I love the Pope: Why the Apostolic Constitution is a Good Thing

I wholeheartedly agree—hear hear!

Particularly with these lines: “why would we want to lean on the near coercive power of institutionalized road-blocks? This, I think, is what the Apostolic Constitution represents, a welcome removal of some institutional roadblocks that would make it more difficult for Anglicans already committed to Rome to get there.

Why be upset? Do Anglicans really want people to remain Anglican simply because it is too difficult, procedurally, to convert to Rome? No thank you. I don’t want half-hearted Anglicans.”

This has also been a mystery to me about ACNA and Episcopalians whinging about ACNA’s existence.

I don’t necessarily *want* people to go to ACNA.  I completely agree that when traditional/conservative people leave TEC for ACNA it weakens TEC and that’s certainly inconvenient and tough for folks like me.  And I personally don’t want to go to ACNA.  But once people say “I cannot stay in TEC and now I am leaving” isn’t it a good thing, if they wish to be in an Anglican entity, for ACNA to exist?

If strong, traditional dioceses like Dallas or Central Florida or wherever can’t hold on to their parishioners, then oh well.  In my experience, the folks who have left TEC have gone to Rome, Geneva, ACNA, etc.  But they weren’t ever going to stay in TEC, so why not have a place for folks who wish to be Anglican in a structured body?

Just to remain clear—I see hosts of problems with ACNA and have no desire to head there.  BUT I’m thrilled for folks who *aren’t going to be in TEC regardless* to have a place to go if they wish to continue as Anglicans in a structured body.

Same with the AngloCatholics who already agree with Roman doctrine and dogma.  Good heavens why should they have to remain within Anglicanism?  Now they have a place—and a convenient way—to go.

The pope, no doubt, being Catholic

Well… I guess that answers that question.

A perfectly beautiful post. I wouldn’t become RC but my admiration for the Church of Rome is great.

Great post…and I could not agree more!

Subscribe

amen!

AMEN!!!!!!  As an evangelical protestant myself I could not agree more! Glad you said it!  Three cheers for the pope and three more for Matt!

Oh and also congratulations.

Concur.

Thank you, Matt. As one who has left TEC for Rome, it’s refreshing to read your generousity of spirit, logical reasoning, and (dare I say it) adult perspective on the situation.

I too have been surprised by seemingly frightened over-reactions from our side re: Rome’s pastoral care for Canterbury’s many orphans. 

Sounds like I’ve missed something important.  Who is trying to put up what kind of institutional barriers?  Shocking.

Don’t you think the ‘fright’ comes from the sense of impending collapse of our Anglican identity? The reactions have unfortunately been aimed at the Catholic church, when it’s the leaders and brawlers of the Anglican Church to whom they should be aimed.

Having now been “Welcomed” as a candidate for full communion in the Catholic Church, I need to make one observation with respect to Matt’s suspicion that Catholics “rejoice when an evangelical decides to swim the Tiber.” And this is, most definitely, not intended as any sort of criticism of anything Matt, or commenter, has written on this thread.

In all my 64 years, I have never had communicated to me so openly and sincerely, by so many of my newly met parishioners (most of them hardly knowing me other than by my name and/or face, if either) the rejoicing at my entry into that particular part of the Body that is represented by the local parish. Not when I was confirmed in the LCMS. Not when I ‘came in from the cold’ of agnositicism to the Episcopal Church in my mid-20s, nor when I changed parishes as I relocated incident to changes of station during my 20 years in the Navy. And the peculiar thing is, that, on first beginning regular attendance at a Catholic parish one has almost the opposite experience. Other than the clergy and the few persons in the vestibule (narthex, to Episcopalians) handing out parish newsletters to those departing after Mass, almost no one spoke to me except for other choir members or those in the RCIA team who knew I was inquiring into the Church (I joined both within a few weeks of first attending Mass there).

This has been a (small, but not insignificant) element of the sense I have of having come home to where God has always wanted me to be.

I have known for a long time that the Episcopal Church was also known colloquially as the ‘frozen chosen’ but the reality really hit home once I began attending Blessed Sacrament.

My experience validates Matt’s suspicions about Catholics. I’m not sure what to make of it, but I felt led to share it.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

oscewicee -

I’d say that’s correct for many, but ignores a potentially more significant factor. The fallout from our generations-old “divorce” takes many forms. For some, the differences between us are blown (IMO) far out of proportion to the point where the other side isn’t even part of the Body. It ceases to be a dispute between brothers on (admittedly important) theological issues and is the dividing line between the saved and unsaved.

While I certainly don’t agree that this is true, anyone using the label “Calvinist” must surely be aware of the position (the Westminster confession not leaving much room for “I love the Pope” in anything beyond a “love your enemies” sense).

We must be charitable enough to recognize the “angst” as possibly being an honest (though misguided) fear for the souls of those “lost” to more than Anglicanism.

subscribe

Hi PP Calvin did not write the WCF…

True, Mrs, Kennedy, but would he have signed it if asked?

Hi PP Calvin did not write the WCF…

Of course not… but Calvinists did.

That was very well written, thank you Matt. I share your outlook, just from the other side of the Tiber. I suspect at least some of the attitudes you see are part and parcel of the attitudes regarding TEC physical property - definitely so in the hierarchy. I think they see people leaving for Rome as akin to a breakaway parishes and dioceses taking their churches with them, in the latter case of course they sue, even if they haven’t the souls to fill the building if they win. There’s less they can do in the former case, but I bet it informs a lot of the grumbling. I think the attitude is one of “we stole this church fair and square, how dare you steal our worshippers from us!” They may have underestimated how many would vote with their feet once the palace coup was complete, and are learning that it’s no fun to be in charge of a church with no faithful…

Thanks to Keith Topfer (#12) for his winsome personal testimony as one who has recently “come home to Rome.”  I’m glad it’s been such a good transition for him.

I too welcome the cordial, generous spirit of Matt’s post.  It shows how much has changed since the far more acrimonious days before Vatican II.  I vividly recall what the late, great Anglican missionary and scholar +Stephen Neill once told me in a private conversation, back when I was privilieged to be his chaffeur and assistant when he was doing research at Yale during my seminary days there.  He noted that back when he was a student at Cambridge in the 1920s, Anglicans proudly welcomed Roman Catholics, especially priests, who transferred to the CoE and they were known as “converts.”  But when someone went the other way, and especially when a CoE priest became a Catholic, they were bitterly derided as “perverts.”  I’m so glad that sour attitude has largely changed.

I can easily think of several more points to add to Matt’s list of things about Roman Catholicism that I greatly admire.  Here are a few.

1.  Rome is the only truly international Church in the world.  Anglicanism may come in second, but it’s a very distant second.  We Anglicans are still found mostly wherever the British Empire once existed, or the Commonwealth still does.  But we’re almost non-existent in Latin America and various places in Asia.  But the Roman Church is amazingly universal.  And it even includes a significant minority of eastern rite Christians, such as the Ukrainian and Ruthenian/Byzantine, Maronite or Melkite Churches.

2.  I can only envy the institutional and theological strength that comes from a clear, undisputed magisterium such as the papacy represents.  The sheer anarchy that reigns in Anglicanism in our time sorely tempts me to covet Rome’s immense strength in that area, although I’m fully aware of the inherent drawbacks that accompany that central magisterium when vested in just one man, no matter how wise or godly.  I’d prefer a collective magisterium, such as the Eastern Orthodox have, but Rome’s record in terms of orthodox doctrine and missionary zeal certainly exceeds that of any eastern see by itself, whether Antioch, Alexandria, or Constantinople.

3.  And in pointed contrast to Matt’s #3, which I think is simply a case of a blatant factual error, I welcome and celebrate Roman Catholicisms’ ability to assimilate modern biblical criticism in a balanced and moderate way, eating the meat and throwing out the bones.  What I mean is that it’s simply false that Rome displays an “unwavering commitment to the authority and infallibility of scripture.”  That’s manifestly untrue.  At Vatican II, Catholicism very clearly limited its stand about the infallibility of Holy Scripture to matters involving salvation, something very similar to our Anglican emphasis that the Bible “contains all things necessary for salvation.”  And the 1964 official RC document (from the Pontiffical Biblical Commission) “On the Historical Truth of the Gospels” is the clearest, most emphatic statement of ANY denomination in terms of recognizing the value of the historical critical approach in interpreting the gospels.  There are LOTS of excellent Catholic biblical scholars these days, and NONE of them are inerrantists.  But as I’ve said before at SF on various threads, I think Catholicism is able to face the limitations of Holy Scripture with more serenity than Protestantism precisely because the Bible is NOT their sole authority.  The conjoining of “Scriptura et Traditio,” Scripture AND Tradition, creates a broader base for faith and practice that isn’t threatened so much by the weaknesses uncovered by modern biblical scholarship.

Anyway, that quibble aside, I welcome and appreciate Matt’s timely rejoinder to all the ugly sniping at Rome and especially this current pope that’s been so sadly evident in the last couple of weeks.

David Handy+
Ex-Calvinist, 3-D Christian

Thank you for this Matt.  May all those who love the Lord and His Word be blessed.

Thanks, Matt, for your cordial statement, and thanks, David, for your very factual statement about the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on scripture.  Roman Catholicism, at Vatican II, certainly embranced moderate biblical criticism, especially as witnessed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.”  Let it not be forgotten that Anglicans have often been in the forefront of modern criticism, especially Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort at Cambridge, Streeter at Oxford, and Bishops of Durham like Lightfoot, Westcott, H.C.G. Moule, and now N.T. Wright.  Let’s not forget Charles A. Briggs (of Brown-Driver-Briggs fame), who was convicted of heresy by orthodox Presbyterians in the USA and who was ordained an Episcopal priest.  I also would want to add two paragraphs from the indaba reflections at Lambeth 2008:

§128. In the history of the Anglican tradition, biblical scholarship and exegetical theology have held an honoured place. We rejoice that many faithful scholars of the Bible, both past and present, have been Anglicans and our Church and its ministry has been immeasurably enriched by their faithfulness. Such scholarship, however, does not happen in isolation from the ecumenical community of biblical theologians. We also note the importance of hearing again the voices of the preachers and teachers through the centuries as they sought to speak a lively word in their own time and place. We are grateful to God for the strong contributions made to our own understanding of God’s Word by scholars and teachers of other traditions past and present.
§129. Biblical scholars have a variety of exegetical tools for their use and employ many different methods of biblical exposition and interpretation. When used discerningly and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these tools and methods can assist us in breaking open the Holy Scriptures and enrich our understanding of God’s Word. As bishops of the Church, we commend the use of faithful biblical scholarship by our clergy and people in the full confidence that there is still more light and truth to break forth from God’s Word.

Rudy+

Thanks for backing me up, Rudy+

David Handy+

I do not want and will not allow this thread to veer off topic. I do not think it disputable, that the Magisterium upholds the infallibility, indeed, the inerrancy of scripture. In fact, I believe those words are used quite plainly in the Catechism. I understand that the words are qualified and defined in a way that may differ some with the evangelical understanding of inerrancy but, officially, Rome would uphold the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture in the specific way that she defines those words…and that is all that I am asserting.

That having been said, any signatory of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy could easily agree with the sentiments Rudy quotes from para 129 above.

Now, that being said, if David+ or Rudy would like to take issue with what I have said about this particular matter, let’s do it off line not on this particular thread.

This is a very generous statement Matt, and also what I would have expected from you. 
Susan Peterson

Fr. Handy,  I believe that the Assemblies of God considers themselves to be an international church, and can back that claim up with a formidable list of representative countries.

Matt, this is a lovely piece, that is only topped by the fact that you are able to put cogent sentences together with a new baby in the house. I am in awe. Kudos and congratulations.

Great post Matt! I am an Episcopalian who is anxiously awaiting the publishing of the Apostolic Constitution. I wonder if there are a lot of other people like me, who are just quietly waiting to see what the document contains. There may be more people who wade across the Tiber than what the media is aware of.

The writings of this pope, including the Apostolic constitution, would not have been written at the time of Calvin or of the Westminster Confession.

I don’t think he is a poacher, but a shepherd who is concerned enough about lost sheep that he is willing to break down some big obstacles:  First admitting that we are Christians in a formal way.  Second he is admitting to the validity of Anglican orders at least to the extent that they restore relationship with Rome.  This is a huge move toward repairing the divide between us.

