For readers who do not know, I am a former Episcopalian. My personal history of religious affiliation goes something like the following. I was baptized Catholic but raised in the Episcopal church until my teen years. From then I’d attend the Episcopal church on Sunday and then Calvary Chapel for “Bible study” on Friday evenings with their youth group. This was on account of a number of reasons, not the least of which was that the youth group at the Episcopal church voted that I should leave since I wanted to read the Bible and not have pizza parties and such. The youth directors agreed given that the kinds of questions I was asking really required a “professional” response. This was after I became exasperated with the whole approach of, let’s sit in a circle and go around the room asking what each person thinks such and so verse means “to me.” At the ripe old age of 13 I blurted out, “I don’t care what it means to me, I just want to know what it means!”
thanks for posting this.
Powerful summary. Thank you.
I wish I had written that, but glad he did.
an excellent article. read, mark and inwardly digest
Fascinating story and post, with a strange and incoherent ending.
He announces that if you are an orthodox Anglican and seeing the problems of TECdom — you *must* “leave Anglicanism.” Which in itself is question-begging. Because I thought the person was an orthodox Anglican …
Then he announces that *when you choose either Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy* you must “be what you convert to” — and that “you sincerely need to be convinced that you would have made the same decision even if there had been no problems in TEC.”
But . . . the whole reason why you’ve “left Anglicanism” — even though, remember, you are an Anglican — is because there are “problems in TEC.”
So we have a vast variety of inherent contradictions.
1) The person is an Anglican who sees that TECdom is a sea of heresies.
2) But the person who is an Anglican must “leave Anglicanism.”
3) Then the person who is an Anglican must join another entity. Which that person must “be” — even though the person is an orthodox Anglican, but has “left” Anglicanism.
4) And then the person must do so deciding that he or she really would have joined Rome or whatever “even if there had been no problems in TEC” — but that’s why you “left Anglicanism” in the first place, remember?
What a logical and contradictory hash of things he has made.
It seems that the main presenting issue which has led to the muddle is that he thinks that one must leave an organization with masses of heretics in it because it has something to do with taking communion from or with heretics.
Now obviously, one cannot know every single heretic in an organization. So it’s basically impossible to have as one’s standard that one will not ever commune with heretics, and frankly, it’s impossible to never even commune in a group that contains *open* heretics. The larger the congregation, no matter where one travels in claiming-to-be-Christian organizations, the more likely the possibility that there is a person whom one knows to be a heretic in it. So why not simply not take communion from known heretics? It seems a simple solution to me. It’s perfectly doable. And it doesn’t involve leaving some sort of odd man-made organization, and pumping it up, in the leaving, as something more than it actually is, either. I don’t count any man-made organizational entity or denomination as a “church” in and of itself — and I include Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, of course, as denominations, though that is not their own perception.
And it certainly doesn’t lead to the mess that he has made with trying to find resolution — for that way involves people who really are Anglicans in theology and ecclesiology living in some sort of schizophrenic land where one denies one’s theology and ecclesiology and pretends to be something else, all the while claiming that one “is” what one has converted to, but having left because of the problems within one of the organizations that itself purports to be Anglican.
No doubt Perry Robinson is an Eastern Orthodox Christian in theology and ecclesiology, and is therefore not as schizophrenic as his odd closing set-up/thesis would imply. Which is wonderful for him. But it doesn’t work for those who, you know . . . are [i]Anglican[/i] and do not accept the theological and ecclesial claims of the RCs or EOs. The only reason, then, why I can come up with for why he would create out of whole cloth something so bizarre and in denial as that ending is because he needs others to leave TEC as he has done, only without his theological and ecclesial convictions. Which is … strange.
Sarah,
I must apologize since I see no incoherence in my ending. It is not incoherent to be one thing and leave for something else. People do it all the time. If your reading were a plausible one, it would imply that it is impossible for people change their views and it obviously isn’t. I’ve done it.
Your reading of what I wrote is unrecognizable to me and seems to splice together various comments, some of which I did make and some which I didn’t and then draws rather absurd conclusions. This doesn’t strike me as particularly charitable practice in reading the text of another.
Second, I’ve also given reasons independent of the problems in TEC and other Anglican bodies for becoming Orthodox. I’d suggest taking a look at those. I think I already made clear that my move to Orthodoxy wasn’t based on the problems in the TEC or any of the continuing bodies. At most they prompted me to think about going somewhere else, but they didn’t select for where I ended up. Concerns over distinct theological problems motivated my move to Orthodoxy. This is why I would have made the same choice anyhow.
If one reads the history of canon law and various disputes in Christianity, it is the normative practice to refuse to commune with open heretics, since open and formal heretics have removed themselves from the church. The most obvious example is the Arian controversy, but there are plenty of biblical examples as well. This is not a new principle I am invoking.
And you seem to misrepresent my position. I did not argue to break communion with those one does not know are heterodox or given wayward laymen or individual clergy. But with open and gross heresy practically proclaimed from the rooftops. Consequently, you seem not to have understood what I meant by “open†heretics. I’ve heard plenty of Episcopal clergy openly preach that the resurrection never took place. I dare say, you won’t find this as a widespread or common occurrence (or even uncommon) among the Orthodox.
Secondly, the Church is not a man made organization I take the church to be the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox do not view themselves as a denomination, as that was a latter protestant category, predicated on a Protestant ecclesiology. The Orthodox Church is the society that Christ established, full stop. If you reject the Orthodox claims, that’s fine, you are legally entitled to do so. But as a matter of logic, simply stating your views doesn’t amount to a reason to think that they are true or a reason to think that the Orthodox claims are false.
As for not “working†I think you confuse utility with truth. False ideas can work quite well. If those who identify themselves as Anglican or Episcopalian reject the claims of Rome or Orthodoxy, then it seems a bit obvious that they can’t convert. But of course, then we need a reason to think that say the TEC is a Christian body. Why think that?
Really, Sarah, it is just not that difficult. It is a long-established principle of traditional, Apostolic Christianity that there can be no communion in the sacraments between orthodox Christians and heretical groups. I know you don’t personally agree with that, but that does not change the historical fact that that is how the Church has believed and practiced since the earliest times. (If you are curious, Werner Elert’s [i]Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries[/i] lays out the historical and theological case quite well.) In following that principle, Perry is being anything but incoherent.
There are, of course, Anglicans who understand and embrace this understanding of communion and ecclesiology. They are called Anglo-Catholics. When an Anglo-Catholic confronts the apostasy of the Episcopal Church, it becomes impossible for that person to remain in communion with TEC with any sort of personal integrity (or intellectual coherence). One must then look for a Church body which retains the orthodoxy and catholicity one had (or thought one had) in TEC.
Now if you are a Protestant who doesn’t care about any of the “apostolicity” and “catholicity” mumbo-jumbo, you are not going to see it the way Perry did. But that does not mean that Perry is being incoherent; it only means that you apparently lack the imagination and sympathy to look at things from someone else’s point of view.
#5 I am inclined to agree Sarah. Robinson, who seems to have been a serial church dabbler, makes the test “with whom do you commune”. However he does not in my view make the case not only for why one should not commune with Anglicans, but for why one should commune with, say, clergy and bishops who have protected child-abusers on an industrial scale, or who supported oppresive regimes in Serbia and Russia, when that is they are not squabbling with one another about Easter. If you remain Anglican, it is I expect because you are ‘Anglican’.
Pageantmaster (#8)
Ad hominem attacks (“serial church dabbler”) are no substitute for actual clear thinking and cogent argument. Perry certainly makes the case for why one should not commune with Anglicans: because they are heretics. If he does not also refuse to commune with the Orthodox whom you have ignorantly impugned, it is because he is not a Donatist.
Pageantmaster,
Let’s suppose what you say is true. How does that show that my argument is mistaken exactly, since the same argument can be given by someone who is not a “seriel church dabbler?” It doesn’t and so I can’t see how logically this isn’t an ad hominem.
Second, my changes took place over my life time and over extended periods of time. Furthermore, I read, a lot. Usually about 60 plus books a year. For a time, I was an academic and I’ve taught philosophy for the better part of a decade. So when I say I read uite a bit, I am not talking about Tom Clancy. Consequently, the shifts in my theological understanding were due in large measure to teaching and studying complex issues at a graduate level.
As for your comments about Rome and some Eastern churches, I am not clear on how this helps your view so please clarify it for me. Is it your view that the Church of England or the TEC in the US never as an institution allied with political powers for the oppresion of certain people groups? Personally I know enough Lakota and Arapahoe people in Wyoming to know this is false. I would think that there are a sufficient number of Indians (from the Indian sub-continent) to bring similar charges against the CofE as well, not to mention other places Her Majesty’s army went. And the imperialism hasn’t ended, its just gone economic.
So I can’t see how this helps you or is an adequate basis to adjudicate philosophical and theological claims.
RE: “I must apologize since I see no incoherence in my ending.”
No need to apologize at all — after all, I do not apologize for seeing that your closing is irrational or incoherent, why should you apologize for believing it to to be coherent. ; > ) So no apologies necessary.
RE: “If your reading were a plausible one, it would imply that it is impossible for people change their views and it obviously isn’t.”
No — because had you said “I changed my theology and was therefore no longer an Anglican and therefore left” that would not be incoherent. However, that is not what you said in the linked post. You stated — and I quote — that there was a problem for “those few in TEC who still in fact profess Christian doctrines” … And that they “need to make a choice and in order to do that, they have to leave Anglicanism.”
That is not — obviously — at all the same thing as saying “Concerns over distinct theological problems motivated my move to Orthodoxy.”
Nothing wrong with the latter. But there is much much wrong with the former method of announcing that people “in TEC who still in fact profess Christian doctrines” must “leave Anglicanism.”
RE: “If one reads the history of canon law and various disputes in Christianity, it is the normative practice to refuse to commune with open heretics, since open and formal heretics have removed themselves from the church.”
And that’s perfectly reasonable — and perfectly doable while still remaining with the organization known as TEC. I for instance won’t take communion with various bishops of TEC. And all without having to leave the organization too. As I said in my original comment, it’s a simple solution and doesn’t involve someone who is theologically and ecclesially Anglican joining an entity that is neither.
RE: “Secondly, the Church is not a man made organization …”
I agree.
RE: “I take the church to be the Orthodox Church.”
I am sure that you do.
But I take it as merely a man-made denomination in which resides the Church.
RE: “The Orthodox do not view themselves as a denomination…”
I am sure that they don’t.
RE: “The Orthodox Church is the society that Christ established, full stop.”
I am sure that that is what they believe.
But then, I was explaining why an [i]Anglican[/i] wouldn’t — obviously — be able to “leave Anglicanism” and go off and “be what you convert to” over in EO or RC land.
RE: “But as a matter of logic, simply stating your views doesn’t amount to a reason to think that they are true or a reason to think that the Orthodox claims are false.”
I agree — but then I didn’t offer any reasons why I consider the Orthodox claims — or for that matter the Roman claims — to be false. I’m not debating the issues of why the theology or ecclesiology of various denominations aren’t correct — I’m merely pointing out the logical incoherency of the final portion of your otherwise fascinating post.
RE: “As for not “working†I think you confuse utility with truth.”
Not at all. But one of the reasons why it does not “work” for an Anglican to pretend to believe something that he or she does not and to convert to something that he or she does not believe is because it is not truthful. It would be a lie.
RE: “But of course, then we need a reason to think that say the TEC is a Christian body.”
Um, why would one “need a reason to think” that? It’s irrelevant as to whether a person who has the theology and the ecclesiology of an Anglican should therefore “leave Anglicanism” and join some other denomination [remember — he or she doesn’t grant EO’s or RC’s claims].
Again, that’s simply incoherent.
It’s one thing to say “my theology and ecclesiology changed and therefore I have joined this thing which I now believe to be the society that Christ established”.
It’s quite another to say to people “in TEC who still in fact profess Christian doctrines” that they must “leave Anglicanism” even when they are Anglicans, and purport to convert to some other entity.
No, at the end of the day, it appears that you are saying “real Christians can’t be members of this organization here, TEC.”
That’s fine of course. I and many other real Christians in TEC don’t buy it.
RE: “It is a long-established principle of traditional, Apostolic Christianity that there can be no communion in the sacraments between orthodox Christians and heretical groups.”
Heh. How clever of you to change the wording, Chris Jones. I assume you saw the problem too with “taking communion with heretics.”
But you’re right — it is not difficult at all. It’s perfectly simple to not take communion from heretics, even while remaining in TEC. And as I said, it doesn’t involve leaving some sort of odd man-made organization, and pumping it up, in the leaving, as something more than it actually is, either.
Subscribe.
Thanks for responding Chris Jones and PerryRobinson and welcome.
