The Catholic movement in The Episcopal Church has degenerated from a theological imperative into haberdashery, the retired Bishop of Fort Worth, the Rt. Rev. Clarence C. Pope, Jr., told a reporter for The Living Church, explaining his departure to the Roman Catholic Church.
On Aug. 6, Bishop Pope wrote to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, resigning from the House of Bishops, and telephoned his successor, the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, to announce his decision.
Bishop Pope said the Catholic movement, which has been part of “Anglicanism from the time of the Elizabethan Settlement, has gradually dissipated until we are left with lots of ”˜catholic’ vestments worn in areas of The Episcopal Church where ”˜low church’ used to be the order of the day.”
The movement has reached its end within the current institutional structures of The Episcopal Church, Bishop Pope asserted, and as a matter of conscience, it was time for him to go.
He characterizes his move to Rome not a rejection of Anglicanism but as a culmination of a spiritual journey…
“My love of Anglicanism is very deep,” he said, and it had “shaped and brought me to my present understanding†of the faith. Joining the Roman Catholic Church is “the final step for which this preparation was, I think, intended…”
This is something I would have said about my own transition from Anglicanism to Catholicism, and it is similar to what I’ve heard others say. It’s not a rejection at all, though one rejects certain notions along the way (the branch theory, that “Rome hath erred”, and so on), but, to me at least, the beauty in the heart of Anglicanism is now more clear than it was 20 years ago: the sweet kindness of Anglican folk (including many liberals), the vigor of parish life, the mature liturgical life, and so on. That’s why I hate to see Anglicans get wraught up over the issue of valid orders. That’s important of course, but there is in Anglicanism many graces, and the faithfulness of many Anglicans to the light they have is an inspitation to me, who am so faithless in my walk!
Yes, all the stories that seemed to validate Anglicanism and slight the Roman Church are now an embarrasment. The deep and abiding gift of our thorougly faithful following of Chist in the attempt to hold on to the Church through the reformation and our Anglican portion of it has a worth and Rome acknowledged this by the miracle of the Pastoral Provision. Now I pray for a larger door to be opened, one that will continue the gift and benefit the Catholic Church as well with an additional priestly presence. I pray Benedict XVI will recognize the Catholic Anglicanism and take it under his wing.
For the last several years I have thought that a large part of the death of a Catholic understanding of “Church” (and Communion) and the death of orthodox (or indeed any serious) theology-based decision making within TEC was largely based with General Convention’s “usurpation of powers and prerogatives”. This first dawned on me about 10 years ago, when my bishop (Alabama), on two separate occasions, explained to me how Lambeth has “moral authority” whereas General Convention has “legislative authority”…..and that legislative authority trumps moral authority every time. I remember thinking that if this is true we would be sunk. It was, and we are.
Newman, of course, recognized that the catholic movement in Anglicanism was lost when Anglo-Catholics accepted the status as a “party” within Anglicanism. His “Anglican Difficulties” remains essential reading.
Enda – Thank you for putting into words what has been in my heart for some time now. Especially as the Communion appears to be splintering…
#5 john4woman, you are welcome. Oh! how sad it is we have to know the truth, that our potential is lost and our heritage squandered. At least in the way we hoped for most, a reunion with Rome. #4FrKimel, I am concluding Newman’s work, Anglican Difficulties, and it is so relavent it hurts to read it. His lectures some almost 160 years ahead of our present difficulties do not miss a point of our present struggle. Newman was and is right. And so is Bishop Pope. I understand his “yo-yoing” regarding leaving. My foot is out, then in, then out. It is a most painful decision but I know in the end I will make it. No, I’ve already made it; I only hope for yet another kind of broader solution that might make the transition easier, though I do not particularly deserve it. The experiment is over.
I think I am coming to agree, heartbreaking as it is. The Anglo Catholicism that was a vibrant force even into the 1960s and persisted in an attenuated way into the 1980s barely now exists within the Anglican fold. Newman rightly identified its contradictions.
How confusing it is, that when I was converted and became a christian, I was taught that the Church of England simply was the catholic church of this land, though separated by the vagaries of history. Archbishops of Canterbury said as much. It all seems laughable now.
IMO it’s lasting legacy is the Parish Communion movement and a certain liturgical and clerical ‘style’. It seems clear again, as it in fact always was, that Anglicanism is fundamentally Protestant. It can adopt or discard catholic ‘styles’ but not theology and certainly not ecclesiology.
I was raised as, and continue to be, a Prayer Book Catholic in the English Use tradition that Percy Dearmer wrote about in the Parson’s Handbook. I am unable in conscience to be in communion fellowship with those who require belief in teachings that are not contained in or provable from Holy Scripture – whether that be the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary – or approving of same-sex sex. So far the requirement to accept same-sex sex is informal, and the Prayer Book definition of marriage is still a relationship between a man and a woman. And the canon requires baptism before admission to communion.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
#8 TomRightmyer, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the English use in The Book of Worship. This is a act of great love to those whose hearts are set on the Book of Common Prayer. When we argue about things provable we are in some deep water anyway, aren’t we? I prefer the pronouncement of mysteries that complement what God had in mind through the obedience of Mary, Mother of God. What we are doing, however, in TEC is playing juvenile games, akin to the shell game, when we say, “See, that issue really isn’t there, is it? Which shell do you think it’s under?” Requirement to accept same-sex marriage and same sex sex as well as heterosexual sex outside of marriage is not informal any longer. It is an act involving the entire TEC and, therefore, the AC. Rome is clear and precise about the teaching: unacceptable under any circumstances. And Holy Scripture is still Holy and Scripture. Pope Benedict is correct: “Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air.” (From the Foreward of JESUS OF NAZARETH)
[i]So far the requirement to accept same-sex sex is informal, and the Prayer Book definition of marriage is still a relationship between a man and a woman.[/i]
Patience, Grasshopper. 🙁
I can’t help but note that in the mid-Eighties, I was the bright-eyed high schooler serving as lead crucifer at Bp. Pope’s consecration. It was a remarkable experience. Now, it seems, I follow his lead across the Tiber as well. Funny how these things work out.
