Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/558

Rh ANGLICANISM 498 ANGLICANISM to render mutual services to one another, and much else of the same kind— were very insufficiently set forth in the Pontifical. Accordingly, in drawing up their new rite, thej' endeavoured as far as possible to eliminate the former element and give prominence to the latter, while in their ''forms" they assigned to the priesthood the words which, according to the New Testament, Our Lord used in promoting His Apostles to this office, and to the episcopate the words of St. Paul which "were believed to refer to the consecration of St. Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus". Nor, in following precedents so lofty, could they reasonably be charged with having en- dangered the efficacy of their rite. This is in brief the defensive argument of the "Responsio". But it also charges the Pope with having, in his zeal to condemn the orders of the Anglican Church, over- looked the contradictions in which he was involving the position of his own Church. In condemning the Anglican "forms" as wanting in definite significa- tion, he condemned, by implication, the orders of his own Church, since the Roman Pontifical in its pre-medieval text was not a whit more definite than the Elizabethan Anglican; and in attaching the sac- ramental virtue to the imposition of hands and the connected words he was condemning by implication his predecessor, Eugenius IV, who attached that virtue to the tradition of instruments and the words connected therewith, not even making mention of imposition of hands among the requisites. One thing was made clear by the "Responsio", and by the other criticisms of the "Apostolicfe Curje" which poured forth from the Anglican press, namely, that the character of the Bull and its arguments had been greatly misapprehended. Hence, Cardinal Vaughan and the English Catholic Bishops, in the early part of 1S98, published a "Vindication of the Bull 'Apos- toliciB Curte,' in reply to a letter addressed to them by the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York." In this "Vindication," after some prelimi- nary observations on the extrinsic reasons which the Bull had given for its decision, attention is called to the false standpoint from which the two Arch- bishops had judged the arguments of the Bull. In their "Responsio" they are mainly occupied with challenging the soundness of the principles on which the papal decision had been based. They urge that it rests on a false and unscriptural conception of the priesthood, and that, if for this the more scriptural conception expounded by themselves had been sub- stituted, the decision must have been different. But this, the "Vindication" points out, is ignoratio elcn- chi. Of course the Pope considers that the Catholic conception of the priesthood is in conformity with Scripture; but that was not the question under con- sideration. The Anglican grievance was that those of their clergy who came over to us were re-ordained; and to complain of this was to contend that even on our principles their orders ought to be recognized; while no doubt the particular section of the Angli- can communion which took most to heart this prac- tice of re-ordination was in substantial agreement with us as to our conception of the priesthood. Hence the Holy See, in examining the question, necessarily assumed the validity of its own principles, and incjuired only if they had been duly applied. The "Vindication", however, to facilitate the under- standing of the Pope's reasons, sets itself to expand, explain, and vindicate by reference to the facts tho.se points which the Bull, after the manner of legal documents, gives only in a highly condensed form. It is not neces.sary here to epitomize the "Vindication", but mention may be made of its ptudy of the opinions in regard to the Eucharistic PrcscMice, the Mass, and the priesthood of Cranmer and his associates, as likewise of the opinions on the eaiue subjects expressed by a series ot Anglican di- vines during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which showed that the tradition initiated by Cran- mer persisted. The Authority of "AposTOLia« Cur.e". — The question has been raised whether the pronouncement of the Bull " Apostolica; Curae" is or is not to be taken as an infallible utterance of the Holy See. But even if it were not it would not follow that it can be dis- regarded, and its eventual withdrawal confidently anticipated. What may be safely assumed is that it fixes the belief and practice of the Catholic Church irrevocably. This at least Leo XIII must have meant to signify when in his letter to Cardinal Richard, of 5 November, 1896, he declared that his "intention had been to pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever" {alisolute judicare et penitus dirimere), and that "Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience as perpetuo firmam, ralam, irrevocabilem" . Still, as a matter of speculative interest, it may be asked whether the definition is strictly infallible, and the answer may be stated shortly thus. It belongs to a class of ex cathedrd utterances for which infallibility is claimed on the ground, not indeed, of the terms of the Vatican definition, but of the constant practice of the Holy See, the consentient teaching of the theo- logians, as well as of the clearest deductions from the principles of faith. To understand what is meant it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between a dogma and a dogmatic fact, the former being a doctrine of revelation, the latter a fact so intimately connected with a revealed doctrine that it would be impossible without inconsistency to assert the former and deny the latter. It may be urged that the Vatican Council merely defined that the Pope wlien speaking ex cathedrd has "that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to have in defining doctrine of faitli and morals", without going on to define the range of infallibility which Our Lord wished His Church to have. But it must be remembered (1) that the Vatican Council, had it not been forced to suspend its sittings by the out- break of the Franco-Prussian war, intended to sup- plement this first definition by others which would have gone into details in regard to the object of in- fallibility; (2) that to suppose that Church authority can define a doctrine to be true, but cannot decide whether it is contained in or denied by any particular writing — such as an ordination rite — is to suppose that the power of defining doctrine is largely nuga- tory; and (3) that since the time of Jansenius there has been a practical consennus thcologorum in holding that infallibility does extend to dogmatic facts, a judgment which would undoubtedly bring this Bull within the category of infallilile utterances. Most of the leading works on Anglican Orders have been mentioned in the body of thi.s article, but of recent date there are also the following: On the Catholic side, Barnks. The Pope and the Ordinal (1898), a convenient collection of the documents concerned; Raynal, Ordinal of Edward VI (1870); Moves, articles in Tablet (February-May and September- December, 1895; and February-July, 1897); Sydnky F. Smith, Reasons for rejecting Anglican Orders (London, 1896); Segna, Breves Animadversiones in Responsionem Archiepis- coporum Anglicanorum^ ad Litteras Apostolicas Leonis PP. Xlll, "Apostolica Curai*' (1897); Hrandi, La Condanna delle Ordinazioni Anglicane, in La Civilth Cattolica, Ser. 16, VIII (t,r. in Am. Ecc. Rev., XVI, 1897). On the Anglican side, Denny and Lacey, De Hierarehid Anglican^ (1895). written with the object of laying the Anglican case before continental students; and the Church Historical Society's Treatise on the Bull "Apostolica! Curae" (1898). Sydney F. Smith. Anglicanism. — A term used to denote the reli- gious belief and position of members of the Estab- lislicd Church of ICngland, and of the communicat- iii^; cliurdics in the Britisli possessions, the T'nitcd States, andclsowliere. It includes (hose who have ac- cepted the work of the En^;lisli Hol'oriiuition as em- bodied in the Church of Eii);huid or in tlic olT.shoot Churches which in other countries have adhered, at