But Doug Farrow is not simply a conservative malcontent. He has written that the description conservative evangelical is an oxymoron””for the gospel upsets conventional notions of morality, it does not conserve them. He has chastised conservative Christians for merely playing chaplain to the conservative subculture. He is also a renowned theologian, who did his doctoral work at King’s College in London and taught at Regent…[College] in Vancouver before coming to McGill. His book Ascension and Ecclesia (T&T Clark) has been hailed as an important treatise on Jesus’ ascension. Ellen Charry of Princeton called it “nothing less than a theological breakthrough.”
Farrow’s rationale for his claims about homosexuality are more interesting than mere culture-war rehash. He asks why the government, in permitting gay marriage, felt the need to promise religious groups that they would remain free to “refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.” Just by raising the issue, Farrow suggested, the state was indicating that it could, if it wished, require ministers to perform rites against their will. “What has happened in Canada that suddenly we are forced to contemplate such a thing?”
Theologically, Farrow takes issue with the Anglican proposal to “affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships,” for the wording suggests that persons can be “already pleasing to God, requiring no redemption in Christ.” Such marginalization of Christ’s redemptive work in favor of approval of what people innately “are” would give up “what cannot be conceded without denying the gospel itself.” Finally, Farrow wrote in First Things about the oddity of the Anglican primates criticizing conservatives for poaching on the dioceses of liberal bishops in forming the Anglican Mission in America””a conservative network of parishes that have defected from the EC-USA to submit to mostly African primates. For is not Anglican existence in a place like Montreal (where Farrow teaches) a relic of a previous poaching effort into Roman Catholic land? “If Episcopal disunity and competition is wrong between Anglicans, it is wrong full stop.” Farrow concluded that essay of January 2005 with a hint of his pending departure: “Perhaps the crew of the good ship Anglican needs to put in at the nearest Roman harbor.”
Fascinating article.
[blockquote]Yet for each of these stories there are many similar ones involving graduate students and lesser-known theologians.
[/blockquote]
Grad student.
TEC Member.
Started RCIA five weeks ago.
I commented to my wife today that we would all end up being RC before this was over with. It was something of an off-hand remark, but one future I can see.
Happened to me.
Really interesting article Kendall. Thanks for pointing to it.
Well, I have thought about his a bit. 2 quotes from Dr. Radner strike me:
[blockquote] But Radner has also developed an argument for why it is important to stay in what he sees as a deeply flawed church. “God has allowed us to come to faith and to practice our faith within divided Christian communities so that, forced to follow Jesus where we have been placed, we might learn repentance.” Radner offers a figural scriptural argument: though Israel was divided because of human sin and divine punishment, “No Jew . . . is ever asked by God to ‘choose’ between Israel and Judah.” Jewish writers of scripture did not even consider such a move—rather they stayed where they were and tried to help the people be more faithful to the law of the Lord.
Radner sharpens this argument with a christological coup de grace: in the face of infidelity, Jesus himself stays put and dies for his enemies. He does not flee for greener pastures. “It is facile and ultimately misleading for orthodox Christians to identify, face, and respond to their churches’ errors by saying ‘repudiate and separate’ . . . for the simple reason that this is not the shape of Israel’s history—which must ultimately be our own—because it is not the shape of Jesus’ own life. There is no other standard.”[/blockquote]
I have great respect for Dr. Radner’s writings and abilities but I have to ask. Based on his quote I would ask what makes Rome not part of “Israel and Judah”? If it isn’t what makes TEC part of it?
Wasn’t England geographically part of the Roman Church? Wasn’t Anglicanism a reaction to the “innovations” of Rome? Why isn’t leaving TEC a legitimate answer to TEC’s innovations?
If “It is facile and ultimately misleading” to “respond to their churches’ errors by saying ‘repudiate and separate’ ” then why does Anglicanism exist at all? Instead of arguing against a return to Rome why doesn’t he council that people “might learn repentance” by reforming Roman Catholicism from within? If this “is not the shape of Jesus’ own life.” and “There is no other standard.” then isn’t Anglicanism illegitimate on it’s face and all Anglicans throughout it’s history a failure of this “standard”?
I ask these things seriously and I am not trying to argue the validity of Anglicanism but only the invalidity of arguing that the process which may have made Anglicanism necessary to begin with suddenly ceased to be a valid vehicle after Anglicanism established itself.
# 6: I haven’t read Radner, but if that’s his take on the division of the Israelite kingdom, I wonder if he has read the OT closely. First, it’s clear that Jeroboam’s cult was considered (to some degree) apostate by the south; second, 2 Chron 13 states that Levites and people did leave the north for the south and that Jeroboam drove out legitimate priests and installed his own lackeys; third, that the northern cultus, for all the brave witness of Elijah and Elisha, finally succumbed to the Lord’s judgment (2 Kings 17). So if Radner wants to play biblical parallels, there is plenty of material – the majority, I think – that moves in the opposite direction to his rhetoric.
