…for me, a move to Rome is not about a revolution in my theology, and certainly not about a rejection of Anglicanism. It is about a very painful choice between two dilemmas:
On the one hand there is Anglicanism, an expression of faith that in the abstract – its doctrines and theology – is as nearly perfect as I believe man has ever succeeded in achieving, but which in practice has unraveled into a chaotic mess. There is of course the heresy and false teaching that infects all but a handful of Episcopal parishes in this diocese – including its bishop, its cathedral, its dean, almost all of its clergy, and a distressing number of the few laypeople who have made the effort to pay attention and learn what’s happening – but the promise of the orthodox Anglican movement outside of The Episcopal Church never materialized either. Populated as that movement is by many good people, it has the institutional feeling of something held together by duct tape and baling wire. It is beset by infighting and consecration fever, and in several of its highest leadership positions are people of atrocious judgement and character.
On the other hand there is Roman Catholicism, some of whose doctrines give me serious pause, but which in practice has shown itself to be steadfast in its opposition to the caprices of the world. Even the horrific pedophile priest scandal forces one to concede that Pope Benedict’s purging of the ranks, while not complete, was at the very least spirited, and based on a firm rejection of the “everything is good” sexual sickness that’s all but killed the Episcopal Church.
“…but the promise of the orthodox Anglican movement outside of The Episcopal Church never materialized either. Populated as that movement is by many good people, it has the institutional feeling of something held together by duct tape and baling wire. It is beset by infighting and consecration fever, and in several of its highest leadership positions are people of atrocious judgement and character.”
No one has ever accused Mr. Griffith of subtle speech or indirection.
May God bless him richly on his new journey.
[blockquote] This is the Lord’s doing and it is marvelous in our eyes. 🙂 [/blockquote]
Blessings on you and your family. BTW, what you may find most interesting is that, rather than learning over time not to be bothered by those teachings that you find problematic now, little by little and bit by bit you may actually find them to be a rich, unexplored treasure, the depths of which take a lifetime to plumb. To paraphrase St. Anselm — from faith comes understanding.
I wish him and his family will and will continue to blog on StandFirm. He is a true brother in Christ.
“…little by little and bit by bit you may actually find them to be a rich, unexplored treasure.”
Where have I heard that before?
Real people living in real cities and towns with real families often don’t have the luxury of finding the “perfect” parish in the “perfect” church. We all have to do the best we can where we are. May God bless the Griffith family.
#4 follow up. Objection at a blog:
“What bothers me is that you seem to have joined the Catholic Church the way you would join a Protestant denomination, joined it as the best denomination for you in your current place and circumstances. Becoming a Catholic is something much more than that. Furthermore, you admit to reservations about some Catholic doctrines. If you mean you have difficulties with some of them, ok. Newman said that a thousand difficulties do not equal one doubt. If you are a Catholic, you believe what the Church teaches because the Church teaches it.”
There are so many dimensions of this, and rightly seen it is a tragedy (one which God can redeem) which has so many different facets.
The one that most strikes me about Greg’s saga is the simply pathetic state of so many parishes at the local level in the United States. Here we have the greatest message of the world, so you would think people coming to worship would feel excited about a banquet, and far too many who do come are left seeking bare morsels for the soul on which to survive.
Lord have mercy on us.
#6, yes, he has not embraced Catholicism in its entirety. He has gone to the best available liturgical parish in his area. There are dimensions to this which might lead to different actions in the future for the family if the local parish were to change.
“he has not embraced Catholicism in its entirety” — not sure that is possible.
A friend said to me that “the broad minded practicality of his decision, given his local circumstances, is quite Anglican.” I agree.
He needs a spiritually safe place to raise his family. My heart goes out to him. May the Griffith family go from strength to strength.
#9, what I meant was that, as the blog comment you quoted indicated, he’s a reluctant Catholic, with still-large reservations about some Catholic teachings.
