1. The .. experience [in the Episcopal Church] was primarily one of inward-looking mediation and reconcilliation attempts from day one, and all along Lipscomb was less and less able to be at peace about what he was doing. First, ECUSA continually took positions which refuted sound moral theology. Secondly, the ‘gifts’ of catholicity that Lipscomb had hoped to infuse into ECUSA were simply not wanted. And, he was just so tired of the jargon which carefully differentiated ‘Anglicanism’ from ECUSA, and shopped for bishops; to have such a misguided sense of boundaries in the Church is not ‘catholic’ at all.
2. The unity which John 17 calls for is a unity for the purpose of a united mission. This had become impossible in ECUSA. And, ECUSA’s brand of ecumenism apart from truth could never produce any sense of unity at all; added to that is the fact that the English Reformation was about rebellion from the outset, the quest for unity becomes futile. In other words, the Anglican crisis is 500 years old….
Bp. Lipscomb’s conversion to the RCC still puzzles me.
ECUSA is bad enough to leave. But if it’s bad enough to leave, then it’s also bad enough to make a ruckus about. That’s right, a RUCKUS!
A bishop takes vows to defend the faith and refute heresy. Bishops Duncan and Iker do it. Bp. Lipscomb certainly has the intellect to have done it magnificently. But if Bp. Lipscomb was so troubled about ECUSA, why wasn’t he out there with his stalwart colleagues day after day, week after week?
Why let a handful of orthodox bishops take all the bullets? And then turn around and wash your hands of the entire Anglican Communion?
Yes, Bp. Lipscomb should follow his conscience. So should we all. But what was his conscience saying over the past decade?
This story doesn’t add up.
Bishop Lipscomb served for a time as a member of the General Board of Examining Chaplians when I was serving on the staff of the Board. There is a deep division not often discussed among Anglican Catholics. Some of us have an old-fashioned High Church or Prayer Book Catholic understanding that the Church of Rome has seriously erred in requiring belief in teachings not found in or proved from Holy Scripture. Others do not have this understanding. I respect Bishop Lipscomb’s convictions and if he is able in good conscience to accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church I hope that church will be able to use his many gifts in ministry. I am not able to accept those teachings. I am also not convinced that errors in moral theology are church-dividing and I remain a priest of the Episcopal Church. Others may differ.
Father, an error in moral theology ends up meaning that one teaches that sin is right, that right is sin, or both.
I’m not sure how “…requiring belief in teachings not found in or proved from Holy Scripture” so grossly exceeds that, that only the latter warrants schism.
The comments are excellent. I agree that the impulse to abandon ship for Rome without a RUCKUS by an Anglican bishop is ironic at best. It really is quite individualistic (protestant) behavior.
The matter of two types of Anglican Catholics is an excellent interpretation of reality. There remains Church dividing error.
Ed’s need is to grasp the reality of this. One can have what I call “the on balance” argument. It goes, “Well, Rome has some unsound doctrine, but on balance the greater authority structure for dealing with the wanderers from sound teaching is to be preferred. There’s two problems with this. 1) Rome won’t tolerate an “on balance” interpretation. 2) They too have wandered.
Re: #4
“There’s two problems with this. 1) Rome won’t tolerate an “on balance†interpretation. 2) They too have wandered.”
As a Catholic, I accept #1 and reject #2. However, inasmuch as each and every convert to the Catholic Church had to declare “I accept and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God” (and not, as it is sometimes cited “I accept and profess everything to be revealed by God that the Catholic Church teaches”) noone should become Catholic — or, for the same reason, Orthodox — or should be accepted into the Church who holds an “on balance” view or who believes that the Catholic Church “has wandered” (I presume “from the truth”).
Irenaeus, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Bishop Lipscomb allowed his parishes to call strikingly less-than-conservative clergy and was generally a weak “leader.” Now he’s gone.
I don’t think this for all the bishops or clergy who leave for Rome [or someplace else] claiming conscience. But for some I get the sense that it’s a choice based on “I really don’t want to fight, so show me some safe shores where I can live out my life in peace.”
That’s not a good reason for conversion.
