Posted on 09/04/2005 3:25:56 PM PDT by sionnsar
I just received word that a friend of mine from the University of Chicago is going to be received into the Roman Catholic Church in Colorado in a few weeks. This young man was once a youth minister at an Episcopal parish in his home state, though while in Chicago he joined Moody Memorial Church (a keystone of the American evangelical movement). I haven’t really been in touch with him since I returned to Texas fifteen months ago, so I don’t know exactly what took him from Moody Church to Catholicism. I certainly wish him well, and I rejoice that he is joining a branch of the Church that teaches the apostolic Faith, values the great Tradition of the Church, and cherishes all the Sacraments. May God bless him on this new path.
This news has made me pensive. He is not the first friend of mine who has “swam the Tiber” during the last two years. One friend (whose wife is still an ECUSA priest, btw) was received in the RCC a year and a half ago. I think it was the philosophical heritage of Roman Catholic theology that attracted him more than anything else. A young U of C undergraduate friend, whose father was an Episcopal priest all her life, was received into the RCC last Easter with the rest of her family. A third dear friend of mine in Chicago--I have heard through the grapevine--is close to taking the plunge any time. (It is possible that he has already made up his mind to do so and is holding back from telling me.) All of these people were Episcopalians until the events of General Convention 2003. And they all no longer at home within ECUSA. After having spent seven year living in the diocese of Chicago, I certainly understand that feeling. It is very difficult to maintain “the faith once delivered to the saints” under present conditions in much of the Episcopal Church.
I am first and foremost a Catholic Christian, dedicated to the one Faith of Jesus Christ as revealed in the two Testaments of Holy Scripture, summarized in the three great historic creeds, defined by the first four Ecumenical Councils of the Church during the first five centuries of the Christian era. I want to live and die in the undivided Truth of the Church as it was taught before the sad division between East and West.
I personally stand within western Catholic tradition because it is the western expression of the undivided Truth (i.e., Augustine, Gregory, Anselm, Bernard, Thomas) that resonates most strongly within my heart (though I honor those who find the eastern expression of our common Faith more compelling). I am an Anglican rather than a Roman Catholic today primarily because I do not find the claims to infallibility that the First Vatican Council made on behalf of the Holy Father in Rome to be consistent with the practice of the ancient Church (or of the undivided Church at any time in her history—to my knowledge the East has never accepted the claims to papal infallibility that arose in the West in late antiquity and the Middle Ages). This hesitance to accept papal infallibility in no way implies a lack of respect for the present Pope as a man of faith and a Christian leader. (Readers of this blog have no doubt noticed that I hold Pope Benedict in very high esteem). Rome clearly has a strong traditional claim on a “primacy of honor” within the worldwide Church, and the bishops of Rome deserve great respect for the fine work they have done in preserving the orthodox Faith down through the centuries. I long for the day when traditional Anglicans and Roman Catholics are once more reunited as a visible Christian family on Earth. But I cannot in good conscience affirm a power of infallibility in the successor of St. Peter as an individual. (I feel this power would reside only in a genuine ecumenical council of the Church, not an individual bishop.) I certainly understand why many people find comfort in papal infallibility in the face of so much doctrinal division today, but I am afraid that I cannot concur. (Though there is clearly some value in having a "court of final jurisdicition" for doctrinal disputes.) For me, classical Anglicanism is the expression of western Christianity that I find most consonant with the ancient heritage of the Church.
Another aspect of classical Anglicanism that I find appealing is its traditional ability to reconcile Catholic and evangelical viewpoints within a single orthodox body, both constituent parties of which are devoted to the veracity of Scripture, the validity of the Sacraments and the unity of the Body. This is the true meaning of the Anglican Via Media, and I believe that at its best it enriches our Catholic heritage with a zeal for the Gospel that honors our Savior highly. I am an Anglo-Catholic by conviction, but I honor my evangelical Anglican brothers and sisters sincerely for their dedication to the Truth.