I am sure he’ll teach orthodoxly enough in Wycliffe (though I hope he will learn to write a lot more concisely and directly), but I fear he’ll be up against it in the Great White. Toronto is the center of gay Canuck Anglicanism, and directly across the street from where he’ll be working Trinity College pumps out that message.
Is the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Anglican Church an objective “fact on the ground”? I think one’s answer to this question should be important here. Also, I think that the JDDJ agreement between the RC and Lutheran Churches does not mean that many differences no longer exist. What about the ministry & Apostolic Succession? Any pronouncement of validity of Lutheran orders would necessarily entail a revocation of Apostolicae Curae. Just for starters.
Marshall says he long ago came to the conclusion that “there is no doctrinal reason why a Christian of the Augsburg Confession cannot be a Roman Catholic.” So there was no doctrinal change of mind needed for his reception into the Catholic Church.
I can think of maybe 95 reasons why. Does not the whole issue of the practice of indulgences, which Luther directly challenged to its core and which Rome has specifically defended, not pose a problem for Lutherans? How do the overcome this, I wonder.
And I really do wonder this. For it is the greatest obstacle to me, as it represnts both an intrinsically non-scriptural view of sanctification and Rome’s defense of it encapsulates her claim to absolute primacy over the clarity of Scripture. I don’t see how I could accept the latter and still see a real need to study the Word.
#9 Not to swerve into too much apologetics here but Matthew 16: 18-19 is the scripture that empowers the Petrine See to offer indulgences. At least from this side if the river.
roman, isn’t there a contradiction between what you seem to be implying is going on in dulgences, the forgiveness of sins, and what Rome now claims is going on? What is happening in Purgatory? Is it punishment or purification? Punishment can be remitted? Can purifiaction be remitted? Ought it?
As a systematic theologian I have yet to see a systematic explanation of Purgatory and indulgences that explains all past Roman practices and statements on it. It seems to me that many different explanations are offered for an idea that doesn’t fit too well with other doctrine, and whenever these discrepancies are brought up the authority of the Petrine office is invoked to settle, or rather terminate, the argument.
oops. I didn’t intend the question mark at the end of “punsiment can be remitted.” Of course punishment can be remitted. But can or ought a good and necessary thing like purification be remitted. If the cross does not purge us of the effects of sin, but that we need to work this out ourselves somehow, and Purgatory is that provided means to do so, how can it be a good thing to limit that good thing through indulgences?
A good question, Christopher. I’d also like to see some comprehensive explanations for purgatory.
#9 I’m not biting today. I wasn’t trying to convert you or anyone else. You’re certainly free to believe what you will and stay where you are. You seemed to be trying to inject off-topic apologetics into an article that had more to do with what those men felt in their hearts and less of what they’d gleaned in theological exercises. Take your points up with them since they changed their positions to agree with me and my beliefs. I didn’t have anything to do with their conversions I swear, I never went near them.
Re #9:
If indulgences are exclusively conceived simply as the remission of temporal punishment externally imposed by God, then the practice of granting indulgences is problematic in light of ecumenical agreement on justification. This is recognized by many Catholic theologians, including the present Pope. In his book God and the World, Cardinal Ratzinger describes the older interpretation of indulgences as the remission of temporal punishment as too mechanistic. He suggests, instead, that we understand the temporal punishment of sin as the “existential consequences of sin.” Dealing with these consequences, say Ratzinger, “can, in turn, only be undertaken together with others, because sin always reaches out beyond my own self. Indulgence then means that we enter into the resources of the communion of saints, where there is an exchange of spiritual goods, in which we make a gift of our own and receive what others have to offer” (p. 424). I personally understand indulgences something along the lines of Charles William’s principles of substitution and exchange, grounded in the co-inherence of the redeemed.
Indulgences is an interesting question, but I suspect that the six theologians named in this article would say that it is quite minor in the greater theological scheme of things. But conversion to the Catholic Church does require that one begin to trust that the Catholic Church will, by the grace of God, get its theological formulations and ascetical practices right in the end. Or as Neuhaus puts it, “The Church’s teaching lives forward.” One has to take the long view here.
As long as a person is convinced that his private reading of Scripture is superior to the Catholic Church’s reading of Scripture, then he should not become Catholic. I became Catholic, at least partly, because in the end I realized I could not figure out everything on my own. The Catholic Church is simply wiser and more intelligent than I am. From the outside, I know, the Catholic Church sometimes looks like a great monolith, but of course it is not. As Chesterton remarked, “the Church is much larger inside than it is outside.”
