Ordinariate Denies Favoritism Charge, TAC Clergy Noticeably Absent
August 25, 2012 40 Comments
Anglican Ink is reporting:
The head of the U.S. branch of the Anglican Ordinariate, Msg. Jeffrey Steenson, has denied accusations it has given preference to former Episcopal clergy in its ordination process. However, among its first class of priests, 16 of 19 are former Episcopal clergy, with only 3 receiving their formation and orders from the continuing church.
Questions and concerns about the implementation and interpretation of Anglicanorum coetibus have met the Vatican’s initiative to create a liturgical home for Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church. In an interview with PBS’s Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Dr. Ian Markham, Dean of the Virginia Theological Seminary criticized the pastoral provision for Anglicans for sheep stealing.
“There was a perception that this was poaching by the Roman Catholic Church of Anglicans around the world. It was discourteous, it was stealing sheep, it was unecumenical,” he said, adding “It’s viewed as not recognizing the value of and integrity of our traditions.”
Its critics also charge the sheep stealing is directed towards the Church of England and the Episcopal Church. While talks began in 1991 between leaders of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) and the Vatican on returning Anglican Catholics to Rome, TAC clergy have been noticeably absent from the Ordinariates in the U.S. and U.K. The three TAC bishops who spearheaded the reunion efforts with Rome — David Moyer, John Hepworth and Louis Falk – are absent from the clergy ranks of the Ordinariate.
Some former TAC clergy who have applied for ordination in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter tell Anglican Ink that they have been treated brusquely. Others report that a year after contacting the Ordinariate’ s Washington office, they are still waiting to hear what the future holds.
One clergyman, who asked not to be named as he had applied for reception, told Anglican Ink he had been discouraged the “Pastoral Provision was so un-pastoral”. A “Fort Worth mafia” was dominating the U.S. Ordinariate – Msg. Steenson is a former Fort Worth rector, while the vicar for clergy, the Rt. Rev. Charles Hough III is the former canon to the ordinary of the Diocese of Fort Worth.
A second aspirant said he had been pressed to explain why he had not come to Rome when he left the Episcopal Church some twenty five years ago. If he accepted papal supremacy and the dogmas of the Catholic Church, why had he delayed a quarter century in making his submission, he was asked, the clergyman told AI.
The question is not an unfair one, however, as the Catholic Church’s self-understanding of its role in the economy of salvation is found in the statements of the Second Vatican Council.
Lumen Gentium14 states: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved”, which on its face, would appear to render suspect in Roman eyes those who have held long standing doubts as to the veracity of Anglican truth claims and delayed going over to Rome.
Of the 19 clergy re-ordained for service in the Ordinariate, 7 have come directly from the Episcopal Church, 6 from the Episcopal Church via the Anglican Church in North America, 3 from the Episcopal Church via the Anglican Church in America, 2 from the Anglican Church in America, and 1 from the Charismatic Episcopal Church.
Asked to respond to the assertions of unfair treatement of TAC clergy, Msg. Steenson said:“Not true. The judgment of Apostolicae curae falls on each of us alike. We treat each applicant equally, and apply the objective criteria of discernment that the Catholic Church requires.”
This one is open for comment.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Popcorn! Get your popcorn here!
Why yes, it’s Saturday night after all…
Funny, Rev. Harry Entwistle didn’t have any problems? Humm.. of course he an Aussie, and now the Ordinary there himself. But I’m just an onlooker!
And any thoughts your self Fr. S.?
Like you Fr, only an onlooker… only an onlooker, a thousand miles away.
I am always “a thousand miles away”, at least positionally! Funny how real conservatism sets one apart! Even for many if not most Americans, I am a conservative eclectic Brit!
Btw Fr, check out D.A. Carson’s new book: The Intolerance of Tolerance, (Eerdman’s, 2012), I think you might like it?
I am very much munching on popcorn now!
Where’s John Bruce? I was reading the title and immediately thought of him.
Impatience is tough to deal with and perfectly understandable. The explanations have been rehearsed again and again so just give it a few months and then look back and reflect.
Can I have mine salted?
Only us Evangelical Anglicans have “salt”! Ou, them fight’in words!
Of course were nothing here anyway, we just seek to take the Holy Scripture seriously, and often literally! Oh them Sola’s again! Like Sola fides in Christum membra ecclesiae constituit: Only faith in Christ can establish the members of the church; i.e. the foundation or basis of membership in the church is faith.. (Quoted from Richard Muller’s book; Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, etc., page 283).
