No Ordinary Year for the US Ordinariate
January 9, 2013 72 Comments
2012 was full of milestones for the new ordinariate, and 2013 will feature mo
re, including a February visit by Archbishop Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Washington — When Father Scott Hurd, vicar general of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter — a home in the Catholic Church for former Episcopalians and Anglicans — reflects back on 2012, he points to a period of rapid and exciting growth marking its first year of existence.
On New Year’s Day 2012, Pope Benedict XVI erected the ordinariate, which allows former Anglicans to retain certain treasured traditions within the Catholic Church. It was created in accord with Anglicanorum Coetibus, the Pope’s apostolic constitution permitting former Anglicans to come into the Church corporately instead of as individuals.
On the same day, the Holy Father named Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, a married Catholic priest and the former Episcopal bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Rio Grande, as the first ordinary.
Newspapers have since featured stories of former Episcopal churches being received into the Catholic Church as groups in beautiful Masses that included Vatican-approved prayers that they had long cherished from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, a landmark of the English language.
“The joy and blessing of all these people being received into the Church is at the end of the day what this is all about — it is about unity in Christ,” Father Hurd told the Register.
Father Hurd is a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington who has a three-year appointment to serve as vicar general to the ordinariate.
The ordinariate recently received an especially high-profile former Episcopal priest, Larry Gipson, former dean of the Episcopal Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Ala., and also former rector of the 8,000-strong St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Houston, where former President George H. W. Bush and his wife, Barbara, were among his parishioners.
The former Episcopal rector, who holds a master’s degree in divinity from Yale University, hopes to become a Catholic priest.
Three Ordinariates
The Chair of St. Peter is one of three ordinariates for former Anglicans.
The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, under the patronage of Blessed John Henry Newman, one of the great English converts, was established in the United Kingdom in 2011. (A group of Anglican nuns just joined the Church in the Walsingham Ordinariate). The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross, under the patronage of St. Augustine of Canterbury, was established in Australia in June.
The Chair of St. Peter also administers a newly created ordinariate deanery in Canada, which Rome approved in December. Msgr. Steenson appointed Father Lee Kenyon, a former Church of England priest who brought his entire Anglican parish into the Catholic Church in 2011, as dean of Canada’s new Deanery of St. John the Baptist.
“It has been an amazing year,” said Susan White of Arlington, Va., a former Episcopalian who is active in the ordinariate. “Every time I turn around, there is news of more folks, clergy and lay, swimming the Tiber, their carefully preserved Anglican treasures tied to their backs to offer to Rome. We are so blessed to be able to bring our riches with us.”
Eric Wilson, a former Episcopalian who is now a communicant of St. Luke’s Catholic Church in Bladensburg, Md., echoed that sense of gratitude: “It’s been a tremendous blessing this year to experience firsthand Pope Benedict’s vision for Christian unity being lived out on a daily basis.”
St. Luke’s parishioners entered the Catholic Church last summer, after an intense period of discernment.
“Whether it’s the many holy priests we’ve seen ordained or the hundreds of converts growing in the faith, the ordinariate’s success has exceeded all expectations — a sure sign that the Lord is at work,” Wilson said.
The Year Ahead
Looking forward, Father Hurd added, “To a certain degree, next year will be more of the same. There are communities in transition, and some still in discernment [as to whether to become Catholic and part of the ordinariate], and we have a second wave of clergy aspirants who are starting the process.”
As of late December, the ordinariate included 1,600 laypeople, 28 priests and 36 communities. There are 69 additional applications from men who hope to become Catholic priests of the ordinariate.
Deacon Ken Bolin, 38, a West Point graduate and military chaplain who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is among those candidates who have already completed their priestly formation and expect to be ordained as Catholic priests through the ordinariate this March.
“The ordinariate is a great answer to Christ’s prayer that we should all be one,” said Deacon Bolin, a transitional deacon, who holds the rank of major in the U.S. Army.