Thank you Al. You’ve demonstrated perfectly what I wrote earlier. You couldn’t explain the theological seeming contradictions and inconsistencies. Your attempt was full of a lot of vague imprecise language that I am accostomed to get from academics and liberals.
What exactly does a “principles of substitution and exchange, grounded in the co-inherence of the redeemed”?
But in the end you trot out the “submit your thinking to the teachings of the Church” line, no matter how confusing that teaching might be.
I would hope that, if this is the truth of God, a Church that has been believing and defending this truth for over 19 centuries would have a better defense than that, or that those who have submitted their thinking to the Church’s teaching would be able to better explain it than they do.
Roman, this is not a side issue off topic to this thread. This is about six Protestant theologians who have swum the Tiber, one of whom stated that there were no theological objections to a Lutheran being a Roman Catholic. Now, since I hold, quite reasonably on historical and theological grounds, that the RC position on purgatory and indulgences was a principle cause of disagreement between Protestants and Rome, it seems a reasonable question to ask how these Protestant theologians overcame that position. Did they sometime before crossing decide that they were wrong on indulgences and that Rome was right? I would like to hear that. Did they decide that issue was irrelevant? I would like to hear that argument as well.
Where are they on the issue that sparked off the schism between Protestantism and Rome? I understand that there are some who have gone to Rome who never were very loyal to the Reformmation position to begin with.
It is no surprise that Newman left. He already believed what Rome taught. But did men like Reno and Farrow become totally RC in thought beforehand? I knew Farrow while at King’s. I can’t imagine he was a hostile then to the basic Reformation position on indulgences and purgatory. I would just like to know how he relates to this now. Does he secretly believe Rome is wrong on this issue but he won’t argue the matter for the sake of unity? I don’t know. Hense my question.
How is this off topic? Or are we just supposed to praise people’s “life-journeys” without asking questions? I don’t give a damn what these men “feel in their hearts”. I care what they think in their minds. I can’t follow them otherwise.
Christopher, I’m sure that there are many Catholic theologians who can explain these matters much, much, much better than I. If you think I’m bad with indulgences, you ought to hear my attempts to explain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
#17. Obviously this story evoked different things from me than you.
Yeah, we’re just supposed to praise people’s “life-journeys”. If you have questions I think they should be directed within not without. If none of the 6 mentioned in the article are on this forum to answer your questions than I presume your questions are rhetorical. Pride in your knowledge is not a quest for understanding but a crass invitation to debate apologetics and theological gymnastics. At least be honest about it or quit tossing gauntlets around.
[i]What exactly does a “principles of substitution and exchange, grounded in the co-inherence of the redeemed�[/i]
Father Kimel is referring to devout Anglican novelist Charles Williams’ theology of coinherence. Simply put, coinherence means “communion with other saints through bearing one another’s burdens.” Charles Williams argues that bearing one another’s burdens is not limited to prayer, but can actually involve carrying the sickness or sorrow of another. Williams’ novels are great reads — highly recommended.
Williams doesn’t try to explain the related problem under discussion (the problem of purgatory). Coinherence relates rather to the concepts of the Communion of the Saints through time and history, and our sharing in Christ’s suffering, than to indulgences and purgatory.
Christopher, thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room. Any fool may not understand the uttermost reaches of every theological argument, but any fool deserves an explanation for simple (supposed) theological contradictions found by him. Either Rome’s theology must be accountable to reason (i.e., logos-logically defensible), as Benedict claims, or Roman theology is dark and transcendent (as Benedict accused Islam) and we must simply turn off, or subsume personal reason in its precepts. If it is the former, the Church has at the very least the obligation to give a basis for novel doctrines and those that exclude other creedal Christians. I’m thinking of things on which the Bible and Apostles did not give clear instruction such as the Marian doctrines, transubstantiation and ecclesiastical dogma. It’s one thing saying, “I personally believe these things even though there is no clear biblical support for them,” but it is a wholly different one to say, “all creedal Christians who do not believe these are defective.”
If the Roman Church is to stand on the latter view (i.e., that basic theology will contradict reason, and therefore that theology must be believed contra logic), then it must be honest and say it outright.
Sadly, each conversation with a Roman starts in logical discussion, and when a contradiction is reached they resort to a claim of the unknowable transcendence of the Church.
[i]But conversion to the Catholic Church does require that one begin to trust that the Catholic Church will, by the grace of God, get its theological formulations and ascetical practices right in the end. Or as Neuhaus puts it, “The Church’s teaching lives forward.†One has to take the long view here. [/i]
That’s a sweet maxim. Unfortunately Christ saw it somewhat differently. He called those who taught error false shepherds. I could care less about a “long view” of the Church. It matters less to me if they’re getting it right 5000 years from now than if they are lying now and endangering my soul. False prophets received only one chance to get it right.
