Introduction
At the height of the early twentieth century Anglo Catholic revival, the missionary Bishop Frank Weston of Zanzibar famously declared that if the faith once delivered to the saints were compromised, he would not hesitate to separate his African diocese from the authority of the Bishop of Hereford, rather than allow doctrinal corruption to go rampant.[1] Weston was articulating a fundamental principle of ecclesiology: that the unity of the Church is grounded not merely in mechanical and institutional continuity, but in fidelity to the Apostolic faith. When the officers of our churches abandon that faith which has been handed down to us, the obligation of the faithful is not blind submission or institutional loyalty, but acting to the end of preserving the faith Christ and His Apostles established.
Before I begin my reply, I think it’s imperative for Colletti’s argument to be presented in the introduction so readers can closely follow his argumentation, as well as follow what premises I am attacking and why I think the conclusion is false. Colletti’s argument is as follows:
- Christ established a Church and entrusted the Apostles to govern his church and pass on his doctrine.
- The government of the church persists and is to be respected so long as the fundamentals of that original doctrine is publicly available as the declared doctrine of that church by which people may observe it and be saved.
- The government of Christ’s Church persisted to this age in the Church of England (but was abrogated by the Roman Church in the Council of Trent and her subsequent councils).
- The government of Christ’s Church in my home country (the United States of America) was passed from the Church of England to her successor, the Episcopal Church.
- The Episcopal Church of the United States, though heretical forces “have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments”, still declares the fundamentals of doctrine in the 1979 Prayerbook and in her Constitution and Canons.
- Therefore, no other valid government of the church exists in the United States, which violates the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church.
- Therefore, I am obligated by a duty to God, to join myself to that valid jurisdiction.
With Colletti’s argument laid out above, it’s important that Mr. Colletti’s distinction of positive and negative separation be clearly defined as well. Positive separation, as I understand him to mean, is the type of separation in which a parallel jurisdiction is created due to the previous jurisdiction becoming illegitimate due to a departure of the fundamentals of doctrine. Negative separation is that which sacramental communion is denied due to theological differences, yet still affirming the opposing body is Christian, and not drawing up a competing jurisdiction. Colletti contends that while negative separation may sometimes be justified, positive separation is always illegitimate if the original church retains “fundamental doctrines” (which, to note, Colletti nowhere defines what those are). This conclusion, however, rests on historically and theologically flawed premises, which I am to show undercuts his argument. A last note before I begin: I will not be addressing his comments on the Arian and Meletian controversy in this article, since that would be an article of its own. I’ve instead focused my attention on our own history, theological texts, and divines.
Premise Five Analysis
“We affirm that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality (especially in their General Synod of 1975 and General Convention of 1976), have departed from Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”[2]
The marrow of what I will be arguing against is contained within premise 5 & 6 of Colletti’s argument above. My aim is to demonstrate why The Episcopal Church (PECUSA at the time, but I will be using TEC) overthrows the fundamentals of doctrine, as well as demonstrate how our own divines viewed positive separation as necessary in certain circumstances, and an instance of positive separation that leads to a reductio of Colletti’s position.
First, the ordination of women in TEC since the General Convention of 1976 represents not merely a disciplinary change, but a redefinition of the sacrament of holy orders itself. In classical sacramental theology, every sacrament requires proper form, matter and intention. The Catholic tradition has universally received a baptized male as the proper subject of priestly ordination, reflecting the priest’s sacramental representation of Christ in persona Christi. By introducing female candidates to the priesthood, TEC altered the sacramental matter received throughout the catholic tradition, contrary to the Vincentian canon of what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Moreover, the theological rationale typically offered for women’s ordination redefines priesthood primarily as a functional leadership role rather than a sacramental participation in Christ’s Melchizedekian priesthood. This shift and drastic change in intent by TEC is incompatible with what the Church has historically understood, and raises serious questions as a matter of sacramental integrity and the salvation of sinners.
In the Catechism of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, it states that the two dominical sacraments, Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, are generally necessary for salvation. Moreover, since it is ontologically impossible for a female to be made a priest and to have holy orders conferred upon her, she is depriving the faithful from the Holy Eucharist; that which God instituted to be the means by which we partake of the divine nature, and receive the forgiveness of sins. Moreover, a defect in the matter or intent does not merely make a sacrament illicit; it makes it null and void. When TEC no longer intends to confer the priesthood as historically understood, and if the subject presented for ordination lacks the proper sacramental matter, then the sacrament does not occur. The faithful are therefore deprived of the sacrament our Church teaches is generally necessary for salvation. This is a clear departure from the fundamentals of doctrine.
