Beneath these particular quarrels are two deeper problems within Anglicanism, and these problems shed light on the deeper problems within every ecclesial body derived from the Protestant Reformation.
The first problem is one of identity. Just what is Anglicanism? Before it went global, Anglicanism was the Church of England, with all its genteel and lovely customs. The Anglican Communion was the Church of England transplanted.
Things have moved on. Now, most Anglicans live in Africa. Anglicanism is uncertain about itself. Is it English or African? Is it Protestant or Catholic? Is it essentially liberal? It used to be that no one much cared. Now the Anglicans in all three groups are entrenched and are increasingly adamant about their own stance — and are prepared to fight the other two sides for the heart of their church.
The second foundational problem is the one of church authority. When I was an Anglican priest, thinking through the problem of womenÂ’s ordination, I listened to both sides. They both had their experts. They both had arguments from Scripture. They both had arguments from tradition. They both were made up of prayerful, sincere people who believed they were being led by the Holy Spirit. How to decide?
This question led me to realize that Christians need an external authority structure to make the final call, and of course, that question led me to the banks of the Tiber.
As Catholics, it is important to understand the problems facing Anglicanism because the underlying fault lines can expand into our own church if we are not careful.
It’s an ok piece, as far as it goes. But reading it, I am reminded of the eternal difficulty of trying to reduce a complex problem and a complex history to a “bite” designed for the consumption of someone who knows nothing about the sibject. That’s this guy’s intended audience: people outside the Anglican church who are trying to understand it and the current conflict in just a few paragraphs.
So one of the important things that he leaves out is the rise in the US in the 1960s and 70s of a whole new species of Anglicanism, one which was an unpleasant and probably unholy fusion of the worst qualities of all three wings (protestant, anglo-catholic, and liberal). It’s called by most current church historians “liberal catholicism.” It shares with the ACs the love of robes and mitres and incense and loses all of the doctrinal belief which those sacramental things point to; it shares with the Protestants their unwillingness to submit to any broader authority outside their country, and loses all of the great Reformation insights about the Bible and sin and salvation by the blood of Christ alone; it shares with the Broad Church their love of the social gospel and loses all the true inclusiveness and humility and liberality of spirit in dealing generously with their Anglican brothers.
It is the rise of this fourth estate that has created the problem we face now. The problem is not the three traditional branches of Anglicanism (only one of which, by the way — historic evangelical protestantism — goes back to the time of Cranmer and Elizabeth). The three branches were more than capable of coexisting with each other and did for a long time. The problem is something else, something which became the regnant power of ECUSA in the 1970s and in each subsequent decade consolidated its gains.
================
Another problem with our author’s piece is his sunny view of the Roman solution to all problems: the Papacy. All we need is the Pope. (Who wrote that song — Lennon or McCartney?) It’s understandable he should feel this way. He defected to Rome, as so many others have, and so needs to believe that he’s reached the promised land. To question this would risk destabilizing a major life decision, so it’s natural that he should need to be so certain he’s now in Zion.
But his last paragraph contains within it the Protestant critique of his solution. He writes:
I am sure he’s right. But how does that resolve the Protestant critique, namely And how if this man is not strong and intelligent and compassionate? How then? How does it solve the historical vexing problem of the monstrously wicked Borgia popes? How does it solve the problem of popes colluding with Hitler? How does it solve the problem of popes colluding (as seems almost certain) in the sheltering and protection of Cardinal Law and others guilty of the sex crimes against RC boys and girls? How does it solve Popes building cathedrals by sweating indulgence money out of poor peasants in the early 1500s?
Don’t get me wrong; the problem is not (as protestants would hasten to assure you) with leaders of the church of Rome per se — the problem is the ubiquity of sin in ALL places and in all people. The solution to our problem (from a Protestant perspective) is not a Protestant pope! The problem we see is placing all our hopes in any single one person.
Of course he is right that part of the cause of the Anglican implosion is a problem of ecclesial authority. And I have said that since before 2003: we need a conciliar mechanism which allows the AC to discipline and ultimately remove provinces and dioceses that are assaulting the very fabric of agreed upon Anglican identity. Because that will be a human process I retain a Protestant skepticism of it being completely free from sin and error. But it is less likely to be so if it is the collective voice of all Anglican bishops then it is if it is the voice of one man, in whom our author places such faith.
Jon –
Reducing Fr. Longenencker’s conversion to psychological dysfunction:
[blockquote]To question this would risk destabilizing a major life decision, so it’s natural that he should need to be so certain he’s now in Zion.[/blockquote]
but it’s hardly a rational response.
Moreover, Father didn’t say “we need a pope”, he said “we need an external authority” and then notes that need led him “to the banks of the Tiber”, not into the Catholic Church. IIRC, he considered the Orthodox answer, which is a conciliar authority, but came to the conclusion that the Magesterium of the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. Moreover, he clearly plants his hope not on this pope (strong, intelligent and compassionate as he is), but on “the papacy”.
