[Central Florida Bishop John] Howe has told me that he would not be part of any group that is cut off from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the main symbol of unity in the Anglican Communion. In an interview with his diocese’s newspaper recently, Howe said, “I share many if not most of (the dissenters’) theological commitments and concerns. … But God has called me to be a bishop in The Episcopal Church … and I have no intention of leaving it.”
All this may seem like a lot of to-do about technicalities, but there is an important principle at stake in these disputes, and that is the nature of the church. The dissidents – those who are going – believe they are upholding its purity. The ones who are staying believe they are upholding its unity. Which is the more important?
If I go there will be troubel
And if I stay it will be double
So c’mon and let me knowwwwwww
Should I cool it or should I blow?
It is more than leaving for purity’s sake…Lord knows we are all unpure and in need of being washed in the blood of the Lamb. It is about being forced to be an accessory to those who are spreading impurity and imposing it on the minority. Serious discussion of this issue needs to start there.
If you really want to know, Brian, you should stay and be transformed, and may I be transformed as well. But, let’s be clear: It’s not about “purity” or “unity.” It’s about being faithful to Jesus, and when it comes time to stand up and say, “here I stand,” do it. It’s surprising how many allies will come out of the woodwork, but even if they don’t, you can sleep at night. Although I am still nominally Episcopalian, I don’t share the prevailing philosophy that we are smarter in 2009 than Joseph or Mary, or smarter than the authors of the Gospels, or than those who first affirmed the creeds we recite on Sundays. God is not “doing a new thing,” but is redeeming the same old things, which we all wrestle with, if we’ll let Him. Amen.
[blockquote] All this may seem like a lot of to-do about technicalities, but there is an important principle at stake in these disputes, and that is the nature of the church. The dissidents – those who are going – believe they are upholding its purity. The ones who are staying believe they are upholding its unity. [/blockquote]
Like Adam and TOH above, I agree that this is not an issue of trying to create a “pure” church. Where did the reporter get such an idea? (Bishop Lee, FWIW, used the same terminology when he was trying to dissuade Truro and TFC from leaving TEC.) What the orthodox are trying to do, as a matter of fact, is to form a very impure church– chock full of sinners… every last one of the members a sinner, in fact. But what the orthodox WILL NOT DO is proclaim that sin does NOT exist, nor will they preach that Christ’s death is irrelevant, because all paths lead to God, and Jesus just told us about one of those paths…. one among many.
Worshipping in a church that does not confront sin is like craving water but drinking from the sea. It might give some temporary comfort, but the long-term consequences are deadly.
I spent 55 years of my life in the Episcopal church. I have kept the faith. Jesus is “the Way” not just “a way”. God is not “mother God” for that impunes His relationship with the virgin Mary to bear His Son. Inclusiveness is about people not about behavior for Jesus condemned sinful behavior and the consequences that follow are due to unrighteous behavior. I know for I have sinned and suffered the consequential relts of my sinful behavior.
This subject has been addressed many times by many different people. Almost without exception the answer is “go.” Why? Because communion is like the old nutritional adage “you are what you eat.” Except in this case it would be “you are who you are in communion with.” Who you keep company with matters. But who you share the cup with matters more. Communion is the ultimate declaration of unity of faith. If you are sharing the cup with someone you are de facto declaring that to the best of your knowledge that person is on the same page with you on the essentials of faith. Which is to say that they are not heretics. Conversely to be in communion with heretics is to be a heretic. You are announcing that you do not consider their doctrinal heterodoxy to be beyond the pale.
Protestants who generally have a low to nonexistent sacramental concept of communion will likely disagree with that statement. But it is and has been the consistent teaching of the church catholic (small “c”). I have quoted the Fathers of the Church on this subject here and elsewhere, and I may do so again at the end, it never hurts. But even if you have no use for the Fathers any passing command of the ecclesiology of the Church in the First Millennium should confirm that this was the accepted discipline of The Church (big ‘C’ intentional) .
