A Lament for Anglicanism

[nsper7]

You describe the Catholic Church as “the largest and oldest” Christian denomination in the world, while also stating that it is part of the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” mentioned in the Nicene Creed. The fact that you used the world “oldest” to describe the Catholic Church is very important; you have stated that the Catholic Church is the most ancient remnant of the original Church alluded to in the Nicene Creed.

This means you believe that all other Christian denominations have broken away from the Catholic Church, and in a certain sense, have a common origin in the Catholic Church; all Christian Churches trace their lineage back to the Catholic Church, according to your beliefs. This is also another way of saying that the Catholic Church was the original Church founded by Christ.

As the Church founded by Christ, you also acknowledge “the importance of Roman Catholicism in Christian historical and theological development.” In your own words you stated that the Catholic Church played an important role in determining theology, or to put it another way, to decide what was to be believed by Christians. By using the word “development” you also acknowledged that fact that understanding of doctrine increases or develops over time. This development can clearly be seen in the increased understanding of Eucharistic theology. As the “largest and oldest” denomination, the Catholic Church continues to play an important role in “Christian theological development.”

As leader of the “oldest” Church, you believe that “the Pope was the dominant figure in Western Christianity” and continues to be “a universal figure of importance.” As demonstrated in previous posts, you also believe this “importance” includes pastoral authority over others, as demonstrated by the fact that the Pope gave authority to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is also important to note that you believe this importance is not lost because certain men have been “less than good Popes” throughout history. You correctly state that existence of unscrupulous Popes “does not mean that the Office of the Pope is suddenly unimportant or illegitimate.”

Without realising it, you have stated your belief that the Catholic Church was the ancient Church founded by Christ, as mentioned in the Nicene Creed. You have also stated your belief that the Catholic Church determined what was to be believed by Christians; and through the development of doctrine, continues to do so. You also believe that the Office of the Papacy included pastoral authority over others, and continues to do so; this is why you have described the Pope “as a universal figure of importance.” The use of the word “universal” also implies that you believe the Pope has a certain level of authority over all Christian Churches, despite the fact that this is not often recognised.

You sound like some detective who has just busted someone for some crime (maybe some Protestants would think it a serious crime that I actually do respect Roman Catholicism and the Pope).

I think we would both agree on the history of much of this issue. Prior to Great Schism between East and West, the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ (OHCAC) of the Nicene Creed was probably extremely closesly meshed with the ‘Roman Catholic Church’, perhaps so close that disconnecting the two would be near impossible. After the Great Schism, the OHCAC was very clearly expressed in Western Christianity through Roman Catholicism. It gets tricky after the Reformation since one saw Western Christianity facing numerous divisions.

As an Anglican, I can trace my Rite’s Apostolic Succession back to Pope Gregory the Great and I can trace our liturgy back to Pre-Reformation Latin/Sarum Rites (which is what our Book of Common Prayer is originally based upon).

As mentioned earlier, the role of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church in modern Christianity, while still extremely important, is different and more nuanced than say during the Pre-Reformation and even Pre-Great Schism eras. Also, the First Vatican Council, which dogmatically affirmed Papal Infallibility has altered the relationship of Roman Catholicism and the other branches/Rites of the OHCAC.

The Pope, according to Anglicanism, is the valid Bishop of Rome, and probably even Primate of Italy and possibly even the Patriarch of the West (remember that the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Ramsay, said something about the Pope being the head of the visible Church or something). Obviously, those one, two or three roles would not just be Roman Catholic roles of the Pope, but Catholic (Universal) Church roles. Obviously, it is confusing…

I would think that any good discussion of the Pope has to look at several things:

1. The Pope’s role in the modern Roman Catholic Church
2. The Pope’s role in the OHCAC/Catholic (Universal) Church
3. The Pope’s historical (Pre-Vatican I, Pre-Reformation, Pre-Great Schism) roles within Christendom (broad definition)

 

[Peter_J]

You sound like some detective who has just busted someone for some crime (maybe some Protestants would think it a serious crime that I actually do respect Roman Catholicism and the Pope).

I think we would both agree on the history of much of this issue. Prior to Great Schism between East and West, the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ (OHCAC) of the Nicene Creed was probably extremely closesly meshed with the ‘Roman Catholic Church’, perhaps so close that disconnecting the two would be near impossible.

Given the fact that you said “Roman Catholic Church” rather than “the undivided church of the first millennium”, I would definitely say that you respect Roman Catholicism and the Pope.

 

[nsper7]

Given the fact that you said “Roman Catholic Church” rather than “the undivided church of the first millennium”, I would definitely say that you respect Roman Catholicism and the Pope.

Thank you. My reading of Church history is that the Early Church (especially the Post-Nicene Church) was centered, in many respects, around Rome and the Papacy. It seems the East-West Schism (the Great Schism) occurred because of concerns that the Papacy was becoming too powerful (so-called Papal Supremacy).

Throughout the history of the Church, it would seem the authority and role of the Pope has evolved and changed over time.

In the very early Church (say Post-Apostolic to Pre-Constantine), the role of the Pope was still being defined, although as many have pointed out, it appears that the Primacy of Rome was a fairly early idea.