[blockquote] what I meant was that, as the blog comment you quoted indicated, he’s a reluctant Catholic, with still-large reservations about some Catholic teachings[/blockquote]
Do you not think that the priest who received him into the Church knows that? I’d say that’s between him and his conscience/his confessor/God. You know, a person who has been starving for a long time can sometimes only drink liquids. If it takes him longer to be nourished by “the fullness of the faith” — or even if he never does — it’s really none of our business.
“but the promise of the orthodox Anglican movement outside of The Episcopal Church never materialized either. Populated as that movement is by many good people, it has the institutional feeling of something held together by duct tape and baling wire. It is beset by infighting and consecration fever, and in several of its highest leadership positions are people of atrocious judgement and character.”
I think this statement by Mr. Griffith is uncalled for, especially from one who is not a member of that movement. If he finds the call of Rome satisfying for his needs, then blessings to him; he does not even have to justify his decision to anyone but himself. Why was it necessary to take a cheap shot at (presumably) ACNA?
Here’s a response to his decision: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/31337
Oh, Catholic Mom, I hope the priest who received him does know his reservations. I hope this works out well for all the family.
It’s going to work out great. Precisely because he’s not going into this saying “The scales have fallen from my eyes! At last I see the Truth!” then six months later saying “Oh wait! I detect a flaw. Perhaps I made a mistake. Perhaps the Truth is really hiding over there.” That’s the Protestant angst thing.
His daughter is going to grow up and be confirmed as a Catholic and she’s going to find it richly fulfilling and she’s not going to lie awake at night anguishing over imputation or infusion and his wife is going to be happy to be back in the church of her childhood and between two happy women and the good people of St. Peter the Apostle, Greg’s going to be happy too. As my kids would tell you, sometimes I just know these things. 🙂
I like Catholic mom’s angle on this story: one can be spiritually nourished even if one has the wrong theory (or indeed no theory) of nourishment. However, when it comes to helping others to be fed, knowing something of how it works is fairly important. That’s where proper angst comes into to play (cf Rom. 10:1-4).
Justification by faith is not the gospel but it does explain how the gospel works. There is more than enough grace in the RC church to be nourished; but I think a biblical – accurate – theory of nourishment is fairly important as well.
I’m happy for the convert.
#13, one must assume he felt the question would arise on an Anglican Blog why the Anglican options were being ruled out.
“It is beset by infighting ….and in several of its highest leadership positions are people of atrocious judgement and character.†–please find me a church (anywhere in the world) that never resembles this description to some degree. And “beset,” “fever,” “several,” and “atrocious” are all questionable word choices.
[From the response over at StandFirm]
“…is a devastating indictment …. on conservative Anglicans throughout the US.” – Hardly. One family’s choice for the Roman Catholic Church is hardly an indictment on anything other than their personal circumstances. And it may have a lot more to do with the focus of Greg’s attention for the past ten years than anything else. I suspect it is the same reason I can no longer countenance to scan StandFirm blog entries — which used to be my go to news source. You cannot continually abide in the negative without doing injury to your own soul. TitusOneNine remains a breath of fresh air in that regard and even Virtueonline is lighter these days than SF.
May the Griffith family thrive in their new ecclesial home. It is all God’s Church.
several of its highest leadership positions are people of atrocious judgement and character.â€
Were you talking about Episcopalian or Catholic leaders? I can name a few Catholic bishops who’s judgement is questionable (to the degree that questions exist).
I can’t speak to character. I think we are blessedly rid of the real rotters – Weakland comes to mind, but of course, no bishop is perfect. Papa Benedict gave us some really good bishops, and Papa Frank is doing pretty well so far.
God bless the Griffiths. They are off on a great adventure, but sometimes it feels like truding through molasses.
#4, In response to your question, I hear this inside my head: “We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”
The Roman Catholic Church once taught that the sun revolves around the earth, and that heliocentrism is a heresy. Galileo was arrested, imprisoned, and died under house arrest for that heresy.
I suspect that Greg, whom I know only from reading Stand Firm over the years, will not surrender his God-given intellect to the Bishop of Rome.
Godspeed, Greg!
Eppur si muove!
