The Vatican has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.
Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to “clarify its identity”.
He told the Catholic Herald: “Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?
“Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox – or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.”
Wow, those are pretty strong words from Kasper, who’s usually pretty waffly on ecumenical stuff. I am surprised by that.
We did choose a long time ago. Just ask an AngloCatholic and an Evangelical.
[url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=642]I think there’s a little more to this situation than meets the eye.[/url]
Dr Tighe had alerted me to Kasper’s remarks via e-mail. Here is what I wrote to Dr Tighe as a reaction to this:
It is almost laughable for the Cardinal to suggest that Anglicanism is at a point to choose between Apostolic Christianity and Protestantism. Not that such a choice is not substantive and important; but the Anglican Church is not going to “choose” anything. That is not what Anglicans do. And the conservatives among the Anglicans, though they do see their Church at a crisis point, do not see the choice to be made as being between traditional Christianity and Protestantism. They see it as a choice between conservative Protestantism and apostasy.
Thus, even if a miracle should occur and Lambeth resolves the present crisis in a clear victory for the conservative side, it will not be a choice of Apostolic Christianity over Protestantism. At best the current Catholic/Protestant ambiguity would continue in place; any resolution of that ambiguity that might take place would be in a Protestant direction. Given the players involved it is impossible to imagine otherwise.
On the other hand, it is remarkable that the Cardinal regards the choice between Apostolic Christianity and Protestantism as one that is available to the Anglican Communion. I should have thought that as a Catholic the Cardinal would deny that Anglicanism still retains the elements (notably valid Apostolic Succession) that make Apostolic Christianity a real possibility. If the Cardinal can pose this choice to the Anglicans, one would think that Apostolicae Curae had been repealed or somehow obviated.
If I must choose between the apostolicity of the historic Christian movement – tradition passed on through creeds, councils, and the canon of scripture inviting the whole human family to sacramental communion with the Lord of Time and Space – to the 16th century Northern European quirky obsession with salvation [i]sola scriptura[/i], I will happily lay me down to sleep with the fullness of apostolicity.
I was aware of TEC before I married an Epsicopalian and had previously and jokingly referred to them as “Catholic-lite” but it wasn’t until I started dating my wife that I first heard the terms “high-church”, “low-church” and even “Anglo-Catholic.”
My wife and her mother preferred low-church service while her dad and her brother preferred the high-church. I presumed this dichotomy had always been part and parcel of TEC. I also presumed that high church leaned more toward Catholic tradition while low church tended more towards evangelical Protestant beliefs. The troubled waters that currently beset the Anglican fleet and witness a squadron named TEC drift towards a separate horizon have less to do with the practice than the preaching.
If that is still the case then His Eminence should be concerned with the Angiclan Church’s ecclesiology and where it’s going, not where it’s been.
I don’t normally cross-post, so forgive me, all who have already seen this.
Yesterday my students and I finished an entire semester of studying Contemporary Theology. We began with Schleiermacher and Barth, then covered everyone from Brunner, Bonhoeffer, the Niebuhrs, the Catholic Resourcement movement (DeLubac, Congar, Danielou), Orthodoxy (Bulgakof, Schmemann, Lossky), post-Vatican II theology (Rahner, Lonergan, von Balthasar), theology of hope/revelation history (Moltmann, Pannenberg) post-Liberalism (Lindbeck, Hauerwas), Evangelicals (Packer, Henry),(post-conservative)Evangelicals (N.T. Wright, Vanhoozer), “Scientific†theology (T. F. Torrance, Alister McGrath). We finished with Anglican theology–Ramsey and Sykes. All of these fairly clearly lined up with Barth.
On the other side, we studied Bultmann, Tillich, process theology, feminist theology, liberation theology. All of these fairly clearly lined up on the other side–with Schleiermacher.
It really didn’t matter whether the thinker was Protestant (Barth or Tillich) or Catholic (Balthasar or Schussler Fiorenza). The clear issue of division had nothing to do with which side of the Reformation divide one was on.
The answer to Cardinal Kasper’s question is that every one of the thinkers we studied chose both the first millennium and the sixteenth century–whether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, whether Barthian or Schleiermachian. But the clear divide was whether one sided with Barth or Schleiermacher, not whether with Luther or Trent. And whether one aligned with Barth or with Schleiermacher determined how one read the first millennium and the Reformation, and what one took from both.
Um – yes, I am very happy being catholic AND reformed thank you very much Cardinal, but perhaps something did not quite come across in the translation.