Read Met. +Iakovos of Pergamon’s [url=http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm]EUCHARIST, BISHOP, CHURCH: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE DIVINE EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES[/url]. That’s not light reading. But its some of the best you will ever engage in. I would also encourage those debating this question to read Fr. Al Kinel’s [url=http://pontifications.wordpress.com/anglicanism/]”Fly You Fools!”[/url] (Nov 8 2004), Rod Drehers recent post on [url=http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/12/is-heresy-better-than-schism.html]schism and heresy[/url] and at the risk of tooting my own horn, [url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2006/11/some-thoughts-on-loosing-war.html]Some thoughts on loosing a war[/url].
Though the passage of time may have changed some of the details in my essay, the underlying facts have not been altered. There is no moral argument that can justify remaining in TEC.
As promised above…
St. John the Almsgiver said: “We shall not escape sharing in that punishment which, in the world to come, awaits heretics, if we defile Orthodoxy and the holy Faith by adulterous communion with heretics.” The Life of St. John the Almsgiver.
St. John of Damascus writes: “With all our strength let us beware lest we receive Communion from or give it to heretics. ‘Give not what is holy to the dogs,’ says the Lord. ‘Neither cast ye your pearls before swine’, lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation.” Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV, 13.
“Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he has permitted them to perform any service as clergymen, let him be deposed.” Apostolic Canon 45.
“Concerning the necessity of not permitting heretics to come into the house of God, so long as they persist in their heresy.” Canon 6 of the Council of Laodicea.
“That one must not accept the blessings of heretics, which are rather misfortunes than blessings.” Canon 32 of the Council of Laodicea.
“That one must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics.” Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea.
St. Maximus the Confessor said: “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [heretical] patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.” The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor.
“Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God.” St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle of Abbot Theophilus.
“Guard yourselves from soul-destroying heresy, communion with which is alienation from Christ.” St. Theodore the Studite, P.G. 99.1216.
“Some have suffered final shipwreck with regard to the faith. Others, though they have not drowned in their thoughts, are nevertheless perishing through communion with heresy.” St. Theodore the Studite.
“All the teachers of the Church, and all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures advise us to flee from the heterodox and separate from their communion.” St. Mark of Ephesus.
“Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God.” II Corinthians 6.14-16.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Sorry…. hit the wrong key…..to finish my post. I left TEC because I could no longer in good conscience be identified with it. It impeached my testimony for Christ before I began it. I hope she finds her moorings, sooner rather than later, and returns to the greatness of her former traditional ways. May all who remain find peace from the true faith of orthodoxy, tradition and reason.
You can make an ecclesial case for the fact that there are two churches in North America stating that *they* are the expression of Anglicanism in this area of the world. I find that funny because many Episcopalians could care less about being “Anglican”, the only thing they care about is being “Episcopalian”, whatever that happens to mean today–even “Christian” is truly lost on a lot of them.
BUT the “goers” are not out of Communion with Canterbury, they just have an alternate primate–Archbishop Nzimbi, Archbishop Akinola, or Archbishop Venables. People like Bishop Minns may not have been invited to Lambeth, but it’s debatable as to whether or not he considers himself out of Communion with Canterbury. Not to mention that +++RW has largely refused to say who is Anglican and who is not, with the exception of Gene Robinson. Personally I don’t quite understand what was worked out between +++RW and Bishop Schofield. Anyone here is welcome to correct my thoughts.
The already sorely missed Fr. Neuhaus got it right–maybe he was speaking of Lutheranism at the time, but he categorizes anyone who happens to be embracing “the New Thing”:
“It was sadly amusing to read that a Lutheran denomination in this country is undertaking a major study with a view toward revising its teaching on sexual morality, with particular reference to homosexuality. Especially striking was the assurance that the study would be conducted “without any prior assumptions.†Imagine that. The entire course of Christian fidelity is obedience to the received truth of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, and the Spirit’s guiding of the Church’s reflection on that truth. At some point this Lutheran body will arrive at its new teaching. Through a complicated process of bureaucratic planning, interest group agitation, and a legitimating majority vote, it will eventually arrive at the point of saying “this we believe, teach, and confess.†Undoubtedly Scripture will be cited, but, as Luther said, biblical texts, like wax noses, can be twisted to fit. If, as seems probable, this body adopts a new teaching and one asks by what authority it teaches this new doctrine, the only honest answer will be, “Because we will it to be so.†“It is what was decided by the procedures adopted by our religious society,†they might say. “Ours is, after all, a voluntary association, so nobody else has any right to complain.†By the rules of that denomination, the Church through time and the contemporary Church universal, to which Christ promised the Spirit’s guidance, does not get a vote”.