I have to say PerryRobinson, I found much of your argument cogent and well expressed, but you lost me when you told your readers they had to consider leaving Anglicanism for, well, anywhere else at all. And my comments were not ad hominem. They asked you why you would commune with denominations which have as serious, if not more serious issues in terms of their effects on lives and souls as the issues of TEC.
As for child-abuse, yes, all churches, scout groups, and any group where you find youngsters will be targetted by those who wish them harm, but no where has the cover-up been institutionalised over decades as it has with the RC church. No where has a church cooperated with oppressive regimes as the Orthodox church has in the last century, and perhaps even this one. I don’t understand why people should leave Anglicanism on one set of moral principles and set them aside to join another denomination?
RE: “Perry certainly makes the case for why one should not commune with Anglicans: because they are heretics.”
No I’m afraid he makes no case at all for that, because he himself admits that “they” are not all heretics. So that screws up that assertion.
The issue is that some are heretics and some are not — kinda like some in [i]all other denominations[/i] are heretics and some are not. And you’d like the ones who are not heretics specifically in TEC — but TEC alone, of course — to leave TEC, and to do that you’ve got to somehow make an argument — without really making it — that people in organizations with heretics in them absolutely MUST leave — or at least in organizations named “TEC.”
As for “serial church dabbler”, not meant negatively, a case can be made that it has given you a broader view of the variety of the Christian church, but you have been around really rather a lot of denominations, without really settling for very long in any, unless you are exceedingly ancient indeed?
But see, Pageantmaster, the heretics in TEC are the ones that must be separated from. Not the heretics in other entities.
And let’s be clear, of course. By Perry Robinson’s standard, all Anglicans within the Anglican Communion “who still in fact profess Christian doctrines” should actually “leave Anglicanism” since they are “in communion with” the heretics in TEC.
It’s not enough to do as the Primates have rightly done and refuse Communion at the Holy Table with KJS, et al. No — that is not sufficient, for obviously refusing communion in specific Eucharists is not what Perry Robinson means. Apparently he means that if one *resides in an entity with heretics* — at least, heretics-in-TEC — that one must leave. And certainly the Primates reside in an entity with heretics-in-TEC — that entity is the Anglican Communion.
Re #12
Sarah,
I must disagree respectfully with you. It is not possible to remain in TEC without being in sacramental communion with heretics. “Being in communion” is not an individualistic state. It is a corporate one via one’s bishop. If your bishop communes with heretics and you commune with your bishop, then you are in communion with heresy.
Your position is irreconcilable with both scripture and the immemorial discipline of the church catholic. Now if you wish to argue that that discipline is mistaken or one that it can be set aside, that is certainly your right. And it would be quite consistent from a Protestant perspective given both Protestant ecclesiology and sacramental theology. But it simply does not fly from a catholic one.
As Perry noted in another post a while back; you are who you are in communion with.
Christ is risen!
John
#10 PerryRobinson:
[blockquote]As for your comments about Rome and some Eastern churches, I am not clear on how this helps your view so please clarify it for me. Is it your view that the Church of England or the TEC in the US never as an institution allied with political powers for the oppresion of certain people groups? Personally I know enough Lakota and Arapahoe people in Wyoming to know this is false.[/blockquote]
Certainly it is true that native peoples have been oppressed, and that is something of which we are not proud. However this was not something that the CofE was involved with in Wyoming. If anything the British concluded treaties with many native peoples in the US, which were ignored after independence. The church of England was involved in missionary work, but unlike the RC church in Spain and Portugal, it did not indulge in forced conversions.
[blockquote]I would think that there are a sufficient number of Indians (from the Indian sub-continent) to bring similar charges against the CofE as well, not to mention other places Her Majesty’s army went.[/blockquote]
The church, like trade, followed the flag, and sometimes preceded it, but as far as I know, forced conversion was never part of British imperial policy; quite the opposite in fact, indigenous religion was by and large scrupulously respected, with the exception of the suppression of suttee and the thugee cult of human sacrifice.
[blockquote]And the imperialism hasn’t ended, its just gone economic.[/blockquote]
There is certainly a case for that, but by and large Anglicans and CofE members are in the forefront of arguing against that, as are members of TEC, heretic or not.
RE: “If your bishop communes with heretics and you commune with your bishop, then you are in communion with heresy.”
Where did I imply that Episcopalians “who still in fact profess Christian doctrines” should take communion from a heretical TEC bishop?
Answer: I didn’t.
No, this is back to the age-old assertion that being “in communion” is really being a member of an organizational entity like the Anglican Communion or TEC, when in reality it is no such thing at all.
Not taking communion from heretical bishops — no matter the organizational entity — is a perfectly simple thing to do and it is in keeping with “both scripture and the immemorial discipline of the church catholic.”
Now, of course, for someone who believes that Anglicanism intrinsically is ecclesially false, I can certainly understand your assertions that orthodox AC Primates must leave the AC in order to not be “in communion with” other Anglican heretical bishops. In short, that is basically saying “you must no longer be Anglican” — which again, is understandable for EOs or RCs! ; > )
But Anglicans — the world over — simply don’t believe that. They believe that one can refuse communion with heretical bishops and that be beautifully in keeping with both scripture and the immemorial discipline of the church catholic.
Ad Orientem
Hope you don’t mind me joining your exchange with Sarah
[blockquote]“Being in communion†is not an individualistic state. It is a corporate one via one’s bishop. If your bishop communes with heretics and you commune with your bishop, then you are in communion with heresy.[/blockquote]
Well is that the case? Certainly in Anglican and maybe Catholic thinking, Communion is between the individual and Christ, and the inadequacy of either a fellow communicant or indeed a priest [unless one is a Donatist] does not taint that relationship or the relationship with other members of the church catholic.
An instance is of the communicant who appears at the rail in disobedience to the rubric of the service, not being penitent, or at peace with his neighbor, or some more serious error. Now it may be that by doing so, he impacts his own state, possibly in catholic teaching, his own heavenly prospects, but it does not impact the communion of the other communicants?
There’s a problem here, folks. Heresy poses a problem, should pose a problem, for anyone who believes that the Episcopate is ordained by God as an organ of unity in the Church. It’s not a matter of being discriminate from whom one receives communion, as if one is contaminated by being in the company of sinners. If that were the problem, there would be no salvation for any of us. We aren’t Donatists. But when heresy is embraced and taught by our bishops, a major ecclesiological problem is created.
It’s all about what it means to be Church. It’s all about the Church as constituted by Holy Eucharist. It’s all about the bishop as celebrant of the Eucharist. It’s all about eucharistic communities united together through their respective bishops. The Church is in the bishop and the bishop is in the Church.
I understand that there are all sorts of grey areas here, degrees of heterodoxy, if you will; but for purpose of our discussion, let’s restrict heresy to really serious stuff, the kind of stuff, tragically, that is now commonly taught from Episcopal pulpits. If my orthodox bishop continues in communion with a heretical bishop, then he has [b]endorsed[/b] the heresy. Period. Moreover, he has brought not only himself but all of his diocese into communion with the heretic and his heresy. It really is as simple as that. The orthodox bishop can of course announce his disagreement with the beliefs of the heretical bishop, but all such words mean nothing as long as he continues to remain in sacramental communion with the heretical bishop. Communion is always communion in the truth.
If your bishop is a heretic, you have a problem. Even if you declare to the world “I reject the false teachings of my bishop,” if you continue to receive communion at one of his parishes, you have compromised your witness and publicly affirmed his false teaching and taken it into your soul. But, you say, “My parish priest is orthodox. He rejects the teachings of our bishop.” But he’s in the same compromised position as you are. He presides at the Eucharist of your parish in the name of the bishop, as his deputy. That’s the difference between a priest and bishop.
If your bishop is orthodox but is in communion with heretical bishops, you have a problem. The ecclesiological and sacramental logic we have discussed above obtains here also.
Story of one of the desert fathers:
[i]It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper they said to him ‘Aren’t you that Agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?’ ‘Yes, it is very true,’ he answered. They resumed, ‘Aren’t you that Agothon who is always talking nonsense?’ ‘I am.” Again they said ‘Aren’t you Agothon the heretic?’ But at that he replied ‘I am not a heretic.’ So they asked him, ‘Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.’ He replied ‘The first accusations I take to myself for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.’ At this saying they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified.[/i]
Perry Robinson’s post presents very well the process many believing Anglicans in America have gone through. He has found a stable home in Orthodoxy, and may God bless him there, and also those who have left TEC and made other choices. We all do what we believe is best. I personally left TEC when it became clear to me that my then-bishop was a heretic.
However, here’s the line, right at the end, which leads me to have some agreement with Sarah’s criticism of “incoherence”:[blockquote]What is important as I have noted before is that once you make a decision, you choose to be what you convert to. It does you no good to be a disgruntled Episcopalian in the Catholic or Orthodox Church. You have to leave one behind and embrace an option. And this means you sincerely need to be convinced that you would have made the same decision even if here had been no problems in TEC. [/blockquote]I agree with Robinson entirely until the last sentence. If there had been no problems in TEC, would most orthodox Anglicans have considered Orthodoxy or Catholicism? Robinson is convinced that there are no viable Anglican alternatives. An Anglican who is not so convinced may reach different conclusions.
Re 21 & 21
Sarah & PageMaster
I think you have both made very cogent arguments from a Protestant perspective. Unfortunately, as previously noted, it does not conform with either scripture or the ancient discipline of the Church. The Fathers of the Church would certainly view both your ecclesiology and sacramental theology as alien to them and the Orthodox Catholic Church. Given that we don’t agree on these two very critical points I suspect that further debate of this subject is unlikely to yield much fruit. Blessings to you both during this holy season…
Christ is risen!
John
Father bless!
Fr. Kimel,
Thank you for your excellent comment and quote.
Christ is risen!
John
#22 FrKimel
Thanks for your response. But surely the existence of a heretic bishop in the church or even in the RC Church a heretic Pope [I understand there have been several declared to be such] does not poison the well from which all the other bishops and communicants draw. There is certainly a case for breaking communion with that individual, on the basis that there is no common basis of belief on which one founds a common understanding that underlies communion.
Thus the acts of the heretic, bishop or Pope as he may be, does not necessarily invalidate the Eucharist celebrated by him for the communicant, the ordinations or the consecrations he has participated in. Thus the presence of individuals in a church who are heretical, or even of doctrine they spread through it does not impact the status of the individual in that church, for that would be just to be a variation of the Donatist heresy. It remains open to a faithful Christian to leave or stay in that church, and that includes other bishops. In some cases those such as Athenasius have continued to witness, even when the rest of the church fell into error, and in God’s good time, He restored His church. I think we always have to remember that it is His church.
Now that does not mean that an individual has to accept communion or that other bishops in the church have to take communion with the others who are in error. They may exercise discipline, partly as a way of differentiating themselves, and making it clear that the error has consequences. This is what is going on at Anglican Communion level in relation to TEC. But that is not an argument for people to leave TEC, any more than the errors of RC Popes who were for a time in position were a reason for people to leave that church.
Further if you look at the treatment of Popes deemed to have erred, such as Formosus, there was far from universal agreement that his acts as Pope were invalid, and indeed it was declared that they were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Formosus
Another example of a heretic Pope is Honorius I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I
So it is far from the case that a heretic leading a church requires everyone else, or indeed anybody to leave it, even in Roman Catholic doctrine.
Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the early fathers would endorse the proposition that:
“If my orthodox bishop continues in communion with a heretical bishop, then he has endorsed the heresy. Period.”
“As for all those who pretend to confess sound Orthodox Faith, but are in communion with people who hold a different opinion, if they are forewarned and still remain stubborn, you must not only not be in communion with them, but you must not even call them brothers.”
-St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesaria in Cappodocia
“Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God.”
-St. Theodore the Studite
“The heretics were totally shipwrecked with regard to the Faith; but as for the others, even if in their thinking they did not founder, nevertheless, because of their communion with heresy they are perishing.”
-St. Theodore the Studite
Sarah,
I think you are still misreading my remarks. In the section of my blog post where I speak of a problem for those who remain, I mean to imply that staying is not a viable option given their theological commitments, which include not being in communion with open heretics. This means being in communion with, it does not mean whether they individually receive from said individuals. This principle has been recognized since the time of the Apostles on through the church councils and even is recognized by classical Protestant bodies. Even if your bishop doesn’t commune with KJS, if he communes with those who do, it’s the same problem.
And I didn’t claim that problems with the TEC or other bodies were sufficient to motivate a choice for a specific alternative. This is why I mentioned other arguments on independent grounds to do that kind of work.
If the TEC and other Anglican bodies are not viable options, then it follows that a commitment to Christianity will imply leaving Anglicanism. This was in fact the argument I made.
