The Vatican Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity issued a Statement Tuesday regarding recent events within the Anglican Communion.
The Council is headed by Cardinal Walter Kasper. The statement reads:
“We have regretfully learned of the Church of England vote to pave the way for the introduction of legislation which will lead to the ordaining of women to the Episcopacy.
The Catholic position on the issue was clearly expressed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Such a decision signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium, and therefore is a further obstacle for the reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England…
How dare they! I mean, that sure isn’t being very inclusive…
so please…come to our help. I would sign up tomorrow if I could bring my people with me. Rome – we traditional Anglo-Catholics desperately need you
A strict traditionalist reading of the Gospels would indicate that only Jewish men who had no priestly training could be allowed leadership positions within the church. When Rome accepts this, I would gladly accept Rome.
don’t be so silly. Scripture deals with this issue throughout the book of acts- and thus we have a biblical argument for the full inlcusion of gentiles.
The same cannot be said for women’s ordination- but you grasp at straws all you like. I am fed up of it all
rugby priest, so you’re holding out on Rome (and it’s claims on truth), not because of theological issues, but because your buddies aren’t joining you at the church across the village? I’m sure bingo evenings at the pub would be a lot more fun with your friends, but please, go!!!! Anglicanism has had enough of priests who remain out of politics rather than principle, and sadly, you seem to be one of them. I’m hoping I’m wrong…
… your people don’t go with you because they see Rome’s innovations as antithesis to Scripture. It is its claims, not its order of liturgy that sticks in our throats. We want our priests to hold up the Via Media, not a luke-warm almost Roman liturgy.
Rome is the fullness of the Christian Faith, justinmartyr. The difficulty of leaving the home you have grown up in is painful. Anglicanism has had enough, it seems, of the Christian faith and order. Certainly, it turns its back on reunion and the result is not robust! Very confusing, instead, and feeble.
I have the highest respect for Roman Catholic faith. At the same time, it must be considered that the dogma surrounding it and the choice of the accepted canon was determined by men conditioned by the social prejudices and political considerations of their respective eras.
And today? We would be free of conditioning, kmoniam? No conditioning, no social prejudice, no political considerations. I’m glad for that! Thanks for reminding me how free we are, kmoniam!
Anglicans have consistently thumbed their collective noses at Rome as if we don’t share a common Faith, Order and History.
I believe there is a proverb for this: “He who troubleth his own household inherits the wind”.
The C of E just inherited the wind with this unfaithful action. God have mercy on her!
Stuart Smith, as an Anglican I’m sorry for thumbing my nose at you. When did I do so?
Getting back to the issue at hand rather than imputing motives to other commenters here, does anyone remember if Rome had offered such concerns when TpECusa, Canada, and NZ had ordained women bishops? If not, why not? Why wasn’t ecumenism with the Vatican dead with the ordination of Barbara Harris? Just curious.
Richard (#12),
From the attitudes I have seen expressed is that Rome has never really taken the actions of the various provinces of the Anglican Communion very seriously and has instead focused on direct relations with the C of E. This seems to have changed somewhat during the current conflict. In large part this seems to be because of the global and Communion-wide ramifications of GC 2003 and subesequent events.
Perhaps what I have observed is simply the outworking of the concern Rome has expressed re: ecumenical dialogue with Anglicans, i.e. “with whom are we dialoging and what do they believe.” The easiest course in the past was to focus on the C of E and ignore her confusing children. That’s not really an option now, and I think Rome has come to realize this (hence the fact that they have actually voiced concerns prior to this in the vein of “who are we talking to now?”)
Just my perceptions. I’d be interested to hear any other insight from others who may be better versed in the subject.
Richard Yale, because there was a chance that the “error” would be repudiated. It in fact has become enshrined and is requirement of the faith not found or proved from Scripture. One made a bishop is a bishop for the whole church catholic (assuming proper form, material, and intent). The precise issue is that persistence in error (departure from the teaching of the Church for two millenia) self-removes the persistent. The CoE has persisted in and further intends to ramify the error. Literally, ram it down. If you doubt, look at the history of the (P)ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC culminating in Bonnie Anderson and Kaeton’s hit squads for non-“compliant” dioceses. The promise of GC or GS is worthless since no prior meeting can bind another…………….
