When the Catholic Church announced this week that the Vatican would make it easier for Anglicans to convert to Catholicism, much was made of the many similarities between the two faiths. And there are a few Catholic beliefs that might strike Anglicans as foreign, and one or two that could be deal-breakers for potential defectors.
The Times of London published a handy list of some Catholic beliefs Anglican converts would have to embrace. Social conservatives who are upset by the Anglican Church’s acceptance of female priests and openly gay bishops are unlikely to have trouble adopting the Catholic beliefs that only men can become priests and that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.”
Ideas that might be harder for Anglicans to accept include the concept that the Pope is infallible, at least at certain moments, that Mary was the product of an “immaculate conception,” and so born without sin, and the belief known as transubstantiation, which means, essentially, that the communion bread and wine are not just symbols but actually become the body and blood of Christ.
Nevertheless this is easier than the direction the TEC is taking.
This is an interesting article because it uses polling data to try to disprove doctrine. First, data from Barna and Harris suggest/show most Episcopalians don’t know much of anything. Second, if we took a poll of people in the pews of TEC, the ones who actually have a clue about what is going on would express disgust. I’m with Br. Michael; confused dogma is better than what we have in TEC. I don’t wnat to be an RC, but at least as an institution they still worship the Lord.
RE: Rome as a choice: [blockquote] Nevertheless this is easier than the direction the TEC is taking. [/blockquote] Quite true, Br. Michael. If Rome and TEC were the only choices on the planet, Rome it would be. Thank the Lord that we do no live on such a desert island.
Any port in a storm?
David Keller, do you have any links to the Barna and Harris data?
Polling data is irrelevant in the serious discussion of theology except as a measure of the attitudes of the laity, correct or incorrect, and as a measure of the enlightenment/ignorance of the laity. Polls can also do the same for clergy.
The only poll that counts is a ‘poll of One,’ that is a seeking through prayer and discernment of the Will of God.
I am generally in agreement with much of the theology/doctrine of the Roman Church, but there are some areas where I feel that the discernment, historical and current, of the Roman Church are very difficult to accept.
The first is the apparent absolute supremecy of the Pope. No mortal chosen by God as a leader has ever proven himself perfect in judgement or behavior. Many have been elevated by God and many have fallen, to some degree, into sin. In the Old testament Saul, David and Solomon come to mind. In the New Testamenty Era we have had serious examples of deeply faulted popes. We have even had two simultaneous popes. Whose dictum stands when there are two popes? It can be clearly argued that the Reformation was in large part the product of faulty/seriously flawed papal leadership. It was papal leadership or a lack of it that helped to bring about the Protestant Schism.
I find another problem with the elevation of Mary above what seems to be her actual mortality as a human being. Her immaculate conception is a creation of mortal minds.
However, I do share the same belief as the Roman Church regarding Transubstantiation. Those who scoff are essentially ‘skeptics’ who believe that if you can’t measure it, if you can’t touch it and feel it and measure it, it doesn’t exist. I wonder how they feel about God, the Risen Christ and the Holy Spirit? What are their measurements of the Trinity? Have they ever witnessed spiritual healing? Have they ever been given the first hand reports of those who have truly received spiritual healing through the presence and intervention of the Holy Spirit?
[blockquote] “No mortal chosen by God as a leader has ever proven himself perfect in judgement or behavior.” [/blockquote]
AnglicanFirst, I think you are confusing infallibility with impeccability. No claim of perfect judgement or perfect behavior has ever been made about the Pope.
[blockquote] “I find another problem with the elevation of Mary above what seems to be her actual mortality as a human being. Her immaculate conception is a creation of mortal minds.” [/blockquote]
Far from elevating Mary above her mortality, the Catholic Church teaches that in her, God provided the New Eve. In other words, she was what man was created to be. In preserving her from sin at the moment of conception, the flesh she gave to the Incarnate Word was as it was originally intended, before the Fall.