Somebody has finally put the greatest question facing the Anglican Communion directly on the table, at least in recent times. Can Anglicanism declare that its ecclesial structure is truly Catholic, i.e.; part of the visible body of christ with an apostolic ministry composed of bishops as successors to the apostles, a sacrificing priesthood, and deaconry, or must it say that it is a manifestation of ihe invisible church in which some people, high church types, can believe if they want in such things as an objective presence of Christ in the mass, but which really doesn’t matter. An Anglican Communion truly Catholic can absorb certain insights of the Reformation, but it cannot presume ontological equality to Catholic and Reformed/Lutheran ecclesiologies. Kasper’s question cuts across the two issues, WO and Ordination of practicing homosexuals, that now occupy most of our time, and it is more basic than either of these, although the issue of WO does impinge upon the ecclesiological one. Pageantmasterk would you please advise what you mean by catholic AND reformed? Thx
Thanks Rob K – perhaps 2 illustrations of what I believe:
[b]Catholic[/b] – connected to the universal church of all believers descending by apostolic succession as is set out in the Nicene Creed:
“We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come”
AND
[b]Reformed[/b] – being in conformity with the Articles of Religion of the Church of England and of particular relevance:
“Article VI. Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for Salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation…”
and “Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written , neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.”
Hope this helps.
I thank Chris Jones for pointing out how deluded I have been as an Anglican. I had thought that the episcopate, the liturgy and the clerical haberdashery along with much of what was in the Prayer Book suggested that Anglicanism took the catholic faith at least somewhat seriously. I obviously hadn’t a clue. I thought the Via Media meant something too, but Mr. Jones has encouraged me by his opinion to pay closer attention to John Henry Newman on Anglicanism. Though he may not regard it as a compliment, he and the former Anglican priest share a common opinion of just what Anglicanism is.
Perhaps Cardinal Kasper is mistaken to assume Anglicans must choose between catholic and reformed. I think a true Anglican would say the choice is both, not either/or. I think the real question is HOW to live out both perspecives.
Sorry, but Reformed Christianity is not catholic Christianity. Protestant doctrines have not been received nor affirmed by the whole Church. To say that Anglicanism is catholic is really to say that Orthodoxy is not catholic. I think it’s pretty hard to make that argument.
13. Justin
Would it be so hard to make that argument if you believed that the Protestant doctrines of the Church are in conformity with those affirmed by the whole Church in early days and never changed by ‘the whole Church’?
Luke wrote a Gospel; Paul wrote a letter: early Christians believed these teachings in the apostolic succession set out the word of God on matters of salvation. Is is really so hard? Do you think?
14: I’m not sure I understand your question. Roman claims notwithstanding, the catholicity of a doctrine is not determined by anything less than consensus. My belief that a Protestant doctrine is orthodox doesn’t make it catholic. I expect that Luther and Calvin thought that their doctrines were in conformity with those affirmed by the whole Church, but many of these doctrines have been renounced by the Church, both in the east and in Rome.
It seems to me that early Christians believed the teachings of the Church, many of which are contained in Holy Scripture, but the notion that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation”, even if it’s true in some sense, was not at all a teaching of the historic Church.
Let me rephrase: the only reformation that seems to be ecclesiologically justifiable is a reformation that sees reunification with the undivided church as its ultimate goal. It must be a reformation which can truly claim to be recovering an historic Christian consensus. I’m not convinced that most Protestant doctrines (including those embraced by Anglicans) fall into this category.
The judgments of God being revealed in this generation do not suggest that proud confidence in any of our all too human “Christian” traditions, especially Western ones, is where we should be putting our trust for his future. We are all marching into exile, bound tightly in the chains of our culture–it ill behooves us to prattle about the superiority of Judah over Ephraim or little Benjamin. The Lord is truly doing a new thing, and we would do better to bear ourselves more humbly toward one another as well as toward him.
Catholic or Protestant? Protestant or Catholic?
Not to oversimplify, but, I believe the answer lies in how one regards the Eucharist. Does the celebration of the Eucharist include the saving sacrifice of the cross, or not? Are baptism and communion bound together in an eternal expression of the Paschal Mystery, or are they uncoupled in the name of inclusion and hospitality?
These are mutually exclusive views of the Blessed Sacrament. One [i]cannot[/i] hold them both at the same time and claim to be a unified “communion of faith.” TEC has made its choice; now the AC must decide how to respond.
I am far more over my head that usual. #7, please make your distinction clearer for one who has no idea what you are referring to. I really would like to grasp this distinction.
Ir strikes me that #9 has put the matter precisely. This is indeed on of the Great Questions, the more so since TEC has made the distinction a trifocal, not a bifocal vision. TEC is forcing the issue of identity to a degree that we have not seen in the past and the upcoming Lambeth is going to face squarely the issue of Anglican identity. Too often in the past, the old broadside, The Vicar of Bray”
has been the Anglican way: as conditions changed, new things in or out, the bishops and priests changed, until the Anglican generated the image that Schori has given clear visibility to: We are inclusive, flexible, diverse. This was a credit until Schori made it a debit.
What then? Do we dare to say that we are NOT inclusive, that we have limitations on whom we invite into the church, whom we WANT in the congregation? In short, are there standards we abide by such that we expressly leave out those who are not willing to abide by them? Christ wasn’t particularly inclusive, after all, in spite of the sentimental and bathetic image that the sensitivity people have generated and nurtured.