Re: #12,
Good question. The Vatican has acted on the assumption, right or wrong, and as Cardinal Kasper explicitly in an address to the CofE bishops in, I think, 2006, that the Church of England is the “mother church” or “bellwether church” of Anglicanism, and that until it takes an action (such as WO) it is only “provisional” or “theoretically reversible” within the Anglican Communion as a whole.
I don’t buy this stupid assumption, but there is is. Rome seemed also willing tacitly to assume that WO was not “there to stay” until the advent of “women bishops” (sic), and that the cause of “women bishops” (sic) was not won in world Anglicanism until embraced by the Church of England.
I hope that Rome won’t now temporize until whatever time (probably in 2010; possibly earlier if the opponents throw in their hand and give up; and possibly later if they decide to fight the measure at every turn in the hope that it might not get the requisite two-thirds majority in the House of Laity, and so defeat the whole measure at the last moment) the measure passes its final hurdles. We’ll learn soon enough, I suppose.
dwstroud: Be careful in your logic, my friend. If one carries the application of your ‘persistence in error’ argument across the Tiber, one makes a very strong case AGAINST joining with Rome. Among the many errors professed by the RCs are: their Mariology, (especially the Assumption and ‘Co-Redemptrix’ features); the requirement of celibacy among the clergy (certainly to be upheld as a vocation for some, but an unbiblical and rather late practice); papal authority (totally unbiblical and the result of centuries of internal Italian/European politics); the authority of bishops, especially the opaqueness of RC finances (as the horrid clergy pedophilia scandals and testimony to generations of coverups by bishops, cardinals, etc., etc. have demonstrated).
Then there are the 21st century issues, especially that of birth control (it is verboten; but the massive decline in the birthrate among RCs in the US and Western Europe has NOT been coupled with a massive disciplining of those who obviously are using modern methods to limit pregnancies.) No, Rome has amply demonstrated that it is just as hypocritical and loath to displease its wealthiest laity as is an Anglican bishop.
There may be other reasons to unite with Rome, chief among them a comforting sense of history (Especially true IF one is fortunate enough to worship in an architecturally-significant building with a superb music program; otherwise, the intentionally low-brow music and words of the liturgy soon wears).
Wow, Little Cabb, please stick around. We need a conservative Anglican perspective on what was once a conservative Anglican web site. Thanks
Sorry litte cabbage but you are wrong on a couple of points, the teaching on the assumption is held by both east and west and is commerated in both of our liturgical calenders and has been well before the great schism (may God ended it soon) The east holds though her body did not rise up into heaven until 3 days after her death. Also while some may hold that Mary is a co-redemptrix not all catholics do (because it is not required), in fact the teaching is meant to highlight not only Mary’s role, but that all laity are called to be co-redeemers with Christ, not just Mary (she is just the best example of a co-redeemer). So what if clerical celibacy is a later practice and is not from the bible, it is a discpline of the church not a dogma. The pope as the first bishop (what that means is up to debate) of Christendom has been in recognized in some form or fashion since 1st Nicaea. No matter how corrupt our bishops and laity are, the Church of Rome has preached the truth. The Roman Church does not put its faith in men, never has, we put it in Christ. Popes and Bishops fail and Catholics will be the first to admit that and sometimes glory in it. But as long as our Popes and Bishops are not public Heretics and try to follow Jesus then we are what has been promised. Remember atleast the Catholics will unseat a Pope who tries to go against the faith, see John XXIII and the public statments of the traditional cardinals that threatened him if he tried it. I have yet to see anyone threaten RW or KJS for the good of the faith.
Also you might what to ck your church’s agreed upon statements as it pertains to Mary. I believe you communion sided with the Church of Rome and agrees with our teachings about her.
#18 There is not a SHRED of scriptural justification for these matters. This is like torturing text to maintain that Christ did not have brothers and sisters, even though the Greek is very clear. You are fronting for mythology, I submit, for which there is no defense, and you re making Mary a deity. This is idol worship, plain and simple, and violates scripture like a bulldozer pushing up asphalt. Schori et al have not violated scriptural clarity in any more patent manner than you have here. I must say, I am astonished.
Well, maybe this is too strong for the elves. Nevertheless, elves, I really hate to see scripture reordered in so cavalier a fashion.
