Skip to comments.New Anglican Blog: "English-Speaking Christianity"
Posted on 12/28/2007 5:29:44 PM PST by sionnsar
To the Traditional Anglican ping list: I discovered a (fairly) new Anglican blog today, run by a fellow whose other blog I had read for a long time, and thought some of you might find this interesting. English-Speaking Christianity
“But the greatest debt that we owe to the Orthodox Churches, next to the Creeds and definitions of Faith, is the example that they set before us of a Church which is unquestionably Catholic without being Papal: which has preserved the Creed, the Sacraments, the Hierarchy, and the life of Catholic devotion, in spite of the most severe and protracted dangers and difficulties, without Roman addition or Protestant subtraction. In their liturgy and their other services we see and feel a corporate devotion which is unsurpassed in Christendom; in the bishops of their venerable sees we behold true successors of the Apostles by whom the Gospel was first preached to the world; in the sufferings of their martyrs and confessors, such as Chrysostom of Smyrna, Tikhon of Moscow, Benjamin of Petrograd, we who have not for centuries “resisted unto blood, striving against sin,” recognize the genuine inheritance of the martyrs of old; and in the friendship and love which they continually show towards us, both as a Church and as individuals, we perceive the fulfillment of the words of the beloved disciple, “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue: but in deed and in truth.”
Interesting observation. I’ll read the other articles later. In any event it is a blog worth bookmarking, I think.
Interesting to see this posted on the site...
We of the Anglican Society stand, first of all, for the Catholic Religion. We are Catholics, not only in the strict sense, in which all members of the Church of England are Catholics, but also in the popular or party sense. We accept the Creeds, we obey the laws, we use the sacraments, of the Church Universal, and of the Anglican Communion in particular. We are trying to live the Catholic life as it is everywhere understood. For instance, we believe ourselves bound to assist in the offering of the Holy Eucharist on all Sundays and chief Holy Days: and though we do not want to enforce our practice on our fellow Churchmen, we do, ourselves, make our confession to a priest. We hold that the Church’s marriage law is of Divine command. We keep the feast and fast days, and the other rules of the Church. If anyone can claim the title of Catholic, we can.
This is where our position differs from that of the “Westminster Group.” There is no opposition between us and that party; some of us, probably, are members of it. But the Westminster Group is composed, and is intended to be composed, of people of different views, agreeing to put “Church before party.” We are not a combination of people of different views. We are agreed about our “views,” and we are out to propagate them. Also, the Westminster Group is a party, with its own candidates for the Church Assembly. Our work does not lie in that field. We are not out to promote any special legislation, but to promote a particular outlook, a particular way of carrying out the existing laws. That is another difference between us and the Westminster Group. We are not the same kind of society.
But if we are Anglo-Catholics, why are we not content with the other Anglo-Catholic Organizations, the Church Union, S.Y.A., C.B.S., and so on. Why form a new society?
Because we think that there is a great deal in the Anglo-Catholic Movement which is neither Catholic nor “Anglo.” We are inside the Anglo-Catholic Movement, not outside, and our aim is to maintain and to propagate its true principles, and to fight against, and if possible destroy, certain errors which have been foisted into it.
To explain clearly what I mean, I must go back into history four hundred and twenty years.
. . . .
There was the way of Luther, which was Revolution. The existing Church was done away with, the new national or sectarian bodies, without any claim to historic connexion with the old Church, were set up in its place. The standard of doctrine was the Bible as interpreted by each individual: which meant, in practice, by the great Reformers and their successors.
There was the way of Loyola, which was Counter-Reformation. The most scandalous of the abuses were removed; the existing doctrinal system, with its medieval additions to the original faith, was re-affirmed and declared irreformable: the standard of faith was asserted to be Scripture and Tradition, interpreted by the Pope: the central authority of Rome was enormously strengthened, and at the same time purified; great efforts were made to educate the clergy, to raise their spiritual level, and to identify the Catholic and Roman religion with the best learning of the time. At the same time, intellectual and political freedom were severely restrained, and the Church became identified with obscurantism and autocracy, with all that is associated in our minds with the Pope, the Jesuits and the Inquisition.
