Posted on 06/02/2005 12:15:16 PM PDT by sionnsar
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. ping
************
Solidarity bttt.
Conservative Episcopalians have been swimming over to Rome in droves for awhile....and to a degree to the Orthodox Churches. Homosexuality is opnly part of it. Large sections of the Episcopalian communion really don't espouse basic "catholic" doctrine ie; The Creed.....well there is definitely a problem here.
The author of this analysis talks about the alteration of "long-settled teachings", by which he means certain teachings of the Anglican Church that are at odds with teachings of the (Roman) Catholic Church. This raises a fundamental question: What gives the Anglican Church the right on its own to "settle" any question? Even by the most Anglo-Catholic understanding, the Anglican Church is no more than a part of the Church universal. Any Council of the Anglican Church would be at best a local or regional council. Never has it been understood that a matter could be definitively settled by a mere part of the Church. One has the feeling that many Anglicans just have not sat down to think deeply about fundamental questions of ecclesiology.
***************
There may be differences, but we are all Christians, are we not?
Good exposition of the issue, but everyone must remember that "orthodoxy" like "Orthodoxy" does not admit of diversity of doctrine in theological or ecclesiological matters.
As a Catholic, I would welcome continued cooperation and even perhaps eventual unification with the Anglican Communion. I believe it is important for all to remain aware that the true enemy is the immorality brought on by secular humanism. That being said, the biggest obstacles I see are Marian beliefs and married clergy, and while neither of these is insurmountable, they are significant.
N0 doubt that the 39 Articles were "Calvinist" in tone and maybe substance. Cardinal Newman pointed that out, But I wonder if it is not forgotten how radically Cranmer altered the Church even during the time of Henry.
This is a well-thought out and interesting article but this comparison doesn't hold water. In the case of the Immaculate Conception/Assumption, tradition is strong even where Scripture is silent. But even anyone foolish enough to buy the "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality" argument, is constrained to admit that the practice was vehemently and unanimously condemned by the Fathers etc.
Evangelical Anglicans are right to be suspicious of throwing everything in with Rome. While they are minorities in North America, they are a part of the vast majority worldwide. Why swim the Tiber when the Congo and Niger are perfectly good for swimming these days? Another point of concern should be the Roman method of doctrinal analysis. Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception, Assumption and Papal Infallibility were defined as dogmas only in the last 200 years. These dogmas, which were debated for centuries, were put into full force right next to the Incarnation and Resurrection not because they were solidly backed by Scripture and Tradition (Thomas Aquinas and Anselm taught contrary to the present Immaculate Conception doctrine), but because the leaders of the contermporary church (i.e. those bishops at Vatican I) thought them appropriate. To evangelicals, allowing a church council to outweigh Scripture and Tradition smells too much like what happened at GC 2003.
Tremendous difference between a council clarifying something that is ambiguous in Scripture (after all, isn't that exactly what Nicaea did?), and a council directly and flatly contradicting the whole Christian moral tradition and choosing obedience to the zeitgeist over obedience to God.
But forget GC 2003 -- it happened at Lambeth, 1930, where the Anglican Communion discarded 2000 years of uniform Christian witness that artificial contraception was a sin, becoming the first Christian group to do so.
Then again, those of us who are Catholic believe that the Church gathered in an ecumenical council is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit when it defines dogma. Not even Anglicans think that an ECUSA convocation is "the Church gathered in an ecumenical council".
I have to say I thought about the 39 Articles last Sunday when our Catholic parish had a Corpus Christi procession (itself a novelty to the parish -- we have a young new pastor who is trying to reintroduce traditional liturgical practices and devotions). Something about the Eucharist not being lifted up and moved about...
Very different. The authentic conciliar teachings to which you refer were adopted firstly by the proper teaching office in the Church, i.e., the successors of the apostles in union with the successor of Peter. And the doctrinal definitions were based on concepts found in Tradition and were natural and organic explanations and developments within the confines of Scripture and Tradition. They are, as John Henry Newman would say, authentic development of doctrine, not reversals of the deposit of faith. The teachings of GC 2003 on same sex unions and episcopal homosexual activity have no basis in Scripture and Tradition and in fact contradict Scripture, Tradition and the constant and universal teaching of the Church based on them. It is a reversal of the teachings of the deposit of faith, not an organic development. Look to Newman!
Indeed, US!
"In their conferences, the Holy Synods draw not only from the Holy Scriptures, but also from Sacred Tradition as from a pure fount. Thus, the Seventh Oecumenical Synod says in its 8th Decree: 'If one violates any part of the Church Tradition, either written or unwritten, let him be anathema.'" St. Nectarios of Aegina, Modern Orthodox Saints, Vol. 7
It's a good article. As I see it (Roman Catholicly, I hope) the mess in the Angican Communion isn't likely to provoke any kind of corporal reunion. What it will do, and is doing, is convince a great number of orthodox Anglicans to look again at "Romish doctrines" and be disposed to see them more positively than ever before.
For instance, I see a small number of Anglicans (Rowan Williams for one) pointing out the moral connection between allowing contraception and accepting homosexuality.
And I see many more wishing for the stability of a Magisterium, and thinking maybe Jesus did institute one or at least that it would have been smart if He had.
That, combined with the pastoral provisions Rome has made for Anglican Use liturgies and whatnot, ease the transition.
In the end, even if one is not fully convicted or comfortable with things like Marian doctrines, a simple act of will to believe (quite absent the full feeling of belief) suffices. This will isn't anything tough to muster if you've accepted as true that Peter really is the Rock.
And it's enough to tip the scales for a lot.
It's a good article. As I see it (Roman Catholicly, I hope) the mess in the Angican Communion isn't likely to provoke any kind of corporal reunion. What it will do, and is doing, is convince a great number of orthodox Anglicans to look again at "Romish doctrines" and be disposed to see them more positively than ever before.
For instance, I see a small number of Anglicans (Rowan Williams for one) pointing out the moral connection between allowing contraception and accepting homosexuality.
And I see many more wishing for the stability of a Magisterium, and thinking maybe Jesus did institute one or at least that it would have been smart if He had.
That, combined with the pastoral provisions Rome has made for Anglican Use liturgies and whatnot, ease the transition.
In the end, even if one is not fully convicted or comfortable with things like Marian doctrines, a simple act of will to believe (quite absent the full feeling of belief) suffices. This will isn't anything tough to muster if you've accepted as true that Peter really is the Rock.
And it's enough to tip the scales for a lot.
Not only Marian beliefs, married Clergy, Scriptural authority but also Communion. Traditional Anglicans do not believe in the Real Presence (Transubstantiation) in the bread and wine, nor in the Veneration of Saints or praying to them for intercession. Also there is the question of the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the totally different roles of the Laity in the respective Communions. The form of worship is similiar but the underlying theology is very different.
The Anglicans "swimming the Tiber" are not very good Anglicans any more than the leftist "Episcopalians".
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.