Category Image Anglo Papalism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the TAC


9.West sent me a link the other day to a blog by Fr. Kirby from the Anglican Continuum. This particular entry was attempting to justify AngloPapalism, and seemingly claims that Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox are all pretty much the same, part of the one, true Church (OTC), and simply don't quite get that there are no real doctrinal/dogmatic differences between the three. Here's the passage in question:
Why, fundamentally, do I trust the RCC not to have erred in dogma? Because I don’t believe that God would allow the prime Successor of Peter and all those in communion with him to abandon the OTC either through utterly definitive and binding denial of any Catholic truth or through dogmatic affirmation of what is heretical. This “disbelief” is one of head and heart and is based on my understanding of Scripture and the Consensus of the Fathers.
Yet, on the other hand, I also don’t believe that the Bishop of Rome is the only Petrine successor, given the Petrine roots (acknowledged by ancient Popes) of Antioch and Alexandria, the fact that Jerusalem, “the mother of us all”, once contained the whole Church, with Peter as its Primate, and the fact that Constantinople was founded as “New Rome” and recognised as such by the Church. Nor do I believe that God would have or did allow the Eastern half of the Church (and its Petrine sees!) to leave the OTC in the middle ages. Or that the E-W schism was primarily the result of Eastern error or rebellion. Or that the said schism was complete or definitive. Or that Rome’s excommunications or condemnations in general, whether towards individuals or bodies, have always been fair. Or, thus, that the resultant schisms are proof that whoever is not in communion with Rome at any point in time must be outside the OTC. Or that the Church of England committed itself definitively to heresy or intended to be out of communion with the rest of the Church (E and W) in 1559 or since then until the defection over the ordination of women. Or that it rejected, then or since, Papal Primacy properly understood. Or that such primacy has often been fittingly understood on either side. Nor do I believe this set of “disbeliefs” is inconsistent with the pro-Papal one or dogmatically excluded by the RCC.

I have to admit to holding to much of this line of thinking not too many years ago. Now, he doesn't support his beliefs here with facts, so its hard to assess the validity of his view on that basis. I suspect that some of his views on Papal primacy and the Pope being the successor of Peter (and the effect of that) are driven by Roman Catholic apologetic arguments, including those of Leo XIII. Many of these were handled well in this book . Unfortunately there are a number of additional flaws in his reasoning.

Foundation - Cards Anyone?

The major challenge here is that the position of "everybody is okay, we just need to become friends again" is really built on a house of cards. A number of propositions (and suppositions for that matter) are offered which need to all be true in order for the conclusion to be true. Each one of the propositions is pretty weak, and put together there is not really much foundation. So, let's look at some of these.

1. The Pope is incapable of lapsing into error and leaving the OTC - this is the consensus of the Fathers and of Scripture.

As I mentioned above, its hard to refute this without the citations. What Fathers is he thinking of? All that would really be required to disprove this, would be to find that any Pope espoused heresy and was condemned as a heretic. It is true that heretical Popes in the pre-schism period are hard to find (or more accurately those declared to be heretics). However, we do have one, and that is all we need. That is, Pope Honorius . He was declared a heretic, and Popes for many generations afterward pronounced an anathema on him as a heretic. Modern Roman apologists like to assert that he really wasn't teaching heresy, it was a personal opinion, and basically everyone was mistaken about him (including the Popes in subsequent years who declared him to be a heretic). So, while Rome was restored to Orthodoxy with the next Pope, if one Pope could become a heretic, why would he be unable to lead entire Churches into heresy? Remember the Council of Chalcedon? Large chunks of the Church were declared to be guilty of heresy. The separation remains to this day - although there is increasing hope of restoration.


2. Rome has never definitively affirmed heresy

We'll skip Honorius. It doesn't seem fair to keep picking on him. What about the filioque? Why is that not heretical? Heresy in the modern sense has been taken to only mean some basic stuff. So long as you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Trinity, you seem to be good. However, heresy doesn't quite have such a narrow meaning. It is translated in some places (the RSV for instance) as "party spirit" - basically a teaching at odds with the rest of the group. The filioque was added in Spain in order to fight Arianism. It was clearly forbidden by one Pope (Leo III), but then is accepted once politically expedient. Many people tend to draw on Bp. Kallistos Ware's statements that the filioque is not heretical. However, he doesn't say that. All he says is that "There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is not in itself heretical,. and is indeed admissible as a theological opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained." He also acknowledges that most Orthodox believe the filioque to be just that, heretical. It is the Church as a whole that decides on Orthodoxy, not just a Patriarch, or a few theologians. Note also the need to "properly explain" the filioque. I find that to be the case with many Roman innovations. Papal infallibility is a prime example You need a special degree to figure out when the Pope is making an infallible statement. I'll discuss this a bit further down.