Actually, Aristotle taught that the sun revolves around the earth, and most knowledgeable people of the era accepted that. What the Church authorities demanded was that there be scientific proof before they abandoned Aristotilian cosmology for that of Copernicus. They wanted evidence.
They also wanted Galileo to present his theories as theories, not fact. Unfortunately, his Italy – sized ego was more interested in self-aggrandizement than actual science.
#22. I was referring to the ‘rich unexplored treasures’ of liberal Christianity’s progressive revelation.
It seems to me that “liberal” Christianity” (by which I assume you mean “made up as we go” Christianity) cannot, sort of by definition, have “unexplored treasures” since they’re making it up as they go. “Unexplored treasures” are treasures that have laid hidden (in this case, hidden from Greg, or hidden from those with only a superficial knowledge of Catholicism) that, explored over a lifetime, yield great richness. In other words, a Catholic doctrine that Greg may know as a single sentence that he’s always dismissed turns out to have great theological depth and meaning when fully explored, and that meaning becomes more and more profound over time.
No, I mean things like purgatory, papal infallibility, immaculate conception, etc. Unexplored treasures a la development of doctrine via a magisterium. An ecclesial second-authority that Orthodox and non-Catholic reject.
Or did you mean a different kind of unexplored treasure that Roman Catholicism bequeaths?
That silly notion of a 19th century Bishop of Rome that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” is another fine example of a “made up as we go†teaching – certainly not an “unexplored treasure” and certainly found nowhere in Holy Scripture.
[blockquote] No, I mean things like purgatory, papal infallibility, immaculate conception, etc. Unexplored treasures a la development of doctrine via a magisterium. An ecclesial second-authority that Orthodox and non-Catholic reject. Or did you mean a different kind of unexplored treasure that Roman Catholicism bequeaths? [/blockquote]
Well..all of that and others, including, of course “development of doctrine” itself, the definition of which I suspect we disagree on. BTW, the Orthodox have plenty of teachings that align with Catholic doctrine and which Protestants reject as unscriptural — not sure by what “liberal” method you think those got made up.
[blockquote] That silly notion of a 19th century Bishop of Rome that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void†is another fine example of a “made up as we go†teaching [/blockquote]
That is, of course, not a teaching per se, it’s a ruling (just like a Supreme Court ruling is not a part of the Constitution — rather it’s (hopefully) a ruling based on the Constitution). In this case its a ruling based on an interpretation of the doctrine of apostolic succession. If there is such a thing as “apostolic succession” then somebody has to decide who has it, no? Otherwise it would be kind of utterly meaningless — like anybody who says they’re a successor of the Apostles is.
BTW, does the timeframe in which a ruling is made make it more or less silly? Like when the Old Testament is derided as a “bronze age” religion? Or St. Paul’s comments about homosexuality are dismissed as being based on alleged “1st century” ignorance?
Dear Mom,
Catholic Anglicans do not believe in 3 developing testaments: Hebrew Religion, NT Religion, The Roman Catholic Church. In this we follow the Church fathers.
You have clearly not spent much time in Roman Catholic-Orthodox discussions.
From a pro-Gay site:
“…as far as I’m aware there has been no infallible ex Cathedra statement about same sex relationships. It is therefore entirely possible that the Spirit may yet guide the Pope and the Magisterium to the same truth many of us have already noticed.”
Mom, you will incline toward disagreeing with the conclusion, one supposes, but the logic is impeccable. If you have a progressive revelation a la Magisterium, it is analogous to the logic of liberal Christianity. New truths, etc.
OK, this is not going to be the right thread nor am I going to be the right person to slog through this. For one thing, it would take way too many words. For another thing, I’m not educated or articulate enough.
But incredibly briefly: 1) *all* of Christianity is “progressive” in some way. We don’t understand something. We pray. We seek discernment. We look at “fruits.” We read Scripture. We discuss with those whose opinion we trust. “Sola fide” which Matt Kennedy says IS the Gospel (not merely “an explanation” of the Gospel) was an exposition of a concept by the Reformers that they would say was there all along. Yet this “obvious” truth was by no means universally accepted at the time or even today. It had to be “developed” (they would say “recovered”) by the Reformers. Protestants who accept the ordination of women will tell you that this can be derived from Scripture as well — although apparently it took 2,000 years to figure it out. So there are all kinds of ideas which apparently take centuries to develop into their fullest form — or at least to be expounded as such. 2) the Magisterium does not get “revelations” in the way that Mormon prophets do. But yes, we do believe that God did not leave us the Scriptures and then retire to Florida. He is present with us and he guides his Church in a real way — one of which is through the Magisterium.
