Traditional Anglicans to reunite with Rome

The great counter-revolutionary philosopher, the Comte de Maistre, once said that 'no religion can resist science, except one'. He was speaking in reference to the schismatical churches and Protestant groups that had separated themselves from Catholic unity, predicting that outside the true Church they would fall into philosophical indifference and agnosticism unless they returned to their allegiance. One can certainly see this prophecy being fulfilled in the turmoil which has engulfed the Anglican Communion for half a century, and which has been intensified by the recent controversy over homosexuality. This blog has made much of the Archbishop of Canterbury's liberal 'self service' approach to religion, full of optional extras like God, but at least he is a Christian, which cannot sincerely be said of most of his episcopal colleagues. It is a sad fact that around half of the bishops of the Church of England do not believe in God in any meaningful sense, and half of those that do deny most of the fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith. Now I do not exult at this, for while this state of affairs is the logical conclusion of Protestantism, any Christianity is better than none, and in many cases those Christians who, through no fault of their own, find themselves outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church are drawn back into the fold by that Christianity which is preserved even in heretical sects.

A shining example of this is the recent application by the Traditional Anglican Communion, a High Church splinter group which separated from Canterbury over the 'ordination' of women, for 'full, corporate [and] sacramental union'. It is rumoured that the Holy Father is pressing, despite opposition from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for the provision of a personal prelature, within the Catholic Church, to take pastoral care of these reunited Anglicans. The biggest stumbling block to such a move is the definitive decree of Pope Leo XIII, in his Bull Apostolicae Curae, 'that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void'. There can be no question of setting aside an infallible decision of the Holy See. However, circumstances may have made this decree irrelevant to the issue of whether Anglican ministers are validly ordained today. Pope Leo based his decision on the doctrine that sacraments, in order to be valid, must display the correct intention. In the case of Holy Orders, therefore, the words that accompany the imposition of hands must express the intention of the bishop administering the sacrament to ordain the candidate as a bishop, priest or deacon. The issue with Anglican Orders was that the form of ordination adopted in 1552 under Edward VI did not express such an intention, as it explicitly denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and thus did not seek to impart the priestly power to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass to the candidate. This was as far as Apostolicae Curae went. The 'Anglican rite' it condemned was the 1552 rite. But the offending words in the latter were removed in the 1559 rite adopted under Elizabeth I. Moreover, since 1921 all Anglican ministers have been introduced into Orthodox and Old Catholic lines of apostolic succession, which are acknowledged by the Catholic Church to be valid. The hierarchical succession may (this is only an opinion) have been restored, and no obstacle might then exist between the Traditional Anglicans and their return to the bosom of Rome.

Naturally, such a reunion would have momentous consequences for the mainstream Anglican Communion. It has, for a long time now, been presented with a choice between following a Protestant path to religious subjectivism or a Catholic path back to full unity with Rome and profession of the authentic faith of Christ. We must hope and pray that it chooses the latter. Certainly, the plans to 'consecrate' women as 'bishops' (in reality these frauds will be no more than ordinary people in fancy dress), have set back the Catholic cause by some years. Lending ourselves, however, to the sweet business of speculation, if Anglicans did embrace the Catholic Faith and desire unity, consideration would have to be given to the peculiar character of especially the English Church. The TAC have indicated that they wish to be 'Anglican Catholics', with an autonomous particular church of their own, such as the Eastern Catholics have, under the supremacy of the Pope and within the Universal Church. Would such a proposal be appropriate for the Church of England? On several levels, I think it would not. Firstly, the very concept of 'Anglican Catholicism' is simply unhistorical. Anglicanism, though it retained significant Catholic elements, is essentially a schismatic group, founded and defined by separation from Rome. No comparison can be drawn, therefore, between it and the Eastern Catholic Churches, many of which are of Apostolic origin, and which, despite periods of division, were founded within the Catholic Church. The English Church has never had genuine autonomy within the Catholic Church, it has always been a part of the Latin Rite, with the Pope as its direct Patriarch as well as the visible Head of the Church in general. However, certain concessions to English ecclesial conditions certainly can be made. The Royal Supremacy was not in reality an invention of Henry VIII as forms of royal governorship over the English Church under papal supremacy had existed since the inception of the nation. Indeed, even in the post-Reformation period, the Holy See has conceded to the sovereigns of France and Spain administrative powers over their national churches, such as the power to convoke local synods, assent to their acts and appoint bishops. The role of The Queen can thus easily be maintained without prejudice to Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, England could be allowed to develop its own Catholic liturgical traditions. Before the Reformation, the Church of England used the Sarum Rite rather than the Roman forms of the Mass, and the Book of Common Prayer is indeed based on the former. A restoration of the Latin origins of the latter could pave the way towards a doctrinely accurate and ceremonially appropriate English rite of the Mass. All this is, of course, conditional on Anglicans rejecting their heresies and recent errors and returning to Catholic truth. But they do at least show that it is possible to reconcile entirely natural English national pride with the eternal and universal Revelation of Jesus Christ.

To return to de Maistre's words, why is it that Protestantism logically leads to agnosticism? Indeed, one might suspect the opposite to be true, given the Catholic acceptance of the role of reason, tradition and good words and the Protestant emphasis on sola fide. Actually, it is on the issue of faith that Protestantism falls down. God, being supremely perfect and worthy of adoration, demands complete and absolute submission to His will. This submission is what is called the obedience of faith. Every revealed truth must be assented to completely and unconditionally, just as St. Paul says Abraham did:

Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God (Romans 4:20)

The trouble with Protestantism is that its rejection of the infallible Magisterium of the Church means that it cannot rationally give the assent of faith to revealed truths, simply because it cannot determine with certainty what truths God has actually revealed. Christ, all the faithful will admit, committed Revelation to the Church. Unless that Church could unfailingly preserve that authentic faith, i.e. unless it were infallible, then it is irrational to give the complete submission of intellect and will that is the assent of faith to the truths presented in the Bible and in Apostolic Tradition. After all, the Church could have inaccurately determined the canon of the Bible; perhaps the Gnostic Gospels could have been divinely inspired? The common critique of this argument is that no one could ever give the assent of faith in the manner described. There are two points which are sufficient to dismiss this. The first is that clearly Abraham did. The second is that it is unnecessary for the success of the argument that people actually give the assent of faith to revealed truths; it only matters if it is the moral thing to do. The point is that God does not command that which is irrational; but there is nothing to suggest that a rational command is necessarily easy to obey in mankind's present state of depravity. Of course, if Christ had wished His salvation to be extended merely to those men who directly heard His message then their would be no need for infallibility, but as God wishes 'all men to be saved' He consequently will grant, and has granted, the means by which the truths of faith can be assented to with the obedience of faith.

Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the TAC, wishes to complete the reunion of his Communion with Rome in time for the expected beatification of John Cardinal Newman this year. The Cardinal's virtuous life was the story of a patriotic and loyal Englishman returning to the ancient faith of his ancestors. England, as he so rightly pointed out, is not a traditionally Protestant country, rather, by history and custom, it ought to be a Catholic Nation. If the Reformation had not happened all the Anglo-Irish troubles may have been averted, the religious persecutions of the 16th and 17th centuries might have been avoided, and the Christian character of Great Britain would have been more effectively maintained. All devout Christians, be they Catholic or Anglican, should pray that the harm of that Schism be now healed by beseeching the intercession of Cardinal Newman, whose whole life was devoted to that cause, and that of the Holy and Immaculate Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of the universe, that Almighty God may hearken to our prayers.