www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Anglicans and the Papacy

Dear Friends,

While on a Christmas House tour with my wife, we stopped into an Anglican parish hall for refreshments (part of the tour).

There I read some of the letters to the editor of an Anglican magazine on a number of issues.

Interestingly enough, a number of these letters were from disaffected Anglicans complaining about the problems in their church and that these problems would have been resolved had they been in "communion with Rome."

They said that the Bishop of Rome, with his absolute authority, would have ensured that the problems confronting the Anglican provinces would have been taken care of, even to the point of removing offending laity, clergy and even bishops.

One of them ended by saying, "We pay lip service to ecumenical talks with Rome - but why aren't we already in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Are we really serious about unity talks?"

I found it all fascinating, to say the least.

Alex

Dear Alex, et al:

Several thoughts (and admittedly I'm thinking big here).

1. Should/would Rome accept communion of what is now known as the Anglican/Episcopal Churches as a separate sui juris Church. In other words, is there room under Cannon Law to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury to act as a de facto (if not de jure) Patriarch?

2. On the civil side, would not our friends in the UK and the Commonwealth have to change their consisutions to allow this to happen? As I understand it, the consitution of the UK requires that the soveriegn be Protestant so as to be able to carry the title "Defender of the Faith."

Interesting.

Yours,

hal

Dear Hal,

Veselykh Sviat!

Yes, ecumenical talks between Anglicans and RC's openly suggested that the Anglican communion ALREADY acted very much like a patriarchate and that an Anglicanism in communion with Rome would be "united but not absorbed" by Rome.

The same is true of ecumenical talks with Lutheranism.

As we know, St Anskar the Apostle to the North once dreamed of a northern Christian centre and patriarchate based at Hamburg.

As for Prince Charles, he doesn't have to be Protestant in order to be King.

He could be Orthodox too . . .

Alex

Alex:

Diakuju! Na vzaimn!

Yours,

hal

Hello,

Of course, and we would call him the Major Archbishop of Canterbury.

Of course, that would require the Anglican Communion to embrace orthodox Catholic doctrine as binding teachings, and not merely as one out of many "flavors of truth".

Well, as part of embracing orthodox Catholic doctrine, the Anglicans would have to abandon the notion that the British Monarch has any position whatsoever in the hierarchy of the Anglican Communion.

I don't see this as a major step for the Anglican Communion itself, however, I do think the British Monarchy will be strongly opposed, and what would the Anglican Communion do with such opposition is well in the realm of speculation.

Shalom,
Memo

Only because the Latin Code does not clearly provide the establishment of sui juris Churches in the Roman (Western) Catholic Church that I disagree.

The Latin Church remains as the sole sui juris Church for the West.

Thus far, erection of sui juris Churches has been limited to the Eastern Churches and the process is govern by the Eastern Code of Canons, where patriarchates or major archbishoprics can be created.

The Anglicans are derived from the West, the Latin Church, and not from any Eastern Church.

I think, at best, if ever the Anglican Communion comes into corporate re-union with the universal Catholic Church, she becomes a ritual Church within the Latin Church, with the Anglican Usage as a starting point. Who knows, an Anglican Rite, the Sarum Rite, or the Celtic Rite, or other differentiating rite may be allowed or revived for the Anglicans.

At the very least, the Church of England will be integrated into the national episcopal conference of the Catholic Church in England and Anglicans worldwide will be integrated into their corresponding national episcopal conferences.

Amado

Dear Memo,

Happy New Year!

Just a comment on your two points.

First of all, there is no need to call a reunited Archbishop of Canterbury "Major Archbishop."

He was always "Metropolitan-Archbishop of Canterbury and all England" and until a Western Patriarchate is approved for them (which the Anglican theologians in dialogue with Rome have contemplated), they can and should stick to their ancient titles along the same lines of "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter."

In addition, they can still be called "Anglicans" as this is what the Church of England was called prior to Henry VIII's schism (i.e. "Anglicana Ecclesia").

They have also developed their own ritual, canonical and theological traditions and popes have favourably commented on Anglican greats like Richard Hooker and others. Roman Catholics visiting the monastic-style family of the Ferrars at Little Gidding in the 1640's commented on how they "put to shame" some of the strictest RC religious orders (actually that quote was from King Charles I).

As for the position of the Monarch in Anglicanism, it was only King Henry VIII who declared himself to be "head of the Church in England."

Today, the Monarch is the "Protector" of the Churches of England and also of Scotland (Presbyterian).

The Queen has NO hierarchical position within Anglicanism as such, but only as the Byzantine Emperor or Tsar of Russia would have had (or Charlemagne etc. in the West).

That is a common misunderstanding among Catholics, and that is why monarchists, like myself, are always ready to offer an explanation of things . . .

God Save The Queen!

