Implementing a Patriarch.

I have been reflecting on the comment of Abu Daoud who posted a comment on my article The Limits of Anglican Ecclesiology. To be honest I had prior to being asked the question tried to avoid where, when and how such a thing as an Anglican Patriarch should be implemented. However I see that such a thing is unfair to those who would like to see an Anglican Patriarch as well as those who are opposed to the idea for various reasons. Abu makes a reasonable objection and so I think I will first address it.

Abu Daoud said...

So are you saying you would like one og the continuing churches to establish this right now? Or are you envisioning this after there is some union between, say, the ACC and TAC, or something like that?

I think there just aren't numbers for such a huge and developed hierarchy to be honest.

Putting into practice the idea of an Anglican Patriarch is certainly not going to be an easy thing, in truth I think it will be one of the hardest things we will do. We should begin by understanding that nothing happens overnight, to propose that something as large as this would simply just happen or would be simple is not only absurd but defies common sense. Instead this is going to require a great number of things to happen and here I hope to layout how such a move would have to occur.

The man for the job.
There seems to be an idea among those who read this blog as well as those that I talk to that what I propose is for a council to be called and a Patriarch to be elected. While that is true it is also an over simplification that cannot go uncorrected, the results if such an action of simply(not that it is simple) calling a council and electing a Patriarch would be disastrous to say the least. What is needed before the election of the Patriarch is first his establishment. Given the breath and scope of what will be required of him he should be unmarried as his duties will allow him little in the way of family time. He should be a man of great moral character who is loving and strong, a man who loves heretics but hates heresy, and a man who speaks plainly. He should be loved by both friend and foe alike, and should command a great deal of respect especially from his adversaries, he must be intolerant of practices which are an attempt to soften peoples hearts and minds to heresy(again he must speak plain and be clear). The man who would be Patriarch needs to establish himself in the communion to the point of being a very prominent and recognized face and name. He should be a man who is widely read and published, who is capable of speaking not only to the obscure theologian but also to the common and simple man bridging the gap between them. This man must be a man of the people, servant, slave, friend, brother, father; loving them with his whole being as he loves God. And he must be a strong leader. The development and establishment of this Moses would take no less than five to ten years(I understand that this is the fast food era but the Church knows not minutes or hours nor even months).

It is of great importance that when people say "Anglican" or "Anglicanism" they think of this man, and they think of him with great fondness.

The development

There is no better time than now for this man to come to the forefront, now when the communion is most in trouble and in threat of rupture. Speaking with kind and firm words rising in recognition and especially clear. He should be able to unite both Protestant and Catholic minded Anglicans for the common cause of expelling the Heterodox progressives. He should rally both the Protestant and the Catholic Anglicans into a council in which they establish what they can agree upon as Doctrine while they jointly condemn Heterodox ideals (priestesses, homosexual unions, etc). At the conclusion of this council the two bodies which at this present time Actually (though not formally) live in schism would agree to an informal separation, as a friend of mine once put it "separate marriage beds". The two Catholic and Protestant would then work together in common cause to reconcile their doctrinal and liturgical differences the former being more important with the latter following.

After the Anglican General council an Anglo-Catholic General council would be convened for the purpose of affirming doctrine, and establishing the polis of the Church, as well as to establish and define what would be the Anglo-Catholic point of unity. The government of a society either secular or Divine must be understood to be (and in truth is) the point of unity for all societies. If it is true as St. Aquinas and Augustine say that all legitimate governments share in the Divine right, then we must include Church government within this. It must also be established that a legitimate government is so only in as much as it shares in the Divine, thus the church being of God should share most in the Divine structure. This lays the groundwork for the proposing of a Patriarch. There will of course be some prideful men who leave because they fear the lose of power, this must not be feared as in time they will reconcile.

Who should be Patriarch will not be in question and the choice will be simple.

an alternative

There is of course another way which this could come about, many in fact but only one that I see as likely to occur. I will use Abu's proposal of the TAC/ACC as an example though it need not be these bodies. It could happen that the TAC and ACC create the body and establish a Patriarch. One objection Abu had however was the size. This I think however is a false argument; take for example a primate, there is not much size needed to establish a primate only a few bishops. The Patriarch is really an advanced Primate. So if you have established 3 or 4 primates you can establish from among them a Patriarch. The Patriarch will make up the head with the primates making up the skeleton of the body, the rest of the structure will through time and growth fill out.

Given that the Anglican communion (specifically the Anglo-Catholic body but also the Anglo-Protestant body by extension) has one visible head it will allow for strong and quick growth as Anglicanism will be able to be identified by more than just some ambiguous amorphic thing. It will also be able to evangelize more effectively as things can be more easily coordinated.

Now it should be noted that the principle of subsidiarity is at the heart of governance.

The Limits of anglican Ecclesiology

Coming across an article of the same name at Anglocat on the Prowl I think its time to address the issue of Ecclesiology. The articles there begins by addressing the Advent Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury and begins to extrapolate the possibility of a Latin style Hierarchy within the Anglican Communion. It should be made clear that is exactly the style of Hierarchy we at Sarum Mission hope to obtain one day, and we will gladly submit ourselves to the Anglican Patriarch.

The Current Structure

I know that there are already some of you screaming at the screen asking exactly what we are thinking, but I encourage you to read on. Lets be objective about this for just a moment and examine 1 why we are opposed to the idea 2 what does it really mean 3 is it possible/will it work.