As always, it helps if you respond to what a writer actually writes.
Actually, it was Longenencker who was the one who brought his own personal psychology and biography into the piece. He wrote:
In case there is any doubt as to who that authority might be, he then goes on to speak of the papacy as the solution to this problem of authority.
So in that sense I am only responding to information about his own motivations which he has been very forthcoming about and which he explicitly mentioned in his short piece. Part of why he converted was that he was stressed out about a need for authority.
But even if he hadn’t been so explicit, I am unsure why it would be a bad idea to consider that. I mean, if for example my wife vigorously opposes my idea of vacationing in tropical islands with a lot of beaches, it seems perfectly rational to factor into my thinking the fact that she has a fear of sharks (if she shares that with me) — actually to refuse to do that would be the irrational thing, not taking her fears and hopes into account.
But at any rate, the author was the one who brought it up, not me.
You might be under the impression that I think Longenencker is a bad guy, or that I think the Church of Rome is a bad church. I don’t. My two closest Christian friends are a Franciscan and a Benedictine respectively. And I don’t doubt that this particular priest is a good man and a good priest. All I was doing was pointing out that (a) it’s hard in a short piece to give a full account of the current struggle to people who know little about the AC, and L’s piece is a good example of that; and (b) his claim that the solution is Roman prelacy doesn’t really solve the objections that Protestants have to it, which is not an objection to any particular man but the office as such (and it being filled by one fallible and sinful man).
Actually that’s only a part of the historical Protest — against a certain kind of ecclesiology. There are theological differences too, which for Protestants are deeper than the issue of church governance and which remain a gulf between us and Rome. That doesn’t stop us from loving RCs and ACs and considering them precious brothers in Christ — and indeed for Anglican protestants doesn’t stop us from learning from them and worshipping with them. But they are enough to prevent us from, as Longenencker did, crossing the Tiber.
There is a good Lutheran book making the case against woman’s ordination, it is worth a read. Woman Pastors? The ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective.
Anybody making the jump across the Tiber, better make sure that they agree with all the dogmatics of Rome. There is a lot that Rome says is tradition.
#4… Thanks a lot! I am very fond of the Missouri Synod Lutherans, which I assume is what the MS in your handle stands for. I’ll definitely see if I can find the book you mention. While you are on the subject of Luther, Forde’s ON BEING A THEOLOGIAN OF THE CROSS is a great book. It’s been very helpful to me anyway.
An interesting Anglican essay arguing against female ordination is by our beloved C.S. Lewis. It is entitled “Priestesses In The Church”:
http://www.acahome.org/submenu/docs/cslewis.htm
As always, what’s most interesting is not the one narrow issue he is addressing, but the larger ways his essay can applied to all kinds of issues in the Church and in Christian life. (The gay marriage debate, to take just one example of many.)
Jon – that’s an interesting reading of Fr. Longenencker’s text.
#4 – absolutely! When one enters the Catholic Church, you make a statement that you believe all that she teaches to be revealed by God. A convert with integrity must make that Profession of Faith honestly.
Moreover, he clearly plants his hope not on this pope (strong, intelligent and compassionate as he is), but on “the papacyâ€.
Of course. Holy, righteous actions performed by a pope are the fruits of the divinely ordained papacy, while evil, wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing actions are the domain of the individual, not the Holy See. The same goes for the Church.
Of course he is right that part of the cause of the Anglican implosion is a problem of ecclesial authority. And I have said that since before 2003: we need a conciliar mechanism which allows the AC to discipline and ultimately remove provinces and dioceses that are assaulting the very fabric of agreed upon Anglican identity. Because that will be a human process I retain a Protestant skepticism of it being completely free from sin and error.
Article XXI: “General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”
#4 – absolutely! When one enters the Catholic Church, you make a statement that you believe all that she teaches to be revealed by God.
And that’s why a Roman’s appeal to reason because hypocritical. Fide must trump logos
Jon (#1),
Just a bit of historical accuracy: there was only ONE “Borgia pope,” Alexander VI. A LOT of his contemporaries were just as bad, but they were Medicis, Barberinis, and the other traditional ‘papabile families’. One reason Alexander VI was so roundly hated was a) he was a Spanish outsider, who “bought” the papal throne with Spanish gold, and so not one of the “traditional” Italians and b) his personal corruptions were on a lavish but crude scale, and c)his son Cesare made a name for himself in cruelty, but no more cruel than Julius II or any other Renaissance pope. The rest is legendary.