When you write that communion with open heretics is “perfectly doable†this is a case of equivocation, since you are talking about individual reception and I am talking about being in communion with a bishop who is in communion with other bishops in a wider body. Unless you are a Baptist and Congregationalist of sorts, the refusal to receive from an individual openly heretical bishop doesn’t help. This is why Athanasius, Cyril and hordes of other fathers refused to commune with various heretics or those who communed with them. This principle is clearly enshrined in ecumenical councils, not to mention the Bible.
If you think denominations reside in the church, this seems to cut against historic Anglicanism since the Anglicans took themselves to be the CofE and not a denomination as such. Denominations were Protestant sects. Second, if the CofE resides in the Church, this seems to move the question rather than answer it for now we need to know what is the church and more importantly, where is the church visible? And more to the point, if TEC isn’t professing Christianity as a denomination how can it reside within “the Church†since presumably the Church resides in Christ?
You write that it doesn’t work for an Anglican to pretend to believe something that he or she does not and convert to something that he or she does not believe. But I never proffered such a situation. Here you are ISTM implicitly confusing Anglican distinctives with Christian doctrine as such. It is perfectly possible for someone to be Anglican and confess Christian doctrine as contained in the Creed and see that remaining Anglican is inconsistent with professing those doctrines. The Creedal doctrines that they do believe will be sufficient to motivate them to leave Anglicanism. It won’t be sufficient to select for an alternative, as I’ve already noted. Consequently, it seems that your characterization of my view is a straw man.
I thought I expressed sufficiently as to why one would need to think that TEC is a Christian body. There is no Christian teaching, rite, or symbol which is necessary for adherence for membership. One can be a member in good standing at all levels and deny every article of the Creed.
You also write of a person who has the theology and ecclesiology of an Anglican, but I always thought that Anglicans claimed to lack a distinctive theology and ecclesiology and held only to that which was of the apostolic deposit, which is what marked it off from Protestant bodies as not being a sect? Perhaps you could clarify this point for me?
And even if Anglicans don’t grant Roman or Orthodox claims, they historically have not seen them as denominations either. The Anglican attempts to have intercommunion with the Orthodox was predicated on such a view.
I am not saying real Christians can’t be members of the TEC. As I already noted, I made no judgments as to recipients of grace. I argued though that no professing Christian could consistently be so. They may be inconsistently so, but I can’t see how that would be a good thing.
As for not all members of TEC not being professing heretics, I am sure such was the case with Eusebius of Nicomedia or Eunomius, but Christians were obligated to flee their jurisdictional obedience to said bishops who were heretical. As I explained above, it doesn’t “screw up†my argument.
I did not narrow my argument to just the TEC but I included in brief reasons for not opting for other bodies. If this wasn’t clear in the post, it was most certainly clear in the comments on my blog. I don’t find there to be any viable Anglican option left that doesn’t include the losing of the episcopacy with four or five bad coughs and a heart attack.
My argument was not that people in bodies with heretical members must leave. That would be too wide a gloss on the problem as I stated it. It was rather that people in bodies that do not profess Christianity but also profess another faith must leave. If you think persons like Athanasius or Cyril were in error, please explain why think so.
As for the primates refusing communion to KJS, did all the primate do that? I wasn’t aware that the TEC was out of communion with Canterbury. Second, since I reject WO as heterodox, I think the problem is much wider than Spong and KJS.
#28 Ad Orientem
St Basil – that is certainly his view, but it wasn’t accepted by the church and Pope Damasus I was having none of it. Indeed Damasus I worked against schism in the church as far as I can see.
St. Theodore the Studite – tried to push a similar line as an abbot but again Constantine IV was having none of it.
But thank you for bringing up those interesting characters from the Orthodox Church.
Pageantmaster,
Let me see if I can address your concerns. Here’s how I would divvy it up. There is a difference between moral failure and theological failure. Even at their worst, the situations you describe are cases of moral failure and not theological failure. This is why my argument was about what a church professes and not a failure in praxis per se.
As for Rome, I simply don’t know enough to give an adequate assessment of the situation. I am waiting to get a better picture with the sex abuse scandal. As a general rule, I take media reports on religious subjects, particularly ones during Pascha with a grain of salt. As for the cover up in Rome being institutionalized, I’d beg to differ. The US public school system has vastly larger numbers and higher rates of child sex abuse than the Catholic Church does without any serious systematic investigation by the relevant authorities.
As for specific Orthodox jurisdictions, assuming things are as straightforward as you put them, this seems to be a problem for individual jurisdictions involved and not the Orthodox Church as such. Parts and wholes as it were. In the case of Russia, the vast majority of clerics were frankly exterminated and those that did comply with the Soviets clearly did it at the point of a sword. I hardly think that is comparable to the situation in the TEC.
As for the serial church dabbler. If you didn’t mean it negatively, did you mean it positively? I’ve been around the theological block, this much is true. If you wish to open my religious history to examine if my reasons for changing were justified, I am more than happy to do so. At the other end, one must keep in mind Augustine’s remarks in the Retractions that if he never changed his views he’d be a great fool. As for settling down, I’ve been Orthodox a decade now with no signs of going anywhere. As for being baptized Catholic, I had no choice in the matter and not much in being raised in TEC. Since I was evicted for wishing to understand Christianity from my TEC youth group, I attended a nondenominational bible study. What were my options at 14? By the time I was in my mid twenties I had read the entire Schaff/Wace 38 volume set of the church fathers cover to cover, plus a mountain or primary and secondary material on Anglicanism, Puritanism and the Reformation. Reading a good amount of the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology moved me away from Calvinism and into Anglo-Catholicism, which was about the time I moved from the REC to the ACC, which were both technically in the Anglican tradition. Then I became Orthodox. I hope that helps you fill in some gaps about me.
When I speak of the Lakota, I am not talking about ages long past, but problems in the last thirty to one hundred years. I’ve been to the “Rez†there and somehow the people there aren’t too keen in TEC.
Forced conversions aren’t the only injustice that can be done to a people. Ask an Indian. The only people that were colonized by the English that I know of that have a favorable view of it are the Cubans, but that might have something to do with the fact that they only stayed on for two years. As for CofE protesting economic colonialism, I don’t see too many of them whining about Lybia. Besides, this is off track since it is concerning moral failures and not theological failures.
What you say about Donatism is true, but it is not relevant and here is why. Individual error is a problem when the body doesn’t have a Christian intention. Does the TEC have a Christian intention? Athanasius thought that the Arians didn’t and by comparison, their theology looks quite stellar compared to TEC. Consequently, my argument doesn’t turn on the heresy of Donatism since the refutation of Donatism turned on the assumption that the church in question was professing Creedal doctrines.
What faith does the TEC profess and require of its members? Not the Creed, at least not as far as I can see. Is there some piece of evidence that you think I am missing here?
You write of a communicant who presents themselves at the rail, but what is to be done when it is the majority of the house of bishops who are doing the presenting? This is why the rubrics you mention do not seem applicable here.
Katherine,
Let me see if I can clarify for you. When I wrote the passage you cite, here is what I meant. I meant to denote persons who change ecclesiastical allegiances but are always obsessing about what is going on in the TEC, the latest scandal and so forth. They harp on the good ole days (which really weren’t that good) and such.
I am arguing therefore for a full and genuine conversion and not a mere switching of locations one goes to on Sunday morning. This is why I wrote what I did about being disgruntled in another body. Constantly looking back as a bitter pillar of salt is harmful to you and those around you.
I grant that most would not have considered other options if the TEC were kosher. This is why I appeal to major areas of traditional western theology to show that my decision was justified irrespective of the problems in TEC. These arguments function in two ways. They function to motivate movement whether one takes the problems as decisive or not.
#29 PerryRobinson
You may find it helpful to remember what Anglicanism has traditionally taught since you seem to think you can speak for it:
Firstly salvation is by the act of God, not of institutions, however in error; similarly neither can error in those institutions preclude salvation by the act of God:
[blockquote] Article XVIII. Of obtaining eternal salvation only by the name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
Article XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.[/blockquote]
Further in relation to the position of priests and indeed bishops in the church:
[blockquote]XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.[/blockquote]
So even if you were correct and the presence of bishops in error and heresy in the Catholic and Orthodox churches is a call to the faithful to break communion and leave [which it is pretty clear is not the case], Traditional Anglicanism says that this does not affect the validity of sacraments or the church. None of that is to say that in any of these churches that heresy and error are not grounds for discipline of those who practice and preach error and heresy.
#31 Thanks PerryRobinson. I had not seen your reply when I wrote #33 but I think the position remains the same. There is no distinction between theological and personal moral error made in the Articles, as to why sacraments are still valid. I admit it is not ideal, but the error of priests, bishops or even quite large numbers of them, perhaps even a governing majority, does not impact this and so an individual, a congregation or a diocese may validly continue as part of that church, in the same way as happened so far as I am aware in the early church.
I do not criticise the circumambulatory route God has led you on through the many denominations of His church. I suspect it has been very interesting and may well be less of a bug and more of a feature and will certainly have left you with a rare knowledge and experience few of the rest of us have.
For the moment as you suggest, I will leave the Lakota and the Indians in peace. What I have read from Anglicans in Africa expresses their deep gratitude to the early missionaries from England who brought the good news of Jesus Christ to them and liberated them from the dark and animist gods who ruled and terrified them. That is perhaps why there are 78 million Anglicans now. One can get an unrepresentative view just from the States.
“We aren’t Donatists.”
Oh, i’m not so sure about that. I believe a case could be made that that is exactly what is going on.
#35
What possible case is that? It is quite clear cut. There is a massive difference between communion with the morally compromised i.e. sinners and communion with heretics.
I agree with much of what Perry Robinson has said. His paragraph that Katherine pointed out in #23:
makes perfect sense to me, I guess because this is what happened to me. I wasn’t looking to move from TEC, it was the church I grew up in. Once the presenting issues within the TEC began becoming more apparent to me, I started looking into what the church had been doing. Their stance on abortion is what convinced me that TEC had lost her way. I started looking at other denominations/churches because, as a parent, I could not raise my child in a pro-abortion church, no matter what position my individual parish held.
In educating myself about other denominations/churches, I became convinced (for me) that the Protestant Reformation was ultimately off course in separating the Church Catholic and in turning its back on so many of the early church traditions and understandings. Because of that, we ended up joining the Roman Catholic Church, not out of anger or frustration but out of joy. It’s true that I would not have looked at other denominations if there hadn’t been problems in TEC, but it’s also true that, if I had taken the time to study the history and traditions of the Church even if there were no problems in TEC, I believe I would have arrived at the same conclusion – that the Protestant Reformation is ultimately too fragmenting. Yes, TEC’s problems gave me impetus to look, but in looking, I realized that I should have left anyway.
Pageantmaster,
Please clarify an initial matter for me. Are you appealing to the Articles of Religion as a or the dogmatic standard of TEC? Can you refer me to some normative and representative statement of TEC that says as much?
#31 PerryRobinson
[blockquote]I had no choice in the matter and not much in being raised in TEC. Since I was evicted for wishing to understand Christianity from my TEC youth group, I attended a nondenominational bible study. What were my options at 14?[/blockquote]
May I also say how sorry I am for your experience. There may certainly be times to give ones personal response to biblical passages for that is often how the Holy Spirit speaks a particular message to us, but that is no substitute for grounding it in close study of a passage aided by a good commentary and where appropriate an explanation. It is tragic that you did not find that in your church, nor encouragement to learn more.
I wouldn’t say that this is traditionally typical of Anglicanism, quite the opposite. The Reformation in England was all about concentrating on Scriptural study, and that was embedded over the following centuries as we gathered week by week to hear passages from the Old and New Testaments, an Epistle, and some Psalms. We had a lectionary which would take you through the entire Bible in a year, and in the case of important texts twice.
This is really where things have gone wrong. Ordinands, clergy and laity just do not read the Scriptures, and learn about their faith. I don’t know how they expect to teach if they do not get to grips with the texts.
Certainly my experience here in England is that we get people who have had a superficial knowledge of Scripture from other congregational new churches and even festivals, but who come to the Anglican Church for its depth of Biblical teaching and the chance to discuss it in depth in groups.
You do highlight exactly what needs to be done to fix things but I am sorry it was too late for you in our church, but I am glad you took the situation into your own hands.
#38 PerryRobinson:
[blockquote]Please clarify an initial matter for me. Are you appealing to the Articles of Religion as a or the dogmatic standard of TEC? Can you refer me to some normative and representative statement of TEC that says as much?[/blockquote]
I am not sure the relevance of this, but As I said in my post #33 I quoted the Articles of Religion of the Church of England in the context of what Anglicanism has traditionally taught.