As a Roman Catholic I have been very critical of the Episcopal-Anglican Church for its policies in such things as ordaining a practicing homosexual as a bishop (among many other things). However, it is clear from many Anglican blogs and comments I have read here that the Anglican Church has done a great deal of good. Mainly, interesting many good people and good Christians in the whole issue of what it means to be “Catholic” and how one is to live and worship as a Catholic. That, indeed, “Catholic” is a good and noble word and concept–not another word for thre Church of the “whore of Babylon.” It is amazing how many people “come home” once they get the gorilla of bigotry off their backs.
I have to ask, was there ever a Pope Bishop?
One thing that comes across to me as I read (in humble sympathy) the agonized remarks of those whose church, they feel, is betraying their conscience: they want it to have the authority that the ancient orthodox churches have. I have the sense that at one time, the Anglican churches taught as if they had that authority. Now, some of them do (particularly in the southern hemisphere) and some clearly don’t, almost making a virtue of it.
Opposed to that authority are two schools. The first are the followers of the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age that seeks to reinterpret the sun of faith by the neon glare of contemporary secular wisdom. The second is the academic apologetic school, who subject it to the halogen stare of rational re-evaluation and quasi-scientific justification; they aim to serve up something that is true to the tradition, but also a palatable antidote that will be eaten by the advocates of the first school. (JAT “Honest to God” Robinson would be a prime example of the latter.) Both these schools are university-born:they don’t have constituencies in the pews, except perhaps in university towns. Which is why they are not much represented in the southern hemisphere.
Of late, some in the USA have gaily predicted that in 50 years’ time, the southern churches will “catch up” and experience the crisis of authority now being experienced in the more affluent countries. And this has been interpreted as a kind of racism. I’m not so sure. Can southern certainty be exported to North America? Assuming that the recipe works – for a while – how long will it be before the ferociously bright sons of grateful refugees in the Church of Rwanda or Nigeria take up the critical tools that academia expects of them? How long before their expansion into the “enlightened” and skeptical Anglo-Saxon west burdens these rising churches with a whole new generation of reappraising skeptics, ready to do whatever it takes to bring their faith to their own faithless nation, far from Rwanda or Nigeria? How long before present certainties are gnawed away from within by a rising generation of skeptical, questioning clerics striving to re-present their faith to a completely different world?
A society uncomplicated by western sophistication and unseduced by western decadence is a garden of Eden for religion. But can refugees from western sophistication and decadence find refuge by crawling back into the womb? What resources do Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria have to fight the intellectual wars being fought in Europe and North America?
To my mind, those who, like TomRightmyer above, abandon ecclesial authority, clinging rigidly to scripture and their own reason and judgment, are entirely understandable in their context. They have been betrayed by the ecclesial institutions they trusted. And now they are marooned on their own theological desert island. Those of us on the mainland will never coax them back on shore. The arguments they use to defend their faithful and orthodox views will seem, to the rest of us, indistinguishable from those used by Arians, modalists, Mormons and skeptics alike: iron-clad, invincible and (in their case) almost completely right.
But those who have not built their iron fortress, and who still sense that ecclesial authority is possible: what kind of thing is it? What shape does it have? Is it a firm basis in scripture as the inerrant word of God? Is it creeds, formulae, discussion documents or councils? Is it a belief in tradition as normative over all? Is it man-made?
“Those of us on the mainland will never coax them back on shore. The arguments they use to defend their faithful and orthodox views will seem, to the rest of us, indistinguishable from those used by Arians, modalists, Mormons and skeptics alike: iron-clad, invincible and (in their case) almost completely right.”
Remember please that these Anglicans of whom you speak are, the least of these, are Christ. Love your enemies. One day perhaps you will even start loving your brothers.
-Mere Christian
Didn’t Pope discover his fantasy was just that the first time he converted to RC and subsequently discovered that his rank as bishop would not be recognized?
For the Anglican, #8 must be regarded as an essential position. WE cannot be required to believe what is not in scripture, and so the Ever Virgin Mary, the Immac.Concept. – indeed, all the shining wish-fulfillments of Mariolatry – must be refused because they are made out of nothing but mist. There is simply too much of this. This will, and should, keep Anglicans from moving to the RC church.
Mind you, the Anglicans need to purge themselves of non-scriptural dross as well, barnacles that have attached themselves to the Anglican hull simply because they were sailing through such waters at the time and tradition has kept them from scraping these barnacles from the hull. It is time for a keel hauling, but the problem is nowhere near as overwhelming as with the nonscriptural elements as the RC church has preserved. How can one justify the notion of the Even Virgin Mary when the scriptures are quite clear that such a thing is impossible? LM
#8 and #17 make Mr. Pope’s point evident. As for myself, even as an Anglican, appeals to the “clear meaning of Scripture” didn’t wash since the “clear” meaning apparently had nearly infinite “clear” (not to mention absolute and binding) interpretations. Heck, when I read the NTwithout much of a theological education, I thought it was clearly Modalist. Reappraisers read scripture and it clearly (to them) says something very different than it does to Reformed Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, Anglo-Papalists, ELCA Lutherans, LCMS Lutherans, Baptists, Mennonites, etc. ad inf.