From Constantine’s time to the Great Schism, the Papacy strengthened (sometimes the proverbial ‘two steps forward, one step back’ reality) until there were complains of it getting too powerful and this complaint, among other issues, was one of the reasons the Schism occurred.

From the Schism to the Reformation, the Papacy was strengthened within Western Christianity (again, depending on the skill of the individual Pope and the surrounding political climate, the Papacy might temporarily improve or weaken). Such occurrences as the Avignon Papacy, the time when there were three people claiming to be Pope at the same time and the corruption of certain Popes (such as the Medici Popes in Italy) damaged the Papacy’s reputation and strength and paved the way for the Reformation, but it also paved the way for much-needed reforms within the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. Trent).

The Post-Reformation Papacy, while much weaker socio-politically, has undergone moral reforms and one sees a much higher quality of Pope (in terms of personal piety). While many ‘reformers’ went on the attack against Roman Catholicism (including even Anglicanism), there have also been attempts to promote a more honest appraisal of Roman Catholic history, doctrine and tradition by certain Protestant groups. For example, within the Anglican Communion, there was the Oxford Movement and the promotion of ‘Anglo-Catholicism’.

In modern times, say Post-Vatican II, I think more and more Christians (especially Anglicans and some Lutherans) are beginning to recognize the ecumenical importance of the Papacy and the valid role of the Pope as Bishop of Rome. Of course, there are some Christians that are still as Anti-Catholic/Anti-Papacy as ever.

As I said, it is difficult to fully put into words, but I think to try and cut Roman Catholicism and the Papacy entirely out of modern, and even historic (as some revisionists might try to do),Christianity (the so-called ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’) is to deny history and the importance of Roman Catholicism to the historical and theological development of that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Dempsey1919]

You sound like some detective who has just busted someone for some crime (maybe some Protestants would think it a serious crime that I actually do respect Roman Catholicism and the Pope)

You comitted no crime, my friend. I simply paraphrased your beliefs to demonstrate how Catholic they were.

If I didn’t know any better, I would think you were a Catholic, based on what you’ve written in a couple of threads; and that certainly is no crime in my book.

 

[Greg27]

I think the Anglican Communion faces some problems. The most severe one in my view is not the obvious issues with controversies over gay or women clergy, but the rapid decline in the numbers of people attending church. Many countries are now Post-Christian and churches need to change their approach to society and outreach. If people aren’t going to church or becoming ministers, then I think you have a severe problem.

The problems with schismatic churches will probably only be solved with more centralised authority and doctrine, focused on the Archbishop and those in Communion with him.

 

[nsper7]

You comitted no crime, my friend. I simply paraphrased your beliefs to demonstrate how Catholic they were.

If I didn’t know any better, I would think you were a Catholic, based on what you’ve written in a couple of threads; and that certainly is no crime in my book.

I was merely being a bit humorous in my statement about it being like the detective who has caught someone in a crime. And as I said, some Protestants may well view that my views ‘theologically criminal’.

What was interesting was that all those thoughts I had put down yesterday and the day before had been very recent in coming to mind. Historically, the importance of the Pope to Christianity cannot be denied.

I think, at least among Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans, the disagreement is how much power and importance the Pope has within the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ (which Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans acknowledge as existing and being very important, but define differently).

Roman Catholics see little-to-no difference between the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ and the OHCAC and, thus, the Pope is Supreme Pontiff of the RCC and, it follows, the OHCAC. I am not totally sure of the modern Eastern Orthodox view, but I would assume they accord a certain level of honor to the Papacy and the role of Rome and the Successor of St. Peter, but they do not see the Pope as the ‘leader’ of the OHCAC in the same way Roman Catholics do.

The official Anglican view is that the Pope is the valid Bishop of Rome and, possibly, Primate of Italy/Patriarch of the West. As has been mentioned, at least one Anglican leader, former Archbishop Michael Ramsay, acknowledged the Pope as holding some sort of leadership of Christ’s Church on Earth. Anglo-Catholics would probably hold a very similar view as to Roman Catholics (except maybe on the Papal Infallibility issue), but some Evangelical Anglicans may well hold some level of disdain for the Papacy (not necessarily the individual, but the Office itself).

Determining the role of the Pope within the Roman Catholic Church is much easier, I think, than determining his role within the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’/Catholic (Universal) Church (unless one tales the Roman Catholic view that they are virtually one and the same).

 

[SIA]

I think the Anglican Communion faces some problems. The most severe one in my view is not the obvious issues with controversies over gay or women clergy, but the rapid decline in the numbers of people attending church. Many countries are now Post-Christian and churches need to change their approach to society and outreach. If people aren’t going to church or becoming ministers, then I think you have a severe problem.

The problems with schismatic churches will probably only be solved with more centralised authority and doctrine, focused on the Archbishop and those in Communion with him.

I think that you are mistaken in your information. Many other Primates in the Anglican Communion besides the Episcopal church and the CoE are flourishing and growing by leaps and bounds. There are more Anglicans in church in a Sunday morning in Uganda than there are in all of the UK.

