While acknowledging the correct stand taken by Anglo-Catholics against theological liberalism (the features of which do not represent true, Biblical Anglicanism), it should also be noted that the true doctrine of the Church of England does not embrace any of the teachings or practices which characterise the Church of Rome. For instance, the Church of Rome is fundamentally flawed in its claims about its own nature and authority and in its teaching about the means of salvation.
A proper rejection of theological liberalism should therefore not be accompanied by a turning to the Church of Rome and its unbiblical teachings and practices. Rather, both theological liberalism and the unscriptural teachings and practices of the Church of Rome are contrary to the Bible and to the historic doctrines of the Church of England as a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic church.
The longing of Church Society is that all Anglicans, whether in England or elsewhere, would see and understand both the destructive nature of theological liberalism and the false nature, teachings and practices of the Church of Rome.
In stating that Catholicism as such is erroneous and does not belong in the Church of England, the council seems to make it clear that Anglo-Catholics really do belong in the Catholic Church.
Mrs. Proudie, outside of Barchester, never died.
[Comment deleted by Elf – please do not instruct or infer that people should leave or join a particular church]
It also begs the question of why the evangelicals invted us to GAFCON?
The massive difficulty the Church Society and all sola-Scriptura Protestants overlook is that there is no scriptural authority by which we have the Bible to begin with. Jesus and the apostles didn’t deliver it to us in a neat package. Neither did the first 5 Councils. By what authority were some works included and others excluded since the Bible didn’t come with its own table of contents? These are questions sola-Scriptura Protestants must absolutely never address if they want to remain s-S Protestants.
At the same time, the Church Society implicitly makes a good point. If (for the sake of argument) High Church Anglicanism is no longer a viable presence in the Anglican Communion, does Anglicanism as a whole continue to present a genuine, viable “Via Media†in the Christian West? If not, what does it present that distinguishes it from other Protestant Churches?
Monksgate, the fact that you must predicate “Via Media” with “genuine and viable” shows that even you know it exists. I don’t know of *any* Anglican that believes in an absolutist exclusivist sola scriptura. I’m assuming that you have not read Anglican founding documents and prayer book or you wouldn’t make that statement. You do seem to long for the dissolution of the Via Media. Perhaps it still stands as a beacon of unity forsaken so often by the rest of the church.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Justinmartyr,
I do not long for the dissolution of the Via Media. For all I know it is indeed “genuine and viable.” I’ve simply not read or heard an argument that convinces me it is. I’m aware of the Scripture-Tradition-Reason formulation, w/ the greatest emphasis given to Scripture. But we are witnessing all sides in the tragic splintering of the Via Media claim that they rest resolutely on that same understanding.
Note also that the question of the authority by which one has the authority of the Bible remains un-answered.
I like the Via Media’s emphasis on the Christianity, and unity of Christ’s church. I like that Baptists and Catholics can receive communion in an Anglican Church. I like the Augustinian and Pauline statements that all Christian baptisms are valid, and that we are indeed baptized into one indissoluble church, Christ’s church. As Paul stated so profoundly, we are not Peter’s or Paul’s or Silas’s (or Rome’s or Cantuar’s), we are Christ’s. We sin in thinking otherwise. And Via Media is a cross of contention that must remind us of this daily. You talk of the recent and tragic splintering of Via Media. But I think you forget the multitude of worse splinterings and heresies within the Church over the centuries. What we weather is insignificant compared to the wars, corruptions, martyrdoms, and blasphemies uttered by the church in the past. If what has happened in Anglicanism in the last hundred years is cauing you to lose faith in Via Media, then your faith in the other branches of Christendom must be shattered.
Monksgate, the criticisms leveled against the authority of scripture can be just as easily, and, I think, more effectively, leveled against tradition. I think the writings of the apostles, i.e., scripture, were confirmed with signs and wonders. many of the later innovations we call tradition have no such track record. Please understand that I am not against tradition per se.
Justinmartyr,
Are you sure *you* agree w/ the Church Society’s statement? If one rejects unscriptural teaching, one logically has to deny the authority of the post-apostolic councils. We’re so accustomed to reading Scripture through the lenses of those councils that it’s easy to think our understanding of Scripture is self-evident. But as the intense controversies that led up to those Councils attest (and indeed I never forget the historical splinterings) there were other defensible interpretations of Scripture as well. A council that gathers to issue a definitive interpretation as to which understanding of Scripture is the orthodox belief is by definition an unscriptural authority.
