How to Say “BOO!” to an Anglo-Catholic

Wannabe/Newbie Anglican ^ | 10/31/2006 | Mark Marshall

[sionnsar]

Just greet him with “Happy Reformation Day!” Further, I recommend that all trick-or-treaters going to All Too Common’s house dress as Luther or Calvin to give him a good scare. He is not at all happy about it being Reformation Day.

I have to admit he has some good points. The Romans are certainly doing better than the Protestants when it comes to avoiding apostasy and schism.

But the Roman Catholic Church has only itself to blame for the Reformation. Its Medieval corruption made the Reformation necessary. And remember that Luther wanted to reform the church, not split it. But the Catholic hierarchy wanted none of it.

I’m not as uncritical of the Reformation as I once was. I think much of it went too far in a number of ways. And now it’s many of the Reformation churches that are rotten to the core.

The irony is that the Reformation goaded the Catholics to finally reform themselves. And their reforms have been more persistent. So maybe Catholics should be thankful for the Reformation!

So BOO! – I mean – Happy Reformation Day!

[Huber]

I think the ACC finds itself in an uncomfortable middle : too Catholic for the old guard Episcopalian, and too Protestant for the RCCer looking for tradition.

Actually, we tend to be more Catholic (and more traditional) than most post Vatican II RCCs! We certainly consider ourselves no more protestant than the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church.

[Huber]

Does the author think that we don't have fun wishing the hard core Reformation crowd All Hallows (or All Souls) greetings?!
:-)

[Huber]

Why not say it. It may not be politically correct, but it is perfectly logical from the RC position. The "Reformation" did not reform the RCC, but rather established new churches. The "Reformation" certainly resulted in the "CounterReformation", which was a reform within the RCC, so you could say that the "Reformation" was a revolt that was a cause of reformation. However, from the RCC position, the "Reformation" is better described as a revolt, a revolution, a schism, a war of independence, or whatever.

I suppose from a protestant perspective the living church was reformed on a new model. I'm still not clear whether various protestant denominations teach that there was no real church between Augustine and Luther or give some other explanation for whether if the RCC was supposedly illegitimate and heretical there was any Christian organization at all during the middle ages. I usually just get fuzzy answers on this point - clearly this period of church history is given limited coverage in Sunday school.

[Bainbridge]

If you think it is more aptly described as a revolt rather than a reformation of course you should use it. Makes no difference to me.

[Huber]

Sorry. I just assumed that you were interested since you posted on the subject.

[Huber]

Since you had some questions on RCC doctrine, I thought it might be helpful to provide some information from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Additional material can be found at www.newadvent.org

1) What is 'supererogation'?

For all true merit (vere mereri; Council of Trent, Sess. VI, can. xxxii), by which is to be understood only meritum de condigno (see Pallavicini, "Hist. Concil. Trident.", VIII, iv), theologians have set down seven conditions, of which four regard the meritorious work, two the agent who merits, and one God who rewards.

(a) In order to be meritorious a work must be morally good, morally free, done with the assistance of actual grace, and inspired by a supernatural motive. As every evil deed implies demerit and deserves punishment, so the very notion of merit supposes a morally good work. St. Paul teaches that "whatsoever good thing [bonum] any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond, or free" (Eph. vi, 8). Not only are more perfect works of supererogation, such as the vow of perpetual chastity, good and meritorious but also works of obligation, such as the faithful observance of the commandments. Christ Himself actually made the attainment of heaven depend on the mere observance of the ten commandments when he answered the youth who was anxious about his salvation: "If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). According to the authentic declaration of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) the married state is also meritorious for heaven: "Not only those who live in virginity and continence, but also those who are married, please God by their faith and good works and merit eternal happiness" (cap. Firmiter, in Denzinger, n. 430). As to morally indifferent actions (e. g., exercise and play, recreation derived from reading and music), some moralists hold with the Scotists that such works may be indifferent not only in the abstract but also practically; this opinion, however is rejected by the majority of theologians. Those who hold this view must hold that such morally indifferent actions are neither meritorious nor demeritorious, but become meritorious in proportion as they are made morally good by means of the "good intention". Although the voluntary omission of a work of obligation, such as the hearing of Mass on Sundays, is sinful and thereby demeritorious, still, according to the opinion of Suarez (De gratia, X, ii, 5 sqq.), it is more than doubtful whether conversely the mere omission of a bad action is in itself meritorious. But the overcoming of a temptation would be meritorious, since this struggle is a positive act and not a mere omission. Since the external work as such derives its entire moral value from the interior disposition, it adds no increase of merit except in so far as it reacts on the will and has the effect of intensifying and sustaining its action (cf. De Lugo, "De pœnit.", disp. xxiv, sect. 6).