A possible way to find out why the Catholic Church teaches something that is (apparently) not in or contradictory to Scripture is to try to find out WHY it teaches that, and what response it gives to those who claim the Church’s teachings contradict the Word of God. There’ve been quite a few [i]fairly[/i] bright guys in the Catholic Church over the years and it’s hard to believe they just let those things “slip by”, without notice! Just be careful when you start digging since there seems to be this tendency for folks who do so to wind up in communion with those fairly bright Catholic guys…
I just don’t understand how anyone would choose to join the Roman Catholic church these days. As long as the Vatican provides shelter to Cardinal Bernard Law, I can’t have any respect for it as an institution. How many thousands of people will have to come forward with stories on molestation before the RC church will punish the priests who did such actions, and similarly punish the Bishops who moved those pedophiles around to keep them from getting caught. It is sickening, and the institution of the R.C. church has been dealt a huge, mortal blow.
Larry #17, how is “it” impossible? For example, if Mary can conceive, being a virgin, why can she not live her life as an “ever Virgin”? The texts can be defended in reading that way. The texts are, in fact. The Roman Catholic dogmas and doctrines might not fit the palate of every Roman Catholic, let alone an observing and critisizing protestant. Read Gary Wills. But in truth, can you defend our “new thing” as simply barrnacles? We’ve far more trouble than barnacles. Try a task such as Eucharistic theology with a layman in the Church. I was recently told we don’t believe in the real presence. Well, what do we believe in in this barnacle filled boat – not ship – of ours? It’s sinking Larry.
Mark #19, so mortal a blow that the Church keeps growing. Why is that? Look, no one defends the Roman Catholic Church’s bad behavior. No one. They, the leadership, have made terrible decisions over 2000 years. But, by a long shot, the Holy Spirit has guided the Church to make wonderful, brave, holy decisions for the sake of the Kingdom of God. By a long shot! Cardinal Law is humiliated and disciplined. He may be to Americans, who think of Rome as a holiday, not penalized very much at all. But think of what he has had taken away from him. Who are we to judge the judge? Perhaps hanging should have taken place in many judgements but your and my opinion is not relavent. Again, the choices some of these men made were very poor in judgement. Wrong. But at least they can say they recognize their errors. We cannot say that in TEC. Can we?
The leaders of no church are sin-free (unless you don’t believe what the Bible says about all of us being sinners). And sometimes Catholic bishops, like other bishops or Church leaders screw up royally. It is no excuse, and they should have known better, but at the time of the worst of the homosexual (most were not cases of pedophilia) situation the bishops were following policies endorsed by lawyers and shrinks–basically that public scandal would further devastate the victims. At the time public schools and most other organizations followed the same policies. The NY Times even admitted such on its front page a few years ago and said the NY Public schools called it “moving the trash along.” In raw numbers and in percentages what was hidden was much more in the public schools and in some other church organizations. But noone seems interested–just in gutting the Catholic Church. So much for really caring about kids. If caring about kids were the real issue there would be “eyewitness” news teams rummaging through all the groups which worked with children during those years. And at least the Catholic Church hasn’t brazenly elevated to bishop (with church-wide support and hosannas) someone publicly known to be trashing the morals of the Bible in teaching and in practice.
Also, the Catholic Church, no matter how fallible, weak, and sinful it is in practice at times, clings to orthodoxy so strongly that even many scholars and ministers who investigate the earliest Christian writings and Church Fathers feel compelled to join the Catholic Church.
I have always liked the French proverb that says that the proof that the Catholic Church is under the special protection of the Holy Spirit is that over 2,000 years the Catholic clergy haven’t found a way to destroy the Church.
I think the history of the Anglican interpretation of Scripture shows that apeals to its ‘clear meaning’ aren’t as as authoritative as they seem to be. Is baptism regenerative or not, is episcopapacy mandated by divine law, is Christ truly present in the eucharist, is divorce prohibited by our Lord, is contraception against the will of God etc. etc.
To me it now seems baffling that honourable (indeed brilliant) men like Dearmer could spend so much intellectual energy in trying to breed a chimera. The joining of 1662/1928 to a recreated pre-reformation liturgy, beautiful as the attempt may be, is completely theologically incoherent. Naming it ‘the English use’ is a bold and rather laughable claim. So far from being the liturgy of a nation, or even a church, it was largely the concoction of Dearmer.
It shows again the truth perceptiveness of Newman’s judgements about the Anglo Catholic, Pusey. Namely in his very ‘catholicity’ he witnesses to the triumph of private judgement in Anglicanism:
All I can say is that my years as an Anglo-Catholic are now as dust for me . #20, Enda , has it right, much as the truth hurts people like me who hung on to the barnacle loaded boat only because I lacked the faith and the courage to go where Christ established his Church and Apostolic order governs.
In my mid-twenties I investigated the Faith and Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The objections which resulted in the separation of the English Church from Rome are still barriers to my own “conversion”. I am not convinced that the only way to be a faithful, Spirit-filled, orthodox, evangelical catholic is to follow the example of the bishop who ordained me…Bp. Pope. While I rejoice with those who rejoice in their conviction that they have “come home” to Rome, I believe Jesus’ words about many mansions (“way stations” is the best translation I’ve heard) in the Father’s House. I believe that the sad divisions of East/West and Roman/Reformers will be blessedly removed some day by the direct action of our Savior. Until that day, I neither expect or depend upon organic unity within the Church.
[i]How can one justify the notion of the Even Virgin Mary when the scriptures are quite clear that such a thing is impossible? LM[/i]
Since Luther and Zwingli thought it possible (indeed held it firmly), how can you be so dogmatic yourself?