Larry
Where did I reorder scripture, what have we distorted that has been handed down to us that was either written down or HANDED DOWN BY WORD OF MOUTH (AKA THE ASSUMPTION). Not all the workings of the Church need to be spelled out in the Bible, it has never been that way. You are making Mary and by association Mankind in General unnecessary to salvation history. What did Jesus died meat bags that will rot in the ground????
Sorry about last sentence – What did Jesus died for Meat bags that will rot in the ground –
jsurm04, You are obviously happy in the Roman Church. God bless you. You certainly tip your ultra-conservative hand with the remark that John XXIII ‘tried to go against the faith’. And any Christian church, at its best, puts its faith in the Lord and not in men (or women).
The RC Church’s history, and the development of many of its most important doctrines, dogmas and disciplines simply ignore or go against the Biblical witness and are very obviously totally human developments.
No, the RC Church is just as ‘fallible’ as any other human institution, it certainly has NOT always ‘preached the truth’. A few examples: the high mariology is simply unbiblical. You ignore this and readily admit (even celebrate) that it is strictly a tradition of men. It is clear that the devotion to the BVM developed over centuries as the pious felt more comfortable and welcomed by the Blessed Mother than Christ the Judge.
Then there is the problems of papal infallibility and, along with that, of the authority of bishops. The recent deplored clergy sex scandals revealed that many bishops, archbishops and cardinals had covered up for their priests for generations!
Finally, RC finances are intentionally kept opaque. In the recent scandals, laity too often discovered that the finances of RC dioceses are a closely-held secret guarded by the bishop and his minions. Just attempt to see the financial books of any RC diocese. You won’t: at least, not all of them. I have personally known real estate holdings held by shell corporations to hide RC assets from victims of the scandals. Creepy stuff.
Sorry, but not all of your popes have acted in ‘good faith’; they are simply human beings. The best have been great in the Lord, and are to be celebrated. The worst were certainly public heretics (remember the Borgias & Co.? How about the ‘indulgences’ mess?)
Keep not your faith in princes, my friend….even princes of Holy Mother Church.
Tradition of THE CHURCH, Little Cabbage. All institutions, even Holy Mother Church, have poor leaders from time to time. Even notorious ones. So has the Church. But God has prevailed and we have not failed to end the Church’s good work and great offering to God and our neighbor. At least the Church is not trying to make the notorious normative. No matter how much “feeling” is involved. The gates of hell have not prevailed.
Good luck to the posters trying to win the Catholic vs. Protestant debates. Perhaps someone could just post a link to one of the thousands of identical point-counterpoints on the Internet.
To add to what #12, 13, & 14 said, I think Rome has a very long historical perspective and has viewed the CofE as a province of the Western church that was founded from Rome, broke away, and was still worth retrieving. The RC hierarchy in England is thus viewed as being in some way provisional and Rome has generally avoided duplicating sees for that reason, with the Archbishop of Westminster being the head of the RC hierarchy instead of creating another Archbishop of Canterbury, etc. The daughter churches of the CofE like TEC, etc. are viewed more as mere local protestant rivals of the RC church in that area, with no effort made to avoid duplication, and that assume ecumenical importance only through their link with Canterbury, and not on any independent basis.
There was a point in time when Rome’s approach to Anglicanism was more like its approach to Orthodoxy — as an attempt to work toward institutional reunion. Where we may be heading in ecumenical terms is for Rome to abandon any prospect of treating Anglicanism as involving recovery of a lost Catholic province and rather as just another of the many protestant bodies that it may be able to talk amicably with, but without prospect of reunion at an institutional level.
Yeah I like being a member of the Church, I like Blessed John 23 actually very much, I hope the church recognizes he is a saint soon. The Church is faithful to biblical witness and has never gone against it. The Church is infalliable as Christ promised, or Christ is a liar. The higher praise of Mary was begun by Gabriel or will you dispute the messanger of God. I am more than happy to follow an example of an angel in good standing. Their is no problem with the infalliability of the Church because it is controlled by the Holy Spirit not men. Bishops and Laity will refuse to cooperate with Holy Spirit so that is why their is corruption. It seems you think we Catholics put are faith in men, we don’t all glory and honor are His. Also Alex VI was not a public Heretic just a morally evil man, their is a difference between turning St. Peters into a whore house and ordaining woman, (one attempts to change the character of Christ’s church, can you tell which one) Catholics in 2000 years have tried to scar the bride but we have never made the bride something she could not be.
