In my short definition in an earlier post I described Anglicanism as the British expression of the catholic and apostolic faith as manifested in and mediated through the Church of England, et al. I realize that the two terms "catholic" and "apostolic" beg further clarification.
The second term is the easier of the two to define and to demonstrate historically. To be "apostolic" is to possess a demonstrable and continuous historical link of faith and practice from the time of the apostles onwards. Anglicanism recognizes herself as apostolic, while not denying it of others, claiming the ancient roots and uninterrupted history of Christianity in Great Britain from apostolic times as her own unique story.
On the other hand, "catholic" is harder to nail down for Anglicans, particularly because of how the term has been employed in the post-East/West schism era (i.e., since 1054). Hence, Rome and Byzantium employ the term "catholic" more or less exclusively of their own respective communions, identifying both their pre- and post-schism development co-terminously with it. As a result, Rome and Byzantium since the schism have developed quite disparate understandings of what it means to be "catholic" that are mutually exclusive. We all know, at least in broad strokes, the end result of this sad millennium-old game of semantics between East and West: e.g., for the Roman, there is no "fullness of the catholic faith" without papal supremacy and infallibility; for the Orthodox, no catholicity without, say, full-blown Eastern iconology (just to name but one obvious example).
Anglicanism, on the other hand, did not come of age as a separate and independent tradition until the constitutional changes took place in the 16th century that made its "going-it-alone" posture inevitable. This is the most important factor that must be taken into account in understanding the Anglican definition of catholicity. Simply put, prior to her independent existence, the Church of England possessed at least two shared catholic identities: (1) pre-East/West schism -- a catholic identity in common with the undivided church; and (2) post-schism / pre-Reformation -- a catholic identity in common with the pre-Counter Reformation Roman Church.
For better or for worse, Anglicanism at the same time appropriated into its apostolic life and witness a strong Protestant character, which, on the positive side of things, meant a conscious return to the biblical witness in the reformation of its life and witness. (We could talk a lot about the negative side of this, but we won't here.) However, the Church of England did not go the sola Scriptura route of its continental counterparts in defining the terms and parameters of her perceived catholicity. Rather she consistently defined catholicity in terms of the Church of England's conscious continuity and identity with the understanding and practice of the undivided church (i.e., the first shared identity above) where such was consistent with the witness of Holy Scripture. This was the natural course for the newly liberated Church of England to go, for in leaving the moorings of Rome, she admitted to the deficiencies of the second shared identity.
This perception of catholicity was expounded by her first apologists -- Jewel, Hooker, and Field -- and has remained an indelible characteristic of Anglican identity ever since. Were the opinions or judgments of these men, or of the Church of England, or of her most eminent divines down through history, or of the worldwide Anglican Communion of subsequent generations, always "catholic" or even correct on every specific issue addressed? No, of course not. No Anglican would ever make this claim. The strength of Anglicanism is that, unlike the Roman and Eastern Orthodox bodies, it admits of no system of distinctively Anglican theology that is co-terminous with what it means to be "catholic." What is catholic within Anglicanism is what is shared with the undivided Church of the first millennium -- EVEN IF ONLY IMPLICIT. This means that catholicity within Anglicanism is something that is self-consciously lived into and realized in each generation of Anglican faith and practice, with each generation ideally contributing to a further and better explication of, and yes, even a discovery of, what it means to be catholic.
Of course, this task would be much easier if it were done in relation to all those who claim the name "catholic."
11 comments:
Say, Dan, could you expand a bit on this notion of "implicit" catholicity? To say it is something " self-conciously lived into", as an inheritance from the faith and practice of the undivided church, isn't particularly troubling; but what to make of this qualifier "implicit" ?
-Mark
Thought you might pick up on this. I plan to in a later post.
Hi Mark,
I don't know when I'll get the chance to answer more fully, but the term "implicit" in my post is but the frank admission that the Church of England, in striking out alone to reform itself by itself (an inevitability of the time and context), will surely have to live into the full manifestation of its catholicity over time.