I know that one of the rhetorical advantages of Protestantism is not having to account for all protestants’ opinions. Nevertheless, you’ve got a burden of proof here, Larry; if those two Reformers are wrong about the “quite clear” part, please explain this lacuna in their understanding.
Just to make a point:
Matthew 1:23-25: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Nuff Said!!
In addition to deaconjohn’s rebuttal of #19, I would note that about 5000 priests out of the 100,000 who have served over the past 50 years have been accused of sexual misconduct with minors. Some of the allegations are certainly spurious, and many of these guys are dead or otherwise unable to answer the charges. The majority of the accused have one allegation; as noted on another thread last week, there are few real predators in the bunch and those guys are in jail or dead. Of course, many of the allegations were minor in nature and not even close to being actionable under the law. Which raises the question of why the Catholic Church bears responsibility for “protecting ” Cardinal Law when the State of Massachusetts didn’t prosecute him. Is 815 to blame for Bishops Adams and Bennison protecting predators?
Which is not to say the problem isn’t real, just as it is real in every religious and secular organization in this sex crazed society. Perhaps it’s more comfortable to talk about how awful the big, bad Catholic Church is, but is it helpful to protecting children?
#22 deaconjohn25, well said. #23 driver8, I love Newman. He does cut to the chase. And he hits with a brick! Thank you for sharing that letter. And Gone missing #24, I will have to go missing with you, in the end, finally with courage, by God’s grace, even with sadness, I cannot lie. Tell me again why we have thrown everything away?
Stuart Smith, what you say makes much sense to me. I see much evidence of Christ’s grace and working in these ‘houses.’ The challenge is to continue being open to learning truth from them, regardless of label.
I’d like to hear the Roman Catholic response to Harvey’s Bible quote. I find it pretty convincing.
-JM
Scripture is inconslusive, even with the quote of Harvey considered. In the language of origin, “until” does not imply anything about what happened after the time indicated. The early Church belief, the Second Council of the Church of Constantinople refering to her as “ever Virgin”, the list of both Catholic and reform theologians who held the view seems to be good evidence. More than that, the theology expresses the call and mission of Mary, willing servant of God who responded “yes” to God’s request that she become “Mother of God.” “Be it unto me, according to thy word.”
[i]”And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called His name Jesus.†[/i]
“Lo, I am with you always, until the end of the world.”
Obviously, [b]after[/b] the end of the world, we’re on our own. 🙂
Thanks for the reply, Enda. You make the case that many people have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is a convincing argument that the view is popular. I don’t know if it is a great argument for the factuality of the belief? Unless of course these people knew something that we no longer know?
I think that Harvey’s contention, the classic Anglican contention, is that: where a belief is clearly stated in Scripture it is doctrinal (or dogma), and where it is not clearly stated in Scripture, it remains matter of personal belief.
For those struggling with the Marian dogmas:
As an Anglican on the way to Rome myself, I’ve come to see it this way: Which churches subscribe to the Marian dogmas? The Roman and Orthodox Churches… the only remaining monoliths of Christianity that are not falling apart at the seams and hemorrhaging members. Which churches have dispensed with the Marian dogmas? The ones that are in an utter mess and have split into 23,000 denominations. Which churches, then, am I prepared to trust with regard to the Marian dogmas? Rome and the Orthodox, of course!
The Marian dogmas have little to do with Mary and have everything to do with Jesus Christ, and his nature as fully human and fully God. As soon as one dispenses with the Marian dogmas, one destroys a fortress that otherwise repels the relentless assault on the full divinity of Christ. No wonder, then, that we routinely hear from the pulpits of the mainline churches that Jesus was just a great moral teacher, that his resurrection was not a literal event! You would never hear this from a Roman pulpit.
As for whether these teachings are biblical, Paul admonished his readers, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” ( 2 Thess. 2:15) So, those who claim they will only believe that which is biblical are violating their own principle. The bible itself instructs us to hold to the teachings not merely on its own pages, but handed on by the Apostles by word of mouth as well.
Are national churches clearly stated within Scripture? Or the supremacy of the Crown?
You make the case that many people have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is a convincing argument that the view is popular. I don’t know if it is a great argument for the factuality of the belief? Unless of course these people knew something that we no longer know?
Justinmartyr raises a crucial issue: Do we believe a given article of faith because we can prove it as probable according to the accepted methods and criteria of modern historical science (highly probable? so-so probable? maybe probable? improbable but not impossible?), or because the Church proposes it to us as an article of faith? The latter seems to us moderns obscurantist, irrational, and dogmatic, yet the former reduces Christian faith to the status of ever-fluctuating opinion.
Newman clearly saw the issue at hand:
“For myself, I would simply confess that no doctrine of the Church can be rigorously proved by historical evidence: but at the same time that no doctrine can be simply disproved by it. Historical evidence reaches a certain way, more or less, towards a proof of the Catholic doctrines; often nearly the whole way; sometimes it goes only as far as to point in their direction; sometimes there is only an absence of evidence for a conclusion contrary to them; nay, sometimes there is an apparent leaning of the evidence to a contrary conclusion, which has to be explained;—in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church. He who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic. It is the Church’s dogmatic use of History in which the Catholic believes; and she uses other informants also, Scripture, tradition, the ecclesiastical sense or [phronema], and a subtle ratiocinative power, which in its origin is a divine gift. There is nothing of bondage or “renunciation of mental freedom” in this view, any more than in the converts of the Apostles believing what the Apostles might preach to them or teach them out of Scripture.”
#20. No they cannot be read any old way one pleases. The Greek tells us that Christ had brothers and sisters and identified father and mother. If Christ has brothers and sisters, then she cannot be an ever-virgin. Again, we are told she had nothing to do with a man until after Christ’s birth. The implication of the Greek here cannot be clearer.