I rather like George Conger’s pieces. The “sheep stealing” quote was priceless. I really find it hard to imagine how the dean of a theological college could say something quite so silly. The Catholic Church does not “steal sheep”, it tries to get its lost and strayed sheep back into the fold of the one true Church.
But George Conger normally does better on getting his facts straight than he does in this article. Pehaps it was a hot day in Central Florida.
The TAC never really caught on in the UK.
A former Anglican, later TAC, bishop of real distinction, is now Mgr Robert Mercer CR – a priest of the Ordinariate in Portsmouth – and the TAC parish at St Agatha’s in Portsmouth and its clergy have also been received.
Fr Brian Gill, formerly Vicar General of the TAC who signed the Portsmouth Declaration in 2007 along with the other TAC Bishops, is now ordained a priest of the Ordinariate.
I not sure there is any remaining organised TAC presence in the UK.
The former UK TAC web site is now off-line although I noted that the sole presently remaining ACCC (TAC) Bishop in Canada, the Right Reverend Craig Botterill, Q.C., who is no longer merely a Bishop Suffragan, but also Acting Metropolitan, Apostolic Administrator, Provincial Chancellor (and presumably also Archbishop of Titipu and Lord High Everything Else) seems now to include in the “Everything Else” the TAC office of Apostolic Visitor to Great Britain, At £560 for an “el cheapo” retrun flight, I don’t suppose visits will be all that frequent.
Imagine, old men with chasubles and miters going over fences, furtively stealing sheep like ninjas.
It’s like an episode of Father Ted, really.
——————————————————————————-
In seriousness, George Conger can cry all he wants, but the Hound of Heaven (and our German Shepherd) will not relent.
I wonder if Msgr. Steenson now experiences the headache of being the “first guy” in charge of something constantly attacked and critiqued and scrutinized by everyone?
I feel pity for him, but I’m sure he knows that worse things can happen. Carry that Cross, Monsignor! Calvary goes uphill, and there won’t be a pleasant tea party when you reach the top. (But there will be salvation and eternal life… So there’s that. )
Well, here’s John Bruce, Ioannes: there are First Guys who work out, and First Guys who don’t. It appears there are continuing charges of cronyism and in-groupery here, and it goes beyond that — the tight little group includes the Chancellor, who’s married to one of the priests, etc etc. And let’s take the old joke-at-the-start-of-the-sermon about the difference between the chicken’s commitment to breakfast — she just lays an egg — versus the pig’s, who becomes the bacon. I’m afraid that as far as the Ordinariate goes, I’m bacon, and Steenson is making me real, real nervous. Just sayin’.
It could also be asked why of two former Anglican priests due to be reordained as ordinariate priests one has apparently been divorced and remarried (and I don’t mean John Hepworth) and another had been previously received into the Roman Catholic Church many years ago but had then returned to his Anglican ministry. I don’t have any personal objection to them becoming ordinariate priests but I do wonder if the “rules” are being interpreted on a very selective basis.
Since you give no particulars, who can say whether the rules are being disregarded or not. For example, a civil divorce may have been regulaised by a decree of nullity. The CDF is pretty careful about who is permitted to go forward for ordination, particularly since each dossier requirin a dispensation from celibacy requires the personal consideration of the Holy Father.
It’s a puzzling thing overall as I try to sort these matters through that the Reformation predates the Enlightenment, and while the Reformation (at least in the opinion of some) produced some worthwhile Christian developments, the Enlightenment seems to have generated develpments from Masonry (which from all serious accounts seems to be a slightly more intense version of Rotariansim) to Emmanuel Swedenborg. The Wesleys are just Anglicans. Yet the Enlightenment produced concepts like equality before the law, accountable government, and the like that one might think Christianity and even Catholicism might have exploited to greater advantage. Instead, we have ins and outs in the Catholic embrace of Reformation Anglicanism that seem to require a certain Kremlinological approach — exactly which nephew did Pope Alexander favor this time? It’s not a pretty picture.
@John: Your looking more openly and historically, and several of our Catholic friends, as too some of those former Anglican’s, now Ordinariate Catholic converts here, just don’t know or see, or really want to see! Indeed we all have our positions, but we simply must seek to be fair, and look at the history, and even the different theological positions in that history!
It may come as a shock to Mourad, but not everyone believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church. It would be appreciated if Mourad would allow other people to have different opinions. One can only hope that the disrespectful attitude that Mourad has for those outside the RCC is not generally typical of Roman Catholics.