I suspect that TEC has something similar, save without the reference in Article XXXVII to ‘The Queen’s majesty hath the chief power in this realm…’, but whether this bears any relation to what they practice and preach I really wouldn’t like to speculate.
There are as you admit many in TEC who remain faithful Christians, and intend to remain so – within TEC, and with integrity.
The 39 Articles are printed in the 1979 U.S. BCP, in very small print, in the back, in a section titled “Historical Documents.” Opinion on the Articles in TEC varies (of course) but on the whole you won’t get a lot of traction citing them as a doctrinal standard.
Even if one were to restrict the discussion to “orthodox” TECers, I would expect that many Anglo-Catholics would niggle at some of the more Reformed articles. E.g., article XVIII:
[blockquote]It is not possible to remain in TEC without being in sacramental communion with heretics. “Being in communion†is not an individualistic state. It is a corporate one via one’s bishop. If your bishop communes with heretics and you commune with your bishop, then you are in communion with heresy.[/blockquote]
This is precisely why I am no longer an Episcopalian, living as I do in the Diocese of North Carolina.
To leave the Episcopal Church is a difficult, excruciating decision for anyone who loves the Episcopal Church, or at least loves the Anglicanism which it used to embody.
Here was the crucial question I had to ask myself as a parent:
Can I, in good conscience, encourage my children to remain within the Episcopal Church and raise their (future) children within it?
Here was the crucial question I had to ask myself as a parish priest:
Can I, in good conscience, encourage the parents within my parish to remain within the Episcopal Church and raise their children within it?
To both questions I had to answer no.
PerryRobinson,
Thank you for the article. You almost had me convinced of your bona fides, until the end of the article when it was clear that you were never going to refer to ACNA or the orthodox reform movement within Anglicanism.
If you disagreed with them, or thought they were going about things the wrong way, I could understand. But you didn’t mention them, not once.
So you are not really dealing with Anglicanism, are you? Your article really comes down to: “I’ll mention only the worst things I can find in Anglicanism so I can make a good case for everyone to change to MY denomination”.
Ho hum, I’ve heard it all before. It all becomes a great talk-fest by the partisans of each denomination, each doing their best to minimise or deny the problems in their own denomination and to mangify the problems with others.
I find that the faith which I was taugh in the Episcopal Church, and which was abandoned by the same denomination, is continued and fulfilled in Orthodoxy. Thank you Mr. Robinson. What you have written here is a great blessing to me.
MichaelA,
Please allow me to lay things out as I see them and to try and address your concerns.
I didn’t refer to the ACNA for a few reasons. First, I am not as up on the day to day dealings concerning them. When I became Orthodox, I became Orthodox. I don’t obsess about the recent goings on in Anglicanism. What I wrote was occasioned by a romp through my tag surfer when I saw a blog entry on reformulating the doctrine of the Trinity that caught my eye. Back to the ACNA, I try not to speak about things of which I know little. The ACNA was not an option when I crossed the Bosporus.
That said, I don’t think from what I know that the ACNA is a real big help for two reasons. I reject WO as heterodox. I don’t mean to be rude or insulting but that is how I see it. I also see the same Christological mistakes that theologically motivate it present in the current dispute over biblical morality. Does the body matter or not? Or in other words, sex doesn’t seem to matter (WO), except when it does, if you get my point. I think a serious analysis of Chalcedonian and post-Chalcedonian Christology will bring these problems to light.
Also, if ACNA is in communion with Canterbury and the latter is in communion with the TEC, the problem persists. And I can’t see that Canterbury is any more orthodox than the TEC in any case. The problem is magnified when we expand our scope to other provinces. While African and Asian provinces tend to be more conservative, the TEC isn’t the only liberal province. These things have spread.
I also have independent reasons for thinking that traditional Latin theology suffers from significant defects spread across major areas of theology. I’ve made no secret of my critiques of Calvinism, Lutheranism and Catholicism as some here can attest. I am an equal opportunity offender. Anglicanism is not exempt from these problems, which is why fidelity to the ecumenical councils of the church and their teaching trumps Anglicanism, liberalism or no liberalism, ACNA or no ACNA.
Something else to keep in mind. The ACNA is not Anglicanism in its entirety so that my failure to address it as an option doesn’t imply logically that I failed to deal with Anglicanism per se. Your presentation seems to get the part/whole relationship backwards.
I have written an essay, “Anglicans in Exile†in which I try to say the good, the bad and the ugly about all three options-Anglicanism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. So I haven’t been playing a game of stacking the deck. You might find some of the theological topics I deal with there helpful in sorting through such matters.
I wish you well.
PerryRobinson,
You seem to be missing my point. In the article above, you didn’t criticse Anglicanism because of its adherence to “traditional latin theology” or calvinism or catholicism etc. You criticised Anglicanism because of the actions and beliefs of a small part of Anglicanism (TEC) which is obviously heretical. You then stated this as a reason for a person to leave Anglicanism and you put the choice before them as being either TEC, Rome or Orthodoxy.
It is clear from your post above that you in fact do know enough about ACNA to have commented on it. The fact that you even gave a small nod towards the continuing churches makes the omission of ACNA more stark.
A couple things:
I think he has an optimistic view that 20 years ago you could have understood that Episcopalians were “Christians.” It is a misunderstanding of what the church’s role was in the culture. In Christendom, there are plenty who attended church out of obligation and parroted the words unthinkingly because that’s the way the world was. They kept their questions to themselves because that’s how one respected authority.
Secondly, Episcopalians have often looked like Unitarians – since the founding of the country.
Last, I also bemoan the lack of theological sophistication in the church and the preponderance of substituting political categories for religious ones. But it seems to me that his argument is not merely about Anglicanism but really about the classical evangelical / reformed impulse, and whether that can form a reliable, and true church.
My take-away from this contribution: Don’t go off and be an angry former Episcopalian. If one is called to RC, EO, etc, by all means do so and embrace it. Do not sit in your new digs, grinding your teeth for the remainder of your life, lamenting the passing of a Church that no longer exists. Shake the dust from your sandals and move on.
Michael,
I am not sure that your remarks fully engage the problem as I posed it. Is the ACNA in communion with Canterbury? Is Canterbury in communion with the TEC? The relation here is transitive. If the TEC is obviously heretical then the problem remains. And the TEC isn’t the only heterodox province in any case. There are others. Canterbury isn’t particularly orthodox either. I respect Rowan Williams as an academic, but that said I don’t take his theology or the theology of the episcopate in the UK as I am familiar with it to be distinctly Christian, even by classical Protestant standards, which I take to be lower. Do you think if we polled the UK episcopate that we’d find the majority of the episcopate adhere with sufficient clarity to the articles of the Creed? (This clip seems apt- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwkI6PZhm4A)
If you read the article I referenced the reasons for choosing Orthodoxy even if liberalism hadn’t been a problem. To go into those topics would have taken me off the direct point and made the post too long. Besides, I talk about that stuff on a regular basis on my blog. If you’d like to discuss the problem of divine simplicity, free will in Christ, Origenism, Monoenergism, predestinarianism, Sacramental Nestorianism, and the like here, I’d be happy to do so.
Secondly, the theological outlook in the TEC isn’t exactly lacking a presence in other provinces even if it hasn’t gained dominance yet.
Third, I don’t think the ACNA is going to help. Do you really think that those clergy that went through the same seminaries and communed with open heretics for decades have that different of a theology? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that what you have is a fight between the radicals and the moderate liberals. I seriously doubt if we started scratching below the surface that we’d find the theology of the fathers intact there.
It is my understanding that in the ACNA itself the question of ordination is done on a diocese by diocese basis and that a full acceptance (or rejection) of WO could go either way if there is a sufficient number of votes. Please feel free correct me if I am wrong. That seems problematic for a few reasons. First, it seems like a band aid on the question of the relation between Christ’s divine person and his being male and so really doesn’t address the question of ordination. And with that suspended, so is the nature of the church’s apostolicity and catholicity. Catholicity is the faith according to all of the apostolic sees as witnessed by Tertullian and Irenaeus. I don’t see how the ACNA fits into that.
The process itself seems to think of the theology of the church as kind of human reconstruction process rather than a tradition to be received and preserved. The former is the outlook of Protestantism or other modern ideologies. I take the latter to be Christianity. This is why I wrote that I see the fundamental problems as left unsolved. So WO aside, there still seems to be a seriously defective theology just below the surface.
#32. PerryRobinson,
Could you clarify this comment?
[blockquote]I am arguing therefore for a full and genuine conversion and not a mere switching of locations one goes to on Sunday morning.[/blockquote] I don’t understand what you are referring to as a “full and genuine conversion”. Were you re-baptized? Do you now consider yourself to be a Christian but not before? What about St. Paul’s comment, “One Lord, one faith one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). What do you consider yourself converted to?
PerryRobinson,
You are still avoiding my point. Your article essentially characterised all Anglicanism as being represented by TEC. That is an argument that deserves no consideration.
One could just as easily characterise the entire Roman Catholic church as represented by pedophile priests – isn’t that where your argument leads? (I don’t agree with such an argument by the way).
You say that many orthodox anglicans (whether in or out of ACNA) are in communion with Canterbury and therefore are in communion with heretics. So what? By the same argument, Athanasius and hundreds of orthodox bishops (including a number of church fathers) aer to be cursed because they were in communion with their fellow bishops, many of whom were themselves in communion with bishops who had openly embraced Arianism or openly tolerated it.
Pageantmaster,
As to your reference to the teaching of the Articles, I am not persuaded that they actually help your position and here is why.
As to their form, I fully grant that in times long past they did represent the teaching of the CofE and her provinces. Along with the Homilies and a few other sources they set forth her teaching with a certain amount of wiggle room. But the question on the table as I see it is twofold.
First, what is today the official teaching of the TEC and also perhaps by extension of the Anglican communion? (This is germane to my claim of apostasy and your counter claim of maintaining a Christian identity, ministry and so forth.)
Second, is this current teaching Christian?
I’ll take the first and go through material from the Articles and other representative sources that I think support my argument.
It seems to me that since the late 1860’s the Articles have not functioned as a dogmatic standard for the teaching of the CofE, either de jure or de facto. Candidates for ordination were only required to “acknowledge†them, which is a rather anemic requirement. Much the same is true of TEC where the articles are “historical documents.†If one is merely required to “acknowledge†them, then this helps make my point. Professing Christian doctrine isn’t required and so such a body isn’t distinctly Christian in what it professes.
It is also the case that the CofE and its provinces have felt free in dispensing with the Articles when they judged otherwise before and during the present time of troubles. Take for example Article V on the Holy Spirit, which clearly teaches the doctrine of the Filioque. Yet in dialogs with the Orthodox early in the last century, it was made clear if I am not mistaken that the Filioque would/could be dropped. Recommendations in the 1970’s and forward seemed to confirm this attitude. Something similar could be said with respect to other articles. Article 8 with respect to the Athanasian creed, specifically with its endorsement of the Filioque as well as its damnatory clauses. Article 11 with respect to sola fide or article 17 with respect to predestination.
As for Article 18, I don’t think it helps your view and here is why. Article 18 is directed against a specific set of errors, Pelagianism, specifically how it relates to the question of the fate of unbaptized infants and not against the idea that the Church acts representationally for Christ (or rather that Christ acts through his representatives). This made plain by reference to Cranmer’s Catechism from 1548.
“If we should have heathen parents and die without baptism, we should be damned everlastingly.†(1829) 39.
Also note the following glosses, which can be found in Bull’s and Browne’s commentaries on the articles.
“The early fathers with great unanimity assert, that salvation is only to be had through Christ, and in the church of Christ.†Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles, 1863, 435.
“The above cited passages show, that the English reformers strongly held the doctrine, that without Christ, without baptism, apart from the Church, no salvation is offered to man, and that if we reject them, we have no right to look for it.†Browne, 440.
So I don’t think the intention of the article can be put to work to relate to the question of orders and apostasy in the episcopate.
As for Article 19, this is a curious article for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it noticeably leaves out the Church of Constantinople, which is evidence of the high esteem that the reformers often gave to that church. Ironically enough, it was that see from which heretics such as Nestorius, Pyrrus and Sergius came. In any case, please also note the wording that distinguishes between moral and theological error.
“…not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.â€
Bp. Bull notes, “It refers to the human side of the church, or rather to individuals in the Church who do not live up to the graces bestowed on them…The Article is then directed against the practical and doctrinal corruptions of ‘members’ of the Church of Rome, and these errors are declared to be similar to the errors in the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch.†Bishop Bull, An Exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles, 6th Ed., 1890, 270-271.
Please note also that the article speaks of the “visible†church, so this is not speaking with reference to hidden professors or the predestined elect discussed previously in article 17. While it imputes error to various sees, one thing it does not do is impute error to all of the sees simultaneously. This is significant since it implies that the whole church cannot fall away.
