… it can be concluded that Anglicanism—except for rare occasions— rejects not the papacy as such, but rather the supremacy of Rome; not the principalitas, but the universal sovereignty that concentrates all power in a sort of universal bishop. In reality one of the cardinal principles of the English reform was precisely the identification of the primacy in a regional or, more specifically, a national context. A primacy of order or of dignity is thus recognized, which nevertheless is not always traced back to the will or direct institution of Christ. Moreover, the papacy must be exercised in a markedly collegial context and is limited to the role of the Roman Pontiff as the Patriarch of the West.
Fr. Adriano Garuti, OFM
Yesterday evening, immediately after the news that white smoke appeared above the Sistine Chapel reached us (via Facebook – signum temporis!), we sat in front of the computer to see the new Bishop of Rome. The beginning of the pontificate of His Holiness Francis is a good occasion to reflect for a while on the Anglican attitude to papacy.
Bishop Pierre Whalon and Pope John Paul II
In his book Always Open. Being an Anglican Today , an excellent introduction to Anglicanism, the Rev. Canon Richard Giles uses a very expressive image to describe our attitude to “Rome, the mother of the Western Church”:
Although we cut the apron strings some time ago, we never forget Mothering Sunday. Sadly, mother cannot yet bring herself to invite us back for Sunday lunch.
In these words you can hear the echo of great bitterness which the majority of Anglicans feel (the more Catholic their spirituality, the more) because of the lack of intercommunion between the Anglican Churches and Rome. Despite all the things we share together, we still cannot gather around the Eucharist table, alas. But in order not to begin typically Anglican (and not only Anglican!) “lamentations”, we should say honestly that the “cutting of the apron springs” about which Canon Giles writes was accomplished in an atmosphere which – from today’s perspective – neither party can boast of. No present day Anglican would agree with the words that were spoken then – what is more, of which, even given the circumstances, we should be ashamed (like for example calling the pope an “Antichrist”). How we saw the “Mother Church” then indeed resembles in many respects how many teenagers fighting for their freedom think of their parents. Let’s take for example Article 19 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, which states:
… the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
We should remember about this when we complain today about Rome making sharp statements concerning us… On the other hand, we should remember also about something else. Fr. Adriano Garuti, a Franciscan, says in his article Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic , from which we also took the motto for this post, that
The “Thirty-Nine Articles” constitute an authoritative exposition of the entire ecclesial body, but they do not assume a normative character with respect to the Anglican faith comparable to that exercised in the Roman Catholic sphere by the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, and they never claimed to be a complete formulation of the faith of the church.
In discussions that we too often have, especially with people with Protestant roots, one is frequently confronted with the charge that “what one says is not in conformity with the 39 Articles of the Church of England”. It is not easy to explain then that the role of the 39 Articles in the Anglican tradition, however important, is incomparable neither with the canons of the Council of Trent, nor with the symbolic books of the Protestant churches. We may remind in this context the famous statement of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, “One canon, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries and the series of the Fathers in that period determine the boundaries of our faith.” The fact that Andrewes doesn’t mention the 39 Articles, which, as a bishop in the Church of England, he had to obey, is very telling.
From the point of view of our topic, the following conclusion of Fr. Garuti is especially important, however:
It cannot be said, however, that the Anglican tradition as a whole intended to break with the greater Catholic tradition with regard to the ministerial hierarchy and its functions: the undeniable break with Rome did not mean a break with catholicity, but rather a desire for reform of the Church from within, with a view to establishing a Church that would be simul catholica et reformata [both Catholic and reformed]…as demonstrated by the different editions of the Book of Common Prayer – …
But what does it mean for our attitude to the ministry of the Bishop of Rome? We found an interesting text about this on the blog of the Rt. Rev. Chandler Holder Jones, SSC, Bishop in the Anglican Province of America (we hope that Bishop Holder Jones, representing another branch of American Anglicanism, will not mind us quoting his words on a blog promoting the Episcopal Church, and that our Episcopal friends won’t mind us quoting him). We find there for example the following:
Relatedly, and surprisingly to most uninformed observers, the Anglican Tradition has historically taken a rather hopeful view of the Papacy, even in spite of the breach with the papal communion which occurred at the beginning of the English Reformation in 1534 during the reign of the infamous King Henry VIII. The Ecclesia Anglicana, separated from Rome and yet retaining the essential catholic character of the Church, has never lost sight of the need for a biblical, patristic, historical, and episcopal primacy based in the Roman Patriarchate of the West.
