Was reunification between the Catholic Church and Anglican Communion ever a viable prospect?

[BartholomewB]

• Senior clergy would not be appointed by the monarch, and bishops would not be consecrated with her mandate

This “mandate” has already been eroded almost completely away. Beginning in the Callaghan era in the seventies, the Crown appointments/nominations procedure has been modified several times, each time taking more power away from the government and granting greater autonomy to the hierarchy.

 

[BartholomewB]

to many people the Church of England is the Church in England.

Yes, it certainly is. That’s pretty much the idea I was trying to convey by the term “knee-jerk reaction”.

 

[Bithynian]

Yes, it certainly is.

I can’t say for the rest of the Global North, but the Anglican Church in Australia has a big problem trying to escape its overwhelming association with ‘Englishness’: it was still officially named ‘The Church of England in Australia and Tasmania’ until the 1980s!

The previous Primate, ++Freier of Melbourne, wrote:

The Anglican Church was initially largely populated by English people and to be English was to be a member of the Church of England. There has clearly been a decline of cultural adherence among Anglicans which has arguably been less so among other Christian churches.

The Reverend is putting it mildly. More bluntly, nobody cares about ‘Englishness’ in contemporary Australia. Nobody wants to attend the vicar’s garden party. Nobody wants to talk about Herbert and Eliot (and I say this as an avid reader of both).

A Russian Orthodox friend once remarked to me: ‘The Anglicans [in Australia] have the same problem with the Russian Orthodox: they both look in the mirror and see their reflection as James Bond, ‘women want to be with him, men want to be him’, but in reality they’re more like Johnny English.’

 

[PickyPicky]

Yes, it certainly is. That’s pretty much the idea I was trying to convey by the term “knee-jerk reaction”.

Fair enough.

Part of this is simply that if you take, as Anglicans do, the CofE to be the Church in this country, dating back at least as far as 597, and the RC Church in this country to be a separate, though legitimate, body dating back to the 19th Century, then the knee jerk is understandable. Add to that the fact that Methodists and Baptists and Salvationists are simply bodies not conforming to the CofE (in that worldview). Moreover the Catholic Church for many years stood apart from other Christians in a deliberate policy of separateness, adding to the feeling that Catholics are “not as we are”.

So yes, knee jerk, perhaps, but not unexplainable. And fading fast, I think.

 

[BartholomewB]

if you take, as Anglicans do, the CofE to be the Church in this country, dating back at least as far as 597,

Well, carrying on from what I said about the knee-jerk reaction, this is a part of what I meant by not having any depth. The historical fact is that the church that St Augustine brought to Canterbury in 597 was not the C of E. It was the Roman Church of St. Gregory the Great. The C of E didn’t arrive until nearly a thousand years later, introduced by Henry and Cranmer, whatever they both may have claimed to the contrary.

 

[GKMotley]

And what of the Church St. Augustine found there, when he arrived?

Not taking sides here.

 

[BartholomewB]

I don’t think he found one at all, did he? Weren’t the Anglo-Saxons still pagans until he converted the king of Kent? Just speaking from a dim and distant memory of history classes in elementary school …

The ancient Britons who spoke a Celtic language never attempted to convert the Anglo-Saxons, from what I’ve read. The two churches remained separate at least until the Synod of Whitby in 664. Even then, it was the Roman church introduced by Augustine that prevailed over the older British church, in matters such as the shape of the tonsure and the date of Easter.

 

[scousekiwi]

The historical fact is that the church that St Augustine brought to Canterbury in 597 was not the C of E. It was the Roman Church of St. Gregory the Great. The C of E didn’t arrive until nearly a thousand years later, introduced by Henry and Cranmer, whatever they both may have claimed to the contrary.

I don’t fundamentally disagree, and I think it is disingenuous when Anglicans try to claim that Anglicanism is not a Protestant denomination. However, it does get more complicated. All of the other denominations that arose in the aftermath of the Reformation, such as the Congregationalists, the Baptists, and the Quakers, and, much later, the Methodists and the Salvationists, started out more or less by making a clean break with the past. They started out with their own clergy, their own buildings, their own congregations, etc.

The Church of England, on the other hand, essentially took over from a church that had already existed for over 1,000 years. The Catholic clergy became Anglican clergy; the Catholic dioceses, archdeaconries, rural deaneries, and parishes became Anglican dioceses, archdeaconries, rural deaneries, and parishes; Catholic churches became Anglican churches; monastic communities became the deans and chapters of cathedrals and royal peculiars; the medieval universities at Oxford and Cambridge became Anglican universities. The bishop of London, for example, claims to be the 133rd bishop of London in succession to a Bishop Theanus who may or may not have been bishop of London in the 2nd century.