Even as a Calvinist (I don’t usually identify that way), I was touched at the Plano conference when we received a letter of support from then Archbishop Ratzinger. 

He is a clear defender of the faith when our own shepherds (especially RW+++) seem a little muddled.  Perhaps his boldness will serve as an example and spur a similar proposal from Canturbury for the anglican diaspora.

Are there no compelling reasons to be Anglican?

Matt, I would love to hear your argument to your hypothethical parishioner to remain Anglican.  I’m listening.
pacem,
ccc

p.s. my listening comment was a shot only to 815, not you.  I really am listening Matt. 
-c

Though not a Calvinist Anglican, I heartily agree.  The only point I will add is that the Pope’s offer appears to be solely motivated by a desire to help those in spiritual dispair, who find themselves homeless.  The Pope doesn’t need the Anglicans he will get from this, and the hassle for him is hardly worth the numbers he is going to get.  But he is doing it, to be a fisher of folk.  If people don’t want to take him up on his offer, they don’t have to.  And he knows that. 

He is trying to help people who are in spiritual agony.  What the heck is wrong with that, even if one disagrees with some Roman doctrines?

Matt,

Perhaps I am misreading your post.

3. Her unwavering commitment to the authority and infallibility of scripture.

I am sorry Matt, but I don’t agree with this. The reason is that in practice the RCC has a two-tiered approach to authority - Scripture and tradition - the outcome being that the RCC interprets Scripture through the magesterium.
Here are some reasons off the top of my head why I will not and could not be Roman in a heartbeat.
1. Faulty Christology - the Christ of the gospel is the wrong Christ. It is not the Christ who sacrifice was once for all for the elect. The RCC’s Christ is one that is aloof and distant.

I will never take up his offer but I think it good, generous, and were I not committed to the five solas of the reformation, as I am, I would be Roman in a heartbeat.

The five solas are not five small wee differences of opinion.
Sorry Matt, I will probably be shot down here, but I cannot look at a church that deceives millions of people by another gospel and say “If it were not for the fact that the RCC teaches a different way to be justified there is heaps to admire about the RCC”.
Don’t misunderstand me Matt, my issue is the Roman Catholic Church,  not Roman Catholic people. I agree with you that the RCC’s stance on abortion is admirable. Abortion is the mega holocaust of the modern world in my opinion, and I agree with most of what you have said. I don’t agree with you regarding your second paragraph as I cannot gloss over the differences the way you possibly appear to. Though my perceptions may be wrong.
Please don’t be offended Matt, I know that this medium is tosh (rubbish) when it comes to nuance and tone, but please know that I write this as a fellow brother in Christ and I do so warmly.

Good article found here: Foul Ball: Anti-Catholicism Is the Nation’s Other Pastime.

There was particularly nasty piece by a retired priest in Massachusetts that tried to use the clergy abuse scandal to “steal sheep” from the Catholic Church.

Hi Joshua, I am not offended at all. I do not think the five solas are “small wee” things…if I did I would not be Anglican, I would be Roman. They are, I believe, gospel essentials and I do not think that reconciliation is possible, nor would I suggest reconciliation, until Rome assents to them and begins to teach them.

That being said, should such an assent take place, I would not at all think it right to hold the past half century or so years against them.

AS for her stance on scripture…Rome does not take anything away from biblical authority or infallibility—I think most of what she believes about the nature of scripture is compatible with evangelical doctrine.

She does not take away from scriptural authority—she simply asserts that her own authority is on par with it. I disagree strongly, but I recognize that this is something different than asserting that scripture is anything less than God’s word written as liberals and revisionists do. It is a false claim but it is not intended in any way to denigrate the nature or authority of the bible.

..anyone using the label “Calvinist” must surely be aware of the position (the Westminster confession not leaving much room for “I love the Pope” in anything beyond a “love your enemies” sense).

Sure, but that’s coming from an eschatology hard-wired into the WCF;  in particular, the attempt to definitively answer the “who is the antichrist” question. 

Many modern confessional Presbyterians have quietly rejected that part of the WCF.  Of those who still hold to it, they qualify that the “the” article should be replaced with “an.”  G.I. Williamson, arguably the most read WCF apologist of today, asserts that the WCF ought to be -read- as describing ‘an’ antichrist, while the reader leaving room somewhere for there to be a ‘the’ antichrist, par excellance… hardly consistent with the intent of the Westminister Divines. 

In the end, Williamson’s attempt to shore up a weak spot in the WCF, accomplishes what he has feared all along - watering down the WCF.  But he needn’t have bothered - the WCF stands fine without playing fast and loose with the antichrist charge. 

As a piece of rotting roadkill spoils an enchanting vista, so too is the antichrist charge in the WCF;  and this Angliterian thinks it should be taken out.  With a shovel.

No time for much comment.

Just to say, Thank Matt for a very fair minded and charitable note.  As a Roming catlick I appreciate it.

Personally, I think B16 know just how bad things are in the UK, explaining, perhaps, why he decided to visit the UK (I think the liberals under Gordon brown never expected him to say “yes!”) and why he’s trying to reach out to the ‘lost’ Anglo-Catholics who have been firmly rejected in this country.  I think Benedict knows this is going not going to have much impact outside the UK, but he also knows just how pressured all Christians are here and he’s giving one group a home when everyone else is rejecting them.

Frankly, Benedict is only picking up those who have been turned out of their home and taking them in at their request.  That’s how I see it.

Anyway, thanks Matt.
God bless!

The spirit of anti-Christ operates in any group, system or movements”
- that oppose God and His plan of salvation, His Word, Will and Purposes,
- that operate in the spirit of the world, flesh and devil,
- that reject or substitute their belief system as a better plan than God’s to save the world and
- that do not yeild to the Holy Spirit
- do not recognize Jesus as Lord, God, Messiah, Lamb of God
- that use shame, force, deception, collusion, competition, domination, punishment, bloodshed and death to hold or win adherents to assume, gain, maintain power or primacy.
- that disrespect and take innocent life,
- that dominate, disrespect, neglect, harm and use women and children, elderly, disabiled
- that seek help, conspire, compromise with other religions to gain power (ie, the kings of Israel seeking help from Egypt)

The anti-Christ is represented in Scripture many times: the serpent, Cain, Lamech, Nimrod, Chedorlaomer, Pharaoh, Saul, Goliath, Absalom, Jezebel/Ahab, Herod and so on.  Even Peter, when he opposed God’s plan was called ‘satan’ by the Lord.  When the disciples wanted to call down fire against their opponents, Jesus said, ‘You do not know what spirit you are of.’ 

Because of a long history of power politics, bloodshed and violence, there is a great need for certain church organizations to examine themselves, humbly repent and ask forgiveness of others in Christ’s family and resume their proper place in the whole Body of Christ.  Judgment begins in the household of God.  The furnace and refining fire is in Jerusalem.  Isaiah 31:9, Isaiah 48:10.  He chastens and purifies His own beloved children, the sons of Levi, the royal priesthood.  God means His chosen to be a pure and holy people.

I think there are giants now, they are just held in contempt by a world doing everything in its power to cut them down to size, and hence are not recognized. Calvinism is revealing but so is the Apostolic design of the church spoken of in the creeds. Then, also, is the necessity of finding some sort of structure to do effective ministry. The sad thing to me is the polarization of once-reconciled brothers and sisters by a liberalism that knows no liberality.

that use shame, force, deception, collusion, competition, domination, punishment, bloodshed and death to hold or win adherents to assume, gain, maintain power or primacy.

815?

Well litigation is working ever so well as an evangelism strategy, isn’t it? Nothing says “Come, join us” more than “You’ve been served”

/snark

Moot (#35)

Sure, but that’s coming from an eschatology hard-wired into the WCF

I agree, but my purpose wasn’t to tie such a position to anyone who calls himself a “Calvinist”... it was to demonstrate the existence of the position (as a possible explanation for some who express “angst”) a remind those who prefer the “Calvinist” label that they should recognize it, just as older Catholics should recognize those who misused/misunderstood “no salvation apart from the Catholic Church.”

It’s simply the case that some (on both sides of the Tiber) view the other side as outside of the body. I prefer Catholic to Anglican and see solid reasons for doing so, but there is no “angst” for those who move from one to the other. If I felt that Anglicans were outside of God’s plan of salvation… I would respond quite differently.

I was just at the Tiber, BTW, it looks like a remarkably easy swim.

I was just at the Tiber, BTW, it looks like a remarkably easy swim. smile

Well, the Episcopal Church is doing its level best to build a bridge and giving away missals along the path.

Well, the Episcopal Church is doing its level best to build a bridge and giving away missals along the path.

I’ve been watching for a few years now… seems more like they’re giving folks a shove.

Tsk, tsk. Positive Phototaxis, you haven’t taken your language lessons from Mr. Garner, I see. It’s a *loving* shove… :-(

Would it be correct to assert that the Roman Church believes the Scriptures to be the creation of the Church while those of us on the Reformed side would say the Church is the creation of the Scriptures?

I am a former Presbyterian pastor now chafing in mostly faithful parish in Anglo-Catholic Ft. Worth.  The authority of the Scripture has been strongly upheld here until a new curate fresh out of seminary found in Scripture + tradition the authority to teach that dead saints are omniscient mediators for us to Christ.

It isn’t that RC theology doesn’t pay lip service to Scripture; it is, like Mormons, they add to the Word of God and redefine terms, not necessarily maliciously, but to justify centuries of superstition that have been allowed to kudzu apostolic teaching.

Unfortunately true.

I mentioned it because my wife and I were discussing the issue here while we were traveling in Italy. She didn’t understand the “angst” either since, as a Baptist, she didn’t see as much of a difference between anglo and roman catholics as some here do. I must have said something like “swimming the Tiber just isn’t that easy if your reasons for being on the other side are more substantial than ‘I was born there’” and didn’t realize that the kids were listening.

We were stuck in traffic on a Rome bus right next to the Castel Sant’Angelo and our oldest son (9) looks down at the river and declares “not to be offensive or anything… but I really don’t think that would be a very hard swim dad.”

LOL. Smart kid.

Would it be correct to assert that the Roman Church believes the Scriptures to be the creation of the Church while those of us on the Reformed side would say the Church is the creation of the Scriptures?

I wouldn’t say so… at least not on the Catholic side (and if that’s the Reformed side it’s a shame)... though that’s a common shorthand.

The Church is the living Body of Christ… the same body that proclaimed the Gospel before the canonization of Scripture… the same Body that God used to pen His Word… and the same body that He uses today. One did no “create” the other.

I love the Pope too, but I recognized the ‘kudzu’ as well, (good word, #45)

But I love the Anglican way, the liturgy and doctrine and the hymns are so splendid. 

The shepherds/bishops of both churches (and the other denominations) have done a poor job of defending the Faith in the West at least. 

Historically and recently, there is so much dirt on their hands, bloodshed and ungodly actions by these two that need to be repented and renounced, hearts to rend, pride to abandon, feet to wash, thrones to descend and relationships to mend.

I’ve been reading a comprehensive outline of the history of the church and Luther’s 95 Theses this week. 

A long sad saga that brought me to tears.

You have stated the Roman position and misunderstood the Reformed.  The confusion regards a lack of understanding concerning the Word of God “which was in the beginning with God and was God.”  Scripture is God’s Word; Jesus the Living Word, Scripture the written Word.  The “body of Christ” is a metaphor/parable since we know Jesus has physically been raised and is ascended; but His Word is spoken by the Holy Spirit and heard in real time (not metaphorically) since it is only that Word which calls the ekklesia (called ones) into existence and gives it life.
The parable of the Sower tells us the Son of Man sows the seed of the word and from it grows the true Church and those who will revealed in the last judgment to have been the weeds (kudzu).
Sola Scriptura

Sorry, conflated two parables there.
But the point is the same.  The sower sows the Word and some are fruitful while other seed gets choked by kudzu.
Wheat and tares. Scripture + man-made tradition.

Would it be correct to assert that the Roman Church believes the Scriptures to be the creation of the Church while those of us on the Reformed side would say the Church is the creation of the Scriptures?

