A dear Anglo-Catholic priest friend and mentor of mine likes to joke that the Pope should send him a Christmas card each year because of all the parishioners that have left his parish to swim the Tiber. Indeed, there has long been a tendency for Anglicans of all kinds—not just Anglo-Catholics—to convert to other traditions, especially Roman Catholicism. Perhaps this is because Anglicanism’s moderate temperament and irenic spirit makes it appealing to converts from Evangelicalism who incubate in English Catholicism until they move on to something they perceive as “deeper.” Or it could be that Anglicanism’s relative historical, liturgical, and theological proximity to Roman Catholicism makes it difficult to differentiate for those who might be unfamiliar. Or maybe the Anglican Church remains haunted by the ghost of John Henry Newman.
While it may be inevitable that folks will convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, it is important to theologically and pastorally assess this desire to convert. But first a few important caveats should be made:
I have nothing but love for our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. While I will posit that not all conversions are justified, it is not because of an anti-Roman phobia.
There are many former-Anglicans who have converted for reasons that I deem insufficient. At the end of the day, this is a personal choice and even if I disagree with someone, I respect their decision.
At the end of the day, if someone needs to be Roman Catholic to be a good Christian, I would prefer they do that. Still, I think it is important to consider some of the pastoral and theological issues before making a move.
Still, we ought to make decisions about our Church in a critical and theologically informed way. In order to do this, one must consider the question of converting to Roman Catholicism on three levels. The first is an ecclesiological one based on what the Church is. The second is to assess the proposed reasons for conversion. Third, one must consider the reasons to stay.
Ecclesial Realism and the Question of Anglican Orders
The first question to assess is whether or not Anglicans are a valid branch of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Of course Anglicans believe so and this is not the place to litigate the issue. If you’re interested, we’ve done two episodes on the Sacramentalists about this issue.
Anglicans believe in what I call ecclesial realism which is more commonly called “Branch Theory”: the idea that there is one Church flowing form the work and person of Christ that has, through “unhappy divisions”, branched off into the separate jurisdictions, or branches, of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. In any case, Anglicans are honestly and genuinely convicted that they have valid orders. There’s good reason to believe this.
When it comes to the question of converting from one branch to another, the soundness of such a move is a contingent on the conclusion one arrives regarding Anglican Orders. Much of this crisis could be resolved if the Roman Catholic Church decided to conditionally confirm former-Anglicans who make the move; however, the current procedure is that they are confirmed as if they were members of a Protestant denomination outside of Apostolic Succession.
When a Sacrament is administered, it should not be repeated. A baptized person should not be rebaptized. Similarly, one should not confess a sin after it has been absolved. To repeat a Sacrament is to doubt the promise God has attached to that ritual. Of course, in a case where there is a deficiency of form or matter, the Sacrament should be administered properly. In the case of Anglican Sacraments, whether they need to be repeated is contingent on one’s position about the sacramental integrity of the act. In other words, if one concludes that Anglicans lack valid Orders, and therefore the authority to confirm, say Mass, and absolve sins, then one should leave the Anglican Church to be confirmed by a Bishop in Apostolic Succession immediately. If, however, one believes Anglican orders are valid, then to be re-confirmed is a sacrilege. Sacrilege is a serious disrespect of a holy thing. We often think of sacrilege as making light of sacred realities: telling an irreverent joke or demonstrating disrespect to people or things set apart by the Church for the purpose of worshipping God. Doubting God’s Word by performing another Sacrament is another iteration of the same sin.
This does not mean one is hermetically sealed in Anglicanism. It may be that the pastor or Bishop of a Roman Catholic parish would tolerate an Anglican worshipping with them and even participating in the sacramental life of that community.1 These are grassroots scenarios that can vary wildly depending on the people involved and highlight the unevenness and inconsistencies of Roman Catholic responses to the complicated denominational landscape in which we find ourselves.