I agree with you and the Church Society in upholding the authority of Scripture. That’s not an issue. But still un-answered is the question of where Scripture comes from to begin with. Why, for instance, is the Epistle of Barnabas not included in the Scriptures you and the Church Society rely on? (I think I’m safe in assuming you don’t consider the EofB a canonical authority.) Scholars aren’t exactly sure of the EofB’s date, but that kind of scholarship didn’t exist in all the centuries in which the EofB was excluded from the Canon. By what authority was it excluded?
I too would like to see Baptists, Catholics, and Anglicans receive communion together. For that matter, I like the idea that generous, compassionate gays want to serve in ordained ministry (and I know they bring many splendid qualities to their service). But where revealed religion is concerned, what I like isn’t necessarily what should prevail.
Monksgate, I don’t understand why scripture, or tradition, for that matter, should have some infallible proof? We cannot exist without reason, and yet even it can’t be proven. How much more so tradition or scripture. There is very little absolutely certain in my life, and yet I go on living, and go on trusting what I know to be real or true. I view the scriptures in a similar light. I am a christian, not because of some infallible proof, but because of its reasonableness. (And the lacking of all alternatives.) It doesn’t phase me too much whether the book of Barnabus, or Matthew for that matter is infallible. I know that the books were given by God for our edification –as were the people Barnabus and Matthew. I don’t expect infallibility from them either (I do expect the miraculous outworkings of God in their lives.) Since Christianity like everything else in life cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, should it surprise me that there was a debate about which books should enter the Canon? Or that certain that didn’t make it are almost certainly inspired by God?
If we are baptized into Christ’s Body, as all Creedal Christians are, then it seems to me to be a very dangerous action to exclude any sincere member of the Body of Christ from partaking of His Body.
Justinmartyr,
Your ultimate authority, then, is your own judgement. This is old-fashioned Protestantism. Fair enough. Indeed, if the Church Society and perhaps you get your way, ecumenical dialogue with a Anglicanism will likely be a more straight-forward affair than it has been since it will be thoroughly Protestant and utterly un-Catholic.
But your and the Church Society’s position leaves terribly insecure the question of authority. Authority is a logical necessity where revealed religion is concerned, for a divinely instituted authority is necessary to make known and to safeguard what has been revealed. Your claim that we don’t really need to worry about what is and what is not in the Bible is the other side of the same coin the revisionists are on when they say they don’t really need to heed this or that passage of the Bible.
I do genuinely admire your faith, though. May it continue strong and secure!
Monksgate, all judgment relies on a personal conscience, a personal brain, and private reason and is thus by defintion a private affair (unless you are aware of a mind-melding uberconscience that bypasses individual brains of which I am unaware). A decision by a Church council is majority decision based on the determinations of individual consciences. The same applies to a papal proclamation, Martin Luther’s theses and all other determinations.
I don’t see how you can get away from private decisions. Every Roman Catholic used nothing more than his own “Protestant judgment” to determine the validity of scripture and tradition, and therefore joined the Pope’s flock. So long as he maintains that private judgment to be valid he is a Roman Catholic.
Monksgate, you can set up a long chain of causalities of authority containing Popes, Scriptures, Church Councils, and Tradition, but in the end it is still ultimately your private conscience making the judgment of what is traditional, and authoritative, wrong and right. Unless you are a believer in Calvinist determinism, nothing has changed between the Garden of Eden and now: there is still only choice and two voices. The decision is yours.
The distinction b/n your position, Justinmartyr, and mine is in the phrase “ultimate judgement.†I agree w/ Newman that one’s own conscience is one’s “aboriginal Vicar of Christ.†But it’s a conscience and reason that allows itself to be formed and directed ultimately by what is revealed. For instance, my own conscience and reason could not lead me, of themselves, to an acceptance of the doctrine of the Incarnation. Ultimately, this is a matter of faith, and that faith is based on what has been revealed, and that revelation, far from being an agreement among private judgements, is revealed by a divinely constituted authority. Take that authority away, and you no longer have revealed religion, which means you no longer have Christianity.
You have yet to establish that you can refer to an ultimate authority for what is revealed other than your own judgement. That is exactly the position of the revisionists. Their judgement is as sound and as fair as anyone’s. So why shouldn’t their judgement prevail?
Neither the Catholic nor the Anglican claim to authority is on a long chain of causality. The Anglican claim is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The RC claim is Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (which includes the sensum fidei). Yours and the Church Society’s seems to be Scripture and private judgement, Scripture itself being a product (according to this view) of private judgement. Again, if the Church Society view were to prevail, I think we would be witnessing the effective end of Anglicanism.