Secondly, Canon I.17.5 of TEC states that:
“No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, governance, or employment of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital or family status (including pregnancy or child care plans), sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons.”[3]
This canon establishes non-discrimination clauses for those who identify as transgender, and thus permits them to be eligible for ordination. This overthrows the foundational doctrine of Christ’s incarnation as a man, since the canon affirms a gnostic anthropology. The Church always intends to ordain one as a priest who can truly act in persona Christi. This includes Jesus’s male sex. Therefore, by ordaining someone who is biologically female but presenting as a male, not only redefines the priesthood, but undercuts Christ’s historical male incarnation through anthropological Gnosticism.
Thirdly, Resolution C022, which calls for “liturgical resources”[4] for gender transitioning, includes naming rites for those transitioning. This means that a layman may now be required to attend a service which undermines a fundamental doctrine of Christian anthropology: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen 1:27; NKJV).
These errors from TEC’s public teaching and liturgical practices undermine foundational Christian doctrine.
Premise Six Analysis
Colletti’s assertion in premise 6 is that orthodox Christians should remain within a compromised hierarchy as long as the institution outwardly retains the essentials of the Christian faith (what those essentials are according to Colletti are yet to be defined). Yet classical Anglican and patristic sources make it clear that doctrinal fidelity, not mere institutional continuity, determines legitimate ecclesial authority. As Richard Field wrote in Of the Church:
“Thirdly, they must not depart from the faith that was formerly holden by them that went before, unless any of them did first decline and go aside from the way of the first, and most ancient, that held those places before; and therefore in the catalogue of bishops succeeding one another in each several see, wheresoever any first began to teach any new and strange doctrine, different from that which was formerly delivered, the thread and line of succession was by him either wholly broken or somewhat endangered, according to the quality of the error, and the manner of defending and maintaining the same… Thus still we see, that truth of doctrine is a necessary note whereby the Church must be known and discerned, and not ministry or succession, or anything else without it.”[5]
In other words, the institutional chain of bishops is not sufficient to guarantee the Church’s identity; the faith those bishops profess and protect is the decisive criterion. This principle immediately calls into question Colletti’s dismissal of positive separation as novel.
Archbishop John Bramhall similarly emphasized the primacy of doctrinal integrity over institutional obedience in A Just Vindication of the Church of England:
“Yea , if any particular Patriarch, Prelate, Church, or Churches , how eminent soever, shall endeavour to obtrude their own singularities upon others for Catholic verities, or shall enjoin sinful duties to their subjects, or shall violate the undoubted privileges of their inferiors contrary to the canons of the Fathers; it is very lawful for their own subjects to disobey them, and for strangers to separate from them. And if either the one or the other have been drawn to partake of their errors upon pretence of obedience or of Catholic communion, they may without the guilt of schism, nay they ought, to reform themselves, so as it be done by lawful authority, upon good grounds, with due moderation, without excess, or the violation of charity; and so as the separation from them be not total, but only in their errors and innovations; nor perpetual, but only during their distempers: as a man might leave his father’s or his brother’s house, being infected with the plague, with a purpose to return thither again so soon as it was cleansed. This is no more than what Gerson hath taught us in sundry places: ‘It is lawful by the law of nature to resist the injury and violence of a Pope;’ and, “if any one should convert his Papal dignity to be an instrument of wickedness to the destruction of any part of the Church in temporalities or spiritualities, and if there appears no other remedy but by withdrawing oneself from the obedience of such a raging power, …. until the Church or a Council shall provide otherwise; it is lawful.”[6]
This citation clarifies that separation is justified when a hierarchy innovates in doctrine or practice. The schismatic then, according to Bramhall, is the innovator, not the one separating and continuing that which we have received.
The Non-Juror Reductio
When reading Colletti’s article, I was surprised he never dealt with or addressed one of the most glaring and apparent examples of positive separation within our tradition: the Non-Jurors.
After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, several bishops of the Church of England refused to swear allegiance to William III and Mary II. Consequently, these Non-Jurors were deprived of their positions and offices, yet they continued to exercise episcopal authority: ordaining deacons and priests, consecrating bishops and successors and maintaining orthodox teaching outside the established jurisdiction of the Church of England. They created new jurisdictions, and consecrated new bishops without the consent of the Church of England.