Accuracy #2: “popes colluding with Hitler”; well that would have to be Pius XII now, all by his lonesome, since Pius XI issued a strong denunciation against Nazism, “Mit Brenneger Sorge,” in the mid 1930’s. The record on Pius XII is truly a mixed one: diplomatic relations with all combatants (as was true during WWI under Benedict XV), while hiding Jews inside Vatican City itself. The post-war pipeline to South America is a complicated issue of “who knew what and who didn’t” and scholars are attempting to sort it out, but MOST of the scholarship on Pius XII is partisan one way or the other, so it’s probably better to drop him out of the list of “bad popes” and let history judge in a century or two.
BUT on your analysis of the rise of the Fourth un-Christian Anglicanism (aka “High Church Unitarian-Universalism”), you are absolutely correct. And Fr. Longenecker, who is a scholar himself, SHOULD have seen that and nailed that as the cause of “The Current Unpleasantness.” That he did not see it (for I feel sure that, if he had, he would have assessed it just as you have done) does trouble me, but then that is what the blogosphere is for: for enough voices to bring the data and analysis that as many as follow the trail will gain understanding.
Thank you for your initial response to the article. Most helpful to many readers, especially, as you note, to those who are not informed on the intricacies of the Anglican Wars.
Yours sincerely,
R. N. Wightman+
Personally I thought Father’s error was identifying the place of liberalism in Anglicanism, then not recognizing it’s cancerous effect on Anglo-catholicism (the “Affirming Catholic” group).
Actually, the record on Pius XII is not at all mixed. “Mit Brenneger Sorge” is generally thought to have been ghost-written by the future pope. During the war, the New York Times, that well-known Catholic rag, identified Pius as the only voice in Europe being raised against Hitler. It’s said that 880,000 Jews were saved by Pius’s efforts, and when he questioned whether he was “doing enough”, Jewish leaders restrained him, lest Hitler become more provoked.
But even if Pius were a rotter, it wouldn’t matter. Impeccability has never been a Catholic claim. Which leads me to raise the question you folks haven’t addressed in your comments, busy as you have been to contradict Father’s answer:
[blockquote]The second foundational problem is the one of church authority. When I was an Anglican priest, thinking through the problem of womenÂ’s ordination, I listened to both sides. They both had their experts. They both had arguments from Scripture. They both had arguments from tradition. They both were made up of prayerful, sincere people who believed they were being led by the Holy Spirit. How to decide? [/blockquote]
Women’s ordination is only an example: in principle, how do issues like this get decided when scripture, tradition, and reason all seem ambiguous.
I thought it was a very fair article, and not given to many pejoratives or bitternesses which was nice.
I did think there were some simplistic analyses and descriptions, some of which Jon pointed out above, and the missed Liberal “Catholic” segment was a big miss.
One thing I didn’t agree with — in a piece with much of which I agreed — were the identifying characteristics of evangelicals.
I’m certainly a happy Protestant, that’s true — happy and grateful.
I think Communion should occur as often as possible, certainly every week and hopefully more. I don’t “tolerate” ritual and sacraments — I adore them, with the latter being a uniquely important tool for sanctification and with the former being the stuff human beings are made of.
I don’t think the “personal experience of Christ” is “the main thing”.
I think Jesus Christ Himself is the main thing, and after that His atoning work on the cross, and after that His resurrection. And after that, a human being’s submission to Jesus Christ — to who He is as unique Lord and Savior. And then after that, last in this list of five, a human being’s acknowledgement of his relationship with this Lord and Savior and an endeavor — after that acknowledgement and after that submission and after the repentance of sin, which is a gift from God as well — to strengthen that relationship as best as he is able and understanding all the while that God is the one doing the calling to further intimacy.
“Experience” would be well under that fifth thing, so pretty far down the list, although nice to have.
But still, it may be that this simple definition of evangelical was one that he was familiar with or observed in a general way.
And I did think that it was a fair and forthright piece.
Actually, most AC priests and people who are “liberal” on the gay issue are quite orthodox in almost every other respect (I mean orthodox catholic).
Rob K: [blockquote]Actually, most AC priests and people who are “liberal†on the gay issue are quite orthodox in almost every other respect (I mean orthodox catholic).[/blockquote]
I think you have a very broad definition of “orthodox.” Nearly every proponent of the moral acceptability of same-sex sexual activity I have met have also been proponents of a low view of Scripture, a rejection of the virginal conception of Christ and also of the physical resurrection of Christ, a view of the cross that regards it more as a tragedy than as an atoning sacrifice, the idea that the main work of the Church was the betterment of society, and so on. Many are quite conservative in how they carry out the liturgy, but they are not at all conservative regarding the heart of the Christian faith.
Re: #10,
“Just a bit of historical accuracy: there was only ONE “Borgia pope,†Alexander VI. A LOT of his contemporaries were just as bad, but they were Medicis, Barberinis, and the other traditional ‘papabile families’. One reason Alexander VI was so roundly hated was a) he was a Spanish outsider, who “bought†the papal throne with Spanish gold, and so not one of the “traditional†Italians and b) his personal corruptions were on a lavish but crude scale, and c)his son Cesare made a name for himself in cruelty, but no more cruel than Julius II or any other Renaissance pope. The rest is legendary.”