When I was a kid I used to think that papal infallibility was just some kind of snotty way for the Church to say “we’re right and you’re wrong” and I found the whole thing kind of embarrassing. As I get older, I see more and more that a Church can only held together when it has a focus of doctrinal unity and unless its members believe that that doctrinal unity is blessed with a special charism of the Holy Sprit, folks are just going to walk out the door whenever they disagree (which is pretty much always). This is one of the “treasures” of the Church that I appreciate more and more the older I get and the more I see of the world.
Re: the gay thing. Nothing that is expounded by the Magisterium can contradict Scripture or basic historical teachings of the Church (tradition). So the Bible cannot say explicitly and in so many exact words that homosexuality is a sin and the Church say that it is not. In the end, most of the “gay theology” comes down to explicitly saying “Paul was wrong.” Or “Paul was speaking from a 1st century perspective.” If you believe in Revelation at all, then you do not believe that it was Paul speaking (except where he says so or it is clear that he is expressing a personal opinion). So there is not going to be a further Revelation that tells you that Paul was wrong. I believe it was precisely this consistency that Greg was seeking in the Catholic Church.
“As I get older, I see more and more” has nothing to do with scriptural revelation or the rule of faith. It is precisely the deductive reasoning of liberalism. “The more I look at it, and the longer I reflect, I can see that _______”. Fill in: papal infallibility, immaculate conception, loving gay couples.
Sure, but I don’t run the Church. So my reflections are just that…reflections. I can (and should) reflect all day long, and it won’t affect anybody but myself. And the Church is not run by holding elections, so it doesn’t matter what I think anyway.
You are (presumably) part of a church where people actually sit around and cast ballots on this stuff. And I assume that theoretically the Immaculate Conception could win by 450/438 and the only thing you could do about it would be to refuse to teach it (if you think the idea of a church where individual pastors get to decide what doctrines they feel like teaching is a good idea) or you could leave. Actually, your church DID vote on “loving gay couples” and they won. I would say our Magesterium provides us a heck of a lot more protection from novelties/heresies than that. You, of course, may think that the Immaculate Conception IS a novelty/heresy but if it is, it’s not one driving people out of the Church in droves and I suspect that Jesus will forgive a mistaken belief in the Immaculate Conception of his mother before he forgives telling people that fornication is a good thing.
I am a catholic Anglican. Thanks for asking.
‘I don’t run the church’ or ‘I am not educated enough’ are but two of the built-in problems of Roman Catholic Church life.
You also have a problem distinguishing the word “progressive” from what you rightly see was the claim of reformers–including Anglican ones–to “recovery.”
I did not start the thread which began with the gem: “what you may find most interesting is that, rather than learning over time not to be bothered by those teachings that you find problematic now, little by little and bit by bit you may actually find them to be a rich, unexplored treasure.” This is the identical slippery slope of liberalism and progressivism.
Immaculate Conception is not an isolated or sentimental doctrine about Mary or her mother/father. It belongs within a complex nexus regarding Christology, sacraments, Orders, and so on. It is related to claims of nullity in Anglican orders.
The Anglican Communion is not going to evacuate a teaching/rites regarding the goods of marriage simply because some churches and cultures are commandeering the word ‘marriage.’ TEC’s collapse is but a single chapter in a long Book of Judges. Just as the Roman church survived innumerable immoral popes and a divided papacy (conciliarist challenge); grotesque sexual misconduct of late; millions upon millions of dollars spent in litigation; a lust for preferment amongst its bishops seeking higher ranks, so God will preserve his church wherever it may be found — a claim roundly rejected by the RCC.