Now any revisionist reading here will say, “Who is Mama Bear that she has cornered the market on truth?” Well, I haven’t cornered the market on Truth. Christ, the Spirit, and the Church already DID, and I don’t feel the need to monkey with that just to validate myself or my behaviors. I may not meet the standard, but that doesn’t mean the standard should change just to suit me.
Makes me wonder where we should surely all be “going”. Maybe it’s men like Fr. Neuhaus who got it right.
MB
Ad Orientem,
You are so right! My wife and I felt the same way, how could we be wittnesses for our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ while appearing to accept the “new gospel” of TEC if we remained? We were both chrismated last Pascha and have found peace and joy at St. Nicholas.
As an aside, we did not attend the enthronement of Metropolitan Jonah even though we are members of St. Nicholas because we take our grandchildren with us. The dual-language service is usually about two hours and with all the bishops and priests there, we felt it would be too much for 8 and 10 year olds. That combined with the hour and fifteen minute one way commute to church, we opted not to go. BTW, really like your website!
May God grant you many years!
Now Orthodox,
Thank you for your very kind words and congratulations on your Chrismation. Many years to you and yours!
In ICXC
John
[blockquote]I am still nominally Episcopalian, I don’t share the prevailing philosophy that we are smarter in 2009 than Joseph or Mary, or smarter than the authors of the Gospels, or than those who first affirmed the creeds we recite on Sundays. God is not “doing a new thing,†but is redeeming the same old things, which we all wrestle with, if we’ll let Him. Amen.[/blockquote]
And Amen.
I belong to an orthodox parish in a revisionist ECUSA diocese. This parish has much to offer, and I feel called to be there for now.
But like every orthodox parish in a revisionist diocese, we are [b][i]living on borrowed time[/i][/b]. (Not that we’d necessarily be safe in an orthodox diocese that remained in ECUSA: we’d just have somewhat more time.)
Professedly orthodox Anglicans in ECUSA have no excuse when they look only at the comfort of their immediate surroundings. They have even less excuse when they main thing they have to say about Anglican disputes is to criticize the orthodox who have left or plan to leave. They are even more culpable when they do so while occupying positions of church leadership.
What is the unity those who remain in the episcopal institution uphold? It can’t be a unity of faith in Jesus Christ – there is none. It can’t be a unity of practice – there is none. It can’t be a unity of ecclesiology – there is none. So what is the unity those who remain uphold? The unity of “the Body of Christ” – how can there be unity in the “Body of Christ” when the body does not even recognize its Head? Is it unity as a “principle” – what is the principle of the principle?
RE: “Almost without exception the answer is “go.—
Uh — no, it’s not. You don’t — you [i]can’t[/i], in fact, know — how many people have examined the question and said “stay.” I have done so, for one, and there are many thousands more who have done so. So the question of percentages is unknown of peopel who have examined the question and said “go” is in fact entirely unknown to you or anyone else.
RE: “Except in this case it would be “you are who you are in communion with.â€
I am in communion with all fellow Christian believers of all denominations. As to with whom I eat Communion, I have very little idea what their stance is before God.
RE: “If you are sharing the cup with someone you are de facto declaring that to the best of your knowledge that person is on the same page with you on the essentials of faith.”
Lol. No, you’re not.
RE: “Which is to say that they are not heretics.”
Nonsense. I have no doubt at all that I have, in every organization with which I have engaged in communion, shared the cup with heretics, whether Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, or whatever. And were communion to be open in the RC church [a non-possibility given their theology] I would there as well. In fact, of course, I’m quite confident that I hold unbeknownst to me heretical opinions and beliefs.
RE: “You are announcing that you do not consider their doctrinal heterodoxy to be beyond the pale.”
No, you’re not.
RE: “. . . at the risk of tooting my own horn, Some thoughts on loosing a war.”