Those who preen themselves on “historical accuracy” had better take care to be accurate themselves. (a) There were two Borgia popes, Calixtus III (b. 1378, pope 1455-1458) and Alexander VI (pope 1492-1503), his cousin. Calixtus was an austere Aragonese canon lawyer and diplomat, who as pope was preoccupied with arranging a crusade to recover Constantinople from the Turks, and was pious and morally blameless. However, like just about all popes of the period, he felt compelled to surround himself with family members on whom he could rely, and among them his young cousin Rodrigo Borja, the future Alexander VI, whom he made a cardinal. (b) The “Renaissance papacy” is said to have extended from 1447 to 1549, and of the popes in this period, the only one who lived a sexually immoral life as pope was Alexander VI (1492-1503), although the delight that Julius II (1503-1513) took in warfare and battle was hardly an improvement. Pius II (1458-1464), Innocent VIII (1484-1492), Julius II (1503-1513) and Paul IV (1534-1549) had begotten children in their young adulthood (when they were unordained cardinals), and Innocent and Paul, as well as Alexander VI, spent much effort to benefit their children’s fortunes (Pius II, by contrast, was an austere pope who bent his efforts, also, to promoting a crusade against the Turks). Paul II (1464-1471) and Sixtus IV (1471-1474) were largely preoccupied with Italian politics (it was Sixtus who made his nephew, the future Julius II, a cardinal), as were Innocent VIII (1484-1492), Alexander VI (1492-1503), Julius II (1503-1513) and Clement VII (1523-1534). Nicholas V (1447-1455) and Leo X (1513-1521) were patrons of Reanissance artists and architects first and foremost. Pius III (1503) did not make any impact in his short pontificate, and Adrian VI’s (1522-23) reforming efforts were cut short by his death. (c) The Barberinis came to prominence in the 17th century.
I agree completely with paragraphs 5,6,7,8 of Sarah’s comment. I will say though, that Fr. Longnecker’s characterization of evangelicals is spot on for many of those I know. In fact, I think he gives them credit for being more tolerant of ritual and sacraments than is actually the case, though in my experience, most evangelical Anglicans do, these days, appear to celebrate Holy Communion at least twice a month, if not weekly.
Many many thanks for the thoughtful comments from everyone. They have helped me a good deal. I am totally slammed at work this week, so I doubt I’ll have time to comment too much further, at least beyond the few posts I am making this morning.
On the issue of historical accuracy (Borgia popes, etc.):
* Some of the misunderstanding about pluralities is just a style thing. Suppose for a second you were responding to someone who claimed that US Presidents were Gandhi-like folks who never tried to fight wars in foreign countries. You might say: “hey… we’ve had presidents who have invaded Korea, presidents who have invaded Vietnam, presidents who have invaded Iraq, presidents who have invaded Kuwait, …” etc. Your point is not that there were 2 or more presidents involved in each military action (true for some and not for others) — your point is that, among a very plural category (all US presidents) there have been individuals involved in miltary actions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, … It’s not important to your argument the exact number of presidents involved in each one. Just that there have been many presidents who have invaded foreign countries. Or if someone claimed that women are no good at math, you might say “Hey I know women who are bankers, women who are accountants, women who are physicists, women who are….” and you wouldn’t view your essential point as compromised if it turns out that you only know one woman banker.
Regarding the involvement of Pius in colluding with Hitler (perhaps only in the sense of a non-aggression pact to save the Vatican) I agree after doing some more work that the evidence is mixed, but I am happy to withdraw that. Still as I indicated just now, in a way that’s not the point. (Though I am always happy to be corrected and improve my knowledge of history.) The point is that, if we wanted to, we could compile a long list of popes that have done very bad things and acted in a very sinful and/or worldly fashion. The point of the list is to express Protestant skepticism about human nature and our belief that original sin is evenly distributed with no church leader of any stripe exempted. (It’s how we understand the fact in the Passion narrative that the wickedest people who hate Christ the most are sometimes found high in the church hiearchy.) It’s a response to the Papacy as a solution: let’s just solve the problem of authority by turning it over to God’s Vicar… he’s a good man and he’ll know what to do! Well, we Protestants have our doubts, and the historical record is a list of them.
I agree with what Sarah said as well. Remember that he is supposed to be describing ANGLICAN evangelicals — not evangelicals in other denominations. And he gives a number of misleading impressions about us (though not intentionally I am sure).