Well…obviously we do feel God will preserve his Church or we wouldn’t have gotten through all that mess that you listed. 🙂
You still didn’t tell me what would stop any Protestant church from adopting the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine if they decided to vote it in.
Incidentally, the “Anglican Communion” doesn’t actually have any stated doctrines, does it? I mean its a loose confederation of national churches, each of which is free to adopt any doctrines/practices they wish, no? Which is why TEC is still a member?
No you do not believe that he will preserve his church, but that he will preserve the RCC. What a catholic Anglican can affirm about the RCC at its nadir moments, a RC cannot affirm about other churches.
“You still didn’t tell me what would stop any Protestant church from adopting the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine if they decided to vote it in” — does not make any sense.
It would be nice if you would strive to understand “the Anglican Communion” in some more serious way. That you use other churches as mere ciphers to point to the RCC as God’s Only Church is probably a cause of this. Tragic.
I sort of blundered into commenting at Stand Firm wherein I wished Greg Griffith well in his conversion and then observed that his blog should be led by someone who is still engaged in the struggle to redeem the lost soul of Anglicanism. Sadly, that didn’t go so well with the established contributors to the blog, who believe they can carry on, while the boss engages in his new religious life as a Roman Catholic.
#39. You are in fine company:
“Writing in The American Conservative, columnist Rod Dreher said he sympathized with Mr. Griffith’s dilemma but believed his secession would weaken the voice of his blog. “[H]ow can you blog for something called Stand Firm, the title of which encourages Episcopalians to stiffen their spines, when you did not stand firm, but rather jumped ship,†he asked.”
A belated comment, not directly related to those just above. Like Kendall, I regard the news of Greg Griffith’s conversion to Catholicism as a bombshell of a development. It’s clear that Greg hasn’t just given up on TEC, as many of us have done. He’s given up on Anglicanism itself, or at least on its current institutional form in the ACNA. His caustic criticism of the latter group, to which I belong, are trenchant and I take them seriously.
I can readily understand Greg swimming the Tiber. I may well do so someday myself. But it still came as a big surprise. I had seen no sign that Greg was leaning that way from my occasional visits to SF in recent weeks. After all, Greg had once chosen three hardcore Protestants, diehard Reformed Anglicans to join his editorial staff: Matt Kennedy, Sarah Hey, and David Ould. Perhaps his selection of the more moderate Tim Fountain and especially Allan Haley showed that Greg was less hostile to Catholic Christianity than formerly, but I’m still left stunned.
This is not the time or place to refight the battles of the Reformation. But I will take the liberty of affirming that I think Greg’s decision to become a Roman Catholic tends to support and vindicate some of my typical, rather provocative statements often made on this blog. For example:
A. I don’t fear the “tyranny” of Rome half as much as I’ve come to fear and dread Protestant anarchy.
B. The virtually complete provincial autonomy (and the lack of any central magisterium to adjudicate disputes) in Anglicanism is a devastating wekaness. The deficit of ecclesial authority in global Anglicanism has become intolerable. We need not submit to the papal yoke as an alternative, for there are other options, if yet unexplored, such as my (idealistic, Utopian?) proposal of an Anglican international Supreme Court as the beginnings of such a desperately needed central (collective) magisterium. But Greg’s conversion illustrates how apt is my frequent allusion to Judges 21:25. Today in Anglicanism, as in ancient Israel, because there is no king, “every man (or bishop or province) did what was right in his own eyes.” And that isn’t just a recipe for chaos. It amounts to sheer anarchy.
C. Those, like Matt Kennedy, etc., who point to the fundamental principle expressed in Article XX of the 39 Articles are right. Yes, it’s true. Rome has erred, even on essential matters of doctrine and practice. And so have Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Moscow. But the grave errors on the Protestant side are at least as bad. Wittenberg erred at least as badly as ever did ancient Antioch. And Geneva erred even worse under Calvin. And Zurich even worse yet under Zwingli and Bullinger.
More to the point, Canterbury hath erred as well. There is no use denying it. The 39 Articles are seriously flawed. Article 29, e.g., is blatantly false in its implicit rejection of the Real Presence.