@ Bell Tower: Of course I accept (i) that Christianity is not the only belief system; (ii) that Christendom has, sadly, been divided by schism and and heresy so that there are now numerous ecclesial bodies of persons who, if baptised, are certainly Christians, but who are not in communion with the one true Church. I cannot deny that other Christian bodies have their own sincerely held beliefs But to the extent these beliefs are not those of the Catholic Church, then I cannot accept them as valid.
And I would add to that by saying all other religions are false, because they are man-made and/or deficient. Only the Roman Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth, Jesus Christ, who takes the form of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist. Those who deny that Jesus Christ really is present in the Holy Eucharist are liars, or if they tell the truth, they make the God we worship a great liar, and the whole business of religion is nothing more than a cynical way to swindle credulous fools out of their money and to give old people a hobby before they die. If Jesus Christ really is present in the Holy Eucharist, then we have every right to hope for eternal life and happiness beyond the temporary and painful things on this Earth.
Religions featuring widows throwing themselves into a funeral pyre, bloody human sacrifices, cannibalism, whatever it is Mohammedans spread by word or sword, and all other religions that promote wickedness, including secularism, are infinitely inferior to the Church, visibly headed on Earth by the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ, and with Jesus Christ as the High Priest. The Roman Catholic Church will prevail, even if the monarchies of Europe and all potentates and princes of the whole world are all abolished; even if the world is shook to its very foundations, much less the hardest efforts of individuals who think they posses the Truth and claim either the Roman Catholic Church is in error or the Roman Catholic Church is only among many of other equal religions.
While we are indeed not the only belief system, we are still a missionary church. If Christianity ought not to be the ONLY belief system, then we forfeit any commitment to service, celebration, preaching, and being witnesses to our faith. And so, the Roman Catholic Church ought to restore Christianity Undivided without any compromise to heresy or giving in to spiritual promiscuity.
@Mourad: That’s fine, I too would agree that the so-called “battle” is who is right, biblically-theologically, historically etc. BUT, you have placed and judged “me” as an apostate! And YOU simply have no right to make that call! I am Trinitarian, believe in the Virgin Birth, Mary as Theotokos, Jesus as God & Man, etc. But, I don’t see the doctrines of the papacy! (And here no doubt is your rub! And so you judge me on a old school – pre Vatican II Roman Catholic standard. Remember, I know old Latin Catholicism myself). I don’t see YOU as an apostate, as much as a blind, overminded, but sometimes ignorant and legal Roman Catholic! Though, only GOD, the Lord knows “them that are His”! (2 Tim. 2:19)
Btw, our dear Margaret (RC), who sometimes blogs here, presents one of the better “spirits” on this subject! You Sir, might want to take note here! (AS too BellTower)
*Your advise Ioannes, and ask him to really do as you say, and not as YOU do! Bad example!
@Irishanglican. An Anglican brought up in that faith is one thing. A Catholic brought up as a Catholic who rejects that faith and seeks Orders in another Church is quite another. I regard the former as a brother Christian, separated by force of historical circumstances, whom I hope and pray by God’s grace will one day be welcomed into full commuinion.
You make no secret of the fact that you were once a Catholic, that you ceased to believe in the teachings of the Church and that you joined another Church in which you have accepted orders. As you well know, that puts you in a canonically different situation. Apostacy is not a judgment it is an objective definition of your status. So in your case, I hope and pray that by God’s grace you will return to the faith of your fathers and be reconciled.
@Mourad: Your answer here surely reflects on your idea, that somehow one in the so-called clergy (presthood for you) is somehow called to a different salvation than the so-called laity, indeed this is perhaps the mindset of old school Catholicism, but it is not a biblical nor theological reference itself! Since Vatican II, even Catholicism has rendered the Priesthood of the Faithful, and the priesthood of the those called to Catholic ministry, together: “Let them be mindful too that they have as partners their brothers in the presthood and indeed the faithful of the entire world. For all priests cooperate in carrying out the saving plan of God. This plan is the mystery of Christ, the sacrament hidden from the ages in God. It is brought to fulfillment only by degrees, through the collaboration of many ministries in the upbuilding of Christ Body until the full measure of His manhood is achieved” (PO 22). (See Priest; Vocation.) The Catholic Encyclopedia, (Nelson, 1987)
And again, your so-called biblical and theological definition of Apostacy is lacking! You are right, you don’t do theology, not even your own Church’s!