Currently stationed in Anchorage, Alaska, he hopes to be ordained in March. He is especially excited that he has been granted permission to be the priest who performs the rites of initiation when his wife, Sharon, and their three children are welcomed into the Church.
The ordinariate makes it possible for married former Episcopal and Anglican clergymen such as Deacon Bolin to become Catholic priests. But, eventually, the ordinariate will have a celibate priesthood.
The ordinariate — which is something new in the history of the Catholic Church — also devoted 2012 to establishing legal and organizational policies to build a foundation for future growth. It will soon have income from parish assessments similar to diocesan assessments. “
Now that we have reached this point, we will be on a firmer financial footing,” Father Hurd predicted.
Diocesan Generosity
Father Hurd stressed that the generosity of Catholic dioceses and ordinariate staff members — many of whom work without pay — has made the ordinariate possible. He expressed gratitude to the U.S. bishops for their financial and spiritual support.
While some ordinariate priests, such as Father Mark Lewis of St. Luke’s Catholic Church in Bladensburg, Md., who is renowned for his preaching and the high caliber of music at his church, are able to function full time as clergy, others mostly rely on income generated from work in Catholic institutions such as schools or diocesan offices.
“Anyone who puts forth an application to become an ordinariate priest must have an adequate source of income to take care of his family,” said Father Hurd.
While the ordinariate has spent a lot of energy on establishing a secure foundation, it has been buoyed by many promising developments. Recently, it received an anonymous donation of land to build its first chancery. The donor spent $5 million to purchase five acres adjacent to the ordinariate’s principal church, Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston.
The ordinariate is seeking additional donors for construction of the chancery. It currently operates out of a small office at St. Mary’s Seminary in Houston, where Msgr. Steenson teaches theology, with most of its small staff scattered around the United States. Father Hurd said that quite a few members of the staff have donated their time free of charge.
The ordinariate is planning a pilgrimage to Rome for priests and families in February. “We will set out to discover the apostolic foundations of the Church of Rome, to participate in the wonderful tradition of Lenten stational Masses organized by the Pontifical North American College and to meet some of the architects of the ordinariates,” Msgr. Steenson reported in an online “update from the ordinary.”
He also expressed the hope that the pilgrimage to Rome would include an opportunity to thank the “Successor of St. Peter himself for the gift of Anglicanorum Coetibus.”
Archbishop Müller’s Visit
A symposium on the ordinariate is planned for February at St. Mary’s Seminary in Houston, and Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, who played an essential role in establishing and supporting the ordinariate, and Archbishop Gerhard Müller, the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and secretary to the Anglicanae Traditiones commission, will be featured speakers.
“The three ordinariates operate under the aegis of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” explained Father Hurd, “and for Archbishop Müller to make his first U.S. visit as head to the symposium is not only a great honor for us, but also a vote of confidence for the great things that have happened over the last year.”
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Nice recap of old news. Hope to hear of some exciting new stuff this coming year.
A storm in a teacup. Only 3 ordinariates, yet the global Anglican Communion spans more than 165 countries. The ordinariates only have a few thousand (mainly elderly) members yet there are more than 104 million Anglican Christians around the world. The ordinariates have been a monumental failure and the poor old Bishop of Rome has egg on his face. To qoute the proverbial police statement “move along, nothing to see here”.
……so if there is nothing to see, why did you stop by to take a look?
Dear me, have you not noticed what is happening in the Episcopal Church in the USA, the Anglcan Church in Canada and the Church of England? That’s where the storm is and it’s no storm in a teacup but probably the inevitable consequence of the break with Rome.
