The Anglican Church is an extraordinarily diverse body which is both its strength and weakness. A strength because it enables that body to gather in every variant of Christian belief under the one umbrella of the Crown. A weakness because it can lead to confusion regarding belief and practice. Some Anglicans, for example, would be horrified to be considered catholic. Inspired by Calvinist theology they tend towards the view that the Church of England is robustly protestant. Others believe themselves a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. Others still are passionate in the belief that they are authentically Catholic. And it is this group who favour a “branch theory” to defend their claim.
The branch theory suggests Jesus planted the seed of the Church in the Gospels which grew into the early church. This “tree” then split into two parts at the major schism between East and West and it has subsequently sprouted myriad branches with each subsequent divide. This is seen as a good thing; a way of showing how the Anglican may claim to be part of the Universal Catholic church, thereby claiming a share in its rich heritage.
The problem with this analogy is twofold. Firstly the Catholic church itself is the tree of many branches! It reflects a better branch theory within itself not without! The Catholic church in England and Wales being one branch- with its dioceses smaller branches and its parishes like leafs. The Coptic church is another branch, different from our own, and so on and so forth. All these “branches” being connected, and therefore part of one living organism, by the papacy. Which serves as the necessary link not only between all the branches in communion today but all the branches in communion throughout history going back to St. Peter and Christ and the keys and all that.
But isn’t the Anglican church just a different branch albeit autonomous? Sadly this doesn’t add up. Because branches do not grow on their own. If one saws through a branch, no matter how impressive, it diminishes the tree and the branch ceases to be part of it. We might aknowledge that it was once part of the tree. We might respect its beauty and value it. But could we say it is still a part of the tree when it stands separated from the trunk and other branches?
It is for this reason, not out of disrespect, that the Catholic church refers to Anglicanism, as with other protestant bodies, as an ecclesial community not a part of the Universal Catholic church. A recognition of the sad truth, in other words, that we Christians are not ONE as Jesus intended. The tree has been badly damaged by our inability, as fallen beings, to live together in love. Which is of course the fault of us all- there is no finger wagging here. What there is instead is a call to unity and reconciliation that all of us, surely, need to take seriously.
The good news is that it is quite possible to graft fallen branches back onto the trees from which they were hewn, so long as there is life in them. Furthermore when a graft is successful the join becomes organic, the branch is no longer separate but again part of the whole. It is cleaved. And here we might reflect on what the Ordinariate vision is all about. A bringing back into the fold of a lost branch. An organic cleaving together of Anglican patrimony and history within the body left behind at the reformation.
An act of unity, in other words, in which action plays as much part as word and sentiment. Through genuine reconciliation with the Holy See we are, again, one with the Universal Catholic Church in all ages. Our prayer having received this unity is that, one day, the part of the branch we left behind might follow. It could take centuries to achieve but it could well happen. We were made to stand together not apart.
At what point, would you say, did the Church of England cease to be part of the universal catholic church and become a “protestant” “ecclesial community”?
Just do a Google search – I don’t think you need to ask Fr Ed.
Presumably it was just after he left it otherwise every Mass he said as an Anglican would be invalid. Ed won’t be drawn on that point though.
And all along I thought the real reason for speaking of “ecclesial communities” and not churches is that you would rather use two words when one will do!
Thank you Father for this statement of the situation regarding Christianity in the UK. I must admit annoyance at Anglicans who claim to be Catholic, a little having you cake and eating it as my Dad (God rest his soul) would say. Surely Anglicanism comes from the carnal desires of the monarch to take control of the church and therefore began what is now a nationalised institution at the behest of its political masters. Thats not to say the RC Church does not have politics and it is easy to see examples throughout its history and certainly today in the upcoming family synod – God preserve us. However the difference is that the RC Church was instituted by God the Anglican church by Henry viii – enough said!
God bless all,
Patrick.
Patrick, any educated person would know that the Roman Catholic Church in the day of Henry VIII was rife with power games, intrigue and corruption. To say that Henry’s divorce is the sole reason for the birth of the Church of England is naive to say the least.