Hopefully the word “losing” is spelled correctly at the original post.
The rest of your random strung-together assertions I won’t bother to address.
But if this is an example of “Orthodox thought” — well, I had thought better of that church. Perhaps Ad Orientem is not representative.
[i] What is the unity those who remain in the episcopal institution uphold? [/i] —Dan Crawford [#13]
Good question. Is it a leftover feeling of unity, perhaps aided by having a circle of clergy and laity who share one’s views? Is it like soldiering through marriage with a faithless spouse?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] How can there be unity in the “Body of Christ†when the body does not even recognize its Head? [/i]
Even better question.
Wow. I hate to disagree with Sarah, but she is wrong on this one. Historically, catholic tradition (as well as Scripture–1 Cor. 5:11; 2 John 10; Matt. 18:17) has always understood that sharing the eucharist presupposes common faith. That is why the church has always forbidden sharing the eucharist with heretics.
This is why the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not have intercommunion with one another–not that they regard each other as heretical, but that, since 1054, they regard their fellowship (communio) as broken because of significantly different theology on matters they consider essential.
It is why the Episcopal Church and the ELCA had to have considerable theological discussion before it was agreed that they shared a common faith, and only on basis of that common faith could they have intercommunion.
It is why it is inappropriate for an Anglican/Episcopalian to receive communion in a Roman Catholic church, even if the local priest would allow it–which, under Catholic canon law he is forbidden to do.
Which is why those who have not received valid Christian baptism cannot receive the eucharist.
Which is why it is not a matter of LOL, or even chuckling quietly. Eating at the Lord’s Table is a serious issue. It implies that we are indeed “in communion” (sharing in a common faith and fellowship–koinonia) with those with whom we share communion (koinonia) in the Lord’s body and blood (1 Cor. 10:16-17). One does not share the body and blood of Christ with heretics.
The standard reference on this is Werner Elert. Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries (Concordia, 2003). One does not share the eucharist with heretics.
So, no, it is not LOL.
RE: “Historically, catholic tradition (as well as Scripture–1 Cor. 5:11; 2 John 10; Matt. 18:17) has always understood that sharing the eucharist presupposes common faith.”
Agreed. Which is not at all the same thing as what Ad Orientem said which was ““If you are sharing the cup with someone you are de facto declaring that to the best of your knowledge that person is on the same page with you on the essentials of faith.â€
Two very different things.
And yes — I continue to laugh out loud at Ad Orientem’s assertions. Not William Witt’s carefully-stated arguments, not the marvel of “eating at the Lord’s table” — but simply Ad Orientem’s assertions.
Re #14
Sarah,
Your response would seem to be an example of what I meant in writing[blockquote] Protestants who generally have a low to nonexistent sacramental concept of communion will likely disagree with that statement.[/blockquote]You can repeat “no” as many times as you wish, but you cited no evidence to refute my points or assertions beyond noting that you commune where you wish, with whom you wish, without regard to their faith. The position I stated is in fact the historic teaching and discipline of The Church handed down through Scripture, the Fathers, the Holy Canons, and Tradition.
If your position is that these things don’t matter, which I suspect is in fact your argument, then there is no point in continuing the discussion as we have no common ground between us.
[blockquote] And were communion to be open in the RC church [a non-possibility given their theology] I would there as well[/blockquote]
The Romans, though occasionally lax in enforcing their church’s Eucharistic discipline, are completely correct. This no doubt stems from their preservation of the teaching of The Church on the nature of Holy Communion.
[blockquote] In fact, of course, I’m quite confident that I hold unbeknownst to me heretical opinions and beliefs.[/blockquote]
I am unable to refute that statement.
[blockquote] Hopefully the word “losing†is spelled correctly at the original post.[/blockquote]
It was not, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have made the appropriate corrections.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
RE: “You can repeat “no†as many times as you wish . . . ”
Indeed — and you may repeat “yes” as many times as you wish, which was the bald content of your original comment.
RE: ” . . . but you cited no evidence to refute my points or assertions . . . ”
Exactly. I responded to assertions with assertions.
RE: ” . . . beyond noting that you commune where you wish . . .”
