Last week, King Charles III and Pope Leo IV made history in the Sistine Chapel by praying side by side—’a first for the leaders of the Church of England and Catholic Church’ according to the BBC. For some, this seemed like a historical ecumenical move; Stephen Cottrell called it a ‘step towards the full visible unity that Christ himself prayed for’, and others were equally enthusiastic.
Fr Dominic Robinson SJ, Parish Priest of Farm Street Church, the Jesuit parish in Central London, who is currently in Rome, said: “This is such an exciting and potentially pivotal moment on the journey towards the full unity for which we are striving. Christ’s command is that all be one in Him, and we are painfully aware of the historic divisions which have been such an obstacle to this.
“An unprecedented State Visit of The King to the Holy See as Head of the Church of England is far from a mere gesture but a statement of an ardent desire for that unity which Christ commands.
“Praying alongside the Holy Father in the Sistine Chapel and being installed as a Confrater of the great basilica of unity St Paul’s outside the Walls as were the English monarchs of the pre-Reformation Church, is a major step on our ecumenical journey together.”
But others saw it rather differently! Dominic Steel, on his channel The Pastor’s Heart, was unequivocal:
I feel betrayed by my king. On the most important issue, I feel like King Charles has betrayed me and Protestant Christians around the world. But even more significantly, he has grieved the Lord Jesus.
He explains his own upbringing as a Catholic (as I was!), and his coming to personal faith in an evangelical Anglican church (as I did!) and so how he personally feels about this event.
So for me it has been a punch in the heart this week to see the Pope and the King and the Archbishop of York praying together—something that the office holders of Pope and King have not done since at least the 12th century. And I feel so sad.
But is either side correct in making this claim?
The idea that the Church of England and the Church of Rome might take steps towards ‘full visible unity’ had its hey day in the late 1960s, into the 70s and 80s. It was kicked off by the new openness the came following the Second Vatican Council (‘Vatican II’), which ran from 1962 to 1965, as a radical process of ‘updating’ (in Italian: aggiornamento) the Church to allow it to engage better with this modern world.
In terms of relations with the C of E, this led to the start, in 1969, of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), which had three phases, lasting respectively 14 years, 22 years, and in theory from 2011 to the present day (and you thought the LLF conversations were drawn out!). They produced a series of reports, which were duly debated (in General Synod and elsewhere), and were sufficiently significant that I remember having to read some of them as part of my ordination training in 1989.
The difficult with all this is that the reports of ARCIC actually had no formal authority on either side of the debate. Despite what they thought, the representatives of the Church of England in ARCIC had no authority from the Church to speak on its behalf. The final straw came with the second to last report, The Gift of Authority (1999), in which it was claimed that Anglicans do not, in principle, have a problem with the idea of having a Pope. Many Anglicans responded ‘Oh yes we do!’ and the indefatigable Colin Buchanan quickly produced a Grove booklet explaining to General Synod why we did. (You can still buy it here.) Similar concerns were raised about the final report on Mary (2005).
It seem to me that there are three major issues where the Church of England and the Church of Rome have fundamental disagreements, and, despite the establishment of improved personal relations, these differences do not appear to have changed.
The first is about what happens in the Lord’s Supper, also called Communion or the Eucharist, and in the Catholic Church, the Mass.
The Book of Common Prayer (and in particular the Ordinal, the service for ordaining clergy, together with 39 Articles) form the continuing doctrine of the Church of England, as set out in Canon A5. All later authorised liturgy has been authorised on the basis that it is consonant with the BCP, and should not be interpreted as contradicting it. The Prayer of Consecration opens as follows:
Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again:
Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood:…
The emphasis here, reflecting Reformation concerns, and clearly rejecting Catholic understandings of the ‘sacrifice of the Mass’, is that Jesus’ death on the cross was a complete work, and that we cannot add to it. His sacrifice was made once and for all, and no further sacrifices are needed. (Note also that there is no language of the bread and wine ‘being for us’ his body and blood; these are modern developments which need to be understood in the light of the BCP. It is as we eat bread and wine in remembrance of him that we partake in him.) This is why Cranmer reshaped the service, and pushed any ‘sacrifice of praise’ right to the end, to avoid any confusion. Communion is not about what we offer to God, but all about what God, in his grace in the death and resurrection of Jesus, offers to us. (Perhaps the best study of this, also by Colin Buchanan, is the study What Did Cranmer Think He Was Doing which you can buy here.)
The additional comments after the liturgy (p 262 in the printed BCP), further clarifies what is understood to be happening, and the meaning of the bread and wine.
It is here declared, that thereby [kneeling to receive Communion] no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine that is bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remains still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural body to be at one time in more places than one.
Here we find an explicit rejection of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the elevation of the host, and adoration.
By contrast, the Liturgy of the Mass contains these words (which I still know by heart!):
Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.