The Roman wrote to Chrisopher, [i]Pride in your knowledge is not a quest for understanding but a crass invitation to debate apologetics and theological gymnastics. At least be honest about it or quit tossing gauntlets around.[/i]
Why is it pride when a protestant or Anglican uses knowledge to defend his position but wisdom when a Roman such as the Pope does the same?
#22 Yet another rhetorical question here?
No, actually I’d like an answer, please.
#24 Your question is based on your opinion and not fact. Much like #17’s quest for clarity on Catholic beliefs (I’m sure Google could provide a plethora of Catholic apologetic sites) this conversation is devolving into a contentious and accusatory mish-mash with little relevance to the articles’ subject. If I need to apologize for hurting someone’s feelings please tell me, otherwise I am happy for the 6 men and welcome them home.
For the record….I wasn’t trying to “debate apologetics and theological gymnastics”. Dr Radner does read and post here and I was hoping for a comment although I know he must be very busy now.
I thought perhaps there was more to his suggestions as the quotes used in the article do not seem to hold up on their own.
Roman, good reply. Sadly, still no answer.
#22 Yet another rhetorical question here?
Is that a rhetorical question, roman?
Perhaps you might take the time to reflect upon your own reason for being on this site and presuming to be a spiritual director (accusor?)for those asking theological questions in responce to this article. Since neither you seem unable to answer effectively, may I suggest that you not try to sound superior when you thrust yourselves into the question and still have no clearly thought out answer.
I respect the fact that you are a devout Catholic. I respect the Catholic Church. I still have some theological difficulties with it which should not be out of line to bring up on a Protestant blog on a thread about Protestants going to Rome. I wonder if you think you have the right to dictate as an outsider what comments are appropriate and what not. It smacks of condescension and, shall I say it, pride.
But who am I to accuse question your motivations? I can only tell you that you came off to me rather defensive and pompous.
I’ve seen no evidence that this statement is true. There is nothing about the history of the Roman Catholic Church that leads me to believe they have the monopoly on correct Christian teaching…
Re #29: I didn’t say that the Catholic Church was more intelligent and wiser than you are. I do not know you. i said that the Catholic Church is wiser and more intelligent than I am. And I assure you that she is. 🙂
Father Kimel, it is not Rome’s great, confounding truths that bother most of us, but the small, apparent contradictions. What is it that prevents the wisest and most intelligent from enlightening the smallest and most foolish of us? We are accused of bias and blindness, but really, I for my part wanted greatly to see a logical, consistent truth.
Re #20:
There is no elephant in the room. i realize that evangelicals love to jump on to the Catholic practice of indulgences, as if it so obviously proves the manifest apostasy of the Catholic Church. It is particularly embarrassing when thoughtful theologians Protestant actually convert to the Catholic Church, insisting that the the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is perfectly reconcilable to the deepest evangelical concerns of the Reformers.
How could two brilliant Lutheran theologians like Bruce Marshall and Reinhold Hutter accept the Catholic practice of indulgences? Simple. Indulgences do not contradict the gratuity of justifying grace, nor do they violate the metalinguistic function of justification by faith. Whatever indulgences are about, they are not about earning salvation through works or buying one’s way into heaven or anything like that. And for Lutherans (at least for Lutherans of the evangelical-catholic stripe), that is the decisive issue.
Clearly, indulgences are not plausible to non-Catholic Christians–but they are at least comprehensible to anyone who seeks to understand how and why the practice arose during the medieval period. The practice of indulgences also generated great abuse, against which Luther rightly protested (but please note, he did not reject them, or the doctrine of purgatory, out of hand in the 95 theses). The granting of indulgences has undergone serious reform during the past five hundred years, as has been well documented over at the Stand Firm site. The theological justification for the practice has also evolved, as the citation from Ratzinger demonstrates. It is silly to replay old 16th century polemics. Hopefully we have all learned a thing or two during the past five hundred years. But as I said above, this is truly a minor issue. If it wasn’t, the six men mentioned in this article could not have become Catholic.
That Mr Hathaway and others do not find the Roman interpretation and justification of indulgences compelling is neither here nor there. Of course they don’t. The key theological issue is not indulgences, but rather post-mortem purification, for which there is ample support within the theological and ascetical tradition. Mr Hathaway has stated his objections to this catholic doctrine many times here on T19 and SF. I find his arguments biblicistic, rationalistic, sectarian, and unimpressive; but that too is neither here nor there. None of us are objective. How could we be?
The six theologians cited in this article are not stupid. Give them credit for having thought through the issues at hand. Disagree with their decision to leave Protestantism, if you like; but don’t assume that their decision reflects a lack of thoughtfulness or intellectual rigor. I assure you, compared to Hutter, Marshall, Reno, and Farrow, all of us who comment here on this blog are intellectual lightweights, myself included.