Please note that Article 19 gives the marks of a true church.
“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered, according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things of necessity are requisite to the same.â€
And commentators regularly point out that the article is speaking of the visible church.
“It is however certain, that the Article confines itself to the consideration of the visible Church, and gives no authoritative statement concerning the invisible Church.†Browne, 453.
Now, in the UK, is the “pure word of God†preached by the episcopate as a general rule? Note what Browne remarks,
“Thus we have heard their teaching [the fathers]-that the Church is a visible body, capable of being known and recognized-that the very word Church means congregation-that is a congregation of believers, or of the faithful-that its great support and characteristic is the true faith preserved by it-that baptism admits to it-that it is essential to its existence to have a rightly ordained ministry, who are able to minister the Sacraments, which Sacraments are even spoken as forming the Church.†Browne, 448.
“Its unity depends on unity of foundation, unity of faith, unity of baptism, unity of discipline, unity of communion….Its apostolicity results form its being built on the foundation of Apostles and prophets, continuing in the doctrine and fellowship of the Apostles, holding the faith of the Apostles, governed and ministered to by clergy deriving their succession from the Apostles.†Browne, 449.
Much the same could be found in Edwards 6th’s Catechism, Noel’s Catechism or the Homilies. Consequently the line you wish to draw between an individual having an unmediated soteriological relation doesn’t seem supported by the article. The question as to the source of the act is not relevant since the visible church participates in that divine act.
This brings us to article 26. I don’t think this helps your case as either since it is placed in the context a true visible church and not a kind of system wide failure in the episcopate. Consequently, article 26 leaves my position untouched, since my position wasn’t directed toward individual ministers within a true visible church. Consequently, your use of article 26 begs the question at issue and simply moves the question one step back. Is the CofE and the TEC a true visible church?
If we answer in the affirmative, I find it hard to see on what grounds the CofE and her reformers separated from Rome, since the errors of today are far worse and more serious than any abuse or error, real or imagined on Rome’s part. If the CofE is a true visible church, why not Rome too? In other words, if what else would need to be added for there to be apostasy? What would make the sacraments “invalid?â€
Fr. Dale,
What I meant is rather straightforward. I mean one should not just join a body without imbibing its teaching and remain a disgruntled Episcopalian. Since I don’t equate conversion with baptism, a genuine conversion wouldn’t entail rebaptism. I consider myself to be a professing Christian previously who was at best a member of a sect. For my part, I believe the patristic tradition is that the baptism of sectarians or schismatics, if Trinitarian becomes valid upon reception into the church and not before.
Michael,
I don’t take myself to be avoiding your point. I don’t think your remarks touch the issue yet. I don’t need the issues in the TEC to be present in all of Anglicanism, even though they are present in many of its provinces and its principle one. Second, the problem of pedophile clergy in Rome is not apt and here is why. First, it is a moral failure and not a theological failure. Nothing I wrote turned on moral failure. There is a substantial difference between an incontinent man and a vicious one in any case. Second, it would be apt if say a major portion of the cardinals were openly teaching that such acts were acceptable. But they clearly do not do so.
Athanasius refused to commune with those bishops who were in communion with Arians so as far as the facts go, your claims here are mistaken. The fathers taught and did what I have noted is required. If on the other hand, you were correct, then what exactly is the need for the ACNA or any other group? Why the need for a two tier situation in the US or a restructuring of the relationships if communion with open and professed heretics is not problematic? So here I am a bit confused. On the historical side, why refuse communion with Arius if one communed with those who communed with him? How is schism from the church even possible on such a view?
#53 Perry Robinson
Many thanks for your reply, and even more for your efforts on the Articles in your formidably long comment, which I will struggle through.
A couple of general points though:
– I note one at least of the authorities on the Articles you quote I know to be someone who has, notwithstanding some helpful scholarship on the Articles, nevertheless approached them and been criticised for doing so from a non-Anglican angle, indeed a Catholic [as in Roman] angle, which is probably about as useful as me expounding on the Catechism of the Catholic Church from the point of view of an Anglican understanding. If you have a Catholic understanding, no doubt one would be a Catholic, an Orthodox understanding, a member of that church. It does in effect make no sense to critique an Anglican document from say a Catholic, or even an Orthodox viewpoint, because inevitably it will lead you to conclude that it is not a Catholic document or an Orthodox document, a circular and pointless exercise.
– I think you do rather continue down the donatist route, trying to find some set of circumstances that would make the Eucharist or the ‘Church’ invalid because of teaching of the individual minister or even a group of ministers, or perhaps even a majority. I do think that this effort to try to link the validity of the sacrament to the views of the celebrant is exactly what has happened in the Continuum, of which perhaps you have some experience. Each group knows that they are right and have ‘right’ doctrine and all the other groups are hopelessly flawed and therefore invalid as churches, and so therefore they continue to split and split again. This has made, what might have been quite a powerful group thirty or forty years ago, explode like the stars into the myriad of groups and individuals, some of whom operate from their garages ,which is really rather sad.
– even sadder in my view, is those Anglicans, including friends, who have become Roman Catholic or Orthodox, who have been forced in converting to deny their own worship of God, and its efficacy, in many long years of faithful worship and communion in our church, even their own holy orders and no longer feel they can participate in the Eucharist, because [in my view] of the wicked and flawed teaching of their new churches. Of course Anglicans such as myself believe that I am saved by the grace of Christ alone, and that is without the mediation of the Saints, the Mother of God, priests, Popes, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, or for that matter the Church of England, although at its best, it hopefully leads one towards, rather than away from Christ. That is not to say that I deny being a member of the Body of Christ, along with that joyful and dear band of Christians across the world, including the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Protestants, the Continuum, and you Perry Robinson and hope one day to be united in worship, if not in this world, in that where God’s rule obtains without intervening rules of this or that Pope, Patriarch, Church or whatever.
PerryRobinson at #55,
[blockquote] “Athanasius refused to commune with those bishops who were in communion with Arians so as far as the facts go, your claims here are mistaken.” [/blockquote]
No, my original claims were correct. A perusal of the church fathers would have helped you avoid this obvious error.
Athanasius was excommunicated at different times by a majority of bishops of the church (including one of the popes) but he himself did not advocate the excommunication of those whose only sin was to themselves be in communion with heretics.
Nor was this the practice of the patristic church. This can be easily proved: If we were going to see such a practice anywhere, it would be in the response to Arianism by the Council of Sardica. The Council sent out letters to particular bishops as well as an encyclical letter. They pronounce excommunication on about seven named heretical bishops and leaders; they also exhort other bishops and leaders not to follow the doctrine of the heretics or have communion with them. However, at no point do they suggest that a bishop who continues to have communion with the heretics will himself be excommunicated, nor do they suggest that anyone who has had communion with them in the past (despite their obvious heresy) deserves excommunication now.
The particular and encyclical letters are on-line at CCEL and other places. I suggest you read them. It is also worth reading letters of Athanasius, e.g. to Serapion, where it is clear that Athanasius did not advocate the excommunication of those whose only sin was being in communion with those who tolerated Arianism – he could not have failed to say so, in the context of that letter, if that is what he believed.
The response of the orthodox Anglican primates on this issue has been correct. They clearly know both their scriptures and their church fathers better than do their critics.
Perry Robinson at #53 and #55,
[blockquote] 1. “Second, it would be apt if say a major portion of the cardinals were openly teaching that such acts were acceptable. But they clearly do not do so.” [/blockquote]
Therein lies in a nutshell the fallacy of your argument – if a majority of Anglican primates or bishops reject the errors of TEC, then that means nothing to you; But if a majority of Cardinals reject certain apostate practices, then that completely excuses their church.
Note that I am not indulging in “Rome bashing” on this issue; Rather I am pointing out that the methodology which you apply to the Anglican church inevitably leads to condemnation of Rome (and indeed every other church) for the errors of only some of their members.
[blockquote] 2. “Yet in dialogs with the Orthodox early in the last century, it was made clear if I am not mistaken that the Filioque would/could be dropped. Recommendations in the 1970’s and forward seemed to confirm this attitude. Something similar could be said with respect to other articles. Article 8 with respect to the Athanasian creed, specifically with its endorsement of the Filioque as well as its damnatory clauses. Article 11 with respect to sola fide or article 17 with respect to predestination….” [/blockquote]
I see – and therefore according to you every statement made by any member of the Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches at any time represents the official views of those churches? Your argument at this point becomes truly desperate.
Suffice to say that just because some Anglicans expressed hope that their church would change its position on some issues for the sake of ecumenical relations does not mean that the Anglican Church did change its position or that there was ever any realistic hope that it would.
[blockquote] 3. “I consider myself to be a professing Christian previously who was at best a member of a sect.” [/blockquote]
In a context where you are castigating others for not immediately leaving this same “sect”, it begs the question as to why it took you so long to realise it was a sect? Would you mind clarifying how many years you were a member of the Episcopal church, and whether you took holy orders in it, or accepted any other position in it?
[blockquote] 4. “If on the other hand, you were correct, then what exactly is the need for the ACNA or any other group? Why the need for a two tier situation in the US or a restructuring of the relationships if communion with open and professed heretics is not problematic?” [/blockquote]
Its good that you have finally asked this question, because it has been apparent throughout this dialogue that you don’t really understand what is happening in the Anglican Church today. You obviously aren’t aware that many provinces have cut off communion with TEC and that their number continues to grow. You are also not aware that the path to cutting off communion has always been prefaced by calls to the apostates to repent, which is the proper practice. You are also unaware that there are many faithful orthodox Christians in TEC, and the other provinces have been careful for their welfare, mindful of the lesson given by our Lord in the parable of the wheat and the tares.
The Anglican churches have acted in a manner consistent with the teachings of our Lord and of the Fathers, and they will continue to do so.
5. In response to Pageantmaster, you go into a detailed exposition of your views (and the views of a narrow group of commentators) on the Articles of Religion. Even if your conclusions were correct (which they obviously are not), what does this have to do with your argument? It not only doesn’t relate in any obvious way, it doesn’t respond to pageantmaster’s point.
[blockquote] 6. “If the CofE is a true visible church, why not Rome too? In other words, if what else would need to be added for there to be apostasy? What would make the sacraments “invalid?— [/blockquote]
Your comments on Article 19 and Article 26 show that you don’t really understand them. Neither of them refer to the “TRUE visible church” – you have added a word that is not in the original. Nor do they suggest that sacraments are invalid at any time. Nor do they ever suggest that any one church is “the” visible church and others are not – to the contrary, the Article state plainly that each of the churches: Rome, Antioch, England and many more beside are part of the “visible church”.
The Articles do castigate Rome and the orthodox churches for teaching a number of false doctrines, and it is clearly implicit that the Church of England is similarly capable of falling into error. If so, like all of the churches it doesn’t cease to be a church. Rather, it needs to repent of false teaching.
[blockquote] 7. “As for Article 19, this is a curious article for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it noticeably leaves out the Church of Constantinople, which is evidence of the high esteem that the reformers often gave to that church.” [/blockquote]
This misses the point of Article 19, which is a jibe at Roman theologians who criticised doctrinal errors in churches that were leaders in Christendom before Rome. There was no need to mention Constantinople or any other church that was much “younger” than Rome (regardless of the truth or otherwise of assertions that Constantinople had an apostolic foundation, it had no recognised leadership position before the 4th century AD).
So far, you appear to be making a very good argument as to why orthodox faithful Christians should remain in the Anglican Communion, or indeed join it if they are not there already.
#54. PerryRobinson,
[blockquote]I consider myself to be a professing Christian previously who was at best a member of a sect. For my part, I believe the patristic tradition is that the baptism of sectarians or schismatics, if Trinitarian becomes valid upon reception into the church and not before. [/blockquote] If you considered yourself to already be a professing Christian when you switched, then why did you use the phrase, “full and genuine conversion†in post #32? You never answered my question, “What do you consider yourself converted to?” Are you also making the preposterous claim that your baptism in TEC did not take effect until you became E.O.? What concerns me is that you seem to be saying not “Why I am no longer Episcopalian” but “The E.O. church is the church, the only church”.
Pageantmaster,
Thanks for the reply. All of the commentaries on the articles that I cited are fairly standard Anglican sources. I’ve never known them to be thought otherwise. So you’ll need to show that I argued from principles external to Anglicanism. Simply mentioning that there have been criticisms made by some undisclosed source doesn’t actually show that those as yet undisclosed criticisms have merit. The counter claim at best is therefore idle.