What a different tone from Synod from the February meeting when so much time and concern was taken and shown for the efforts of the initiatives with Rome and the Orthodox.
Peculiar when we have made so much effort to then blow it all out of the water.
btw the Moscow Patriarchate is also unimpressed.
Quite a days work, the consequences of which we will be dealing with for some considerable time.
Indeed, Jason #25 – but I think the time for Rome to install a real Archbishop of Canterbury has arrived.
24 & 26: Note my post did NOT say that the RC Church has done no good to the world. Far from it!! I did point out the obvious, that it is made up of human beings, and therefore is imperfect. Animated by the Holy Spirit, hopefully; imperfect, most definitely.
(BTW: It is fascinating to note that the different opinions RCs hold on John XXIII, even in this small part of the blogosphere.)
But the facts I pointed out in the post above remain facts. You can ignore them if you will, and seek to ‘kill the messenger’. But they are facts which cannot be denied.
Well, this is all very interesting, I’m sure.
But this really isn’t a thread about the respective merits of Catholic teaching on Mary or other dogmatic pronouncements. It is actually about ecumenical prospects with Rome after yesterday’s vote.
I would suggest, however, that some of the issues are not as cut and dried as some commenters would suggest. As I have told parishioners as we had a class in which the subject of purgatory was raised, “you don’t have to believe in purgatory, but you are obligated to have a clear picture of what you don’t believe in.”
May I respectfully suggest that some of the comments here are not accurately reflecting actual Catholic teaching on these matters.
Little Cabbage, don’t you know that the bad actions the Church of Rome are not in any way the fault of the Church itself, just a few of its sinful members? On the other hand, the good done by those in the Church count for more than the actions of a few good members: they evidence the infallibility of the One True Church in contrast to the defects of the schismatics and heretics that it holds at bay.
But this really isn’t a thread about the respective merits of Catholic teaching on Mary or other dogmatic pronouncements. It is actually about ecumenical prospects with Rome after yesterday’s vote.
Yale, you’re kidding, right? Yesterday didn’t change a practical thing. For us conservative Anglicans, so long as Rome holds to anti-biblical innovative teachings, ecumenism is not practically heading anywhere. We seek refuge in our GAFCONs and CANAs long before we head for the Roman hills. And from a Roman point of view, the only way Rome is going to restore communion is by individuals swimming the Tiber and renouncing their dirty Protestant part.
I for one am GLAD that less Anglican money will be spent on wasteful Roman/Anglican preening and more on evangelism, helping the poor, etc.
Watch, justinmartyr, what God does next through Benedict XVI. This time it will not be simply individual return. In some ways, we will be offering back what was taken disobediently in the beginning. I tell, something will happen en masse.
[blockquote]Yale, you’re kidding, right? Yesterday didn’t change a practical thing. For us conservative Anglicans, so long as Rome holds to anti-biblical innovative teachings, ecumenism is not practically heading anywhere. We seek refuge in our GAFCONs and CANAs long before we head for the Roman hills. And from a Roman point of view, the only way Rome is going to restore communion is by individuals swimming the Tiber and renouncing their dirty Protestant part.[/blockquote]
Umm… no, I don’t believe I was kidding. I think I meant it that the thread is a response to the Vatican statement about what yesterday’s vote meant toward ecumenism between Rome and Anglicanism rather than a discussion on the specific points of potential conflict between the respective churches.
Certainly from a particular protestant Anglican perspective the possible breakdown of dialogue as it has progressed the last quarter century is a felicitous side effect of the vote in the General Synod. I can note that and appreciate that, even if I am not in agreement.
I do wonder if the characterizations made here of Rome are entirely accurate or fair, but also realize this may not be the proper venue to pursue these points.
Anglican Wanderings, http://anglicanwanderings.blogspot.com/
an English Anglo-Catholic blog, has a link to interfax from Russia with the Patriarchate response to yesterday’s vote:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=4912
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
What do you mean COLUMCIL, that Benedict will be a little more generous to Anglicans than his predecessors? And if he is, were his predecessors holding out on those who came in the past? I personally find despicable the thought that a Pope would act more generously because he can win over en mass a large group. The idea that the Vicar of Christ would be willing to hunt further for 40-50-99 sheep than he would for one reeks of sad political calculation. COLUMCIL, I hope you are wrong.