My biggest concern is that he gives the impression that the difference between Anglican evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics is that “The Anglo-Catholic believes the Anglican church is part of the ancient Catholic Church.” Ummm… we believe that too. We evangelicals absolutely believe that. We also (unlike many non-Anglicans who call themselves evangelicals) see our ourselves rooted in 2000 years of theological thinking. We get to claim all kinds of pre-Reformation thinkers as part of our own, precisely because we DIDN’T stop being part of the one true catholic and apostolic church in the mid 1500s. That’s why I as a Protestant can gain so much from reading St. Francis and Augustine and many other great thinkers: they are part of my tradition too.
Actually in that sense we are more expansive in our catholicity then RCs are. I don’t know any RCs who are happy to say they love reading Luther — he’s probably still on the Index. I, however, am delighted to say how much I have benefitted from reading post-reformation RC thinkers.
Likewise, evangelicals also go on retreats (all the time!!!) and even pilgrimmages (e.g. to Palestine, though of course never in the sense of pilgrimages to shrines containing sacred relics of saints).
#14, Hakkatan writes:
This is one of my soapbox issues, so I am glad to see someone else say it. I can’t agree with K enough here. This has absolutely been my observation.
“The evangelical is Protestant in his theology, liturgy and understanding of the church. He preaches from the Bible, celebrates holy communion once a month, tolerates ritual and sacraments and robes for worship as part of the tradition, but can do without them. For the evangelical, the personal experience of Christ is the main thing. ”
My experience as a 55 year old life long Episcopalian is that very few on the conservative side of things are Protestant in theology. Just try to bring up the Article on our lack of Free Will and see where it gos.
Also, “the personal experience of Christ is the main thing.” is a very modern description; Protestants in the 1500s to 1700s would not recognize it.
I (sadly) agree with Jimmy D here. Most people who self-identify as traditionalists (including most outrageously evangelicals) in the current fight are in my experience big believers in free will, which is at complete odds with Reformation thought. Very few believe in the sola of sola gratia, grace alone.
It’s funny because in this respect these traditionalists inhabit a vast continent of unspoken agreement with the liberals: both are Pelagians or semi-pelagians.
#11… hello Words Matter! You write:
I am thinking that you mean “how SHOULD issues like this get decided” — the answer to “how DO they get decided”, at least in the Anglican Communion, is unfortunately “not at all.” LOL. That’s part of the problem that the last five years has brought into such high relief. What happens when we reach overwhelming agreement on a thing, pass a formal resolution about it (Lambeth 1998) and then a province defies that agreement?
So I think everyone on this thread agrees with Longenecker that the AC has a problem with how to resolve devastating doctrinal disputes and how to discipline those who take actions in clear defiance of agreed upon decisions. He’s definitely right.
The solution he found was to allow the papacy to be the final arbiter. And he’s right: that does solve the problem of making sure that there’s always a final decision that gets made, and one that is in a sense enforceable.
What I think you are saying is: If you guys don’t like L’s solution (the papacy), then do you have a solution you can suggest?
And I can’t speak for others on the thread, but yes I do: the solution I advanced at the bottom of my first post (#1), when I said: “we need a conciliar mechanism which allows the AC to discipline and ultimately remove provinces and dioceses that are assaulting the very fabric of agreed upon Anglican identity.”
So what that means is that instead of a single primate empowered to make all such decisions (like the Pope) we’d have a group, e.g. Lambeth. What we lacked back in 2002 was any way to enforce the relevant resolution that was passed six years before.
If you want a model for what we might come up with, you can think of something like the U.S. Govt. E.g. Congress, an Executive, a judicial branch, and a constitution. The US consist of many states and on a lot of stuff the states go their own way, pass their own laws, etc. But we decide that the US Constitution trumps everything and if someone wants to be considered American he has to buy into this constitution. Further the govt is set up so that the constitution is very hard to change, so that it isn’t at the wind of whatever 51% majority happens to exist.
Such an approach would include firm adherence to fundamental Christian doctrine (a kind of Lewisinian Mere Christianity) and do so in a way that give plenty of space to all the different orthodox streams to do their own thing: it would explicitly provide that certain questions (e.g. the question of the Real Presence or of prayers to saints) would be things that the AC could never legislate on, etc. It would give huge amounts of space to national churches to do their own thing, provided that they obeyed both the constitution and also any resolutions of the global body passed with a majority of more than X percent (e.g. 70%, 66%, whatever).
And so on. I won’t go into elaborate detail of how it could in theory be structured. But the answer (as I see it) is historically very much akin to the problem our Founding Fathers faced in the late 1700s. On the one hand, the 1600s and 1700s had made very clear that some sort of clear strong govt must exist, else we’d descend into civil war and anarchy and chaos. (Look at our last 5-6 years.) On the other hand, they were equally convinced that they didn’t want the final word to be vested in a king or monarch or similar person. So how to make decisions without a king and without civil war? Well, you saw what they came up with.
Two things I should say in closing.