No reading of the scriptures can make Mary ever-virgin. And, if one stops to think about, there is no reason why she should remain a virgin after Christ’s birth. She is married to Joseph and has the standard marital responsibilities. So, for practical commonsense reasons and because of what the Greek text says, the ever-virgin argument is simply wish fulfillment by generations of people for whom the scripture is not sufficient. We may make the same argument for the Immaculate Conception, for which there is not a shred of scriptural justification.
Remember, however, that in my judgment, Pope Benedict is doing an excellent job and has strengthened the church’s hold on legitimacy because the church has a leader with real spine.
I agree, incidentally, about Cardinal Law. The man is a criminal; he should be in prison.His role in protecting homosexual priests, themselves criminal, is a shameful chapter In Boston’s and the church’s history. Larry
#26. See the Greek. It is clear. Why is this not sufficient for you? LM
LM (#37, #38): you don’t need Greek to understand “brothers” and “sisters”. There is no linguistic point here that needs reference to the Greek original. There is no complex exegetical point to get across.
You may well interpret “brothers” and “sisters” to mean something that excludes “cousins” and “half-siblings”, and in so doing you take your place in a line of interpreters of scripture who have chosen to walk apart from the tradition of the historic orthodox churches. You are probably also aware that orthodox exegetes have produced ample justification for reading the biblical sibling terms more widely than you do – here is one example.
It may well that (as often happens) the majority are wrong and the minority are right. However, appeals to the meaning of the Greek are no more persuasive to this reader than if you informed me that in the French bible, the word is “frère”.
I sense that what underlies this whole line of argument is the idea that someone with no understanding of history or linguistics should be able to pick up a phrase from any random part of the New Testament and deduce from it true Christian doctrine without ever polluting his mind with the traditional understanding of the church. Needless to say, this is not an idea that is going to recommend itself very warmly to the traditional orthodox churches.
Raising this type of issue on this particular thread does, however, help in throwing the spotlight – at one remove – on the essential Protestant characteristic, namely, inability to accept, and combative disposition towards, authoritative tradition.
CPKS,
Have I shared with you my favorite definition of [url=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2603]Historical Theology[/url]:
“Historical Theology†is the study of how everybody misinterpreted the Bible until we came along.
As far as the “ever-Virgin Mary” debate goes — without setting foot in the waters of what Scripture does and doesn’t say in this matter, I have to ask: why on earth do we think it would be a good thing if Mary had stayed virginal after Jesus was born? In what way would it make her better or more worthy of respect and reverence?
If one is not Roman Catholic, it is a teaching which one may accept or reject. If one is Roman Catholic it is a dogmatic statement, which one has to accept in order to be considered a Catholic in good standing. Since I am not a Roman Catholic, it matters not, but the arguments they put forth allow me to accept the teaching without compromising anything.
Libraryjim (#40): not till now, but thank you for doing so – and for the link to an example that needs to be justly celebrated (I am quaffing a mug of the sacred brew as I type).
Regarding the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady: this doctrine finds support right back to the earliest times, and authoritative support from the fourth century on, both in positive writings and in the condemnation of contrary teachings. It has never been formally declared de fide, but its status as a long-established teaching of the ordinary magisterium (cf. the “Vincentian canon”) is indisputable. For example:
[blockquote]”You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Pope Siricius I, Letter to Bishop Anysius, 392 AD).[/blockquote]
So far as I know, nobody has attempted to argue that this teaching undercuts or is in any way in conflict with any other doctrine. Other possible motives for rejecting it are (a) the thesis that it is contradicted by the “plain words of scripture” – which can be assailed on both exegetical and methodological grounds; and (b) that it is not clearly or obviously entailed by scripture. The latter argument of course raises the thorny problem of just what is “obviously entailed” by scripture; orthodox and unorthodox have very different views, and it is questionable whether any such dispute, based as it is on such highly subjective criteria, could ever reach an objectively satisfying conclusion. Behind the second argument, however, there lies a principle that I have called “doctrinal minimalism”.
Doctrinal minimalists come in two forms. The hard minimalists seek to pare the amount of doctrine down to a minimum; and what is pared away is rejected as “encrustations”. Soft minimalists distinguish between “core” doctrines and optional ones which you can believe in if you find it “helpful” (whereas recommending them to others may be “insensitive”). Both types of minimalist, in order to divide the doctrinal sheep from the goats, have to set up criteria, and these criteria effectively serve as an alternative authority to those espoused by the ancient orthodox churches. Different minimalist schools espouse different criteria. Paradoxically, the quest for doctrinal parsimony results in a proliferation of competing authorities.
Doctrinal minimalists tend to agree that Marian doctrines such as the perpetual virginity are number one candidates for their reductionist agenda; and that is why they are invaluable as a kind of litmus-test when the fundamental issue is one of authority.
Ross writes (#41): As far as the “ever-Virgin Mary†debate goes—without setting foot in the waters of what Scripture does and doesn’t say in this matter, I have to ask: why on earth do we think it would be a good thing if Mary had stayed virginal after Jesus was born? In what way would it make her better or more worthy of respect and reverence?
This is a great question. The very asking of this question reveals the depth of our modern alienation from the deep symbolic structures of catholic Christianity. I would like to be so bold as to suggest that beginning to appreciate the “appropriateness” and “rightness” of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s life-long virginity is to move into an ecclesial world and experience profoundly different from the one inhabited by Protestant Christianity. Suddenly the asceticism of the Church Fathers and medieval Christians begins to make sense. Suddenly one sees why the Church has so deeply valued continence for the sake of the Kingdom (i.e., celibacy).