I dunno, but ex-TEC bishop Charles Bennison is reputed to have said, “We wrote the Bible and we can change it.”

#52 That is the logical corollary and outcome.  Satan’s first word is still his greatest temptation, “Did God really say ...?”

At Holy Communion this morning, “Lesser Feasts and Fasts” gave us Richard Hooker, 1554-1600, born and died during the reign of Elizabeth I. His commitment through Scripture, Tradition and Reason was to celebrate both the RC AND the Calvinists, the dialog between them and the broad tolerant synthesis the Anglican Church reflected. He was a brilliant scholar, at Corpus Christi aged 14 and a fellow 10 years later. The much maligned AB Rowan is close to Hooker in scholarship and for his pains has earned the contempt of both the left and the right. How far we have drifted from the Elizabethan Settlement in our petty sophomore squabbles, reflecting the bitter partisanship of Congress and politics. Do we really believe that Christ rejoices to see and hear our pitiful cries “my church is holier than your church”?

yes Mike, Jesus just loves lukewarm water

Matt stated the following:

Magisterium upholds the infallibility, indeed, the inerrancy of scripture.

I doubt that this was how the RCC saw things during the Reformation. When I was RC, I did not understand the RC to teach that their interpretation of the Bible was correct unless an interpretation such as infalliblity had been stated as a dogma. Once the Bible was available in the vernacular many different people began to understand different inerrant readings. The RC church doubted the benefit of this. The problem with inerrancy and indeed infallibility is that it says “I’m right, therefore logically you’re wrong” or as the RCC puts at its most generous you’re ignorant, maybe invincibly ignorant. Many people prefer to live this way, especially today in the USA. However as I read the Gospels and Paul’s letters, that does not seem to me what Jesus had in mind. I was saddened to see Pope JPII’s attempts, successful attempts, to reverse Vatican II, its spirit of generosity and ecumenism. The Angican Communion could still fill this gap.

Jesus just loves lukewarm water

Like you, Chuck Smith likes to quote Revelation in his mockery of main line churches. However, I would caution you to separate doctrine from personal practice. Because I prefer a broad statement of doctrine does not mean that my faith is lukewarm. Nor because I have a narrow strict doctrine does it follow that my Christian practice is pleasing to the Lord.

sub

Hi Mike,

You can keep your caution. The Episcopal Church is a heretic church led by a heretic. There is no acceptable “via media” between heresy and orthodoxy.

As for the Roman position on scripture, we have a number of well versed Romans who I am certain can step in and correct you…but the Roman position as I understand it is that the bible is inerrant and infallible (as she defines those terms) and infallibly interpreted by the Church. 

That individuals reading scripture come up with different interpretations of certain texts says nothing at all about whether scripture is inerrant. It simply says that human readers are fallible and they therefore need an infallible interpreter of the infallible text.

Oh, and Chuck Smith is right.

I was saddened to see Pope JPII’s attempts, successful attempts, to reverse Vatican II, its spirit of generosity and ecumenism.

He did nothing of the sort. He merely (correctly) knocked down liberals who (as with Episcopalian moves in recent decades) ran with their claimed “‘spirit’ of Vatican II” well beyond its bounds.

Judge not that ye be not judged Mat 7:1
According to the Anglican tradition as I understand it, the interpreter of Scripture is based on tradition and reason and personal conscience. Within the RCC, there are fortunately many different interpretations of scripture - that is one of many great things about the RCC. Only occasionally, IMHO do they overstep the mark as with infallibility or the doctrine of the Assumption.

“Judge not that ye be not judged Mat 7:1”

Oh good, its the dueling scripture game:

““Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.”

Matt 7:15-20

Fact is Mike…we are commanded to identify false teachers by comparing their teaching to the teaching of the apostles and if we see that certain teachers are “running ahead” or teaching a gospel other than the gospel delivered by the Apostles, then we are not only to call them out, but not even to offer them common hospitality. 2 John 7-11

the Roman position as I understand it is that the bible is inerrant and infallible (as she defines those terms) and infallibly interpreted by the Church.

That’s correct (in my understanding). Put simply, the Lord speaks (infallibly) to us through Scripture, tradition, and apostolic authority… and always has. An opposing position claiming that the RCC holds one above another presupposes that they could ever be in conflict and requires building a straw man (or at least a circular argument).

Like Bernardino Ochino before me I have become a Calvanist.

Fr. Kennedy, let me add my cheers to those above for your statement, which is still ringing true in my ears.

I have a sophomoric question about the Five Solas of the Reformation. The conclusion of the Cambridge Declaration says

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.

Does that not state that we need not, indeed cannot, do anything in the matter of salvation? Why then do we have churches or even StandFirm blogs? If the issue is moot, why bother discussing it or even rejoicing in it? Is TEC free then to blather away about “social justice” and it just doesn’t matter?  How is this different from a nihilistic approach?  My respect for you is sincere and I know that I am clearly missing something here.  What is it?

Why then do we have churches or even StandFirm blogs? If the issue is moot, why bother discussing it or even rejoicing in it?

I’ll take a shot at that one (despite not being on the “sola” side… but I think the Catholic response is really the same).

Your question presupposes that the only valid reason to do anything is that it gets you something in return.

We in no way “earn” our salvation… but that doesn’t mean that there is no reason to act in response to the love we have been given.

We love… we respond… we “standfirm” because of who He is... not because we expect to benefit beyond “well done…”

“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”

#66 The reason for the existence of the Church is to proclaim THE GOSPEL.  The Good News is that God was in Jesus Christ reconciling sinners to Himself.  The proclamation is ours; the saving act is only of God.  Your misconception however is widespread because it is propagated by Arminian, Anglo-Catholics concerning the meaning of predestination and SOLA GRATIA.

Fact is Mike…we are commanded to identify false teachers by comparing their teaching to the teaching of the apostles and if we see that certain teachers are “running ahead” or teaching a gospel other than the gospel delivered by the Apostles, then we are not only to call them out, but not even to offer them common hospitality. 2 John 7-11

Exactly. BTW, I have two sons both of whom are fundamentalists and are quite clear on who is saved, but more recently one of them has begun to see that if it really is “sola gratia” (to me anyway unarguable), then who knows the mind of God who alone dispenses this Grace? One of them used to quote the more antinomian misunderstanding (IMHO at least) of certain passages in John’s Gospel arguing for the certainty of his salvation.

Regarding the “quote from scripture duel”, that is also my point. It is very easy to construct any belief system you want, more or less anyway, by deconstructing scripture. The challenge is discernment. Personally I am put off by stubborn dogmatists but I recognize that many are not.

Matt,

Your statement about “a greater knowledge of the truth” pierces my Catholic heart—but I admire your honesty and generosity!

The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church Par. 890

Keith Topfer,

Welcome home, and thank you for your service in the Navy!

Matt,

Our prayers are with you and your family as you welcome your new baby!

The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Clare you might also define for us exactly what is the Magisterium that is to what extent, it constitutes a belief widely held among RC such as the dogma or the Assumption or one declared by the Pope supposedly against the advice of many cardinals and archbishops such as including infallibility as a characteristic of the Magisterium. If you read many writers here on this subject, you will see that each of them seems to claim a type of Magisterium regarding his or her particular set of doctrines. What persuades a non RC to choose the RC set of dogmas, presumably that is sola gratia? In my case first choosing to be a RC and then leaving it 40 years later in conscience, does that mean that I am condemned to hell? It probably depends on the priest you talk to. Some would say yes, beyond salvation, others would agree to the supremacy of conscience, but in that case, my conscience appears to be my Magisterium . . .. ..  I doubt if I can escape from that personal responsibility, responsibility to accept Grace a point largely introduced by Luther, Grace I mean.
I know that John in the Book of Revelation mocked the Church of Laodicaea (?) but Jesus seemed less black and white in the synoptics and warmed to those who struggled to find the truth or as Augustine said, I believe, help my unbelief.

Mike,

I did not completely understand your question.  On the subject of the Magisterium, may I refer you to paragraphs 2030 ff. of The Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I believe a short answer to your question is that the dogma of the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother and of the infallibility of the Pope are teachings of the Magisterium. 

As to the question I think you are raising about individual conscience (always supreme, but must be informed by the teachings of the Church), common sense tells us that individuals could not agree on the interpretation of scripture, even if written in contemporary English, for example—let alone being, as the Holy Books were, transmitted orally before being ommitted to writing, in ancient languages, thousands of years ago. 

As to your eternal salvation, that is of course for the Lord alone to decide.  Be assured that you will be in my prayers today.

*committed to writing

“...then who knows the mind of God who alone dispenses this Grace?”

I know this may come as a shock, but God knows his own mind. And we can know his mind with regard to those matters he reveals…so…as I said…we are commanded to identify and call out false teachers.

“...but Jesus seemed less black and white in the synoptics…”

Really? Coulda fooled the money changers.

...And the Pharisees, and the Saducees, and the Herodians, and the rich young man, and the guy who wanted to wait for his dad to die…

You might also want to skip over Matt 7, Matt 23 large swaths of Luke 12, ...the whole repentance meme running through Mark…etc..

basically, to get the Jesus you seem to want, you’ll have to pull out the old scissors and paste

Thank you, Clare, that is very encouraging, you will be in my prayers also, Michael

Love the post and the follow-ups. Downright Christian. As to the numbers in the U.S. who will take advantage of the Apostolic Constitution when it is promulgated, I’ve heard all sorts of stories from priests I know. One, retired, thinks the numbers will be far greater than most think, and they will include him (I’m not too sure about his wife, though). Another, still ridin’ for the brand, but pretty nearly as orthodox as Sarah, thinks the numbers will be piddling. As the years go by, I confess to having less an less insight into such things. I join my prayer to that of Tiny Tim in “A Christmas Carol” when he said “God bless us, every one!”

Hi Joshua,

I think you may be confusing things a bit. I do not agree that the proof is in the pudding.

My original post noted my admiration for the Roman Catholic position on the “nature” of scripture as inspired, infallible and authoritative.

I also noted that I disagree profoundly with:

1. the assertion that the RCC has the capacity to infallibly interpret scripture

2. the particular interpretations the RCC embraces.

I think I can logically maintain those two very significant disagreements while still agreeing with Roman teaching about the nature of scripture itself.

I may, for example, agree that an Arminian like Norman Geisler has a correct view of the inerrancy of the bible while disagreeing with his particular interpretations regarding the doctrines of grace.

Um, folks?

Matt was very clear in his comment #23 that he did not want this post to veer into the usual “RC versus Protestant” arguments.

I will be deleting now the comments that have—yet again—taken this off on the well-trodden paths of “no, yes, that’s not what they meant, yes they did, here’s what the [Catechism/Westminster Confession] said” debates.  So if you have any pearls of wisdom that have never been said before and that will once and for all prove to the [insert group here] that they are Really Really Dead Wrong, then save them quick.

For they will shortly be sent to the dark abyss where there is much weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

My apologies if one of those was mine Sarah. My intention was to support Matt’s position that a differing interpretation of Scripture is not evidence that the other side has an incorrect view of scripture itself… not to argue the particulars of disputed doctrine.

I’ve just always gotten a “kick” out of the petros/petra misunderstanding and have a compulsive “itch” to play the game.

No worries Sarah,

I really did want a big debate with RC’s, I was really only intending to comment on one paragraph that Matt wrote (which he responded to). I did not expect Roman Catholics to engage with what I said. (This is a Reformed Anglican forum right?)
My apologies for whipping the dead horse.

Joshua

Feel free to PM me Joshua… this dead horse will eat your lunch.

In love of course.

(This is a Reformed Anglican forum right?)

Can someone explain what this statement means?
Matt wrote:

1. the assertion that the RCC has the capacity to infallibly interpret scripture

2. the particular interpretations the RCC embraces.

I happen to agree with this and the interpretation that concerns me most relates to Mat 16:18-19. On the other hand, as Clare pointed out given that we are truly informed of this interpretation, our conscience remains supreme. Most of those who hear Chuck Smith at Calvary on a regular basis would agree with his teaching on the Rapture or creationism. My impression is that the RCC gives its people more room in reading scripture than many fundamentalists. Personally I am still tempted by the Personal Ordinariate, and I wish there were a way to dialog with sectarian fundamentalists. This expression is not intended to be critical but to refer to the protestant tendency to split off and divide.