First, I don’t necessarily think it LIKELY that the AC will do something like what I described above: i.e. create a clear agreement in which firm adherence to Christian orthodoxy is declared (along with a mechanism for enforcing it) and all entities which can’t agree to it are considered outside the Communion. I think that would be great but I am not optimistic that it will happen.
More likely is that we’ll end up with something that can be interpreted 50 different ways and the AC will continue to disintegrate. I hope and pray that won’t happen but I think it is about as likely as a good Covenant.
Nevertheless, I interpreted you question to mean what would I propose as an alternative to the papacy. The proposal I made (not my ideas — and other people can refine them much better) is one that could be implemented if people wanted to.
Second, I am not by any means claiming that conciliar decisions are sin free and error free. It might be that eventually the AC could pass resolutions so far from one’s understanding of Scripture or the rule of faith (as has happened with GC 2003 and 2006 for traditional Episcopalians) that people in conscience feel impelled to leave. I am simply proposing a method of solving the problem of civil war in a church, which as I understood it was your question.
Hope all that helps clarify some things…. very best wishes….
Jon –
Well, your proposed structure is not unlike that of TEC, spread out to the Anglican Communion as a whole. It is not unlike the conciliar ecclesiology of Orthodoxy. I agree with you that it’s unlikely to happen.
FWIW, this thread reminds me of a conversation I had with my step-father the other day. He’s a fundamentalist (Dallas Theological Seminary type) Baptist and one of the finest Christian men I have ever met, for all we disagree. Anyway, we were discussing church polity and he commented to the effect that “ya’ll aren’t a democracy, you’re a dictatorship: the pope tells you what to do and you do it. I suppose, word for word, it’s true enough. However, like so many references to “the papacy” above, it simply has little to do with the realities of what it’s actually like to be a Catholic. Well, the pope does appoint bishops, although that’s an administrative arrangement that could be changed. But the Code of Canon Law (a rather thin volume if you’ve never seen it) is largely concerned with the rights, as well of duties, of each order – bishop, priest,deacon, lay.
To me, the pope isn’t a dictator (even a benevolent one). He’s a papa: the father of a very large family. His headship doesn’t absolve the family members of their duties; it enables us in our duties, in fact. There is much more to explore down that road, but not now.
Best wishes.
No. 14 – No, you’re wrong. They are indeed orthodox on the issues you bring up. Sorry, my definition of orthodoxy is not “broad”, as you asserted without warrant. I wrongly assumed, I guess, that those were the issues I was thinking about. Sorry that those things don’t line up the way you would like them to.
I agree with Hakkatan.
After five years of blogging it’s quite clear that [blockquote]”Nearly every proponent of the moral acceptability of same-sex sexual activity I have met have also been proponents of a low view of Scripture, a rejection of the virginal conception of Christ and also of the physical resurrection of Christ, a view of the cross that regards it more as a tragedy than as an atoning sacrifice, the idea that the main work of the Church was the betterment of society, and so on. Many are quite conservative in how they carry out the liturgy, but they are not at all conservative regarding the heart of the Christian faith.[/blockquote]
And they like it that way.
After all the evidence stacked up over the past half-decade it’s more clear than ever — two gospels, one organization, lots and lots of future conflict, fighting, suing, deposing, gnashing to come.
#23… WM… thanks so much for your thoughtful response. Very helpful to me. God bless you…
John
Hi Sarah, Rob K.
Rob, one of the things that may be creating a conversation barrier here is that you are trying to describe your experience with people, and then you (it feels like) are being told: NO, YOU DON’T HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE. And I don’t think that is anybody’s intention here.
So maybe better would for you to hear us (Hakkatan, Sarah, me) as us describing what we’ve experienced and then you can describe your experience. And this isn’t touchy-feely BS… LOL. Cause I have some very concrete questions about what you’ve experienced, and I’d love to hear more from you.
It sounds like you are saying that most people you know who favor SSU’s and ordination of gay bishops — in all other respects these folks are very orthodox, including in the specific ways that Hakkatan mentioned. Is that right?
I’d be fascinated to hear more about who these people are. Are these people in your parish or diocese — people you know by face? How is that you are sure about their orthodoxy on these other issues (physical resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth, atoning blood sacrifice of the cross, salvation by Christ alone, etc.)? Is it because you have spoken with them and asked them? Or is it just a general impression — they seem like people who’d believe those things?
See, our experience (and Sarah and Hakkatan can correct me if they have a different one) is that 9 times out of ten we discover that when we begin to probe at all we find out the same people also really like books by Marcus Borg or Jack Spong, or that they have serious doubts about one of these other traditional Christian beliefs.
Remember too that Sarah (and possibly Hakkatan) hang out a lot on the internet and virtually ALL the people we see on the internet who are defenders of the new view of human sexuality are people who can’t sign on to all other aspects of traditional Christian teaching — there’s always at least one other thing they have doubts about. And almost none of them are sharply critical of people like Borg or Spong or Crossan.