These are the reasons I remain an Anglican. But let me be clear—I am a Catholic Christian standing in the tradition of classical Anglicanism. Increasingly it is becoming difficult to find this kind of Anglicanism in practice in North America and Great Britain. Many Episcopalians in the US are in fact liberal Protestants by conviction. They just happen to prefer a “fancy” style of worship, with esthetically appealing worship spaces, vestments and music. Many liberal Episcopalians could care less about the authority and integrity of Scripture or Tradition. Classical Anglicanism has been marginalized within ECUSA. A dozen dioceses, a few dozen embattled parishes in heterodox dioceses, a couple of seminaries—that is about all that remains today. I have to admit that if I were not in a solidly orthodox diocese with a faithful bishop and presbyterate, I might despair of a future for classical Anglicanism. Under the circumstances that prevail in much of ECUSA the Tiber might beckon to me as well. I therefore wish those who have already left Godspeed. But the Anglican Communion Network gives me hope that classical Anglicanism may not perish from our continent, and my diocese remains steadfast. May God have mercy on us and preserve our Anglican heritage, if it is worthy of being preserved. If it is not, may He take what is worthwhile from its wreckage and pass it along for the good of the Universal Church. As for me, I will stay the course and follow the lead of Bishop Iker, my reverend father in God.
I wish all my friends who have been received into the Roman Catholic Church well and assure them of my prayers. I also pray for the day when we all may be one as Christ and the Father are One.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. The Church is the Body of Christ.
. . . while I respect the writer's views, the alternative to a final authority with the Teaching Office is that Nobody Is In Charge.
The shakeout in ECUSA is nowhere near over.
That one word has multiple meanings and the context of the question is all-important. If I am a stranger in a small town and ask someone "Where is the church?" I might get 123 Main Street. If I am participating in some discussion, say, of Katrina, and ask "Where is the church?" I will get a very different answer.
So very true. And not just ECUSA.
You know, the one that Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against. That one.
Interesting point. I don't see that the Roman Catholic Church has any problem containing both (shall we say) European viewpoints and evangelical viewpoints. Certainly some of the adherents of either style have trouble with the other, but that's true in the Anglican tradition as well.
I do not find the claims to infallibility that the First Vatican Council made on behalf of the Holy Father in Rome to be consistent with the practice of the ancient Church (or of the undivided Church at any time in her history—to my knowledge the East has never accepted the claims to papal infallibility that arose in the West in late antiquity and the Middle Ages).
Perhaps 'late antiquity' started earlier than I thought.
Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
And as to the East not accepting papal authority, the dispute between St. John Chrysostom and the Emperor about the pope is instructive. I'll go with the Ecumenical Patriarch on that one.
This little walk in the Protestant mind fascinates me:
"I am first and foremost a Catholic Christian, dedicated to the one Faith of Jesus Christ as revealed in the two Testaments of Holy Scripture, summarized in the three great historic creeds, defined by the first four Ecumenical Councils of the Church during the first five centuries of the Christian era."
Oh, I see. So you're catholicity is limited to your 21st century understanding of the first five centuries of the Christianity? Does that even make sense?
"I want to live and die in the undivided Truth of the Church as it was taught before the sad division between East and West."
Well, then you better learn what that is and soon because right now you're rather confused.
"I personally stand within western Catholic tradition because it is the western expression of the undivided Truth (i.e., Augustine, Gregory, Anselm, Bernard, Thomas)..."
None of whom had anything to do with your group. You just named Catholics. You're not Catholic. Ever read what any of them you just mentioned wrote about heresy and schism?
"I am an Anglican rather than a Roman Catholic today..."
You know what? I'm not "Roman Catholic" either. I am Catholic, however, and you're not. You are not part of the Church. You're an Anglican. You're a Protestant.
"...primarily because I do not find the claims to infallibility that the First Vatican Council made on behalf of the Holy Father in Rome to be consistent with the practice of the ancient Church..."
And how does being an Anglican make you competent to decide that? Where in fathers do you find your sect when it was only started in 1534?
"...(or of the undivided Church at any time in her history—to my knowledge the East has never accepted the claims to papal infallibility that arose in the West in late antiquity and the Middle Ages)."
Oh, I see. You won't accept papal infallibility because you believe it was started late....wait, didn't your sect start in 1534... centuries after the first tracts on papal infallibility? So are you the pot or the kettle?
"This hesitance to accept papal infallibility in no way implies a lack of respect for the present Pope as a man of faith and a Christian leader."
Yeah, you just don't believe his office really means that much. No disrespect meant on your part of course!