Or are we going to honor the despised and the outcast, that is, are we going to establish our image based on our being pastoral to the marginal and the outre? If this is the case, then we can have no standards at all all, because any standard must exclude someone.
Is there a middle ground? Only if no one looks too closely, and our guiding principle in this case is “Fudge the complicated cases; we’ll get by, Don’t ask and don’t tell.” In fact a lot of life runs on this principle, doesn’t it? Engineers use to call this approach to problem solving “good-enough electronics.” Pragmatically, a good American approach, but it’s hard to have a substantial set of core doctrine.
In short, we can get by with “If your good with the Great Principle and the Second, which is like unto it,” the rest is gingerbread on the eaves.
Now, someone, somewhere, must make a decision. Push has come to shove. Larry
Thank you William Witt for the interesting dichotomy. I suspect that there is a lot of merit to your paradigm.
Pageantmaster, I couldn’t agree more. As the Apostle says, we join the Church by baptism. And last I knew (at least since St Augustine) the baptisms of all orthodox Christians are valid.
The day the Anglican communion departs from the Via Media is the day I will no longer be an Anglican (I care not whether it departs to the so-called protestant or so-called catholic side).
Good heavens, Dr. Witt: all of that in ONE semester? I’m not sure I read that much in three theology classes. Of course, that was all more than 20 years ago.
And I’d been hearing how higher education had gone to hell in a handbasket. 🙂
Thanks to all, esp. Pageantmaster, Justin, Bernini, and Larry Morse. Pageantmaster, I think that in one sense the Articles you quoted would also not be disputed too strenuously by many serious RC theologians. They would say that everything they believe can be proven from, or logically deduced from, Scriputre, or can at least be justified by it. That Article does not hold to a “Sola Scriptura” doctrine that says that we cannot believe anything that is not specifically or verbatim laid out in Scripture. I don’t think, though that the 39 Articles should be given any reverence or authority approaching that we whould give to the Creeds or the older traditions of the church. They really should be just historical documents, a snapshot of the attempt to resolve controversies in the CofE at a certain time. Both Catholics and Protestants have made of them somewhat a “wax nose” to justify various positions. I agree with Justin that some Protestant Doctrines such as Justification by Faith Alone, rejection of the Apostolic ministry, expecially the sacrificing priesthood, denial of an objective
Real Presence, shold not be part of any kind of “catholic” (even small “c”) reunion. Bernini, I agree that a Catholic doctrine of the eucharist must prevail, and that one’s view of the eucharist is a good clue as to whether one is really Protestant or Catholic. I would term it somewhat differently than you did, though. Is there an objective Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament? Is it a real connection or re-entering into Christ’s Sacrifice, or not, and does it require a priestly ministry for its completenes? I would bet that these dinds of questions are ones that are more important in the minds of RC quthorities than the Reasserter/Reappraiser disputes in TEC and the rest of Anglicanism. Though once again WO is an important issue in discussion of the Apostolic Ministry. Thx. all
Thanks Rob k – a very interesting point you make about RC theologians and scripture. One always assumes that it was the Anglican and Protestant churches which reformed and that is to assume that the Roman Catholic church did not. I am no expert but it seems to me that ‘reformed’ thinking has also influenced the direction of the Roman Catholic Church. Reading the current Pope I have been struck by how close his understanding of scriptural authority is to the reformed position.
Of course the Articles do not have the same authority as the Scriptures but they are perhaps an accurate statement of the doctrine of the Church of England and so more than a snapshot of 16th Century thinking.
As you say they deal with those things necessary or essential to salvation and are not generally exclusive of other matters or controversies with which they do not deal.
I see matters relating to the Communion or Eucharist as less of an either/or but rather a continuum. I believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but do not go as far as transubstantiation. However I respect the enormous respect for the elements which those who do have for them. For me at the evangelical end, the more anglo-catholic tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition are part of the depth of our Church, both the CofE and the Church universal; so when Cardinal Kaspar talks of choosing between Catholic or Protestant [which I have taken to mean reformed] then to me I see ripping the theological guts out of our tradition as Anglicans; without the catholic we would be like baptists; without the Reformed we would be like the Roman Catholic Church before Trent. Like justinmartyr, I am not sure that I would be, or understand being, an Anglican.
I think Cardinal Kaspar has a very good point however if it is limited to Church governance. Are we as Anglicans to proceed down the anti-authoritarian structures of some Protestant churches accepting autonomy for each province to do what it pleases, persecute whom it wishes and behave in manners which are frankly un-Christian; or are we to reassert catholic order where each of us and each province accepts a responsibility to the Church catholic including the need to consult, wait on each other and only to change doctrine when other parts of the the Communion and Church catholic are in agreement and for that reason prepared to accept our ministry and doctrinal acceptability?