Little Cabbage, It think you took my reference to the Church as to Rome herself. I had in mind that great and mighty host terrible as an army with banners that makes the strongest tempters quaver on their hooves (apologies to CS Lewis and Screwtape). I am quite aware of doctrinal innovations of Rome, hence, I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Christian catholic consciously in the protesting and reformed anglican tradition.
Amusingly or not, I find that Cranmer hit ground truth with his remarks about nothing can be so well-devised by the wit of Man that it cannot be corrupted. To his observation that as certain historic sees had fallen into error, so had Rome, one may now add another. Having read my way into the catholic faith, I may find myself reading myself out of the Anglicanism that used to be in the CoE but has, in the Providence of Almighty God, gone South. Truly God is not a respecter of persons (or gender) but reveals Himself in all His Trinitarian reality to those who seek Him. Gloria in excelsis Deo!!!
Regarding the “unbiblical” aspects of the RCC, isn’t the term
“Trinity” itself an unbiblical term ? Since it’s unbiblical, you denythe Trinity. Is my understanding of your logic correct ?
Ichabod: English is outside of the bible. Does that make it unbiblical? I don’t think so.
What we’re talking about is innovative Roman doctrine that is antithetical to Scripture, not customs or traditions that were added after the era of Scripture.
Larry,
Christ had adelphoi. Since there is no word in Greek for cousin or step-brother we cannot know for certain how to translate it, but in English “brother” used to mean more than the sons of one’s parents, just as “man” used to mean a male or a human being of unknown sex or the race as a whole before the feminists insisted that language had to change to suit their psychological hang-ups. Given the uniform witness of the early church that Jesus’s brothers were not children of Mary there is very little justification for insisting on a translation that says they were Mary’s children.
You’re fighting a lot more than Medeival Roman innovations. Protestantism isn’t infallible, after all. You seem to be hell bent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Ladies and gentlemen, attend:
You need take no one’s word for the disputes on this thread. First Nicaea is readily available on several different sites; some have extensive annotation and commentary.
What is obvious is what a colleague of mine (a Lutheran Bishop) said about the Councils: there was a felt need to make Christianity acceptable throughout the Roman Empire. The early Jewish viewpoint was a non-starter, especially after Constantine decreed that Christianity would be the religion of the Empire.
So the Fathers discarded Jewish wisdom (the corpus of what is called Wisdom in the OT) and replaced it with modern learning (the reasoning of the Greeks, chiefly Aristotle). The Fathers were educated men, and had the benefit of modern scholarship and instruction. (Just as our Bishop Robinson and Bishop Pike were modern men!)
The Aristotelian view of either/or came to dominate religious thought. Theology became a science of distinctions. Many of the early disputes started in the Ecumenical Councils. Is the wine that we drink wine, or is it the Blood of Jesus? It must be either/or. It cannot be both/and, for both/and is a Jewish idea.
Is Jesus God, or is He Man? It must be either/or. So we get the [i]communicatio idiomatum[/i], which is logic chopping at its finest.
And you can read the stories of the endless anathematizing, which constitute much of the history of the Councils.
So is the Blessed Virgin [i]non posse peccare[/i], or is she [i]posse non peccare[/i]?
How far we have come from the New Testament!
And the explicit instruction of Jesus that we all be one was turned on its head, and the one body changed to endless divisions, schisms, heresies, squabbles, controversies, and confusions.
Old Pennsylvania Dutch saying:
[blockquote]Of all the people I know I am only sure about thee and me, and I am not too sure about thee.[/blockquote]
justinmartyr, I know we are all speculative except for the outcome of the vote on women in the episcopacy in the Church of England. I can’t know for sure, obviously, but what I can observe is that the end product of Anglicanism is no longer able to dialogue with Rome. Parts can. I don’t think the Pope has caluclated anything but he – now Benedict XVI – has waited patiently to see whether Anglicanism as represented by the Church of England is Protestant or Catholic. Cardinal Newman knew the answer years ago and his lectures entitled Anglican Difficulties can be read today as if he was witnessing the outcome that has happened. But in my opinion, not with political calculation but with a pastor’s heart, Pope Benedict will reach out to those larger identities in the Anglican Communion who want reconciliation with Rome.
Some thoughts of mine that touch on #41: between GAFCON and the C of E Synod, my crystal ball is beginning to think that we may well be looking at a three-way split of the current Anglican Communion: reappraisers, reasserting evangelicals, and reasserting Anglo-Catholics.