And before the distribution of the elements:
After his private prayers of preparation the Priest genuflects, takes the host and, holding it slightly raised above the paten or above the chalice says aloud: Behold the Lamb of God…
These are significant differences!
And this leads to the second, closely related, area of difference: the nature of ordained ministry. If the Mass is about (re-)offering the sacrifice of Jesus, then those who officiate at it can rightly be called ‘priests’, since that is the term in English for those in the Old Testament responsible for temple sacrifices.
But, rather ironically and not a little confusingly, the etymology of the term ‘priest’ actually derives from the Greek presbyteros meaning ‘elder’, and not the term hieros meaning ‘priest’. So we have the strange situation that the term ‘priest’ translated a word it is unrelated to, whilst the word it derives from is translated by a different term altogether!
Cranmer chose to retain the English term ‘priest’ to demonstrate that the Reformation was not about inventing something new, but about reforming existing patterns of ministry in the light of the Scriptures, and in particular the New Testament, which he believed was the authority the Church must look to. And you can see this in the shape of the Communion service in both his 1552 text, and the revision that produced the 1662 BCP. All the language of sacrifice has gone; the sacrifice of Jesus is complete; Communion is a memorial; and whilst with our teeth we eat bread and with our mouth drink wine, we ‘feed on Christ in our hearts by faith and with thanksgiving’. As Article XXIX says:
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.
Now, the Church of England does recognise the validity of Roman orders and sacraments—so when I was received into the Church of England (just two months before my ordination!) all that happened was my vicar shook my hand in a public service and said ‘I welcome you into the Church of England’. My baptism and episcopal confirmation were recognised as valid.
By contrast, and because of this reformed understanding, the official stance of the Church of Rome is that Anglican orders are ‘null and void’. This was famously expressed in the document Apostolicae Curae issued by Pope Leo XIII (note the name!) on 13 September 1896. It declared Anglican priestly and episcopal orders “absolutely null and utterly void”; the papal judgment focused on defects of form and intention in the ordination rites of the Edwardian Ordinal—that is, Cranmer’s of 1552. Leo XIII held that the rites did not express a valid understanding of the sacrificial priesthood, and therefore broke the line of valid apostolic succession.
There was some hope that, more than 100 years on, this position might be relaxed—but far from it. The last pope but one, Benedict XVI did not issue a new decree, but he reaffirmed the judgment of Apostolicae Curae on several occasions, notably in official clarifications and documents addressing Anglican–Catholic relations. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (before he became Pope), as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he oversaw Dominus Iesus in 2000. It described Anglican communities as “ecclesial communities” rather than “Churches” in the proper sense, since they lacked valid episcopal orders and therefore the Eucharist in the Catholic theological sense.
And as Pope, Benedict XVI issued Anglicanorum Coetibus (2009) an apostolic constitution to provide for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with Rome. The document implicitly reaffirmed the 1896 position by requiring the re-ordination of Anglican clergy entering the Ordinariate, acknowledging that their previous orders were not recognized as valid. And the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Benedict repeatedly confirmed that Apostolicae Curae “remains definitive” and “has not been revoked or reconsidered.”
And surely the ordination of women to the presbyterate and then the episcopate puts the final nail on the coffin of any possibility of recognition.
This relates to the final area of difference—that of sources of authority. For the Church of England, supreme authority is found in the apostolic testimony of the New Testament and the whole Bible. This is set out unambiguously in the Articles.
XIX. OF THE CHURCH
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
XX. OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
THE Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
By contrast, the Church of Rome believes that the Tradition which it preserves (primarily through the teaching office of the Pope) is a second source of authority. It claims that the two are compatible and coherent (Tradition and Scripture) but they are different, equal, and parallel sources.
The meetings last week have changed none of these differences.
So what did the meeting actually mean? Nothing has changed formally in the relation between the two churches—but this is an investment in good personal relationships. The Times report noted the studied ambiguity from the Roman side:
The Italian historian Alberto Melloni described the Vatican’s push for relations with the Church of England while not referring to Charles as its head as “wise ambiguity.”
By contrast, one of the discussion partners on The Pastor’s Heart video lamented:
Protestants have historically been viewed as separated brethren and Vatican 2 has been a call back into the fold to find points of unity and contact in order to accommodate them back into in some way the Roman Catholic Church. So the public prayer would be recognized by the Catholic Church as King Charles and Queen Camila and particularly King Charles as supreme governor of the Church of England coming under the authority of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope.
But that is manifestly not true! Leo took his name to honour the engagement with social ethics in an industrialised age that was the mark of his predecessor Leo XIII. But he also took it on as an indication that he was going to, subtly, move in a more conservative direction in contrast to his immediate predecessor Francis. There is no hint that his formal view of the Church of England has changed one jot. Indeed, the British Royalty’s own website depicted this clearly as a state visit, and not a visit of the supreme governor of the Church of England. And at his coronation, Charles committed to uphold ‘The Protestant faith of the Church of England’.