Mike,

Not to introduce a verboten topic, but lest I be misunderstood—you can’t just say, “Yeah—I hear what the Church teaches, but I disagree, and so I’m going to do what I want.”  That really doesn’t address the issue of a well formed conscience.  Thus,

Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1783.

So if the Church has spoken authoritatively on an issue of faith or morals, the chances are pretty much nil that a well formed conscience would disagree.  There is much more in the surrounding paragraphs.  Now back to your local station…

To be honest I am not sure WHAT is a verboten topic on this thread.  I think Mike is right that a lot of latitude is left in the interpretation of MOST scripture passages by the Catholic Church (ie those churches in communion with the See of Rome). 
Clare is of course also right.  But she isn’t speaking to what Mike is saying.  He isn’t talking about disagreeing with DeFide doctrine, I don’t think, but about interpreting Scripture.  One could not interpret it in such a way as to contradict DeFide doctrine,  but that still leaves a lot of latitude. 
Hoping that this comment is acceptable.
Susan Peterson

I am in awe of:

Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

and the previous paragraph

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.  Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

The above sections 1776-1785 and on to section 1802 are to my mind central to the religious life. So I find myself agreeing with Clare and Eulogos - nice name that.

Can’t wait to see the details of the Personal Ordinariates.

Two points/questions, which I sincerely hope that Sarah Hey doesn’t find off topic…

Would it be correct to assert that the Roman Church believes the Scriptures to be the creation of the Church while those of us on the Reformed side would say the Church is the creation of the Scriptures?

If the Church is the creation of the Scriptures, does that imply that the Apostles, disciples, and hundreds, perhaps thousands of Christians who died during the Persecutions weren’t members of the Church, given that the Bible that we know had its first historical appearance in 367 A.D., in the Easter letter of Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria? At the time Origen wrote (3d Century), he did have 27 books, but for many Revelation, Hebrews, II and III Peter, James, and II and III John weren’t universally accepted.  Can anyone say that James and John, Luke and Mary, Peter and Cephas and Mary of Magdala weren’t members of the Church, the Body of Christ, because the Bible hadn’t been written as yet? Certainly the churches founded by St. Paul weren’t “Bible-believing” when he founded them, since the Letters he would go on to later write to them are part of the Bible.  It’s an argument I’ve never understood.

My second point/question is related to the question of Sola Scriptura and Tradition (in Anglo-speak) or the Magisterium (in RC-speak).  If you believe that everyone should interpret Scripture for himself or herself, how do you interpret II Peter 1:20 (“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”)?

I left out the word NOT.
My post should say, I did not want a big debate with RC’s.

No dead horse for me!

Note on #90 above—my quote from II Peter is from the RSV, and almost identical to the KJV and 21st Century Revised KJV.  The NIV, which this link points first to, is quite different from most other translations.

Most Catholics I know would insist that the Church is Christ’s creation, and the statement that “the Scriptures are the creation of the Church” would make no sense to them. That is certainly not the description of the Scriptures found in the Catholic Catechism.

Jesus clearly existed on earth before the NT and was obviously clearly aware of the OT. The Catechism has many pages on the Church, Christ’s mystical body, His bride. Paul clearly thought of us, all believers, as living stones constituting the Church.  The catechism describes the Church in one place:

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.“322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.“323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

On Scripture among other things it says:

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.“40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.“42

Praise the Lord!

Proper and responsible leadership for The Anglican Communion will derive only from the Archbishops of the Communion acting as the Assembly of Archbishops, speaking through its Counselor Archbishop.  The Archbishop of Canterbury is responsible for the Church of England in England.  His office needs to re-form itself accordingly.  National Churches of The Anglican Communion are bound together through their Archbishops and through loyalty to the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, shorn of its monarchical references and influences.  The English Reformation was a needed and noble calling entirely apart from the behavior and attitudes of the King of England.

Re:#95 The reform of the serious problems in the Western Church was certainly needed and necessary… the selling of Indulgences and other manifestations of human pride, greed, and other sin needed to be ended, the Church cleansed.  Given the advent of the printing press and the rise of literacy, translations of the Vulgate into the vulgate (so to speak) were certainly appropriate.

Given your saying that the Book of Common Prayer should be “shorn of its monarchical references and influences” I wonder about your emphasis on using the 1662 edition, itself the result of monarchical influence, rather than the 1549 edition, which was much more a translation into the English language of the English Rite of the Church (the Sarum Rite, later prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church in favor of the Rite used in Rome).

Reforming the Church and dividing the Church are two very different things.  The Church, as the Body of Christ, marred by human sinfulness, needed to be cleansed.  Violating Christ’s stated wish, “that they all may be one”, by splitting the occidental Church (already wounded by its division from the oriental Church) into the thousands and tens of thousands of denominations and sects which constitute Protestantism* hardly seems to have been consistent with Christ’s desire for unity.

*As a Navy chaplain, I once celebrated at the Anglican Church compound in Abu Dhabi, one of only two Christian sites allowed in country (the other was Roman Catholic); the British Anglican Chaplain graciously offered use of the compound to any other non-Roman Christian groups wanting to meet there, mostly of Filipino and other “guestworkers”. There were over 60 different Protestant groups, none of whom were willing to join together in worship.  “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nof again the head to the feet, I have no need of you’.” (I Cor 13:21)

Francis C. Zanger+
Igreja Lusitana (Comunhão Anglicana)

Make that ‘nor’, not ‘nof’... it´s very late at night in this part of the world!

This was just posted today:

http://www.zenit.org/article-27443?l=english

“There should be healthy discussion in the Church, especially regarding issues that have not been defined by the magisterium, Benedict XVI says”

and…

““The theological confrontation between Bernard and Abelard ended with full reconciliation between them,” he noted, “thanks to the mediation of a common friend, Peter the Venerable. [...] Abelard showed humility in acknowledging his errors; Bernard used great benevolence.”

Thus, the Pope said, “There prevailed in both what should truly be in the heart when a theological controversy is born, that is, to safeguard the faith of the Church and to make truth triumph in charity.”

“May this also be the attitude with which there are confrontations in the Church,” the Holy Father encouraged, “always keeping as the aim the pursuit of truth.””

#90 and #93 I did clarify my answer in a subsequent post to the one you are block-quoting that I was referring to Church being the creation of the Word; and that Jesus is the Living Word and the Scriptures the Written Word.

So back to the original topic:

Here’s the thing.  If one does accept the teachings of Rome, then one has no choice but to convert.  There are no “institutional barriers” that can stop one who, in conscience, has acceeded to the claims of the Papacy.  I don’t think the Pope has changed anything that would make a difference to anyone who was really convinced.  And someone who hasn’t been convinced cannot convert honestly.

So I agree with just about everything that Matt has said about Rome and the Pope, but I think I have an issue with anyone for whom this makes any really significant difference.  If I could accept all of Roman teaching, I would not walk but run to the nearest RC parish and leave all my Anglican baggage behind.  If I could accept all of Roman teaching, then the baggage would consist of nothing but aesthetics.  And while I believe that aesthetics are important, they don’t trump doctrine.

What do you think of this?

“First, this [Apostolic Constitution] is Pope Benedict’s latest initiative in what is now clearly a papal policy of trying to rally the vibrant, sacramental Christian churches around the Papacy in response to the collapse of the other mainline Christian churches and the on-coming threat of jihadi Islam, especially in Europe. As such, by offering concessions in exchange for lost sheep returning to the Church and the Sacraments, the Holy Father is seeking to build up a new Christendom and to gather in the still-faithful remnants of the collapsed Protestant Churches – hierarchy, clergy and laity together. The intended symbols of this new, united Christendom, in my estimation, will be the Papacy and the Mass, including the newly revived Extraordinary Rite of the Mass, which now under Benedict’s motu proprio, is required to be the liturgy celebrated at all international gatherings.

It may be a century before our descendants know if this papal policy is a success. However, the dead end of the Reformation is now apparent for all to see in the spectacle of the American Episcopal Church and the disappearance of the Anglican Church in the United Kingdom. The break from Rome and fidelity to Scripture and the Sacraments has led precisely nowhere.”

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/11/01/commentary/op-eds/doc4aed0aaba1b11133063904.txt

What do you think! I agree completely.

I totally agree..the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church have deserted we orthodox believers. The Pope has given us an offer of refuge.

I think it’s always nice to be wanted. Given the lack of appreciation for catholic belief by the official organs of the Anglican Communion, the Pope’s actions are most welcome. The squeals and yips of dismay from the secularists and professional revisionists just add a sense of schadenfreude to the mix. The feeling is probably sinful, but it is rather nice.

Well, dbonneville (#101),

I agree whoeheartedly with the papal comments you cited in your #98, for which I’m grateful; they’re marvelous.  Benedict XVI is right on, and the reconciliation of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Abelard is an apt illustration of the ideal outcome.

But I’d have to say that I can’t go all the way with the viewpoint quoted in your #101.  As perhaps you’ve seen from my past posts (many of them here at SF), I’m a fervent advocate of what I like to call “3-D Christianity:” evangelical, catholic, and charismatic.  I don’t think it’s true to say that Protestantism as a whole is a dead end street.  Liberal Protestantism is, but that’s another matter entirely.

There will always be a need for the evangelical dimension within any form of Christianity worthy of the name, including Roman Catholicism and Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy.  The need to be gospel-driven, biblically based, and conversion-oriented is both universal and perpetual.

But at the same time, I would agree that it’s high time to circle the wagons and rally together as orthodox Christians, whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, or Anglican.  For Christianity is threatened more perilously in our time than it has been in centuries.  And the threat comes from militant forms of unbelief (secular humanism and relativism/agnosticism) inside the Western world as well as militant Islamis attacks from the outside.

And FWIW, I’m MUCH, much happier to follow the lead of the Pope than of the ABoC in contending for the faith once delivered to the saits against the mounting attacks coming against us on both the internal and external fronts.

David Handy+

Garrin+ (#100),

That makes sense… but one thing you’ve ignored is those who can accept Roman teachings, but has more trouble with Roman practices.

Married priests is an excellent example. For Rome this is an issue of discipline, not theology. What if you have a lifetime calling to the priesthood and find that you now can accept Roman doctrine? The Roman rite discipline of a celibate priesthood creates a stumbling block for that conversion that is here eased.

There are also people who on a doctrinal level struggle with one or two issues. They accept the authority of the church but recognize that there are places where it is harder to internalize this acceptance (and by this I don’t mean “cafeteria catholics”... I mean dedicated faithful men who fall short and pray for this gap to be closed in their own understanding).

Well… say you were such a person with a couple struggles within Anglicanism praying to be made whole. A move to Rome (and this is by no means a solicitation) may leave you with the same number of gaps… but on different issues.

#100- Fr. Garrin- I can speak only for myself, but I have no problem with RC dogma. The only thing that has kept me back is the love of Anglican worship and my parish (and the alternative as far as what is available locally at Catholic parishes). I think the potential here is for me to be able to have my cake and eat it too. We shall see how this develops, but I continue to be overwhelmed with the Holy Father’s generosity in what he has offered here. Peace.

If I could accept all of Roman teaching, I would not walk but run to the nearest RC parish and leave all my Anglican baggage behind.

or

I mean dedicated faithful men who fall short and pray for this gap to be closed in their own understanding

Substitute the word conscience for understanding, and I believe that the RCC does welcome you now. I do not for instance believe that RC who practice birth control are ‘cafetaria Catholics’. Ask any Parish priest in the Confessional. But the issue remains of your existing Christian community and Anglican liturgy. If the Pope is ready to accommodate that then well . . . .

Sorry, but I still have a problem with the adoration of relics and the veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, although I acknowledge that they are important for Roman Catholics.

adoration of relics and the veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

Need to check my Catechism to see exactly what they say about that. I seem to remember at one of the councils, effigies were discussed and they were considered OK as pointers to the Lord much as you might meditate on a candle burning on the altar. I can certainly understand how you can reflect on the Crucifixion venerating His Sacred Heart. On my home desktop I have a picture of of the front of Salisbury Cathedral showing an incredibly beautiful array of effigies.