The break with Rome created an Erastian church subservient to the state. The law and doctrine of the Church of England is what Parliament says it is. So now the state has gone into post Christian made, so the CofE follows. The state has an equalities agenda – so women must be clergy – priestesses and bishopettes. The state no longer believes in matrimony as a sacrament so why should their not be “marriages” between persons of the same sex- and the CofE now has to choose between going along with the same idea or giving up its legal privileges in relation to marriage – and the synod bandwaggon is on the march Soon to be “bishop” Susan cannot wait to celebrate the same sex marriage of “butch vicar” Gwedonle with “dainty gay curate” Penelope to be followed by the marriage of gay bishop John with his longtime partner Charles -and they are going to adopt two children.
No wonder the GAFCON bishops are speaking of the need to rescue the Anglican Disunion from itself and still less wonder that many clerics and laity are seeking to discern where they should go.
We see mini “Continuing Anglican” bodies springing up in a last ditch effort to save Anglicanism from itself. But the prognosis not good. The “official” Anglican churches are comnig to grief because the Petrine promise that the gates of hell would not prevail was given to Peter and his sucessors, not to Master Cramner or Martin Luther. Without restablishing communion with the one true Church – the continuing Anglican bodies will have the same fundamental defect as is now manifest in the bodies from whence they come.
The Ordinariates are not a “storm in a teacup” – think more of the parable of the mustard seed – a parable dear to the Holy Father. They are not just attacting the elderly but some of the brightest and the best of the clergy.
Deo Gratias for the Ordinariates.
“Holy Father?” Do you mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ or an elderly German gent living in Rome? By the way how is that “petrine promise” going protecting thousands upon thousands of Roman Catholic children from the hell of child abuse? Maybe that is where certain supporters of the Roman Church should be directing their attention and prayers, instead spouting nonsense about RCs being the ” one true church”.
Well, the Roman Catholic Church existed while Britain was being raped and pillaged by your heathen ancestors. If this was not true, tell me who was the bishop of Canterbury before Augustine was sent FROM ROME?
They said the same about Our Lord. With just 12 mature men – it could not possibly survive. Cynics are the supporters of the devil!
PS Do you belong to a church and if so which one?
He’s an Evangelical FiF Australia member from the Archdiocese of Sydney.
I belong to the Anglican Communion- a branch of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church stretching back through ancient Britain to Jerusalem. What about you?
Your church stretches as far back as Henry VIII because he wanted unlimited divorces.
The Roman Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ via His Apostles, Peter and Paul.
I bet that makes you mad because it’s true. You’re going to list some books and claims to try and convince everyone how wrong we are. And no one will be convinced in the end.
Really? The Ordinariates are growing; because the Ordinariates are a part of the Catholic Church, there will be more members of the Ordinariates than there will be Anglicans in the next 20 years- why is this? Because we’d have a larger birth rates than the contracepting, aborting, homosexuality-consenting Anglican Communion. Oh, sure, you have married “priests”. It’s just they’re both women. And while the congregation gets gray, the younger generations become atheists and have nothing but contempt for religion in general.
Henry V111 was married to his brother Arthur’s widow, Catherine of Aragon, some years his senior, as a result of a special dispensation from the pope. It was politically expedient for the Roman catholic church to make this alliance to consolidate its position of power, politically and religiously. Henry’s request for an annulment was denied because that Pope’s successor could not ‘undo’ what his predecessor should never have allowed to be done in the first place, namely to marry one’s brother’s widow. This was something which troubled Henry, the “Defender of the Faith” for years, as the Book of Leviticus did not permit a man to marry his brother’s widow. It was expedient for the Roman pontiff not to grant Henry an annulment because it had nothing to do with the Faith at all; it was all about political power and political expediency.Therefore to say that Henry wanted ‘unlimited divorces’ is simply not true.
Henry was also under pressure from his parliament to father a legitimate male heir to continue the royal dynasty.
Sadly many catholic minded Anglicans have had to live with the results of this papal decision and its subsequent consequences for centuries.Had Henry been alive today, I’m quite sure he would have been granted an annulment for his marriage with Catherine.