Why was it appropriate and right for Mary to embrace life-long virginity? Precisely because of her role within the history of salvation as the virginal Mother of God (Theotokos [Council of Ephesus]) and virginal Bride of God (Theonymphos [St Germanus of Constantinople]). As St Augustine declared, “Mary was the only one who merited to be called the Mother as Spouse of God.”
The perpetual virginity of St Mary, conjoined with the chastity of St Joseph, witnesses in a singular way to the mystery of the nuptial union between heaven and earth in the Incarnation of the Eternal Word. Yes, Mary and Joseph might have decided to enjoy sexual intercourse after the birth of Jesus–yet it would have detracted from the miracle of the hypostatic union and diminished their vocation within the divine plan of salvation, not because sexual intercourse is bad but because the nuptials of God is so much greater. In the words of John Paul II:
The virginal marriage of Mary and Joseph anticipates and symbolizes the eschatological marriage of Christ and his Church. Hence the Church’s acclamation of the Theotokos as “ever-Virgin.”
And, btw, the term “aeiparthenos” (ever-virgin) was used of the Mother of God in the definition of the correctitude of terming her “Mother of God/Theotokos by the Council of Ephesus (431 AD). So those of you that are rejecting her perpetual virginity are setting yourselves against an ecumenical council, and this demonstrating (at least so far as you are concerned) that whatever “Anglicanism” is, it is no part of Catholic Christianity
Fr. Kimel’s post reminds me of one of my favorite definitions: Ascetism – giving up what is good for what is better.
And that, Ross, might answer your point.
#44 FrKimel:
Thank you — that’s a great deal to mull over, and an answer I haven’t previously encountered. I’m not sure whether or not I will find it ultimately convincing, but it’s certainly worth thinking about deeply.
All the previous answers to that question that I’ve run into have been more along the lines of the quotation from Pope Siricius I, that #43 CPKS provided — that if Mary were to “know” her husband, it would “contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body.” That betrays a doctrine that sexual intercourse — even between a husband and wife, even if with the intent of conceiving a child — is still, although perfectly legal according to the church, somehow tainted with sin and best avoided by those who have the strength of will for it.
The church has sometimes held this as an official teaching. I’m not sure what the current RCC position is, but that idea still wields great influence even if it isn’t currently official. In any case, I regard it as not merely false but pernicious.
But FrKimel’s answer comes from a different basis, and as I say will take some thinking on.
As for #45 William Tighe, who says, “So those of you that are rejecting her perpetual virginity are setting yourselves against an ecumenical council, and this demonstrating (at least so far as you are concerned) that whatever “Anglicanism†is, it is no part of Catholic Christianity”… I find myself in an odd middle position as far as the Catholic/Protestant division goes. It makes sense to me to see the Church — the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church — as the sole custodian of the sacraments and therefore necessary to Christian worship. But I have a lot of trouble seeing the Church as being the custodian or arbiter of “correct teaching,” assuming such a thing to exist in the first place; and so, as William points out, I am not very troubled when I find that I disagree with one of the ecumenical councils. Perhaps that makes me inherently un-catholic.
On the other hand, I can’t subscribe to Reformed theology either. If it weren’t for Anglicanism — at least, Anglicanism as it is practiced these days and around these parts — I wouldn’t have many other places I could go.
Ross, you are correct that many Christians over the centuries have interpreted the perpetual virginity of Mary as a denigration of sexual intercourse and defended it on that basis. I am not sure that the citation from Pope Siricius falls into that category, but it certainly witnesses to the intuitive discernment of the Church of a symbolic incompatibility between Mary’s unique relationship to God as Mother of the Divine Word and sexual/procreative relations with her human husband. Once Mary has given herself to God in his fiat, once her womb has been consecrated by the presence of the Incarnate God, how is it possible to even entertain the possibility that she might subsequently conceive and give birth to another child?
May I strongly commend to you John Paul II’s Man and Woman He Created Them. This book is a tour de force within Christian theology. He pulls together Trinitarian theology, Christology, anthropology, and Mariology in a profound synthesis, and purifies the Christian vision of human sexuality of all Manicheism, once and for all. Also see his encyclical on Mary, Redemptoris Mater, and his apostolic exhortation on Joseph, Redemptoris Custos.
Ross (#47): you describe a putative doctrine that “sexual intercourse—even between a husband and wife, even if with the intent of conceiving a child—is still, although perfectly legal according to the church, somehow tainted with sin and best avoided by those who have the strength of will for it” and describe this as false and pernicious. I would like to salute your courage in affirming what you affirm, and join you in affirming it. I don’t think, however, that what you rightly condemn has ever been officially taught as doctrine, although it has certainly been inferred. And in relation to what Pope Siricius I wrote in his letter, I think it is best to concentrate on what this affirms, rather than what it denies, and specifically not that there is something despicable in the mechanism of human reproduction, but that in miraculously giving birth to the saviour of mankind, Our Lady’s womb is the temple of our redemption, something holy and set apart; and that continence, far from denying the holiness of the natural reproductive act, is instead an act of affirmative reverence.
On a far less elevated subject, when you remark that you feel free to disregard both ecumenical councils and reformed theology, and that this, to your mind, makes Anglicanism your home: this, to my mind, is what lends Anglicanism its unique fascination. It seems to be loved and criticized in equal measure by its adherents, not because of what it witnesses to, but especially because of what it doesn’t insist upon. This makes me wonder if “doctrinal minimalism” is what is at the heart of Anglicanism.