1. I propose that the reason that many of us are opposed to this idea is two fold: i. a prejudice against Rome. ii. pride.
i. Lets face it many of us hate the Latins for no other reason than the very fact that they ARE Latins. We don't care to dialog with them, we don't care to learn good pius practices from them. And many of us don't want unity with them(unity not absorption). But the reality is that we are called to be One church in the fullest sense of the word, diverse in custom yes but one in faith. We cannot continue to take a relativist approach to our faith there are not three faiths(Anglican, Orthodox, Catholic) there is ONE.
ii. Pride. We don't want to submit to anyone. Part of the beauty of being Anglican especially low church anglican (though High Church is not exempt from this either) is that Bishop Priest and Deacon only mean as much as I want them to mean, a very protestant view if I may be so bold. I can believe in the real presence I can not believe, I can hold to an all male Priesthood or I can hold to the Idea of Priestesses, its religious anarchy masking itself as Christianity.

We have as the Heretic Luther rightly observed made ourselves popes accountable to none but ourselves. And isn't that exactly why we are in the mess we are in? Without a truly uniting force with which we are all bound we are doomed to degenerate into mere protestant denominationalism with each individual sect and even worse 'church' body and still farther worse individual believing what they want to believe. Anglicanism as the middle way does not work, we have tried the experiment and found it wanting, yet there are still those who knowing its suicide insist on holding on to this bad concept as though if we try it just a little more then it will work.

But what is the middle way exactly? Some say it means that it is what lay between protestantism and Latin Catholicism, but is this true? The middle way is a way of compromise, and those who constantly compromise compromise themselves out of existence. Anglicanism in reality has become nothing more than a revolving door between Catholicism and Protestantism, some go form Catholicism to Protestantism while others go from Protestantism to Catholicism. You can line up anglicans on each end of the spectrum on every issue and no one has the authority to say they are wrong. Take the Episcopacy for example, there are those in the anglican communion who hold that the laying on of hands is nothing more than a formality, and then there are those that hold that the laying on of hands is essential to Episcopal ordination. Truth however can never be compromised, either something happens in an Episcopal ordination or nothing happens but it is not both. Either Jesus is truly present or He is not Present but it is objective and not dependent upon me(but only on God). Either women can be Priestesses in the Church of God or they cannot, there is no compromise on these things. Not even the 39 articles can be pointed to as the meeting point at which all Anglicans agree upon as you have more low Church Anglicans who deny the effects of baptism and others who accept the Real Presence.

The plain and simple fact is that our current structure besides being a structure of pride, does not work(and it doesn't work because it is a structure of pride).

The Future

Our Future lay in a Patriarch, a Universal Father of the Anglican Church. But we must not rush into this head first, we need to begin by asking ourselves what exactly an Anglican Patriarch will look like, what will his function be, will he be only a figure head like Canterbury or will he have universal jurisdiction of the Anglican Church, will he have to answer to anybody, if so who?

What will the Patriarch look like?

We cannot make the only difference between the Primate of Canterbury and the Anglican Patriarch be merely a name, in other words this will be more than a name change. The Anglican Patriarch will have Universal jurisdiction of the Anglican body.

But!? What if he is or becomes a Heretic?

He can always be deposed, he is not infallible and there should be safeguards put in place so that if something like this were to happen he could be deposed. One immediate safeguard which presents itself is an ipso facto excommunication for Heresy, by which he automatically removes himself from office.

Is there any other reason for having a Patriarch?

Yes in fact there is a rather good one, before the second Vatican council where did Priests and Bishops look not only for guidance in matter of faith but as well for guidance in liturgical practice? The answer... Rome. Rome was meant to be the example of the Rite as the Patriarch will be the example for us, how he celebrates Liturgies will be our norm, it will be the ruler by which we measure ourselves. This does not mean that we must do everything exactly as he does down to the letter, what it means is that we have what we don't have now, a norm for interpretation.

What about the local Bishops?

What about them? They still remain Bishops, it is still our duty to turn first to them for guidance, and they however will have one of their own to turn too for guidance and direction. He will be their Spiritual Father as the local Bishop and his representative the Priest is our Spiritual Father.

AH HA! Who will be the Spiritual Father of the Patriarch?

This is a question which lends itself to a few answers, and before I answer that question let me turn your own question on you, who is the spiritual Father of your Bishop? However the answer to the question is best answered one of two ways. 1 is that of Papal Primacy, this is something however which I find too controversial for me to get into at the moment. 2 the second answer which I will put forward for the one I favor is that of a Synod. The Patriarch should be a man who is versed in Scripture and the Fathers, he should be a man of deep prayer. And he should look to the Ecumenical Councils of the past for his judgment. He should also though having jurisdiction subject himself to the council of the Primates; what this means in plainer English is that there should exist a council of Primates which exists to advise and check the Patriarch. Consider a checks and balance system, there should exist tough strict rules so that the Primates cannot remove the Patriarch on a whim.

What about over centralization?

We must admit that this is something which we must be very very careful about. This is part of the reason for the existence of the synod of Primates. They serve as Advisors to the Patriarch however in a limited way they also yield some power just in case the Patriarch gets a power hungry. The result will not be schism but instead to depose the Patriarch. There is also a bit of a default check in place simply by the existence of the synod of Patriarchs even without then having veto authority over the actions of the Patriarch. The reason I can say that their very existence Creates a counter balance is that ruffling too many feathers will cause too many headaches for him. The Patriarch should be a man who seeks to guide and help his sons not to rule over them like a tyrant, and as we know from our human relations when fathers are tyrants the children rebel. This is a fact which he must keep constantly in mind.