Note, btw, that we Evangelical Protestant Anglican’s believe in the grand doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers, close btw, to Vatican II’s doctrine now of, the Priesthood of the Faithful, which includes all ministry. (1 Peter 2: 4-9, etc.)
@irishanglican
As a former Catholic now in Anglican Orders you are caught by one or more of the sins against faith: (i) Incredulity [the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.] (ii) Heresy [the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same] (iii) Apostasy [the total repudiation of the Christian faith] ; (iv) Schism [the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.] [Code of Canon Law c.751]
I accept that in canon law you would not be formally caught by (iii) since you profess some elements of Christianity but your many posts cover (i), (ii) and (iv) pretty comprehensively.
Therefore by Canon 1364: 1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
And as for the priesthood, I refer you to the clear explanation of the difference between laity and clergy in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, – last paragragraph of II.9.
“Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ.(2*) The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist.(3*) They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity.”
@Mouard: That is old school Roman Catholic for sure, i.e. pressing the letter of Canon Law, and as I have said certainly this is simply Judaistic! But who care’s really, certainly not I, I am gone from Roman Catholicism for good! And it is people like you that help press this Roman Catholic Judaization, but thankfully (for the most part anyway) people and lawyers (“Scribes & Pharisee’s”) like you are not in charge! And thankfully, I know some very good Roman Catholic clerics and scholars, and they are not personally Judaizers, though sadly the Roman Catholic system often hampers them!
Btw, in closing, I can see now, that you certainly are NOT a Gospel Free-man ‘In Christ’, I am speaking theologically and biblically here! (Gal. 5:1, etc.) St. Paul’s Galatians just brakes down your Judaistic statements and spirit! You also might want to read Matthew 23! Wow, great chapter there! I have the the Biblical High ground here, and the freedom and liberty of the Gospel of Christ, and sadly it appears you have only the burden of your ‘Catholic Judaization’, measured by “your” understanding of Canon Law! But, I do wish you “peace” in the Good News and Gospel of Christ, and pray you find it!
PS..And btw, that includes having and knowing by faith the Assurance of your Salvation, (Rom. 8: 15-16, etc.), which in your “Catholicism”, you certainly don’t have!
I am intrigued by this discussion between Fr. Robert and Mourad: I am taken aback and back to the beginning…of the ‘Fullness of Time’…when Jesus walked this Earth…hearing the crowd of Scribes and Pharisees saying “HE is a Blasphemer”. They did not, refused to…meet the ‘Living Christ’…the very ‘Person of the Living God’…of Whom they claimed to KNOW and WORSHIP! In our modern day colloquialism they would be called “blockheads”; we are ‘Christian blockheads’ when we fail/refuse to see/know Christ in the OTHER, resorting to name calling, maligning and even ostracizing our ‘Other in Christ’…in the name of Religion? Christ IS Unity (the Seamless Garment) and Unity can only be achieved ‘In Christ’! If we are NOT Christ to the OTHER than we cannot BE/Become a Stone in HIS Temple…of which “Christ IS THE Cornerstone”! In effect, we ‘tie and bind up Jesus’ hands and feet’ and HE then is incapable of doing anything with us, as with the Scribes and Pharisees; Wholeness and Integrity are lost and there only remains legalism–’Victim and Victimizer’.
I am reminded of something Fr. Mitch Pacwa (a biblical scholar on EWTN) was once explaining in his homily: about how the Pharisees, in trying to get the people to strictly comply with and not break any of the laws/commandments, they would construct “legal fences” around them; that is, they would make-up additional (lesser) laws to assure that THE laws would not be broken, heaping all kinds of ‘heavy burdens’ on people’s shoulders; all that is contrary to what Jesus is about – ‘WHO’s Yoke is easy and WHO’s Burden light”!
On a personal note, growing up back in the ’50′s, the Nuns would tell us that if we so much as went to a wedding, funeral or prayer service in a Protestant church, we would commit a mortal sin and risk going to Hell. Well, instead of it actually being a “mortal sin”, I now see that admonition as one of those “legal fences”, so as not to be put in a situation where we could ‘possibly lose our Faith’.
It would indeed be a wholesome thing and in the True ‘Spirit of Unity’ if a Catholic Theologian(s) would take up Fr. Robert on the challenge of dialogue and debate, as he so offered a number of times and I believe is ripe and ready for it; that which would be most constructive, lively and a higher frequency of what it means to ‘BE Christian’ in a growing hostile and violent culture. Souls are being lost/even going to Hell – so where are all the ‘John the Baptist’s’ here?!
