What It Means for an Anglican to Join Rome

*Note: throughout this article I use two terms in referring to the communion under the authority of the Bishop of Rome: Roman Catholicism and Romanism. I tend to use the term "Romanism" when speaking explicitly of the unique theological positions of Rome and those under her, which would differentiate her not only from Protestantism but from the various Eastern Communions as well. "Romanism" should not be considered a slur, any more than "Anglicanism" or "Lutheranism" should be. To claim that those under Papal authority are merely "Catholics" is to imply that they constitute the entirety of the Catholic Church. Romanists believe this, but those out from under her authority should not. As an Anglican, I consider myself fully Catholic and part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which I confess each Sunday at Mass in the words of the Nicene Creed.*

This week Bishop Gavin Ashendon finally confessed that he is leaving Anglicanism and joining Rome, this Fourth Sunday of Advent, 2019.

Anyone who knows Bishop Gavin knew this was a long time coming; his wife has already joined Rome, and he always speaks well of Roman Catholicism and has hinted about joining for quite a while. I do not say this to be flippant of him or his decision; on the contrary, I have great respect for the Bishop. However, as an Anglican who would align himself with the Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum, I do have a few concerns with both his reasoning for this decision and its ramifications.

First, I will give a direct response to Bishop Gavin (he wrote, here, an article explaining some of his reasoning for joining Rome), dealing with the points he brings up in what brought him to his decision. I will then give a general assessment of what it means for an Anglican, especially of the Anglo-Catholic Tradition, to leave Anglicanism and join Rome.

Response to Bishop Gavin

The Bishop starts with writing about his experience smuggling Bibles and seminary books into communist countries during the 80's for Roman Catholic seminaries. He says, "my experiences of the underground (Roman) Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia would act as a catalyst and an example to bring me to my true spiritual home." He then talks about how Western society is being taken over by cultural Marxism, how he had seen it budding first in progressive universities (including one in which he taught), and how Anglicanism was being swallowed whole, before his very eyes, into this Marxist black pit.

Of course, the immediate thought is, "Wait...are you going to tell me that Rome is somehow blocked from this Marxist attack?" The Bishop is no fool, of course. He rightly states, "Some friends have warned me that I will not find the grass any greener on the (Roman) Catholic side of the fence. Of course I won't. The (Roman) Catholic Church faces exactly the same spiritual, cultural and political crisis. But the pilgrimage is not about comfort, it is about truth and integrity."

The Bishop's admission here that Rome is no better off is an important one, and demonstrates that, so far, he has no delusions of theological harmony within the halls of Romanism. From here, Bishop Gavin delves into three reasons he decided to join Rome.

1) Our Lady at Garabandal

Marian apparitions (alleged or otherwise) are not my expertise. I had to look up this particular one that the Bishop mentioned. After seeing video footage of the children experiencing this alleged apparition (and I note that Bishop Gavin points out that this one has never been confirmed by Rome), the Bishop started a study of Marian Apparitions throughout history. This eventually led to a devotion to praying the Rosary, especially during dark times in Bishop Gavin's life.

The concern I have here is twofold: first, I do not know how any of this leads to Rome. I know many Anglican churches that not only have members who pray the Rosary, they have classes as well. I myself pray the Rosary, especially when I am with any Roman Catholic family members. There are Lutherans who pray the Rosary as well. And of course, Eastern Orthodox could never be accused of having a low view of the Blessed Virgin. How does this lead to Rome?

The second is a more serious problem: that of theological methodology. The viewing of an experience was what started this intellectual endeavor of the Bishop. From there, Bishop Gavin moves to looking at Marian Apparitions (alleged or otherwise). This leads to some conclusion that Rome...is the one True Church? No explanation of how is given, but worse: no Scriptural citation was given that would even suggest this way of determining one's ecclesiology. Scripture is never cited in this, or in fact in the entire article. Even if one holds to the Magisterium, the reasons given here had nothing to do with it. In fact, as already noted, the Magisterium does not formally recognize Our Lady at Garabandal as an authentic visitation of the Blessed Virgin.

2) Eucharistic Miracles

Bishop Gavin moves on to Eucharistic miracles. He states that no Anglican Eucharistic miracles have ever been witnessed, and cites that as something that carries "obvious implications".

The implications are not obvious to me. There are many possible answers; one of them being, "There are Eucharistic miracles." My priest from my sending parish tells, in his class on the Eucharist, two stories about the power he's witnessed in the Blessed Sacrament. The first one is here: He speaks of how, in his 30's, he was in a deeply depressive state. He was commanded by a priest friend of his, in the Episcopal Church, to receive Communion for his own healing. My priest did so; literally coming in late on purpose, then leaving as soon as he received. Over the months he was healed of his state.

This is a Eucharistic miracle; one which is what the Eucharist is actually for. The purpose of the Eucharist is not to bleed and thus be hidden away in a monstrance and never to be consumed. I would rather one single life be changed by the Eucharist, especially concerning how much that life has been used by God to bless others, than one thousand visibly bleeding Hosts appear before me.

Another story he tells is here: in it he speaks about a little girl, around 4-6 years old, who went up to receive; she kept standing on the kneeler, leaning over the rail to see what was in the ciborium my priest was holding. He let her look inside, and she then turned to her mother and said, "Mommy, I just saw Jesus!" Grinning, my priest said to the mother, "I like your daughter's theology."