Also, Lipscomb was an eager promoter of XX (that practice the mention of which seems to be regarded, on some blogs at least, as perpetually off-topic) while Bp. of SW Fla., just as his former Episcopal and now Catholic confrere Daniel Herzog was in Albany, and it is strange to me that neither of them have seen fit to voice their “recantation” on that particular matter since they “crossed over.” Graham Leonard has certainly recanted his one-time “ordinations” of numerous “female deacons,” and I think that he set a good precedent in so doing.
#5: Thank you, Dr. Tighe, for the integrity of this comment. It is because I cannot lie about my absolute submission to every RCC doctrinal absolute (see “papal infallibility”, which, even when nuanced ’til the cows come home, still invests in the Bishop of Rome an authority claimed by Rome, but not recognized by the whole Church…eg. The Orthodox) that I remain what I am: an Anglican longing for as much organic connection to both the Orthodox and the RCC as possible.
I agree with Irenaeus and Sarah, as far as it goes. But, ignoring the water over the bridge, Lipscomb’s analysis with respect to Anglicanism is, I’m sorry to say, dead-on. Anglicanism is not only inherently a cafeteria approach to Christianity, but that’s hailed as a positive by its defenders. Maybe, in some respects, it is, but the unity in Christ that the Fathers always spoke of was unity in the Faith. It’s one thing to presume some unspecified “mere Christianity” to which we all subscribe, but ECUSA more or less puts the lie to that (as I think it’s hardly questionable it’s sunk below any conceivable doctrinal “floor” most of us would propose), and now the See’s province is probably not even going to recognize holy orders within itself. At some point, the word “farce” comes to mind and stays there, despite one’s best efforts to ignore it.
#4: A confident, un-nuanced assertion that Rome has wandered can only stand, I suggest, if one if unclear on exactly what Rome claims. Revealed religion w/o authority is a logical impossibility. Assuming one believes that Christianity is a revealed religion (and disagreement on this issue might might be the basis of the divisions b/n reasserters and reappraisers), it behooves us to look very carefully at how the various claims of authority are presented. As I read Rome’s claims, the messiness and ambiguity are fully acknowledged. But it seems to have stayed the essential course in a way that even a non-believer would have to call remarkable.
When I wrote this in #5 above:
“As a Catholic, I accept #1 and reject #2. However, inasmuch as each and every convert to the Catholic Church had to declare “I accept and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God†(and not, as it is sometimes cited “I accept and profess everything to be revealed by God that the Catholic Church teaches”) noone should become Catholic—or, for the same reason, Orthodox—or should be accepted into the Church who holds an “on balance†view or who believes that the Catholic Church “has wandered†(I presume “from the truth”).”
I would have been more comprehensible had I contrasted:
“I accept and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God†(what is required) with “I accept and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches is revealed by God” (the misconception).
“I accept and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by Godâ€
The question is where is the definitive teaching of the RCC? Is it in the new Catechism (only)? Do we include the documants of Trent? What happens if they differ? Do we believe that God has taught two different things at different times? As a RC friend of mine says “I can doubt many things because I was born, baptised and confirmed a RC but you must believe everything before you join!”
The saddest legacy of the Protestant revolt is that it set up fracturing as the solution to theological, moral, and institutional error. The longing to return to some golden age of primitive purity is “a fawning traitor” of the heart. It leads to the weedy thicket of denominationalism, always branching into discordant claims of orthodoxy. I wonder if the present woes of Anglicanism specifically, and Protestantism generally, have at their heart the judgment of the household of God that Peter speaks of in his first epistle?
“As I read Rome’s claims, the messiness and ambiguity are fully acknowledged. But it seems to have stayed the essential course in a way that even a non-believer would have to call remarkable.”
#10 Isn’t this the “on balance” argument?
#2. TomRightmyer wrote:
Of course the fact of the matter is that “errors in moral theology” (and general theology as well) aredividing Anglicans in the U.S. and throughout the world.
#14 – By “messiness” I mean the kind of clamor and controversy one had to get through, for example, to clarify the Christological issues raised in the 4th and 5th centuries. By “ambiguity” I mean the fact that those who insist that the exact wording of this or that document or council remains immutable for all time are often going to be taken by surprise, and even if a theological formulation can be agreed upon and remain unassailable across the centuries, there is still the fact that these are only shadows and symbols of the truth. It seems God wants us to muddle through to a certain degree — might have something to do with relying on a relationship w/ Him in faith.