But beware of false compassion; it can be pleasant to get along, but we need to be vigilant regarding orthodoxy. We have to either work from the frame work of objective and subjective truths here. It’s no longer a dialogue when the OTHER already states “Well, you guys are in error, and let me tell you why!” Such people have one intent, and that intent is not reconciliation with legitimate authority, but the imposition of bibliolatry as orthodoxy, so they will not feel guilt regarding to the supremacy of subjective, fallible, individual opinions.
The Pharisees were called hypocrites because the laws they made were ultimately self-serving. I agree with Fr. Pacwa. I don’t think that the canon laws and the laws of the Church were placed for the protection of only the clergy, to be followed for its own sake, but ultimately as a means for the governance of the whole Church, and to be “Guard Rails” from things that are harmful to the faith. The problem with some people is that if you impose the slightest “Don’t” then they will play up the drama like petulant children and talk about how they’re being oppressed and enslaved unjustly. It’s what the atheists say about belief in God and religion, it’s what Protestants say about the Pope, it’s what ex-Catholics say about Catholicism. It is rebellion at its very core, and no amount of reasoning can change that attitude unless it becomes talk about accommodation and consent. I am of the opinion that spanking children is necessary at times, as punishment is necessary in any legal system. If there is a law, there must be a consequence for its transgression.
What, no excommunication for those who abort because that’s too uncharitable? Women should be allowed to become priests because that’s being compassionate? Homosexuals be allowed to married in the Roman Catholic Church out of compassion? Hell doesn’t exist anymore?
Protestantism IS harmful, because it hinges upon subjective interpretation of Scripture, that is, there is no final authority but how one personally interprets the Scripture. If we look at the example of Islam’s holy book, the Qur’an, we see that the lack of centralized authority (they rely on various institutions of jurists rather than a priesthood) has resulted in people like Osama Bin Laden and the Boko Haram interpreting subjectively what they read from the Qur’an. Without the central authority of Rome, I would have long ago picked up a rifle and gunned down many people out of misplaced piety and I could easily find justification in the Bible, the Decalogue notwithstanding. It’s not just a lunatic fringe, human beings are hardwired for vengeance, and without laws, and certainly without the respect for the laws, vengeance would be easier than justice.
IOANNES: your reply is a complicated one – with assumptions, presumptions and deductive reasoning that is jumbled – issues mingled together that would need to be addressed on their own merits/demerits. I will simply but positively say that I love my Roman Catholic Faith and I Believe ALL that the Church disposes and proposes, subjection to ‘Papal Authority’ – including the ‘Infalibility of the Pope in matters of FAITH and MORALS’!
I know and uphold the clear difference between “false compassion” and TRUE “Christ-like Compassion/Empathy”. I do NOT condone the Sin, but I do ‘love the sinner’! There again the Church IS and always will be with us…to tell us what Sin IS and to keep us on the straight and narrow…. However, I do not believe that “human beings are hardwired for vengeance”; a ‘proclivity to sin’ yes, but vengeance and violence (?) No.
In a previous post, I think in your reply to Fr. Anthony C., in listing your ‘daily aggendum’…of “handing our sandwiches etc. to the homeless at your parish and then off to work etc….”, I took note that you did not even mention Daily Mass as a top priority and the highpoint of your day – why not? “The Eucharst” is the ‘Source and Summit of our Faith’! IF you Believe and ‘Live-out’ all that you say in defense of the RCC, reception of ‘The Eucharist’ should BE paramount in your Life and I would even add – THE Antidote for much of the Anger and Frustration you feel!
Margaret: I am not at all attacking or denying your Catholicity. If you acknowledge the Pope’s authority and confess your faith in the Church, I will not intentionally bother you, even if I am, in essence, a bothersome person.
As Peter Hitchens said: “You can be compassionate without being indulgent.” The bottom line is: I believe that there is an attitude of permissiveness in the Church, not only among the laity, but also in the hierarchy, thus they are hesitant to call out error in Protestants and Protestantism and other non-Catholics, but more than willing to criticize those who would. I cannot help but feel the spirit of the Marxist Political Correctness in that sentiment. But if I were absolutely bigoted about my Roman Catholicism, I’d consistently attack even the Ordinariates and non-Latin Churches, in the same way a certain anti-Ordinariate Catholic person has expressed himself in this blog and others. I have even differentiated between those who are oriented and headed towards Rome, but have not yet arrived, and those who not only turned their backs to Rome but impart to us Parthian shots using Scripture while riding on their Protestant horse, full-gallop to Hell.