Pageantmaster, in America I do not see how any other approach will have a long life, that is, the an enduring American church will make its peace with and adjust to American Anti-authoritarianism. I will say again that what the Anglican church in America is clear core doctrine, for this supranational establishment will take the place of authoritanianism while it will give the church a do-your-own-thing-eotomy – which we desperately need. This core doctrine has to be like the rules we need for raising children: simple, clear, few, and incontrovertible and rigorously maintained. That is to say, as to inclusiveness, the church now says clearly, “If you examine these rules and practices and they are not yours, don’t come to our church.” My question to you is: if you can say the Great Commandment and its concomitant with heartfelt belief, must you also believe in your own resurrection? Or is that initial belief sufficient unto the day thereof? Larry
I guess I would hope for a reformation that, rather than simply attempting to correct Roman theological problems, would return Anglicanism to its Orthodox roots — i.e., the Church of the first millennium.
How myopic can someone be to see that none of the churches, least of all the Roman and Eastern Churches are the churches “of the first millenium?” When Rome is not criticizing Anglicanism for its “reforms,” it is adding previously unconceivable layers of tradition to its infrastructure. And Orthodoxy? It astounds me what creepy bedfellows it succeeds in finding as it becomes the national fascist ecclesia of whatever state it occupies. First century Christians would have been astounded to see the Russian Orthodox Church LEADING the push to persecute and harass pentecostals, baptists, and other evil foreign sects. And this is, of course, when the Orthodox fragments are not fighting over their fiefdoms: why, after hundreds of years of “mission oversight” do we have a set of ethnic bantustans instead of an American Orthodox Church bearing witness to the one “visible, undivided Church?”
Yes, yes, Anglicans have their problems. The Romans and Orthodox sin in trying to remove our splinter with their big logs intact. [End rant.] It’s easy to point fault at each other’s church while ignoring the deficiencies of our own. The trouble is that when we do we are the only ones who believe our lies. The others aren’t in the least fooled.
I agree with those who believe that Anglicanism should return its Orthodox roots. However, Anglicanism should return only in theology, not necessarily in practice. While I agree with much of Orthodox doctrine, their emphasis on worshipping as believers did in the first millennium is stagnant. Worship styles and music must change and local churches should have the freedom to make those changes. Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and most liturgical churches for that matter will never make large inroads in the United States because their worship is not culturally relevant. The number one Christian tradition in the US is Roman Catholicsim. However, that is only because of the large number of immigrants from Catholic countries and their descendants continuing the “tradition†of being Catholic. Also, it appears that Orthodoxy is growing in America. However, it’s growing like most conservative liturgical churches. Most of their growth is coming from people who are already believers seeking a place of refuge from liberal churches. It’s simply musical chairs. True growth is unbaptized unbelievers (yes, you can be baptized and be an unbeliever) becoming believers. What is great about Anglicanism is that we should be and can be reformed Catholicism and/or reformed Orthodoxy. The Roman church has MANY doctrinal errors and we MUST remain separated from them. Eastern Orthodoxy has remained pretty theologically faithful to apostolic teaching; however there is the very serious issue of veneration of icons and prayers to the dead. Many consider this idolatry and personally, I agree. This is why ecumenism is a very bad idea. There can be no unity without unity of faith and that is unity in the apostolic faith. Only when the Roman and Orthodox churches change their erroneous doctrines, should we consider reuniting.
To answer the question of what Anglicanism should do, we should return to TRUE Catholicism and Orthodoxy in faith and practice. That means maintaining apostolic tradition yet being culturally relevant. So, choose letter (D) ‘none of the above.’
-Vincent
Ah, the red herrings! justinmartyr, have you convinced yourself that because some Orthodox bishops have failed to be perfect, you can ignore the teachings which the Orthodox Church has preserved throughout centuries of intense persecution? Do you feel free to continue to live apart from those log-burdened churches, and keep doing theology however it seems right to your local community, without the encumbrance of all that history? I would just point out that the Orthodox Church does not affirm church/state encumbrances, nor does she consider the unfortunate jurisidictional situation in America to be normative. I would also point out that despite the jurisidictional problems here, all Orthodox Christians are in communion with one another and that Orthodox Christians from all the parishes in each geographic area worship together as one body at least once a year.
Vincent, I think you’re on the right track, and I also truly hope Anglicanism will return to Orthodox theology. And Orthodox Christians are not averse to new [i]styles[/i] of music, they mostly just won’t allow watered down or heretical _content_ in liturgy. The entrance of the Evangelical Orthodox Church into Orthodoxy is a good example of this. An Orthodox priest and seminary professor was sent to evaluate their worship, and reported back enthusiastically that they had written new settings for the hymnography, and that he had no problem with inclusion of western hymns that were not heterodox.
I would point out that “praying” to departed saints is an ancient practice (they’re not dead; they’re alive in Christ), and that veneration of icons was affirmed by the whole church at the seventh ecumenical council.
There is often danger when someone wants to return to Orthodoxy, but won’t relinquish his right to decide what is and is not Orthodox.
If I had to choose between a theologically unsound church and a church whose patriarchs did nothing while bishops actively jailed and robbed other Christians, hell, yeah, I’d choose the unsound church! At least in that Church my family would survive. So, no don’t come with the pathetic tale that your church may be actively thuggish but theologically superior. The apostle James would laugh in your face.