Dear P. Benedict..Thank you for your offer to convert to roman catholicism. This week alone.I had an offer to become a jehovah’s whitness, a memeber of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsand a really enticing offer of salvation from a local Seventh Day Adventist Congregation.

What to do???..i really want salvation Mr. Pope..But i think I have it already. As do the majority of faithfull Lutherans, baptists, anabaptists, calvinists,congregationalists, methodists, pentecostals, presbyterians,seventh day adventist reformist, quakers..ect..etc..

I appreciate your interest in trying to reform a a “whole” church and its millions of faithfull and clergy by bringing under the supervision supervision of your most holey pontificate. To help us see thatwe we’re wrong all this time. That crazy Martin Luther. getting us all worked up an all.
You really have a loving heart to want to overlook the fact that we royally dissed you mnay years ago. Especially now with all that you have to contend with thir in Rome.
I mean your membership has dwindled away by the millions throughout the world..especially in central/south america, the carribean, africa and event europe..Thank You for your spending the time to try to help us crazy Anglicans out when you could be trying to regain those millions of your flock that converted to one form or another of protestanism.

Love you you cookey crazey ex hitler youth member. I respectfully decline. Please Mr. P> Benedict don’t dispair..there’s always the eastern orthodox for you to to prey on next.

#110 Hit spell checker before send next time And stop hangin’ with Jack Chick - he’s cramping your literary style big time.

Pope Benedict’s offer is not preying on anyone. It was in response to Anglo-Catholic requests. Did you not know this?

If it was not for the request and the 40 year old dialogue, there’d be no offer. Maybe you missed that part?

#108 The things you mention are simply aids to stir up religious affection and faith of one degree or another. And due to faith, relics have been conduits for healing and miracles, as Scripture points out with Paul’s handkerchief and the hem of Jesus’ garment…“If I touch the hem of his garment, I will be healed”. Jesus noticed the power go out of him, through the woman’s belief that if she could just touch it. Our weakened constitutions as humans need external aids and external prayers from others. Laying on of hands, anointing of the sick, folding of hands or kneeling in prayer, etc., etc. Honestly, if you were to consider Rome, those would not be the things to hold you back. I’d be stuck at Mary, pretty much.

“3-D Christianity:” evangelical, catholic, and charismatic.

I know RCC that offered exactly this, not sure if they still do. I did not hear if P John Paul II cracked down in it.

high time to circle the wagons and rally together as orthodox Christians, whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, or Anglican

Spot on, could not agree with you more David Handy+. I would even include TEC!
Michael

Mike Brit….yes Catholics who practice birth control are “cafeteria Catholics”  and so is any priest who tells them it is not wrong.  I know there are many of both, but that doesn’t change a thing about what the Church actually teaches.  It is right, too!
Susan Peterson

Re: #110

Bad manners, bad spelling and bad reasoning—actually, no reasoning.

P.S. Does this kind of abusive screed break any rules here?

birth control are “cafeteria Catholics”

Note, Eulogos, I did not say contraception, such as pill or contraceptive, nor was the Papal Bull on this matter issued as a dogma ex cathedra. Consequently it would appear to be a matter of conscience bearing in mind the Papal Bull that did not disapprove of birth control, merely disapproved of any form of birth control other than rhythm or abstinence. One wonders how the Personal Ordinariates will deal with matter such as this, or women priests, or the following Articles XXI, XXII, XXV and XXVIII at least! It will be very interesting.

Mike Brit.  In reverse order:
The articles have nothing to do with it; these people are becoming Catholics.  The Church has no authority to ordain women and that subject is closed.  The encyclical on contraception is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium, which reflects the constant teaching of the Church since patristic times.  Assent and obedience to it are required of Catholics.  For serious reasons limiting or spacing births by periodic abstinence is licit. 
EVERYTHING is a matter of conscience.  But if your conscience is properly formed you will believe the truth and try to obey it.  And repent when you fail.
Susan Peterson

eulogos,

Thanks for your succinct explanation!

Sorry, but I still have a problem with the adoration of relics and the veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus…

Well, relics aren’t adored, though they are venerated (given respect). This is one of those Catholic practices that seem to appeal to certain Catholics, but not all. And there is no problem if it isn’t your thing - I personally find it somewhat creepy, particularly in the European manifestations which involve body parts in glass. But you don’t have to like them to be Catholic.

The veneration of the Sacred Heart is another Catholic pious practice, but again, the expression of this is a personal devotion. My grandmother has for years kept a candle in front of a picture in her home. Cool for her, but I’d never do it myself. I don’t think that anyone would argue that Jesus’ heart (and the rest of him) was sacred. But while there are those who have a great devotion to this expression of Jesus, not finding it spiritually edifying has no consequences.

I think you might be confusing Catholic pious practices (which are there to help but not mandatory for being Catholic) with those things that ARE fundamental.

PP #105:
I think I understand your point, but I don’t see how the Pope has changed anything for such a person.  All the doctrine is still in place.  The pastoral provision was already in existence for clergy.  The conversion is still the same thing it was a month of ago.  As Matt says, the Pope has simply eased the “institutional roadblocks”.  So what’s changed for our potential convert, other than those institutional roadblocks?  If those are the only things holding him back, then he’s not being honest with himself.  He cannot hold the RC position on the Papacy and not convert, immediately.

via orthodoxy #106:

I accept your peace, brother.    But I would also point out (peacefully) that Anglican liturgy and community has no real value if you have rejected Anglican doctrine.  And you cannot have NO problem with RC dogma without having rejected Anglican doctrine (yes, as attenuated as it is).  There are a few points on which these two traditions are simply incompatible (like for instance the full claims of the Papacy).  We must choose.  And I personally cannot see it as faithful to make obedience to the truth dependant on aesthetic concessions, which I think is all the Pope as conceded.

Peace to both of you.

re: #111
I have never read jack chick till you just mentioned this blog..and as far spell check is concerned..never used it..i think its obvious the little blurp was written quickly and off the cuff..but with whole hearted conviction.

The roman church has many problems..the least of which is to worry about anglican salvation. In affect to even make such offer a public spectacle..Mr. P. Benedict has diminshed the value of our faith to the world.
Unfortunately. this is not the first time Mr. P. Benedict has expressed his intolerant views.

As a close aid to JJ Paul 2nd. J. Ratzinger wrote that the Church of England and all other Protestant denominations are not “proper” churches because they suffer “defects”.
The Vatican’s restatement of its position was outlined in a complex theological document, the English title of which was ``Declaration The Lord Jesus—On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church’’ .

The document repeated Church teachings that non-Christians were in a ``gravely deficient situation’’ regarding salvation and that other Christian churches had ``defects,’’ partly because they did not recognise the primacy of the Pope…Let me repeat..Mr. P. Benedict was the author of this document.

As catholics…we all seek a united church. As congregates who profess the Nicean Creed each sunday, we all believe in One Holy Catholic and Apoltolic Church..But, One chuch under a roman pontiff?..I don’t think so.
If modern Anglicans are guilty of any defect..its over intellectuallizing the obvious. Mr. P. Benedicts comments are for one purpose and one purpose only…the enlargement of the roman catholic church..to seek the disolution of all forms of protestanism and eastern orthdoxy and the establishment of the pontiff as the primate of the entire christian world.

anglo1.  Feeling a little threatened, are we?  Take comfort, friend.  The numbers of Anglican converts to Roman Catholicism will likely not be very great—a mere drop in the bucket.  The Pope is risking much to gain very little, at best.  The numbers simply don’t support your cynicism.

#111 “As a close aid to JJ Paul 2nd. J. Ratzinger wrote that the Church of England and all other Protestant denominations are not “proper” churches because they suffer “defects”.”

If you look up the context, he is giving a technical definition. Forensically speaking there is one church of Jesus, not two. Protestant spiritualization of the term “body of Christ” makes no attempt to reconcile the disparity of denominations that all claim equally to be a manifestation of “the Church”. If two groups disagree on fundamentals, how can they both be Church? There is no agreement what that is, spiritually or visibly among denominations, you will grant I’m sure. So when the Pope said Protestant churches are not “churches in the proper sense”, the defect he refers to is the lack of formal unity. However, he acknowledges them as true ecclesial communities, which means the Spirit of Jesus indwells them. Notice that the Orthodox are in fact true Church, as they too meet the historical definition and criteria. Technical, yes. Precise, yes. A horse pill…yes. But hey, a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down. Unless you gag and it comes right back out. But sometimes, you just gotta get that sucker down and keep trying and give the idea that the pill just has to fit, an honest effort. But then again, there is no rush, no rush at all.

The Pope is a smart, smart man. He chooses words extremely carefully. It’s best to read his writings with a dictionary on hand. He values precise language which rejects sloppy and crude cursory readings, which spread like wild fire for a few days when that statement was made in 2007. I’m just saying that what you think he said might not really be what he said, when read in context, and in the broader context of his work as a theologian working towards Ecumenism.

Your last statement is much too cynical. Benedict wants to see Jesus’ prayer in John 17 become a reality and he is making concrete actual steps to bring that about. What are you doing for unity these days? Ranting about the Pope is not going to help. Instead, go round up some zealous Pentecostals who don’t know what their missing on Sunday. Who knows - maybe as we draw close together (Catholics and Protestants) some new understanding will seize some of us and barriers we thought insurmountable suddenly vanish - yes, suddenly, in a flash. It’s called paradigm shift. And when we love the Lord Jesus Christ with childlike faith, those shifts happen. The Lord can do stuff like that when we reach out for the hem of his garment.

#111 “``gravely deficient situation’’”

I was going to add that it’s easy to mistake technical language referring to formal propositions or institutions for language that refers to individuals: “OMG DID YOU HEAR WHAT THE %^$& POPE SAID!”. No pronouncement from anyone in the Catholic Church condemns anyone in particular, due to conscience. The Church officially teaches that anyone can be saved, even outside the Catholic Church, and it all depends on the information an individual is working with, and what levels of ignorance they (or anyone) has to overcome. In all, the Church’s view of salvation outside of itself is precise in technical detail, but vague in terms of personal application, because nobody and can know another persons heart. This is the polar opposite of Fundamentalism, which can only these kinds of issues in a binary manner. If things were only that simple…

All I’m stating above is the simple position you can read in 2-3 much more pithy and pleasantly prosed paragraphs in the Catechism.

“If modern Anglicans are guilty of any defect..its over intellectuallizing the obvious.”

Perhaps, but let’s not under-intellectualize the obscure because we haven’t done the homework and it’s hard, while we are at it. But…no one is saying you have to do the homework at all. Not even the Pope. The safe thing to do is simply ignore everything he says if it makes you that upset. Come back if you want, with a dictionary, some other time.

#121,122
I have read the J. Ratzinger’s writings..especially the one quoted that created such a firestorm after its revelation.

Mr J. Ratzinger specifically related the term “defect” to a church which he believed did not have true apostolic procession..this in his opinion was the defect inherent in the anglican church and all other forms of protestanism. Of course he could not be so bold as to suggest the eastern orthodox don’t have apostolic procession..and therefore he regards them as a “true church”  but “misguided” because of their unwillingness to submit to the primacy of the roman catholic pontiff..the sucessor to peter..as they would have their flock believe.

“As a close aid to JJ Paul 2nd. J. Ratzinger wrote that the Church of England and all other Protestant denominations are not “proper” churches because they suffer “defects”.”

Shocker: The Pope is Catholic…

By the way Anglo1, why is it so awful and “intolerant” for the Pope, as a Roman Catholic, to think that Anglicans have deficiencies while, apparently, it is just fine for you to think Rome has deficiencies…? Is it just “intolerant” when the Pope does it?

Not only is the Anglican Communion theologically compromised by the ongoing inclusion of the Episcopal Church, bold, heavyweight, apologies for Anglicanism are few and far between. The last generation of Anglicans produced giants like Dr. JI Packer and John Stott—men recognized and lauded far beyond the Anglican world as powerful defenders of Christian truth—living illustrations of the intellectual and spiritual fruitfulness of the Anglican way .
There do not seem to be giants anymore.

I seem to recall one Peter Jasper Akinola being recognised as one of Time Magazine’s most influential persons…! We may be too close to the action to recognise now who will be seen as the Packers or Stotts of our generation in 20 years time, but I am sure the Lord is in process of raising them up.