Jesus’ prayer for unity was not about ‘full visible union’ between two institutions. It was that God would unite his followers together by ‘sanctifying them in the truth; your word is truth’ (John 17.17). Until we can agree on the truth about the completeness of Jesus’ work on the cross, that in Communion we remember him and ‘feed on him in our hearts by faith’, and that it is Scripture as ‘God’s word written’ which is our authority, we will not be fully at one.
And that is all right. Let us in the meantime work together, pray together, and find as much in common as we can.
Buy me a Coffee
Praying together is fine. Where rubber hits road is when Catholic and Anglican do Bible study together.
Provided I am not asked to affirm that transubstantiation has taken place, I am happy to share Communion with Catholics (if they will give it to me). My biggest concern with Rome is its claim, not that it hasn’t erred in any of its formal teaching, but that it *cannot* err (a claim that has extended to the Pope speaking ex cathedra since 1870). That is an end to all conversation, or at least a demand that all conversation be on its terms. Catholic theologians enter genuine dialogue only insofar as they are prepared to tacitly and temporarily ignore this claim.
Then of course there is what BCP correctly called “the idolatrous worship of Mary”. Every few centuries Rome has ascribed ever more of the extraordinary attributes of Jesus Christ to His mother: perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, sinless life, direct ascent into heaven. Now the push is to call her co-redemptrix. I do not doubt that Blessed Mary, saved from her own sins by her Son’s crucifixion, looks down from heaven in horror at all of this. Let there be no goddess-worship in His church.
When Pius XII in 1950 asserted Mary’s assumption into heaven, he went on to state of the dogma (in paragraph 45 of Munificentissmus Deus) that “if anyone… should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith”. Yessir, that’s me.
The Church of Rome has two idols: itself and Mary. Canterbury has comprehensively wrecked all chance of reunion by appointing women bishops. That is the one good thing about the action.
The BCP is wrong. Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not worship Mary, they venerate her. Basically the difference between dulia and latria. Although Mary does get hyper dulia!
They SAY they do not worship her. Praxis tells another story.
I was RC. I know whereof I speak.
It’s a matter of degree. Words like ‘worship’ and ‘venerate’ are not precise or rigid enough to enable a clear-cut answer.
The distinction between dulia and latria is quite clear cut.
In England perhaps, Penelope. But in Latin America?
“The BCP is wrong”
Are you sure you’re in the right church? I say this gently, but the BCP is the doctrinal heart of the Church of England, and still the only formally authorised liturgy. To simply dismiss it as ‘wrong’ is, on one level fine. I acknowledge as brothers and sisters in Christ those who wouldn’t agree with it. But to dismiss it as ‘wrong’ whilst remaining a member of the Church of England is a little like someone playing cricket, declaring the laws of cricket ‘wrong’ and deciding to play rounders instead. At which point those who did want to play cricket might look confused; why not go play rounders with the rounders players? We have nothing against rounders players, but we’re here to play cricket.
And the distinction betwen worship and venerate gets very thin indeed, but I’m prepared to acknowledge it, even if I find it somewhat meaningless – what I can’t accept is the extra-biblical dogma surrounding Mary & the Saints.
Venerate is an even stronger term that worship arguably, so I think Penelope was respecting the BCP’s position that Anglicans do not worship Mary rather than the reverse
Oh, I agree about the extra biblical dogmas.
Though some of them may be helpful.
I would be interested to ask if you agree with everything in the BCP and Articles?
(I meant ‘wrong’ as inaccurate.)
Mary is viewed as sinless, as someone to whom we pray, and is often referred to as co-redemtrix (though this latter is not official teaching.)
She was “preserved free from all stain of original sin from the first moment of her conception.” (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854)
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 493): “By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.”
Since only Jesus is sinless, and we only pray to God, it is getting pretty close.
I did notice how Charles and +York snuck this jolly in, before +Sarah gets formally installed in the new year. Crafty.
Charles III is a much more high church King than his mother was. Notice the Orthodox chants and costume at his coronation, the prayers and blessings for the King at his coronation by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and now his prayers with Pope Leo at the Vatican. Elizabeth II was more low church, indeed she was said to be happiest in the Church of Scotland church at Balmoral and she took her oath to preserve the Protestant faith seriously.
William is not particularly religious at all though, he will go to church with his family at Easter and Christmas still but I expect him more to be a C of E in name only King. His coronation will be less religious too I expect, beyond a few prayers, reflecting the more secular UK he will be head of state of
Charles is indeed more high church than his late mother, but also more syncretist. Oddly these often go together.
William and Kate wrote a prayer for ther wedding ceremony. What they actually believe, I have no idea and I don’t think many others know.