The Church is divided and the Mother of us all is trying to bring us back together under the banner of Christ. I believe the rebellion that started the division and the contribution we made from the Anglican point of view is just that: rebellion. It doesn’t lead us to unity but witness all of the division. Rome is inviting a unity that Christ himself proclaimed as our needed witness to his love. I give Bishop Lipscomb the benefit of the doubt, Sarah and Irenaus. Moving from what we are in Anglicanism is not easy. No one would say so especially those in Rome who are sensitive to the pain of leaving an ecclesial body that has been family and hope. Rebellion has won, however, but worse, will not end. Yes, following every way of Rome is not easy. But when carefully studied (and not shielded,as I was in Seminary, from a thorough discussion), the Gospel is fully and I think properly defended in doctrine and faith. ECUSA/TEC and the Anglican Communion are not doing that with unity and never will. As the good Cardinal in the Vatican recently said, Anglicans need to decide whether they are protestant or Catholic. I think we’ve already decided.
“Give Bishop Lipscomb the benefit of the doubt†—Columcil [#17]
Columcil: I don’t question Bp. Lipscomb’s personal integrity. I sharply question his conduct as bishop.
Lipscomb swore to defend the faith and combat error. So what did he do during this “time of trial� As best I can tell, he made some learned but largely ineffectual protests. He may well have let revisionists entrench themselves in his diocese [cf. Sarah in #6]. He left an institutionalist successor, a company man disinclined to rock the boat.
But Lipscomb, fine Christian though he is, didn’t rock the boat either. He seems to have avoided major confrontation with ECUSA’s revisionist ruler. I don’t know why: conflict-aversion, naiveté, or something else. In any event, God calls Christians (and all the more so, call top Christian leaders) to rise above their own personal comfort, personal inclinations, and even personal weaknesses.
If ECUSA is bad enough to leave, then it’s bad enough to protest with vigor—even if protesting makes you uncomfortable or unpopular. If ECUSA and its allies are bad enough to make you leave the Anglican Communion, then you have all the more reason to speak out for as long as you remain diocesan bishop. This week’s lectionary readings from Ezekiel are instructive, notably Ezekiel 33:1-6 and 34:1-2, 7-10. (BTW, had Bp. Lipscomb stood firm while in office, as Bp. Herzog evidently did, I would not criticize him.)
It pains me to write as I have. But the stakes here go much higher than what we may think of one kindly and honorable retired bishop. We face a crisis as severe as any in ECUSA’s history. God does not call us to a milquetoast model of discipleship, nor does he call our bishops to a milquetoast model of episcopacy. As long as you hold a senior leadership position, you are accountable for what you do (or fail to do) with it. If you have been derelict in that duty, you do not purge that dereliction by going over to Rome once you leave office.
Regarding the time that John Lipscomb was bishop There are several facts missing in this discussion regarding him as a person. He contracted Parkinson’s Disease in 2002 and although he had few external symptoms (he would drop objects sometimes, but had few tremors) he had many sleepless nights due to medication imbalances. He experience incidents of “micro-sleep” where he literally fell asleep at the wheel for short periods of time and therefore could no longer drive for the last several years of his tenure. He lost most of the feeling in his fingers so that it was difficult to hold a paten any longer, and he also lost sensation in his legs as well. In 2004, after a trip to Africa to help in the Reconciliation effort in Rwanda, and a visit to other neighboring countries, he contracted malaria on top of the Parkinsons. He lost 28 pounds in 10 days. The combination of the two caused numerous neurological problems. These health problems made it difficult for him to continue to function at his best. On top of that, due to a decision of the HOB to place a 1 year moratorium on the election and consecration of new bishops, it delayed the election of his successor for a year at a time when his health situation was getting more critical. His last visitation happen a couple of weeks after Fr. Smith’s election as our new bishop to be. On the way home from the Church I had to bring him to the hospital emergency room. His body could go no further. After that his doctor ordered him on a medical leave of absence.
His passion was for reconciliation and he worked at that in the House of Bishops bringing together bishops from both sides of the aisle to find a way forward so that we could get to Lambeth. In the diocese he was known as a conservative, but was tolerant of the liberals faction (until they setup a “Via Media Chapter” here), so sometimes it appeared that he was sitting on the fence, which was not true.
