English Catholicism: The One True Church

A modified branch theory for the catholicity of Anglicanism.

Dec 09, 2023

Introduction:

Anglicans are often shy about claims to being “the one true Church,” rejecting such a notion for the more ecumenical approach of including all episcopally governed churches under this umbrella. For many Anglicans, this “branch theory” can seem like the most reasonable response to the current jurisdictional fracturing of those churches bearing an apostolic lineage; Are we simply to cut them out of the Church entirely? To do so seems quite unreasonable to the Anglican mind. It is on this basis that Anglicans often speak of the visible Catholic Church as being made up of the Roman, Eastern, and Anglican churches.

This seems to be balanced and is very ecumenically appealing. However, it has significant problems that, without the proper framing and nuance, will destroy catholicity, not strengthen it. For one, two-thirds of “the Church” (assuming this view) reject the Anglican articulation of the nature and structure of the Church. Instead, they claim to be the true Church in and of themselves. That alone dramatically undermines the truth of the Anglican claim from an outside perspective. For how can the Church be what two-thirds of its supposed structure claim it isn’t?

Furthermore, many Anglicans ground this definition of the Church on their perceived similarities to Rome and the East. This isn’t bad in and of itself, for much of Rome and the East are thoroughly Catholic and worthy to be admired and emulated. However, when this appreciation moves into a state where validation from these traditions becomes the litmus test for catholicity, Anglicanism has essentially undermined itself entirely. How can it be authentically Catholic when its appeal to that title comes solely through comparison of itself to traditions not its own? This essentially grants to Rome and the East their claims: that they possess, in themselves, the boundaries of the Catholic religion. For these and other related reasons, I believe it best to leave this kind of branch theory behind. Instead, I propose that Anglicans must claim to be the one true Church in her fullness.

Comparing Branch Theory to Historic Ecclesiology:

To many, this claim that Anglicans are the true Church in fullness might seem bold—and it is! It might also seem to conflict with historic Anglican ecclesiology, both that of its original reformers and the later architects of branch theory. However, I would like to show that being more comfortable with this language maintains and strengthens the truths of those earlier ecclesial concerns while also providing Anglicanism a greater catholic identity going forward.

Consider with me for a moment what traditional branch theory suggests. In its popular articulations, Anglicans are simply a part of the whole. The implication is that the fullness of the Church must include more than the Anglican Church alone. Therefore, the catholicity that Anglicans claim is fully dependent upon their continuity with the other traditions around them, namely Rome and the East.

This desire for continuity isn’t bad, but it is a shaky footing for the building of an entire ecclesiology. History is quite clear: each Christian group that found themselves in separation from other Christian groups claimed for themselves to be the fullness of the Church—the true heirs of the apostolic order and teaching. No one ever claimed that the Church could, in fullness, exist in profound schism. We should not be afraid to adopt this same thinking as Anglicans; and as I will show, this claim does not eliminate the validity of branch theory.

For example, both Rome and the various Eastern churches claim themselves to be the fullness of the Church, lacking nothing. This, however, does not stop Rome and the East from essentially affirming the validity of one another anyway. On the one hand, all those not in communion with the Papacy are outside of the Church according to Rome; but on the other hand, other Christians are still in some sense mystically united to the Catholic Church by their baptism—including Protestants!

In addition to this, Rome goes much further with the Eastern churches, recognizing their Holy Orders and their Sacraments. As E.B. Pusey points out regarding East and West reunion attempts: “The hoped-for reconciliation was the meeting together of the members of a divided family, not the incorporation into the one body of Christ of members who were severed from that body” [1]. In other words, though Rome claims to be the Church in her fullness, her actions proclaim that her separated brethren are still valid churches in some sense, rather than mere apostates, cut off entirely from the grace of God in the Catholic Church. What Rome demonstrates in her ecclesiology is simply a modified branch theory, one that recognizes the validity of other apostolic churches, while remaining fully convinced of her status as the chief preserver of apostolic teaching, holding in herself the fullness of the faith.