3. You have to intentionally hold to heresy, or intentionally leave the Church in order to no longer be a member of the Church. I know of a number of Mormons who think that what they believe is not heresy, and believe themselves to be members of the OTC. Since they do not intend to hold heretical views, nor do they intend to not be a member of the OTC, does that make them a member of the OTC?

If the C o E never intended to leave the Church, which I will grant, did they not intend to separate from Rome? What about the 39 articles? That's not exactly a glowing support of Roman doctrine and dogma. If you intend to separate from Rome, and Rome is part of the OTC (or is the OTC, either way), doesn't separating from them constitute separating from the OTC? If this is not the case, then there would be two true Churches, or three. I suppose this is an attempt at holding to the Protestant invention of the invisible Church. If you want to discuss consensus of the Fathers, find support for this.

Eastern Error

As a brief aside, I do agree that the Schism was not due to Eastern rebellion or error. Since the Orthodox Church is not known for adding things to the faith, accusing them of doing so is a bit challenging. It is amusing that the famed Bull of Excommunication from Cardinal Humbert accused the Patriarch of Constantinople of dropping the filioque from the creed.

The only other error which the East might presumably be guilty of is not holding to a view of Papal primacy in agreement with Rome. The author of the above blog apparently believes that the only issue is the proper understanding of what Primacy means. Well, I can tell you that such primacy, according to Anglicans and Orthodox would, at best, be a Primacy of Honour. History shows us that this is not what Rome means, at all.

Proper Understanding

Fr. Kirby asserts that one of the issues is that Papal primacy is not properly understood, just as "some Orthodox theologians" think that the Filioque needs to be properly understood in order for those who disagree with it to no longer do so. I find it curious that all conflicts with Rome have now become a matter of lack of understanding. That is what allowed for the joint Lutheran declaration (hardly accepted by most Lutherans) on justification.

While much Christian theology is complex, it seems to me that much of what is being discussed here isn't. A good example is Papal infallibility. It seems that this is a simple notion. As I have heard it put, it is that the Pope is infallible when teaching on faith or morals. In order to deal with various pronouncements over the centuries that are problematic, we have added that he must be teaching ex cathedra (with the intent to be teaching with the authority of his office). The challenge comes when you're trying to figure out when that is. Apparently there is some phraseology that is important. However, I can guarantee that you can start a fight among Roman Catholic lay apologists if you ask them if Apostolica Curae (the encyclical declaring Anglican orders null and void) is infallible. Apparently phrases like, "Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void." are not sufficient. Nor is the close of the document, "We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding." Of course, some would declare that it is infallible, but no longer applies as certain Old Catholic Bishops got involved along the way and restored validity to the line. Presumably the defects in order and intent have been corrected as well. However, others have declared that this wasn't an infallible document to begin with.

The other fight you can cause is over whether you can be saved outside the Church. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctum, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." A normal lay person, reading this Bull, would think that you would need to be visibly subject to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, I think you could assume that every Catholic believed just that until Vatican II. It was then that we learned that we simply didn't understand properly. In fact, you can be subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if you don't know it. Imagine what this must mean for the Church of England. They thought that they were breaking free from the Roman Pontiff, but apparently didn't, and have never realized it.

So, the "it needs to be understood properly" is really code word for we didn't mean it, or that doesn't suit us anymore. In that context, how long before the resurrection of Christ simply needs to be understood properly?

Fixing Anglicanism from the Inside

I used to say that all of the time. I'm staying within the Anglican Church in order to reform it from the inside. Then I realized how tremendously egotistical of me. Especially given that the number of AngloCatholics within the Episcopal Church is really quite small. In fact, much of what AngloCatholics believe has really been absent from the Anglican Church from the time of Elizabeth (or shortly thereafter) until the 19th century. As a friend used to point out, if the OTC is either the Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church, and there is one down the street, shouldn't you walk down the street and join it? Rather than trying to change the beliefs of the Church to which you belong?

Fr. Kirby reminds me of me. Desperately trying to rationalize his continuing presence in the Anglican Church, he waves his hands at all of the significant differences between Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Church of England. Popes are incapable of lapsing into heresy, thus the only things they are mistaken about can't be heresy (question begging). The things they are mistaken about they really aren't mistaken about, its just nobody else really understood what Rome meant. To be guilty of heresy you have to want to hold to heresy. To not be in the OTC, you have to want to leave. Just because you walked out the door, and handed in your resignation, doesn't mean you wanted to.

I'm sorry Fr. Kirby. I don't really find your position coherent.

Posted: Tuesday - February 05, 2008 at 04:38 PM   AncientFaith     Previous   Next  

©