It is sometimes easy to judge someone else when we don’t know the personal situation, and I’m certain that the judgements expressed represent our own frustrations. But I have the greatest respect for those who engage the office of bishop and take it seriously (which John Lipscomb did as best he could). The office has demands that few know or can appreciate.
GaryEC [#19]: Thank you for explaining the grievous health problems Bp. Lipscomb suffered during his later years in office. They are more serious than I had realized. At the same time, they do not necessarily refute the criticisms made here. Letting a “passion for reconciliation” set your agenda is a choice, particularly when faced with apostasy as grave and obdurate as that of ECUSA.
Dr. Tighe, I do not understand the difference in the “as” and “is” in your number 11 final sentence. Could you please explain?
Sorry, that should be “to be” and “as” in the final sentence of Number 11.
No, it should be “to be” and “is” in the final sentence of Number 11. I think you get my point.
garyec . . . I have a problem with two areas of your comment.
RE: “His passion was for reconciliation and he worked at that in the House of Bishops bringing together bishops from both sides of the aisle to find a way forward so that we could get to Lambeth.”
What on earth does that mean? “Reconciliation”? To what — gross heresy? Find “a way forward”? Where? The “way forward” is that the revisionists won their political battles and the conservatives have to determine what to do about it. For conservatives, that’s “the way forward” and it has precisely nothing to do with “reconciliation”,” ways forward” and for heaven’s sake, all of us trundling merrily to Lambet. Why on earth were his efforts about folks getting “to Lambeth”? Problem is — too many folks are going “to Lambeth” — that’s a bad thing, not a good thing. As a result, the Communion will further divide.
All that your comment demonstrates to me is that Bishop Lipscomb thought that the disagreements in the church were over non-important things that all of us needed to accept and move on, no matter how much “personally” he was opposed to it.
RE: “In the diocese he was known as a conservative, but was tolerant of the liberals faction . . . ”
“Tolerant”? Don’t you mean “allowed raving revisionists into the diocese?” Where’s the defending of the faith there?
And then he decides to convert to Rome?
Okay.
Whatever.
Sure would have been nice if, since he found it all so awful, he would have actually put up some sort of resistance that befitted finding it all so awful.
Re: #21-23,
The Catholic Church teaches many things. Some of them it reaches to be revealed by God (i.e., things that have been dogmatized by the Church on the basis if Scripture and Tradition), others it teaches to be probable or likely conclusions from that basis. “I accept and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God†means that what the Catholic Church asserts to be true, binding, taught definitively (i.e, that it is “irreformable” — cannot and will not ever be altered) is binding on the conscience and belief of the convert. “I accept and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches is revealed by God†means, by contrast, that everything that “is taught” in the Catholic Church, from a pope’s opinions on global warming, or the moral status of the Iraq War to what the parish priest might say in his sermon about “Protestant errors” or “follow your own conscience, whereever it might lead” is “revealed by God” — which is sheer nonsense.
Irenaeus, #18, I understand, I think, what you are saying. However, my question – mine, not yours – is whether we can have bishops that defend the faith when we are rebellious of that faith or worse, don’t know the faith. What I mean is that defending the faith in a rebellious fraction of the Church is not possible. Now, whether he was laudable in the way he handled himself, I cannot say. I truely cannot. But, because I am experiencing it, this terrible struggle, I can say it is VERY difficult to deal with the problem of leaving – when and how. For some it becomes nothing less than paralizing. There are many things to think about and many of them are practical. It’s very hard to admit you’ve really been on the wrong track all along, ie. I can’t defend this fraction any longer. Cardinal Newman’s Anglican Difficulties which I read last year has opened my eyes too wide now. And I can promise you, that book was never mentioned or argued against in my education. If it was, I probably wouldn’t be blogging with you right now.
