The Beginning of the Reformation's End?

On a recent evening, about 60 people—ex-Episcopalians, curious Catholics and a smattering of earnest Episcopal priests in clerical collars—gathered downtown for an unusual liturgy: It was Evensong and Benediction, sung according to the Book of Divine Worship, an Anglican Use liturgical book still being prepared in Rome.

Beautiful evensongs are a signature of Protestant Episcopal worship. Benediction, which consists of hymns, canticles or litanies before the consecrated host on the altar, is a Catholic devotion. We were getting a blend of both at St. Mary Mother of God Church, lent for the occasion.

One former Episcopalian present confessed to having to choke back tears as the first plainsong strains of "Humbly I Adore Thee," the Anglican version of a hymn by St. Thomas Aquinas, floated down from the organ in the balcony. A convert to Catholicism, she could not believe she was sitting in a Catholic Church, hearing the words of her Anglican girlhood—and as part of an authorized, Roman Catholic liturgy.

And that was not the only miracle. Although the texts had been carefully vetted in Rome for theological points, the words being sung were written by Thomas Cranmer, King Henry VIII's architect of the English Reformation. "He remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant Israel," the congregation chanted, "as he promised to our forefathers, Abraham and his seed for ever."

The language of this translation of the Magnificat, one of Christianity's two great evening canticles, is unfamiliar to many Episcopalians today, as it comes from earlier versions of their Book of Common Prayer. Yet a number of former Anglicans are eager to carry some of this liturgy with them when they swim the Tiber, as Episcopalians becoming Catholic often call the conversion. "I wonder why the phrase 'and there is no health in us' was omitted from the...................

Cronos from #794: "The JWs are just Arianism reborn in a sola scriptura world. Because we didn't learn from our history we see that what Athanasius battled has re-appeared..."

"The Arians denied the term Theotokos because they believed that Mary could not be described as Mother of God for the simple reason that Jesus was not 'God the Son' but 'the Son of God.' The Trinity doctrine these Arians and the JWs beleive is not a part of Hebrewbelief and is not taught in the bible."

I've been away, and this discussion takes concentration -- especially for someone like myself not thoroughly familiar with all the terms.
Your comments provide an opportunity to restate my basic argument, which is:

I doubt if Christ Himself cares a whit about the fine points -- or even some broad strokes -- of human invented theology.
My guess: every church doctrine is wrong at least to some degree, and if Christ were going to condemn some for theological errors, He'd have to condemn them all -- and I don't think He does that.

I'd suppose what Christ really cares about is: do we love God with all our heart & might, do we love our neighbors as ourselves (including our supposedly "heretic" neighbors), and do we accept Christ as Lord and Savior?
On any other theological questions, I'm guessing Christ forgives us, because we know not what we do.

Now, on the issue of the Jehovah's Witnesses -- I'm not here to defend their theology, except to point out that neither the New Testament nor the Council of Nicaea use terms like "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost."
Indeed, the New Testament is quite clear about referring to Jesus as the "Son of God," but never unambiguously calls him "God," as opposed to such terms as "my lord" or "my god" (small "g").

My only point here is: if you begin, as JW's do, with solo scritura, then you may not necessarily conclude with terms like "God the Son" or "God the Holy Ghost".

So how many of the world's two billion Christians, in hundreds of major denomination, have gone down that path?
My estimate is: maybe a dozen denominations (including JWs), holding fewer than 5% of all Christians, are non-Trinitarians.
Does Christ reject the souls of these people? I doubt it very much.

I'd say Christ commands us to love one another, not condemn each other on theological grounds.
If theological judgments ever need to be made, He'll make them.

The real question then is not, "which Christians believe the correct theology," but rather, "which Christians love Christ and follow his commands."

So, regarding the Holocaust, about 2,500 of 10,000 imprisoned Jehovah's Witnesses perished, and they deserve as much recognition as the roughly equal number of Catholic clergy who suffered and died in Nazi hands.
I doubt if Christ accepts some of their sacrifices while rejecting others.

Cronos from #796: "3. The Coptics DID break away in terms of a schism --> it was not power-politics, if you read the details of the councils the issue was over the nature of God "

According to Coptic history, it was Copts who held fast to their original beliefs, and the Orthodox at Chalcedon who wandered off into heresy.
Of course, I have no dog in this fight, but it does seem to me Copts have a stronger case.

Again, my argument is that none of these differences in theological opinions could matter a whit in the Eyes of Christ, but Christians rejecting and persecuting other Christians over such disputes must surely force out of Him tears of blood.

"“but it does seem to me Copts have a stronger case” ==> why do you say that? "

Many years ago I made a good faith effort to understand the "iota's worth of difference" in these ancient theological debates, but just couldn't. So I concluded that if I can't understand it, then 99% of people couldn't understand it, and that therefore, it cannot be a matter of ANY importance to either God or Christ Himself.

So I'm not saying that one side is right theologically and the other side wrong. What I am saying is that the Council of Chalcedon redefined the divinity of Christ in such a way that Copts and others could not accept it. Then, using the state power of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Orthodox declared Copts (and others) to be heretics deserving persecution.

In my mind, such processes, and related ones repeated innumerable times throughout the following 1,000+ years, are morally wrong in the utmost extreme.

So, let's consider a modern analogy, one where the argument clearly favors the Church: post-war, post-Holocaust, Catholic Church declarations that anti-Semitism, as it was taught for many centuries, is now to be considered morally unacceptable. Good for the Church -- about time that issue was corrected. But what about those who refuse to change? Are they now suddenly heretics?

Yes, if their hearts are full of hatred for Jews. But what if they are not? What if they are simply driven by an unquenchable love for the Church as they used to know it?

All I'm saying is a little bit of Christian love ought to be extended on both sides, and serious efforts made to overcome obstacles.

Such efforts were never, to my knowledge, made regarding ancient Copts or any number of others declared, for whatever reasons, "heretical."

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.