The Anglican definition of "catholic" as holding to the understanding and practice of the undivided church is more of a *principle* upon which the church grows into the realization of its catholic fullness, rather than a complete manifestation at any one time of its existence.
It might be helpful to recall Barth's objectivist theology with regard to the catholicity of the church. Objectively speaking, the Church in Christ is catholic in its fullness already, though, existentially, catholicity is a reality that we must live into. This is a natural paradigm for Anglicans.
"For example, if I replace the word Anglican with Orthodox or Roman Catholic in your definition would it not fit within them as well? (Granted Rome and Orthodoxy would not limit catholicity in that way but both certainly would not exclude it.)"
On this point I do see the same affinity that you have detected. However, there is an important difference which can be detected in the statement itself: "What is catholic within Anglicanism is what is shared with the undivided Church of the first millennium."
There is no presumption within this statement (taken in context) that Anglicanism and Anglicanism alone is the sole heir of the undivided Church of the first millennium, or that she and she alone possesses the fullness of that same catholicity - both claims that Rome and Orthodoxy make of themselves to the exclusion of each other and of all others. Anglicans *share* in the catholic character and identity of the undivided Church, and intend in their local expression of faith and practice to live into that catholicity, however imperfectly that may be on this side of the resurrection.
That's keen insight. However, it falls short of the mark because of the false dichotomy between inclusivity and exclusivity. Even in Orthodoxy there is a degree of inclusivity. So, for instance, if I changed my statement to read, "There is no system of distinctively Russion Orthodox theology that is co-terminous with what it means to be Orthodox (or catholic for that matter)" I'm sure you would concur, because the alternative would cancel out the Greeks, Serbians, Antiochians, etc.
Surely you are correct to point out that there are three definitions of catholicity, which was the gist of my original point many comments ago under another thread. So, for instance, you must deny Roman claims to catholicity just as forcefully as you deny Anglican claims of catholicity in order to maintain the integrity of the Orthodox position. The Roman must do the same, as well as the Anglican. So, indeed, in the abstract we are talking about three mutually exclusive intellectual positions. There's no denying that. However, as concrete realities there is also no denying that my Anglican catholicity admits both the Roman and the Orthodox as part of the catholic family, while neither the Roman or the Orthodox will admit each other (fully) or the Anglican. Where the rubber meets the road is where exclusion/inclusion really counts.
My assumption throughout has been that the faith and practice of the undivided church of the first millennium is something that Rome and Orthodoxy have in common with Anglicans by virtue of a common apostolic inheritance. Another assumption I have been making, though perhaps I haven't yet expressed it outright, is that since the sad East / West divide no one communion has lived into this catholicity consistently or perfectly.
Now lest I be misunderstood as a patristic fundamentalist or, worse, a romanticist, I should stress that there is a danger in romanticising the "undivided church of the first millennium," making it into something that in absolute terms it was not. Our description of the church in the first millennium as "undivided" is relative to the very tragic divisions that presently exist during this post-1054 era. In other words, it is a characterization of convenience, not a real state of affairs as the various schisms of the first millennium demonstrate. Let's face it, what we are defining as the "undivided church" really only applies to Chalcedonian Christianity, to the exclusion of the non-Chalcedonian bodies, and even under that definition there hasn't been complete unity (e.g., the Photian schism).
However, the relative unity that existed in and between the Chalcedonian churches prior to the Great Schism is cohesive enough to use as a benchmark of what it means to be catholic (which is precisely how the Orthodox, and increasingly the Romans, use it in their unity talks with each other in recent times).
I thrilled that you are moving out the Sante Fe, which must mean that you are getting ready to begin your studies. Godspeed and may he protect you and your family in the journey ahead.
Rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel, can we not say that the Lambeth Quad is as good a statement as any to describe what comprises the essentials of catholicity? Since it clearly establishes what Anglicans accept as the minimal (if not minimalistic) requirements of catholicity for ecumenical purposes, it must also be self-referential and hence, at least a good stating point for defining what it means to be both Anglican and catholic.
Sounds good to me...for starters anyway.
Nice! Where you get this guestbook? I want the same script.. Awesome content. thankyou.
»
Post a Comment