We ARE hardwired for vengeance, physiologically and psychologically, it is a reflex. That is why the transformative nature of the Sacraments is needed. That is why forgiveness is acquired but cannot be truly and perfectly done by people without Grace from God. That is why we need Religion, Justice, Truth, Law, God, Authority, etc. From the dawn of time, even before we had any intellect to speak of, vengeance has been a part of our base, flawed, human nature. If you look at Scriptures and human history, this primal flaw turned into a system in which every action of disobedience and sin was countered with an act of repentance, indicated by the shedding of blood. For, as the Scriptures say: Life of the Flesh is in the Blood. Even in the most basic sense, if someone hurts you, you’d generally instinctively want to hurt them back, but in our Judeo-Christian tradition, this shifted from a form of human sacrifice (Hurting or killing another to satisfy an injustice) into slaughtering of beautiful and perfect animals or cereal that you would prize as a source of nourishment. Jesus’ sacrifice was consistent not only with the prophecies, but also the ritual of sacrifice to God- he was not sinful and was unblemished- what could be a more perfect and ultimate sacrifice to God other than God Himself?
————-
It was an oversight for me to not mention that I go to weekday morning mass as much as the opportunity allows. But I do not attend morning Mass regularly, and I find it bordering on scrupulosity if I felt guilt over the failure to regularly attend morning mass on days other than Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. I am not a monk, nor a priest, and I have work out in the secular world so I can keep putting something on the collection plate and keep handing out food to the hungry. I have no illusions in thinking that I’m going to get a statue of myself to be placed at the Vatican, but I do not despair in God’s Mercy, either.
Anger, when just, is not sin. We are dehumanized if we are not allowed to be angry and frustrated. Jesus Christ overturned the booths of the wicked at the Temple, and it would be blasphemy to call His actions “sinful”; He did not meekly say “Well, let’s be charitable and compassionate and peaceful” regarding those who profane the Temple by taking advantage of those who didn’t know any better. He didn’t write a passive-aggressive, strongly worded letter to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, either.
Jesus reacted violently and justly because of His outrage of what they were doing to the Temple. Yet I’m not allowed to be outraged at the false, erroneous things being said about Our Lord and His Church because it’s not “Compassionate” and “Charitable”?
If there is a real challenge, it would be the challenge of not being a lukewarm Christian, because it would not be daring to always agree and go with what pleases everyone. It would be easy, but the path lacking struggle and rigor and full of comfort and pleasantness, I suspect, is not one that leads to Heaven.
IOANNES: you say: “you can be compassionate without being indulgent”? This statement is particular when speaking about say, an addict or alcoholic, then yes, “tough Love” applies here. But in that you are applying it here to Protestants and orther non-Catholic Christians, it is hypercritical and simply incoherent. While I understand your concern with “political correctness”–infecting many areas of Church Life, it is not a matter of “being Indulgent” when dialoguing and reaching out/connecting with our brothers/sisters “In Christ”. True Ecumenism begins and ends with KNOWING that we are ALL ‘adopted children of the One True GOD’! One can keep his/her ‘unique Christian identity’ and still recognize and acknowledge that there are OTHER parts of ‘God’s Greater Whole’. Becoming/Being RC is not a ‘ticket to Heaven’. It can be a sure path, a guiding Lighthouse but still an arduous Journey just the same. The undeniable fact remains that Baptized Protestants too are ‘promised Salvation’, if they like us are Faithful to Jesus and HIS Gospel. We will be judged on what we do with what we have been given–”to those who much has been given, much will be expected”. This to me is very humbling and a Life-time of work–taking the log out of my own eye before taking the splinter out of my brother/sister’s eye (Protestant or Catholic)!!
Jesus is doing HIS marvelous work of bringing about UNITY–in HIS own Way and in HIS own Time; we are simply cogs in the Wheel that work towards-or against-HIS Mission!
And too, there is NOTHING scrupulous about receiving ‘daily Eucharist’ – it is our Priveledge and if Jesus desires it, we should as well. A good Spiritual Director could counsel you on this.
