Posted on 12/26/2006 12:41:46 PM PST by sionnsar
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. ping
I am glad that I wholeheartedly accept and believe the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Where you stand in regard to Rome depends on where you are. If you happen to be in the US, then you are some 3000+ miles to the west of Rome.
I notice this statement is not footnoted. It appears to contradict what the Church teaches.
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40
40 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1529.
1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42
42 Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525.
Methinks Dr. Sanders still doesn't understand Catholic doctrine.
The comparison of the infallibility of Rome to the pronouncements of Griswold is laughable and spurrious. The problem with Griswold is that he contradicts 2,000 years of Christian tradition and scripture. Infallibility is the opposite tendency: Once spoken, a doctrine can never be rescinded. It is not a liberal impuse, but the ultimate preservation against liberal impulses.
Yes, it very directly contradicts Catholicism, which holds that we are saved by grace alone (as opposed to through faith alone): it is grace by which faith is granted, for no man can make himself believe anything.
--I am hesitant to be critical of Rome. After the rampart heresies of the liberal Protestant churches, one cannot help but admire Rome in her steadfast refusal to bow before certain idols of modernity. Further, in the sections on the Church, I found her teaching most irenic, holding to her own supremacy yet not condemning of others.25
--On the other hand, so much is at stake. According to the Anglican Reformers, this Roman teaching does not do justice to Scripture, to the holiness of God, the depth of human sin, the fallibility of our understanding of Christian truth, the power of Christ's atonement, and the need for peace with God in regard to our salvation. In the end, it leaves us before a holy God dependent on our own righteousness. I would not want to stand there. I cannot be in a church that would have me stand there. No one can stand there. No one, none, except Christ and those clothed in his righteousness received in faith, can stand.
--I cannot imagine having to decide if certain of my sins are mortal, if the venial ones will send me to the torments of purgatory, if the church is always right, if indulgences are necessary, if my confessions are truly adequate, my prayers sufficient, and my good works acceptable. I want to know that I am safe with God, safe with the wholesome, saving righteousness of Christ. I want to plead nothing but his blood, no hope but his word of promise, no worry but his peace, no guilt but his shame, no darkness but his light.26
GRPL ping?
Hrm. Looks perhaps like my ignorance of the Anglicans is vast. Time to do a research frenzy...
Sinnsar, any good pointers for books or websites?
--I am hesitant to be critical of Rome. After the rampart heresies of the liberal Protestant churches, one cannot help but admire Rome in her steadfast refusal to bow before certain idols of modernity. Further, in the sections on the Church, I found her teaching most irenic, holding to her own supremacy yet not condemning of others.
Dr. Sanders does speak in a respectful manner in general though I must say that his biases show a little. (As an example he uses terms such as "Roman doctrines" instead of "Catholic doctrines". Yes, I realize that the Anglican church views herself as "catholic" as well, but to suggest that these doctrines are unique to the Latin Rite is to deny the twenty or so "sui juris" Eastern rite Churches that make up the Catholic Church.) This may be intentional and it may not. I can't really tell.
--On the other hand, so much is at stake. According to the Anglican Reformers, this Roman teaching does not do justice to Scripture, to the holiness of God, the depth of human sin, the fallibility of our understanding of Christian truth, the power of Christ's atonement, and the need for peace with God in regard to our salvation. In the end, it leaves us before a holy God dependent on our own righteousness. I would not want to stand there. I cannot be in a church that would have me stand there. No one can stand there. No one, none, except Christ and those clothed in his righteousness received in faith, can stand.
This is the exact point where the reformers diverged from Christianity in its previous forms. Christ's righteousness is either imputed (Luther's snow-covered dunghill) or infused. Only one can be correct, not both. This being "covered" certainly does not sound like washing robes in the blood of the Lamb (cf. Rev 22:14). It sounds like using Christ's Blood to make the dirt and grime of sin invisible... not the same thing at all. In addition, as was pointed out by an earlier poster, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that we would be "dependent on our own righteousness"... that is Pelagianism, pure and simple.