Good point MichaelA

Matt+  Kudos for being a person with common sense.  Even though I am an Anglo-Catholic and by no means a defender of Calvinism(despite part of my family being Presbyterian), I think you showed great charity and insight towards Roman Catholics and the Pontiff.  They wouldn’t be good Catholics if they didn’t want to help people become…wait for it…Roman Catholic!!!  Gasp!!!

Good work Matt

Anglo1,

Are you aware that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, in announcing the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution, was responding to a request from the Traditional Anglican Communion?

this is such a cool post. what grace! this is nothing but good for everyone.

#131 Clare..an apostolic constitution from Mr. P. Benedict at the response of a particular piece of the anglican community does not negate the fact that when push comes to shove…the pontiff does not believe in the legitamacy of the Church of England. Nor does Mr Benedict believe in the legitamcy of “any” protestant denomination…Anglicans who feel disenfranchised to the point of having to leave thier church and become RC is an unfortunate development in the anglican communion…This phenomena of individual conversion due to individual conscious works the other way around too..In america..the Episcopal Church has seen an overwhelming number of RC converts seek membership in the Anglican Community due to thier disillusionment with thier faith.
The problem here clare I believe is two fold..one one hand the primate of the Church of England although a remarkable figure..has lacked the backbone to affectively deal with schisms in his own house..thus inviting others into the equation..those who’d seek to destroy our faith..And on the other hand, The RC church is constant fight against the reformation in many obvious and obscure ways..To Mr. P Benedict, conversion to Roman Catholicism is the only method of achieving salvation..just like a majority his predecessors who fought against the affects of Luther and other reformers.

I refer to a speech a pastor Robert Shuller from The US gave a while back..to paraphrase..Mr Shuller a protestant preacher..equated prostilization to one of the greatest evils facing modern christianity.
The pastor spoke of his delight in seeing church spire after church spire with the cross of our lord as proclamation of thier faith raised high…regardless of denomination. I am moved by his words by his ministry’s unselfishness and tolerance for all other forms of Christianity…However Clare..Since the reformation to the present…the pontiffs have not shared this view..and most likely will never reconcile the fact the body of christ is not and will never be under the complete authority of Rome.

Mr. Schuler is not a good pastor—He is a disciple of Norman Vincent Peal who shies away from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He preaches the power of positive thinking rather than the gospel. I would run far far away from his ministry.

To Mr. P Benedict, conversion to Roman Catholicism is the only method of achieving salvation..

That’s a blatant falsehood.

phenomena of individual conversion due to individual conscious works the other way around too..

Of course. The difference being (with all due respect to faithful believers here who remain within TEC) that those moving away from Rome into TEC want to do their own thing and Rome tells them it’s sinful while TEC says rejoice in your sinfulness. Those moving the other way are faithful Christians who see their church falling away to apostacy and seek not salvation… but sanctuary.

There are most certainly many people who are saved out of the RCC and into other communities of faith upon coming to a personal saving faith (and we should rejoice with them). I rather doubt that very many of them end up in TEC. Certainly not into those parishes that reflect the “new thing” TEC is doing.

Thank you Fr. Kennedy.  Saved me the trouble.

Anglo1-
Your rather impolite references to the Pontiff make clear that you are not one of the Anglicans to whom his offer was directed. One of the great tragedies of the last 30 years is that TEC chose to drive out its own Catholics (Anglo Catholics) by doctrinal and canonical revision in order to accommodate an influx of disgruntled Roman Catholics (although hardly “overwhelming” as you state in 133- approximately 1 pro-WO Roman Catholic converts to TEC for every 2 Anglo Catholics who have left TEC over the last 30 years- in which timeframe even claimed membership of TEC has fallen by 40%).  There have been a few cases where RC priests who felt called to marry, or devout Catholics caught in a confusing civil divorce have become Anglican, but the vast majority were Catholics who rejected the tenets of the Catholic faith (KJS, KGTF, TEC bishop Robert Gepert, to name some familiar names), but liked the fancy dress and near catholic liturgy of TEC.

#135
Thank you for clarifying that for me…to recap..you said the The episcopal church is sinfull and actively tells its community to “rejoice in your sinfullnes”...Thus inviting RC sinners to convert to the Episcopal church in order to a attain a clear conscious.

#135 you have obviousely never been to the same Episcopal services I have ever attended.
Nor have you whitnessed the beauty and fullness of the Anglican sister’s church
and the many wonderful and enlightened men and women of goad who preach there.

Thank you for clarifying that for me…to recap..you said the The episcopal church is sinfull and actively tells its community to “rejoice in your sinfullnes”...

What else would you call “abortion is a blessing” but rejoicing in sin?

If a Catholic wants to be pro-choice TEC will greet him with open arms. If he wants to live an openly sinful gay lifestyle… they may make him a bishop. If they want to mix in a little TM… a little Budhism… a little addition of the Koran to a liturgy… where else can they go?

I have in fact witnissed the beauty of the authentic Anglican faith. It’s why I spend time on these threads (and where my posting name comes from). There are many faithful Christians to be found there…

...none of whom post like you.

“The episcopal church is sinful and actively tells its community to “rejoice in your sinfullnes”

That pretty much covers it. Yes.

“you have obviousely never been to the same Episcopal services I have ever attended.”

I have been an Episcopalian since I was three years old and have heard many many “enlightened” Episcopalian “ministers of goad” tell me that homosexual relationships are good.

Since God clearly reveals otherwise in scripture (Lev 18:22, Rom 1, 1 Cor 6:9) these “ministers of goad” have in fact been “actively telling” people that sin is good.

#133 “the pontiff does not believe in the legitamacy of the Church of England…Nor does Mr Benedict believe in the legitamcy of “any” protestant denomination”

When you take the Pope’s words and put your own meaning in them, you have the Pope saying something disagreeable. When you are careful to parse his words in a manner consistent with his perspective as a Catholic, they read much differently. As it is, you are flatly incorrect, and this incorrectness extends to a certain degree that corresponds with what appears to be a measure of willful ignorance.

If Rowan’s words are nuanced towards obscurity, the Pope’s words are nuanced towards charity. I think this would be a fair assessment. There is no bizarre subterfuge going on here, as in other corners of this global debate.

The Schuler example is very odd. Are you suggesting that schism is God’s best plan to evangelize / proselytize the world? Show me a Scripture that suggests that, but I will refer you to John 17.

Actual unity is God’s plan according to Jesus as I read it, and is the only concrete way to answer institutional evil in the world. Leaderless, loose affiliations of somewhat-in-agreement Christians cannot answer (as we can see with CofE) the threats and bullying of the modern evils we live with.

Voices need to consolidate, in actual unity, for the Gospel to go forward more effectively. What is *actually* efficacious and not theoretically or potentially efficacious? This is an honest and good question. One bread, one body, etc. That’s the master plan, right? To the extend we have discord from one another is the same extent to which we ourselves impose limits on the effectiveness on the Gospel. The Gospel is not primarily “me and Jesus”. Review your baptism catechesis. The faith is first communal and as a result personal, not the other way around.

No matter how you slice it, the Pope does in fact represent a particularly consolidated and clear answer to the evils we are assaulted with, and his ministry affects us all, as does the ministry of every single baptized believer who proclaims truth.

#137 “my posting name…”

Hey Positive Phototaxis: I just looked up what your name meant. Cool. But I think I like “scotophobotaxis” better for the added nuance about reversing direction, and also purely for the assonance .

My name just means “good city” and no I don’t have a son named Pontiac.

I think there are two schools of people who leave the Catholic Church for another faith.  First are those who truly examine unique Catholic dogma, compare it to Protestant teaching and decide they can no longer submit to Catholic teachings.  These people often go to independent evangelical churches or orthodox conservative congregations of mainstream Protestant denominations.  They still are on an orthodox track but they no longer are on the Catholic train.

The other decide that they can no longer stand the fact the Catholic Church still insists that abortion is wrong. That sex outside the bonds of matrimony is wrong.  That marriage means one man and one woman for life.  That Jesus alone is Savior.  They no longer believe that there is a clear discernible truth revealed to us in God’s word.  They dribble meaningless inane phrases such as “I’m spiritual, not religious.”  “I don’t think you should leave your mind at home when you come to church.”  They have a very cooperative Holy Spirit on retainer who never puts the kabosh on any of their meanderings no matter how far from Scripture they venture.  All these people need is a community that will affirm them, reassure them and join them in the latest protest/ celebration parade.  These people find the Episcopal Organization of 815 does indeed welcome them. 

The sad part is their errors are reinforced in the TEO and they in turn contribute to the existing miasma of teaching making it harder for the remaining orthodox to get a breath of clean, fresh teaching.

As these good people are pushed out the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and other orthodox Protestant denominations are offering refuge to them.  So don’t blame the rescuers for the fact the wicked captain pushed people overboard.

dbonneville - (#141)

Thanks. I actually considered that but the nuance made a difference. PP was an attempt to say something complimentary about the people I had found here and not so much something about myself. By saying I was “attracted/drawn to the light” (loosely speaking) I meant that the authentic movement of the Holy Spirit that I witnessed in orthodox Anglicanism over the last few years was the “light”.

I just thought that “scotophobotaxis” would read more as an attempt to say something about myself. That when I stray from the Light I (by nature) return to it.

I wish that were so… but it isn’t my nature.

Let us not bring so-called institutionalized sinfullness in this debate..I was trying to avoid any mention the many church scandals involving young children..namely the victimization of pre-adolescent boys by RC priests..I’m sorry If my belief in individual conscious and free-will within a Christian Framework offends some. I’ll assume then molestation of innocent children knowlingly hidden and allowed to perpetuate by the RC church’s hierarchy..extending as high as the pontiff is “not sinfullness”.

I’ll also assume that ordination of closeted gay priests, cardinals and bishops actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle by the RC church is “not sinfull”.

Its seems the issue here comes down to the disgust they feel towards the Episcopal Church..and not infact their love, admiration and or desire to become RC. This is unfortuante..If you love the body of your church and your traditions then make sure you elect a primate thats able and willing to handle decent and schisms forthright.

#139 g*d, gd, gawd, goad or any variation of the almight’s name is done so as in jewish tradition and practice..to keep his name holy for prayer and contemplation…it’s unfortuanate you don’t understand the roots
of Christian faith to realize this point on your own.

They have a very cooperative Holy Spirit on retainer who never puts the kabosh on any of their meanderings no matter how far from Scripture they venture.  All these people need is a community that will affirm them, reassure them and join them in the latest protest/ celebration parade.  These people find the Episcopal Organization of 815 does indeed welcome them. 

Well said Paula. “Cooperative HS on retainer”... I like that.

Let us not bring so-called institutionalized sinfullness in this debate..

I can imagine why you would wish it to be so… I can’t imagine why anyone would cede the high ground and let you get away with it.

I was trying to avoid any mention the many church scandals involving young children..namely the victimization of pre-adolescent boys by RC priests..

And of course you’re blind to the fact that sinful people do not make for institutionalized sinfullness. There is no danger of walking into a RCC and being told that you’ll just have to accept the dithering priests. No chance that the Pope will declare them a “blessing.”

I’ll also assume that ordination of closeted gay priests, cardinals and bishops actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle by the RC church is “not sinfull”.

As long as the church opposes it and condemns it… while TEC (literally) “promotes” it (to bishop)... you have no rhetorical leg to stand on.

Hi anglo1,

Yes, sin is awful isn’t it. And, yes, every church is implicated in sin in some way. But the question was whether or not TEC “actively” preaches that sin is good.

The RCC does not teach that it is good for ministers to abuse children. She certainly may be accused of being light on those who have in the past but this is something much different than suggesting that abuse is good.

The Episcopal Church on the other hand not only ordains sexually immoral people, but teaches that sexual immorality, namely homosexual sex, is good.

It is not that difficult to see the moral and theological chasm between the two.

It is unfortunate that you cannot see it.

I was trying to avoid any mention the many church scandals involving young children..namely the victimization of pre-adolescent boys by RC priests..

Oh… and let’s not pretend that a poster who went with “hitler youth member” just couldn’t lower himself to getting muddy.

