Anglican Troubles Reflect The Same Old Reformation Questions

I sort of hit on this earlier today at By Scripture Alone On Full Display in Anglican Controversy

I wanted to touch this in more detail. In a sense there is again nothing new under the sun. It seems to me the questions comes down the age old questions that got the Reformation started.

That is the pitting of Scripture and Holy Tradition versus Scripture alone on one hand. On the other hand as to the Anglican/Catholic discussion are there two Sacraments versus Seven Sacraments. There is also is an interesting issue of authority but not how people think in many cases.

This is not an Anglican bashing post and I think many Anglicans would agree with the conclusions. We might be talking gay marriage , women priest and the such but it is the same old issue.

I hit on in the above link what is so apparent in this debate. In many cases it is the old versus the Scripture Alone/ versus the Catholic/Orthodox view of Scripture and Tradition.

We see that playing out here in grand style. There is very little attention paid to the Church Fathers or Tradition in the matter of sexuality or priesthood for that matter. The Fathers of the Church are waved away as being just men of their times and really have nothing productive to say. There is always the old fallback of if it's not in the Bible I am not paying attention to it.

The progressives in the Anglican Communion have become the ultimate Scripture alone people in some cases when it suits them. Where does Jesus talk about Lesbians!! It is not there so he didn't have a view as it were. It is Scripture Alone on steroids.

I want to spend some time looking at the Archbishops of Canterbury Speech in Rome. Contrary to what some UK Op-ed people I am not sure the focus should be that Rowan Williams went to the heart of the Papacy and laid the smack down to the Vatican.

I don't think we were the intended audience at all and what was said has long term effects for the Anglican Communion. Rowan in effect has made clear a basic theology that he is attaching himself too and therefore he hopes the Anglican Communion.

In reality we are dealing with the age old Catholic versus Anglican Question. Are there two versus seven Sacraments. Also that old question of where TRADITION fits in is in the background

I shall not reinvent the wheel. There have been a series of posts by two former Anglican Priests that look at Rowan's speech and presents for us the real issues. It is worth reading all these post in full.

See Father at Standing on My Head posts at Sacrament or Ministry? , Legal Cohabitation or Sacrament? , and Women's Ordination in Context

Then see De Cura Animarum posts here , here, and here.

What they are talking about might not being what the headlines proclaim but that is what is at the core of this.

Standing on My Head says as to Rowan's speech:

What is revealed by this attitude is the whole shooting match concerning, not just 'women's ministry' but the nature of the priestly ministry, the sacrifice of the Mass, apostolic succession, the validity of the sacraments, and the nature of authority in the church, the nature of human sexuality and therefore the sacrament of marriage. For the Anglicans these things too must be 'of a second order' because women's ordination touches all these matters, and I'm afraid the vicar has expressed the Anglican view all too well, for the typical Anglican doesn't see how all these things are connected, and more troubling, if he does see how they are connected he doesn't really think these other matters are crucial either.

He does not because, as I have outlined in a recent post, the typical Anglican considers all theological expressions to be provisional. They are metaphorical, not real. If a fellow wishes to consider himself a sacrificing priest that is fine for Anglicans, but no one (not even most Anglo Catholics) would argue that such a view is mandatory. That is why the Anglo Catholic is quite happy to be ordained by the same bishop on the same day in the same rite as an Evangelical Anglican whose theology is virtually Presbyterian. Likewise, if a fellow wants to think that his Eucharist is a 'sacrifice', the Anglican attitude is, 'Well if it works for you, that's jolly nice,"

The same applies for apostolic succession, and the validity of the sacraments and the question of where authority lies in the church. The typical Anglican attitude is that these are arcane questions which can never really be answered, so you go ahead and take whatever position seems best to you. That's why the mainstream Anglican is so angry with the Anglo Catholics who will not budge and insist that these are important issues.

Father in this post touches on the huge SACRAMENT issue.

The fact that the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion deny that ordination is a sacrament affects the whole debate about women's ordination and the validity of their orders.

While there are Anglicans who interpret the Articles of Religion in a 'catholic' way, I think the plain reading is that they are a Protestant document intended to repudiate certain elements of the Catholic faith.