#28 You’re right. Maybe if the article had been about 6 Catholic theologians who’d converted to Episcopalian I might ask out loud, “What the heck were those guys thinking?” “How can they accept this, how can they overlook that?” I apologize if I denigrated your concern and interest in the belief system of others. How funny that you describe me as dictating, condescending and pompous when that was the exact impression I received from your posts. Maybe there’s some truth to the “takes one to know one” adage.
But the most hilarious is to flatter me with “devout Catholic” when profligate sinner at the foot of the cross is closer to the truth. I apologize for doubting your sincere desire to understand other peoples decisions. I thought I recognized my old self in your posts wherein winning supercedes understanding or learning. My mistake.
Yes I have no doubt you know more about RC catechism than I but I’ve long since given up thinking my way to God and was transformed instead into a liberal Catholics’ worst nightmare; a true believer. And thank you for pointing out that this is your yard and not mine even if it sounds like something the local bully might say. If I stepped on your right to question than I’m also sorry for that. Perhaps there’s a vestigial “Fidei Defensor” button within me that you inadvertantly touched. I apologize to all who felt I overreacted in this thread.
Fr. Kimel,
I am amused by accusations of biblicism and rationalism, especially on an Anglican site. Have you been so long out of Protestantism that you forgot that rational arguments based upon the Bible are held in high esteem here rather than scorned upon? Accusations of sectarianism I take as a commonplace from a Roman Catholic. What else could I be to you until I come uder the See of Rome? But what is the point of making these points. Whom are you trying to convince here with such arguments? You need to brush up your apologetics. I suppose it must seem irksome that some of us Protestants continue to want better arguments for this age old disagreement. But you can’t just brush it under the rug by saying it is a minor point and that smarter men than us have solved it. I would like to see these solutions.
It seems to me many of your arguments are arguments from authority, either of the Catholic Church or of the obvious intelligence and thoughtfulness of the theologians in question. I do not question their intelligence. And I am sure that they have thought some things through. I just would really like to know what their thoughts were. And since I do like to understand for myself the truth of things I am uninclined to simply take it for granted that when smart men don’t seem to see the problem I do that therefore I must be wrong. This simply is no substitute for an argument.
Why do you keep popping in here to make the same arguments which depend upon premises rejected by those with whom you are arguing? It is no more logical than the liberal trolls that keep telling us the Bible can’t be trusted and that absolute truths don’t exist, blah, blah, blah. If you are unable to defend your position on the terms generally accepted by those who haven’t yet gone where you have gone you only make your side look worse by continuing to try. And being rude after failure is even more a dsiservice to your cause.
I truly do respect Rome. I raise these arguments because they are keeping me from joining her. If you are going to defend Rome to me, please come prepared.
roman, thiss is not my blog. But it is not yours either. That was my point. But it is made by Anglicans generally for Anglicans. I’m sure you are most welcome, but it is rude to act as if our speaking and arguing like Protestants is out of line on a Protestant blog. If you can’t receive that advice without feeling “bullied” then you need to stay in friendly blogs where they all think like you.
Fr. Kimel – Any guess as to whether the two Anglicans, Farrow and Reno, came to a conclusion or not regarding the objective reality of the sacraments in the Anglican Church, especially the Real Presence in the Eucharist?. Would they be obligated to believe that the Anglican sacraments impart grace only as a gracious overflowing of God’s grace to sincere Christians, rather than as part of the ordered life of a church with a valid ministry, etc. I already know that if I were to “cross the Tiber” that RC clergy I know in this area would not require me to assume that I had only received invalid or partially defective sacraments. I could probably refine this better, but I’m sure what I’m driving at. Thx.
Oh, Christopher, Christopher, Christopher. If apologetics is what you want, then go argue with an apologist, for as you rightly observe, I am certainly not one and do not pretend to be one. I will not argue with you on your terms, because I cannot do so and will not do so. Even if I was still an Anglo-Catholic, I could not argue with you on your terms. To accept your terms must result in abandonment of catholic (not just Roman Catholic) faith and practice. To accept your terms must result in mere, rather than truly orthodox, Christianity. Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture teaches on fundamental issues like baptismal regeneration, eucharistic presence, divorce and remarriage, and abortion. The Catholic cannot allow Protestant exegesis to determine the faith once delivered to the saints.
This is why the discussion always ends up as a discussion of authority. Where else can it end, since we agree neither on the proper relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium nor on the proper way to read and apply Scripture?
I do not for a moment believe that if I provided you a compelling theological case for indulgences (or transubstantiation or contraception or the Immaculate Conception or whatever your pet issue is) you would convert to the Catholic Church. The move from Protestantism to Catholicism simply does not work that way. Rather, it’s a matter of looking at the whole differently. A paradigm-shift must occur. It is that paradigm-shift that occurred with Barrow, Reno, Marshall, and Hutter. Once it occurs, the kinds of issues that presently preoccupy you lose their urgency. I suggest that instead of fretting about minor matters like indulgences, you ask yourself instead why Barrow, Reno, Marshall, and Hutter found it intellectually and spiritually necessary to abandon their Protestantism and adopt the Catholic paradigm. I think that would be a far more interesting thread.