1a)What specific group, or individual scripture(s) indicate that any church leader has this authority.

What scripture defines the canon of scripture?

2) What is an 'Indulgence'?

The word indulgence (Lat. indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.

WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS NOT
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.

WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:

In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth. Some writs of indulgence--none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)--contain the expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena", i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, "History" etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, "De Indulg"., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve" a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the "quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7). The satisfaction, usually called the "penance", imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner -- prayer, fasting, alms-giving -- in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent's disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the "Treasury" of the Church.

An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God's justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Suppl., xxv. a. 1 ad 2um), "He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it." The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.

In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God's mercy and the demands of God's justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.

2a) What specific group, or individual scripture authorize the sale or even the concept of an 'Indulgence'?

The distribution of the merits contained in the treasury of the Church is an exercise of authority (potestas iurisdictionis), not of the power conferred by Holy orders (potestas ordinis). Hence the pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant plenary indulgences. The power of the bishop, previously unrestricted, was limited by Innocent III (1215) to the granting of one year's indulgence at the dedication of a church and of forty days on other occasions. Leo XIII (Rescript of 4 July. 1899) authorized the archbishops of South America to grant eighty days (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 758). Pius X (28 August, 1903) allowed cardinals in their titular churches and dioceses to grant 200 days; archbishops, 100; bishops, 50. These indulgences are not applicable to the souls departed. They can be gained by persons not belonging to the diocese, but temporarily within its limits; and by the subjects of the granting bishop, whether these are within the diocese or outside--except when the indulgence is local. Priests, vicars general, abbots, and generals of religious orders cannot grant indulgences unless specially authorized to do so. On the other hand, the pope can empower a cleric who is not a priest to give an indulgence (St. Thomas, "Quodlib.", II, q. viii, a. 16).

[Petronski]

Hear hear, vlad!

[Alkhin]

Now, has the ACC dropped the filoque? I know one of the Anglo-Catholic continuing Anglican groups has.

I am afraid I will have to plead ignorance to this - if only because I am still very much new to the ACC and am only able to learn about it through its main website and the other members. I attended a couple of synods and learned quite a bit there, but am afraid my head can only hold so much data at a time LOL.

Only thing I can suggest is going to the main website and contacting the Archbishop there.

Best wishes...

[Alkhin]

True true!! Very true. I was repeating what my husband and I said to each other in a conversation one time though...seemed to best describe our particular frustration. We have had many people come to our services and then not return for one reason or another...some were Episcopalians who couldnt deal with the ACC's position on Transubstantiation, and some RCCers were put off by the fact that we were not under the Roman church. And I try to explain to people how the ACC actually harkens back to a period well before St. Augustine's arrival, but I think there are too many whose understanding of western civilization does not include that part of history.

[Alkhin]

IN re-reading your post, am also thinking the best answer I can give you is that we use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer as the basis for our worship. Our actual Sunday service is more like a High Church Episcopalian service, with Morning and Evening Prayers straight from the BCP, as well as the Litany, and Decalogue, among other services. I have no idea what service in Vatican I was like, as I was born in 1967, and raised Vatican II (although I daresay the priest who led our little parish was an Irish traditionalist and balked at some of the more modern music brought in during the 70s. I confess it right now: I was part of the Folk Group movement, if only because the leader of our little guitar choir was a fab guitarist.)