That they have done so in the popular Anglican mind, and in the minds of many Anglican priests and theologians, cannot be disputed.I discussed the effect of denying the sacrament of ordination in an earlier post, and it seems that this same problem undermines the Anglican understanding of marriage, and reveals the deep fissure between Anglicanism and Catholicism on this most troubled subject.

The thinking goes like this: If marriage is not a sacrament, then what is it? Anglicans are unsure. Some would say it is a sacrament. Others would follow the Articles of Religion and deny that it is a sacrament, but say that it is a 'sacramental rite' which is graced. Still others would deny that it has a sacramental element at all and that it is simply a state of life allowed by and blessed by God through his church.If marriage is a sacrament, however, then it effects what it signifies.

St Paul says that marriage is a mystery; that marriage is like the relationship between Christ and his Church, and this is one of the supports Catholics have for saying that marriage is a sacrament. In and through the physicality of marriage God's grace is active. The individuals sharing in the marriage are changed through the marriage.

They have a new relationship with one another and a new relationship with Christ. As Scripture says, they are no longer two, but have become 'one flesh'. As in the other sacraments, something has changed. A new reality exists, and if a sacramental marriage exists it is, by its very nature, unchangeable. What God has joined together man cannot divide. Not just 'should not' divide or 'may not' divide, but 'cannot divide'.

However, if Anglicans (and other non Catholic Christians) do not believe marriage to be a sacrament--if there is no real and essential change-- then this indissolubility cannot be assumed. The lifelong nature of marriage then becomes an ideal, but it is possible for a marriage to end and another one to begin because it was never anything more than a blessed contract. If it wasn't a sacrament, then nothing really happened at a mystical and ontological level, and there is no sacred bond to be broken.

This is why so many non-Catholic denominations have quietly let drop any objections to remarriage after divorce. Pastoral reasons dictate a 'forgiving' policy. Without a sacramental theology of marriage this is obviously the best (and arguably the only) way.If however, the marriage is sacramental, as the Catholic Church teaches, then something real and mystically permanent has happened, and to break that bond is not only to break a marriage, but to break a sacrament....and this is why Catholics teach that divorce is so terrible--not only because of the tragic effects in the breakdown of the family, but because a sacrament of grace has been trampled just as certainly as if you had marched into Mass seized the ciborium and chalice and desecrated the host and the precious blood.

The sacramental theology of marriage also has an impact on the very nature of marriage and the marriage act. For a sacrament to be valid we must have proper form and proper matter. The proper matter is a man and woman who intend to contract a sacramental marriage and are free to do so. Consequently, it cannot be a valid sacramental marriage if an impediment exists which means the man and woman are not free to marry. It is obvious also, therefore, that it is simply impossible for two people of the same gender to marry. It might be nice and make people feel 'affirmed' but it isn't a marriage and never will be just as a 'Eucharist' using Coca-cola and potato chips isn't a Eucharist.

Father has much much more to say in the above posts so review all of them. When we look at Rowan's speech through this angle we see the real issues. It is a lot more foundational than the UK headlines of the Pope parking tanks on the Archbishop of Canterbury's lawn.

BUT BUT BUT many Anglicans believe in 7 Sacraments!!! How is that? Well they do. That is the Anglo Catholics do.

In one of the above links a Priest (Flyingvic) from the Church of England comments at length trying to defend all this. He sort of starts out saying Father at Standing On My Head is wrong and misleading but in the end he sort of concedes the point. A few of his comments from the thread:

I'm disappointed in you, Father.You know very well that the Church of England's 39 Articles do NOT deny that Ordination is a sacrament, nor do they deny that Marriage is a sacrament. Your opening sentence is a travesty.To treat the truth in such a cavalier way does you no credit at all.


An Anglican Catechism" is not the 39 Articles.Article 25 makes a clear distinction between the "Sacraments of the Gospel" and the other five, without at all descending to the hair-splitting of sacraments or sacramental rites. If you read the Article as a Protestant then you may certainly have thought that it repudiated the 16th century Catholic understanding of these five sacraments; if you read it as a Catholic then you may equally have thought that it underlined the real difference between the two and the five. THAT was the real purpose of the Articles being framed in the way that they were. If you try to understand them as black and white definitions you do neither yourself nor the cause of inter-church relations any favours.

