- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 21,050
- Reaction score
- 3,211
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What is about to follow is excerpted from an essay by Frederic Hood by the title of the same name. Hood gives his reasons for offering this work, those who wish to read it in entirely can go here:
English Catholicism and the See of Rome, by Frederic Hood
My purpose for offering it here have mostly to do with how the Church of England is perceived. Among Protestants we are seen as "Catholics", so much so that I have been accused of serving the Pope. Among Roman Catholics we are seen as fake clergy whose orders have no validity. Hood makes a good case for who we really are and why we exist in this essay, which I now offer in part:
"Since the beginning of this century the Catholic movement within the English Church has forced itself more and more upon public notice. It is not unnatural, therefore, that the ordinary layman should wonder what connection this movement has with Roman Catholicism. Few remain, it is true, who seriously believe that Anglo-Catholic priests are 'Jesuits in disguise,' or that the whole movement is one of the dark and subtle machinations of Rome, put into motion with the object of bringing thousands into complete submission. But still the layman sees that many of the doctrines and practices of Anglo-Catholicism are apparently identical with, or at least closely similar to, those of Romanism...
If we look back upon the history of the Catholic Church, we find that for the first thousand years of its life there existed a great and ever growing block of Christians, who constituted what was known as the 'Great Church,' and there was no doubt as to who were members of this Church and who were not. Our Lord had founded the Church as the depository or 'storehouse,' as it were, of truth and of power; and he promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into truth. (St. John xvi. 13.) The voice of the Holy Spirit was recognised as speaking by means of the authoritative pronouncements of the 'Great Church' ; that is to say, through such definitions of the General Councils of bishops as commended themselves to the experience of the faithful.
Now in 1054, for reasons more political than doctrinal, owing in fact principally to the rivalry which existed between Rome and Constantinople, this ' Great Church' divided into two almost equal parts ; external union ceased between the adherents of Rome and the adherents of Constantinople. Then for the first time in history a serious question arose as to where the true Church was to be found.
We turn next then, very briefly, to events in England in the sixteenth century. Up till that time the English Church had been in full communion with the pope. If we could put ourselves in the position of those who were living in that century, we should see clearly what a real need there was for some kind of a 'Reformation' within the Church. Doctrines and practices true and valuable in themselves were crudely and mechanically conceived. The memorial of Christ's death in the Mass was expressed as if it were a real death, and mathematical calculations were rife as to the exact efficacy of numbers of Masses. The sale of Indulgences regarded as magically effective apart from morality, had been for several centuries the occupation of a professional class. Meanwhile among the vast majority of those who called themselves Christians, the spiritual life was almost forgotten; essentials were in the background; Confession and Communion happened only at Easter. The nation was also grossly oppressed by papal taxation.
A reformation, then, was urgently needed; but it is deplorable that this did not happen without involving a further division in the Christian Church. It was again for political reasons that the division occurred ; the final break took place in 1570, when Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth. From that date the Church of England has been out of communion with the see of Rome; and again we have to decide where the true Church is to be found. Is the pope's claim justified, that because he excommunicated the English Church, she can no longer claim to be a true and vital part of the body of Christ?
We may answer this question in the words of Dr Gore (Catholicism and Roman Catholicism, p. 44). ' There seems to have been a special providence in the form which the Reformation and the repudiation of the Roman authority took in England. Here the appeal to Scripture ... was joined with a conservative retention of the three great elements of Catholic unity ; the Catholic creeds, the sacramental system, and the apostolic succession of the ministry.' If we read the Prayer Book and other such documents, we find that the Church of England unquestionably claims continuity with the Church of the ages, and though we miss much which we desire to restore of the warmth and beauty of Catholic devotion, we find that our communion has been providentially preserved from being officially committed to heresy. The contrast in this respect between the Church of England and other reformed bodies is significant. We realise that the full practice of Catholicism was largely dormant for three centuries, but even' during those dark days Catholicism - though in an attenuated form-continued to be practised by a 'faithful remnant,' which was at some periods more numerous than at others.
Ninety years ago a great movement started in Oxford, the object of which was not to introduce innovations in doctrine or practice, but to restore the true character of the English Church. The success of this movement must surely be beyond the most sanguine expectations of its originators. Such success is hard to explain unless the movement is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
At the heart of the movement is no mere question of externals-of candles and vestments and incense, as some suppose. It has effected a real and vital religious revival in this country; even the parishes least sympathetic towards it have been greatly affected by it; few churches now remain, for instance, in which Holy Communion is not celebrated at least on Sundays and great feasts. But this point need not be laboured, because an elementary knowledge of history reveals the contrast between the state of the English Church to-day and its state ninety years ago. The Church is still accused, it is true, of 'failing,' of not being in touch with the 'modern mind '; but few would be bold enough to assert that it fulfilled that function more adequately at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The success of the Catholic Revival is such that, though its duration has been comparatively so short, probably one third of the clergymen in Britain to-day are in sympathy with it: and Catholics are recognised even by the secular press as forming one of the strongest and most 'alive' sections in the Church.
It is true that in 1896 the Roman Catholic Church officially repudiated our Orders, chiefly on the ground that, at the Reformation, the intention of the Church of England ceased to be to ordain priests in the Catholic sense of that word. Mr. Wilfrid Knox has dealt with this charge at length in his book Friend, I do thee no Wrong. This conclusion is borne out by the greatest Roman Catholic historian of this century. Monseigneur Duchesne, who died last year. The weak position of those who attack the validity of Anglican Orders is indicated by the number and variety of reasons which critics find for their invalidity, and the frequency with which a former argument has to be discarded.'"