Too often, Anglican converts to Roman Catholicism want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to affirm that the sacramental grace they have received in their Anglican context was valid and real while also justifying their conversion to Rome and the commission of a sacrilege in getting re-confirmed. This is an inconsistent position. Either Ecclesial Realism is true and Anglican confirmations are objectively valid, in which case it is wrong to be re-confirmed, or Ecclesial Realism is false and Anglican confirmations are objectively invalid in which one must also admit that all Sacraments received in their Anglican context, besides Baptism and Marriage, were invalid.
If one has concluded that Anglican Sacraments are valid, then it is important to consider two other aspects that might be driving the conversion. First, it is important to look at reasons to not leave; these are inherently defensive arguments that respond to perceived criticisms of Anglicanism and/or perceived strengths of Roman Catholicism. Second, the potential convert should also contemplate the positive reasons to stay in Anglicanism.
Reasons to not Leave
Potential converts prefer many reasons to leave Anglicanism for Roman Catholicism . The first, strongest, and perhaps most naive is a desire for unity. This is a good and holy desire as it seeks to emulate Jesus’ prayer “that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21 NRSVCE). The Church must strive to realize unity with itself to mirror to the world the relationship between the Father and the Son. This is an inherently missional unity that is impeded by divisions. In the mind of many converts, moving to the Roman Catholic Church will ameliorate the festering wound of schism. This is a noble impulse but it suffers from a few deficiencies.
The first issue that has to be overcome by potential converts is the fact that they are committing schism in order to heal schism. If the conviction is still present that the Sacraments one received are valid, then one belongs to a particular part of the Body of the Christ. This is akin to the foot saying, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body” (1 Cor 12:15). Anglicans are already members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. By tearing oneself away from the vows one has made to their Bishop and parish, they are not only committing a sacrilege, but doing so in a schismatic way.
Second, locating the unity of the Church in the papacy is to miss the true foundation of unity which is the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. This does not excuse or even minimize the divisions in which we find ourselves, but it should make us long for when the sheep from different folds are visibly brought into one flock (John 10:16). Rather than healing the wounds of schism, converting for the sake of unity perpetuates a kind of factionalism that can be unhelpful. A much better posture would be to recognize one’s place in the Catholic Church, lament our visible disunity, and pray for those wounds to be healed.
O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
A third issue with the unity argument is that it is ultimately a Protestant mode of logic. Catholic Christianity emphasizes the importance of submission to one’s Bishop. If a potential convert believes that their current Bishop has Apostolic Succession, they should seriously consider the wisdom of severing their relationship with him. To make the move is to implicitly admit a lack of respect for the episcopacy.
Another reason for conversion that gets proposed is a numbers argument. Roman Catholicism is the largest communion of Christians in the world; by converting, the person who makes the move is now in communion with so many more Christians. First of all, much of what was said above can be applied to this: insofar as one is a baptized Christian, one is a member of the whole Body of Christ. Second, this is a mob appeal. Just because more people are Roman Catholic than Anglican does not mean that it is preferable. Third, in the spiritual life, pure numbers are not reflective of spiritual health. One could apply a variation of the same logic to justify attending a local megachurch. At the end of the day, a preoccupation with numbers, one way or the other, is not a helpful metric to decide where one should make their church home.
A final argument that can be wielded for conversion is the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. This is an especially persuasive argument for someone who has spent time in Anglicanism which has more diversity in perspectives and which has been divided by poor moral theology and a failure on behalf of bishops to enforce the teachings of the Church. That said, conversion is not necessarily a salve for a number of reasons. First, the idealized picture of Roman uniformity is a myth.
’s brilliant work at demonstrates a serious problem with Cafeteria Catholicism on the issue of abortion. A rather horrifying and barbaric find is that “if you look at the stated opinion of rank and file Catholics on abortion, there’s clear majority support for elective abortion in almost every circumstance. For instance, at least three quarters of Roman Catholics favor a woman’s right to obtain an abortion if she became pregnant due to a sexual assault. Nearly the same share are supportive of abortion if the child has a serious birth defect” (emphasis added).