Going in the other direction, if Anglicanism has principles distinct from both Rome and Orthodoxy on this point, then it seems that Anglicanism professes a unique faith, contrary to its claims to profess only that faith of the undivided church. It also seems that your argument at least in part rests on the assumption of the branch theory, that there is some non-visible church that all three tap into some how. I don’t know why you are permitted to assume your ecclesiology without argument but I don’t get to do the same,(since I reject the branch theory). This seems like special pleading.
If you accuse me of Donatism then it would be helpful to set out roughly what you take the heresy of Donatism to be. You seem to think that the appropriate contrary of Donatism is that the sacraments of a given body can never be invalid under practically any conditions relative to faith and morals. If you think this is not so, please give me the principles that determine when the sacraments of a given body are no longer valid. In any case, the above principle is too strong since even Augustine thought that the baptism of heretics such as the Arians were invalid. Why for example is the baptism of the LDS invalid? Or are they?
Further, I don’t think that my position can be categorized as Donatism. If I denied ex opere operato for example you might have some reason to think so. Second, I am not putting forward the notion that the sacraments are “valid†based on the moral or theological purity of a given minister but rather that they are of the economia of the church. If the body isn’t professing Christianity in any meaningful sense then I don’t see how the sacraments could be valid and this is a principle that I think with which Augustine would agree since he denied the sacramental validity of Arians and other heretics, even though they retained a triadic formula.
The main principles with which I am operating here are drawn from the patristic tradition and so isn’t the teaching of any one particular regional church, which is another reason why my position isn’t Donatist. I am measuring with a rod drawn from principles that Anglicanism has historically admitted since it employed these principles to break with Rome. If they are not legitimate here, I can’t see how any of the arguments put forward by the English Reformers can stick.
Here is another reason for thinking that my charge isn’t directed to mere parts of the body, but to the substance of the TEC. If say Spong denied the divinity of Christ, which he does, that is one thing. But if the representative body of the TEC permits such a teaching in their own ranks as one of many permitted views, then this is an act *of the body.* Dissent *in* the house of laity turns the part/whole reasoning you employed around. The dissenters doesn’t constitute an act *of the body.* Consequently the TEC as a body in its actions, either by deliberate omission or commission represents itself by non-Christian teaching. Consequently, my argument is not directed against individual members of the TEC and so the charge of Donatism falls flat. By article 19 the TEC fails to be a true visible church and so what is said in article 26 about the unworthiness of the minister is simply not applicable since that is set in the context of a true and visible church. This is why I noted in my last comment that this was now the question on the table. Is the TEC or the Anglican Communion a true visible church or no? This is why article 23 has no teeth in TEC. The question is, what does the body itself teach? Furthermore, on what possible basis then would there be justification the construction of an adjacent ecclesiastical structure under distinct bishops? Those who have put forward the construction of an alternative entity seem to be working on the same principles I am, but they have not followed them through consistently.
As for the Continuum, my particular problem with them was that it became apparent that while more or less orthodox, they seemed at best to amount to nothing more than regional sects. I didn’t want to be a Novationist.
I don’t think my view commits me to denying the efficacy of what I received prior to becoming Orthodox. It does entail that I deny the validity of those sacraments, but the latter is a claim about what is known to take place. (Belief and knowlede are distinct things.) My move to Orthodoxy was grounded in realizing that the Orthodox preserved Chalcedonian Christology (via Maximus the Confessor) and that this preservation permitted them to evade a host of problems, not the least of which are the incessant debates on predestination and freedom, particularism and univbersalism, etc. That all by itself was sufficient to motivate my conversion to Orthodoxy apart from any problems in the Anglican communion.
As far as my understanding goes, I don’t take the church, the saints, etc. to be mediators beside Christ. The church as Augustine noted with its head “makes up one whole Christ.†Here Anglican works like Eric Mascall’s, Christ the Christian, and the Church, might prove helpful. The Orthodox do not teach that the saints are mediators. But as Scripture indicates, they are intercessors, which is distinct from mediation. (1 Tim 2:1) The Anglican Darwell Stone’s, The Invocation of Saints, (1899) might prove helpful here as well.
As far as Sola Gratia goes, I fully admit the doctrine, but SG doesn’t of itself exclude our participation in our justification, which is why Augustine taught that we participate in and increase our justification on a congruous basis. (http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/no-gospel-for-augustine/)
Consequently, SG doesn’t exclude the church and the sacraments participating in an essential way our justification.
If you wish to advance the distinct thesis of Sola Fide, then it is true I deny that doctrine (but so did Augustine). It is a very specific thesis, namely that faith as a virtue is worthless in and of itself before God. It cannot please God, but what it can do is function as a conduit for the transfer of moral credit. Faith then is the means or the highway by which moral credit travels from Christ to me and my demerit travels to Christ. The respective merit and demerit are extrinsically applied and related to their subjects. That means that the merit applied to me is not grounded in my character, actions or nature or my demerit in the person or natures of Christ. This is because my character, actions or nature cannot produce moral credit that is complete and at best only partial. But justification is glossed as an all or nothing deal so that divine justice requires a complete righteousness. So I cannot participate in my own justification on Sola Fide. Hence Christ’s righteousness that he merits during his earthly sojourn is applied to me as a label. I am classed as righteous even though I am not so. And because it is complete, justification and its merit cannot increase or decrease.
I don’t find that in Scripture or the Fathers, but is a later novel development of late medieval scholasticism. I don’t then see how your claim that on my view the saints, Mary or the church are replacing mediators or along side of Christ.
Fr. Dale,
Let me take another swing at explaining myself. My comments were directed against people who “convert†to Rome, Orthodoxy or something else and remain obsessed with all of the travails and scandals in TEC. Their thinking and speech reflects that they have changed the location of where they render worship, but not much else. I stopped worrying about TEC and whether Anglicanism was a pre-existing Church in England or a product of the Reformation and all other such things when I converted to Orthodoxy. They think that if they had the 28 BCP or the Missal, things would be just peachy. I’ve seen converts to Orthodoxy wail and complain about just using the 28 BCP and such, or express their theological understanding of the Trinity along the lines of Mascall’s Thomism. By contrast, when I became Orthodox, I sought to understand and profess Christian theology in terms of and on the basis of Orthodoxy rather than my more accustomed Anglican parlance. Where the two conflicted conceptually, I jettisoned the latter.
I wasn’t baptized Episcopalian, but Catholic. And so when I was received by chrismation in the Orthodox Church I was called upon to publically before my parish reject all the errors of Rome. My wife was baptized Episcopalian and did the same relative to Canterbury.
I distinguish between the inner and unseen state of a person and their soul and the ideas they profess. When I was much younger I openly professed some real howlers, which I later learned were wrong. That of itself said nothing of my intentions to profess what I took the church to always profess or the state of my soul relative to divine life.
So when I speak of conversion I suppose I should clearly distinguish between accepting the rites, traditions and teachings of a body one claims to be a member of, and the personal employment of baptismal grace. The latter is usually taken to take place when a person becomes aware and with sufficient understanding repents, expresses faith and love in and for Christ, etc. This took place for me when I was around 13 or so. So while I was always professing faith in Christ both before and after this experience and disposition, a genuine spiritual change took place for me. The possession of baptismal grace and its hypostatic employment are two different things.
So when I speak of conversion to Orthodoxy I mean in the former sense. As far as I know and understand nothing in the chrismation rite entails that I deny my former experience, but only that it is completed and fulfilled. I should expect nothing less otherwise a change from point A to B would be unwarranted and rather empty.
I don’t take the claim that my Catholic baptism had no effect until I was received into the Orthodox Church, but it was certainly not fulfilled and valid unto I was so. Validity is a function of the Church in Orthodoxy and not outside of it. I don’t think that claim is preposterous but the teaching of the Fathers and the Orthodox Church. If you reject that, then that only tells me something that I knew already, that you are not Orthodox, but Anglican. It leaves untouched the truth or falsity of the view in question. It might be helpful to think of it like conditional baptisms-it doesn’t negate what was done, but fulfills what was lacking.
Moreover, I’d offer you the following to reflect on since it constitutes my personal difficulty in accepting what seems to be your implicit view. You seem to imply that there is validity of baptism across the ecclesial board more or less and that many bodies can or do count as genuine churches. I can’t seem to understand how the sin of schism *from* the church would be possible on such a view. This is one reason why I take the true church to be a visible historical body of people organized by Jesus Christ. I can’t see any justification for thinking that there is an invisible church, except in so far as this designates the deceased in Christ.
I do view the Orthodox Church as the only true Church as that is what the Orthodox Church says of itself. Consequently I do not view Rome, Anglicanism, the Copts, Assyrians or any Protestant body as members of the society of people that Christ established through his Apostles. This does not imply that I think that such members are bereft of divine life and grace. It implies I do not identify the conditions for the reception and possession of divine life totally with the conditions for what constitutes the church of Jesus. As Augustine noted, God has many outside the church whom God knows *will* become its members.
If I am going to say that why I am not an Episcopalian, I think it is reasonable to expect me to say something about why I am Orthodox. For the most part, my transition was motivated by a single understanding of wanting to be in the Church Christ established. When, recent travails or not, using that canon TEC, the Anglican Communion, and then the Continuum, didn’t measure up, that canon forced my hand to look elsewhere. Hopefully by divine design, previous to my judgment, but not before my worries about the Continuum, I stumbled onto a work about Maximus the Confessor and his understanding of grace and freedom (while I was in the Continuum). If you detect a similar mode of reasoning to Newman, here you would be correct, though I don’t think Newman went far enough and his thinking was far too deeply structured by the worries and problems generated by the Reformation in a way that failed to get at their root cause in Christology and Triadology. In my judgment, Newman didn’t go deep enough.
#61. PerryRobinson,
Thanks for the clarification on the word “conversion”.
[blockquote]I don’t take the claim that my Catholic baptism had no effect until I was received into the Orthodox Church, but it was certainly not fulfilled and valid unto I was so.[/blockquote] I think most of Christianity would disagree with you here.[blockquote]My comments were directed against people who “convert†to Rome, Orthodoxy or something else and remain obsessed with all of the travails and scandals in TEC.[/blockquote] It seems to me that the title of your article demonstrates that you too are looking back.
Certainly my understanding is that the Catholic Church, like our church considers that baptism in the name of the father, son and holy ghost with water is indeed valid, without more, and like us only one baptism is made. I can’t speak for the Orthodox as I don’t know enough about them. Thus a qualifying baptism would be accepted in either church, even if not made by the same denomination. This would not apply to a baptism not made in the name of the father, son and holy ghost – so for example that of a Unitarian or Mormon baptism would not be accepted as valid.
Some Protestant sects however do not accept infant baptism, such as the Baptists, who require adult baptism even where there has been a valid infant baptism.
Perhaps you might like to check your rather strange ideas about Baptism, Perry, like some of the other unlikely ideas you come up with.
Fr. Dale,
I am not sure what to do with your unsupported claim that most of Christianity would disagree with me about baptism. Christianity isn’t a democracy so the numbers aren’t important. What is important for my part is whether my view is biblical and patristic. So if you give a reason and show that my view is contrary to biblical or patristic material, that would go some way to showing that I am wrong here. As it stands though, it appears to be an assertion.
The teaching as I understand it and have learned it, is from the Fathers and various theologians in the Orthodox Church, both older and contemporary. If the rest of professing Christians disagree with the Orthodox Church that isn’t informative and doesn’t amount to a reason to favor the former over the latter.
My remarks were prompted by a post I ran into purely by chance written by an Episcopalian explaining why he rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. If you look through my blog at all, in six years of writing I have written very little about the troubles in TEC or Anglicanism or Anglican theology in general. I think I am entitled to answer a heretic who denies the Trinity and to use it as an opportunity help people find a way to a better place.
Pageantmaster,
The Catholic Church does think that Trinitarian baptisms done outside her walls can be valid like Anglicanism does. But since Rome does this it seems to me for different reasons, particularly Augustine’s theology of ex opera operato being one of the more significant reasons, it is not as if Anglicanism is of one mind with Rome or any other Latin body on this topic.
For how the Orthodox view validity, I’d recommend looking at say Florovksy’s works.
If you take my views to be strange and also confess that you don’t know enough about the Orthodox teaching, the latter might explain why they appear strange to you. I’d make the friendly suggestion of reading some Orthodox theological works to remove the strangeness of Orthodox teaching.
Unless you are going to make an actual argument that my views expressed here fall outside Orthodox teaching or fall afoul of biblical and patristic teaching, deploying the rhetoric of “strange” doesn’t show that I am wrong and is only autobiographical in terms of how the ideas strike you.
#65 PerryRobinson.
Actually what I said was based on my reading around the subject including from the Orthodox Church from which I gather that pastoral dispensation is practiced by most Orthodox in respect of Catholic or Anglican baptism because they are baptised with water in the name of the father, son and holy ghost so that they are not required to undergo an Orthodox Baptism of triple immersion, any more than a baby given an emergency baptism in a hospital is. Of course they do have to be received into the Orthodox Church in the usual way, but this does not involve rebaptism.