Of course I did no such thing. For instance, I would not take communion in a Roman Catholic church.
RE: ” . . . with whom you wish . . . ”
Of course I did no such thing. There are many instances where I would not take communion.
RE: ” . . . without regard to their faith.”
Of course, I did no such thing. There are many churches in which I would not take communion.
RE: “The position I stated is in fact the historic teaching and discipline of The Church handed down through Scripture, the Fathers, the Holy Canons, and Tradition.”
Not at all. The position you stated was a dreadfully general, ill-stated, inconsistent, and ludicrous position.
RE: “I am unable to refute that statement.”
Well — as you’ve demonstrated you could “refute” that statement along with any other statement [i]by simply making a bald assertion[/i], but it would be an inaccurate refutation. I would be unable to [i]accurately[/i] refute such a statement about you either — but I have no fear at all that you would make such a statement about yourself.
RE: “If your position is that these things don’t matter . . . ”
Not at all. These things matter very much. It was your assertions that did not matter, other than my simply taking the trouble to mention that my assertions were entirely opposed to yours.
RE: ” . . . then there is no point in continuing the discussion as we have no common ground between us.”
What discussion? You made assertions. I made assertions.
It is true that there is probably little common ground between us, and I am certainly disinterested in beginning any discussion with you on the matter.
For those interested in an exhaustive discussion of communion and the unity of the church I would encourage the reader to peruse Metropolitan John’s essay linked in my post # 6. It’s not short and it is in fact rather dry, but it is the definitive work on the subject.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Re # 16,
William,
I wasn’t aware of Elert’s work. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am adding it to my “to read” list.
In ICXC
JOhn
Re: #21
Elert’s book is indispensable reading for those who regard sacramental communion and ecclesiastical communion as two sides of the same thing. I think it was Al Kimel who recommended it to me and, once I obtained it, I gave it three readings in the space of a year. Of course, being a Lutheran work, it takes occasional “pot shots” at both the papacy and episcopacy-in-the-apostolic-succession, but that is only to be expected. More interesting, if one reads it very closely, is Elert’s passing statement that both the Donatists and the Novatianists are to be reckoned (as he supposes) as just as much “part of the Church” as the Ecclesia Catholica from which they dissented.
Elert’s book was published in English in 1966, and reprinted by Concordia Press in 2003. It costs $21.00 from Concordia Press, but cheaper copies are available from time to time at http://www.abebooks.com.
Another book on the same subject is *Communio: Church and Papacy in Early Christianity* by Ludwig Freiherr von Hertling, SJ (Loyola University Press, 1972), which was an English translation of a work originally published in German in 1960. Despite the “and Papacy” of the title, the papacy and the Church of Rome does not enter the picture until page 52 of this 76-page small book. I found it illuminating to read these works of Elert and Hertling together; others may as well. Hertling’s “wee bookie” is long out of print, but copies turn up from time to time at Abebooks, Alibris and elsewhere.
“What discussion? You made assertions. I made assertions.”
AdO’s “assertions” are simply a restatement of what the Fathers of the Church, both Eastern and Western, believed and practiced about the indistinguishibility of sacramental and ecclesiastical communion, about not communicating with open or declared heretics and, underlying it all, the nature and unity of the visible Church. Yours come from I-know-not-where, except from your own lucubrations, or perhaps from Socinian latitudinarians.
The only thing that is important is your soul. Worship God and realize that Jesus is our savior and it is ONLY through him that we can be with the Father. If you find a church that does that OK, if not move on quickly. Choose wisely!
“But God has called me to be a bishop in The Episcopal Church … and I have no intention of leaving it.”
Statements like this really worry me. It says to me that God now has no further power to direct such a person. The one who says “I have no intention” may not be very open to God’s intentions. My suggestion would be to listen for the still, small voice that told Noah, Abram, and Moses, several times to get up and move. If that voice speaks, start moving no matter what your intentions are.
Noah had no intention of building an ark and going for a cruise.
Abram had no intention of going down into Egypt.
Moses had no intention of going up out of Egypt.
These men understood that God proposes, man disposes. I hope the faithful still in TEC never come to the point where they believe man proposes, for if they do then God disposes.