MARGARET: I wasn’t talking about the frequent taking of communion being scrupulous, but feeling guilt over not taking frequent communion in daily mass; frequent communion and attending daily mass is commendable, but I don’t see why anyone would demand or turn into a requisite something that is beyond what the Church requires.. I would pray the rosary daily, but I’m not about to behave as if it’s strictly necessary to get into Heaven. It would be scrupulous if I consider a lack of excessive piety to be a sin. That’s what I was saying. (Although it would contribute to the revitalization of the Faith in the West if the Faith becomes ingrained into daily life, don’t get me wrong. I would see that to be, at this point, more likely for those monks and nuns and other religious who devote their everything to God in their every breath, word, action, and thought. )
As for the “ecumenism” with Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians; I will say that “Reaching out” to them differs with each group, because each group is different. For example, I have, or try to, never, ever, ever, say anything critical about the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, no matter how anti-Roman their individual members can get. In this respect, I am more charitable towards the Orthodox. Why? Because they’re very close to Roman Catholicism with regards to orthopraxy and sobriety of their theology; the fact that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the closest picture we have of Christianity Undivided; the fact that they have persevered through active persecution at the hands of the Arabs, the Mongols, the Turks, The Communists, etc. and have had little change in their orthodoxy. And most importantly, at the very heart of Orthodoxy is also the Eucharist, Our Lord in the appearance of Bread and Wine. -THEY TRY- is what I am saying, to have communion with Rome, even now; I’m not saying that they should all be Roman Catholics, but to be in communion with Rome. I suppose this is also the reason why I’m so supportive of the Ordinariates, and those who want to join; I regard them as like the Orthodox, but coming in from the other geographic direction, but from within the same familiar Western Tradition.
In comparison, many Protestants simply -walked out- of the Church; I don’t recall them being kicked out without them first rejecting the Church and its rightful authorities. I could not think of any greater offense than those who have cleaved themselves for whatever reason from the Church, as this might as well be a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit- in denying that the Holy Spirit is with the Church and the Pope. Even worse, is that the we now have all these Christian Primitivists who think they’re “restoring” Christianity to how it originally was, or posit that the Lord’s Sacrifice is just a communal meal with the absence of the Real Presence and central authorities- they seem to be more interested in being like the Jews or Muslim in thinking all they need is a Sacred Scripture of some sort and only singing and preaching, and all other sort of theologically incoherent teachings (Snakehandlers, etc.) And all this ultimately gives way to a sort of enervation of the Faith in the West, in our time, because our Faith is apparently not One, but have become subjective and individualized according to our preferences. There is no “Community” or “Orthopraxy” to speak of! This is why I see Rome, with the successor of Peter, as the visible core for any sort of Christian Unity.
I would recommend that we all go back to the Church Fathers and consult them with how to deal with our divisions:
“Whosoever shall have separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how praiseworthy such a person may fancy his life has been, yet for that one crime of having cut himself off from the unity of Christ he shall not have eternal life, but the wrath of God shall abide with him for ever.” St. Augustine of Hippo, “Letter 141,” c. early 5th century
More here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/saints/teachings-of-church-fathers/unity-of-the-church/
@Margaret: Very nice post! I only wish we could all let your Catholic-Christian insight and spirit settle more into our minds and hopefully hearts! But, already the real “duo” here have already written, and fired their guns! Sadly, one quite literally has even used the so-called metaphor “rifle”, I just hope he can see someday that his zeal must be brought to a better and more biblical-theological place! A place, as Vatican II, which includes the whole Mystical Body of Christ, as too a few of us “Protestant” and Anglican Evangelicals! Of course the Lord has His people (Christian’s), in many places, some no doubt have never even been in a visible ecclesiastical place! Certainly like you, I don’t see this as the norm, but GOD In Christ (Incarnation/incarnational), is always “spirit/Spirit and truth”, as our Lord Jesus said in John 4.
Also like you, I certainly see and value the real place of Evangelism! And this is never really a place of just some visible ecclesiology alone, though we should and must have a visible Church Catholic! But the Gospel is always Jesus Christ, or as Paul loved to say: “Christ Jesus”, the Risen, Ascended and Glorified God-Man! May we who have met and come to know the Savior and Lord Jesus Himself, continue by God’s ‘grace & glory’, to live and be HIS Body on earth!
And indeed: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance; against such there is no law.” (Gal. 5:22-23) And here there can be no falsity and falsehood, ‘In Christ’!
Thank you Margaret, God Bless You!
@Margaret
I have no wish whatsoever to go back to the bad old days when as schoolboys there were streetfight between “papists” and “proddy dogs”. I acccept the concept of the brotherhood of all Christians and indeed of all believers in one God – as to which Lumen Gentium is instructive.