But Sarah, (#24) isn’t it the root problem, that we aren’t reconciled with the Church? Liberals, conservatives, those in the middle: isn’t the basic problem that we don’t have a definitive teaching of the fatih? Yes, bits of it right, but lots of errors in force and in the making. Look at what we’ve done. Will we be the church if the conservatives win? Are we the church now that liberalism has taken the AC by the throat by two little fingers of the Communion known as TEC and ACC? No, we won’t be if conservativism wins and we aren’t now that the liberals are in control, is my answer. We are a mess and the good bishop, for all of his weaknesses and whatever strengths he has, knows this. Good for him! Pax vobiscum. Dominus vobiscum! Bishop Lipscomb!
Columcil [#26]: Many thanks for the clarification.
Note that raising a ruckus does not necessarily require standing for Anglican ecclesiology or distinctiveness. Christian leaders from Pope Benedict XVI to Albert Mohler have weighed in against the heresies of ECUSA’s ruling revisionists.
Irenaeus, thank you. I guess my own blood is thin or thick at the moment, which ever metaphor works best. I am struggling with those present arguments from Pope Benedict particularly. He speaks very clearly to my ears. Albert Mohler, too. I appreciate being able to “speak” but more thankful for listening and being listened to.
One more time (perhaps Dr. Tighe can answer)
Where is the definitive teaching of the RCC written down in full? Is Trent still believed “ipsisima verba” (sorry for the possible mis-spelling)
[b] From a Nov 22 2007 story in the Tampa Tribune: [/b]
[i] At this time, Lipscomb has no plans to assume any leadership roles in his new denomination.
“I’ll just be a pew-sitting Catholic,” he said with a laugh. [/i]
[b] From this story: [/b]
[i] Lipscomb is now waiting to become one of the almost 100 former Episcopalian clergy who have been received into the Catholic Church under the Pastoral Provision since 1980. [/i]
Lipscomb has left a lot of hurt people on his personal road of discovery and never really wanted to do the heavy lifting being asked of the traditional bishops – but he did want the trappings and respect and the pension. He’s a grand preacher, one of the best, but for me he has neither honor nor credibility.
#30, Eugene:
Simple answer: if Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium agree on a matter, you’re on solid ground. Simple answer, only.
Parenthetically, I fear that in responding to #4, Albany’s “Rome has wandered†comment, I’ve helped create a separate thread. But perhaps I can tie this back to Bp. Lipscomb.
Putting one’s finger on definitive teachings of the Catholic Church is not always as straightforward as some would like it to be. I believe God doesn’t want it to be that simple. Otherwise, there would be nothing for us to grow into. We would tend to idolize the statements themselves rather than the living relationship w/ God that can never be bounded by human language. It’s true that revisionists will use this very language to further their cause. That they might abuse this principle, however, doesn’t mean it’s not perfectly valid. Abusum non tolit usum.
The Catholic Church has difficulty w/ both Biblical literalists and with ultramontanists. Biblical literalists claim that what’s plainly written in Scripture speaks for itself. But they ignore the many contradictions in Scripture; some doctrines we now accept—such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the Christological dogmas—were not adequately stated in Scripture and had to be developed over time (see JH Newman’s _Essay on the Development of Doctrine_); etc. Similarly, Catholic ultramontanists (and they still exist) want pretty much the same certainty from every document that issues from the desk of the Pope. Vatican I said it doesn’t work that way.
The position of the Catholic Church, believe it or not, is generally to shy away from making definitive pronouncements. Chesterton uses a splendid allegory of people playing on a mountain cliff overlooking the sea. The church prefers to give her children room to “play†freely (see Huizinga’s _Homo Ludens_) in the Spirit and will set up a wall on this or that part of the cliff only if people get too close to the edge. (I would add that usually it’s a matter of reminding people that the wall is already there, so climbing over it would not be advisable!) In a number of cases, Rome’s hand was forced, so to speak, b/c controversy had become so divisive. (Only two pronouncements have been made as explicitly infallible statements, btw.)
What Christianity is going through now is the development of doctrine on issues related to sexuality. In the 4th and 5th centuries we had controversies over orthodoxy. Now we’re facing controversies over orthopraxis. Pointing to the plain words of Scripture does not settle the matter if one argues that what was clearly proscribed there (e.g., temple prostitution) is not the same thing as a loving, committed relationship. And pointing to longstanding tradition does not settle the matter if one argues that the Church was too intertwined with civic rulers (who were perhaps homophobic or needed to encourage procreation for the good of the state), that the matter was never declared definitively by an oecumenical council (about which I’m not certain), etc. For a number of reasons, I do not believe these arguments will hold up. But these and other arguments are often made by intelligent people who truly strive to discern the will of God
This brings me back to Bp. Lipscomb. It’s possible that his notion of reconciliation was that we simply do not yet have the clarity on these issues that both sides often claim and that, like it or not, we all have to go through this messy business together.
monksgate – No. 32 – Thanks for this wise and well expressed post.