Anyway, I’d love to hear more about what your experience has been like. Very best wishes,
John
Hi Rob K. Here’s a follow-up question. Let’s take a hypothetical person who favors SSUs and gay ordinations but in all other respects personally believes traditional Christian teaching (See the list of specifics mentioned previous in the thread, which is a start but is not exhaustive: it should also include belief in the Trinity, that Jesus was fully God and fully human, belief in the Devil as a real demonic “person” and not just a metaphor, belief in the afterlife, and so forth.)
Would you say that these “liberal orthodox” (to give them a name)tend to view their orthodox beliefs (everything but homosexuality) as not only what they personally believe, but what Christians OUGHT to believe in order to really be Christians?
For example, I personally LOVE hamburgers and pizza. I mean I am crazy about them. But I’d never say that everyone OUGHT to like them. Likewise, I might personally think that Obama should be president — and feel absolutely certain about it. But I would never say that in order for someone to be a good American he can’t support McCain. Moving to the subject of Christianity, I might be absolutely certain that it is good and right to pray to the Virgin Mary — but I would never tell a protestant brother who feels differently that his belief makes him less of a Christian.
But with the basic core beliefs that we have been talking about (let’s exclude human sexuality for the sake of argument) I feel like these are part of the defining essence of what it means to be a Christian. Would these folks you have in mind agree? Are they really upset when they hear about priests or other church leaders who believe or preach against these — e.g. Spong, Borg, our presiding bishop, etc? Or do they feel like these are things about which they can just agree to disagree — the same way I might be over the subject of prayers to the Virgin Mary, say?
I’m curious, because I have never heard of ANYONE who favors SSUs say that these other beliefs are things that people MUST believe if they want to call themselves Anglican — including church leaders and teachers.
Again, very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts….
Jon – My answer once again is Yes, they are are orthodox about those articles of faith you mention, and probably more conscious of them than many Episcopalians who go to church but are pretty theologically fuzzy or uninformed. My firsthand experience is with four Calif. parishes, two in the north, and two in the south. There, as everywhere else, you run across people who hold heterodox private beliefs also, just as you would in any RC parish or any Protestant congregation of any stripe, evangelical/conservative, middle-of-the-road, or liberal. My above characterization goes for both clergy and lay people. There are plenty of heterodoxies operating in all Christian ecclesial bodies that have nothing to do with the gay issue. Many of them are present in Anglicanism, including, from my AC point of view, some aspects of Reformed theology. Speaking for myself, I am of two minds about WO, though perhaps one of the most theologically and liturgically catholic priests I know is a woman. Certainly it is alright to ordain chaste gay priests (I think you’d agree there). I do think that the whole question of the licitness of gay sex will, in time, be overtaken by the passage of time, and that the resolution of the issue, both theological and ecclesiological, will come from the RC Church, as it seems to be the only ecclesial body with the gravitas to handle it (not in our lifetimes, though). Thanks for your reply to me. Regards.
Rob K,
I appreciate your engagement in this discussion, but I’m curious how you can imagine that the RC Church will resolve the issue of the licitness of gay sex any way other than it currently does and has done for two millennia. In other words, what part of “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered… Under no circumstances can they be approved” ([url=http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357]CCC 2357[/url]) do you think can be finessed away?
Jon (#18), you write, “Actually in that sense we are more expansive in our catholicity then RCs are.” I’m not so sure about that, though I appreciate your openness to post-Reformation Catholic thinkers. As for Luther still being on the Index, well, maybe your tongue was in your cheek, but somebody had better tell Cardinal Ratzinger–I was impressed by his approving mention of “the German Reformer” in a footnote to a book of his I read when I was just looking into Catholicism. I’ve generally found Catholics who write about Protestantism to be pretty well read, and pretty magnanimous, which is more than can be said for a sizable proportion of Protestants who write about Catholicism.
As well, you write, [blockquote]The point is that, if we wanted to, we could compile a long list of popes that have done very bad things and acted in a very sinful and/or worldly fashion. The point of the list is to express Protestant skepticism about human nature and our belief that original sin is evenly distributed with no church leader of any stripe exempted.[/blockquote]
The list of bad popes is non-empty, to be sure, but a long list? I think if you set your mind to it, you would find a list far shorter than you expect. And no orthodox Catholic would deny that popes are tainted with original sin just like every other human being except Our Lord and his Mother. As WM (#11) put it, impeccability has never been a Catholic claim.
No. 30 – The critical mass of opinion in the Church will be the determining factor, if it happens.
To say this, Rob, exhibits a lack of understanding of how the Church understands herself. As her critics are all too fond of complaining, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Her role is to preserve–and refine, as necessary, but never to overturn–the deposit of faith handed down from the apostles. See this section of the Catechism on [url=http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a3.htm#I]moral life and the Magisterium of the Church[/url].