Like you, I grew up in the days when we were expected to ask for a dispensation to attend a protestant religious service and I don’t want to go back to them. I have as a perpetual reminder of those days in the form of the photographs of my parents’ marriage – an episcopal dispensation being required which was granted only on stringent terms which my mother said made the ceremony more like a visit to the Inspector of Taxes than the joyous celebration she would have liked. I approve of and enjoy Ecumenical occasions, but I think we do have to be careful that they do not lead to an approach which says all versions of non-Catholic belief are as valid as Catholic ones.
Both Catholcs and most Anglicans seem to me to have a degree of commonality in praying for “the means of grace and the hope of glory” . I understand that this encompasses the following: (i) . good works in sanctifying grace are necessary for salvation; (ii) we are not guaranteed salvation; we hope for salvation, (iii) we can lose salvation by the exercise of free will and this is not therefore compatible with some protestant teaching of the “once saved – always saved” variety.
I declined the theological debate with Irishanglican, because (i) I have no pretensions to being a theologian; (ii) the format of this blog is not appropriate for the necessary argument and (iii) because if Irishanglican wants such a debate, on his own statements he has the connections necessary to engage in it. But fiinally a major reason is that I consider that engaging in such a debate might for me be what is referred to as “a dangerous occasion of sin”.
@Mourad: I am not just seeking to win a “debate” with you, I am an Anglican priest & presbyter, i.e. ‘pastor-teacher’ first and foremost, but we simply must seek to do “theology”, biblically and hopefully in our best “reason”! And even as a Catholic layman, you cannot escape this! YOUR the lawyer, so you have a good mind and education, just use it mate, biblically and theologically!
Wow, none of us is “past the occasion of sin”! Who seems to have the “private judgment” here? Amazing, just amazing human deception!
After some further thought about your statement…”But finally a major reason is that I consider that engaging in such a debate might for me be what is referred to as “a dangerous occasion of sin”.” I am simply dumbfounded by such a statement, especially for an educated Catholic laymen who is a lawyer! Again, just amazing logic, or really lack of moral logic in my judgment! Where is the so-called “free-will”, as you call it? or better the “facere quod in se est”: to do what is in one’s self! What is in you Mr. Mourad? The chance for each of us to share the moral glory of Christ, is our profound blessing in and of grace! (Note, 1 Pet.3: 15)
Mr. Mourad.
I’m way past the occasion of sin, if it is a sin to “call a spade a bloody shovel” but I recognize your wisdom in not letting yourself be baited into a fruitless “dialogue” with the adversary.
I do not at the very least think that you have backed away from the fight as you clearly expressed orthodoxy in your stance regarding protestantism.
As for the dispensation, I consider the clergy to be a part of my large extended family, so large decisions in life would involve the bishop and cleric/religious friends in the same way I would tell my parents if I was having problems, or if want to get married, etc. If they all consider a decision to be a particularly bad one, then of course I’ll obey them and refrain from doing something proscribed. I wouldn’t mind having to ask for dispensations. I don’t see why anyone would hate having to ask for dispensation. It’s like going to a doctor, I imagine.
Interesting thing about those streetfights between Catholics and Protestants? If you compare that to how boys and girls today mostly don’t care. It reminds me of a poem;
“When Jesus came to Birmingham, they simply passed Him by.
They would not hurt a hair of Him, they only let Him die;
For men had grown more tender, and they would not give Him pain,
They only just passed down the street, and left Him in the rain.”
MOURAD: I do realize that you are between The Rock (Peter) and the hard place (canon law); that is to say, you must seek to maintain the Integrity of your noble position. However, as a nondescript lay person, for whatever it’s worth, I just want to say that the Journey/story of a Soul traverses many paths in one’s lifetime and no two Souls are alike and neither are their “means of grace” in their search and “hope of glory”. Is not the Church in the business, that is, ‘Mission of Saving Souls’?! What if God Alone KNOWS that a particular SouI, for reasons deep as the netherworld, would wilt and dry-up on the mountaintop, so permits that Soul to go down into the valley along many a byway. Yet, the Soul is rejuvenating herself along the way–feasting on the ‘Goodness of The Lord’ then, to the Soul’s delight, finds herself once again on A Mountaintop! And so it is, because we cannot understand this 3D view of a Soul, we place her in a sealed box (to protect her) and then, marking the box “unclean”, only in fear that we too may be made “unclean”. But in Reality, the ‘Blood of Jesus’ washed over her Soul, making that which was called unclean – “clean”! No boxes for Jesus!