G. C. Jeffers

I have a post published several years ago about why I am not a Roman Catholic. I largely concluded that I wasn’t a Roman Catholic (despite my affinity for RC liturgical practices and historic beauty) because I just could not assent to the necessary development of the monarchical episcopate. What I meant was that at the core of RC ecclesiology is the idea that the bishops are the successors of the apostles and together with the Pope are the magisterium, or teaching authority, of the Church. Further, for the RCC, sacramental efficacy depends on valid apostolic succession. I rejected both claims because I could not see from my study of history how the monarchical (single ruler) episcopate developed as anything other than a practical method for running the church. To be sure, the system developed pretty much universally by the middle of the 2nd century, but it still seemed like “best practices” and not God’s specific will. Thus, I concluded, if the monarchical episcopate was not a necessary historic development, then the doctrine of apostolic succession as the transfer of sacramental and teaching authority was false and, no matter how beautiful a false thing is, one shouldn’t embrace it. I also noted that I had “typical Protestant” objections to the veneration of saints in general and of Mary in particular. 

Well, I eventually changed my mind. That is, I changed my mind about the doctrine of apostolic succession (I became convinced that it was both historically necessary and divinely inspired) by studying the early church fathers in greater detail. However, that did not mean I was suddenly to become RC. Rather, it became important to evaluate the theological claims of the variety of churches that claim apostolic succession. I won’t get into the details of that study here, but my takeaway is something like this:

1. The development of a single bishop in each diocese was a divinely inspired and historically necessary development. It ensures the maintenance of the historically received three-fold order (Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons) and it stands as a sign of the unity of the body of Christ. St. Ignatius (writing in the early 100s AD) said in his epistle to the Ephesians: “come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live forever in Jesus Christ.”

2. The further development of ecclesiastical hierarchy beyond the local bishop is canonical and not dominical (of the Church, but not the Lord). That is, the additional levels of hierarchy necessary to run a large church developed organically and according to the need of the church, but no such thing as archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, or popes are necessary developments. The Church, on her own authority, instituted such things. This means, among other things, that the manner in which the three-fold order is made manifest in a particular time and place can be quite varied. It also means that there is no essential authority located in any of the metropolitan, papal, patriarchal, or archbishopric sees. Rather, the authority such sees possess are delegations made by the Church operating canonically.

3. Though institutional unity is ideal, schism does not invalidate apostolic succession for any breakaway group. Primary unity is found in a) the apostolic witness as summarized in the historic creeds and as is found according to the Vincentian canon (that the catholic is faith that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all) and b) the maintenance of the historical episcopate through the laying on of hands in apostolic succession. The Church must always guard against schism as much as possible and it certainly must guard against any individualist impulses such as those characterized by the various episcopi vagantes, but, to quote R.C. Sproul wildly out of context, “truth is too important to kill in the streets for the sake of peace.”

4. Thus, in my view, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Old Catholics (and various other Independent Catholics), the Nordic Lutherans, and the Anglican Communion all possess the historic episcopate. Furthermore, to the degree that these communions continue to subscribe to the historic creeds (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostles) and to hold to “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” then such communions retain both prongs of apostolic succession as enumerated above (on a related note, I am well aware of the threats to orthodox Christian belief by branches of the Anglican Communion and the Nordic Lutheran churches as well as by groups and movements within Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism). 

The initial takeaway for me is that though I think it is objectively better to be part of an apostolic church, there doesn’t seem to me to be a reason to prefer one communion over another. So, how to decide where to land? Before even going down that path, I want to clarify that “church shopping” is an activity that people in the modern world (especially the West) have recourse to. It was not so for most of Christian history. It is a luxury in some ways (and a curse in others) that I can choose what church I want to belong to. Nevertheless, given the options, and given the need to follow conscience, it seems like a duty to choose well. 

How to decide where to land? Well, I have a few values that I find particularly informative for my own decision making process:

1. Wherever I land has to be somewhere that my wife and kids can land in good conscience as well. I spent 8ish years in non-denominational and Church of Christ churches specifically for the sake of having a common place for my wife and I to worship. Whatever God calls me to, I don’t think it is to divide my family among different communities of Christians.

2. I take the Vincentian canon very seriously and draw some extremely hard lines between “everywhere, always, and by all” on the one hand and pious opinion on the other. If a doctrine cannot be found in the patristics and substantiated by scripture, it cannot be a required belief. Unfortunately, the RCC has gone well beyond the proper development of doctrine and has a) invented whole cloth novel doctrines and b) has declared some of these to be dogma. Some examples:
   1. The doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a novel doctrine invented in the Catholic west (and rejected by St. Thomas Aquinas of all people!) and made to be dogma only in 1854!

   2. The doctrine of papal infallibility was only made dogma in 1870 and was only seriously considered as a doctrine beginning in the 1300s. This is not to be confused with papal supremacy which is an older idea or papal primacy (which I grant is ideal) which is an even older doctrine.

   3. The doctrine of purgatory with all of the attendant ideas like the treasury of merit were medieval innovations. While the canonical remission of penances is ancient, connecting those remissions to the remission of temporal punishment for sin and then further connecting them to the amount of time one spends in purgatory is a gross innovation. 

I therefore cannot join myself to the Roman Catholic Church because I cannot believe all of the things I would be required to believe were I to do so. Moreover, I think the RCC has erred significantly with its view of the papacy. While I think an ideal canonical arrangement would give primacy to the bishop of Rome, such an arrangement is canonical and not dominical and certainly does not include anything like papal infallibility. 

1. As far as possible, I desire to be part of a Church that can maximally accommodate my patrimony. Coming out of English speaking, broadly evangelical church traditions, it seems to me that something like the Anglican Communion is the best fit. Moreover, I am deeply convinced that the best expression of the Western liturgy is an Anglican Solemn High Mass (see here for what that looks like). But even if that weren’t true, the low-church ceremonial common in most Anglican parishes (and certainly what I experience every Sunday at church) is able to accommodate quite a bit of my evangelical heritage and to bridge the Protestant-Catholic divide.

2. Finally, I see great strength in diversity. While it might be the case that diversity can be a weakness (what happens when we don’t all agree?), I think the flexibility it teaches is deeply important. Especially in a world of increasing secularization in which small “o” orthodox Christians of all kinds are undergoing more scrutiny, it is important to stick together. So I appreciate that in the pews on any given Sunday I may be sitting next to an evangelical on the Canterbury Trail or an evangelically oriented Anglican or someone more comfortable in the “broad church” tradition or someone like me who self-identifies as Anglo-Catholic. To quote the old maxim (which is falsely attributed all over the place, but seems to have first been coined by German theologian Rupertus Meldenius in the 1600s): “In essentials unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity.”

So, what about the “typical Protestant objections” to veneration of the saints generally and Marian devotion specifically? I am happy to say that I have dropped those concerns entirely. I fully affirm the communion of saints as orthodox Christian teaching. In the same way that I might ask for the prayers of a fellow Christian here on earth, I also may ask for the prayers of a fellow Christian in heaven. And given that the saints have been perfected, it seems entirely fitting to venerate them for the light they themselves reflect of God. It seems to me that evangelical allergies to anything to do with the saints rightly insists on the fatherhood of God but resists the idea of the brotherhood of man. If Christ has just one bride, then that bride must be united. Our Lord is not polygamous. Furthermore, I hold as pious opinions the non-immaculate conception Marian dogmas (perpetual virginity, assumption, and coronation) on the basis of universal tradition. And, personally, I have been greatly comforted by praying the rosary regularly. 

I will have a follow up blog post about my specific religious practices and their relationship to my theology and my ecclesiology.