But I thought I would leave it to you to go back and check your facts.
PerryRobinson,
1. Despite the great length of your posts, respectfully, little of it seems to be relevant.
2. If I understand you correctly:
(a) You now do not dispute that your understanding of the approach of Athanasius and the patristic church to heresy was incorrect;
(b) You do not dispute that the methodology that you attempted to apply to the Anglican Communion must inevitably lead to (unfair) condemnation of the Roman Church also (and probably other churches as well);
(c) You no longer argue that statements made by individuals during ecumenical discussions in the 19th century can be taken as representing the decided views of the Anglican Communion.
3. Presumably also, you will no longer be adding crucial words of your own into the Articles of Religion when analysing them.
4. I would still like to receive a response to my queries as to (a) how long you were a member of The Episcopal Church, both before and after you realised it was a “sect”; and (b) whether you accepted any official positions or orders within TEC. As noted, I would not normally make such enquiries, but in circumstances where you are castigating others for not departing from TEC and indeed from the whole Anglican Communion, it would appear to be a very relevant enquiry.
5. I note one thing in your very long posts that has some relevance to the issue:
[blockquote] If say Spong denied the divinity of Christ, which he does, that is one thing. But if the representative body of the TEC permits such a teaching in their own ranks as one of many permitted views, then this is an act *of the body.* [/blockquote]
This is obviously incorrect. TEC has adopted heretical teachings and it is in process of being excommunicated by the other provinces. Many have already excommunicated it, after appropriate warnings. That is no more nor less than a correct response by the Anglican Communion.
You seem to be attempting to claim that the entire Anglican Communion has endorsed the teachings of Spong or Schori, when it very obviously has not done so, but has rejected that teaching. The response to heresy by the primates and other leaders of the Anglican Communion has been appropriate, and in accordance with apostolic and patristic teaching.
Fr. Dale,
I don’t deny that those baptized in a Trinitarian form are not always required to be rebaptized. I wasn’t. The validity of the baptism outside the church is a distinct question form whether the act must be repeated or becomes valid upon chrismation. So I wasn’t arguing for rebaptism, but with respect to validity. The fact you give leave the question untouched.
The question of whether to “accept” a baptism performed outside of the canonical boundaries of one’s church is actually quite interesting. Western Christians generally recognize the baptism of other Christian traditions, as long as they meet specific criteria (pouring of water, explicit naming of the Holy Trinity, etc.). But this practice is dependent upon the authoritative and dogmatically imposed practice of the Church of Rome.
The Eastern Churches, however, have generally not followed Rome and have allowed a diversity of practices: see, e.g., [url=http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic_1.html]this article by George Dragas[/url].
The interesting question is why Anglicans follow Roman practice when they reject the Roman Magisterium?
I would draw the attention of the reader to a good essay that deals with much of the substance of recent discussion here.
[url=http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox.pdf]The NON-ORTHODOX: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside the Church[/url]
[blockquote] But this practice is dependent upon the authoritative and dogmatically imposed practice of the Church of Rome. [/blockquote]
Rome’s position was neither authoritative nor dogmatically imposed. In the early 4th century, most of the African churches required that those baptised in heretical churches must be rebaptised, however this position was opposed by a number of sees, including Alexandria, Rome, Arles and many others in Gaul.
Emperor Constantine become involved. He first called a council at Rome in 313 which decided against the Africans, however this was disputed by the Africans as having insufficient authority. Constantine then summoned a council at Arles in 314 chaired by Marinus, Bishop of Arles. The council resolved that heretics did not need to be rebaptised, and this was accepted by the Emperor and published as an edict.
MichaelA, #57,
I don’t take your assertion regarding Athanasius not communing with those who commune with heretics to move the ball down the argumentative field towards your goal post. You’ll need to present an actual argument to do that, rather than an assertion.
For my part, I have a good general familiarity with the fathers. I spent nearly four years reading the entire Schaff/Wace 38 volume series cover to cover. I have then since read multiple other volumes. If you think I have made an obvious error, then you will need to do more than insinuate ignorance on my part and give some evidence with a demonstration.
The only case of Athanasius being disciplined that could possibly have standing was by the synod at Tyre and that was for non-doctrinal matters. The other acts of excommunication could only have standing if they were from orthodox bishops and from synods that were canonically convened and executed. I know of none but if you think there were some, then please bring the forward. As for the idea that he was excommunicated by a “majority of the bishops of the church†of this I simply deny, so you’ll need to provide an argument for your assertion.
As for Sardica, the argument you put forward is at best an example of the fallacy of arguing from silence. It doesn’t follow that the practice of not communing with those who commune with heretics was not practiced by the church simply because it is not mentioned in the documents you cite. They do not say it is permissible to commune with those who commune with heretics either. So you will need to present some positive evidence for your claim. The evidence from Serdica in support of your claim at best is idle. It goes no where.
On the contrary, the synodal letter seems to indicate the contrary to your claim when it says,
“And as for those who like wolves have invaded their Churches, Gregory at Alexandria, Basil at Ancyra, and Quintianus at Gaza, let them neither give them the title of Bishop, nor hold any communion at all with them, nor receive letters from them, nor write to them. And for Theodorus, Narcissus, Acacius, Stephanus, Ursacius, Valens, Menophantus, and George, although the last from fear did not come from the East, yet because he was deposed by the blessed Alexander, and because both he and the others were connected with the Arian madness, as well as on account of the charges which lie against them, the holy Council has unanimously deposed them from the Episcopate, and we have decided that they not only are not Bishops, but that they are unworthy of holding communion with the faithful. For they who separate the Son and alienate the Word from the Father, ought themselves to be separated from the Catholic Church and to be alien from the Christian name. Let them therefore be anathema to you, because they have ‘corrupted the word of truth.’ It is an Apostolic injunction, ‘If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.’ Charge your people that no one hold communion with them, for there is no communion of light with darkness; put away from you all these, for there is no concord of Christ in Belial. And take heed, dearly beloved, that ye neither write to them, nor receive letters from them; but desire rather, brethren and fellow-ministers, as being present in spirit with our Council, to assent to our judgments by your subscriptions, to the end that concord may be preserved by all our fellow-ministers everywhere.†http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xiii.ii.i.iii.html
As for the Letter to Serapion, you that Athanasius did not advocate the excommunication of those whose only sin was being in communion with those who tolerated Arianism. But there’s nothing in the Letter of Serapion that I think supports your claims about it. The only piece that I think could do so is the following,
“…and let no one join himself to the heresy, but let even those who have been deceived repent. For who shall receive what the Lord condemned? And will not he who takes up the support of that which He has made excommunicate, be guilty of great impiety, and manifestly an enemy of Christ?†http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iv.ix.html
Here Athanasius isn’t advancing the idea you claim, but is speaking of those who were “deceived†to repent now.
MicahelA #58,
You misrepresent my argument in saying that if the majority of Anglican primates reject the errors of the TEC that this means nothing to me, but if the Catholic cardinals…I don’t believe I made that argument. I referred to the house of bishops (and other houses by implication) in TEC and not the Anglican primates if memory serves. Second, other Anglican primates are just as heterodox as those heterodox bishops in the TEC. Third, to my knowledge no act of all the Anglican primates has formally excommunicated TEC or her bishops. If you know of such a document which *formally* condemns them for a *specific heresy* and denies them communion, please direct me to it. The actions of individual Anglican primates is significant, but only marks those primates off who have done so and not those who haven’t done so. When you refer to the “majority†of Anglican primates, what document of the majority are you referring to and was this document an act of the primates jointly or as individual primates? If the latter, I can’t see how this helps your position. So I am not guilty of the fallacy of special pleading, but on the contrary, I think you committed the fallacy of erecting a straw man.
I don’t take official representatives in official meetings and statements issued thereby and warmly received by TEC and the Anglican Communion concerning the Filioque to be statement made by just “any member†of the Anglican Communion. So my argument is not desperate at all. If you wish though to embrace the theology of the Filioque, I can’t stop you from doing so, but it seems ironic that of all of the papally imposed doctrines that lack scriptural warrant or conciliar authority , this is one Anglicans (not to mention other Protestants) accept without flinching. In any case, the fact that such official theological consultations were ready to move, and not a few Anglican provinces were too, in this way, shows that the Articles were not unrevisable theological standards.
As for Article 8 with respect to the Athanasian creed, please note Wilson and Templeton’s remarks,
“The American Church [TEC] has omitted use of the ‘Quincunque Vult’ (as it is commonly called), and its use is optional in the Irish and Canadian Churches.†Anglican Teaching: An Exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles, (1962) p. 64.
This seems in line with the attitude I noted previously that the Filioque was possibly to be dropped. This shows that the Articles aren’t written in stone. The American, Irish and Canadian Churches already moved in a direction, contrary to the Articles to downplay and remove the Filioque.
As to how long it took me to realize the sectarian nature of Anglicanism, you seem to use the phrase “beg the question†to mean to “prompt the question.†Just to inform you, this is not what the phrase means. It refers to an informal logical fallacy where a premise serves as the conclusion such that what is to be demonstrated is assumed already.
I was raised at principally three different Episcopalian parishes in Southern California where I was raised. (St. Stephen’s-Whittier, Blessed Sacrament-Placentia and St. Anselm’s-Garden Grove.) I had my first communion at St. Stephen’s as a young child. I believe I formally resigned my membership in TEC (Blessed Sacrament) when I was about 18 or 19 when I joined the REC. This was due to two theological factors. First my realization that even though the local priest at Blessed Sacrament was just fine theologically, Bp. Fred Borsch certainly wasn’t and that if I went there I would be in communion with an open heretic. Second, at the time I was very much influenced by Reformation thought and the REC presented a seemingly happy medium of an Anglican liturgy with Calvinistic theology. I never held any position beyond acolyte in TEC. That REC parish split, some became Orthodox and some stayed. A handful of us went to St. Matthew’s ACC in Newport Beach. This was in line with my theological move to a more Anglo-Catholic position. Eventually I came to see that Anglicanism at its best was sectarian in maintaining their own judgment on particular theological doctrines as above the judgment of the entire church in ecumenical council.
I have made no secret that I am deliberately ignorant of the most recent ins and outs of what goes on in the Anglican communion and TEC. I believe I’ve stated as much a few times now. This is why I asked what you take the situation to be. Of course, it’d be a great help to have a reason to think that you have some expertise in this area as well. I realize that there is a state in some cases with some provinces of “impaired communionâ€, but as with all crucial Anglican phrases it seems hard to say what that amounts to. To my knowledge, Canterbury is just as heterodox as TEC and so if a number of other provinces have cut off communion with TEC, they still maintain communion with Canterbury. Also, if communion has been officially cut off, can you please direct me to the official documents that state this?
As for many faithful Christians in the TEC, I haven’t taken a poll so I have no way of knowing this to be true or false, especially in light of the ever shrinking TEC. I take most of the “conservatives” to be a rump of moderates who accept or who are more or less ambivalent with WO and the status quo. I grant that this is anecdotal on my part, but there isn’t any representative data to replace it from which I could base my judgments. They take themselves to be conservatives (orthodox) in most cases, though perhaps not all, since they oppose ordination of practicing homosexuals. If I start asking about inspiration of the Scriptures, Abortion, 79 BCP and a host of other issues, I get a mix of responses beyond what in most cases would pass for “conservative.”
That said, since I take WO to be heterodox, being in the TEC and being a faithful Christian seems a bit strained. The same is true with those other provinces who accept WO but not ordination of practicing homosexuals. For my part the issue is the same-does sex (notice I didn’t say gender-I don’t think there is any such thing) characterize your person or not? If not, then sex can’t be a bar to ordination. The principle is essentially Gnostic no matter to what ends it is employed. The body is irrelevant to my person and hence what it is or what I do with it is irrelevant to church membership or placement in a given order.
MichaelA #58 (cont.)
You write that the Anglican churches have acted in a manner consistent with the teachings of Christ, but I could use some clarification here. Do you mean individual provinces or do you mean the Anglican Church as an individual thing? If the former, I can’t see how this is true, since it is not true of all of them by any means and if the latter, can you point me to the documents which show the actions of the Anglican Church in this regard?
If you are going to charge me with implicit cherry picking by using a “narrow group of commentators†then you need to support this claim with giving of a reason for thinking that the source I cited are unrepresentative. Otherwise this is an assertion which I can just as easily deny. As far as I know, Browne and Bull’s commentaries are fairly representative. If you know of others which *disagree* substantially then please cite them as counter evidence. But insinuating that I am practicing legerdemain here without demonstration doesn’t advance your argument. I am simply unmoved my assaults on my character.