Dr. Tighe, thank you for that explanation in number 25. The problem as I see it with that distinction is that if the pope were to wake up tomorrow morning and make a pronouncement “ex cathedra” on, say, global warming, I would be required to place that position, no matter what it was, into the first category you mention. This is always the critical problem with attempting to locate and “ground” truth on an authoritarian institutional foundation.
Calvinius, the hypothetical case you mention (#34) assumes, I think, that the pope can speak _ex cathedra_ w/o reference to scripture, tradition, and the magisterium of the church (which includes the college of bishops and, I would argue, the sensum fidei). He can’t. There are no new revelations since the time of the apostles. Developments, yes. But the very word, “development,” conveys the sense of fuller explanations of what is already there. If you can acclimate yourself to the silver-veined Victorian prose of Newman, I enthusiastically recommend that you read his splendid _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_. Besides, since it looks as though he’s soon to be raised to the status of Blessed, his works might soon gain a greater popularity. Might as well get there before everyone else does. ;>)
My assumption is that the pope can speak ex cathedra whenever he pleases. The fact that popes have not, since the relatively few years since that doctrine was announced, done so with complete disregard for scripture or tradition, does not mean that there is something in place that absolutely prevents it. There is none, or at least none of which I am aware.
To mention only a few things that would prevent it’s happening or its being taken as an authentic _ex cathedra_ statement:
The Church’s condemnation of fideism;
The College of Bishops;
The Church’s teaching on freedom of conscience;
(Perhaps most importantly), the God-given common sense of millions of Catholics who would politely say, “I don’t think so.”
But back to the original point of this thread, it’s a great deal easier for the Bishop of Rome to speak clearly from the context of one tradition (the Catholic tradition) than it is for the Archbishop of Canterbury to speak from at least two (if not more).
Interesting comment, Mr. Monksgate. Your attempt to distinguish an “authentic ex cathedra statement” (which assumes such a thing as an “inauthentic” one) and your appeal to the common sense of RC’s saying “I don’t think so” are fine Protestant ideas. Welcome aboard!
Dear Brother Calvinius,
It wouldn’t be the first time Catholic beliefs and teachings have been claimed as Protestant. (See Rodney Stark’s _For the Glory of God_, for instance).
COLUMCIL,
Keep reading Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger, he’ll get you to where you need to go. The process of accepting that I was wrong for 40 years was agonizing and painful and ultimately satisfying. My prayers for you in this time.
In times of great uncertainty and social, intellectual, political,etc. upheaval, it is natural to seek an authoritarian security blanket solution. This is what happened to Newman in response to the uncertainty caused by new scientific discoveries and the social upheaval of the industrial revolution in England, as he sought the security of a romanticized medieval period, which of course included the “one true church.” That is exactly what is going on with Lipscomb and many of the “converts” who post here in response to the upheaval within TEC, and within the culture generally. It is not surprising, in fact, it is exactly the reaction one would expect.
Dear Brother Calvinius,
Though I fear we’ve strayed egregiously from the topic, I can’t resist responding for the sake of any who might be interested.
You’re mistaken concerning Newman. He had no difficulties w/ the new scientific discoveries at all. He had no idea why Darwin should have caused such a fuss among Christians. (Neither do I.) Moreover, he idenitifed — even in contrast to other members of the Oxford Movement, the influence of Sir Walter Scott, the pre-Raphaelites, etc. etc. — not w/ the Church of the medieval period but w/ the Church of the patristic era. Finally, had he sought the security of a “one true church” mentality, he logically would have sided with the ultramontanists (including Cardinal Manning) who sought the security of having a papal bull to read with breakfast in the morning _Times_. In fact, Newman challenged the ultramontanists and wondered whether the time was truly ripe for the direction in which Vatican I was going. On the former point, he proved correct.