Ioannes, I do not wish to become embroiled in a debate with you on this.The last occasion in which I responded to one of your comments you were extremely rude to me. There is a difference between constructive discussion and contemptuous ridicule for those of us who who hold views which are different to those of your own.You as a Catholic Christian seem to show nothing but contempt, ridicule and at times downright rudeness and disdain towards some Anglican Christians who comment on this website.I do not wish to argue with you;
I simply make the point that Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not a “love match” but one of political expediency.Also Henry did not want ‘unlimited divorces’ as you say.Historically, “Anglican” Christianity was in place in Britain long before the arrival of Augustine of Canterbury and historians cannot agree as to when or how primitive Anglican Christianity came about. When Augustine arrived he found the church already there on those shores.Finally, may I say that The church is not a perfect institution; it consists of ordinary believing individuals subject to both good and error responding to God’s call on their lives individually and corporately. Remember too that popes throughout the middle ages elevated their so called “nephews” (illegitimate sons in reality) to the conclave and other important church institutions for the sake of consolidating power and for political expediency.Were it not for devout men like Friar Martin Luther and other theologians who exposed these ‘heresies’ (for that is what they were) at the time of the Reformation, they would probably have gone on unabated for centuries.
“Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
It is only when all people acknowledge our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives that we will truly bring about , “One Church One Faith and One Lord” as the hymn-writer says.
Conchur, I am an Australian anglo-catholic member of Forward in Faith but I don’t have the privilege of living in the Archdiocese of Sydney, although I have seen first hand something of their evangelistic success, godly living and dedication to putting Christ first in all that they do and say. I must admit I have some significant theological disagreements with them but I am homoured to belong to the same Communion as them.
Oh, that group whose chairman, an Anglican bishop, ended up becoming Roman Catholic a few years ago?
What was his name? John Broadhurst? Yeah, if I were an obedient Protestant, I’d follow my chairman’s example and convert to Catholicism immediately.
That, or keep telling yourself “We’re the real church, really!”
Tell me again how many churches your communion is planning to sell in Australia?
Did you know, since 1996 until 2006, the number of Australians affiliated with the Catholic church grew by 7% to 5.1 million, while those affiliated with the Anglican faith decreased by 5% to 3.7 million? (I got that off the Australian Bureau of Statistics!)
Here you go: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/6ef598989db79931ca257306000d52b4!OpenDocument
I think it rather amusing that you’re the only person who has ever claimed that the Anglican communion has 104 million people worldwide when the official press releases by the CoE have never claimed more than 75 million.
Whatever, the Ordinariate is now part of the Catholic Church, so they are part of a family that numbers more than 1.2 BILLION, if you want to play the numbers game.
You sound extremely bitter about all this. Perhaps you feel threatened by the Ordinariate and feel a need to lash out? Why? Did people going to the Ordinariate leave your church desolate and short of funds? Did your best friends become Catholic, contrary to your exhortations? Get over it.
Now that you put it that way, I almost feel sorry for him now. …Almost.
Terry, if you go to http://www.anglicanfrontiermissions.com/about-afm-2/ you’ll see that the work of D.Barrett & J.Linnell (2008) “Latest Statistics for Global Growth of Anglicanism 1676-2008″ reveals that there are 104 million Anglicans in the world. To answer your question my parish (and diocese, for that matter) hasn’t been affected by the ordinariate at all, although I do know a number of Roman Catholics who have converted to Anglicanism. Sorry that my comments have upset you so much, that was not my intention. God’s peace.
If young people were indeed becoming atheists and had “nothing but contempt for religion in
general” it would be in large part because of the sort of childish name-calling on display here, which simply reinforces the general conception that religion is just one more excuse for human beings to hate and belittle each other.
Childish name-calling? No, it’s mature name-calling; wise, aged, elderly name-calling.
We might as well say that the Lord engaged in name-calling for calling the Pharisees “Hypocrites” or “Snakes” and a “Brood of Vipers”- can we really be “Better” than Christ, who told, nay, embodied the Truth?