Alex

Dear Amado,

In actual fact (you raise an excellent point) one of the things that makes the Anglican tradition distinct in the West is the admixture of Byzantine Christianity.

It was under the Greek Metropolitan of Canterbury, St Theodore of Tarsus, that the Ecclesia Anglicana experienced her golden hey-day.

Churches in England were painted over with bright, Byzantine-style iconography, they all had iconostases that were called "rood-screens" and the study of Greek theology abounded (as it did among a number of Caroline Divines in the 17th century and onwards).

It was because of this enduring connection to the East (also promoted by St John Cassian and the Benedictine/Celtic monastic connection) that the cult of St Thomas of Canterbury was to be found as far East as . . . Armenia!

The Catholic Church of England had a number of liturgical uses including the Rites of Hereford, Bangor, Sarum and York, not including the northern Celtic rite and also the presence of the Norwegian rite of Trondheim on the Channel Islands.

The "Anglican" tradition as compiled by Cranmer was a kind of "blending" of all extant English rites.

We have an Anglican church of St Anne's here in Toronto that is actually a miniature model of St Sophia's Cathedral in Constantinople - magnificently beautiful.

Alex

Dear Alex:

One other salient point under the Latin Code is that it defines a "particular Church" as the "diocese" and not the "national" Chruch, the Bishop of which reigns "supreme" and subject only to the Pope as Supreme Pontiff (although through the Patriarch or Chief Hierarch for the Eastern Churches within the their respective territorial limits).

The national episcopal conferences act as the "collegial" body of all Catholic Bishops (East and West).

Yes, there is always the reference to the "English Church" or to the "Indian Church" as a "national" aggrupation.

Amado

Dear Amado,

But there are cases, and almost all the EC Churches are such, where the Particular Churches are indeed "national" Churches at the same time.

And this has become moreso in our time.

The Anglican communion accepts all of its constituent churches throughout the world, in Asia and Africa as well, as "national churches" and that is how they are organized.

The RC Church of Poland is indeed a "national Church" and has always acted as such, in conjunction with the Polish King etc.

The same is true of the Catholic Church of Spain and the Spanish Empire (that, at one time, decreed that the Immaculate Conception was to be accepted as a doctrine by all Catholics living in the Spanish dominions).

There are other examples of RC national Churches, canons notwithstanding.

Alex

Hi,

But there are currently other Archbishops in the Anglican Communion. If the Archbishop of Canterbury was to act as their Quasi-Patriarch, he would need a higher title, and the current Canon Law in the Catholic Church allows that for Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.

As I see it, either all other Anglican prelates renounce to any title higher than bishop and then the Archbishop of Caterbury assumes a position of Metropolitan, or else the Anglican prelates retain whatever title they want, with the Archbishop of Canterbury assuming that of Major Archbishop or even Patriarch.

Sure.

No problem with that.


I think that even that would have to go.


Doesn't the British Monarch have a say in the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury (or is that the Archbishop of York?)?

If I am right, then that would have to go as well.

Absolutely, and may He keep her out of Church government as well.

Shalom,
Memo

It would be well for someone to translate Dom Lambert Beauduin's essay "L'Eglise Anglicane unie mais non absorbe (my apologies; this program does not accept accent marks) or, if it's already in English, to publish it again in some accessible form. It was originally written nearly 80 years ago.

I've attended celebrations of the Mass according to the Use of Sarum several times in England; my understanding of the matter is that no one has ever forbidden it, so there is no impediment to the ongoing use of the Sarum Missal. The only possible problem with celebrating in English would be that no "approved"! translation exists for the purpose, but that's a small matter. I believe that a Society in London is reprinting the Sarum liturgical books for Catholic use.

Incognitus

Well, not true. According to the Act of Settlement, the Monarch must be a Protestant, his spouse must be a Protestant and any successors must be Protestant. It might have made some sense in 1701 (when England feared the power of Catholic France and the exiled Stuarts) but is really an anachronism today.

Anachronism? Bring back the Stuarts!

Incognitus

Dear Brian,

Actually, constitutional lawyers in Britain have interpreted that to mean that a British Sovereign should not be Roman Catholic understood in terms of a "foreign potentate" from the times of the "troubles" between Rome and England.

Today, British Royalty has open relations with Orthodoxy (and is related directly to Orthodox Royal Saints and Martyrs, as you know).

As one Anglican monarchial scholar once told me, tongue in cheek, "there would be no problem with having an Orthodox King in Britain - the Orthodox are even more anti-papal than the Protestants!"

And, of course, a future King and/or Parliament could change the religious issue.

It was King Edward V that ordered Parliament to drop the anti-Catholic references to the royal oath for his coronation ceremony.

When Parliament refused, the king refused to be crowned until such time as Parliament agreed.

The king said that he had no wish to offend any of his many Catholic subjects who were equal to his Protestant and other subjects.

Alex