Perfect systems work perfectly. Yours doesn’t and isn’t.
My point, if you cared to consider it is that your Church is abysmally deficient, as is Anglicanism, and as is Romanism. We are all in need of a savior. I still see no sign of you acknowledging the splinter in your collective eye, less still an attempt to remove it before pooh-poohing the potholes in the Via Media.
I would just point out that the Orthodox Church does not affirm church/state encumbrances
Nice one. Who then is the one visible, indivisible Orthodox Church, if not the Bishops and Patriarchs? The bishops who jail and rob other Christians, or the patriarchs who do nothing about it?
“Where the Bishop is, there is the Church,” surely?
In case I was unclear, I certainly acknowledge the fallibility and imperfections — splinters, logs, whatever — of bishops and patriarchs in the Orthodox Church.
The Church consists of bishops, priests, deacons and laity. Indeed, where they are (the latter in submission to the former), there is the Church.
I’m not aware of Orthodox bishops jailing and robbing other Christians, but I wouldn’t leave my bishop because another bishop seems to be getting away with such behavior. I believe you’re exaggerating the situation in Russia, and I would guess that both sides are guilty of un-Christian behavior there. But if I left any church where discipline is not perfectly enforced, I wouldn’t even be in communion with myself.
It often comes back to the question, is there one Church, whose conciliar teachings are reliable and in whose life we are called to participate, or are we free to join any schismatic organization whose teachings match our own preferences?
FWIW, I’m not (yet) a member of the Orthodox Church.
I believe you’re exaggerating the situation in Russia, and I would guess that both sides are guilty of un-Christian behavior there.
Decide for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/world/europe/24church.html
But if I left any church where discipline is not perfectly enforced, I wouldn’t even be in communion with myself.
Exactly. I made the point simply to show that the Orthodox Church is no less practically deficient than Rome or the Anglican Church.
It often comes back to the question, is there one Church, whose conciliar teachings are reliable and in whose life we are called to participate, or are we free to join any schismatic organization whose teachings match our own preferences?
“Teachings that match our own preferences?” Where those “preferences” do not break with Scripture backed by contextual early tradition, I see no problem. Do you?
Also, it’s funny that you accuse the Anglicans of attending preferentially. I’m wonder if all of the Greeks who attend the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Russians who attend the Moscow prelature do so because it is the burden Christ requires them to carry?
I have read the NY Times article; I see property disputes where church officials seem to be playing an improper role, but no one being jailed. So yes, I think you’ve exaggerated.
Who gets to decide if your “preferences” break with Scripture — or more properly, the historic teachings of the Church?
One of the teachings of the Church is that it is One, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I believe the Church’s teaching on the Church’s oneness is not compatible with Luther’s notion of oneness. It’s a perilous situation when those who have left the Church presume to have the right to decide which teachings and practices are core and which are optional, or even which are right and which are wrong. That is the situation that every non-Orthodox person finds himself in. Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses all believe in the authority of Scripture, but they’re all disconnected from the historic Church, and their interpretations of Scripture have been renounced by the historic Church.
Isn’t the Evangelical Orthodox Church the church of Peter Gilquist? Great man!
The point I was trying to get across is the need of fluidity in terms of the church’s mission and outreach. Orthodoxy will have a hard time reaching out to minority communities (African Americans, for instance). Orthodoxy style of worship and evangelism isn’t culturally relevant for African Americans or most Americans for that matter. Currently, Anglicanism has a better opportunity at evangelizing minority groups than Rome or Orthodoxy. However, if Orthodoxy stresses the African roots of Orthodoxy, that Orthodoxy was the religion of Christians in Africa AND create missions that are culturally relevant, Orthodoxy would see a sizable number of African American converts.
[i] I would point out that “praying†to departed saints is an ancient practice (they’re not dead; they’re alive in Christ), and that veneration of icons was affirmed by the whole church at the seventh ecumenical council. [/i]
I have heard the all the arguments. Where in the Scriptures (including the deutrocanonical writings) or the earliest part of Church history can you show Christians offering prayers TO departed saints? Also, were can you show that the pre-Nicene Church had icons and venerated them. In fact, I can should you quotes from Cyprian, Tertullian, and Irenaeus that speaks against these practices.
Anglicanism, rightly practiced, is the most authentic form of biblical Christianity, IMHO.
-Vincent
#23:
[i] I believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but do not go as far as transubstantiation.[/i]
I ask this as an honest inquiry: if Christ is really present in the Eucharist, why draw a line before transubstantiation? What benefit or improvement of sacramental efficacy does consubstantiation offer that transubstantiation does not?
Hi Vincent; yes, Peter Gillquist was part of the Evangelical Orthodox Church. His book, [i]Becoming Orthodox[/i], is worth reading.
I won’t bore you with the arguments about invoking the saints or venerating icons, except to point out that I believe you find the former in the catacombs and since the latter was resolved at the seventh ecumenical council, any objections by Cyprian, et al. must be considered in that light.