I have noticed one thing about Dr. Sanders argument. He presupposes that imputed righteousness is both correct and Biblical without any substantiation, and thus Catholicism's denial of it is in error. (For both Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, faith is a response to God's grace. For Rome, however, faith is not, in the first instance trust in God's promise of imputed righteousness.). Is this something that is universally believed among Anglicans? It certainly seems to be on the Protestant edge of the "via media" if it is.
--I cannot imagine having to decide if certain of my sins are mortal, if the venial ones will send me to the torments of purgatory, if the church is always right, if indulgences are necessary, if my confessions are truly adequate, my prayers sufficient, and my good works acceptable. I want to know that I am safe with God, safe with the wholesome, saving righteousness of Christ. I want to plead nothing but his blood, no hope but his word of promise, no worry but his peace, no guilt but his shame, no darkness but his light.
Dr. Sanders explains the distinctions between mortal and venial sins well from a bookish perspective... but I don't think he really understands them. (For that matter, I think a lot of Catholics don't either.) Mortal sin brings death to the soul, while venial sin does not; one thing that Sanders neglected to mention (likely from honestly not knowing) is that the line between venial sins and human imperfections is a blurry one. Even so, the soul that loves God is going to avoid sinning as much as is possible... not so much because we fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because our sins offend God, who is all good and deserving of all our love. That is the nature of being contrite for our sins; we avoid sinning because we love God, and we trust in Him to deliver us from the sufferings of Hell. We should strive for heaven, not for purgatory, even though it is there.
I think that Dr. Sanders's concerns about the state of his soul are overdone; I can't think of any Catholics who worry to the degree that he thinks that he would need to (and for what it's worth, in a different era, Luther would have been told that he is overly scrupulous). Certainty of Salvation isn't granted, but that is the reason for having hope... it is a confidence that God will provide Eternal Life even without an explicit guarantee. And it is not that we need to worry that our good works are acceptible... if we are doing them in complete sincerity, whether or not they are acceptible won't even cross into our minds; we do them out of love for God, just as little children do things in order to please their earthly fathers. "And now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity".
Ugh. Although the site was created *for* Anglicans you might check the site in my tagline: trad-anglican.faithweb.com. it is a starting place, at least. Also, my church's website has An Anglican Bookshelf page, which may also provide some good references.
Amen, though I would note that although Rome has successfully prevented a takeover she still has a significant case of liberal infection I'd be happier seeing corrected. OTOH, Rome wasn't built in a day...
Something non-Anglicans tend to forget is that there are two main groups within Anglicanism: the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic. It is almost two churches in one, though perhaps less so than when the Elizabethan Compromise first came down.
Dr. Sanders is definitely centered in the Evangelical wing, the more Protestant element of Anglicanism, and some of what I see here is more likely representative of that wing than Anglicanism as a whole.
it isn't always easy to see clearly from this side of the Tiber to the opposite bank of the Thames.
Sometimes it's not easy to see one bank of the Thames from the other bank of the Thames. *\;-)
According to this, it is 5672 miles (9128 km) (4929 nautical miles), north-northeast (32.4 degrees) from me to Rome.
Well, so you know where you stand with regard to Rome, with great precision.
Is there a difference here between the Catholics and the Orthodox? I suspect the latter would replace "offend" with "separate us from", but I don't quite follow from there. Perhaps because I've heard little to nothing of "mortal vs venial sins" from the Orthodox here.
LOL! Depends on the definition of "great." The base point is actually 1-1/2 miles east of where I am right now (though it's a 10+ mile drive to get there from here). OTOH, Rome is a big enough target that such an error probably still places me within the city limits.
Dr. Sanders is definitely centered in the Evangelical wing, the more Protestant element of Anglicanism, and some of what I see here is more likely representative of that wing than Anglicanism as a whole.
I'm aware of the two sides; the problem that I still have is trying to understand to what degree any part of Anglicanism can speak for any other part, especially on matters of doctrine. I suspected that he was part of that Evangelical branch because of the arguments and terminology that he is using. Thank you for clearing that up.
Sometimes it's not easy to see one bank of the Thames from the other bank of the Thames. *\;-)
Well put. The more that unfolds with Bp. Robinson, Bp. Schori, and others, that's starting to become rather evident. We were fortunate to have Bishop Harvey (retired Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland) visit my college and give a couple of talks; that is the impression that he left us with too.
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.