The issue is not just with moral issues as the same kind of diversity in Roman Catholicism exists in sacramental theology. Only one-third of Roman Catholics agree with the Church’s teachings on transubstantiation.2 One would be right to point out that the teaching on the issue is not ambiguous. Yet clearly there is a problem with catechesis and enforcement of Church teaching and discipline.
Many people will point to unity, numbers, and the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as reasons to leave Anglicanism for Rome. Yet, these reasons fall flat, proving the adage that “The grass is always greener on the other side.” As human beings we strive for the comfort that certainty brings; however, the certainty presented by these arguments is a facade that fails to deliver what is promised.
Reasons to Stay
Nevertheless, it is not purely negative reasons that should prevent one from leaving Anglicanism for Roman Catholicism. There are positive reasons to stay. On a personal level, the virtue of stabilitas matters a great deal. At an institutional level, the English Catholicism represented by Anglicanism is an incredible gift to the life of the Church and worth preserving. And finally, on an ecumenical level, Anglicans are bridge builders who responsible for much of the ecumenical progress of the last 150 years.
In the opening chapter of The Rule of St. Benedict, the great father of monasticism recognizes four types of monks: Cenobites, Anchorites, Sarabaites, and Gyrovagues. The Gyrovagues
spend their whole lives tramping from province to province, staying as guests in different monasteries for three or four days at a time. Always on the move, with no stability, they indulge their own wills and succumb to the allurements of gluttony, and are in every way worse than the Sarabaites. Of the miserable conduct of all such it is better to be silent than to speak. (The Rule of St. Benedict 1.10-11; emphasis added)
These monks were so problematic because they lacked stability, moving from place-to-place. While not a perfect parallel, those who struggle with convertitis place themselves in a similar position. As mentioned above, there may be legitimate reasons to convert; however, many—perhaps most—reasons are not. One should guard stability carefully. When one lacks stability, the problem appears to be “out there”, something about the tradition, jurisdiction, diocese, or parish just is not cutting it anymore. Unfortunately, instability of the heart blinds us from seeing that the problem is not external, but internal. Hugh of Saint Victor remarks that "The soul that is unstable is like a ship without an anchor, tossed about by every wave and wind." When one leaves a parish and severs their relationship with their Bishop, the effect is often like a crack in a windshield. It starts small, but it can spread easily until the whole thing is damaged. This is why it is important to identify this pull towards convertitis with Protestant impulses: it ultimately prizes individual, private judgment over obedience and submission to the Church. Instead, we should all strive to maintain stability. There is no perfect communion, jurisdiction, diocese, or parish. Every tradition will have warts, imperfections, and problems that become magnified when you spend any significant amount of time there. There is no perfect church; but, you will never love a church until you love the one in which you dwell.
At an institutional level, the reason to stay in Anglicanism is that English Catholicism is a beautiful expression of the Christian faith that is worth inhabiting. Different parts of the Church contribute to the life of the body in their own unique ways. As Maise Ward states in The English Way, “Because Christianity is universal, it is in every country, but because it is sacramental it is intensely local, found in each country in a special and unique fashion, not a spirit only but a spirit clothed in material form” (7). According to ascetic theologian Martin Thornton, English Catholicism contributes six emphases that enrich the life of the Body of Christ.3 First, English Catholicism balances the speculative-affective synthesis that grounds spirituality, liturgy, and the life of the Church and Christian on dogmatic fact in a way that unites head and heart. Second, English Catholicism diminishes the effects of clericalism by maintaining a familial unity between various parts of the Church Militant, clergy and laity, and those in monastic and secular vocations. Third, the English Catholic tradition is composed of “a unique humanism and a unique optimism.” This is evident in the Book of Common Prayer as an ascetical system geared towards empowering the laity. A fourth contribution of English Catholicism is the threefold Rule of Mass, Daily Office, and personal devotion which is a permutation of Benedictine spirituality and the optimistic humanism mentioned in the previous point. Fifthly, the goal of English spirituality is ultimately habitual recollection of the presence of Christ which is ultimately served by formal Offices of prayer. Finally, the English Catholic tradition brings a robust tradition of spiritual direction “not only as pastoral practice but also as the source and inspiration of ascetically theology.” Together, Thornton argues, these six aspects of English Catholic spirituality contribute an “incalculable worth to Christendom.” While this in no way diminishes or negates the contributions of other parts of Christendom, we should be thankful for the gift of Anglican spirituality.