All over Europe, these two camps faced one another, as they do still, Luther and Loyola, Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the Bible and the Mass. We believe that both were wrong; that though each produced great saints, and though there is still much to be learned from both, both were one-sided, and therefore false, and that the lamentable state of Christendom to-day is chiefly due to these two great aberrations from the primitive faith.
But there is a third way, which the Church of England, half-consciously, with much stumbling and inconsistency, pursued in isolation. Here the ancient Church remained, with many of the ancient abuses: but there was no irreformable Council, and no bolstering up of medieval accretions. The standard of faith was the Bible, as interpreted, not by the individual, but by the ancient undivided Church, and, within those limits, by the Church of England. Hindered by all kinds of obstacles of which her isolation was not the least, and by the presence in her midst, and even among her rulers, of many who did not accept, or did not even understand her principles, the English Church, by the special providence of God, preserved for the modern world the Catholic Faith without medieval accretions or irreformable decrees; the Mass and the open Bible; the sacramental system with intellectual freedom.
. . . .
Now it is this that we stand for: the principles, the outlook of Anglicanism, as it was developed by the Caroline Divines, as it reached its full development in the Oxford Movement, as it cams to terms with the modern world in the “Lux Mundi” group. We stand for the inheritance of Andrewes and Laud, of Bramhall and Ken, of Keble and Pusey, of Church and Moberly and Scott Holland: and our principles may be summed up thus:—
1. The supremacy in matters of faith of Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Councils of the Undivided Church.
2. The right and duty of the Church to accommodate its teaching to modern knowledge, within the limits of the Catholic Faith.
3. The right of national churches to govern themselves, and to decide, for their own members, all questions of doctrine and discipline, without interference, within the limits set by Holy Scripture, the doctrinal decrees of the Councils based upon it, and the necessity of preserving the validity, or universal recognition, of Sacraments.
In saying this, we do not ignore the faults of our Church: of which the gravest is, that she has lost the English people. Historically, that loss was the consequence of the 18th century, not of the 16th: the result, not of Anglican principles, but of the fact that the Church has never had a fair chance to develop those principles on a large scale, and with freedom from political control.
The Oxford Movement is the starting point of Anglican Church life as we know it. What was the Oxford Movement? James Anthony Froude, M. Thureau-Dangin, and Mr. Spencer Jones alike assure us, that it was the belated appearance in England of the Counter-Reformation. The best authorities, however, from Dean Church to Canon Ollard, have shown clearly that the Oxford Movement had nothing to do with the Counter-Reformation, but was based on completely different principles. And what we are here to fight, by every means in our power, is the invasion of the Anglican Churches by the influence of the Counter-Reformation, founded as it is on the Council of Trent.
That Council is the basis of nearly all we call Romanism as distinct from Catholicism. It introduced a new principle, contrary to the teaching of the Fathers, when it set Tradition, as an independent source of dogma, alongside Holy Scripture, and gave Rome the right to decide what is true tradition. On this foundation it proceeded to make a number of new dogmas necessary to salvation, none of which can be proved from Scripture, and some of which are contrary to Scripture: and to settle questions of discipline irreformably, so as to limit the liberty of local churches and of individuals. It declared itself infallible, and consequently has been ever since an insuperable barrier to re-union. Our three principles which I mentioned before are all contrary to the decrees of Trent: for it has
1. set Tradition alongside Scripture as an additional source of dogma;
2. given the Pope the power to limit intellectual freedom, a power used by Pius IX in the Syllabus Errorum (1864), which declared war on all modern thought, and by Pius X in the anti-Modernist Oath, which enforced Fundamentalism in the Roman Communion;
3. made all local churches and hierarchies the slaves of Rome, so that all their affairs, even to the minutest details, are controlled from the centre.