If that happens, then the next question facing the “reasserting Anglo-Catholic” group would have to be how it would relate to Rome. Having shed both liberals and evangelicals, it’s possible that it would find little to keep it from seeking to return to the mother church; and if Dr. Tighe is right about the prospects of the TAC talks, there might well be precedent at that point for admitting them en masse.
If that happened, it would leave those Anglo-Catholics who still couldn’t quite bring themselves to cross the Tiber in a pretty lonely spot.
This could be what happens, Ross. It’s lonely now but for those you mention, very lonely. I cannot remain in that group in the end.
There’s a biblical precedent for being a “lonely” remnant, but none for changing your theology to fit in with the “in” crowd, Rome, Constantinople, or otherwise. To those who have no disagreements with Rome, I wish them the best in their move. I wonder though, what was keeping them in Ecclesia Anglicana in the first place?
I used to be the most anti-catholic person I knew, and I knew a few!
One day, while being instructed by my wonderful Anglican Priest, he said that I “was reading the bible with a protestants point of view and missing all the catholic in it.” I was horrified, and quite frankly offended that he would say that of me, as I considered myself quite biblically literate.
But then I opened my mind a crack. Got a hold of a Catechism of the Catholic Church and started reading. Then I started studying. Then I started to read the Early Church Fathers. Stunned and amazed, it first I was happy to see both sides. Then, as the early split in the TEC wore on, and I had an hours commute to my Anglican Church I crossed the Tiber, and am pretty happy since.
Is this the perfect Church? No, but so far, it beats the alternative. Every once in a while I will pop my head up and wonder if there’s someplace better, but I am reminded of what Peter said when Jesus asked him if he wanted to leave…”To whom shall I go”..
I left TEC for the obvious reason, and the Anglican group for several, including the fact that I could foresee issues with Women’s ordination. At least the issues in the RC are known to me and I don’t have to worry about “change”.
To those who hold those same Protestant views that I did, consider that there really are good theological explanations for their dogma. It all depends on your openness to see another side. I am glad I did. (Scott Hahn does a great job in one of his tape series.)
As to the person that commented on the high catholic church and better music, I couldn’t agree more, the music is really, really weak here..
The answer as to why Anglocatholics have stayed in Anglicanism at all when thsi one event could drive them to Rome has a bit to do with the branch theory: the idea that the true one, holy, catholic and apostolic church exists in branches of which the CoE is one. No branch may be perfect and flawless, and different branches may suffer from different defects. Thus anglocatholics could look at the CofE and the Anglicanism that descends from her as being sound in principle even if the heretics seem to be gaining the upper hand. While the church remains a true branch of the One there is possibility for it to be restored.
The completion of the destruction of catholic orders through consecrating women to the episcopate will be for many the final blow in destroying the validity of this Branch Theory. The Anglican branch will be seen to have died or to never have truly been alive. What remains is to flee to those churches that can still show they are part of the One church, Rome or Constantinople.
An Anglocatholic does not chose his church that matches what he believes. That is a very Protestant way of thinking. An Anglocatholic conforms his belief to what the church teaches. If an Anglocatholic believes that Rome is wrong in something, but then decides that Rome must be a truer church than the CofE, his justification for disagreeing with Rome crumbles because his new belief that Rome is the church is superior to his own conscience and private beliefs.
Anglocatholics who resist the pull of Rome or Constantinople must find a way to maintain the validity of Anglicanism as a branch of the catholic church of Christ that can survive independent of the mother church. As longs as there are provinces or even just whole dioceses that have not tampered with the outward nature of the Anclican church’s expression of catholicity some Anglocatholics will be able to remain. If that ever is gone, if WO infects every Province and every Diocese, then Anglocatholics will be left as men without a church. I doubt that any who remain will have much in common with Pusey or Keble or Ramsey.
Chris Hathaway, I genuinely appreciate your thoughtful reply.
I would like to call attention to what seems a great contradiction in what you are saying:
An Anglocatholic does not cho[o]se his church that matches what he believes. That is a very Protestant way of thinking. An Anglocatholic conforms his belief to what the church teaches.