Fr Kimel wrote, [i]I assure you, compared to Hutter, Marshall, Reno, and Farrow, all of us who comment here on this blog are intellectual lightweights, myself included.[/i]
Respectfully, Father, when you’re called on some apparent contradiction you invariably revert to “these geniuses believe the way I do, and they are brighter than either you or I are, so you should believe them.”
If what you say is true, that you and are I so logically and theologically dim we can’t tell a sheep’s bleat from a wolf’s growl, why even appeal to our reason? If this is indeed the case, wouldn’t it be better to forgo the effort and just force us to do Heaven’s bidding?
Sadly, I wonder if this explains the historical motivations for the Office of the Inquisition?
Re #35: Rob, I’m afraid I have never discussed your question with either Reno or Farrow. When an Anglican converts to the Catholic Church, he is not required to make any special judgments about the efficacy or validity of Anglican sacraments. He is only required to make this profession: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”
Father Kimel continued: [i]None of us are objective. How could we be?[/i]
If that is indeed true, why expend exercises in effortless objectivity by conversing with anyone with whom you disagree? Poppycock! Unbiblical, unpauline poppycock, and you know it.
Al, Al, Al. My gosh that sounds condescending, doesn’t it?
Anyway, you acknowledge that arguments with us are pointless until we start thinking like Catholics. Fine. We Know where you are. When we start thinking that way we’ll get in touch. Until then, what is the point of your continual presence here, since you are unable to convince us otherwise? What are you trying to acheive? No, really? When I said brush up on your apologetics, I meant you should work at convincing others to see things your way, not telling them there is no reasoning with them until they do.
I’ve read the ancient fathers. They didn’t argue the way you do. They provided reasoned arguments and often based them in scripture. It was acceptable and perhaps desireable. When you can give me arguments as serious as theirs I would love to hear from you. Until then I find your refusal to engage in reasoned discourse insulting and tiresome. Perhaps you should simply stop.
I remember when I converted to Christ way back when. Man, was I an ass. New converts should really not be allowed to proselytize until they have matured and aren’t rubbing their new faith in everybody’s faces.
Something to think about, maybe.
This article is over a year old, and I am late even to this re-visiting. I believe Byassee quoted from things I have written (though he does not cite) and did not speak to me directly. As a result, it may sound as if I believe that Anglicanism in and of itself is somehow equivalent to Israel. I do not. The entire Christian Church is now equivalent to divided Israel. There is a difference.
I have no problem with Anglicans becoming Roman Catholics. If you’ve had enough of Anglicanism, that seems to me the most obvious thing to do. I have said so on many occasions. What I object to is the need to start new versions of Anglicanism, when what is called for is the repentance and reform of what we are given in our separated situations. (If, on the other hand, there are those who believe that Roman Catholicism needs reform, they should not join the RC church unless they are willing to work for such reform from within. Otherwise, they are just being lazy.)
As for healing the rifts of the broken Western (not to mention Eastern) churches: if simply joining Rome were the way to do that, I would personally be the first in line. However, I am aware that, the divisions being well in place, and having inherited them myself, and the causes of these divisions being multiple and due to a broad range of sin spread about the Church, healing requires more than individual movements from this or that ecclesial group to another. These are corporate challenges; I continue to hope that I can contribute to meeting these challenges corporately from the Anglican side. To do so, however, there must be some integrity among Anglicans, and not further fracture.
Finally, the canon of Scripture marks both Judah and Israel as guilty — the division of the Kingdom came about because of the sins of the united monarcy and kingdom — and both eventually bore the brunt of God’s judgment. The notion of leaving Israel to escape to Judah was as vain as the notion of leaving Judah to escape to Egypt.
Respectfully, Father, when you’re called on some apparent contradiction you invariably revert to “these geniuses believe the way I do, and they are brighter than either you or I are, so you should believe them.”
Justin, I have never ever said that anyone should become Catholic because _____ became Catholic. Nor have I anywhere suggested that you or anyone else should follow Reno or Farrow in becoming Catholic because they are so intelligent. All their examples prove is that it’s possible even for intelligent people to choose to become Catholic, just as it’s possible for intelligent people to choose to become Christian. But I do believe that their intelligence and theological proficiency gives added weight to their testimonies. They should be taken seriously and not dismissed.
As far as resolving all of the contradictions that you perceive in the Catholic faith, not only do I have no desire to try to resolve them for you, I could not do so even if I wanted to. My Christian faith is full of contradictions, mysteries, paradoxes, and anomalies. Always has been and always will be. Becoming Catholic has changed nothing in that regard. I have great respect for systematic theologians, but I do not believe that theology can ever be truly systematic.