English Catholicism and the See of Rome, by Frederic Hood
My purpose for offering it here have mostly to do with how the Church of England is perceived. Among Protestants we are seen as "Catholics", so much so that I have been accused of serving the Pope. Among Roman Catholics we are seen as fake clergy whose orders have no validity. Hood makes a good case for who we really are and why we exist in this essay, which I now offer in part:
"Since the beginning of this century the Catholic movement within the English Church has forced itself more and more upon public notice. It is not unnatural, therefore, that the ordinary layman should wonder what connection this movement has with Roman Catholicism. Few remain, it is true, who seriously believe that Anglo-Catholic priests are 'Jesuits in disguise,' or that the whole movement is one of the dark and subtle machinations of Rome, put into motion with the object of bringing thousands into complete submission. But still the layman sees that many of the doctrines and practices of Anglo-Catholicism are apparently identical with, or at least closely similar to, those of Romanism...
If we look back upon the history of the Catholic Church, we find that for the first thousand years of its life there existed a great and ever growing block of Christians, who constituted what was known as the 'Great Church,' and there was no doubt as to who were members of this Church and who were not. Our Lord had founded the Church as the depository or 'storehouse,' as it were, of truth and of power; and he promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into truth. (St. John xvi. 13.) The voice of the Holy Spirit was recognised as speaking by means of the authoritative pronouncements of the 'Great Church' ; that is to say, through such definitions of the General Councils of bishops as commended themselves to the experience of the faithful.
Now in 1054, for reasons more political than doctrinal, owing in fact principally to the rivalry which existed between Rome and Constantinople, this ' Great Church' divided into two almost equal parts ; external union ceased between the adherents of Rome and the adherents of Constantinople. Then for the first time in history a serious question arose as to where the true Church was to be found.
We turn next then, very briefly, to events in England in the sixteenth century. Up till that time the English Church had been in full communion with the pope. If we could put ourselves in the position of those who were living in that century, we should see clearly what a real need there was for some kind of a 'Reformation' within the Church. Doctrines and practices true and valuable in themselves were crudely and mechanically conceived. The memorial of Christ's death in the Mass was expressed as if it were a real death, and mathematical calculations were rife as to the exact efficacy of numbers of Masses. The sale of Indulgences regarded as magically effective apart from morality, had been for several centuries the occupation of a professional class. Meanwhile among the vast majority of those who called themselves Christians, the spiritual life was almost forgotten; essentials were in the background; Confession and Communion happened only at Easter. The nation was also grossly oppressed by papal taxation.
A reformation, then, was urgently needed; but it is deplorable that this did not happen without involving a further division in the Christian Church. It was again for political reasons that the division occurred ; the final break took place in 1570, when Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth. From that date the Church of England has been out of communion with the see of Rome; and again we have to decide where the true Church is to be found. Is the pope's claim justified, that because he excommunicated the English Church, she can no longer claim to be a true and vital part of the body of Christ?
We may answer this question in the words of Dr Gore (Catholicism and Roman Catholicism, p. 44). ' There seems to have been a special providence in the form which the Reformation and the repudiation of the Roman authority took in England. Here the appeal to Scripture ... was joined with a conservative retention of the three great elements of Catholic unity ; the Catholic creeds, the sacramental system, and the apostolic succession of the ministry.' If we read the Prayer Book and other such documents, we find that the Church of England unquestionably claims continuity with the Church of the ages, and though we miss much which we desire to restore of the warmth and beauty of Catholic devotion, we find that our communion has been providentially preserved from being officially committed to heresy. The contrast in this respect between the Church of England and other reformed bodies is significant. We realise that the full practice of Catholicism was largely dormant for three centuries, but even' during those dark days Catholicism - though in an attenuated form-continued to be practised by a 'faithful remnant,' which was at some periods more numerous than at others.
Ninety years ago a great movement started in Oxford, the object of which was not to introduce innovations in doctrine or practice, but to restore the true character of the English Church. The success of this movement must surely be beyond the most sanguine expectations of its originators. Such success is hard to explain unless the movement is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
At the heart of the movement is no mere question of externals-of candles and vestments and incense, as some suppose. It has effected a real and vital religious revival in this country; even the parishes least sympathetic towards it have been greatly affected by it; few churches now remain, for instance, in which Holy Communion is not celebrated at least on Sundays and great feasts. But this point need not be laboured, because an elementary knowledge of history reveals the contrast between the state of the English Church to-day and its state ninety years ago. The Church is still accused, it is true, of 'failing,' of not being in touch with the 'modern mind '; but few would be bold enough to assert that it fulfilled that function more adequately at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The success of the Catholic Revival is such that, though its duration has been comparatively so short, probably one third of the clergymen in Britain to-day are in sympathy with it: and Catholics are recognised even by the secular press as forming one of the strongest and most 'alive' sections in the Church.
It is true that in 1896 the Roman Catholic Church officially repudiated our Orders, chiefly on the ground that, at the Reformation, the intention of the Church of England ceased to be to ordain priests in the Catholic sense of that word. Mr. Wilfrid Knox has dealt with this charge at length in his book Friend, I do thee no Wrong. This conclusion is borne out by the greatest Roman Catholic historian of this century. Monseigneur Duchesne, who died last year. The weak position of those who attack the validity of Anglican Orders is indicated by the number and variety of reasons which critics find for their invalidity, and the frequency with which a former argument has to be discarded.'"