Young people are becoming atheists because they want to escape the name-calling, the judgement, especially if they are true and just; they want to believe they are perfect and do not need God or any Salvation offered by any Church. With a coddling, weak, watered-down form of Christianity wherein political correctness is the new Gospel, and Jesus Christ was an inoffensive “moral teacher”? A young person can be happy without God, and religion is a hobby or a social club for the elderly.
Ioannes, you seem terribly distressed by my comments. I apologise for that. EPMS is right. Forgive me if I acted in a manner which does not adorn the Gospel. If I may respectfully point out the ABS statistics you cite simply reflect what denominational box a person ticks on a Govt census form. A more accurate indicator of church health is church attendance patterns. The National Church Life Survey which covers the 22 main Christian denominations in Australia revealed that, sadly, all Christian denominations had declining attendance patterns, with the exception of the Pentecostals ( who grew by 11%) and evangelical Anglicans ( who grew by 9%). In the same period of time the Roman Catjolic church declined by 13% in Mass attendance.
See, the word “distressed” implies I’m afraid or threatened by you or anything else. The correct word is “Infuriated” at your suggestion that the Catholic Church is not the One True Faith established by Jesus Christ. To say that the Catholic Church is established by anyone other than Christ is a lie; Anglicanism is a false religion established by men for worldly purposes, and that is all I have to say about that.
Of course, since you like using Wikipedia, let me add on something you omitted: “Initial results from the 2011 survey show that six out of 10 adult church members are female. Four out of 10 are younger than 50 years of age. They are well-educated – a third have university degrees compared to just under a quarter of all working-age Australians. The average age is 55 years, pointing to a long-term ageing trend. Individually, church members are much more likely to be volunteers in their communities than the average Australian. The survey found that Christians go to churches for community, with 75per cent report a strong sense of belonging to their local church.”
So I am right about my assessment- the Anglican communion has no future, even if they stuffed all the geriartic population of Australia into their churches to inflate church attendance. Meanwhile, 13% decrease of attendance, if this survey is reliable in its portrayal of Roman Catholic Church Attendance in Australia, is a minor setback, so if you got rid of 13% over there, we’ll be making more than 13% elsewhere- that’s something the Anglican communion can’t do, if the birth rate of the Protestant countries are to go by.
Now, if you’re a Muslim, then you have something to brag about in terms of increase of population. But you’re an Anglican. Let’s tally the world population of Anglicans, from what the BBC said, as of Tuesday, 15 July 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3226753.stm):
1.UK: Social Trends survey found 22.2% of people identified themselves as Anglican when asked. This would give a UK figure of about 13.4 million. However, the Church of England puts the number of regular churchgoers at 1.7m. (So let’s be charitable and say 13.4m)
2.Australia: 3.9m
3.Canada: 642,000 (this is surprising)
4.Central Africa (whatever this means): 600,000+
5.Kenya: 2.5m
6.New Zealand: 584,800
7.Nigeria: 15m
8.Southern Africa (whatever this means): 2m
9.Sudan: 5m
10.Tanzania: 2m
11.Uganda: 8m
12.U.S.: 2.4m
13.West Africa (whatever this means): 31m
14.West Indies (whatever this means): 777,000
For a total of: 87,803,800+ (Because of Central Africa’s figures)
Numbers…When the subject is The One True Church vs The Rest it’s always “My Church is bigger than your church”. When the conversation changes to why the Ordinariates have drawn only a few thousand laypeople, at least half of whom were already estranged from the Anglican Communion, then the rejoinder is “Our Lord started out with only 12 apostles.” Size may or may not matter, but it’s probably best to take a consistent line on the subject.
Well, there’s numbers- but numbers change. So it’s more about -rate- than just purely static numbers at a certain date, or time period.