Modifying Branch Theory:

So what does this mean for Anglicans? Are we to view Rome, the East, and Protestants as “outside the Church?” In one sense, yes—for we cannot call one truly Catholic if we believe them to be in error that undermines the fullness of the Catholic faith and order. On the other hand, we cannot entirely reject the validity of their churches—especially those who have maintained the godly Episcopate in historic succession. Therefore, as Anglicans, I believe we should extend the arm of fellowship as far as we can go, while also holding the line on the issues that truly matter, such as the Papacy in Rome and the rejection of the Episcopate in Protestantism. True unity cannot happen until these churches return to the apostolic faith of their fathers—found in fullness within the faith and order of the Anglican Catholic Church. We must not be ashamed to say this!

To further demonstrate the reasoning behind my argumentation, I’d like to start by defining the Church using the formularies of the Anglican Church. In her 39 Articles of Religion, it is declared that “the visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in 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” [2].

In seeking to faithfully interpret these words, following the Scripture and the apostolic witness, I think it is safe to say that while Anglicans of all churchmanship acknowledge that the Word of God is preached and the Sacraments are duly administered in many of the apostolic churches, Anglicans would also agree that the preaching of God’s Word has not at all times been “pure,” nor have all the Sacraments been ministered “according to Christ’s ordinance.” This leads to an incredibly obvious point: if we believed that Rome and the Eastern churches fulfilled these requirements perfectly, we would cease being Anglicans and join them immediately, submitting to their claims to be the true Church. It is precisely because we believe that “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” [3] that we cling to our own church as the bulwark of orthodoxy.

And regarding the other Protestant traditions, Anglicans would see the error in all of them as well; most notably—and grievously!—in the ordination of ministers and gatherings apart from holy Episcopate. This is condemned in the strongest possible terms by St. Ignatius who says,

“Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature” [4].

It can be seen quite obviously that Protestants of all denominations have departed from this essential piece of Church unity; though not all did so with malicious intent. For many, it was simply a fact of historical circumstance that they lost their bishops. However, now that we are in the modern era, many have persisted in error with the resolve that the holy Episcopate is not necessary for the unity and continuity of the Catholic Church. Instead, they throw it off in exchange for erroneous innovations.

These realities alone demonstrate that all Christian traditions have errors that Anglicans believe must be repented of and reformed. This is not to say that Anglicans believe themselves to be without error, or that they would grant their particular church infallibility or ecclesiastical perfection. On the contrary, all manifestations of the Church can err. Anglicans would simply say that their church has preserved the Catholic faith better than any other tradition. This forms the basis for the thesis of this paper: that Anglicans should be comfortable speaking of themselves as the fullness of the one true Church.

Think about it: If our desire for a united Christendom is one in which Rome, the Eastern churches, and all Protestants become more like us, we are essentially calling these communions back to the true Catholic Church of the apostles and fathers, which we are (perhaps inadvertently?) identifying as the Anglican Church.

Would we remain Anglican if we thought our church wasn’t the true Church of Christ, the purest expression of the Catholic faith? God forbid! We are Anglicans precisely because we believe that within her boundaries, the riches of the Catholic faith are found in fullness.

To this point: the call to these churches to return to the faith of the fathers is not exactly the same as demanding that everyone “become Anglican.” Anglican denotes our national and liturgical heritage; Catholic denotes who we are. It would not be properly Catholic to force all local and national churches to adopt the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. They do not need to become culturally and liturgically Anglican. On the contrary, the Latins, the Greeks, the Copts, etc, would all still maintain their unique liturgical heritage and the culture that comes with it. As the Articles teach: “It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word” [5].

What would change, however, is that their theology would be reformed by the theology of the Ecumenical Church. This would include a rejection of those errors which cannot be proven through both Holy Writ and the consensus of the ancient fathers. Where there is genuine agreement in the Church, there can be no defection. To do so would be to leave the Church entirely.