#146
Form you’re own admission being a closeted homosexual RC priest actively engaged in the lifestyle with church elders aware of your practices is not sin..because its deplored
by the same priest and institution in a sermon, That my friend is a hypocrite..The institution that sanctions such rhetoric would then be hypocrits.
#146 perhaps your issue is with homosexulaity and has little to do with the the pontificate’s belief in his exclusive license for salvation. the Episcopal Church service can not be equated to a single’s mingle at the local gay bar. Your views are extremely distorted and do not refelct the rich spiritual traditions of present Episcopal church

Hi anglo1,

You are beginning to move from debate into purposeful lies, distortions, and insults—repeating, for example, assertions that are demonstrably false about the RCC (that she teaches those who are not Roman cannot be saved)

You are displaying the classic behavior of a troll. And you are getting on my nerves.

Unless you can begin to engage in an adult and mature manner, I will remove your posting privileges and delete all of your previous comments. It will be as if you never participated.

150 matt
It is apparent you are Inamered by the this Pontiff and the RC church. I would applaud your decision to find sanctuary as a member of their congregate if you chose to do so..But I not “not” making false statements that canot be backed by factual evidence.

If you chose to repeat this threat to curb debate because you find differing opinions offensive to yours..then who is to blame here?

As a practicing Episcopalian..i know first hand of what I speak..As a former student of the Harvard Divinity School..I feel secure and grounded in my factual evidence to support my assertions.

There is no mud-slinging goin on here.
Unless you want to count the numberous times that my church has been attacked and portrayed as some kind of refuge to the immoral.

Wait..was it not our lord’s teaching that those who have may be considered sinners are just as worthy to be communicant in his most holy mysteries as those who decry the same sin

As a graduate of the Harvard Divinity School and as a practicing Episcopalian..and admirer of preachers such as Robert Shuller and Billy graham..I have just as much right to express my opinions as you do to deplore them

excuse my lack of the spell check..inamered=enamored.
Spellcheck is somewhere on thsi computer..but i don;t have the patience to find it..lol

“As a graduate of the Harvard Divinity School”
One assumes that English is not your primary language.  Else this statement strains credulity.  Spellchecker or no.

Hi Anglo1,

1. Can you please produce the evidence to support your assertion that Rome teaches that those who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church cannot be saved.

2. You do not have the “right” to express any opinion at all on SF. You post here as a matter of privilege not “rights”. I will remove those privileges should you continue to violate our posting policy.

3. What does Harvard have to do with the irrationality of your posts?

4. As any regular reader of SF knows, we have many debates and we welcome honest and open and respectful debate. We do not welcome the sort of ignorant and insulting assertions you have made above.

Form you’re own admission being a closeted homosexual RC priest actively engaged in the lifestyle with church elders aware of your practices is not sin..because its deplored

Is English not one of your first three languages? I said nothing of the sort. It IS a sin… it just isn’t a sin by the church. There is no theology saying “this is ok with us”

You, OTOH, seem ready to defend a church that wants them out of the closet and in the pulpit preaching that it isn’t sin at all. That openly blesses it.

There is a massive difference. That you are too blind to see it would be humorous if not so tragic.

The institution that sanctions such rhetoric would then be hypocrits.

And they don’t. At least… the RCC church doesn’t. I suppose you’re saying that TEC is better for lack of such hypocrasy? If I preach against theft on Sunday morning… but steal on Monday… I’m a hypocrite. I don’t “fix” the problem by preaching that stealing is ok.

Again… why can you not see the difference?

Unless you want to count the numerous times that my church has been attacked and portrayed as some kind of refuge to the immoral.

It isn’t?

The Gospel tells us that you are a sinner… but that you don’t have to pay the eternal price for your sin. It doesn’t teach us that “I’m ok… you’re ok” - That would be a refuge for immorality. “Oh… that’s no sin” undoes the Gospel.

In what way is it not a refuge for abortionists and those guilty of homosexual sin? Or are those not sins to you Anglo1? There is no third option.

The Church militant IS a refuge for sinners. It must not be a refuge for immorality (no matter how many people that attacts).

#154 matt

“The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism states: ‘For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.’” Pg. 215, #816

“...all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…” Pg. 224, #846

Now my guarentee of salvation:

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life… John 5:24

“He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. John 1:12

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth… Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth… Romans 1:16

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.
4:10, 12

Just as I though anglo1, you are purposefully distorting the truth, lying in order to make false accusations.

I asked you to provide evidence that Rome teaches: “that those who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church cannot be saved.”

Instead you produce two para’s from the catechism that, for those who do not know the catechism seem to confirm your point.

But to pick those two para’s you had to pass over paras 818 and 819 which state:

“818
  “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.“272

819
  “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.“274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.“276

So you have born false witness against the RCC. I will give you an opportunity to apologize.

you are purposefully distorting the truth

I suppose it is possible that simple ignorance is the cause.

Let us all take a moment to bow our heads…and find the spell check button on the keyboard.

#157 “Now my guarentee of salvation:”

You spelled “presumption” wrong I think.

Except that to quote para 816 and 846 you have to skip over paras 818 and 819…but true…anglo1, you may also plead ignorance and then apologize.

Except that to quote para 816 and 846 you have to skip over paras 818 and 819

That assumes that these thoughts are his own and not just fed to him (by someone who was intentionally dishonest).

My experience with this level of anti-catholicism says… well I can’t think of a nice way to say this… there isn’t usually a whole lot of independent thought. It’s an “invincible ignorance” fallacy.

It’s quite possible that anglo1 did not read these quotes for himself, but got reference to them from some other polemical rant. Copy, paste, done. Clever cutting and pasting in the middle of a rant, while at the time invoking the spectres associated with name-calling and emotionalism, can make it quite hard indeed to see straight. And once convinced by this powerful, visceral approach, it’s very hard to get out of it. It’s like crack for a lot of people.

That method of rhetoric, btw, is exactly what Jack Chick does, and is why I mentioned it above: he copies and pastes a few quotes from sources he has clearly not read out of content, tosses out unreferenced and unsubstantiated “facts”, plays with words, and then draws a laughing demon in the corner of his cartoon picture, which creates a visceral one-two punch that is quite effective for convincing the well-meaning but ill-informed. I am not at all kidding when I say many, many Christians are trained to do “theology” this way. They *really* think that people in the Vatican and Oxford do the same thing. It’s like a big sinister scrabble game. Critical thinking, or any thinking, is non-existent for this group. It’s the breeding ground for government mind-control, water-based engines, and perpetual motion conspiracy theories. And fake moon landings.

I just got a book yesterday on this called “The Nightmare World of Jack Chick” which outlines this kind of strategy in great detail. Using it, Chick has promoted his peculiar views about other Christians, but most especially his transfixion on the Pope and the Catholic Church. He has distributed more than 500 million tracks in the last 30-40 years. For some people, it’s like crack. It’s sometimes best to just “stand back” and not “stand firm” when someone is in a bit of a fit, like anglo1. He’ll either apologize, run out of steam and leave, or get banned.

#161 matt
Martin Luther and the all the reformers that followed dealt with this same issue..It’s not necessary to go back and give you a lesson in European History and Church History…You are making claims based on yur interpretation of being Catholic.. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Eastern orthodox to name a few all consider themselves Catholic. Because there Interpretation of Catholic means essentially “ONE”. 

I would assert that the RC’s understanding of the word Catholic is “one church under rome”
this is where we differ.

I think we’ve come to the natural end to this argument..It appears from rereading what has been said that you have a religous agenda…A anti-homosexual, pro-choice, pro roman catholic agenda.
No need to go any further. I’m not going to convince you to understand the Episcopalians acceptance of women as clergy, the inclusion of openly homosexuals in the congregation and clergy..nor am i gonna convince you to accept the doctrine of free-will.
I have more than proven my point..I don’t feel it’s necessary to offer the European and Church history lesson on Roman Catholic and Protestant relations and disputes in theology.

#161 “It’s an “invincible ignorance” fallacy.”

Since Matt just took anglo1 to the toolshed, we can now formally dispense with “invincible ignorance” and move to “vincible ignorance”, at least in regards to his understanding of the view of salvation as taught by the RCC. Other fallacies can remain, but that one has been dismissed irrevocably.

I agree dbonneville… with one caveat

I can believe that someone who graduated from the Harvard Divinity School could have a dented understanding of Scripture… but I can’t believe he could be corrected so clearly yet continue a copy/paste without taking even the minimal effort it would take to realize his error.

As for Jack Chick… I respectfully disagree. Many well-meaning people may copy-paste his rantings without thought… but he is the originator of the lies (ok… not “Originator” with a capital “O”), not an unseeing dupe.

heh…well, you’ve definitely proven something.

#167 & 165

Obviousely your are fascinated with this jack chick person. I have no clue who you are refering too..and i’m not about to google this subject.

If this jack chick person takes up so much of your energy and time..perhaps you should seek to debate him as well.

I would assert that the RC’s understanding of the word Catholic is “one church under rome”

And you would be wrong.

I think we’ve come to the natural end to this argument

Where you “naturally” plug your ears and yell “don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind” ?

Yes… we came to that end dozens of posts ago.

Sorry dbonneville, I meant that a different way. The RCC uses the term for one subset of people… the fallacy is essentially “unwilling to hear debate” “incapable of correction by even the clearest evidence”. They are related, but not identical.

#164 “You are making claims based on yur interpretation…”

That is what *you* have done, and you have indeed run the course of relativism right where it goes - a natural end. We are working from objective texts and objective definitions. You are all willy-nilly with assumptions and short on key facts. All elemental powers, and ideas based on them, come to a natural end because they are of this world. And that which cannot be shaken will remain. TEC will come to it’s natural end on it’s present course, which is the death of everything not born from above.

Alright anglo1, you’ve shared enough of your dazzling brilliance. You’ve at long last lost your posting privileges.

#171 - Ah Matt… good intentions I’m sure, but you’re going to need Iolaus to bring a firebrand.

I’m not going to convince you to understand the Episcopalians acceptance of women as clergy

Directed at Matt, this is a rich, rich irony.

So is:

pro roman catholic

Positive Phototaxis, can you direct me to the source where you got the quotes about fallacy? I’d like to read those definitions in context. Fascinating.

Sure.

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical Fallacies.htm

From a couple other sites:

Description: While not exactly a true fallacy, I have included this one here as something to watch for. Some people actually seem to take pride in refusing to listen to the arguments of the their intellectual opponents. Often faith, frustration or self-righteousness force people to tune out any possibility that they, themselves, might not be 100% right. 

Example: “I must be a good person; I won’t even listen to those idiot pro-lifers.”

The term “invincible ignorance,” originally taken from Catholic theology, nowadays refers to a logical fallacy whereby the arguer defends a position simply by refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments supporting the opposing view. In another sense, it is also a version of the “faulty authority” fallacy whereby the arguer uses himself as the sole authority of everything in the world. When faced with facts and reason that differ from his own, the typical response of the ignorant is to sweepingly claim that these different ideas must come from faulty sources themselves, simply because they belong to someone else. Put one more way, it is merely an inherent inability to accept the truth even when it’s staring you right in the face.

Quite often, the invincibly ignorant don’t read much and don’t stray much from their view of the world, formed when they were children. If they do read, it is the same type of material they have been reading for years.

#173 not to mention:

pro-choice,

Looks like someone started the weekend a bit early.

#96

Two points:

1. Sarum is a Use (ie. a variant) of the Roman Rite, not a separate rite of it’s own like the Ambrosian or Mozarabic/Gothic.

2. The Sarum Use was not and has never been prohibited by the Catholic Church, it’s usage merely died out after the Reformation. Indeed when the Catholic Hierarchy was restored in England in 1850, Pius IX offered Cardinal Wiseman the option of the full restoration of Sarum for the Church in England. Wiseman, being a rather enthusiastic Ultramontane, declined. It still however remained a theoretical option, though not utilised bar in very isolated instances. However it has been confirmed from Rome that the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum has application beyond the Tridentine Use and may be applied to all Rites and Usages of the Church (and has been in the case of the celebration of the pre-1976 Ambrosian Rite mass), thus any Catholic priest is free to use Sarum without hinderance by any other party should he so wish.

Wow—I come in after a hard day in the salt mines and find that Matt Kennedy is now a pro-RC guy . . .