Numbers, or rather, the rates at which they fluctuate can provide an understanding of the capability of a group to serve its community and effectively be an instrument of God. We can measure the amount of manpower and revenue people can contribute through numbers. More importantly, we’d have a -vague- understanding of people who subscribe to the Faith, based on large increases, decreases, and constancy. For example, A group that starts out small and keeps being small despite its attempts to grow seriously needs to examine itself. A large group that keeps being the same, at least indicates that it’s doing something right, but not enough- they are susceptible to decline by the fact that people grow old and die. A group that is rapidly declining in numbers means that group is doing something wrong, including “doing nothing”. A group that rapidly increases in number means it’s doing something right. A large spike in growth and a subsequent fast decline could mean there are many people who don’t really take the faith seriously.
And then, there’s slow decline or slow increase. I see, for example, a slow increase in the Ordinariates, in Traditional movements, and in the Church in general- Slower increases may indicate more stability. At least it addresses the issue of people growing old and dying or leaving the faith.
So let’s not minimize the importance of numbers.
Gregory R Anderson says he is “an Australian anglo-catholic member of Forward in Faith”. It’s actually quite hard to know how many Anglo-Catholics are left in the Anglican Church of Australia.
The Forward in Faith Australia webs pages only list about 11 clergy so one supposes the vast majority of “Anglo Catholics” (in the English usage of that expression) have already despaired of the Anglican Church of Australia and are either Ordinariate bound or post the TAC split are looking for some other episcopal oversight “down under”.
I did come across a Rev Dr Gregory (Greg) Anderson – Head of Missions Department at Moore College in Sydney and his page says he was priested in the ACA Northern Territory Diocese in 2002.
Moore College is, it appears, actually based in Sydney, and it trains “ministers” for the Sydney diocese but considers itself “international and inter denominational”.
I had a quick browse through the biographical details of the faculty. Not one is photograped in clerical garb and not many are wearing ties. There are PhD’s from respectable universities but not much evidence of any ministry outside the “happy clappy evangelical” variety and apart from training “ministers” – not referred to as “priests” – for the Sydney ACA diocese, Moore colege seems to be somehing of a disance learning diploma mill for evangelicals.
If the Rev Dr Anderson of Moore College is indeed the clerical gentleman who posted on this site, I suggest that his self-description as “anglo-catholic” will not have the general meaning of that expression outside Australia. That may explain why he felt able to write:-
““Holy Father?” Do you mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ or an elderly German gent living in Rome? By the way how is that “petrine promise” going protecting thousands upon thousands of Roman Catholic children from the hell of child abuse? Maybe that is where certain supporters of the Roman Church should be directing their attention and prayers, instead spouting nonsense about RCs being the ” one true church”.”
I suppose we ought to be grateful that he did not refer to Luther, Calvin, Knox, the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917 or the Westminster Confession and describe the Holy Father as the Antichrist and the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon.
Either way, thanks to Mr Anderson for his expressions of regret about his choice of language.
Yes, Mr. Mourad, this Reformed Anglican is still alive! And always ready to call down fire on Rome! Aye, I’m joking, how about a little heat, however…biblical and theological! And the teaching and theology of Luther and Calvin (Reformational/Reformed & Company) are still quite well also! But sadly here, it falls on deaf ears for the most part!
And btw, no anglo-catholicism for me!
Yes, a few so-called High Church lines, Mary Ever-Virgin, Theotokos (no Immaculate Conception, however), and some agreement with the Trinity of God with the EO (the monarchy of the Father in the Godhead). But always my own eclecticism and even some eccentricity! Did ya miss me? lol
So much so that I went to fetch you Father
@irishanglican
It is said that when the late Sir Winston Churchill was on a Royal Navy warship en route to the Casablanca Conference, he was taking a post-prandial stroll on the deck enjoying a cigar when he was approached by the officer of the watch who happened to be a French Canadian. The officer approached the Great Man and ventured to ask in fractured English: ” Monsieur Churchill, do you not think that le Général de Gaulle is for La France today what Jeanne D’Arc was formerlee?”.