Mr Hathaway,
I speak to you as just a little person from the pew. An Anglican who has swum the Tiber. And I can’t begin to philosophize at the level of you and Fr. Kimmel. If asked, I’d refer you to the works of Cardinal Ratzinger. But, from this little person, I’d suggest that you just can’t know til you get there. To me faith in THE CHURCH is just like faith in JESUS, you’ve got to fall foward towards the finish line, and then the victory will make sense. Can’t prove it, can’t explain it, though I know that the case for it can be reasonably made. Sometime when I was a Protestant I cared about indulgences, then I fell forward and they made sense to me. I know that that won’t satisfy the intellectual in you. But maybe that’s not the part that Jesus wants to satisfy.
Fr Kimel, thanks for your response. It may not seem that way, but I am finding this dialogue enlightening.
You wrote, [i]…I do believe that their intelligence and theological proficiency gives added weight to their testimonies.[/i]
I agree with you that the intelligence of brilliant converts would give great weight to their testimonies, if they did indeed use their intelligence to overcome the many supposed contradictions with which we outsiders struggle. (And if so, we’d simply like to know the arguments that allowed them to make their climb.) But if these brilliant converts just ignored glaring contradictions and went with–I don’t know, perhaps a gut feeling?–as you seem to imply we should do, then their intelligence is of no consequence, regardless of the benefit of the gut feeling. Where am I going wrong here?
You seemed surprised by my demand that you (i.e., a representative of the Roman faith) should have to present a rationale for controversial Roman dogma. If it was simply a matter of agreed disagreements, then I would have no such claim on your attentions. But when, for example, the Holy Father asserts the invalidity or defectiveness of creedal Christian faith (e.g., Anglican Christianity), then yes, you/he does have an obligation to explain and defend his statements, an obligation that goes beyond simply the remark that his statements, although contradictory are true.
If Peter can indeed bind in heaven what is bound on earth, I believe I have the right to question him about the rope.
When I said brush up on your apologetics, I meant you should work at convincing others to see things your way, not telling them there is no reasoning with them until they do.
Christopher, I’m not trying to convince you to become Catholic, nor am I trying to convince you that the Catholic Faith is true. I do like to respond to attacks upon the faith and practices of the Catholic Church, like the one you launched in comment #9. How strange that you should respond to the article about the six converts with an attack on indulgences. Where in the world did that come from?
In my response (#15) I attempted to briefly present a Catholic understanding of indulgences. My intent was not to convince or convert, or even dispute, but simply to describe. I also thought the brethren might find the citation from Ratzinger of particular interest. But instead of responding to the Ratzinger citation, you promptly (#16) dismissed my comment in your usual insulting way.
You are quite right. I do not believe that fruitful discussion is possible between us.
[blockquote] But conversion to the Catholic Church does require that one begin to trust that the Catholic Church will, by the grace of God, get its theological formulations and ascetical practices right [b] in the end.[/b] Or as Neuhaus puts it, “The Church’s teaching lives forward.†One has to take the long view here. [/blockquote]
Jaw drops…
I can see why justinmartyr and Christopher are just a tad upset…
#44: You seemed surprised by my demand that you (i.e., a representative of the Roman faith) should have to present a rationale for controversial Roman dogma.
Justin, I am not surprised by your demand. I simply do not think I am obligated to acquiesce to it. You are asking me to play the theological game according to Protestant rules, and so I cannot participate. All I can do is describe Catholic dogma and correct misconstruals. But I will not seek to justify Catholic dogma before the bar of Protestant opinion. In the final analysis, all I hope to achieve is to encourage folks to read the Catholic Catechism for themselves and not to rely upon polemical misinterpretations.
It’s not surprising that Protestants get fixated on indulgences. After all, few, if any, explicit biblical citations can be provided by the Catholic to justify the practice–thus apparently violating the sola scriptura rule. And indulgences presuppose the Catholic understanding of post-mortem purification, i.e., purgatory, which also seems to lack explicit biblical support. For the Protestant, this clinches the matter, yet not so for the Catholic. The Catholic is fully convinced that post-mortem purification is consonant with Scripture, when read with the Church with a Catholic mind.
Justin, you have asked for resolution of contradictions. Have you in fact identified any contradictions? I fully admit, e.g., that the practice of indulgences is a curiosity. Many modern Catholics feel this curiosity. Cardinal Ratzinger has noted that in some cultural contexts, “pastoral practice has a hard time making a particular truth of faith understood. This may be the case with ‘indulgences.'” But in what way or ways do indulgences contradict the Catholic system? I know the practice contradicts Protestant understandings of sanctification and eschatology; but how does it contradict Catholic understandings of sanctification and eschatology? You have referred to the elephant in the living room, but no elephant has been named.