D. Anglicanism, as it exists today, has no theological coherence. The High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church parties within Anglicanism display that all too clearly. The de facto social, if not yet legal, disestablishment of the CoE creates a genuine opportunity for global Anglicanism to achieve a degree of actual theological clarity and coherence that it so far lacked, at least since the Catholic Revival began in 1833, if not since the Caroline Divines with their quasi-Catholic theology from 1620 onwards.
David Handy+
Ex-Reformed, but not anti-Protestant, Anglican
Mom, Has the roman catholic moral education you have received ever cause you to wonder what it means for you to be a guest at an Anglican blog whose church your own denies has any sacramental reality?
I may regard the RCC as deeply misled and misleading, but I do not claim to ‘unchurch’ it. But that is fundamental to the logic of the RCC vis-à -vis Anglicanism.
How do you accept that and live as a happy and welcomed RC at an Anglican blog whose church yours rejects at all sacramental/meaningful points?
I am just curious.
Well, strictly speaking, I don’t recall any recent Encyclicals or infallible statements with reference to Anglican blogs, and the last I noticed there were actually a ton of Catholics and Protestants talking to one another all over the internet. My comments on this particular thread seem to have been limited to pointing out that those things that Greg is uncomfortable with now may later be a source of great value for him. After which you pointed out that there is pretty much no difference between the operation of the Magisterium and the deductive reasoning of the gay agenda, that the Immaculate Conception is somehow related to the refusal of the Catholic Church to recognize Anglican orders (Why would anybody care, BTW? I mean the Eastern Orthodox don’t even recognize my *baptism* for goodness sake) and you did not fail, of course, to play the pedophile trump card, which is actually a pretty good trump card but which I’m not sure can really be used to discredit any of the various Catholic doctrines that you find objectionable.
God bless you, Mother.
New Reformation Advocate #21: There will never be an Anglican magisterium (or Supreme Court) because this requires essentially “binding arbitration” and binding arbitration only works when there is some way to force you to be bound. Otherwise the losing side just takes its marbles and goes home. What binds people to accepting US Supreme Court decisions is basically the fact that you get arrested if you don’t. (And see “the Civil War” for what happens if you try to opt out of the system altogether.) What binds people to accepting decision of the Catholic Magisterium is: 1) you get excommunicated if you don’t and we have a teaching that says that being outside the Catholic Church is a Very Bad Thing and 2) we have a teaching that says the Magisterium is infallible so you should accept what it says. Lacking either # 1 or #2, there is no way that a binding central Anglican authority is going to survive the first serious disagreement between two sides both of which have strong support.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
CSeitz wrote:
[blockquote]#39. You are in fine company:“Writing in The American Conservative, columnist Rod Dreher said… [/blockquote]
Since you respect his opinion well enough to quote it, you might note that a comment to his essay stated pretty much exactly what I did, namely:
[blockquote] Living as a Catholic, soaking the ethos up in countless seen and unseen ways, has allowed me not only to believe the doctrines now but to plant then into my soul, where they are now bearing spiritual fruit. They are no longer things to which I need to assent intellectually—so much more than that.
And yet I’m still learning how to be a Catholic. And I’ll still be learning at the hour of my death. The depths are infinite, the riches inexhaustible.
So if Greg Griffith’s heart is open, he is welcome to join the rest of us aspiring Catholics! [/blockquote]
To which Rod Dreher replied:
[blockquote] Well-said! A beautiful and true thought. — RD [/blockquote]
🙂
#47. His comment had to do with becoming a ‘catholic’ and heading up a blog for standing firm in Anglicanism. But that was of course clear.
“Mom, Has the roman catholic moral education you have received ever cause you to wonder what it means for you to be a guest at an Anglican blog whose church your own denies has any sacramental reality?”
I am still curious about this.
“I may regard the RCC as deeply misled and misleading, but I do not claim to ‘unchurch’ it. But that is fundamental to the logic of the RCC vis-à -vis Anglicanism.”
