Posted on 10/18/2005 5:54:45 PM PDT by sionnsar
This reflection arises from study of Article XIX of the Anglican Formulary, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the National Church of England (1571) and later of the Province of PECUSA (USA 1801). After providing the marks or signs of the visible Church of Christ on earth in space and time, the Article speaks of error in the Church on earth. “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.”
First of all, let us note that the ancient patriarchates of East and West are not denied the status of being visible Churches but are rather accused of “having erred.” That is, not everything that they teach, confess and do is erroneous but that they have been in error in significant and important ways. Thus, at worst, these Churches are corrupt branches of the one Church of God, but, branches and jurisdictions nevertheless. And to claim the minimum for them, these Churches still baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost , and worshipped the LORD as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and so the Reformers did not advocate the re-baptizing, only the instructing, of their members.
The Roman Church erred in that it claimed too much for itself and for its Bishop (e.g., as Vicar of Christ) and, further, it made as part of the Faith certain doctrines (e.g., of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Mass as a propitiation) and ceremonies (e.g., denial of the Chalice to laity) which were clearly contrary to the plain sense of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers of the first five centuries or so. However, within Its embrace, and despite its errors, were thousands who were united to Christ in faith and love and who had good hope of life with Christ in heaven. That is, the invisible catholic Church of God was manifested in the existence and life of those national Churches of Europe and elsewhere which were under the control of the Roman See.
Now it is certainly true that some of the rhetoric of the Reformers was such as to suggest that these Churches, under the rule of the Roman Papacy, were totally lost to the true Church of God on earth. In those days both sides, when in controversy, engaged in lively and exaggerated speech in order to make their points. Yet in their more sober and guarded language when they wrote catechisms and confessions of faith, Luther, Calvin and Cranmer and their colleagues were more reserved and careful. (Richard Hooker is extremely careful in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity as is Bishop Jewel before him in his Apology.) The message from the reformed Catholic Church of England about Rome seems to have been – to paraphrase – something like this: “Let Rome throw off her false additions to the Creed and Liturgy, and we will gladly communicate with her; but so long as she retains her errors, we cannot but stand aloof, lest we should be partakers of her sins.” (Remember that at this time there was no R C “denomination” in England!)
Of course, we all know that since Vatican II (1962-65), relations between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants have been more open and positive than in earlier times.
This noted we ask: IS THERE ANYTHING to learn from this sixteenth-century situation about the adoption of possible attitudes towards the ECUSA by those who like Cranmer, Jewel and Hooker, are or seek to be Reformed Catholics?
We can probably agree that the ECUSA has erred in matters of faith, ceremony and living, especially since the 1960s. It has definitely encouraged immorality in sexual relations; it allows ceremonies that are wrong – e.g., ordaining and consecrating openly gay men; and it has openly and clearly set aside the received Anglican Formularies of the Faith and substituted novel ones for them (and these are in certain places and ways of doubtful orthodoxy).
But also we can probably agree that, despite all this, it is possible within the ECUSA to hear the Gospel, to receive the Sacraments, to be instructed in sound teaching and to be buried in the true Faith.
The ECUSA has erred and is in error as an institution; yet because it contains hundreds of parishes, it is possible in many of these to encounter the means of grace in such a way as to be placed in union with Christ and be made a member of His Body as a child of God the Father unto eternal life.
Therefore, it would seem that there are reasons to depart and reasons to stay; and as each person is unique and as no two situations are identical, some will believe they are guided to stay and others to depart from ECUSA. The issues are not so clear cut as to make all sincerely-intentioned Christians see things identically.
This said, it would seem prudent that those who depart should give their energy and time to the new jurisdiction they join and not waste their time bemoaning the errors of that which they have left behind!
In conclusion, it would seem that for those who have the conviction and courage to stay and minister within this Church (and be persecuted or deprived perhaps) there is still work to be done, work that can be fruitful for the kingdom of God. Yet those who remain must do so in the knowledge that this Church has erred and persists, often proudly, in its errors. So they will never be free from this pain of being part of an erring Church, and a minority that can do little or nothing in the immediate future about changing the institutional errors and sickness. Indeed to raise hopes that they can if they raise enough money and foreign support is to create false optimism! Yet, happily, they can find great encouragement and help in bearing this burden of error and sickness, while being faithful Minister or members, by taking note of and meditating on the way in which the Remnant of Israel lived and witnessed within the often apostate and erring Israel!
Let us pray one for another, for those who depart and those who stay, and let us use our energy to build up the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God which is not confined to any of our jurisdictions but includes them all and more!
[To those who may yet leave ECUSA, I draw your attention to the following. As a cradle Episcopalian I know through experience that leaving ECUSA can be a very difficult and painful situation -- but *if* you make that move, do not look back. I quite agree with the Rev. Dr. Toon: thoroughly involve yourself wherever you have decided to go, forget the past as best you can -- and even, at least for a year or two, unsubscribe from this list. The greatest unhappiness for those recently departed comes from looking back. --sionnsar]
"First of all, let us note that the ancient patriarchates of East and West are not denied the status of being visible Churches but are rather accused of “having erred.” That is, not everything that they teach, confess and do is erroneous but that they have been in error in significant and important ways."
Well, gee, thanks Rev. Toon! We Orthodox were sooooo worried you might think we weren't a "visible Church" like you guys. :(
***This noted we ask: IS THERE ANYTHING to learn from this sixteenth-century situation about the adoption of possible attitudes towards the ECUSA...***
I believe the ECUSA ia a plant which God shall soon root up.