HA HAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!

And further that Matt does not “understand the Episcopalians acceptance of women as clergy” . . .

Tee hee—I hope that Matt’s wife, Anne, recovers from the shock of this realization.

And note that as soon as Matt pulverizes anglo1’s fantasy about the RCs claiming that nobody can be saved if they don’t belong to the RC church . . . anglo1 decides “I think we’ve come to the natural end to this argument.”

; > )

Yes indeed—I’d say that Anglo1 had come to “the end” for sure.

I vote for invincible ignorance rather than deliberate falsehood.

Just to respond belatedly to something Anglo1 said earlier: “the pontiff does not believe in the legitamacy of the Church of England.”

Well duh—“the pontiff” is a Roman Catholic.  He is supposed to believe that—and if he didn’t he shouldn’t be pope at all.

Why is this a big issue?  I, as an Episcopalian, don’t give a fig and don’t need “the pontiff’s” acknowledgement.  But the fact that he has opened his arms to folks who could accept Rome’s doctrines and dogmas, and who have been completely demolished by our idiotic leaders is a great thing—like Matt I’m thrilled for them, and have even more respect for Pope Benedict.  Why keep them trapped in a church where they are so persecuted?  Protestants should be able to acknowledge sterling leadership—especially when our own are so very very poor this century. 

Ooo rah for Pope Benedict!!!!

Conor [177], Thank you for the clarification.  It’s been a long while since seminary…  and I’m living in a place where the alternate rite (and it is a separate rite in this case) is the Rito Bracarense, the Rite of the See of Braga, which was once the ‘senior’ Christian Cathedral in Iberia. [I say Christian advisedly, as the Cathedral was built at about the time of the Great Schism, and since Catholic has come to mean Roman Catholic in the vernacular, I didn’t want to go there.] Braga, by the way, is in northern Portugal… it’s the 3d or 4th largest city, depending on who’s counting, and still known as the most religious city in the country.  It had Portugal’s proto-martyr, a catachumen names St. Victor who was beheaded is 303, during the Diocletian persecution (which did extend to the western Empire, although it was worse in the east).  The Cathedral was bult on the site of a 6th Century Swabian Christian Church, so folk have been worshipping the Lord there for over 1400 years.  Sadly, fewer of them now, although Braga remains more religious than most of Europe.  There are, incidentally, no Lusitanian Church (Anglican) parishes in Braga…  we’re in the Porto/Gaia and Lisbon areas.

While I shan’t miss ‘anglo-1’, I am reminded of a bit of wisdom regarding Christian charity:  “Never ascribe unto malice what may be adequately explained by styupidity.”  I am sure that, from at least an anatomical standpoint, his heart was in the right place…
While

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory

The above is the definition of Invincible Ignorance from the RC Dictionary. Embedded deep in Ecclesiastical Law is the idea that a person is not culpable without mens rea, evil intention, and this depends on the doctrine of free will; no free will, no culpability, no mens rea. This doctrine survived in English Criminal Law at least until 1960 when I took my degree in law. Consequently the RC Catechism devotes pages to conscience, paras 1795-1802. Interestingly enough if you read the sections, you wonder about the virtue of obedience, at least I do. The Jesuits take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience but then you might consider Ignatius’ spiritual exercises. The earlier sections of the RC Catechism also cover free will and then morality, good and evil acts. Para 1755 makes plain that certain acts are evil, no matter what, such as fornication or sodomy (not actually mentioned). However much our more dogmatic religions and friends might be, this does not seem to me to be simple matter, as for instance portrayed by Clare and Eulogos.

Matt, based on this thread you have a bright future in Catholic apologetics. 

Holy Mother Church

Once, at The Church of The Holy Spirit in Orleans, Massachusetts,
David preached a sermon in which he referred to us as “Holy Mother Church.”
On the way out, I told David that I left HMC a long time ago;
He said Holy Mother Church never left you!

Now, in October 2009, the mountain has come to Mohammed,
That is, HMC is reaching out to co-opt and ingather traditional Anglicans
By offering to receive Anglican parishes as “discrete bodies”
Into the arms of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church.

Little do the Vatican officials who hatched this plot
Realize that they have opened the door to cataclysmic change in their Church.
Heretofore, they have received only individual Anglicans, who “swim the Tiber.”
Including married Anglican clerics who are retreaded as Catholic priests.

When they get a whole bunch, nothing but trouble will result.
Their own clergy will begin to demand the right to be married, too.
Their bishops will have to deal with fractious vestries,
Who are used to functioning independent of church hierarchy.

Anglican parishes call their own clergy, subject to diocesan approval,
And do not hold still for having someone assigned by outside authority.
Anglicans do not accept theological precepts they do not agree with,
Certainly not from a foreign-born bishop in a palace in Rome.

No doubt the Vatican is looking for substantial revenue from affluent Anglicans.
They will find all such funds specifically reserved for pet causes of donors.
Anglicans are a stiff-necked people, who will not behave like Catholic sheep,
Who bend the knee, bow the head, and reach into their pockets.

Revolt will spread. 
Free thought will infest the Catholic faithful.
The specter of women’s ordination will arise
To haunt the planners at the Vatican.

1. There is no “specter of women’s ordination” in Rome, nor will the Apostolic Constitution raise one up. It is a settled issue.

2. It is absurd to think that a pro-WO Anglican, much less an actual ordained would consider or be accepted by Rome.

3. “No doubt the Vatican is looking for substantial revenue from affluent Anglicans.”

Yeah that’s the ticket. Let’s think of the most vicious and malicious motive we can for this offer and attribute it to the RCC.

4. Yes, It must be a vast Catholic “plot”. Certainly the Trilateral Commission together with the Rosthchilds, World Jewry, and the ATF are in on this.

profpk,

Some of what you say may be true of some Anglicans—but the people who convert through the Apostolic Constitution will be Catholics, not Anglicans.

profpk wrote,
“Free thought will infest the Catholic faithful.”

It just may be that nearly half of US Catholics and many religious are rebellious free-thinkers (if the polls are correct http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-31-catholics-liberal_N.htm)  and the Anglicans who come will bring a breath of fresh fragrant orthodoxy to the RCC - not to mention the beautiful and powerful Anglican hymns, liturgies and prayer book.

However, as you say, Anglicans swimming the Tiber do need to be aware of the differences in autonomy, requirement of obedience and the increased opacity and lack of transparency inherent in a true hierarchical church like the RCC. 

The Anglican and Methodist episcopates allow more autonomy and freedom of choice than does the RCC, but they have also failed to be sufficiently accountable and transparent and answerable for their actions and abuses.  TEC and UMC church agencies and retreat centers for decades have been sponsoring non-Biblical radical agendas and activities without fear of reprisal from the grass roots.  Thus the dangers inherent in the bishop hierarchical system may be greater than in the congregational churches.  However, all clergy are choice targets of attack and temptation by the evil enemy of our souls who will do anything to bring shame to the Name and Church of Jesus Christ.

My mistake.  There is no room for satire
in our deliberations.  Apparently, you took
my words seriously, instead of reflections
from the theater of the absurd.  I hope God
sees the humor and is laughing at all of us.

glad it was a joke…given our run ins with Anglo1 and the anti-Catholicism on this thread it is getting difficult to tell

#185 “increased opacity and lack of transparency inherent in a true hierarchical church like the RCC”

Increased opacity as opposed to what other transparency? I wouldn’t exactly think of Anglicanism (in the broadest sense at the moment) and “less opaque” in the same thought.

Or is it a theoretical potential that you are comparing the RCC to, and even a theoretical autonomy?

#187 “glad it was a joke”

I was wondering what those quatrains of non-rhyming verse were about. Last time I saw poetry like that was in 1986 when I read a Nostradamus book in high-school. Lucky for us all Gorbachev had a port-wine stain on his forehead and not a scar from being the one who was as slain but now lives again. Whew!

Free verse.
A form that I have despised for decades.
Refuge of the pompous
Yet undisciplined.

But sometimes
I am wrong about that.
Like this time.

You are not a poet and did not know it.

Or you are poet and I did not know it. :|

The Apostolic Constitutions is a late 4th century collection, in 8 books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Early Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity. It purports to be the work of the Twelve Apostles, whose instructions, whether given by them as individuals or as a body, are supposed to be gathered and handed down by the compiler, Clement of Rome, the authority of whose name gave weight to more than one such piece of early Christian literature (see also Clementine literature). Where known they were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation. They are today of the highest value as a historical document, revealing the moral and religious conditions and the liturgical observances of the 3rd and 4th centuries. They are part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection.

Is this what is being discussed? Pre schism, pre Reformation! Has anyone here actually read it? Personally I have only read the Didache. In those days, without some of the later dogmas, such as infallibility, or the Papal grab for temporal power, and despite persecution, I can see why people cheerfully died for the Christian Faith.

Mike Brit at #192

For anyone interested, there is a good discussion of the Apostolic Constitutions at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.html?term=Apostolic Constitutions and Canons.
I found the following comment interesting: “They were unknown in the West until the sixteenth century, at which time neither Baronius nor Bellarmine made any attempt to vindicate their authenticity, though Anglican theologians took a great interest in them and frequently upheld their apostolic origin”.

On the last point, they are now generally acknowledged to be 3rd-4th century forgeries (as you point out), but that in turn makes them very useful for historians of the 3rd-4th centuries, if not for historians of the 1st century!

Thanks MichaelA, very interesting website indeed. The address I ended up with was:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.xvi.html

deals with Canons and Constitutions of the Church 100-325. Hard to separate the words actually handed down orally from deliberate and false attempts to gain authority using say Clement’s name. Material earlier condemned may reappear to be approved later. When I start to worry about this stuff, I am inclined to read again the Athanasian Creed, a phrase I am sorry to say earned me a spell check! Note the repeated use of the word ‘mystery’ despite scripture or because of it?

Apologies to all, my BCP used the word ‘mystery’ rather than ‘incomprehensible’

On topic? Off topic?  How do we start a new topic?

Anglican Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic Churches.

Does anyone have experiences, insights, or opinions regarding the history and theology of the Anglican Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic Churches in the South?

Thanks.

DIRECTIONS FOR STARTING A NEW TOPIC:
1. Create your own web log (not that hard, and it’s free).
2. Start your own topic on your own web log.
3. Observe that no one else is commenting on your web log.
4. As unobtrusively and as sneakily as possible, drop a link every once in a while on web logs where people are actually commenting. The tricky part is to do that without getting banned from the populated web logs. Good taste is helpful.

Hi Br_er Rabbit

1. Create your own web log (not that hard, and it’s free).
2. Start your own topic on your own web log.
3. Observe that no one else is commenting on your web log.
4. As unobtrusively and as sneakily as possible, drop a link every once in a while on web logs where people are actually commenting. The tricky part is to do that without getting banned from the populated web logs. Good taste is helpful.

I believe you’re forgetting:

5.  Making yourself visible on said blog by saying something that is theoretically on-topic, but adds nothing to the discussion.  For example, I really appreciated Matt pointing out that the RCC is “.. faithful() to Nicene orthodoxy.”

6.  Inserting a link on an article where it contributes to the topic, and the link just happens to be one to your own blog (AND your blog supports the agenda of the blog you’re surrupticiously using for networking).

7.  Not inserting said link in every *%*%$ comment, but sort of staggering them a bit so as to not wear out your welcome.

8.  Being funny and/or interesting at OR BEFORE the moment when your gut tells you that you might be starting to annoy the moderators. 

9.  Also very important - don’t be funny in inappropriate ways, and don’t be interesting the same way that your aunt with three dozen cats running around her house is interesting. 

10.  Know when to shut up.

Given how far off topic we´ve gotten (when the most recent posts are on the topic of ‘off topic’), I understand SewaneeMayred’s politely-expressed confusion.  Mayred, try googling the Church of the Holy Communion in Charleston, SC and read Fr. Dow Sanderson’s essay on Anglo-Catholicism. 

Then, go to: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/11236/ [“How to Use Stand Firm”], which will give you all the information you (actually) need on thread-starting.

Good luck: despite the Biblical injunction Sarah Hey has posted with the comments about loving one’s enemies, this group can get into “tough love” sometimes (myself, I confess, included). Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea [unfortunately] minima culpa.