Orthodoxy, rightly practiced, is the most authentic form of apostolic Christianity, IMHO.
The slogan I grew up with in PECUSA was
Catholic for all the truths of God,
Protestant against all the errors of man.
Recognizing errors is an on-going challenge, but is always needed under God’s guidance. Our Lord is perfect, but we members are the Fallen Race, always vulnerable to errors. There is no perfect polity for our organization(s).
It’s a perilous situation when those who have left the Church presume to have the right to decide which teachings and practices are core and which are optional, or even which are right and which are wrong.
Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit speaks directly to use through our individual consciences. It’s a perilous situation when we abdicate the responsibility to determine right from wrong. Bravo to Martin Luther for doing what he knew to be right. May many follow in his footsteps.
Good advice, Marcia.
It’s a perilous situation when we abdicate the responsibility to determine right from wrong.
So, justinmartyr, how do you know you aren’t really just worshiping yourself, although you wrap it up in God and Jesus talk? Certainly, the Holy Spirit speaks to each of us, but does that mean that I reserve to myself all determination of right and wrong as I, the omniscient One. History is littered with individuals, doctrines, and sects that “proved” from the scriptures whatever their pet project might be. Do you think that your pure heart and mind will discern truly the Truth?
As my church history professor (a protestant) said: the real issue is who says what the Word of God is. Now, it seems to me that you are saying: I will say what the Word of God is, because the Holy Spirit speaks to me. And, that, friend, is not Christianity, but a profound idolatry.
Certainly, the Holy Spirit speaks to each of us, but does that mean that I reserve to myself all determination of right and wrong as I, the omniscient One.
Omniscient One? Putting words in my mouth?
But does that mean that I reserve to myself all determination of right and wrong
If I “reserve to myself” or give up the determination of right and wrong, it must follow that I initially had it. God has given us five senses and a conscience. Using those talents is anything but idolatry. It is through these elements alone that we come to ANY determination of truth. So yes, even you Eastern and Roman Christians use your individual, idolatrous faculties to determine right from wrong. The simple act of putting your trust in the One True Church means that you have decided which is the right Church. And like it or not, you’re using that idolatrous individuality to determine it.
So, yes, you’re guilty as I’m charged.
justinmartyr
You said what you said; I didn’t say what you said I said.
Of course, I, as a Catholic Christian, use my conscience (I hope, my whole being), to find God’s will for my life and live it out. Nothing idolatrous there. Ah, but when I want to determine doctrine, then I overstep myself. Well, not precisely. If I am theologically inclined, my studies may lead me to hold a particular belief. My Catholic duty is to “think with the Church” on matters theological, and accept the magisterial teaching authority that connects my doctrine to the whole doctrine of the Church. Or correct it. Now, I can priss and prance and demand my own way. I can say
[blockquote]Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit speaks directly to use through our individual consciences. It’s a perilous situation when we abdicate the responsibility to determine right from wrong. [/blockquote]
and go on my way teaching what I, personally, think is correct. Again, history is littered with these self-driven narcissists and their sects. Each a little god.
Thank you for illustrating, once again, the old saw that “it’s either the pope of Rome or every man a pope”. I think that’s Chesterton, but maybe not.
And you never did answer my question: how do you know your private opinions aren’t just a reflection of your culture, your education, your parent’s and teacher’s influence, your fallen nature? How do you know that voice is the Holy Spirit and not your own voice. Or, God forbid, the voice of the one who choose to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven.
No. 23 – Pageantmaster – Thx. for getting back. I think Kasper has more in mind , re the ministry, than just what kind of church governance works best. So do I. Are our presbyters Protestant ministers or really Catholic priests? Is the Real Presence objective, i.e. is it brought about by the words and acts of a duly ordained minister? I don’t think that transubstantiation, whatever its merits as a theory, goes “any farther” than your belief in the Real Presence, as long as that belief is in an objective Real Presence.
And you never did answer my question: how do you know your private opinions aren’t just a reflection of your culture, your education, your parent’s and teacher’s influence, your fallen nature? How do you know that voice is the Holy Spirit and not your own voice. Or, God forbid, the voice of the one who choose to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven.
Not even you, good Roman Christian, believe this claptrap. If my private judgment is, as you put it, just as likely to be nonsense, devoid of all truth and from hell, why are you trying to persuade me of my error? We don’t persuade animals of wrong reasoning, we just force them to do what is good for them, don’t we?
No, you are trying to persuade me of the error of my ways because you believe in my ability to discern truth from falsehood. Yes, our ability to judge is variable; to whom little is given, little will be required. But we all will be held accountable for what we are given. You may choose to blindly follow the church, but it is an choice based on individual, private judgment, nevertheless–in no way different from my decision-making process.
Thank you for illustrating, once again, the old saw that “it’s either the pope of Rome or every man a popeâ€.