Gallicanism became confined to the maintenance of special privileges for national churches in certain countries, and so was a mere survival after Trent, and was only kept in being by the power of the Kings of France; it was finally destroyed by the Vatican Council. The Infallibility and Universal Episcopate of the Pope, decreed by the Vatican Council, are the logical corollaries of Trent; the Old Catholics, when they rejected them, were compelled to reject the authority of Trent too, and this alone is what has made re-union between them and us possible.
. . . .
Our repudiation of Trent, and of Tridentine principles, methods, and atmosphere, in doctrine, discipline, and devotion, must have an outward and visible sign. This we find in the English Use.
Let me be quite clear about this. We are not medievalists. We do not advocate all the ceremonial used in Salisbury Cathedral in the 14th century, still less the re-introduction of the Sarum Rite.
I have the greatest respect for the ancient and illustrious Church of Sarum in whose cathedral, I am happy to say, the vestments are worn and the altars are all arranged according to the English Use: but it is Sarum of the 20th, not the 14th century!
The English Use is the Book of Common Prayer, with such ornaments and ceremonies as were in use in England when it was first made, and are capable of being used with it. We ardently maintain the right of the English Church to develop her rites, ceremonies and ornaments, as she chooses, and for that and other reasons most of us welcome the Liturgy of 1928: but we insist that the point at which to begin is the point which our development had reached when it was interrupted by Calvinism, namely 1549, and not any later developments in the Churches of the Counter-Reformation.
The reason that we insist on the English Use is not only that it is our duty as Catholics to obey our lawful superiors, who are in our case the Synods of Canterbury and York, or other Anglican provinces: nor only because it is far more beautiful, as well as on the whole more practical, than the ill-fitting ceremonies and ornaments borrowed from foreign models; (some of which even Father Adrian Fortescue calls “eighteenth century bad taste,” and which the most intelligent Roman ritualists are trying to get rid of); but also, because the English Use is the outward and visible sign of our principles. When I see an “English Altar” with riddels and two candles on the mensa, my thought is not, “This is correct,” or even “This is beautiful,” but “Here they evidently believe in the principles of the Oxford Movement and not in those of the Counter-Reformation.”
Is this insular, or schismatical? Only if you believe, as I fear great numbers of Anglo-Catholics do believe subconsciously, that Romanism is “the real thing,” and that outside the English-speaking world all Christians worth mentioning are Romanists.
. . . .
Neither Anglo-Catholics nor Romanists carry on their propaganda by addressing the reason. It is the imagination and the herd instinct by which people are caught. We must be constantly teaching, positively not controversially, the greatness and the splendour of the Anglican position, the romance of Anglican history; we must never suffer the contempt of anything as only Anglican, which is only too common; we must use the word Catholic to mean that which is primitive, Eastern, and Anglican, and not Tridentine, in opposition not only to what is Puritan but to what is Romanist. We must be always suggesting that our principles and our practice are both Catholic and up-to-date. It is really rather Late Victorian to have six candles on the altar, and to fill your sanctuary with knick-knacks, like those in a French church, the ecclesiastical analogues of the antimacasser and the aspidistra!
. . . .
If then we make our boast of the Anglican name, it is not out of any Jingoistic spirit, but because we believe that the Anglican Churches, in spite of all their faults and defects, have been given, with others, the task of propagating that which the world needs. And it is in this spirit that we venture to use the lines of George Herbert on the British Church:—
“But dearest Mother, what these miss,
The mean Thy praise and glory is,
And long may be.
Blessed be God, Whose love it was
To double-moat thee with His grace,
And none but thee.”
There has always been a strong strain of anti-Catholicism in the English church (mostly political in origin). But it is odd to see it in the "Anglo-Catholics" who usually avoid it like the plague.
The Anglican Black Legend lives on . . . .
There has always been a strong strain of anti-Catholicism in the English church (mostly political in origin). But it is odd to see it in the "Anglo-Catholics" who usually avoid it like the plague.
I think that you need to place the passage in the historical context of 1931 and the objective at that time of carving out an Anglo-Catholic identity within the C of E. As you know, Anglo-Catholicism is no longer entirely anchored to Canterbury, especially if one considers the Continuing Anglican movement that originated in the 1970s. Freed from a need to serve as apologists for "the English Reformation", Anglo-Catholic thought seems to be developing a greater self-awareness as an English speaking analog to Eastern Orthodoxy.
