So this is how long schisms last. It's the 500th anniversary of King Henry's accession to the throne (1509-2009), and Pope Benedict is saying all is forgiven.
Forgetting for just a moment the troubles the Church of England is currently embroiled (lack of leadership, lack of unity, lack of orthodoxy), here are three historical reasons why traditional Anglicans might welcome His Holiness's extremely generous "a church within a church" offering of Anglo-Catholic reunification:
1. The chronically adulterous wife-murderer Henry VIII has never been a very compelling religious leader;
2. Parliament's illegal dethroning of James II for his Catholicism and religious tolerance was a shabby pretext for a so-called 'Glorious Revolution', and;
3. Anglicanism has been more a measure of well-placed cultural faith in the English-speaking upper classes, institutions and work ethic, than a worldly portal to the kingdom of God.
Lord Black, a once nominal Anglican, explains why he finally became a Catholic:
I had always had some problems with Henry VIII as a religious leader. That he apostacised to facilitate marriage with a woman whom he soon beheaded on false charges of adultery, seized the monasteries to finance his wars in France, and required his puppet parliament to give him back the title "Defender of the Faith", (still on the Canadian coinage in honour of the present Queen), that the pope had given him in recognition of a canonical paper Erasmus had ghost-written for him, never filled me with confidence in the legitimacy of the Church of England. More and Wolsey were more morally compelling figures than the Henricians, and many of Britain's great pre-Wren Anglican churches were seized from Rome.Yes, my Lord, how true. That "we-don't-Pope" thing is wavering yet again today.
Nor was I convinced that the replacement of the Stuarts with the House of Orange was the "Glorious Revolution" that MacAulay and the Trevelyans and other talented Whig myth-makers have claimed. James II was a blundering monarch, but his Toleration Act, promising religious freedom for Jews, Roman Catholics, disestablished Protestants and non-believers, was not subversive or ignoble, and was a shabby pretext for a revolution.
The Anglicans, as Newman had written, had an impressive lower clergy, but it seemed more (to me) a measure of well-placed cultural and ethnic faith in the British and American upper classes and institutions, and a contingent, sectarian insurance policy, than the earthly portal to the kingdom of God. The Anglicans have never really decided whether they are Protestant or Catholic, only that they "don't Pope", though even that wavers from time to time.
One thing that is of mighty interest is the fact that 'yes' Anglicanism is in a sham because she ignores the truth she once stood upon and her great founders taught, all the while ignoring their own Creed-the 39 Articles...never mind Scripture...I wonder what Archbishop Cranmer, John Bradford, King Edward VI, and later the articulate Anglican leader of the 1700's Rev. Augustus Toplady, would all think of this? If anything these 'Anglicans' were never truly of the English Reformation but closet papist-some not so hidden...
ReplyDelete1. The chronically adulterous wife-murderer Henry VIII has never been a very compelling religious leader
ReplyDeleteAnglicanism is actually a settlement of Elizabeth, although there has been an Anglican Church since the third century. Think again.
2. Parliament's illegal dethroning of James II for his Catholicism and religious tolerance was a shabby pretext for a so-called 'Glorious Revolution', and;
He ran away to France and thus abdicated.
3. Anglicanism has been more a measure of well-placed cultural faith in the English-speaking upper classes, institutions and work ethic, than a worldly portal to the kingdom of God.
For some, yes. For others, hell no. Laud, Herbert, Law?
Beaverbrook,
ReplyDeleteDo I sense just a wee bit of gloating here?
Swift,
Quite right.
Never.
ReplyDeleteSwift must have sensed a certain gloating too, which explains his wee bit of insolence. Never offend another man's religion, inadvertently or not.
The truth is I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I'm not much of a committed Protestant either. I identify myself as Anglican, but I have never been baptized and only occasionally attend church. I suppose I'm still trying to find my way.
My dear Lord, I'm not being insolent at all. And I am not offended.
ReplyDeleteI will, with your permission, pray for your journey--wherever you end up. I celebrate the Papal decision. And I am probably not going to convert.
Swift.
My dear Swift, cheek or no cheek, you are the most generous and humblest man I know.
ReplyDeleteKindest regards
Gents, love your blog since I discovered it 2 months ago and am enjoying to colourful corner of the blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteBut as a Catholic may I ask respectfully and honesty ask you in light of the Holy Father's wonderful initiative a genuine question to help me understand:
Swift: why are you "probably not going to convert"? What stands in your way.
and
Beaverbrook: what is your position?
With kindest regards and admiration for your work
Harold J
"The truth is I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I'm not much of a committed Protestant either. I identify myself as Anglican, but I have never been baptized and only occasionally attend church. I suppose I'm still trying to find my way."
ReplyDeleteBeaverbrook, with all due respects, this sounds like the words of a future Roman. Heck, from the post I thought you were one. I didn't mean you were actually gloating, I just thought you were teasing the poor Anglicans.
I've seen it so often. Nominal Anglican walks into an RC church, has a chat with a nice priest, next thing you know he's taking instructions. Let's call it the Newman Effect. I say this as an utter heathen, but one who hangs around a number of the devout.
If I had any religious instinct whatever, in these times, I'd probably go over to Rome. Benedict is a sharp fellow, however much I disagree, and he knows Anglicans are looking for some old fashioned Christianity. In other words, the Catholic "brand" remains the strongest among the non-evangelical sects. You know where the Romans stand, which is why they've lasted so long,
The creeds, catechism and canons of the Church of England are still the most Biblical. The practice, at present, is lousy; but it is not as if there was nothing in-between Henry VIII (who martyred the first English protestants) and a modern lesbian priestess. What of the preachers, writers, bishops and divines of the last five centuries? What do people think our martyrs went to the stake for? For yoga classes, were they burned in Oxford? For the English class system?