(Please note also that he speaks of “the infamous King Henry VIII”; being an Anglican not necessarily goes together with sympathy for this ruler, which some, completely mistakenly, regard as the ‘founder of Anglicanism’!)
A bit further on the author writes:
The 1908 Lambeth Conference of Bishops declared on behalf of the entire Anglican Church: ‘there can be no fulfilment of the divine purpose in any scheme of Reunion which does not ultimately include the great Latin Church of the West.’ ‘Catholicism without the Pope is a maimed Catholicism; not, indeed, maimed as a body would be without a head, but maimed as the House of Commons would be without a speaker’ (Bishop KD Mackenzie). With these words uttered at the 1933 Oxford Movement Centenary Congress, an Anglican prelate best summarises the traditional Anglican approach to the role and function of the papacy, a position still maintained today.
Yet this attitude does not mean, of course, that one accepts all the claims of the bishops of Rome. Fr. Francis J. Hall, an Anglican theologian, writes:
Turning to the papal claim, we should distinguish between the ancient and modern elements in it. It is the Vatican position, gradually developed through centuries and finally defined in 1870, that constitutes the main barrier to reunion on the Roman side.
The „dogma” of papal „infallibility” and „universal jurisdiction” of the Bishop of Rome remains from the Anglican point of view a great hurdle on the way to the Church’s unity. But is it an insurmountable hurdle? Fr. Francis saw it differently:
Moreover, the removal of this barrier does not necessarily require a formal repudiation of the Vatican Council, and we ought not to require Rome’s humiliation as the price of reunion. It will suffice if Rome outgrows the objectionable elements of Vaticanism and reinterprets its terms by action that will securely establish Catholic liberties.
An interesting solution to this problem was suggested by the Rev. Prof. K.M.P. Rudnicki, a
Mariavite priest involved in the
Polish Episcopal Network
, in an
interview
published by ekumenizm.pl:
No. We cannot accept the infallibility of a man! Yet I believe that a solution to this problem may be found, and I see in in what the Rev. Prof. Lucjan Balter writes. He says that the dogma of the infallibility has not been fully defined. The First Vatican Council proclaimed that the pope personally – in matters of faith and morals, when he speaks ex cathedra – is infallible in the same way the Church as a whole is infallible. Because of the outbrake of the Franco-Prussian war it was not defined in what degree the church as a whole isinfallbile, because already before the Great Schism is made mistakes! The dogma of infallibility is thus ill-defined, and so – de facto – it doesn’t exist.
In 1999 the document Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission: The Gift of Authority was published, which should be seen as a reaction to the enciclical of John Paul II Ut Unum Sint. We read there among other things that the ministy of the Bishop of Rome is ‘a gift to be received by all the Churches. Anglicans declare in it clearly that they are ‘open to and desire a recovery and re-reception under certain clear conditions of the exercise of universal primacy by the Bishop of Rome.’
The Fathers of the ancient Church left us a great legacy of interesting and important statements about the primacy. Saint Cyprian of Carthage said that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome can and should be a “primacy of love and honour”, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons venerates the Church of Rome as the one which “presides in love”. Returning to the first public appearance of Pope Francis yesterday, we should note that it contained many elements hinting that it is in this spirit that he wants to minister. Probably all spectators noticed his humble attitude, the way he accentuated his dependence on the community of the church, its support, its prayer, and the fact that he has not used the word “pope” even once but consequently spoke of himself as the “Bishop of Rome”. This all makes one hopefull. It would be good, however, if concrete, plabable actins followed words. Let’s pray that our brother in Christ, Servant of the Servants of God the Bishop of Rome Francis be given by the Holy Spirit the wisdom to take them…