***Well, gee, thanks Rev. Toon! We Orthodox were sooooo worried you might think we weren't a "visible Church" like you guys***
Hey K!
(Who put the pepper in YOUR tea today!)
:)
Not really - The stench arising from ECUSA and the disunity of the multitudinous numbers of Anglican offshoot organizations propels even the most lethargic footdragger into action.
A gradeschool teacher once said at Kansas City's St. Pauls's private day school (in 1996) "We don't teach Episcopalianism here!".
Where can you find a christian education for your kids that encompases life long learning in a culture that respects and values education for its own sake? Well the RC church is a good place to look.
"***Well, gee, thanks Rev. Toon! We Orthodox were sooooo worried you might think we weren't a "visible Church" like you guys***
Hey K!
(Who put the pepper in YOUR tea today!)
:)"
LOL!!!Oh well, take it whence it comes, PM! Sionnsar knows that Fr. Peter isn't one of my favorite commentators, and I suspect if the good father knew me, I wouldn't be one of his favorites. Of course, being 1/2 Irish might have a little bit to do with my attitude towards this English vicar. :)
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. . . . on the other hand, some of us like to gloat . . .
( just kidding. really.)
But it's sort of like my experience with my grandfather dying of senile dementia over the course of several years. The week before he died, I dreamed of his funeral - mentioned that to my mom, and she replied, "Well, I have thought of him as already being dead for quite some time."
I have known for years that ECUSA was dying, so I guess I am used to the idea. It doesn't really bother me.
Yes, I knew that. PM, I figured we'd hear from Kolokotronis on this, and it's a fair (and especially for my friend K, a measured) response to the statement that "we think they are in error."
... but it must be said that there are differences, else why are we not in communion?
A church that protects pedophile priests, to the extent that it is now being forced to sell off its properties to pay off its victims, is no church for my kids.
I have no doubt but that the vast majority of RCs are honest, hard-working, good and believing folks. Those whom I've known generally meet that description.
But the church itself... well... we've seen its fruits.
I didn't see where he defined our errors.
"I didn't see where he defined our errors."
I doubt he could, at least in any convincing way. :)
" but it must be said that there are differences, else why are we not in communion?"
Differences, to be sure! As for communion, well...I doubt we'll see that anytime soon. Actually, your question makes me think that any of a number of "High Church" conservative groups (by groups I mean groups of parishes) would probably find Rome psychologically a more comfortable place to be than Orthodoxy. Individuals, or even individual parishes might find Orthodoxy just the port to be in, but I suspect if one gets much beyond individual parishes, the structure of Orthodoxy might not give former Episcopalians the sense of doctrinal security, and by security I mean enforcability of dogma by a central power figure, that the Latin Catholic system would. I suppose, by the way, that given what has happened, that is eminently understandable.
The irony of this is that the doctrinal security is much more likely to be preserved by Orthodoxy than Romanism, if "doctrinal security" is defined by an absence of (bad) change in doctrine.
The picture would be different if the "security" were defined in terms of a response to a discovered weakness in the doctrine. Romanism would likely respond faster to same...
It's late, I am tired, but I can't think offhand of earlier circumstances of either..
"The irony of this is that the doctrinal security is much more likely to be preserved by Orthodoxy than Romanism, if "doctrinal security" is defined by an absence of (bad) change in doctrine."
You're right, but you should understand that that Orthodoxy is preserved, in the main, by the laity. Its a role we are raised to fill and we do fill it, even to the extent of removing hierarchs. For example, had Abp. Spyridon not been removed by the EP a few years ago, its likely the EP himself would have been removed. The 75 years of doctrinal compromise and innovation experienced by Anglicanism could never have happened in Orthodoxy, but it did in Anglicanism because the laity there doesn't have the same understanding of its role as the laity in Orthodoxy. I just can't see Anglican lay people being the on the spot, in the parishes guardians of orthodoxy. Indeed, even the Windsor Report envisions some sort of a quasi Latin system. There's nothing in that document which in any way resembles Orthodoxy or Orthodox ecclesiology.
Its late and I'm off to bed!
Substitute the terms Theotokos and Divine Mystery and we might have an idea about his line of thought.
it made as part of the Faith certain doctrines (e.g., of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Mass as a propitiation)...which were clearly contrary to the plain sense of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers of the first five centuries or so.
Well, perhaps I'm not the most informed commentator, but I seem to recall from my theology course that Alexandria taught a doctrine which was Sabellian (or not sufficiently distinct in terms of the Persons) while Antioch taught a doctrine which was Nestorian (again, at least not excluded from that error) while Constantinople taught Arianism for a good long while.
It is worth noting that the Ant/Alex errors are complementary, the one insufficiently separating the Persons and the other tending to conflate Them.
Those are all errors, much like those taught by Rome, just much, much earlier.
It was my understanding that the Chalcedonian formula was the attempt to find language to exclude the eastern errors, which in the case of Alex and Ant were so ingrained that those areas were eventually lost to the Church.
And in this I'm going on memory. I may have the errors switched, for instance, but they both occurred and both involved Alex and Ant.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
You are very correct. Most have absolutely no idea what is happening outside their own church (and all too often not even what is happening inside...). Witness the expressions of shock in the various Anglican threads over the past couple years or so, when the changes finally came home...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.