So indeed not in your lifetime, nor mine. The Catholic Church is not at liberty to approve gay sex and never will be.
No. 32 – I am definitely not a “critic” of the Catholic Church. I understand very well what you say about how the Church understands herself. I’m merely making a prediction. Perhaps is will be the result of, as you say, “refinement”. You don’t have to agree with my prediction, or maybe my “gut feeling”, but maybe your words should be addressed to the many RCs who feel this way.
Rob, a prediction based on what, though? How on earth do you imagine that the Church is going to get from A to not-A?
I should perhaps have been clearer, though, that my remark against the Catholic Church’s critics was referring at least as much to internal ones as external ones. You evidently find much to admire in the Catholic Church, so I’m genuinely puzzled by how you propose to reconcile your prediction with its teaching on tradition.
Sheepcat – If it does happen, the Church will reconcile it logically and consistently with Tradition and Scripture. By the way, I believe that any true unity of Christianity will have to center around the Papacy (yet to be worked out by the Holy Spirit, which I think JP II himself said, that “new” understandings of the role of the See of Peter might evolve). I think we should all be surptised to see what the Church will be like, in, say 200 years. I say this as a political and cultural(in most cases) conservative.
Hi Sheepcat. You ask Rob how he imagines the Church of Rome “will get from not-A to A?”
My guess is that Rob believes that the Church of Rome will get there the same way she has changed her mind on other things. At one time, for example, she would have said that no salvation existed outside the church of Rome. (See various papal prounouncements below.) In the last several decades, especially since World War II and the Holocaust, she has rethought that position and quietly reversed it.
Or consider all the ecumenical outreach Rome is now attempting with Lutherans — not simply as partnering in soup kitchens say, but real attempts at theological reunification. Such attempts have necessarily involved muting and ultimately quietly dissolving the anathemas she authoritatively pronounced against Lutherans in the 1500s.
My guess is that Rob is thinking that if a great enough body of RCs change their minds about the issue of homosexuality, then that change will probably eventually make its way into how bishops and archbishops think and then we will see a quiet reversal of its position here too.
Naturally I don’t see this as a bad thing. In no way do I criticize Rome for changing her mind on things. But my guess is that it is this process that Rob has in mind.
===============
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (1302): “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noe, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Jon – You have fairly accurately analyzed my thinking. Thanks. And I also say this as a deep friend of Rome. I’ve always been a High Church Anglican, but am close to crossing the Tiber. I also believe that if Rome does move as I think it eventually will, the change will be consistent with tradition and scripture. I wish Anglicanism could resolve those issues, homosexuality and WO, but I don’t think it has the gravitas right now to do the job. The two things that hold me back from Rome are, first, sentiment and friendship and those things we associate with it, and second, the conviction that Anglicanism is indeed Catholic, and has never lacked the Sacraments as objective vessels of Grace. I know of some RC parishes that I could go to where the second issue would not be a problem (they might even say I’m OK where I am now!). My dad’s family is (was) all Roman Catholic, but that’s ancient history!.
Rob,
In case you’re still following this thread, which is now getting a little stale and might be better continued off-line if you still have any interest:
Too many people people persuade themselves their spouse-to-be will change in some fundamental way after the wedding: she’ll stop drinking, he’ll decide he does want kids after all. Understandable as such wishful thinking may be, deciding to marry based on such an assumption remains foolishness of the highest order.
Unless and until you can say, “I believe and confess [i]all[/i] that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God”–without making an exception for what the Catholic Church [i]currently[/i] teaches about homosexuality and WO–you’re really better off not to become a member, because you’d then be mocking the Sacraments in addition to (apparently) committing other sins unrepentantly.
Never mind what “some parishes” tell you is not a problem; you should know that teaching authority doesn’t reside at the parish level.
Jon, there is development of doctrine, but the Catholic Church still does teach “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” The phrase is in big, bold letters in the Catechism ([url=http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846]CCC 846[/url]). As for the quotations you cite, not everything declared by one of the popes carries equal weight; we must look to how the Church herself understands such statements.
A less restrictive understanding far predates Vatican II–notably see [url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9QUANTO.HTM]Pius IX’s 1863 encyclical On Promotion Of False Doctrines[/url], and Aquinas in the 13th century seems to imply that pagans can be saved ([i]Summa Theologica[/i] I, I, 2).
All of which is to suggest, with all due respect, that you learn a bit more about what the Catholic Church teaches before prognosticating on how it will supposedly change its mind on matters of doctrine.
Finally, Rob, you say Anglicanism lacks the gravitas to resolve the issue of homosexuality. Can’t disagree with you there, but how does a Church go about acquiring gravitas? Is gravitas of human origin? Divine origin?