I don’t see how this little cliche is of any use other than to imply that those with whom you disagree are stubborn, rebellious people? I submit to my priest who submits to his bishop. Even the lowliest protestant believes that he must submit to his minister. How does that make either him or me a pope?
#24 Larry Morse
Thanks – re
[i] “That is to say, as to inclusiveness, the church now says clearly, “If you examine these rules and practices and they are not yours, don’t come to our church.†My question to you is: if you can say the Great Commandment and its concomitant with heartfelt belief, must you also believe in your own resurrection? Or is that initial belief sufficient unto the day thereof? Larry”[/b]
I don’t believe that the Church should ever say “don’t come to our church” whatever the circumstances as I don’t believe that it is our church but Christ’s. The great commandment stands; as for the resurrection both of Christ and of ourselves, I have never really thought of whether a Christian would not believe in resurrection and eternal life as this is the great gift which we are promised John 3:10-16
How very sad to believe in God and Christ as his son and yet not to believe in the promise of resurrection, the final gift and proof of His love.
#43 Rob k and #35 Bernini
‘Real Presence’ and transubstantiation – I am afraid this comes into the category for me of ‘I don’t know’. I believe Christ is present always in church [as indeed everywhere] and in particular in the Eucharist; it is more than a reliving of his sacrifice. Taking the words of the command to share bread and wine together, Matthew 22:26-29 and the promise that [vs 28-29]
“This is my blood of the [new] covenant, which is poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it along with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Then I have no problem believing that Christ is present at and in the Eucharist. How, and whether there is transubstantiation of the elements, I don’t know and I am not sure that for me it matters; if others believe in somthing approaching transubstantiation does not cause me a problem but I am personally sceptical.
If you read what the Articles of Religion say on the subject they state that “Transubstantiation [or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine] in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ: but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occassion to many superstitions” [Full text of Article XXVIII below]
I take this to mean transubstantiation cannot be proved by scripture; although the articles do not expressly exclude it, they do issue a number of warnings against the doctrine that it appears to contradict the plain words of scripture and that it risks giving rise to other superstitions.
[blockquote]NB Full text of Article XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation [or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine] in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ: but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and have given occassion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped.[/blockquote]
Frankly that is a good enough explanation for me, that Christ is received in the Eucharist by Faith, however if anyone else wishes to believe more or finds it helpful to lift up, carry about [although I might draw the line at worshipping] the elements it does not cause me a problem, indeed I have found it helpful to experience the deep respect and enormous awe at the Eucharist and a contemplation of the huge extent of God’s love and Christ’s sacrifice which is properly implied in the Anglo-Catholic tradition and liturgy which is sometimes missed at the more evangelical end.
So there I am and we are – catholic AND reformed!
I see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence]Wikipedia[/url] has an interesting series of articles on the Real Presence and the views of the various denominations; they appear to vary greatly even within denominations although as usual Anglicans appear to have one of the broadest ranges’
[i]I submit to my priest who submits to his bishop.[/i]
Well, that’s Christianity, at least, far different from
[blockquote]It’s a perilous situation when we abdicate the responsibility to determine right from wrong. [/blockquote]
The operant word is “determine”.
[blockquote]Even the lowliest protestant believes that he must submit to his minister. [/blockquote]
Well, that’s not necessarily true, as I’ve known a few…
and, again, it’s not what you posted before. What you posted was an individualism that reserves judgment to the almighty Self.
As for your first paragraphs, I leave you to your bile, noting only you embarrass your religion with it. I suggest that, before you get out of college, you take a logic course. You might also study some Church History.
I meant to say that I’m sorry I identified myself as a Catholic. It’s been fun watching an Anglican/Orthodox, rather than Anglican/Catholic, tussle. Oh, well…
I knew this topic was controversial with Anglicans, but the response of this post has exceeded my expectations.
Much of the difficulty I see here is tied up in the whole issue of the nature of authority in Christian churches, which I discussed in my own piece [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=417]Authority in Evangelical Churches[/url].
Words Matter, I couldn’t care whether you are “Catholic” or “Orthodox.” Those titles mean little to me. I did not mean to vent bile, and if you re-read my “earlier passages” you’ll see that I asked a simple question: How did you decide the Truth of the Church? My offer is that you used the same “idolatrous”, “individualist” faculties I use.
You told me to attend a logic course while at college. I won’t stoop so low as to defend my educational credentials, but I will ask you, if I am to use any sort of logic, and, if, as you say, I am just as likely to be deluded by the devil in my analyses of truth, then what’s the point? Either I can or can’t determine the truth of a statement by looking at the facts. Which is it?
ooookay…deep breath. Deeeeeeeeeep breath….
After all these years on the internet, I have yet to learn how to have a conversation with someone who can’t (or won’t) respond to what I actually wrote.
Of course, I never called the faculties “idolatrousâ€, “individualistâ€, or any such. Nor did I say that you are just as likely to be deluded by the devil (in fact, I think we are most likely to be deluded by our own selves, with the devil assisting). The issue isn’t your delusions at all.