Even the 39 Articles of Religion would play a role in this process, showing where we judge reform is needed and where we believe it is not. The Articles would not function as a complete confession of faith; indeed they have never served that role in Anglican history. They would, however, serve their intended purpose: identifying areas of orthodoxy that are of particular concern to Anglicans and rooting out heterodoxy.

Closing: Don’t be ashamed to be an Anglican:

It is odd to think that anyone would join himself to a church that he does not believe represents the fullness of the Catholic faith. Yet, many Anglicans act as though this is the case. They are timid, using Rome and Orthodoxy as the standard for what is and is not Catholic. This is the mentality that must leave our communion if we are to thrive and demonstrate our Catholic heritage in full. Anglicanism isn’t perfect. We know that all too well. Our communion has substantial heresy and heterodoxy throughout. However, Rome and the East aren’t perfect either—and none of them claim to be. The only thing these churches claim is that they are the authentic expression and continuation of the Catholic faith of the ancient fathers. This isn’t arrogant. This is simply what one would expect to find in any church that claims to be speaking divine truth. As Anglicans, this is exactly what we believe our church to be doing. It is therefore imperative that we adapt our claim to be in accord with that confession. We believe ourselves to be Catholic; We believe to be the heirs of the authentic apostolic deposit; We believe we have identified errors in other local churches and have solutions to reform them.

Even from within our communion, we seek to always root out error and move into greater truth. We are never above learning from other churches and reforming ourselves as God’s grace works in our midst. And yet, we remain where we are for a reason. It is because we recognize ourselves—historic, orthodox Anglicans—as possessing the fullness of the Catholic faith.

But please, do not take my word for it. Read the Scriptures; study the wisdom of the fathers; submit yourself to the Creeds and the Councils of the ancient church; study the 39 Articles of Religion. Use your God-given reason to test the confession of those who make these claims. In doing these things with a heart that desires to submit to the Catholic Church, I believe you will be led away from the Papalism of Rome, the Anti-Western theology of Eastern Orthodoxy, the denial of Chalcedonian Christology of the Oriental Orthodox, and the Nestorianism of the Church of the East. You will also be led away from the denial of the Episcopate that has infected the majority of Protestantism and all the subsequent errors that flow from that rejection.

This evaluation will lead you to the fullness of the truth, contained in the doctrine and practice of the Anglican Church. We have the Episcopate; we have the Sacraments; and we have the doctrine of the ancient Church. In our claim to possess this in fullness, we do not deny the catholicity and validity of the other churches in our midst. We simply believe that they are lacking the fullness of the faith, either by needless additions or unnecessary subtractions. In either case, the branch theory of the Church is maintained without turning Anglicans into a generic part of an ambiguous whole. Yes, we recognize (with Rome) that the grace of Christ in Orders and Sacraments is broader than our local expression, and we long to see the reunification of Christians in all communions. But at the same time, we also affirm with equal conviction that we are the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ. We must be comfortable confessing this belief proudly. Bishop John Jewel, a great defender of the English Church says it best:

“But, say they [Rome to the English Church], ye have been once of our fellowship, but now ye are become forsakers of your profession, and have departed from us. It is true we have departed from them, and for so doing we both give thanks to almighty God, and greatly rejoice on our own behalf. But yet for all of this, from the primitive church, from the apostles, and from Christ, we have not departed” [6].

We may not be Roman, but we are most certainly Catholic. May we stand by that truth unashamed.

Notes:

Pusey, Edward Bouverie. A Different Faith. Nashotah House Press, 2022, p.25.
The Book of Common Prayer. Anglican Liturgy Press, 2019, p.779.
The Book of Common Prayer, p.779.
Ignatius of Antioch. “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans.” The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts et al., vol. 1, Christian Literature Company, 1885, p.90.
The Book of Common Prayer, p.785.
Jewel, John. An Apology of the Church of England. Edited by Robin Harris and Andre Gazal. The Davenant Institute, 2020, p.96.

Thank you for reading Eastword . This post is public so feel free to share it.