[Hodar]

My point is that these 'ordinances' are not found in the scripture, but are acts and processes created by man. They have no mention in the bible, nor are referenced by Christ's teachings in any manner, shape or form.

If any man preaches any gospel unto you than that ye have received (than what we have preached onto you), let that man be accursed.
Galatians 1:6-9 and again in Hebrews 2:3

[The_Reader_David]

Well, it's actually very simple. When you recite the Nicaean Creed at the Eucharist, do you say ". . .the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. . ." or do you interpolate 'and the Son' at the end of the clause concerning the procession?

If the former, then you've dropped the filoque, and confess the same Creed as the Orthodox. If the later, you're still mired in Latin errors.

[:-)=====

If you've not seen it before, that's an Orthodox monastic smiley.

[The_Reader_David]

If you really hearken back to the British church of ancient times, you certainly should have dropped the filoque: the Saxon coronation rite used for Harold Godwinson included the original Creed without the Latin interpolation (really Visigothic in origin and championed by the Franks), and there is no evidence that the erroneous creed was ever confessed in Britain before the Norman Conquest.

Some of us commemorate the anniversay of the Battle of Hastings as the Feast of St. Harold, Last Orthodox King of England, and those who died with him at Hastings. (His daughter married Prince Vladimir Monomach of Kiev, and most Saxons who fled England headed for either Kiev or Constantinople, so that while we tend to cut off Western saints at about 800 on the continent, we commemorate English and Irish saints as Orthodox down until the Norman conquest.) There are even some who argue that the real Robin of Loxley should be commemorated as an Orthodox martyr.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"Really. So is the Catholic Church going to sell St. Peters back to the poor souls that are currently doing hard time in Purgatory?"

1) So you are claiming that the "poor souls" in Purgatory once owned St. Peter's Basilica? Please get a clue.

2) When and where did any soul in Purgatory sell St. Peter's to the Church?

"That is what Tetzel was selling them for, no?"

No. No matter why Tetzel did what he did, it wasn't because the Catholic Church bought St. Peter's from anyone. Tetzel was ONLY ONE preacher of indulgences and he apparently was teaching his own doctrine without approval of the Church. Also, if Tetzel merely preached what he was supposed to then there would be no "sales" at all. Indulgences were about donations, and not sales, as the instruction letter from Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz makes clear. Ever read it? No, of course not.

"Did the Roman Catholic give the monies back?"

Why should the Catholic Church ever give back what is donated to her?

"Or just deny that Tetzel was doing anything wrong?"

Neither. The Catholic Church did nothing wrong and needed to give back nothing to no one. If Tetzel did wrong then he did wrong. In any case with Tetzel people knew they were giving money to the Church no matter what. They knew where the money was going and they gave it freely. No one was forced by Tetzel to hand over money -- EVER.

[Alkhin]

Fascinating! Am bookmarking this - I love history. Thank you!

[Huber]

I didn't really think you were looking for information. You are correct that these doctrines were authored by man, as was the canon.

However to your point, and to the subject of this thread, Orthodox Anglicanism is based on the three legs of scripture, tradition and reason, and not one without the other two.

[Hodar]

You are correct that these doctrines were authored by man, as was the canon.

Yet, the bible explicitly warns against this sort of thing. Consider

But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of man. - Matthew 15:2-9, Colos 2:22 and Mark 7:7-13

There are contentions among you - That every one of you saith I am of Paul; and I of Apolos; and I am of Cephas; and I am of Christ, is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? - 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 & 3-5

The point I am trying to make is that a great deal of this is 'manufactured', having nothing to do with the Bible, nor of the teachings of Christ. When man takes upon himself the burden of 'manufacturing' tradition and reason; Apostasy is a very real and dangerous consequence.

I intentionally left out the really harsh verses that address this topic; as they would certainly be taken as a personal affront. It is not my intention to insult or denigrate; but to understand this approach. When one deviates from scripture, and institutes a new practice - this appears to be analogous to the game of Post Office we all played as children. The end result can be vastly different from the original message; and these are dangerous waters.

[Huber]

There is nothing in the verses that you selected that oppose tradition. Do you believe that the canon was manufactured?