The "obvious implications" that Bishop Gavin mentioned are not so obvious when you take these and others into account.  Aside from these and other stories (ones which have not been made public by those who witnessed it, so I will not make them public here), my own experience with the Eucharist has been one of healing, specifically of depression while being given a sense of purpose. What I speak of is not rare within Anglicanism, at least insofar as I've seen. True, I know of no bleeding Host accounts within Anglicanism (again, not that I have looked for any; I consider them unimportant), but I know countless healing stories of the Eucharist within Anglicanism; this is actually what the Eucharist is for. Is Bishop Gavin unaware of the healing power of the Eucharist being present within Anglicanism? If so, I would not wish to guess why. If he is, why is a bleeding Host more important and better evidence than the Medicine working would be?

3) The Magisterium

The Magisterium is, according to Bishop Gavin, a unifying force for Romanism that guards against heresy. I admit that this claim baffles me. Bishop Gavin knows about the Amazonian Synod and the heretical statements (on almost any standard) of Pope Francis. Bishop Gavin knows about the literal pachamama idols used during worship in the Amazonian Synod. Not only used, but when a devout Roman Catholic took them away and dumped the idols into the Tiber, Pope Francis had them retrieved and made an announcement that they were found, calling them "pachamama" in his very speech. They are, literally, idols; not representations of the Blessed Virgin, but actual pagan, non-Christian, idols.

German Roman Catholic Bishops recently came out saying that homosexuality is a "normal" part of human sexuality; I could find no response from Papacy, and certainly nothing to the level of excommunication or even a threat of one.

Even Bishop Gavin admits that the grass isn't "greener" in Rome, as I quoted above. Why does this argument stand for him? Because it is the assurance, it seems, that no matter how bad it gets God will protect the Papacy from falling formally into heresy.

This argument assumes that Rome and the Papacy have not already done so, and multiple times. From the historical problems facing Papal Infallibility such as the heretic (and named as such by an Ecumenical Council) Pope Honorius, to the elevation of the Immaculate Conception as de fide, to Cardinal Newman's rather contrived argument of doctrinal development (you can fit literally any theological system into history through doctrinal development), I find the evidence to the contrary rather convincing. Rome is, currently, heretical. Even under Pope Benedict XVI. Even under Pope St. John Paul II. Going back to the Council of Trent, and further back beyond that, Rome has committed herself to many a heresy.


The Major Problem of Swimming the Tiber

There are a few major issues with an Anglican swimming the Tiber to join Rome. We can talk about Justification, Papal Supremacy, and other doctrinal positions of significant importance. The one doctrinal position I wish to bring up might seem minor, but it has serious consequences for the Anglican who wishes to join Rome: that is the 1896 Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae. 

I will not delve into an entire account of Apostolicae Curae; rather I will link you to a paper I did last year on the topic, defending Holy Orders within Anglicanism from the arguments made by Rome in that Papal Bull. If you are not familiar with the topic of Holy Orders, especially as it relates to Apostolicae Curae, I encourage you to read the paper.

I consider Apostolicae Curae to be one of the most poorly-made arguments against Holy Orders within Anglicanism that could possibly be published. Nevertheless, Rome in the 1990's issued an Apostolic Letter, Ad Tuendem Fidem, in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger had attached in a doctrinal commentary to the letter the claim that Apostolicae Curae was one example where certain proclamations made by the Papacy were "unquestionable" (though not necessarily infallible).

Here lies to problem: to become a Roman Catholic, you must submit to the teachings of Rome. This addendum to the Ad Tuendem Fidem was never rescinded. Furthermore, in Roman Catholicism the standard (and I only know of one exception: that of Fr. John Jay Hughes) is unconditonal re-Ordination and re-Confirmation. What this means is that, when you go from Anglicanism to Romanism, you must implicitly affirm that you have not sacramentally received the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, or even the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. One must, in other words, in a way deny Christ.

For Anglicans, especially Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic Tradition, this should be a serious issue. If you have not thought out your theology on the Sacraments, if you have not thoroughly considered the issues of Apostolicae Curae and their implications, you are in no state to leave Anglicanism and join Rome. You do need to consider what it is you are rejecting when you go from Anglicanism to Romanism. This is not merely a jurisdictional change, like going from Anglicanism to Old Catholicism or Anglicanism to Lutheranism. This is a unique relationship Anglicanism has with Romanism. Rome has made a specific, theological argument against the validity of our Holy Orders and thus has ultimately claimed that we have no sacramental assurance of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. They have not issued such a formal declaration against Lutherans, and in fact have said the opposite about communions such as Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.

I have many issues with Rome; serious issues. I consider this to be one of the top ones. Apostolicae Curae only convinces me that Rome in the late 1800's was willing to use her assumed ecclesiastical authority to play ecclesiastically political games, to the detriment of theology. The arguments are, simply put, really bad (again, see my paper). But now that they cannot be questioned by the Roman faithful, in order to join Rome I would have to submit to the belief that not only are Holy Orders within Anglicanism "absolutely null and utterly void", as Apostolicae Curae says, but as a consequence of that believe that Jesus' Presence in the Eucharist I've received as an Anglican for seven years is "absolutely null and utterly void". I cannot, in good conscience, reject my Savior's Presence in the Sacrament that He has graced me with. This is the primary reason that I can never join Rome, and should be a most serious impediment to other Anglicans as well.



The Barely Protestant blog is run by Rev. A. James Gadomski, a Deacon within the Anglican Church in North America. To contact him, please e-mail at barelyprotestant@gmail.com. As well, there is a Facebook page here.