I asked how, based on your original statement (before you amended it with submission to your priest and bishop), you know that it’s the Holy Spirit you are hearing? Here is exactly what I said:
[blockquote] Certainly, the Holy Spirit speaks to each of us, but does that mean that I reserve to myself all determination of right and wrong[/blockquote]
The salient question, then, is what my old Church History professor said: Who says what the Word of God is?
Words Matter, you actually did call my determination of the truth using the faculties I have been given “idolatrous”, numerous times. Read back over your posts. “And, that, friend, is not Christianity, but a profound idolatry.” But who cares about he said/she said?
You asked how I determine whether I am “hearing” the Holy Spirit. And I asked you how you know that the Roman Church is the One true Catholic Church. Apparently you avoided the question as skillfully as I purportedly avoided yours…
My answer is, that i determine that I am indeed “hearing” the Spirit of Truth when I read the Bible, in the same way that you determined that the Roman Church speaks truth. By examining the message, and comparing it to what I already know to be true: I use my God-given and God-guided mental faculties to determine the validity of the message.
You ask me how I know that I am not being deceived in my interpretation. I ask you, how do you know that you are not being likewise deceived in your determination of the validity of the Church? We stand or fall together. On the grace of God.
justinmartyr,
Here are some things I actually wrote:
[blockquote]Certainly, the Holy Spirit speaks to each of us,
I, as a Catholic Christian, use my conscience (I hope, my whole being), to find God’s will for my life and live it out. Nothing idolatrous there.
The operant word is “determineâ€.[/blockquote]
Obviously, the profound idolatry isn’t the faculty of hearing the Spirit, but of making oneself the judge of whether it’s the Spirit of God, your own soul, or the spirit of our enemy. That, whether you indulge it or not, seems to me an idolatry more profound than that of any (purported) statue-worshiping by Catholics.
So your answer to the question:
[i]who says what the word of God is?[/i]
would be, “I do”, when
[blockquote]I read the Bible…by examining the message, and comparing it to [b]what I already know to be true[/b]: I use my God-given and God-guided mental faculties to determine the validity of the message.[/blockquote]
Well, I certainly hope your faculties are “God-guided”, but that’s the issue, isn’t it. “What I already know to be true”? That’s interesting and certainly consistent with the protestantism in which I was raised.
If I am misunderstanding you, then here’s your chance to say so, and to answer just who does say what the Word of God is saying.
As to how I came to believe the Catholic Church is that Church founded by Jesus through the apostles, it was a long process that involved a developing sacramental worldview (over 16 years as an Episcopalian), culminating in coursework at the Anglican School of Theology in Dallas, where an Episcopalian Church History professor (one of the best teachers I ever had), following a Baptist historian’s text, showed me that “Catholic” simply means to be in Communion with Peter, the chief apostle. I could do all sorts of scripture and history behind that, but this is probably a waste of time and you can, I assume, google as well as I can. At any rate, after a long review of scripture, history, and a study of the actual doctrines of the Catholic Faith (as opposed to protestant statements of those beliefs), I presented all of that to a priest/monk who was giving me spiritual direction, and he received me into the Catholic Church.
Now, did I use a rational process of coming to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ on earth? Yes, I certainly did, and, of course, I never said that such a process was “idolatrous”. And, that process connected me with the community that has existed for 2000 years, from Jesus on down to today.
It’s really a question of trust. I trust that Jesus speaks through his body, the Church, and that Church is co-terminus with the Catholic Church (I’m leaving aside the question of Orthodoxy, here). As a part of that Church, I may be the instrument through whom Jesus speaks, but I cannot presume that what I say is the word of God. I submit it to the body, and, at the end of the day, I trust that God speaks in the community of his Body, which is a family, not a collection of competing individuals. So, you see, the normal rhetoric of the Individual vs. the Group, simply doesn’t apply. Of course, I’m not a theologian, so there’s very little practical implications here for doctrine. But God may speak to me about my own life and the part that I play in my local community of parish and (maybe) diocese and within that local community I take the place God has given me.
Pageantmaster, Re no. 45. – I agree that the eucharist is more than a “reliving” of Christ’s sacrifice – the liturgy of the words is certainly an integral part of it. But it’s because the eucharist brings us back into the sacrifice, where it is re-presented, that makes communion, both present and over time with the whole church, possible. As to transubstantiation, that theory of the presence of Christ’s
Body and Blood in the mass does not intensify any emphasis on the reality of that Presence in the species. My gues is that Trent made it an article of faith as an attempt to defend it against misrepresentations current in the Protestant world. I think that Article 28 is simply off-base in declaring it repugnant to Scripture and unprovable therefrom. It is simply a way of explaining the real and objective presence of His Body and Blood, which is, no one should argue, supported by Scripture. The Presence of His Body and Blood, by the way, according to Transubstantiation, is real, but in a non-natural, non-carnal, but sacramental way, which has been overlooked in Protestant polemics, sometimes by those whoI’m sure, knew better.