“The characterization here of Catholicism is a total straw-man, and almost entirely inaccurate.
There has always been a strong strain of anti-Catholicism in the English church (mostly political in origin). But it is odd to see it in the “Anglo-Catholics” who usually avoid it like the plague.
The Anglican Black Legend lives on . . . .”
Seems to me more a characterization of “Romanism” rather than Catholicism. I can’t say that Anglicanism ever attained that sort of Catholicism in the West that the first article claims for it. I simply am not familiar enough with it to know. But I do recognize some of the same attitudes which mark and have marked Orthodoxy for a couple of thousand years,... and for and from a period long, long before the Great Schism. That’s not anti-Catholicism, AM. If its “anti” anything, its anti-Romanism.
Many of the French Huguenots who fled here during the 1600’s joined the Dutch Reformed Church and/or became Anglicans...
please add me to your PING List...
“...Anglo-Catholic thought seems to be developing a greater self-awareness as an English speaking analog to Eastern Orthodoxy.”
Some say that the so called “Western Rite” of the Antiochian Church is just such an English speaking Orthodoxy. I thoroughly disagree. That said, a true English speaking Orthodoxy would be quite wonderful. Personally I am convinced that it existed and flourished in the Celtic Church until that was overwhelmed by Rome. Could it be re-established without being simply a museum piece? I don’t know. 1000 years after Rome overcame Orthodoxy in England and Scotland, it also pretty much wiped out the praxis and theology of the Maronites over in Lebanon. Its being consciously restored now and it will be a long process. The Maronites have the advantage of the Orthodox and the Melkites being right there with examples of the ancient praxis and mindset. There is no true Celtic Church left and London is a long way from Athens.
Sorry . . . that explains a lot.
Charles Kingsley's generation were still alive and smarting from the defection of John Henry Newman et al.
Never mind. < g >
Like the Druids, it's whatever you want it to be, as should be apparent from both the Anglos and the Presbys managing to use it at the same time.
And my apologies for the lack of clarity, but when I say "Catholic" with a big "C", I mean the Big Bad Bishop of Rome and all his entourage, while "catholic" with a little "c" means the Church Universal.
Well, different people use history for their own different purposes. Rome’s version of history, the one where the fullness of The Church is found in one man and all the local dioceses and national or regional churches are merely franchises of the Roman home office is a version Roman has, until quite recently, been peddling ever since the Great Schism. Now, because it is so intent on reunion with Holy Orthodoxy, it no longer presses that definition of The Church.
As for the Celtic Church, as one of the articles on the blog points out, monasticism in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales was distinctly Eastern. It bore little resemblance to Western Benedictine style monasticism. The ties of the monks at Iona and elsewhere with the monks in the Desert between Egypt and Jerusalem is very well documented. The Conciliar/Synodal system prevalent in the British Isles before the arrival of Augustine at Canterbury, a system recognizable as thoroughly Eastern and thus Catholic stands in stark contrast to the pyramidal system set up under Rome’s local managers.
I am not saying, AM, that I am convinced for one minute that any form of modern Anglicanism is that ancient Celtic Catholicism. In fact, I think it is at best a pale imitation, but it has been my experience that Episcopalians/Anglicans who come to Orthodoxy have a much easier time and come to understand Orthodoxy and its mindset much, much quicker than converts from Roman Catholicism. This is counter intuitive because of course Latin theology and Orthodox theology are pretty much the same, but the mindsets are 180 degrees off each other. The way we live the Faith and respond to it are opposite. The Anglicans seem to get that almost immediately. It takes Latins as long, sometimes longer, as Evangelicals to understand the Orthodox “phronema”. There is something of a vestigial Orthodoxy lurking there in Anglicanism. I can only assume its a reflection of a long past Eastern way of looking at The Faith.