Ross wrote:
“It makes sense to me to see the Church — the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church — as the sole custodian of the sacraments and therefore necessary to Christian worship. But I have a lot of trouble seeing the Church as being the custodian or arbiter of “correct teaching,” assuming such a thing to exist in the first place; and so, as William points out, I am not very troubled when I find that I isagree with one of the ecumenical councils. Perhaps that makes me inherently un-catholic.”
Ross, your view of the Church as the Seat of Sacrament, but not the Guarantor of correct teaching may not be contradictory, it may even have strong Biblical precendent. The gifts, we are told, are given without repentance. Once a prophet or priest or king had been anointed, his gift was irrevocable. But, in the case of the prophet, the gift to speak for God did not preclude the man from speaking against God, even in the name of God (–ex-cathedra, one may say). God gave spiritual mouthpieces to Israel but did not guarantee all that proceeded from their mouths. Warning of false prophets and gratuitous prophecies, he made the peoples’ reason their arbiter (“Come let us reason together”), and death the punishment for false prophecies.
God promised that Israel would not die (a form of infallibility, I guess), but many of its leaders would and should.
No. 17 – I remain Anglican because the Anglican Church is Catholic, though crippled and wayward now. But she retains the Catholic infrastructure and the sacraments. I think it is in the 19th Article that it is stated that Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople have erred. Well, the same goes for Canterbury, and to the extent that it has been unable to shake off continental Protestantism it has erred, and still errs. You pay lip service to the catholicity of the early church, but worship the idol of Scripture and the Reformation that elevated the Bible, which the Church itself produced, to its present status in the eyes of many Protestants, including many of the Reasserters in the present day.
Sex within marraige is certainly not a personal sin, but what human act is free from the taint of that sin that infects us all, and which it’s a life’s work to shake off? What motive is pure? What act free of a bit of self-serving? Perhaps “sex is good” is a statement true, but too simple.
Joseph was described by Scripture as “a just man.”
An observant Jew, a “just man”, believes that the Spirit of the Lord has stirred within his wife, and that she has just given birth to the Son of the Most High. Would he be bolder here than he would be at the veil before the Ark?
He is also described in English carols as an old man (The Cherry Tree).
I find it interesting that no one has actually answered #17, especially the Bible verse # 27 references. Plain English seems to require that Joseph lived with his wife after giving birth to Jesus? Come on people, I feel in my bones one of the theological double-shuffles so despised by TEC…
No 51: For good or for bad, Anglicanism was, and will always be defined by its high view of the Bible. And as such, it has room enough for the catholic and the protestant wings. I’m not criticising your stand — although I totally disagree with you. I must ask though, if Church authority and tradition is far more important than scripture (– if scripture is, as you say, just a fabrication of the church), then why remain Anglican? You shouldn’t have any problems with any of the usual sticking points, since each can be backed up by tradition where its Biblical support may seem antithetical. I can’t see any doctrinal reasons for you not to swim the Tiber. I would think you don’t even have a Timber to swim?
Sincerely.
Justinmartyr:
I don’t know very well how it is in English translations (I’m from Argentina), but if you take a look at 2Sam 6,23, you’d probably find something like this: “the daughter of Saul had no child ‘until’ the day of her death”. Of course, here “until” does not imply that the action did occur later. And it is the same with Mt 1, 23-25.
I’ve read something about the greek and the hebrew word for “until” somewhere, but I can’t find out where.
I hope this helps.
#54: I find it interesting that no one has actually answered #17, especially the Bible verse # 27 references. Plain English seems to require that Joseph lived with his wife after giving birth to Jesus? Come on people, I feel in my bones one of the theological double-shuffles so despised by TEC…
Perhaps the “plain English” seems so very clear and definite to you, but the Scriptures were not written in “plain English.” The Greek Fathers certainly knew their Greek and they did not find the text you cite as demanding conjugal relations between Mary and Joseph subsequent to the birth of Jesus. The heretic Helvidius interpreted Scripture in the same way as you are doing. He was rebutted by the great Jerome in his work “Against Helvidius.” One might also remark that neither Zwingli, Luther, nor Calvin read the Greek text as requiring the loss of Mary’s virginity.
No doubt this is an interesting exegetical question. Even if we should decide that your preferred reading of Matthew 1:23-25 is the more probable reading (and I do not concede this point), this hardly requires us to abandon a consensual doctrine of the Church. Every Bible reader knows that Scripture is full of “difficulties.” The question is how one handles them. Again I reference the early Church Fathers: they knew their Bibles inside and out and they firmly believed that Scripture supported, or at least did not clearly contradict, their belief in the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God. The doctrines of the Church simply do not hang on a verse or two. It’s quite one thing to say, “I do not know how to reconcile Matt 1:25-27 with the perpetual virginity of Mary.” It’s quite another thing to say, “I’m right and the Church is wrong.” And that is precisely what you are doing. You are pitting your exegetical skill and historical judgment over against the consensual testimony of the Church Fathers and the dogmatic decisions of the Church. How is that any different than what Gene Robinson & Company are doing? Why are you allowed to exercise private judgment but Gene Robinson is not?
#56 and referrents:
I believe the unofficial Anglican position is that an individual Christian may accept and believe the perpetual virginity of the BVM. Personally, it makes theological sense to me and I have no problem considering it true. However, the Roman proclivity to make it a dogma that must be believed for salvation (and, please do not try to slip the knot by qualifying the places/venues of the “requirement” to believe…it is there in the documents of the related councils) is what offends many Christians, myself included. In fact, it is the juridical approach to the Faith- an approach that reached silliness at the Synod of Whitby when the Celtic/Orthodox tradition within the CofE was squelched- that repels otherwise sympathetic Anglicans.