[Comment deleted by Elf]
God bless you, Catholic Mom. I pray your life will blossom and bear the highest fruit God has in store for you and yours.
Thank you. And I very much wish the same for you.
What bemuses me most about this whole thread is how many of the commenters are totally unable to wrap their heads around even the concept (I say, even as a concept; I am not arguing the issue itself) that the Church, the visible Church, may be One and indivisible by its very nature (e.g., CSeitz), and that despite it is a belief universally held by orthodox and heretics alike (the latter about their own “churches”) in the early centuries? Cf. S. L. Greenslade’s Schism in the Early Church
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=greenslade&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t&tn=schism&x=70&y=9
Greenslade was an Anglican Evangelical, who ended up as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford (IIRC), as well as something of a “liberal.” His book is short and breezily written, but its usefulness is that he both admits and documents the universality of the view of the unity and unicity of the Church that I mention above. As an Evangelical and an Anglican, however, he contends that this view of the Church, despite what one may well term its universality, antiquity and consent (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est) ought to be abandoned both because it is “untrue to the facts” and because it makes and justification for the 16th-Century Anglican separation from Rome impossible.
Certainly, all pre-Reformation “church communions” that survive today, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrians (although the latter body on occasion had put-forth some “Anglican-like” statements) hold that their body, and it alone, constitutes the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” faith in which is confessed as part of the Nicene Creed.
Thanks, Elves.
Just for the record — I made a very mild and almost affectionate joke in #46, then repeated it in #49. Since the joke was deleted by the elves and since CSeitz thinks that was a good thing (since he thanks them for it) let me just say that it referred to the apparent randomness of comment #44 and the reference to me as “mother.” So rather than make a mild joke about it, I’ll just say I found it bizarre.
Catholic Mom (#45),
I acknowledge the force and validity of your point, with a slight modification. You may well be right, of course, that it’s simply unthinkable that global Anglicanism would ever accept a central magisterium in any form. There are a number of reasons why that seems probable, including the one you mention. Who and what army (or police force) would enforce its decisions? So, my slight modification of your #45 is that Anglicanism will PROBABLY never adopt a global magisterium. Too bad.
I’ve never contended that my proposal for an Anglican judiciary was likely to be adopted. I realize that it’s highly improbable. I only contend that it’s NECESSARY. Without it, Anglicanism is doomed. At least in the sense of being doomed to continued and perpetual chaos, confusion, conflict, incoherence, and yes, anarchy.
You aren’t the first person to chide me for my unlikely scheme and to suggest that it’s just a Utopian dream. You probably won’t be the last one either. But, stranger things have happened in church history…
David Handy+
Eternal Optimist (according to my wife)
An RC magesterium is not the only model for international church governance. The Orthodox conciliar methodology has done a reasonable job for the eastern folk, and could work for Anglicans. In fact, you have had the structures for conciliar governance in place for awhile in your “Instruments of Unity”. However, they have to be used – actually used – with integrity.
You are singing from ACI’s song sheet Charles. Conciliarism was also very much an option for the RCC at a critical point in time. Many of us would have embraced that polity….
The issue is not what model would work best. The issue is — is there any mechanism in Anglicanism to accept any model at all? Right from the get-go the only thing that held Anglicanism together was the Book of Common Prayer. There was no requirement for a single theology. The Communion is itself a fairly recent creation, never intended to replace the autonomy of the national churches, and the national churches don’t seem to have been too insistent on over-riding diocesan autonomy, and the Dioceses seem to have been willing to let individual parishes do their own thing within limits. There’s never been any attempt to impose a “federalist” Roman-type uniformity on Anglicanism. It would be as if the United Nations announced that from now on, if you wanted to belong, you would have to abide by whatever ruling the United Nations made with respect to gun control, healthcare, gay marriage, and the death penalty. That’s not what the United Nations is supposed to do and nobody would accept it for a minute even if they actually agreed with every decision made. Nobody, as far as I can tell, *wants* the Anglican Communion or any structure thereof, to make binding rulings about anything. Then you have the whole issue of who would make the rulings and why anybody who didn’t like them would ever accept them anyway.