The implications for Colletti’s argument are a reductio ad absurdum. If positive separation is always illegitimate whenever the original church persists as “recognizably Christian”, then the Non-Jurors themselves would have been guilty of schism. Moreover, all bishops who refused allegiance to William and Mary and continued the apostolic ministry in new jurisdictions were therefore illicit.
To drive this point further, the first American bishop, Samuel Seabury, received episcopal consecration from the Scottish Non-Jurors, and established an independent American jurisdiction. This demonstrates that Colletti’s argument, if applied consistently, would render the very foundations of the American episcopate illegitimate, thus exposing the internal incoherence of his position. Ergo, if the Non-Jurors were justified in positive separation with the Church of England over the pledge, then how much more is the Continuum justified in separating from TEC, which has publicly abandoned the Apostolic faith which has been handed down to us from our spiritual predecessors?
Davenant Reclaimed
In Colletti’s article, he points out that Davenant believed the Roman Catholic Church undermined the foundation of the faith by virtue of public doctrine, not of private theologians. He compares this to TEC, who, he argues, does not undermine the fundamental doctrines of the faith, since, Colletti asserts, the canons and constitutions of TEC affirm Christian fundamentals. But as I have demonstrated above, TEC has undermined the foundations of the faith by departing from orthodox Christology, sacramentology, and anthropology. If Davenant was able to affirm positive separation with the Roman Catholic Church over the usurpations of the Pope, how much more would he affirm positive separation with an institution that has publicly affirmed gnostic and heretical views of the abovementioned categories?
Rome was still recognizably Christian, despite the overreach of authority of the Bishop of Rome, yet Davenant still believed it as an overthrowing of the fundamentals. Another concern of Davenant contra the Roman Church, was that the fundamentals were not regularly and proactively preached from the pulpit to the laity. Do we really kid ourselves into believing that the majority of TEC churches are consistently preaching from their pulpits the Christian orthodoxy of the Nicene and Apostles Creed or the Anglican Formularies? Davenant would support positive separation from TEC.
Conclusion – The Cirlotian Principle
Building on these historical precedents, Felix Cirlot provides a theological principle that directly validates and predicts the Continuing Anglican movement:
“If those pledged to uphold the present doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion fail to keep that pledge, I have no doubt that others can be found who will uphold it, and that enough of our present bishops can be found to ordain shepherds in all places where Anglicans are now organized who wish to continue faithful to what Anglicanism is officially at present.”[7]
The Continuum’s claim is straightforward: the Episcopal Church abandoned Apostolic and Catholic order, and thus forfeited jurisdiction. The 1977 Denver consecrations of Bishop Chambers were paramount in continuing that same faith Colletti says was passed down to us by our spiritual predecessors in the Mother country. Chambers and the founders of the original Anglican Church in North America, despite the overwhelming pressure from the opposition, sought to rid itself of heresy that was infected within TEC. If only they knew how bad things would get. Yes, the Continuum has its problems and sins, but by God’s help, we will continue to unite together with all Catholic bodies who, too, hear His voice and follow after Him.
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Footnotes
[1] Frank Weston, “Important Declaration by the Bishop of Zanzibar,” The Church Times, April 1, 1915, in Project Canterbury, https://anglicanhistory.org/weston/weston1.html. [2] The Affirmation of St. Louis, Congress of St. Louis, September 14-16, 1977 (St. Louis, MO: Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen, 1977), 3. [3] The Episcopal Church, General Convention Resolution C022: Authorize Liturgical Resources for the Blessing of Same-Sex Relationships and for Pastoral Liturgies for Gender Transition and Affirmation, 79th General Convention, Austin, Texas, 2018. [4] The Episcopal Church, The Book of Occasional Services 2018 (New York: Church Publishing, 2018), 120–124, “A Service of Renaming.” [5] Richard Field, Of the Church, vol. 1 (Cambridge: University Press, 1847), 83-84. [6] John Bramhall, A Just Vindication of the Church of England from the Unjust Aspersion of Criminal Schism, in The Works of the Most Reverend Father in God John Bramhall, vol. 1 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1842), 106-107. [7] Felix L. Cirlot, Apostolic Succession: Is It True? An Historical and Theological Inquiry (Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House Publications), xii.