 

[bkovacs]

No more good conservative traditional priests in the Church of England.
youtube.com/watch?v=CGDndcxH-O4
Funny video!.

 

[Dempsey1919]

In the very early Church (say Post-Apostolic to Pre-Constantine), the role of the Pope was still being defined, although as many have pointed out,** it appears that the Primacy of Rome was a fairly early idea.**

The Primacy of Rome was known and accepted by all of the Early Church, both East and West. Rather than use the term “Roman Primacy” it is more accurate to use the term Petrine Primacy or the Primacy of Peter. We have the words of the Saviour to prove that he placed Peter in command of the other Apostles and gave him Pastoral authority over them. Rather than copying and pasting quotations, I have decided to provide a link to an article discussing the issue of Petrine Primacy:

Peter and the Papacy
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

Catholic Answers have written extensively on this subject, and I would recommend anyone interested in this subject to read them all.

Rome only gained it’s dominance due to the fact that St. Peter travelled there. As the hub of the Roman Empire, it is only natural that tthe Apostles would make this their primary base of operations.

The official Anglican view is that the Pope is the valid Bishop of Rome and, possibly, Primate of Italy/Patriarch of the West. As has been mentioned, at least one Anglican leader, former Archbishop Michael Ramsay, acknowledged the Pope as holding some sort of leadership of Christ’s Church on Earth. Anglo-Catholics would probably hold a very similar view as to Roman Catholics (except maybe on the Papal Infallibility issue)

This is because those Anglicans recognise the Biblical references to Peter as the head of the Apostles, as ordained by Christ. They know that Peter was the accepted leader of the Church in his time, and that his Successors continue to hold the keys in his place. Christians who reject the Papacy do so primarily because of political reasons; you correcly noted that certain Popes held tremendous secular political power, and often abused their role as leader of the Church. Naturally, this would cause people to recoil and reject what they see as an abuse of power. However, I feel that they went too far, and also rejected the divinely ordained role that the Papacy exerted over the Church.

Although the secular power of the Papacy has fluctuated drastically throughout history, his role as leader of the Church has never changed, nor has our understanding of the Papal doctrines. The Catholic Church, since the beginning, has constantly taught the same things regarding the Office of the Papacy.

I have no doubt that may Bishops came to resent the power of the Papacy, and disliked the fact that they did not have complete control of their flocks. Secular authorities also came to dislike Papal interference, especially in Reformation England; Henry VIII didn’t like the fact that the Pope had authority over him, and he also wanted to get his hands on the treasures owned by the Church at that time. As I said, the problems that other Churches have with the Papacy are mostly political, rather than doctrinal; the case for Peter as leader of the Apostles is plainly attested to in Scripure, and is hard to refute.

1. The Pope’s role in the modern Roman Catholic Church
2. The Pope’s role in the OHCAC/Catholic (Universal) Church
3. The Pope’s historical (Pre-Vatican I, Pre-Reformation, Pre-Great Schism) roles within Christendom (broad definition)

The role of the Pope has never changed. The Catholic Church has, through the course of constant Tradition, taught the same things concerning the Papacy. However, throughout history, various Bishops and Churches have resented the power that the Pope has.

You are correct in stating that Papal Infallability was defined in the First Vatican Council, but the Council only reaffirmed what has constantly been believed. Furthermore, it should be noted that Vatican II completed the work of Vatican I and addressed Collegiality within the Church. Therefore, to understand this doctrine, I would recommend that you read what both Councils wrote on the matter.

Papal Infallability has more to do with the Holy Spirit than the Papacy. It simply states that the Holy Spirit will protect the Bishops united with the Roman Pontiff, from teaching error. It is the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Pope, who is infallable in matters concerning faith and morals. This belief is also firmly rooted in Scripture.

 

[robert_Ian_Will]

As a welshman and Catholic , can i inform you that the so-called Celtic Church that existed in Britain before Augustine was thoroghly Catholic.

Britian, when the Roman legionaries withdrew was invaded by Germanic tribes. The native British fled westwards. the eastern area eventually became England …the Celtic remnant surviving in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany ( France)…they naturally resented the invaders and were angry when the pope sent missionaries to bring them the Gospel. THE ANTAGONISM WAS RACIAL.>However witth very little fuss they joined with the Catholic Church at the Synod of Whitby.

There was no celtic rite of Mass…it was in Latin.

Most Ecclesiatical words in the Welsh ( ancient British language) are of Latin origin:

Eglwys…church
Allor …altar
Oferryn…Mass
Sanctaid…Holy
Bendegediad…fantastic!

Anglicanism does not posses the Apostolic succession…as this was lost with Cranmer’s heretical Ordinal in 1550.

 

[Dempsey1919]

However witth very little fuss they joined with the Catholic Church at the Synod of Whitby.

As you correctly stated, there is no “celtic” Church. The Church in the British Isles was always Catholic; the only difference was that the Britons, or Celts, adhered to a different calendar. However, it should be noted that they later adopted the Roman calendar because they recognized the Pope had authority as the Successor of Peter.