The Great Man reflected for a while and then replied: “Young man, that may well be so. My problem is that I have not been able to persuade the bishops to have him burned at the stake!”
You will doubtless also recall the story of the first Eurocommunist Mayor of Rome being received (as is customary) by the Pope in his capacity as Bishop of the city. To the surprise, of the papal entourage, the Mayor knelt and asked for the Pope’s blessing which was duly given (shades of Don Camillo & Peppone). There was some consternation among the papal entourage because Catholics who had adhered to the Italian Communist Party had been excommunicated.
A voice in the entourage was heard to say: “Don’t worry, perhaps the Holy Father used the blessing for the incense”.
As a former Catholic you will probalby recall the form of the blessing: “Ab illo benedicaris, in cujus honore cremaberis. Amen.”
I shall continue to pray that you will one day be reconciled to the Faith of your Fathers.
Fr. Robert, Of course we missed you!
As for your eclecticism and eccentricity, might help us if you wrote your own Articles of Faith. I’m assuming you might start by using your beloved Irish Articles (1615) and then, channeling your inner Melanchthon, create your “Confession and Apology”?
@Mourad: Yes, I come from the generation that can still remember the great Sir Winston Churchill! And De Gaulle and Churchill, now there was an odd pair! Btw, do you have some French decent?
@Michael: My own “Articles of Faith”? Now that really would be rather eclectic! But still as an Anglican the Nicene Creed,with Athanasius’s Creed, and the Apostles’ Creed, would come from out of Holy Scripture for me! But my ‘Calvin-Calvinist’ positions would also find centre place!
@Fr. S: Yes I am a old “stray” in some ways, somewhat independent in “my” Evangelical-Catholic ways and beliefs. But “home” is classic Anglicanism, always! Funny, how I like the old “via media” ideas from the ‘Elizabethan Settlement’, as a doctrinal system took shape. BCP, and the Ordinal (M. Bucer here), with the Thirty-Nine Articles. And certainly the Calvinist influences. Though and therein myself more close to the Continental reformers. My lines are the Reformation heritage, with Luther and Calvin and company. And yet with my “biblicist” strain always! (Only here really I am I near Melanchthon, but no “synergism” for me, here if pressed I must use a monergist thought, and the indefectibility of regeneration). So look what ya have “fetched” up once again!
minus that one *I Fr. S.
Fr. Robert, I always chuckle at your Calvinistic streak. Yet, you don’t seem to highly esteem either John Knox or the Scottish Presbyterian Church. I mean, why be “Anglican Reformed” if you can be fully Reformed?
Anglican Reformed “lost” in the 17th Century and never really recovered. Ever since it has pretty much been a move away from Reformed theology in the Anglican Communion. Unlike, say, the Non-jurors. They lost the battle and were wiped out in persons, but so much of their theology, liturgics, and devotion became enduring that they finally pretty much ended up winning the war (USA BCP, Oxford Movement, High Church, Anglo-Catholics, interactions with EO, Apostolic Succession, Episcopacy, etc.)?
@Michael: Well there is no “chuckle” here of course for me! As an old combat vet, God’s sovereignty gets very personal! Yes my soteriology is really “Calvinist”, but as I have said many times, theologically Infralapsarian. And John Calvin is of course one of my favorite theolog’s and exegete’s, at least on God’s grace and glory! Luther was grand on the “theologia crucis”, and somewhat on the “theologia gloriae”. But Calvin is the systematic Pauline & Augustinian theologian to my mind! Note his great doctrine and teaching of Accommodation! (See btw, Ford Lewis Battles: “God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity”! (From “Interpretation: A Journal of the Bible and Theology 31″ (1977)….Quoted and used again in his book: Interpreting John Calvin, Ford Lewis Battles, Edited by Robert Benedetto, (Baker, 1996).