Again, I urge you to spend time reading Newman. You might not end up believing as he did. But at a minimum, you will have a better grasp of why he converted (and why many of us have done so thanks to his influence).
If you post on this blog in order to gain converts to the RC church, you are barking up the wrong tree with me.
trooper, many thanks. Prayers are so needed! Blessings to you who are free and satisfied!
and well said Monksgate!
Dear Brother Calvinius,
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my motives. I firmly believe that conversion would be entirely between you and the Holy Spirit. For me to attempt meddle in it would be arrogant. My aim in posting to this blog is to do what I can (even if unsuccessfully at times) to clear up misunderstandings. If your informed conscience tells you that you cannot believe the claims of the RC Church, I will rejoice in your decision to live by a decision of integrity and honesty. If your rejection of the catholic wing of Angiicanism or Roman Catholicism is mis-informed, however, I hope I can be of help. My own understanding of Catholicism was once dreadfully mis-informed. I’m grateful to those who took the time to help me see that the “catholicism” I rejected in fact does not exist.
Monksgate – Clarity, not comformity, is your watchword! By the way, you mentioned the critical mass of “millions of Catholics” who anchor(my wording) the mind of the church. From that critical mass I believe that important changes (or more properly speaking “developments”) will occur in the Church, though some of which will do so not in my, or maybe your, lifetime. Thx.
In the interest of “clarity” and the correction of the “mis-informed”, I would suggest that one read Newman’s “Occasional Sermons” with their glowing descriptions of the English church in the early to middle medieval period ( the language of which is far too drawn-out and florid to quote here) and then draw one’s own conclusions on whether Newman had a romanticized view of the RC church of that time. I stand by my earlier comments, although they may not be as enlightened and informed as those of you who have seen the pure light and have found perfect peace in the arms of Mother Church.
Dear Calvinius,
Apologies for the delay in responding. (Hopefully this thread is so ancient that the elves won’t have to divert their attention from other matters by giving this so much as a glance. Too, I promise to tie this back to Bp. Lipscomb’s conversion.)
I think we’re actually agreed that Newman tended to be romanticist about the middle ages. Expression of such a view would be expected in a sermon of the Victorian era. Consider both the genre (sermons of the era were admired for what we would now consider rhetorical excess) and the influences of the time that shaped the general Victorian view of the medieval era (the novels of Scott; passages in Trollope, even; the Pre-Raphaelites; Pugin; etc.). Too, Newman, at the time of his conversion, was not a scholar of the middle ages but of the patristic era and the Christological controversies.
Where we disagree is on whether the romanticism of a “one true church†mentality of the middle ages had anything to do with Newman’s conversion. I find no indication that it did. On the contrary, Newman’s conversion happened when he was steeped in the history of Christianity at the moment of one of its greatest crises. One cannot read accounts of the controversies of the patristic era and come away with the idea that it was easy to identify the “one true church,†and Newman fully understood this.
Even if one could show that Newman did convert because of a “security blanket†ideal, the fact remains that while he found theological/ideological security on the other side of the Tiber on some levels, he certainly didn’t on others. Nor did he cringe in the face of it. The nuance and subtlety of his Catholic writings reveal that (apart from whatever the controversies might have cost him emotionally) in his faith and in his intellectual development he positively thrived. On the eve of my confirmation into the RC church, the Jesuit who instructed me joked, “Just think! At this time tomorrow evening, you will be relieved of the burden of ever having to think for yourself again.†Twenty years later, I appreciate how right he was to joke about it (and thus give the oblique warning that being a Catholic is not about security blankets – though “ten thousand difficulties [have not made] one doubt.†One finds “perfect peace in the arms of Mother Church†depending on how creative one is willing to be in defining “perfect peace.â€)
To tie Newman and Lipscomb together, the reasons one converts are varied and complex. Bp. Lipscomb’s near-absence of information on his conversion and Newman’s abundance on his might make a difference in helping us understand their respective decisions to swim the Tiber, but the difference is slight, really. The convert himself will discover new facets of his own conversion experience as time unfolds. So the external observer will invariably paint himself into a corner if he pinpoints this or that explanation for a person’s conversion – much less that of an entire group.