"(Readers of this blog have no doubt noticed that I hold Pope Benedict in very high esteem). Rome clearly has a strong traditional claim on a “primacy of honor” within the worldwide Church, and the bishops of Rome deserve great respect for the fine work they have done in preserving the orthodox Faith down through the centuries. I long for the day when traditional Anglicans and Roman Catholics are once more reunited as a visible Christian family on Earth."
So you long for fantasies? Anglicans will never be united with the Church. They can't be as long as they are Anglicans. That's the way you wanted it, and yet you now pretend otherwise.
"But I cannot in good conscience affirm a power of infallibility in the successor of St. Peter as an individual. (I feel this power would reside only in a genuine ecumenical council of the Church, not an individual bishop.)"
And exactly how many ecumenical councils has Anglicanism participated in? Oh, yeah, zero.
"For me, classical Anglicanism is the expression of western Christianity that I find most consonant with the ancient heritage of the Church."
Even though it was only invented in 1534.
"Another aspect of classical Anglicanism that I find appealing is its traditional ability to reconcile Catholic and evangelical viewpoints within a single orthodox body,..."
Except that you're not orthodox, nor are you in a "body" in the Christian sense but a sect. You also don't reconcile Catholic and evangelical viewpoints. Instead you create ambiguity and revel in it as if it were a virtue to never be able to solve problems, resolve disputes, define doctrineor simply acknowledge truth.
"... both constituent parties of which are devoted to the veracity of Scripture, the validity of the Sacraments and the unity of the Body."
Unity? Have you actually looked at Anglicanism lately? Do we even really want to go there?
"This is the true meaning of the Anglican Via Media, and I believe that at its best it enriches our Catholic heritage with a zeal for the Gospel that honors our Savior highly. I am an Anglo-Catholic by conviction, but I honor my evangelical Anglican brothers and sisters sincerely for their dedication to the Truth."
Ahhh, via media = looks Catholic, is Protestant, can't remain Christian for very long.
"These are the reasons I remain an Anglican. But let me be clear—I am a Catholic Christian standing in the tradition of classical Anglicanism."
If you're Anglican you're not Catholic. Don't claim to be two different things at once when they are opposed to one another.
"Increasingly it is becoming difficult to find this kind of Anglicanism in practice in North America and Great Britain. Many Episcopalians in the US are in fact liberal Protestants by conviction."
(Gasp!) Say it ain't so!
"They just happen to prefer a “fancy” style of worship, with esthetically appealing worship spaces, vestments and music. Many liberal Episcopalians could care less about the authority and integrity of Scripture or Tradition. Classical Anglicanism has been marginalized within ECUSA. A dozen dioceses, a few dozen embattled parishes in heterodox dioceses, a couple of seminaries—that is about all that remains..."
Didn't I already summarize this: looks Catholic, is Protestant, can't remain Christian for very long.
I like Anglican liturgies and traditional Anglican music. But there is nothing else in schism and heresy to admire.
The most obvious answer: http://www.walsingham-church.org/
...But for the Anglican tradition's music.
Oh HURRAY! Precisely so!
Oh yes. "Come into my parlor," said the spider to the fly. Come on over to this church that seems bankrupt in more than one way:
Spokane judge nailed it
Sept 2, 2005, The Seattle Times
"No one can be happy church property built with the widow's mite and good works is put in financial jeopardy, but a federal bankruptcy judge properly held the Catholic Diocese of Spokane accountable to the law.
Property owned by the diocese can be sold to pay settlements to sex-abuse victims, Judge Patricia Williams of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington ruled last week. If parishioners are angry, the judge is a poor target for their wrath. Take it up with the leadership of the church, which failed them and those who were violated.
The Spokane diocese was the third in the nation to seek protection under Chapter 11 bankruptcy law, which offers a safe harbor from a storm of sexual-abuse lawsuits. Spokane followed Tucson and Portland into bankruptcy protection.
Yeah. No wonder you want people to swim the Tiber. You need their money to help pay off your bankrupt church's victims.
It's really funny. One thought that buggering boys was a sin (not to mention a crime), but I guess it wasn't if your holy church's leaders just swept it under the rug. Makes one wonder; if that's not a sin in your holy church anymore, what else is now permitted?
And about that widow's mite: you were really good and faithful stewards of that, weren't you?