This isn’t an adequate place for a full discussion of these things, but it’s possible that people reject what they [i] think [/i] the Church teaches, rather than what it actually teaches.
#7..
Salient points both.
For an interesting article on Mary from both the RC and Evangelical perspectives (where there is agreement and where there is not), read (from First Things) Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life, A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. The Protestants represented include J.I. Packer and Timothy George.
#5–I had all that research in hard copy when I was still on the SCDME, which I left in 2006. When I moved offices in 2008, I must have tossed it all; I do rememeber getting rid of most of the vestiges of that former life, so I’m pretty sure that went also. If you want to do some research, Barna is at Barna.org. It’s probably not hard to find.
FrPhilips said,
“AnglicanFirst, I think you are confusing infallibility with impeccability. No claim of perfect judgement or perfect behavior has ever been made about the Pope.’
Father Philips, arguing this point can quickly become circular.
I put more faith in a doctrinal decision made concilliarly by senior/leading bishops seeking discernment from the Holy Spirit than I can from a single bishop leading a church who says that he has such discernment. Particularly when that discernment is to be imposed on all other bishops, priests, deacons and laity serving under that single bishop leading a church.
In the case of the Church Catholic, it would be better served by a council of primates bound by canons than it would be by a single bishop. I fully understand the certain command and control efficiencies of an organization led by one man, but I believe that the Church Catholic would be better served spiritually by a council of primates.
FrPhilips also said,
“Far from elevating Mary above her mortality, the Catholic Church teaches that in her, God provided the New Eve. In other words, she was what man was created to be. In preserving her from sin at the moment of conception, the flesh she gave to the Incarnate Word was as it was originally intended, before the Fall.”
FrPhilips, Jesus’ experience of mortality includes His being born of a mortal woman who was also a product of our imperfect mortal world. To say that His mother was free of any imperfection would be to say that His ‘mothering’ by Mary was the ‘mothering’ of a mother who was not truly of our mortal world. That would make His mortal experience of man’s imperfection incomplete.
What is the origin of this church “teaching?”
AnglicanFirst, the exercise of infallibility doesn’t occur in a vacuum. In fact, it is usually used because some particular doctrine or moral principle within the Church’s teaching has been questioned or confused. The Pope doesn’t simply wake up one day and think to himself, “I’m going to declare infallibly that black is white.” Infallibility is an action of Christ, working through Peter, to clarify the truth. It is an extension of Christ’s words to St. Peter, when He told him to “Feed my sheep…” The gift of infallibility is the tool Christ uses to enable Peter to do just that: to feed Christ’s sheep with food which is wholesome for them, rather than the “mess of pottage” that so frequently is handed out by committees and Councils of Primates.
And concerning your doubts about Mary’s Immaculate Conception, I would restate the Church’s teaching that she still needed her Son as her Savior. But it was done in an anticipatory way, rather than after the fact. In would be a very weak and ineffectual God who could not intervene at the moment of conception and preserve a person from the stain of original sin, as part of His plan for the salvation of mankind. It was simply a matter of time-line, and might be understood in this way: imagine a man has fallen into a river and is being swept to his death, but someone reaches in and pulls him out, thus saving his life; someone else is near the river’s edge and is about to fall in, but someone pulls the person to safety before he falls into the water. They’re both saved from a watery death, although the second person didn’t even get wet. That’s all the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is saying.
And if, when you say, “That would make His mortal experience of man’s imperfection incomplete,” you mean that Christ had to experience actual sin, then that would be a serious distortion of the doctrine of the Incarnation. By Mary not being sinful does not mean that she was not “of our mortal world.” Quite the opposite: she was of our mortal world as God intended it to be at creation, which is the very condition Christ came to restore. He came to “take away the sin of the world.” He would be a strange Savior from sin if He had received His human nature from a sinful source. Mary, in that sinlessness which was an action and gift of God, gave Him human flesh which had not tasted sin, because she was (as the archangel proclaimed) “full of grace.”