More bluntly, nobody cares about ‘Englishness’ in contemporary Australia. Nobody wants to attend the vicar’s garden party. Nobody wants to talk about Herbert and Eliot (and I say this as an avid reader of both).

I was doing a little searching for threads about New Zealand and found a couple of threads posted by somebody who seems to no longer be active on here. I have to say, he painted a quite ridiculous picture of life in contemporary New Zealand, e.g. still referring to the Anglican Church as “the Church of England” and claiming that Kiwis still speak with received pronunciation and drink Earl Grey while bragging about being descended from the landed gentry!

This “mandate” has already been eroded almost completely away.

True, but if you have ever attended the consecration of a Church of England bishop, you will know that there is a formal ceremony in which a lawyer in gown and wig (the principal provincial registrar, I believe) reads in full the Queen’s mandate, e.g.:

 

[PickyPicky]

I don’t think he found one at all, did he? Weren’t the Anglo-Saxons still pagans until he converted the king of Kent? Just speaking from a dim and distant memory of history classes in elementary school …

The ancient Britons who spoke a Celtic language never attempted to convert the Anglo-Saxons, from what I’ve read. The two churches remained separate at least until the Synod of Whitby in 664. Even then, it was the Roman church introduced by Augustine that prevailed over the older British church, in matters such as the shape of the tonsure and the date of Easter.

Your elementary school classes may not have been in depth.

Certainly there was a church here when Augustine arrived. The Pope’s instruction was that he should meet with the local bishops and try to bring them under his authority. The first he did, the second he didn’t.

Part of the historical problem here is with the terms “Britons” and “Anglo Saxons”. Just what the distinction was is a difficult and much disputed question. The “didn’t bother to convert” story comes from Gildas, who is not necessarily to be followed in everything, although Bede did follow him in this.

“The two churches remained separate” – well there were at least three churches involved at the time of Whitby: the native British Church, what we might call the Irish Church, and the Roman Church. Whitby was a victory for the Roman faction, but it did not spell the end of the “Irish” faction, which certainly remained in Britain, although St Colman retreated to Iona.

Of course this is just that complicated thing called history. Of course you are right that all three churches regarded Rome as the Mother Church. The Anglican position is simply that the English Church continued, casting off its subservience to Rome in the C16th.

I do not say they are right to so affirm. I’m just putting it to you that there is some reason for the English Church to think it has a long, long presence on this island.

 

[GKMotley]

The actual origin of the Faith in the British Isles is fuzzy. There are a couple of vague references in classical sources, such as Tertullian and Origen, which are suggestive, but not proof, for a date in the 200s. St. Alban, who, if really an historical figure, could put the Church in the islands around 300 or so. No one really knows. ignoring the whole Joseph of Arimathea/Glastonbury and such.

What is known, from a little later on, is that by around 300 or so, the Church in England was sufficiently established as to be organized into sees. Three British bishops attended the Council of Arles, in 314 (London, York and Caerleon). Three British bishops attended the Council of Rimini in 359, though they were too poor to pay their own way. It is debated whether there were British bishops at Nicea in 325 and Sardica in 347, but it is reported that the British Church agreed with those Councils.

And from there, there is a lot of history that runs up to when Augustine reluctantly did what Gregory told him to do. It is a complicated story of the various small kingdoms in the islands, which converted, which didn’t, who fought whom, how the Church grew and receded and how the Celtic branch of the Church played into it. Lots of history before 597. Ethelbert’s wife, Bertha, was a Christian, for example.

 

[PickyPicky]

Ethelbert’s wife, Bertha, was a Christian, for example.

And so was her bishop.

 

[scousekiwi]

Or, outside the CoE (at least), don’t.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this. I was just saying that there are many liberal Anglo-Catholics, probably concentrated in England, Wales, Scotland, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and perhaps parts of Australia and South Africa, who hold these positions. Of course, there are also much more conservative Anglo-Catholics, especially if you are including the Continuing Anglican/Anglican Continuum denominations.

In the 1960s, Martyn Lloyd-Jones was even beckoning Anglican evangelicals to dump the CoE because he saw no future for biblical theology in a church run by ‘ritualists’ and ‘sacramentalists’.