Now, I find vladimir's comments sadly lacking in charity, and I find the Anglican Use to be even less Catholic than the 1928 BCP, which I must supplement with the Anglican Missal, but I don't find the content of that citation funny in the least, Clint.
The fact that men who have no difficulty expressing their preference for homosexual activity got into the priesthood is undeniable (it was also recommended by many at the time, sic transit sensibilitas, yes?), but it is not demonstrable as Church policy, nor is it either a recommendation or derogation of the value of Roman Catholic faithfulness to both acknowledge the abuse and to uphold historic RC doctrine and practice.
It is not news that Roman churchmen (as is true for churchmen of any tradition, Christian or not) are fallible and some are even scandalous. A cursory review of history would disabuse the contrary and utterly erroneous notion. But to use the late errors, grievous as they were, as a permanent stick to beat Catholics with is unconscionable, sir, and I rebuke you for it.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
Clint,
You wrote:
"Oh yes. "Come into my parlor," said the spider to the fly."
So you're a fly now? That's very apt considering what flies usually buzz around.
"Come on over to this church that seems bankrupt in more than one way:"
Except that the Church is not bankrupt in any way. Some diocese, because of the stupidity and sinfulness of their priests and bishops are now cash poor. Not my diocese. Not my parish. And certainly not my Church.
Also, you seem to have forgotten that the first diocese to file for bankruptcy in North America for pay off sexual abuse law suits was an Anglican diocese in Canada. Remember that? Hypocrisy is a really sad thing. Try to avoid it.
"Yeah. No wonder you want people to swim the Tiber. You need their money to help pay off your bankrupt church's victims."
Well, since my Church doesn't owe a dime to anyone for anything I can't see how that could be. Do tell. Also, in case you haven't noticed, Anglicans have been leaving their sect for months and months over the most recent and sad oddities they've witnessed. Many of them are coming to the Catholic Church. Don't like it? Too bad. It's going to continue.
"It's really funny. One thought that buggering boys was a sin (not to mention a crime), but I guess it wasn't if your holy church's leaders just swept it under the rug."
No Anglican, or any Anglican defender, should ever lecture anyone about the sinfulness of buggering boys since that is an English public school/Anglican pastime of longstanding note. Also, none of my Church's leaders swept anything under the rug. Want to know how many legal claims there are against my diocese? Zero. Want to know how many there were against my diocese ten years ago? Zero.
"Makes one wonder; if that's not a sin in your holy church anymore, what else is now permitted?"
It is a sinful and it always will be. Anglicanism, however, now allows openly gay bishops. That is a a very open endorsement of homosexuality.
"And about that widow's mite: you were really good and faithful stewards of that, weren't you?"
If it makes you feel better to write that way, go ahead. I know your sect is essentially undefendable so it doesn't really bother me. Those Anglicans who actually want to be Christians will continue to leave you behind and join the Church. You can't stop it. Hurts doesn't it? Feeling impotent? Angry? Upset that anti-Catholicism is not enough to stop the bleeding out of your sect?
Get used to it.
Not to be picky, but what made you assume that Clint was Anglican?
...or even Christian, for that matter, hmm?
You aren't Catholic. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer is not Catholic. The Anglican Use is Catholic because it is inside of Holy Mother Church.
That is solipsistic. I do encourage you to read it carefully and to compare it, line by line, with the equivalent passages in the 1928 BCP as well as the current Roman Missal. Of the three, I am quite content with the BCP. Second would be the Missal. The AU is a distant and muddled third, combining the Zwinglian tendencies of the BCP with RCC patches that only muddle the sense and reorgane the rite to completely disorient the congregation for which it is intended. Not very charitable, actually, and just the kind of thing that Anglo-catholics have been trying to escape in the legalistic CoE for centuries: a centrally-promulgated liturgy having no feel for the belief of the congregation and no real core theology but which is put forth in the attempt to co-opt the texts with which that part of the Body would be vaguely familiar.
The result is a dying Faith.
BTW, I happen to have a wonderful Sunday Missal from 1959. I'd use that, in the Latin or in English, over the AU or the current Novus Ordo Romanus any day of the week.
And your charity could use a touch-up too, Siobhan.
In Charity through Christ,
Deacon Paul+
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.