To return to the original topic: Bp. Pope finds Rome to be Home for him? God bless him! As the man who ordained me both deacon and priest, he has been and remains a dear father-in-God. However, I do not share his conviction that Anglicans have lost their inheritance as orthodox, (little c) catholics. One could have claimed that about Rome numerous times during the Middle Ages, with the scandal of immoral, multiple popes claiming power over the Church. But, of course, those who defend the RCC as the “only true Church” have endless ways of excepting (and accepting) their history. They seem unwilling to grant such exceptance (and acceptance) amongst Anglicans with their own rotted history.
The Rev. Fr. Smith ( #57) strikes a deeply empathic cord in me, as I also was ordained Deacon and Priest in ECUSA. The problem, I have come to feel, is not the rotton history of the Anglican nor the Latin Rites. This is granted by almost all who have even minimal knowledge of history. The problem is a much more personal one for me. TEC in it’s emerging forms is fronted by persons who cannot affirm the Divinity of Christ, nor advance any reason why one should select Christianity to live by, witness to, nor perform sacerdotal functions in it’s name. The best thing I ever did was recognize that I could no longer attempt in my poor way to lead souls to the Episcopal church. I left then for Rome. Works for me. May God in his mercy lead us all to the light.
Fr Kimel wrote, [i]”You are pitting your exegetical skill and historical judgment over against the consensual testimony of the Church Fathers and the dogmatic decisions of the Church. How is that any different than what Gene Robinson & Company are doing? Why are you allowed to exercise private judgment but Gene Robinson is not?”[/i]
I appreciate the Irenic responses in this discussion. Thank you.
In my view Gene Robinson’s crime is not a sin of commission, but of omission. His guilt lies not in the exercising of his conscience, but his refusal to exercise that god-given judgment, or worse, to perform actions counter to judgment, for these, it appears, he will be condemned. The Pauline epistles abundantly indicate that we are held accountable for actions (of thought or of deed) we know to be wrong, not for those of which the Spirit has not prompted us. My limited and uneducated reading of Vatican II leads to me believe that it makes a strong case for this argument. The extreme opposite view is one, calvinistic in character, that denies man free will, punishing a man for sins for which he had been given neither the choice nor the faculty to resist. The Church has rightly condemned this position.
[i]”Even if we should decide that your preferred reading of Matthew 1:23-25 is the more probable reading… The doctrines of the Church simply do not hang on a verse or two. It’s quite one thing to say, “I do not know how to reconcile Matt 1:25-27 with the perpetual virginity of Mary.†It’s quite another thing to say, “I’m right and the Church is wrong.†And that is precisely what you are doing.”[/i]
Your reproach seems to me to boil down to: Even if the verse in the Greek clearly implies what you are saying, you have no place to question or disagree with the illustrious Church Fathers. You appear to use two arguments to defend this view. The one I find persuasive, and if correct, would allow me to embrace the Fathers’ views. The other argument I believe to counter early Apostolic teaching.
In your first argument you appeal to logic. Either Mary was a virgin or she was not. Either Scripture allows for her ever-virginity, or it does not. Either the Church Fathers were right or they were not. (I reference: [i]”The Greek Fathers certainly knew their Greek… Again I reference the early Church Fathers: they knew their Bibles inside and out and they firmly believed… You are pitting your exegetical skill and historical judgment over against the consensual testimony of the Church Fathers…”[/i])
I concede I am an amateur student of the Bible. I know far less than the Fathers, and am exceedingly less brilliant than they. If therefore I have missed a step logically or linguistically, I am open to correction. So far in this discussion this has been alluded to repeatedly without one whit of evidence being provided.
Placing Matt 1:23-25 aside, I am also prepared to accept that the early Fathers, living chronologically earlier, may have had evidence of now lost or subsumed unwritten Apostlic teachings. This argument, if valid, would make the Fathers’s views more authoritative to me. I note that this attack has not been used much in this discussion; perhaps it opens up a new set of questions in need of answers.
Fr Kimel’s first argument, based on logic, is in my simple view potentially compelling. The second argument I believe to counter early Apostolic teaching. It goes like this: How dare I, a common 21st century denizen, exercise private judgment in opposition to centuries of illustrious church thought and tradition?
I believe in “a Faith once delivered.” The Apostles and the Prophets clearly teach that personal, private reason (along with the corporate kind) must be exercised in the pursuit of Truth. God went so far as to destroy those who listened to His Mouthpieces when they spoke a word that contradicted His Law. I cannot therefore mindlessly obey a man simply because he is intellectually or ecclesially greater than than me. Paul cautioned that even Angels and Apostles fall into this category. If one or all church Fathers were to oppose that sacred Repository, I must stand, not only contra mundum, but contra patriae.
The claim that Scripture is on key points of Salvation so unintelligible or complex that it can’t be sufficiently deciphered by a common man is dangerous, even heretical. The Bereans were commended for examining the Prophets to ensure that they validated or at least were not contradicted by oral Apostolic tradition (ie., Paul’s words). If this is the sin of the protestant, then perhaps I am in some sense protestant.
Sincerely.
If Jesus had full siblings, why did he commit the care of His Mother to John, who clearly was NOT one of them?
No. 54 – If I can live as a Catholic in the Anglican Church, and if, the Sacraments qua “Catholic” are truly there, I don’t need to swim the Tiber, although goings on in ECUSA and in the “Continuum” do at times tempt me. As far as that goes, why don’t you become a member of one of the Reformed bodies? If you want to assert that the anglican church is not Catholic in the sense that I understand it, go ahead. That is another argument. I apologize if you think that I have a low view of Scripture. Let me just say, to clarify, that I have a high view of Scripture because I have an even higher view of the Church. Scripture is inspired because the Church, the Body of Christ, which produced it, was (is) inspired.