The photo shows a stark difference even as highlighted by clothing. It is between King and Pope, their roles and functions and scope and authority. One is concentrated on and delineated to church.
Neither take the place of Christ, who is Prophet, Priest and King in one.
Unsurprisingly I agree with much of this. The Anglican dilemma is that, leaving aside the muddling middle, it has two distinct streams. One is based on what is now realised to be the Cranmerian theology of the BCP (roughly Zwinglian) and sees the Church of England as a Reformed Church and the other based on a longer view of English history (Alban, Augustine, Anselm &c) in which the sixteenth century battles were an episode and the distortions of ecclesiology and sacramental theology gradually rectified. The problem with the second stream (of which I was a passionate member) is that it has been weakened by liberalism. So I left and am now a happy Catholic.
Thanks Andrew. The other problem with the second position is that it contradicts the doctrine of the C of E as it is defined in canon law.
And thank you for pointing out that Cranmer’s position, expressed unrevised in the BCP, and again the doctrine of the C of E, is ‘roughly Zwinglian’. This is where I am, and it is odd when people are surprised by that. Historical debates notwithstanding, it is hard to come to any other conclusion from the texts that we have.
I am not sure that they specifically “prayed” together, although they certainly spoke the liturgical words of the service.
I do not envy the balancing act required of King Charles in the many walks of his royal life. However, I wonder how the Roman Catholic Church feels about his returning from his visit to the Pope only to then place flowers at an LGBT memorial. I have no problems in principle with either but they do seem somewhat incongruous.
Roman Catholic single male bishops and cardinals and priests are generally less bothered by LGBT than by female ordination. See the non liturgical prayers Pope Leo has said can continue for same sex couples. Women cannot even be Roman Catholic priests though, let alone bishops. There were some muted congratulations to Mullally from the Vatican after she became Archbishop but no recognition at all of her role as having true holy orders
The King was certainly right to pray with Pope Leo. He is head of state of the UK where on some figures Roman Catholics are the largest denomination in terms of weekly church attendance. It was also a reflection of the links Anglicans do share with Roman Catholics as members of a Catholic but Reformed church.
I agree with the article though it does not mean there will be unity between the Church of England and Roman Catholic church either. As mentioned in the article there are still differences over transubstantiation and in terms of recognition of Anglican orders. The Vatican and Holy See also still do not recognise female clergy let alone bishops unlike the Church of England and most Anglican provinces now. Indeed, after Pope Francis approved and Pope Leo continued to allow non liturgical prayers for same sex couples by Roman Catholic priests, similar to LLF in some respects, there is arguably more unity between the RC church and C of E over same sex relationships than over remarriage of divorcees and female ordination. Whereas for most conservative Protestant Anglicans it is the opposite, they are more willing to accept remarriage of divorcees in church and female ordination than recognition of same sex couples.
More still are members of all Protestant denominations combined in the UK than are Roman Catholic so the King will still maintain his oath to protect the Protestant faith in these isles, even as he seeks to build bridges with the Vatican
Abp Fisher met with Pope John XXIII in 1961, as context (Vatican II and aggorniamento was mentioned above). Mere Christians have never been much interested in the self important view that any such thing is somehow momentous.
In the late 60s at an ecumenical gathering at London University, a Brethren friend of mine, who was on the LIFCU committee, found himself standing next to a senior RC university chaplain. In the ensuing conversation the RC chaplain said something like: “you know you and we will soon be the only ones left together”. Surprised, and somewhat uncomfortable, my friend responded: “what do you mean?” The reply was: “Well we are the only ones left who believe the Bible”. I am no prophet – so no comment.
The RC’s have huge problems admitting how often they have actually changed their teachings, but, in real life changed they have. (I could list too many to fit into a comment).
No-one including the/any Pope now believes that the Pope has Universal Jurisdiction (even/especially in Italy, or…); or Infallibility (just check with whichever cardinals &… disagree with what he has just said on the Latin Mass, women, LGBT matters…). Nor does it really matter all that much if some RCs still believe in the Medieval (or older) distinction between Substance and Accidents. Nor if they think Mary was taken up into heaven, or think she can help answer their prayers.
It would matter if she were to be declared Co-Redemptrix, but as Ian points out that has not happened (yet).
What does really matter is that the ‘Immaculate Conception’ is contrary to the Athanasian Creed. If Christ is fully divine and fully human then he can save us sinful humans. If, however, his mother was born and remained sinless then she is not like us “for all have sinned…”. If Mary was sinless she was not human, and consequently we humans cannot be saved ‘in Christ’. Furthermore “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”
It may prove possible to achieve the unity that Jesus prayed for in his church (/congregation / assembly), but not until those trying to achieve unity start to base their conversations on what the Bible actually says “in such a language and orders as is most easy and plain for the understanding…”
Sorry! “orders” should read: ‘order’.