You tried admirably to say that Anglocatholics (or other converts) don’t become Romans by comparing its theology to their personally held beliefs which are subject to error, but by submitting their beliefs to the authority of the Church. If we arrive at that decision, not through comparing our personally held beliefs of what is theologically wrong and right with the candidate churches (mormons, rome, orthodoxy, etc.), how do we arrive at that decide? At least the Calvinists can hide behind irresistable grace. But as anglos and romans we believe we are not puppets of God. The Anglocatholic arrives within Rome by, according to your post, personally seeing, deciding, finding and believing Rome to be the one true Church. We arrive in Rome because we see, decide, find, and believe that they are right, but somehow we do so by subjecting out erroneous or idolatrous personal judgment to the authority of the true Church. See the flat-out contradiction?
Convoluted as your reasoning is, no one could determine where is the correct place to put your faith/trust. Do we trust in our own, possibly erroneous understanding of theology, follow blindly which ever leader inspires us by his charismatic personality or what?
What brought me to Rome were a few Roman explanations to Scripture that I had never been able to piece into the equation. The first big one was, why was Peter given the keys to the kingdom? What did that mean? The second was “on this rock I will build my church. Both of these were explained to me by Scott Hahn in his talk on the papacy, http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp – written transcript). Essentially, ensuring that the Church would endure because God would make it so. After reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I realized that God had protected the essentials of the Church through the succession of Popes. The last to me was the Eucharist. Again, Scott Hahn spoke on that, http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/euchc2.htm. After reading that, I read John 6. When many of Jesus’ disciples left him, because his words were so hard, to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Then he turned to Peter and asked him if he wanted to leave also, and Peter’s response was, “to whom shall we go?”. If Jesus had meant the Eucharist to be a memorial only, he would have said so and many of his disciples would not have left.
When I left evangelical Protestantism for the Episcopal Church I did so for two reasons. 1, I had seen the myriad of schism due to differing interpretations. I was afraid that I would end up in a church of one, just me – the ultimate schismism. 2. No Protestant church I had been involved with in my 30+ years there ever gave me the worship experience that the Liturgy at the Episcopal Church did. At first I relished the tension of acceptance that is so cherished there. But, after a few years there I saw that the rifts were getting deeper and it was impossible to remain one with so many heresies accepted. I spent a few years at a wonderful Anglican church, but even then, I could see the tension among the Network and the differing groups. I did not see how women’s ordinations would be universally accepted or rejected, hence another schism on the horizon.
After reading the Catechism and considering the above thoughts, to me it is easier to be in Rome. All the objections I had, were essentially based on ignorance of what they actually teach. What I thought I had learned was really other people’s opinions of what they had believed the Catholic Church stood for. When I contemplated all the hot topic issues, I admitted that there was no one topic that I absolutely could not agree with on some level, all of which are covered my Hahn’s tape series Answering Common Objections. The Pope, Purgatory, Mary, the communion of saints, and the Eucharist.
I’m not trying to recruit members to the Roman Church, just trying to explain why it’s not as terrible as many believe. Believe me, there is a way to be a Catholic and follow Scripture. My answer now is “to whom shall I go”? Is the Roman Church perfect. nope, but again, to whom shall I go?
justinmarytr, it is not a contradiction if you look at it like this: I presume that there is a church whose judgment is superior to mine. Based upon certain criteria of evidence I judge Church A to be that church. Then, upon that judgment I submit all other judgments to that church. Likewise, if I find a man whose judgment I trust, I do so based on my own judgment, but having done that I do not continually check his reasoning against mine. Else I would not be trusting his judgment. How does one arrive at the decision to trust a church as the true church? Well, it could be a historical one: which church provides the clearest creneaus’s apostolic succession. Or it could be a practical observation: which church has whethered the various spirits of the age and kept its integrity. Either conclusion does not depend upon our agreement with that church on a host of doctrines. But that host of doctrines will then be dependent upon our accepting the authority of the church.
Here is an image. Why follow Aurthur as king of Britain? Because he drew the sword from the stone. Deciding that that one act makes him king is part of your reasoning. After that, you are following him and his reasoning as the consequence of that one act of your reasoning.
Perhaps I could have said what I meant to say more concisely:
The ability to recognize that someone is smarter than you does not make you his equal, nor does the gact that soemone is smarter than you make you incapable of recognizing this fact.
#40, With the reasoning of the Lutheran bishop, I guess it’s all the easier to see why the theologian of the Lutherans, Jaroslav Pelikan, converted to the Orthodox Church several years before his death.