This may not be entirely relevant, but I am reminded of a time that I attended a service at Southwark Cathedral and afterwards took the train down to Surrey to meet some friends who are big Martyn Lloyd-Jones fans. When I mentioned that Hugh Montefiore had been preaching, one of them asked me, “Is he even a Christian?”, so I said, “Well, he was the bishop of Birmingham, so one would assume that he is.”

According to Cardinal Kasper when he was in charge of ecumenism, their choice to ordain women to the episcopate destroyed any realistic possibility of actual unity

Yes, I cannot see the Catholic Church ever entering into communion with a church which has women as bishops (and it is only a matter of time before we have the first women as archbishop of Canterbury).

Much of this occurred due to a particular theological trend towards defining Anglicanism as a purported via media (‘middle way’) between Rome and Geneva: neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, but ‘Catholic’ and ‘Reformed’.

I don’t know whether you are familiar with Colin Slee. He was a very liberal Anglo-Catholic priest from England who tried to become a bishop in New Zealand. He once defined Anglicanism as “Protestant but not Reformed”. When asked to explain, he said, “They protested, but they didn’t reform.”

 

[commenter]

, there is a lot of history that runs up to when Augustine

I recently re read C. S. Lewis’ “That Hideous strength” for the first time since I was more informed about certain issues or claims on Anglican roots.

There’s a small subplot on early English Christian roots, not dependent on any papal mission, thank you. I wonder if this was written about the time Tolkien was urging Lewis to you-know-what.

 

[GKMotley]

Makes sense.

 

[GKMotley]

Of course, there are also much more conservative Anglo-Catholics, especially if you are including the Continuing Anglican/Anglican Continuum denominations.

Yep. What I was speaking of. Those include me.

 

[GKMotley]

THS is my favorite Lewis fiction.

And Tolkien was on the hunt.

 

[scousekiwi]

Interesting that you say being married is almost a prerequisite for becoming a bishop in Anglicanism when the opposite is true for the Orthodox.

I’m not saying that it’s never happened, and there certainly have been bachelor bishops, but it’s very much the exception. A handful of celibate religious have also become bishops.

I think the tendency not to promote bachelors has been partly the suspicion that they might be gay and that some embarrassing stories may surface from their past. That said, Michael Turnbull, a former bishop of Durham, was married with three children, but was convicted of committing gross indecency with a farmer in a public lavatory in Hull.

The other reason for preferring married men as bishops is that being a bishop’s wife was traditionally regarded as being virtually a job in its own right. The Lambeth Conference even has a whole parallel conference for the bishops’ spouses (i.e. including the husbands of female bishops). Of course, it is no longer really the case that the bishop’s spouse is expected to devote his or her time to helping to run the diocese. For one thing, the bishop’s spouse probably has his or her own career to pursue. But also, this has a lot to do with changing gender roles. Once upon a time, the bishop’s wife was responsible for the large amounts of entertaining that bishops apparently have to do. These days, of course, we don’t expect wives to take sole responsibility for this sort of thing.

 

[PickyPicky]

That said, Michael Turnbull, a former bishop of Durham, was married with three children, but was convicted of committing gross indecency with a farmer in a public lavatory in Hull.

Just to avoid misunderstanding, Bishop Turnbull, who still serves, was convicted of that offence something like 25 years before he became Bishop of Durham.

 

[scousekiwi]

Yes, indeed. I didn’t mean to pass judgement on the bishop. I couldn’t care less with whom he chooses to have sexual relations. I suppose my only complaints would be that it’s perhaps not very nice for other members of the public if people are having sex in public lavatories and that it seems a bit hypocritical that he went on to take a rather hard line against gay clergy. Anyway, my point, really, was that the fear with bachelor bishops was that something embarrassing like this would come to light. In this case, something embarrassing came to light with regard to a bishop who was married with children.

I wonder whether this is something peculiar to the English. Take Edward Heath, for example: a wholly innocent man who served his country all his life yet for much of his life was the subject of vicious rumours and, after his death, was at the centre of a number of bizarre and ridiculous allegations including that he was a paedophile, a murderer, and perhaps some kind of Satanist. The only reason for these rumours and allegations seems to be that he wasn’t married. There is no evidence whatsoever that Edward Heath ever did anything inappropriate, let alone criminal, of a sexual nature to anyone.

 

[PickyPicky]

it’s perhaps not very nice for other members of the public if people are having sex in public lavatories and that it seems a bit hypocritical that he went on to take a rather hard line against gay clergy

I agree. Although I’m reluctant to make much if it.

I’m not sure it’s especially English. Doesn’t Qanon show how much people seem to delight in the chance to tear down the successful?