A final aspect of English Catholicism worth preserving is its ecumenical spirit. In the 20th century, Anglicanism was an unprecedented catalyst for ecumenical progress. Some Orthodox Bishops participated in Anglican consecrations, Orthodox were encouraged to attend Episcopal Churches when they were in areas without an Orthodox presence, and in 1922, the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized Anglican Orders as valid. Unfortunately, this relationship fell into a general state of disrepair due to the effect of the U.S.S.R. and then the slide into liberalism by many Anglican Communion jurisdictions. That said, there is potential to rekindle some of these relations as the OCA has initiated a dialogue with G3 Anglicans. Further, in roads were made throughout the 20th century with Roman Catholics, culminating in the iconic moment when Pope Paul VI presented Archbishop Michael Ramsey with a Chalice and Paten.
In addition to the larger communions, Anglicans made progress with Old Catholics (those groups that split from Rome due to Vatican I). The “Dutch Touch” was a move in the Anglican Church to have Old Catholics Bishops, whose orders were deemed valid by Rome, consecrate Anglican Bishops. Further, intercommunion was enjoyed by the Episcopal Church with the Polish National Catholic Church, an Old Catholic group that has official status with the Roman Catholic Church. Sadly, this intercommunion was lost as the Episcopal Church persisted in error, but many encouraging fruits have come from dialogue between the PNCC and the G3. Historically, Anglicans have had a heart for the whole Body of Christ. One of the great strengths of our tradition is a kind of humility that acknowledges the reality that the Church exists beyond Anglicanism.
A Possible Exception (Moving) Conclusion
To be fair, there are situations in which conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism may be warranted. The most pertinent example would be relocation. When a person who is plugged in to their Anglican parish moves to a new area, their choices may be slim. This is especially a problem for those of us in G3 Continuing Anglicanism but it can also be true for people in the Anglican Church in North America due to the diversity in theology and practice that can be found there. If a person moves to a new area and lacks the opportunity to get plugged in to an Anglican Church and the local Roman Bishop would require confirmation, then it seems like a necessary, though unfortunate path forward because access to the Sacraments are essential.
However, in normal circumstances where an Anglican might be considering moving to Roman Catholicism and they have access to a parish whose Apostolic Succession is certain, they need to consider the question on three levels. The first is ecclesiological: what is the Church? If the visible Church is reducible to those in communion with Rome or if Anglicans lack Apostolic Succession, then one should convert. If, however, one embraces ecclesial realism and believes that Anglicans have valid orders, conversion should be viewed in a negative light. Convertitis does not solve the problem of unity; in fact, it exacerbates it as one leaves one part of the Church for another. A conversion motivated by a concern for numbers is inauthentic and utilitarian. And finally, a conversion that is looking for doctrinal certainty and uniformity will end in frustration. Rather, a confirmed Anglican should learn contentment and stability by remaining in their tradition. They should live into the beauty and depth of our tradition. And they should look to be bridge builders with other traditions “that we all may be one.”
I am aware that the official Roman Catholic position is that you must be in formal communion with the Roman Church to participate in their sacraments. That said, I personally have been invited to receive the Priest Host at a funeral service I co-officiated with a Roman Priest. I am also aware of a number Anglicans, especially clergy, who are given explicit permission by Roman Priests and Bishops to make their confession in Roman Catholic contexts.
Gregory A. Smith, “Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ,” Pew Research Center, August 5, 2019, accessed May 3, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/#:~:text=Transubstantiation%20–%20the%20idea%20that%20during,'”.
Martin Thornton, English Spirituality: An Outline of Ascetical Theology According to the English Pastoral Tradition (Wipe and Stock, 1986), 48-52.
Thank you, this was very informative and helpful.