Our local Orthodox parishes here are extremely parochial and don't welcome 'outsiders'. It never even crossed my mind to consider it, even though I have Orthodox (Greek) friends they have never invited me to church. The Melkites (nominally under the Roman rite) are far more welcoming, but their parish is up the other side of Alpharetta.
Your Roman 'version of history' is just a wee bit exaggerated, don't think that's fair. We'll never get the two lungs of the Church back together with that attitude!
“Our local Orthodox parishes here are extremely parochial and don’t welcome ‘outsiders’. It never even crossed my mind to consider it, even though I have Orthodox (Greek) friends they have never invited me to church.”
I am surprised to hear this. The GOA Metropolis of Atlanta is one of the fastest growing Orthodox metropolises through conversion in the country. I will say that it is uncommon for Orthodox to invite Roman Catholics to a Liturgy or a devotion except perhaps during Great Lent. Aside from the liturgical history aspects and perhaps some cultural ones, there’s nothing sacramentally different going on in an Orthodox Church from what is going on in a Latin Rite Church. In other words, it likely wouldn’t occur to an Orthodox Christian to invite a Latin because there’s no real religious reason for it. You are all fine where you are. The same cannot be said for others, however.
Now, the Melkites; they are wonderful, friendly people, as most Christian Arabs are. We have several who attend our Divine Liturgy regularly as there is no Melkite parish in this state and they don’t feel comfortable in the one Uniate and many Latin Rite parishes here. By the way, you’ll see nothing different at a Melkite Divine Liturgy than you would see at my parish. You might hear the pope commemorated.
“Your Roman ‘version of history’ is just a wee bit exaggerated, don’t think that’s fair. We’ll never get the two lungs of the Church back together with that attitude!”
I sincerely doubt we will live to see that, though it won’t be for lack of trying on the part of the present pope and most of the patriarchs. The laity simply won’t accept it, on either side. It will take several generations of honest talk among monastics and clergy and laity for anything like reunion to have a chance. For example, if the majority of Latins believe that the pope is the infallible vicar of Christ on earth with immediate ordinary jurisdiction even over you and me, and no Orthodox person alive on earth today believes or ever will believe that, how do we reunite? On the other hand, if your sacraments and ours are equally licit and efficacious, what difference does unity make to you and me? I feel no compulsion to receive communion at a Roman Catholic mass and I suspect I am safe in concluding that you feel no compulsion to receive in an Orthodox Church. Do either of us seriously doubt that “salvation” can be found within either particular church? If not, what difference does the fact of the schism make to you and me as we look at each other? I say none.
Very good point.
But at a minimum, in the bad times to come, we may need to work together more closely.
“But at a minimum, in the bad times to come, we may need to work together more closely.”
Precisely the point of the MP and its a very good one. Greeks didn’t have to become English to fight the Nazis. The same holds true for the present and coming struggle.
While I have a different view on the continuity of Anglicanism from its roots in Celtic Christianity, seeing it as a current (often quiet or subtle, even underground at times) through English speaking Christianity, older than all of those Celtic crosses; conversations like this are wonderfully edifying and make posting all of these threads worthwhile.
Growing up I never noticed anything particularly Orthodox about Anglicanism though the old people always said that it was “English Orthodoxy”. What I did know was that the Anglican priests in town were friends of the family, another was a neighbor at our summer cottage and the chaplain at my prep school was an Episcopal priest (a wonderful man with a wonderful wife...they are still wonderful!). In all honesty this sort of Orthodox subtext I’ve seen in Anglicanism comes from maybe the past 20 years seeing converts into Orthodoxy from TEC and for the past few years reading Anglican writings here and elsewhere on the internet and interacting with people like you guys.
You know where else I see more or less the same Orthodox foundations? Conservative Lutheranism and for the same reasons.
Each and every local custom (like the Padstow Hobby Horse, or the Mummer Plays, or the Britannia Coconut Dancers) is always assigned roots in the dim, dark, British past, where blue-painted Britons and gold-torqued Druids roam amid ancient dolmens.
Don't get me wrong, it's charming and I love it, it's so quintessentially English. But it exists quite independent of and even despite any historical evidence.