“But God has called me to be a bishop in the Episcopal Church…and I have no intention of leaving it.”
And Noah said, “God told me to enter the ark…and I have no intention of leaving it.”
[i] God let me put down deep roots in this town, and I don’t feel like leaving it [/i] —Lot’s Wife
It is a good thing that Lot’s wife is not leaving. She is a pillar in the community.
For what it is worth, the LCMS church here in Tucson makes it clear that if one is taking communion, s/he is declaring that s/he is a sinner in need of God’s grace, that Jesus Christ died to atone for his/her sin on the Cross and rose on the third day, and that Christ is present in the elements of the Eucharist. So taking communion in LCMS presupposes a common faith. Sarah, of course it is impossible to know for certain what is in a person’s heart and thus impossible to absolutely guarantee that each and every person taking the Sacrament is indeed of common faith. But officially there is much less latitude on this in LCMS than I found in Anglicanism.
Don’t let the discussion be sloppy. What kind of heresy are we talking about here–formal or material? In particular, is the material hersy of an individual sufficient to break communion? Is the material heresy of an institution sufficient to break communion? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an institution to be literally in a state of material heresy, presuming that is literally really possible?
It seems much of what is said here so far on koinonia trades on ignorance engendered by a dessicated grammar of faith.
PWH,
Though I am obviously not LCMS I have a great deal of respect for their church discipline. Obviously (or maybe not, given some comments posted earlier) it is not possible to know what is in the heart of everyone communing with you. But communion with the broader church is maintained via one’s bishop. Thus if my bishop holds communion with Ms. Schori that would be a cause of serious concern to me. It would mean that I am in communion with KJS. Similarly communing in other religious confessions which do not share ones faith would be indicative of either indifferentism or perhaps some variation on Unitarianism. It would also strongly suggest what I referred to in my post #6 as a “low to nonexistent sacramental concept of communion.”
That is certainly fine for those who do not have a sacramental understanding of communion. For Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and others of a similar theological bent there may be nothing wrong with intercommunion because communion represents a memorial and nothing more. (Though I have heard of even some Baptists who are quite strict about communion among those who do not share their views.) There is a term which describes such persons. They are called Protestants.
Those however who wish to in some way lay claim to the catholicity spoken of in the Creeds have no such luxury.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Anglican Scotist.
That’s a very interesting question which you pose. Where do you draw the line? Generally, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics would answer that both material and formal heresy are sufficient grounds for withdrawal from communion. On this point the Roman Catholics would have it a bit easier since their dogma is much more precisely defined and thus it’s easier to say “do you subscribe to this belief, yes or no?” and depending on their answer you know where you stand. And of course for Catholics that tends to boil down to “are you in communion with the Pope?”
For the Orthodox its not always so cut and dry but there is nonetheless a remarkable degree agreement within The Church. The nonnegotiables are Scripture, the Creed and the doctrinal definitions of the ecumenical councils. Since there are a significant number of bishops and clergy in TEC (including the PB) who are on record questioning articles of faith contained in the Creed and defined by the Ecumenical Councils that pretty much is game set and match right there from our POV.
However other sources of doctrine include the consistent teachings of the saints, especially the Fathers, the liturgy (Lex Orandi Lex Credendi), and Holy Tradition (big ‘T’). Doctrinal innovations which are at odds with any of the above are instantly going to be suspect.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Dear Ad Orientem, #31, thanks for your comments. You are right about the issues of communion within the broader church. There is a tight network of churches globally with which LCMS shares altar fellowship, based on a common understanding of anthropology/Christology and the nature of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament. The one area I would disagree though is the use of the term “Protestant” to describe a memorialist view of the Eucharist. Protestant, ie Evangelical, to me is one for whom Scripture is “sola.” Lutherans are Protestant and believe in the Real Presence. From what I understand, Calvin believed in the Real Presence as did the English Reformers. Zwingli was the one who rocked the boat on this. One can certainly make an argument for the Real Presence from Scripture alone. My history may be a bit off when it comes to the English Reformation, so correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think one can define a Protestant solely by his/her approach to the Eucharist.
