[Question:]{.underline} Can one be now Anglican and Catholic at the same time?
[Answer:]{.underline} The November 4, 2009 Apostolic Constitution of Pope Benedict XVI opened up a new path for Anglicans “to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately” (Anglicanorum coetibus). It is a revolutionary new approach to the problem of “separated brethren”, and one which some have called the Church’s boldest move since the reformation.
The novelty here is that Anglicans are being treated in the same way as the schismatic Eastern Orthodox when they return to the true Church. They will be allowed to retain their Anglican identity at the same time as becoming Catholic. They will be canonically and liturgically distinct from the rest of the Catholic Church, and will consequently be allowed their own parishes, bishops, married priests, liturgical and spiritual customs. This is normal for the Eastern rite Christians who return from schism to the bosom of the Church, for their liturgy, spirituality and traditions are ancient, just as those of the Latin rite. Moreover, they are essentially schismatics, not heretics, the few heresies being of recent origin and easy to correct (such as the denial of Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility).
Is this a just and correct analogy? A careful examination shows a multitude of differences:
1) There is first of all the motivation. The majority of those who request to enter into the Catholic Church have separated themselves from the Anglican “Communion”, such as it is, not so much because of their rejection of Anglicanism itself, but because of the new immoral orientation of the Anglican church since 1991,. It is in particular that it has opened the “priesthood” and “episcopacy” to women and active homosexuals, and blessed same sex unions, all of which are manifestly opposed to the Bible, foundation principle of Protestantism.
2) The second major difference is that Anglicanism has invalid orders and consequently no other sacraments than baptism and matrimony, unlike the Orthodox who have all seven valid sacraments.
3) A third difference is that Anglicanism is from its very origin entirely heretical and protestant. From the time of Thomas Cranmer down, all the Anglican divines embrace the theories of Luther and the other Protestant reformers. Anglicanism truly is a form of Protestantism, which is why intercommunnion with all protestant sects has always been accepted. If it is true that the Oxford movement in the mid 19^th^ century, brought a return towards a more traditional form of spirituality, worship and piety, this was not a rekindling of interest in Catholic aspects of Anglicanism, for these never existed. It was a discovery of some of the treasures of the Catholic Church. However, these high church Anglicans, as they became called, did not follow Cardinal Newman’s conversion of 1845, but chose to stay Anglican. High Church Anglicans then did not have the courage to convert to the true Church, just as now.
4) A fourth difference and consequence of the fact that Anglicanism is a protestant sect, is that it has no doctrinal authority or unity. It is commonly said, somewhat cynically, that there are as many different brands of Anglicanism as there are Anglicans. It is this broad latitude that they like, so that each one can chose his religious practice for himself.
5) A fifth difference is that Anglicanism does not have the spiritual and monastic Tradition of the Eastern rites. In fact, it is based upon the Lutheran denial of justification and sanctification by grace. It was the founder of Anglicanism, Henry VIII, who was responsible for the destruction of 1,000 monasteries in England. If in the past century some little effort has been made to introduce some spiritual practices and form some religious communities, it is only by the rubbing off of some Catholic spirituality, not because it is an Anglican tradition.
6) A sixth difference is that there is in Anglicanism no liturgical uniformity. The entirely protestant prayer books of 1549 and 1662 pretended to give such uniformity, but they have been supplanted in recent years, and the high church Anglicans have in large part rejected or adapted them, following a variety of combinations between the new Anglican liturgy, and certain borrowed uses such as resurrecting the old Sarum rite in use in England before the Reformation, or the Tridentine rite in English, or the New Mass. There is no such thing as an Anglican liturgical Tradition, if it not be the 1662 prayer book.
Why, then, would the Pope be so determined to treat them in the same way as the Eastern Orthodox? He gives the explanation very clearly in this very Apostolic Constitution; namely the new definition of the Church of Christ given by Vatican II. It is said to “subsists in” the Catholic Church, rather than to be identical to it. It is for this reason that divisions among the baptized are to be considered as divisions within the Church, and are considered to harm the mark of unity that characteristizes the true Church. Hence it is that Benedict XVI states in Anglicanorum coetibus that “every division among the baptized in Jesus Christ wounds that which the Church is and that for which the Church exists”. Hence it is that unity amongst the baptized is an absolute to be sought after at any cost, so much so that it is now “unity in diversity” that is the goal to be sought after. Traditional Catholic teaching makes the Faith, worship and sacraments the absolute, that determine the unity of the true and Catholic Church, as can be seen from the definition of the Church in the catechism. The separation of heretics and schismatics, as deplorable and sad as it might be, in no way harms the Faith, worship, sacraments and hierarchical authority because the Church of Christ is identical to the Roman and Catholic Church.
The consequences of this urgent need for a false unity with little real foundation cannot be acceptable to the Catholic mind. Hence are some of them:
-
There is to be no conversion properly speaking, with abjuration of heresy, public profession of the Catholic Faith and absolution from the censure of excommunication. It is simply stated that the lay faithful “originally part of the Anglican Communion, who wish to enter the Personal Ordinariate, must manifest this desire in writing.” (IX) There is no admission of fault in being outside the one true Church, nor request to be admitted into the one true Church.
-
There is no profession of Faith in any of the articles of Faith that have been denied by the Anglican church for 450 years. All that is required is the implicit acceptance of this statement: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic Faith professed by members of the Ordinariate”(I, 5) . This 1993 Vatican II catechism is quite ambiguous, especially on points of doctrine in which protestants disagree with the Catholic Church, and the implicit acceptance of this statement is something quite different than the oath condemning all the protestant heresies found in the Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pius IV.
-
Anglicans are allowed to retain their Anglican liturgical books and prayers, their Anglican spirituality and pastoral customs: “The ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church” (III). The small proviso of approval by the Holy See does not take away from the profoundly novel character of this provision that considers anti-Catholic Protestantism and liturgy to be a tradition that is to be maintained within the Catholic Church. The document goes on to state that all of this is a “precious gift” and “a treasure to be shared”. What an insult to Catholics such as St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher and St. Edmund Campion who gave their lives rather than become Anglican, and to true converts such as Cardinal Newman, who willingly, but necessarily, abandoned the invalid, heretical protestant Anglican ceremonies to become true Catholics.
-
Married priests are to continue to be a way of life in this ordinariate, as in the Anglican church. Married ministers who enter the Ordinariate can be ordained, and future priests who are already married can be ordained. This is a very effective way of undermining the treasure of clerical celibacy, one of the great outward signs of the Church’s holiness. If married bishops cannot be accepted, such men can become priests with jurisdiction of an Ordinary all the same (Cf. Note published by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on October 20), thus getting around the “problem” of clerical celibacy that these Anglicans are not willing to embrace.
The tragedy of all this is that these Anglicans will be considered as Catholics and as Anglicans at the same time, thus blurring greatly the distinction between truth and error, Faith and infidelity, submission and independence. Cardinal Levada himself admits this, when he describes the tenuous and vague basis of this unity: “They have declared that they share the common Catholic Faith as it is expressed in the catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. (What does that mean? Papal infallibility? Real power of government, or just a place of honor?) For them, the time has come to express this [implicit]{.underline} unity in the visible form of full communion.” (Ib. in zenit.org).
If we must certainly fear that this acceptance confuse Catholics and only confirm these Anglicans even more in their false principles and traditions, we must nevertheless pray that they eventually truly convert to the full and entire practice of the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.