Oh what utter Tosh, Patrick. The reforming movement was well established throughout Europe prior to our independence. Sadly the RC church refused to reform until The Council of Trent when it acknowledged its need to change.
By then the damage was done.
Furthermore, what’s the problem with having cake and eating it? Whatever else are we supposed to do with it?
Yes: the correct saying is “to eat your cake and have it”, which would be impossible!
This only makes sense, though, if you accept the unargued premise that it is the papacy which provides the ‘necessary link’.
If you don’t accept that premise — if you think that the ‘necessary link’ is, say, Christ rather than St Peter — then it is perfectly possible for the Anglican branch (along with the Lutheran branch, the Presbyterian branch, etc etc) to be part of the same tree as the Roman branch.
So in order for this line of argument to be convincing, you’ll have to explain why it is you think that it is the papacy which provides the ‘necessary link’.
That is true S. However we should acknowledge that the premise for the papacy is not only scriptural- you are Peter and on this Rock- but also VERY firmly established by the Early Church Fathers who unanimously speak of his importance. It is only after the reformation that, seeking to find an explanation justifying separation from Rome, theologians began to place emphasis on the confession of Peter rather than the man. Here are a few solid Petrine quotes from the Early Church to keep you going- and if you don’t read them all do please take the time to reflect on the words of Cyprian of Carthage- they are particularly apt regarding this debate.
Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
The Clementine Homilies
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
“There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (ibid., 66[69]:8).
Firmilian
“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).
“[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Sechnall of Ireland
“Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).
Council of Chalcedon
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).
As we know from modern politics people will say all kinds of things to preserve their own power. Some things never change….
The Coptic Church (which is non-Chalcedonian) is not in full communion with the RC Church, so on what criteria is it a branch of the RC Church? The Copts and the other “Oriental Orthodox” only accept the first three Ecumenical Councils … even Anglican clergy are required to accept the first four! Therefore, Catholic-minded Anglicans have just as much right as the Copts to be considered part of the universal Church by virtue of their baptism.
Mark
The churches you referred to are schismatic but not heretical.
Although not in communion with Rome they have valid orders.
The Anglican ecclesial community was originally schismatic under Henry VIII but then began to absorb Lutheran doctrine and later, under Elizabeth, Calvinist and other Protestant influences which led to a denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence.
Thus Anglicanism became (according to Catholic belief) heretical and Protestant. The re-introduction of Catholic ceremonial and belief by the Oxford Movement in the 19th century could not in itself restore valid orders as Newman himself came to realise. This restoration has come into being only through the establishment of the Ordinariate.
A prayer for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham;
Eternal God, whose strong right hand hath rescued us from restless waves and safely brought us to the barque of Peter, be pleased to bless our Ordinariate; that rejoicing in our membership of thy Catholic Church, and gladly sharing the good things that we bring, we may be a beacon of hope, and a kindly light, to lead all wanderers home. Through J C O L Amen
In all my years as an anglo catholic, I believed the Pope to be the chief Bishop of the Catholic Church. I remember seeing the church notice board at All Souls Blackman Lane in Leeds which stated ” This church is part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church at present out of communion with the See of Rome.” ( I think that church is well and truly in the hands of the liberals nowadays, but then the formidable Fr Hum was the Vicar.)
I have to confess I was always uncomfortable about it, an unease only resolved when I finally came into communion myself when I became a Roman Catholic quite a few years ago now.
Having said that, there is a problem with words. The use of ecclesial community ( ie not a church ) may not be intended to be disrespectful, but it sure as anything sounds like it!
Are we to suppose from your description of the branch theory, that the Holy Orthodox Church of the East is merely an ecclesial community by virtue of the great schism?
Thank you, Ian, for feeling able, as a Roman Catholic, to say that “ecclesial community” sounds disrespectful, even if it is not meant to be so. And Fr Ed, ecumenically minded as you claim to be, is your parish a member of Churches for Tunbridge Wells? Or are you waiting for a change of name to “Ecclesial Communities and Churches in Tunbridge Wells” before joining it?