If you think that my citation of the articles and the employment of commentaries on the articles doesn’t support my argument or speak to pageantmaster’s point, then you will need to actually show that this is the case rather than merely assert that it is so. As things stand, I simply assert that you are wrong.
It is quite true that I used the word “true†with respect to article 19 and that the article doesn’t use that word. But that of itself implies no unfaithfulness to the intention of the article anymore than using the word homoousious in speaking of the way the Father and Son are related when the Bible does not use such a term. Here is why.
First, in Reformation theology, both English and Continental, there is a distinction between true visible churches and false visible churches. The conditions for a true visible church are set out in article 19 and are the fairly standard Reformation conditions for being a true visible church-rightly dividing the Word, rightly administering the sacraments and rightly administration of discipline. Bodies that fail to meet these marks in Reformation thought, like Rome (at Trent), ceased to be true visible churches, but contained individual members who were truly regenerate despite the fact that the body was not a true visible church. Consequently, I think quite contrary to your assertion that I do understand article 19 quite well in its Reformation theological context. On the other hand, if we do as you wish and remove the term “true†it matters not, since neither TEC nor Canterbury, nor a good number of the other provinces match article 19’s description. Therefore they aren’t a visible church. Either way we take it, the conclusion is the same. Their errors are far worse than anything the English Reformers could have imagined. It is for this reason that Anglicans and Reformed folk that I’ve known have expressed the thought that they would rather commune with Rome than liberal apostates. At least Rome is Trinitarian.
As for the question of sacramental validity, article 26 doesn’t address the contemporary situation since the TEC and the Anglican Communion, specifically in its principle see, do not match up to article 19’s description by any stretch of the imagination. This is why I stated that article 26 is not applicable to the current situation since it is talking about members of a part of a whole and not acts of the whole. That is, article 26 assumes that there is a visible church which as such professes the gospel, rightly administers the sacraments, etc. I’ve argued that this is not the case in the TEC or Canterbury or other provinces.
Also, if the situation were as you claim, then why break communion with TEC in the first place since the acts of individual members do not translate into acts of the whole? The fact that you claim that communion has been broken implicitly makes my point, namely that the situation in TEC isn’t one where article 26 is applicable. I can therefore reproduce the same argument with respect to Canterbury since there is no theological boots on the ground difference between the two situations. Those not in communion with TEC are in communion with Canterbury.
As for your reading of article 19 about the various churches, the point is that not only are such bodies fallible, but that they can at times cease to be visible churches. As for the errors that the Articles castigate the Orthodox for teaching, one of which is a denial of the Filioque and the other is the veneration of images. Do you mean to claim that the Anglican Communion denies and condemns as false teaching the teaching of the 7th Ecumenical Council?
In point of fact, Constantinople was deliberately left out due to attempts to enter into dialog with that church at the time. This is the opinion of number of Anglican theologians and commentators on the articles. If you can demonstrate that these Anglican writers are in error, then please do so.
As for your comments in #67, I think your assertions as to the relevancy of my remarks are just that and so idle.
You also get ahead of yourself and assume it seems that since I did not respond to you promptly that I conceded your claims and assertions made in your previous post. I concede nothing. Consequently, you understand not my position, but your own.
So I deny (a), (b), and (c). I still maintain that my understanding of Athanasius and the consensus of the fathers was and is correct. I deny that your representation of my argument was accurate or fair. And I deny that remarks about article 19 and the Filioque were mistaken and I maintain that your gloss was a straw man as I demonstrated above. Hence your criticisms failed to map on to my position.
As for point 3, as I demonstrated above, it is quite irrelevant since the same conclusion follows in either case. No true visible church or no visible church. A rose by any other name…I also deny that my use of the term true was out of step with Anglican theological usage and self understanding.
As to point 4, I believe I already addressed how long I was a member of TEC.
Point 5. As I’ve asked above, please show me where the bishops of TEC are being formally excommunicated and indicate what charge is brought concerning them in a relevant church court.
Secondly, part of your answer depends on whether WO is heterodox or not. If it is, then the problem is much wider than you gloss and so it matters not if TEC has been formally excommunicated or not, since plenty who broke communion with TEC still maintain it or are in communion with those who do. Consequently, they have not the faith, practice and ministry of the one undivided church that they claim to, but rather a novelty.
I don’t need again, to claim that the entire Anglican communion has endorsed the heterodoxy of Spong, Robinson, et al. Canterbury seems to me to be in no better shape than TEC. This is why breaking communion, if that in fact has been done, with TEC is not sufficient. It is also question begging, since it assumes that taking communion with those who commune with heretics doesn’t make you materially or formally complicit in the heterodoxy.
Rome’s position was neither authoritative nor dogmatically imposed. In the early 4th century, most of the African churches required that those baptised in heretical churches must be rebaptised, however this position was opposed by a number of sees, including Alexandria, Rome, Arles and many others in Gaul.
Emperor Constantine become involved. He first called a council at Rome in 313 which decided against the Africans, however this was disputed by the Africans as having insufficient authority. Constantine then summoned a council at Arles in 314 chaired by Marinus, Bishop of Arles. The council resolved that heretics did not need to be rebaptised, and this was accepted by the Emperor and published as an edict.
But of course the practice of not re-baptizing heretics was dogmatically imposed in the Western Church, which is why the African position was abandoned in the West but not in the East. The 314 Synod of Arles merely confirmed the earlier judgment of Pope Stephen I against St Cyprian on this matter.
As far as the Emperor’s role in enforcing the policy, this is the first time I have heard about this and I am interested in learning more. Please provide documentation for the imperial edict. Surely you are not suggesting that the Constantine is the decisive figure on this issue. If you are, then you will need to explain why more Cyprianic practices continued to be practiced in the Eastern half of the Empire. Do emperors decide doctrine in the Church? Do emperors decide the sacramental practices of Anglicanism? I am not arguing against Anglicanism’s decision to accept the Western practice of not re-baptizing heretics. But I am noting that this Western practice was not universally embraced in the Church catholic.
FrKimel at #75,
1. I’m not sure what you mean by “dogmatically imposed in the Western church” – it was decided by a council of bishops which was called by the Emperor Constantine. Its acceptance even in “the west” was patchy at first, nor was it necessarily rejected in “the east” for a long time.
2. I think its probably anachronistic to speak at this point of “the Western Church” – in the fourth century AD, the cultural and linguistic divide was not nearly as pronounced as it would be two centuries later, in either the secular empire or the church.
3. You wrote:
[blockquote] “The 314 Synod of Arles merely confirmed the earlier judgment of Pope Stephen I against St Cyprian on this matter.” [/blockquote]
No, it didn’t:
Firstly, the Synod of Arles did not confirm or even refer to the judgment of anyone, let alone a bishop of Rome from 60 years previously. The Synod made its own decisions, and respectfully but firmly directed others (including Sylvester the new bishop of Rome) to follow them.
You may be thinking of Pope Miltiades who presided over the Synod of Rome in 313, which also condemned rebaptism. But as I noted in my earlier post, the African churches rejected this Synod as not being of sufficient authority, hence why the Synod of Arles was called in 314.
Secondly, the term “Pope Stephen” is anachronistic – at this period “pope” could be used as a title for any bishop. If someone wrote “THE Pope”, they meant the bishop of Alexandria.
Thirdly, Stephen did not render any “judgment” in 254-257. He did write strongly against rebaptism, but so did many others, including the Bishop of Alexandria.
4. You wrote:
[blockquote] “As far as the Emperor’s role in enforcing the policy, this is the first time I have heard about this and I am interested in learning more. Please provide documentation for the imperial edict.” [/blockquote]
It was commonplace for Emperors to enforce church doctrine, from Constantine on.
The particular edicts I referred to were issued in 316 from Milan (not the famous “Edict of Milan” which was issued in 313) and they dealt generally with proscription of the Donatists. They are not easy to find on-line, however you will find a summary tucked away near the base of footnote #2930 at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xvi.v.html:
[blockquote] “…This council [Arles] also decided against them, and the Donatists appealed once more to the judgment of the emperor himself. He heard their case in Milan in 316, and confirmed the decisions of the councils, and soon afterward issued laws against them, threatening them with the banishment of their bishops and the confiscation of their property.” [/blockquote]
5. You wrote:
[blockquote] “Surely you are not suggesting that the Constantine is the decisive figure on this issue. If you are, then you will need to explain why more Cyprianic practices continued to be practiced in the Eastern half of the Empire.” [/blockquote]
Nobody was “the decisive figure”. However, Constantine was at least as decisive on this and many other issues than any Bishop of Rome. Who exactly do you think summoned and bankrolled the Council of Arles in 314, or indeed the famous Council of Nicaea in 325?
I also disagree with the assumption behind your second sentence: rebaptism and other donatist practices continued in the west (not just in the east) even after the edicts of Milan, in part because of the backlash against the way those edicts were administered – many donatists were persecuted and killed, and as so often happens this only encouraged donatism.
6. You wrote:
[blockquote] “Do emperors decide doctrine in the Church?” [/blockquote]
I am not sure what you mean. There is no doubt that Constantine issued imperial edicts and other laws to enforce church order. Generally he called councils of bishops, told them to work out their position, and then (to the extent he agreed with it) enforced that by imperial law.
By the time of the Council of Nicaea things were going a bit further: This council of about 300 bishops (from as far as Britain and places outside the empire, like Georgia) condemned Arianism by a huge majority. Constantine duly passed laws to that effect. However, Eusebius and others who tolerated or supported Arianism led a campaign to regain the affections of the emperor and his successors. They succeeded. Within a generation, the catholic position was a persecuted minority and Arianism was resurgent.
7. You wrote:
[blockquote] “Do emperors decide the sacramental practices of Anglicanism?” [/blockquote]
It depends what you mean. The British church was well-established by the time of Constantine. It sent three bishops to the Council of Arles in 314, and to many other councils after that. So it probably faced the same problem with undue imperial influence as any other church.
More than 1,000 years later, an Emperor petitioned the Pope to refuse to consent to the annulment of the marriage of Henry VIII of England. But I don’t think that’s what you were referring to!
8. You wrote:
[blockquote] “I am not arguing against Anglicanism’s decision to accept the Western practice of not re-baptizing heretics. But I am noting that this Western practice was not universally embraced in the Church catholic.” [/blockquote]
I really don’t understand what you mean by this. The British church didn’t “accept a western practice”, it took part in deciding that practice at Arles in 314 (of 34 bishops in attendance, 3 were British).
Perry Robinson,
Your response to me takes up over 3,000 words, which must be something of a record at T19. However, much of it is irrelevant or based on false premises. I will only respond to what is pertinent:
1. You wrote:
No, *you* were the one who asserted that Athanasius broke off communion with those who failed to break off communion with heretics. I pointed out that this was incorrect – it was not the practice of Athanasius. The accuracy of your assertion has been challenged, so the onus lies on you to cite your sources. So far, you haven’t cited any.
2. Re the Council of Sardica. As I wrote above, this council did not at any time decree excommunication for those who failed to break off communion with heretics. You have given us a lengthy quote from one of the letters of the council – which proves my point! Yes, the council excommunicated various leaders. Yes, it exhorted all Christians not to have communion with them. But at no point does it even suggest or hint that those who do not break off communion with these heretics should themselves be excommunicated.
You are right that there is a problem with arguing from silence, and that problem is yours, because thus far you have not cited a single source in support of your assertion that it was the patristic practice to excommunicate those who failed to excommunicate known heretics.
3. You wrote
With respect, that has been obvious from your first post. And not only the most recent – at one point you demand to know why the bishops of TEC have not been charged in some (non-existent) “church court”! No-one can be blamed for ignorance, but my point remains, that being in such a state of ignorance, you are not qualified to castigate others who have not left either TEC or the Anglican Communion.
4. You wrote:
This is very mixed up. Firstly, the articles speak of “the visible Church of Christ”, not “true visible churches”. Secondly, at no point do the Articles indicate that Rome, Antioch etc are not churches, true or otherwise. They remain churches, albeit in error.
5. You wrote:
No, I am not wishing to remove the term “true” because it was never there in the first place! *You* inserted it.
6. You wrote:
This is simply incorrect. As I wrote above, Constantinople is not mentioned in Article 19 because it was not one of the ancient patriarchates. I am sure some commentators somewhere have read into this article what they wanted to read, but that doesn’t mean they are credible.
7. You wrote:
I have no idea how you got onto this topic. But it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Anglican approach to church councils, ecumenical or otherwise, and therefore demands response. I refer you to Article 21:
The Anglican Communion’s attitude to the 7th Ecumenical Council is the same as to any other church council – in so far as its teachings are consistent with the faith once delivered by the apostles, they are to be followed.