ReplyDeleteThe CofE still has the oldest connexion with Christianity in Britain. It still has an episcopal succession. And it still upholds an ideal of faith founded entirely on the Word of God; which, lest we forget, was incarnate in the Son of the Father, and therefore deserves our allegiance to the same extent: the uttermost.
I love Roman Catholics, but I won't be converting. The CofE is in lousy shape, but I should rather reach for a bucket than abandon ship. The ship is sound, howsoever horrible and useless the pilots. They may seem at times desperate for shipwreck. But it is God whose arm hath bound the restless wave, and we may therefore rest secure.
Amen.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully say that many of you here may claim to be Anglican... but know nothing of it whatsoever! The Anglican Church is fundamentally a Biblical, Calvinistic, Institution...you ignore the 39 Articles of your own "Church"...must I remind all of you who praise Rome what the leaders of your Church of England thought of her.... "Rome is Antichrist!" She neither knows nor teaches the faith once delivered unto the Saints. Some in her may know Him...but it is no excuse to be praising the institution!
ReplyDeleteWith equal respect, Anonymous, all those same Articles state is that "The Church of Rome hath erred". I believe that.
ReplyDeleteIt is the Westminster Confession which calls the Pope Antichrist, and I am not a Presbyterian. I am not required to believe the Church of Rome apostate or utterly wrong, only in error on certain points.
The Articles are indeed mildly reformed and Evangelical--but they are also Catholic. The official document of the Church is not simply the Articles, but also the Prayer Book in which the articles come, which clearly begins the creed with: "Whosoever will be saved, it is necessary above all things that he hold the catholic faith..."
We are not Roman Catholic. But we are not Protestant sectaries, Presbyterian Covenanters, or Anabaptist Conventicles either.
Pax Christi.
As always, an impressive comment thread gentlemen. An education, whatever your opinions.
ReplyDeleteI was not stating the Articles stated that the Pope is Anti-Christ, I was saying the Church's founders did (Thomas Cranmer amongst others...) and as a clarification on on the Church being Catholic, well Baptist would be Catholic in the same also for they accept the historic creeds... The Anglican Church at its true founding, the English Reformation, is thoroughly Calvinist. It is not Arminian, Presbyterian, or any other. The man that vindicates such a reality is Rev. Augustus Toplady, regardless the Articles are explicitly Calvinist. So again respectfully anything other then the proper theology termed Calvinist is not truly Anglican. Cranmer, King Edward VI, and John Calvin were quite friendly and in great agreement on many things-yes they had their difference but not on fundamental biblical truth.
ReplyDeleteSwift and Sir Walter Scott have both a scholars grasp. You were going to post, Sir Walter, and Insurrectionist Pedigree?
ReplyDeleteGentlemen
ReplyDeleteThank you for your explanations. However much of what I read gives me little in the way of explanation.
When I read statements like the following I can't but help feel that are assertions below which the age-old misundertsandings lie, and need to be fixed before we are truly one as He willed:
"The creeds, catechism and canons of the Church of England are still the most Biblical."
- and what of Tradition? And the fathers of the Church, and its Councils?
" The CofE still has the oldest connexion with Christianity in Britain."
-- but Britain has been thoroughly Catholic much longer than it was Anglican
"And it still upholds an ideal of faith founded entirely on the Word of God;"
-- even though the Bible itself is not the complete story, even by its own terms.
"The Anglican Church is fundamentally a Biblical, Calvinistic, Institution...you ignore the 39 Articles of your own "Church"...must I remind all of you who praise Rome what the leaders of your Church of England thought of her.... "Rome is Antichrist!" "
-- let's be frank, that history demonstrates this is factual
"The Church of Rome hath erred". I believe that.
- you may believe it, but why? There is no substance in reason to that belief, but much misunderstanding of the Catholic faith that underlied such assertions.
Might a suggest a read of the "Cathechism of the Catholic Church" and see if you still maintain that view.
"The Articles are indeed mildly reformed and Evangelical--but they are also Catholic."
-- well, Newman for on, changed his view on that
" The official document of the Church is not simply the Articles, but also the Prayer Book in which the articles come, which clearly begins the creed with: "Whosoever will be saved, it is necessary above all things that he hold the catholic faith..."
-- whatever that might mean
"The Anglican Church at its true founding, the English Reformation, is thoroughly Calvinist."
-- to the extent that is true, there will never be a unity of belief with the Catholics and Orthodox. We must clearly acknowledge this
Harold J
Back to the announcement itself. This is a very shrewd and strategic move on the part of the Papacy. It is no secret that many Protestants and Anglican/Episcopalians are becoming sick to the stomach of the liberalization occurring within the Anglican communion -vicarettes, homosexual bishops, inter-faith ecumenism, and spiritual nominalism. The orthodox are leaving in droves, and as good Anglicans, are not entirely comfortable with being attached to make-shift communions. In short, the Anglican Church is at a serious cross roads. The Papacy can smell the blood in the water and what better opportunity than to offer a safe haven on a seemingly stable rock.
ReplyDeleteAnglicanism needs to return to its robustly Reformational and Calvinisitc roots which entailed orthodox belief and practice, including disciplining those that would turn it into another “relevant” institution bending to the felt needs of the multicultural, secular pluralists. This means first, and most importantly, a return to a high view of Scripture, real subscription to the 39 Articles, and church discipline.
Under Rowan Williams, I would not hold my breath . I expect to see those at the Anglo Catholic end of the spectrum to flock to Rome, leaving the more biblically based orthodox Anglicans to fend for themselves in various small faithful communions.