the arguments were well set out by Henry VIII in his defence of the seven sacrmamenets; he never, oddly enough, issued a thorough account of why he changed his mind about the authority of the Pope.
Struans’ church seeks, he tells us ‘corporate reunion’ with Rome. That was certainly my hope as a young man. If Struans could mark out the things which his church has done to show its sincerity to set against the things it has done which suggest it has no such real intention, I would be grateful. My list is a short one: it took the unilateral decision to ordain women – which divides it from the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church; and it has allowed its members to contract ‘same sex’ marriages, whilst, oddly enough, denying that ‘right’ to its own ministers. These actions speak more loudly to intent than any number of documents and ‘indaba’; I do hope Struans has some actual actions in mind to back up the claim he makes that the Anglicans want corporate union; ‘wanting’ and ‘doing; are quite different things here, it seems.
Struans asks:
Out of interest, why do you criticise Anglicanism so much? It is to confirm to yourself why you left? As you have no real need to seek union with Anglicans, as Rome believes itself already to be the whole true church, and therefore there is not so much of an imperative to repair Christ’s Body, it has crossed my mind that there might be some truth there.
I criticise it as a ‘candid friend’. I see no reason for ‘corporate union’, and I tend to talk about Anglicanism only in the context of claims made by Anglicans abut my own Church. The Anglian Church marched off in a direction which looks like the one the Episcopalians have taken, and if that is their desire, that is fine, but it was not mine. I always find it a little cheeky of Anglicans to ask why I left? It was not me who changed the nature of the priesthood unilaterally.
It comes down to authority. Until the 1530s the English were loyal Catholics. They were knocked out of this in the most brutal fashion by the State. That State lacked theological authority; it still does so. The Anglican Church has no authority from any Ecumenical Council it ever attended. It borrows much from its Mother Church, but the further it gorws away from its origins, the more the question ‘by whose authority do you do these things?’ becomes pertinent. To say by the authority of bishops in ecumenical council is to point back to the authority of Rome.
Of course, if one takes the view that authority is something other than it has been taken to be by the Apostolic Churches, then fair enough, it ceases to be an issue as one has been ‘born again’ by ‘the Spirit’ and that is all that is required. It seems not to be a stable model or one which leads to much by way of unity, but it works for those it works for; but that is not the Anglican claim. That claim appears to be to appeal to its own authority, as the senior bishop of the Episcopalian Church has been doing in pursuing the break away churches for premises and funds, but to deny that of others (maybe in suing them, she was offering ‘tough love’, who knows?). If I am waspish about the Anglicans, it is their wanting their cake and eating it attitude which is its cause. No one made them take actions which widened the divisions, and if they mean what they say about the love of Christ, why in His name are they pursuing breakaway Anglicans as they are?
Excellent post. I say that not primarily because I share your views, but because you have captured in a short space here the essence of disagreement here, both from the theological and historical perspectives. Others may well disagree with your position, but it should be pretty hard to misconstrue it!
LikeLike
Many thanks – I hope you are right.
LikeLike
Me too! 🙂
LikeLike
I guess I still do not understand what is truly meant by a ‘corporate union.’ The point of it eludes me, as there is no mention of a religious union of spiritual thought or religious and moral demands. Is a more of a Rotary Club that gathers together in meetings to see what we can do to improve our city or country etc.? I guess the whole idea simply baffles me from the religion side as does the idea of a ‘papacy of honor’ where there is no acceptance of an authority that is guaranteed from our belief in Christ’s promise to the Pope. ‘False irenicism’ is the result, if I actually even remotely understand the meaning of these things.
LikeLike
In my fairly long experience of ecumenical conversations, they are conducted on the basis of ignoring these excellent questions.
LikeLike
That was my impression. Seems we already have the useless World Council of Churches to go to. Seems redundant to me. 🙂
LikeLike
I prefer our approach here, which is to acknowledge differences, see where we agree, and try to get along. If anything good comes in the long term, excellent, but it is better than hurling stuff – and syncretism. 🙂
LikeLike
I totally agree. The only point in any of this is breaking down barriers of distrust between us. And at least that is useful in the present and could be a gateway for the future.
