Papal Bull

Regarding the Pope’s July 10th DOCUMENT REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF CHURCH DOCTRINE, I believe much more needs to be said, especially after reading the comments to the piece that Albion posted earlier today.

To begin with, the Document that declared Anglican orders invalid is not a Roman Catholic dogma. The much misunderstood document Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by then Cardinal Ratzinger, mentioned Anglican orders strictly for the purpose of distinguishing the level of authority it has from dogma. In short, the position is that any teaching issued by the Magesterium in Rome must be treated as infallible by faithful Catholics, even if it does not rise to the level of dogma. In the same category as Apostolicae Curae (the 1896 Papal Bull which declared our orders invalid) therefore, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger placed canonization of saints. In fact, certain canonizations have been rescinded: Saint Christopher was “uncanonized” long ago (since he probably never even existed), and even the case of Thomas A' Kempis had to be reopened since it was alleged that the scratches inside his coffin (assumed dead by mistake like many people prior to the age of modern medicine) indicated that he died in a state of fear- a rather harsh conclusion, since no one wants to suffocate. Nonetheless, the fact is, then Cardinal Ratzinger was opening the possibility that Apostolicae Curae could be rescinded, however subtle his approach was, but that faithful Catholics need to abide by its teaching. It is not dogma in the Roman Catholic Church, and never has been.

Also, in the archives of this blog from April 2006, it is easy to find my reasons for dismissing Apostolicae Curae, as well as further apologetics by Fr. Kirby to the same effect. Nothing much needed to be added to Saepius Officio (Archbishops of England, 1897) and The Question of Anglican Orders by Dom Gregory Dix (1945). Also worth consulting is Absolutely Null and Utterly Void by Fr. John Jay Hughes, a Roman Catholic priest who advocated in favor of reopening the question, and who was critical of the whole process of “investigation” that took place in the production of Apostolicae Curae.

Now, let me put forth a proper Anglican position on this whole document of July 10th.

First of all, it is time for some of our dear Anglo-Catholic brethren to stop trembling before the seat of Rome, as if we accept their standards as our own. It has always been the Anglican way to give the scriptures top priority in every matter of Faith and Doctrine, and to interpret the scriptures in accord with the earliest Patristic teaching, and the known beliefs of the ancient Church. The Affirmation of St. Louis has developed this into an adherence to the Seven Ecumenical Councils, with logic that follows from the earlier Anglican doctors, though concluding more boldly than the English Reformers and the Divines managed to do.

Second, we are not a Christian community “born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century.” The first Archbishop of Canterbury (although we are not part of the Canterbury Communion in its present shape- yes I know) was Saint Augustine, not Thomas Cranmer or even Matthew Parker. The Church of England, especially in “round two” under Elizabeth, did not see itself as a new church, but, rather as the same Church of England, and it preserved much more of the Catholic faith and form than the Continental Protestants did.

Third, our answer to Rome is that, instead of this category, we belong to the other category they mentioned (“The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. 'Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all - because of the apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds,' they merit the title of 'particular or local Churches,' and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.”), and then only at the very least. For instead of being merely “a true particular church” we are, with them and the Orthodox, “One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” “I believe in the Catholic Church,” is credo with us, and with no regard for whether or not the Magesterium in Rome accepts the fact. Let them say, if they must, to another member of the Body of Christ, “we have no need of thee.” We do not meekly reply, “then I am not of the Body.” We say, instead, “We do have need of thee, and you have need of us as well.”

Nonetheless, the communities that actually were born out of the Reformation, instead of simply having been affected by it (as was the case with the Church of England), namely, the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Zwinglians, along with Anabaptists, and then later along with Methodists and others, fit quite nicely into the definitions in the papal document. We also believe “that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

To return to my first point, it is time for Anglicans to rediscover the power of their own tradition, and to affirm its essentially Catholic character. In fact, we do have an Evangelical strain in our tradition, even a Protestant strain. However, these are because our Catholic beliefs remain pure from Roman innovations, such as Universal Primacy and the very recent novelty of Papal Infallibility. Frankly, if it is not in the Bible, it is not necessary for salvation, and every true doctrine may be proved thereby. Universal Primacy and Papal Infallibility cannot be proved by “most certain warrant of holy scripture.”