Luckily, despite what Fr Ed might beleive, the Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on God, nor is it the final arbiter on which churches are genuine churches and which are not.
The Catholic church does not claim it has the monopoly on God, nor do I. However it is the church built on apostolic foundation and clearly does have authority to judge what is and isnt a church. Out of interest Harvey how do YOU decide? Or do you consider every person ordained via a certificate on the internet a valid priest and every tin hut organisation an authentic church?
Luckily it is not for me to judge either, but if the question is whether I personally would feel comfortable worshipping at or belonging to a particular church, then I think “by their fruits you shall know them” is a good place to start.
I also wonder with the various corruption scandals, child abuse being the latest of many, whether the Roman Catholic Church has not relinquished it’s claim to be the one true church, if indeed it ever was such a thing.
I would be careful of mud slinging, not least as I am told there are more Anglican clergy in prison for abuse than Catholic clergy. The abuse was something done by the minority not the majority. Nor do I think, in any case, sin damages divine mandates or we would all be in trouble.
You didn’t answer my question, but I think we all understand why!
It is an interesting question Guido. Some would say with the Henrician changes, others might argue that he did not, in fact, change the essence of the church only took it into a position of schism with Rome- but they would point to Elizabethan embrace of protestant notions and doctrines as ‘the moment’. But whatever the point- I favour the first two arguments these days- most certainly profoundly and irretrievably try today now that Catholic order is no longer upheld due to consecration of women as bishops and ordination as priests.
Thanks. That’s a huge shift of position on your part – a reversal, really – of the one you held when you worked in the C of E. As an uber-papalist Anglo-Catholic priest I would hazard a guess that you didn’t go around calling yourself a “minister” in a “protestant ecclesial community”.
Fair enough, everyone is entitled to change their mind and move on. But you should cut your former Anglo-Catholic colleagues a bit of slack – their position now is not so different to yours when you were at St. Barnabas.
Slack is cut. Always has been. Though challenge is reasonable not least given the current climate they minister in which is quite different to the one I ministered in. The Ordinariate was a game changer as was the consecration of women.
Yeah, but Ed it’s a bit too tidy and convenient to argue its validity when you were a part of it and then argue its invalidity when you left. If women Bishops was a game changer you should never have joined and we should never have been ordained together because the presence of women priest made bishops enevitable. We chose to observe the traditionalist integrity then and I still do now. Sadly I still think you’ve taken the easy route and the harder and more courageous one would have been to remain and witness to the power of orthodoxy. Traditionalist churches in the CofE were intended to be seen as hospices for a generation, but we’re growing in number and creating a wonderful problem for our liberal brethren.
Not for the first time I must ask, why refuse a papal offer of unity once made, that guarantees orthodoxy, for disunity within a liberalising body? To what end? To what vision?
Unfortunately my comment on this issue was inadvertently posted against ‘cooks wanted’. Sorry!
Fr. Paul,
Vis a vis your post on 8th September 2015 at 4.06pm am I the only one to find it, not only disedifying, but also a matter of incomprehension that you regard causing a problem for some of your fellow Anglicans as “wonderful”? Aren’t you supposed to be at one with your Church/Ecclesial Community not rejoicing in causing upset?
That really doesn’t make any sense. There are disagreements in both of our churches. There are liberal wings and orthodox wings, but Catholic ones are hidden under the wing of the magisterium. When orthodoxy proves to be a blessing and an area of growth, it’s a cause for joy just as it is in your church as Ed has alluded to with his fear on the forthcoming synod on the family.
“Wonderful” I can see. Why did you decsirbe it as a “wonderful problem?”
To Mark: There are Catholic Copts in communion with Rome.
Fr. Paul,
Fr. Ed. had to follow his conscience and complete his faith journey, as did Newman, even when the ‘kindly light’ was leading Romewards.
Even though he had one of the greatest intellects of the 19th century, Newman did not come into the Catholic Church on a wave of intellect.
In the language of his day he ‘submitted to Rome’ because in the final analysis he could no longer perform the intellectual gymnastics necessary to convince himself of the catholicity of Anglicanism.