Let me interject here that I find this "distinction between "Sacraments of the Gospel" , that is Communion and Baptism, and the other five strange. Again as we shall see the old Scripture and tradition argument is the background. These other "Five" sound like they could be viewed as something like Baptist Ordinances.

Someone chimes in and says:
Pardon my simplicity, but the question of how many sacraments exist has a correct answer. It may be 2, it may be 7, or it may be some other number - but it cannot be both 2 and 7. If the Anglican Communion purposely writes up it's articles to obfuscate rather than clarify the number of sacraments, then it's got no business being in the sacrament business.It makes no sense to me. If the Churches of the Anglican Communion believe they know how many sacraments exist (and I assert they should if they're administering them), how can they in good conscience let their members be deceived over this issue. If 2 is the correct number, they're letting some members believe they're receiving sacraments when they aren't. And if 7 is the correct number, then some members are missing out on God's grace.

Well I suppose that is a good question. But Flying Vic gets to the point:
Brian, the Article expresses the historical tension between those who want to draw their faith only from what is revealed in scripture and those who are content that tradition should stand alongside it. Because, therefore, the Article makes the distinction between the two "Sacraments of the Gospel" and the other five, it is left open to the individual which way they choose to read and understand it: to accept two only, or to accept as sacraments all seven. The Article, quite deliberately, gives Anglicans that option.

There we have it!!!!! That pretty much sums up the problem and what is at stake. Again read the whole comment thread.

Now to the Catholic mind , and we are a argumentative bunch, the above scenario seems like a impossible state of affairs. How do Sunday School teachers deal with this we think.

Now this has been workable (this being the famous Elizabethan Settlement) in the past for many reasons. First this is a nice "middle way" .

I think we sometimes forget the role of the King or Queen in this.

She or He is the Governor of the Church. In fact the Monarch is the DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.

This is important fact to recall when we think of the British Empire and it's successor the Commonwealth.

Anglicans of a Catholic viewpoint know their history. Why go through all those bloody Anglo Catholic and Protestant English wars again. We love our country. Therefore a solution!! There are reasons why UK Catholics are hesitant about any move for Catholics to be able to be the monarch. They realize that to disassociate the Monarch from the Church of England might cause much more general harm to Christian faith in Britain and elsewhere. It is also linked for them to love of Country.

The problem is ,though the current Queen is known to be a good Christian Woman, she is generally been AWOL for decades in governing her Church. Plus as we can see the Monarchy has seen better days. Further as we see "British" and "English" Cultural pride is on the decline. Thus we see problems.

Is it no wonder that the progressive revolutionaries in the former Colonies (now the USA) are the first to overthrow the established order with their damn the torpedo's and full speed ahead attitude.

Who cares if the Anglican Communion is broken up!! In fact what is disturbing is that it appears many American Episcopalians do not view their core ID as Anglican anymore. Since they were the first to detach themselves from the Monarch this makes sense. So many pretty much don't care if the Queen or the Archbishop of Canterbury is upset or a bunch of meddlesome African Bishops in the old Commonwealth are fit to be tied.

We are Americans Damn it. The progressive Episcopalians branch may rant against American Exceptional ism but they are a practicing theological brand of this in spades. They just call it now "prophetic voice"

The other issue was at the very least that the non Catholic Holy Tradition types would have a traditional Protestant understanding of such things as marriage. The Anglo Catholics could never envision the REVOLUTION that would turn that on it's head. So they could disagree on many matters but elements of the Core Doctrine would remain. That has now ceased!!

Returning to Rowans speech we see I think what is important. See William Tighes comment here (Comment two). I think he is correct. That for better or worse Rowan is now taking a much more Evangelical outlook in this debate. That is one reason he can with a wave of his hand call all these matters secondary.

Where that leaves Anglo Catholics when the dust settles is the real question. Which I think shows the POPE knows what he is doing. It is clear to see that Anglo Catholics cannot survive in the Anglican Communion in many places under the current states of affairs. It is also clear , to me at least, they will have difficulty surviving under a new structure where the Protestant Orthodox faction rule. It seems that the Archbishop of Canterbury is setting the way for what viewpoint shall have power.

Can one be a Anglo Catholic and not be connected to the Anglican Communion? What is the point? Why not come to Rome under the very liberal provisions offered?

We shall see what happens.