# 41: “The notion of leaving Israel to escape to Judah was as vain as the notion of leaving Judah to escape to Egypt.”
You don’t seem to have read (marked, inwardly digested) 2 Chronicles 13 or the message of that book.
I wish you well in confronting the heretics across the road from you in T’ron’o. The gay movement seems well ensconced in that diocese.
#48: I prefer to read 2 Chron. 13 in conjunction with 1 Kings 11 and 12, and indeed with the whole of the canonical witness to these events, which includes e.g. Jeremiah etc.. I do not see any justification in any of this for a person to start a new church in order to escape the infidelities of one in which they are already members. (Indeed, if anyone did this, it was Jeroboam.) Jeroboam drove out the legitimate Levities and set up an idolatrous regime, for which he and his people were punished by God; Judah fell into analogous sins and was also punished. The entire kingdom — both north and south — was destroyed, and for a common failure to follow God’s law, according to a movement into sin that began before Saul himself was chosen, and that enveloped David already, and Solomon. Clearly this does make of the Protestant divisions matters of deep grief to the Body of Christ, and demands that we think of Anglicanism only as a way towards some kind of healing of that Body. As I pointed out above, this is a corporate vocation, that cannot simply be overlept by individual choices; rather, those choices must be made with a view to such corporate responsibility.
“Confronting” heresies is part of life in the Church of Christ, I’m afraid (1 Cor. 11:19), wherever one is. US, Canada, Africa, Asia. We are all called to vigilance, courage, humility, and trust in God. Thanks for your good wishes. I wish you well also in your witness to our Lord.
The nature of the elephant:
Purgatory: what is it? Is it that place or state of being where we continue the process of cleansing our soul of the temporal consequences of sin, a thing which Christ cannot do for us because this is our cooperation with Him?
Or, is it a burden that can be shared by others through indulgences, a sharing which can only be accomplished in and through Christ, for without Him there is no bridge between life and death?
Either we must ourselves finish our growth in righteousness or others can help us in finishing it. If it is the latter what prevents Christ from completing all that remains at death?
Any coherent answer that deals with this issue would be nice.
I always find Fr Kimel a blessing and a treasure and am always pleased to read what he writes, whether or not I understand him. Please stay with us Fr Kimel and keep blogging.
#49: “I do not see any justification in any of this for a person to start a new church in order to escape the infidelities of one in which they are already members. (Indeed, if anyone did this, it was Jeroboam.)”
Somebody else who “did that” was Henry VIII. In this case, we who have swum the Tiber are not “starting a new church”. We are leaving the “new church” invented by Henry VIII for reasons very similar to those held by both TEC and Jeraboam, in order to return to the original Church that founded by Christ on the Rock of Peter.
Shari
Rather than rehearsing the arguments for and against purgatory, I refer readers to the earlier discussions over at Stand Firm: Thesis 8, Thesis 17 and Thesis 18.
Fr. K – Re your reply to me in no. 38. Thanks. That helps my thinking. Please don’t stop commenting on this site. I also am impressed by Fr. Radner’s comments on the reasons for staying with TEC. No. 52 – I don’t think Fr. Radner’s comment about starting “new” churches was directed at those who have gone over to the RC Church. Your comment about HenryVIII starting a “new” church is stale.
“Somebody else who “did that†was Henry VIII. In this case, we who have swum the Tiber are not “starting a new churchâ€. We are leaving the “new church†invented by Henry VIII for reasons very similar to those held by both TEC and Jeraboam, in order to return to the original Church that founded by Christ on the Rock of Peter.”
The “Church that Henry founded” was wound up in 1554, after only ten years of existence. His base-born daughter Bessy founded another, rather different, church in 1559, and it is she who ought to be commemorated as the founder of Anglicanism — the more so as the problematic features of her handiwork are now coming home to roost with a vengeance.
Actually I thought it was mainly Edward VI’s work.
Cluck Cluck!
No, he (or his “puppetmasters”) managed only to wreck and discredit Henry’s work.
Didn’t know you were a fan of Henry’s legacy Prof Tighe
rob k: “Your comment about HenryVIII starting a “new†church is stale.” Just what makes this a stale argument? Because it references events that happened 500 years ago or because it makes us Anglicans squirm? If it is irrelevant, please say why; if not, give a defence of the distinction between now and then.
More so than of that of the daughter of Anne Boleyn.
Good Queen Bess was great!
No. 59 – Stale in the same sense that are those arguments against the Catholic Church today by those who scream about the practices regarding Indulgences in the 16th century.
[blockquote]Good Queen Bess was great! [/blockquote]
Unless you were one of those poor souls who insisted on remaining Catholic despite the severe persecution. Then she wasn’t quite so great.