Well that’s one way of putting it I suppose.
“!559” is of course the answer to Guido’s question, since whatever the relative significance of 1532, 1534, or 1549/50, all of that was happily undone in 1553 and 1554.
Happily undone? Not too happy for the nearly 300 Protestants martyred under Queen Mary. Of course there were lots of Catholic Martyrs under Henry and Elizabeth.We should honour them all as people of courage and conviction and commemorate them all in the Church’s Calendar .
The tragedy of the 16th and 17th centuries, bringing as it did tremendous human suffering and at the same time heroic bravery on all sides of the religious divide, has it origins as does all conflict in the sin of Adam and at the instigation of the Evil One.
The corruption, pride and worldliness of the medieval church, the forces unleashed by the Renaissance, the ‘new learning’ and humanism fueled by the invention of printing, provided Satan with his finest opportunity to date of tearing Christendom apart.
In the first instance Luther’s main contention was only about the ABUSE associated with indulgences. The majority of early reformers wanted to reform the Church from inside. Why did this sincere desire to reform the Church result in the ripping apart of Latin Christianity when virtually everything the reformers first proposed came about at the Council of Trent?
I state the obvious again; the sin of Adam, the perennial reaction of our human nature; pride.
Pride in the resistance of Papacy to any criticism. Pride in the hitherto obedient German monk. Pride in the German princes. Pride in the king who must have his own way. Pride in the emperor who had to defend is aunt.
The ‘Reformation’ scenario was a field day for the Devil in which he was able to use our one basic weakness to pervert the enormous potential for good which could otherwise have been the result of the ‘New Learning’ and the invention of printing.
Divide and Rule should be his motto. He has achieved much in his stirrings up during and after Vatican II and we have to hope and pray that he will not be involved in the forthcoming Synod.
Humility and reconciliation, unity, love, tolerance, compassion and understanding are what he fears most and are what we must constantly strive and pray for in order that one day Christendom can be made whole.
Its bad enough that it happenned but the bigger scandal was the cover up operation in my opinion. In any case I am not mud slinging and this is tangential to my point, I just highlighted this as a recent example – I could just as easily have talked about the selling of indulgences.
Members of the Catholic Church are human beings who can and have through the ages, like all men (and women) committed terrible sins. This includes all, from popes to to laypeople. The only excuse for the many sins committed in the church is the human nature which we all share.
However even in the worst of times God raised up great saints in the church. Catherine of Sienna, who demanded the pope return to Rome from Avignon, Francis of Assisi who he charged with rebuilding the church; even the Borgias had their Francis.
The great saints of the Tridentine period, Teresa of Avilla, Charles Borromeo, Ignatius of Loyola, who helped the recovery after the reformation.
In the 19 th century, the Cure of Ars, Therese of Liseux and Bernadette of Lourdes. Within living memory, Edith Stein, Maximillian Kolbe, Padre Pio, Mother Theresa of Calcutta to name but a few.
We are all called to be perfect, but the Saints of Catholicism far outweigh the Sinners and because the church is essentially holy we always have sacramental assurance even when the sacraments are received at the Hands of the worst sinner, because the sacraments are performed by Jesus.
‘Traditionalist churches in the CofE were intended to be seen as hospices for a generation, but we’re growing in number and creating a wonderful problem for our liberal brethren.’
I’m a very liberal Anglican, Father Paul, and if you’re growing. that’s no problem for me: I’m glad to see it. The recent ‘deal’ on women bishops within the C of E allows this and indeed encourages it. But you lot are also required to encourage us lot. It’s a bitter pill on both sides (not actually very bitter), but it’s the logic of Anglicanism and mostly has been.
It is my understanding that cuttings from grape vines are also able to grow on their own quite easily. Thus the comment about branches not able to grow on their own seems not to really be a very good one in my opinion. 🙂 Am I missing something here? Could it be the Lord used grape vines as his analogy on purpose? Do you perhaps have a modified response on this point? I find the branch theory quite compelling and convincing.