PWH,
You are correct. Eucharistic theology is not the defining point of Protestantism. I should have qualified them as low church evangelical or non-confessional Protestants.
Yours in ICXC
John
Re: #33,
Not really. Calvin did believe in a kind of “real spiritual presence” for which the bread and wine served as “instruments” or “vehicles” (but only for the Elect), remaining, however, bread and wine, and only bread and wine. Among English Protestants, John Jewel and Richard Hooker believed something like that as well (save, in Hooker’s case, for all professing Christians, and not just the Elect).
Calvin’s views, however, fell short of what all Lutherans held about the “real presence,” or, as Lutherans preferred to say, the “sacramental union” of the Body and Blood of Christ with the bread and wine. (Luther, after all, believed that it was proper and praiseworthy to adore and venerate the Eucharistic elements as Christ’s Body and Blood between their consecration by the Words of Institution and their reception by the communicants — a practice later abandoned by Lutheran’s as Melanchthon’s views on this matter came to oust Luther’s — but no Reformed Protestant or any Anglican accepted this at the time.) And when Calvin, on behalf of the Genevan Church, reached agreement with Heinrich Bullinger (Zwilgli’s successor in Zurich) on the Eucharist in 1549, it was Calvin who made all the concessions to Bullinger, and Bullinger who made none. (For all this see, *Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper* by Paul Rorem, published opriginally as a two-part article in *Lutheran Quarterly* in 1988, and then in 1989 as a booklet by Grove Books.)
Bullinger probably believed much the same thing as Zwingli, although he used very different terms and similies to express his views, and the major Swiss protestant cantons (Bern, Basel and the like) stood with Zurich rather than Geneva. If there was anything about the magnum opus of the Anglican Benedictine monk Dom Gregory Dix’s *The Shape of the Liturgy* (1945) that distressed and annoyed many “moderate” Anglicans it was Dix’s assertion that Cranmer shared Zwingli’s views on the Eucharist, and expressed these obscurely (in a Catholic form) in his 1549 rite, and clearly in his 1552 rite, but now Diarmaid MacCulloch in his monumental *Cranmer: A Life* (1996) insists strongly that Cranmer’s views on the Eucharist were identical with Bullinger’s (although he is not certain whether Bullinger’s views were identical with Zwilgli’s, or slightly different).
Luther and most early Lutherans believed that Christ’s presence “in with and under” the bread and wine was such that adoration of the consecrated elements was legitimate and praiseworthy, but no other Protestants accepted that. Luther’s views on this matter have been undergoing a revival in the Missouri Synod in recent decades (as well as in “catholicizing” circles in the ELCA), but they are still widely opposed there — and are totally opposed and prohibited in more conservative Lutheran bodies such as the Wisconsin Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran synod, to name but the best-known two of them.
RE: “AdO’s “assertions†are simply a restatement of what the Fathers of the Church . . .”
Well he certainly inserted some “statements” of Fathers of the Church in his first comment — which had little relation to his original, poorly reasoned, generally sloppy assertions.
RE: “Don’t let the discussion be sloppy. . . . ”
Well, it got better.
Thank you Ad Orientem #34 and Dr. Tighe #35.
“The dissidents – those who are going – believe they are upholding its purity. The ones who are staying believe they are upholding its unity.”
I’m not sure that all those who are staying are attempting to uphold the unity of TEC nor all those leaving looking for purity. One could make a case for some staying for purity and some leaving for unity. The question I would ask myself if I had stayed would be, “Can I in good conscience evangelize for TEC?” The quick response would be well, you are evangelizing for Christ not TEC however that person must be nurtured and equipped. Would I want that person to take on the value system of TEC? It seems to me that it would be hard for the “inside strategists” to attract the unchurched to TEC with the language they use when referring to TEC.
#38, reasserting churches evangelize by saying “we are not like them, who accept any kind of behavior as ok.” Reappraising churches evangelize by saying, “we are inclusive; we are not like them who are fundamentalist and literalists.” Just one big happy family – for now. But I am in the same position as #12 – reasserting church in a reappraising diocese. The bell may be tolling for us (me) and we are ignoring it … but our church is growing and the diocese is not. So perhaps we are on to something.