LikeLike
And we forget what a huge step forward that is. Impatience has been the ruin of many a good idea. The schisms did not happen in a couple of years, and they have continued for centuries, so let us contain our impatience and do the best we can in our time and place.
LikeLike
Indeed. If we could only get Bosco to quit repeating the lies of the Jack Chick comic books we might make a bit more progress. 🙂
LikeLike
It doesn’t help. I have somewhat agaist him as I answered his question on the lamb and I have heard nothing 🙂
LikeLike
I must have missed it. I am guilty of sometimes ignoring his replies. 🙂
LikeLike
Ah, well, he certainly did not respond 🙂
LikeLike
Agreed – I am not really sure what the value of a union on paper is when there is no shared mind on essential spiritual and moral matters. I have also never been able to understand what ‘primacy of honour’ actually means in practice! If it is anything like the primacy enjoyed by the ABC in the Anglican communion, then it seems to me to be essentially meaningless and without real purpose other than papering over genuine disagreements about authority.
I think that perhaps what you have said previously about divine and human contexts comes into play here.
LikeLike
I do as well, mkenny.
At least in my own town we get together with a host of different churches to do some things together but we don’t for a minute think that this somehow is more than what it is. We simply agree to disagree which is where it always ends up.
LikeLike
Yes, the collaboration of different churches for various reasons is becoming more common, and can only be a good thing, as it at least fosters charity, and enables the different groups to understand each other a bit better. However, I think that ultimately it is more loving to, like Cordelia in King Lear, speak the truth. Without recognising fundamental points of disagreement, any unity established would be a house built on shifting sands.
LikeLike
Indeed so. From a Catholic perspective, we’ve made progress in that there are fewer and fewer Bosco’s that think we worship idols and pray to statues. 🙂 So some good has come of it.
LikeLike
Haha, that is true indeed! 🙂
LikeLike
Re-reading what I’ve just written, it looks like it could be taken as saying that cooperation between churches and speaking the truth to one another are mutually exclusive – that is definitely not the case, just to clarify! 🙂
LikeLike
I understood but a good clarification for others. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, I was indeed thinking that it may look a little ambiguous to any future commentators rather than to yourself 🙂
LikeLike
I think visiting each other’s church is often a good step towards unity. Seeing how others worship can be very useful for understanding not only what we believe but also how we feel and make sense of life as individuals and communities. I know that sounds rather vague, but I did find it helpful at university to attend now and again the churches my friends were at. As for me, I went from a Baptist church back home to a charismatic Anglican church at university. I must admit, if I had the opportunity, I’d be very interested to see Jess’s church. The chapel at my college was Anglo-Catholic and I served there from time to time, but college chapels are quite different from parish churches.
LikeLike
Yes, College chapels are very different, and can be marvellous places 🙂
It certainly helps to visit each others places of worship, and it can do much to overcome the problems history and theory place in our way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“last time any Church save that founded on the faith of St Peter ”
It is astonishing that the RCC can claim it represents much of anything congruent with the church and spirit or Peter’s church(actually the Jewish movement within Judaism evaporates in Jerusalem and seems Paul founds the church) with all its manufactured splendor and unscriptural doctrines? Peter, Paul and Jesus would be sickened at the monstrosity of today. Of course all denominations are guilty of this criticism. Apostolic succession is an invention at elite control. The Keys were passed to common people not to allegedly chosen men like the Dali Lama in that faith.
LikeLike
Well, Carl, I’m only going by what it says in Matthew and by what the early fathers say.
LikeLike
Carl, do you really believe that you or any other Christian has the power to bind and loose here and in heaven? That is the power Christ gave with the keys. Do I have that power then?
LikeLike
Thanks, C. I have spent my afternoon reading you & Struans. As always, Authority vs. no authority is won by Authority!
LikeLike
Anglicans are fond of authority – the authority they choose 🙂
LikeLike
I think what finally pushed me out was less the absence of authority but the abuse of that authority: bishops and priests using their authority to push heterodoxy.
LikeLike
Yes, that, of course, was what I meant 🙂
LikeLike