Yes, in the end sadly Anglicanism is spent, historically! Btw, I do like and have preached a few times among some of the FV (Federal Vision) Presbyterians, (USA). Who knows, perhaps I will find myself with some Reformed Body, somewhere? I like and even love some aspects to my use of the Anglican liturgy, but I am really an Evangelical Reformed Christian, foremost! Yes, Calvin the biblical pastor-teacher, is moving more so on my mind as I age. And the Church Catholic grows ever smaller sadly, in this age of postmodernity! The eschaton is surely coming, and right thru the Modern Nation of Israel! (Zech. 14 / Rev. 1:7)
Btw Michael, have you heard and perhaps read: Robert Letham’s book: Though Western Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective, (Mentor, 2007)? It’s positive overall, but there will always be real differences, theologically and practically, between East and West. However, I just cannot see the Western Pauline loss of Imputation and Adoption! This doctrine is one of the big differences between Christian East and West, though I can not follow Rome’s version, certainly.
Fr Robert, Thanks for the book cite. No, haven’t read that one. I did read Benz’s classic on Wittenburg & Constantinople (from late 1940s?). And the correspondence btwn the Tubingen theologians and Constantinople in the late 16th centur. And Clerendin’s book. Plus Nasif’s (sp?) book about views on Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism.
Yes, we keep reading! I put up this A.M. a wee post on my own blog about Calvin’s doctrine (or lack thereof) of the Eternal Generation. Indeed Calvin was more “biblicist” here, and did not like the subject, thinking perhaps it was too scholastic and Catholic? This is one of Calvin’s weak places, but he was surely Trinitarian! We can see the Eternal Generation of Christ even in Origen. The point is we all know but “in part” as St. Paul says!
Fr Robert, I think Protestantism goes off the rails, metaphorically speaking, whenever it gets too focused on a particular issue and then engages the issue in a scholastic manner. Lutherans did this in a systematic way with the Formula/Book of Concord. Calvin and Reformed do it with issues tied to the Fall of Man and Election/Predestination. Evangelicals today do it with end time issues.
The beauty and power of Luther’s initial message was its focus on Christ our Saviour in relation to us as individual sinners in need of redemption. His message of justification, grace, and faith, as made actual to us through the Word, preaching of the Word, and sacraments properly administered and understood, starts getting lost when one focuses on the fall, end times, or predestination. I think, as you point out, the same holds for focusing too much on great mysteries like the Trinity and the Eucharist.
Wish theologians who like to speculate just discussed their thoughts as opinions, as their own personal speculation that isn’t dogmatic, And if only bishops would be a bit more willing to tolerate a certain amount of non-dogmatic speculation. We can speculate and discuss speculation in a manner that shouldn’t lead to division, esp. on issues that don’t need a full and final resolution or are adiaphora.
@Michael: I would surely somewhat agree, but we also cannot escape the hard places either! And here Calvin surely fully engaged! I simply love his “Institutes”, not because they are infallible (they are not!), but because they are really fully Pastoral & Confessional, and seek at least to place GOD in His Creation and Church!
And in my opinion, Luther should have closed ranks more closely with both Bullinger and Calvin! (And even with his Melanchton. Or really Melanchton more closely to Luther! Noting the Schmalkald Articles). My thoughts at least!
And btw, I really like Reformed Historical Scholasticism! Richard Muller’s book: The Unaccommodated Calvin, Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, is just a thing of beauty!
Fr Robert, Calvin’s Institutes as pastoral? Maybe for a PhD student in Theology?
Now if you really want pastoral and accessible and in something that speaks to both the hearts and minds of pretty much anyone who can read and has a HS diploma… Melanchthon’s Loci Communes (1521-1559). Of course, not quite as long or as systematic as the Institutes, but written in a way that covers most of the Christian basics while bringing out scripture and the tradition in a way that is non-academic, non-scholastic, and personal.
Love the thought about closing ranks! But never forget poor Philip tried with Zwingli, Oecolampadius, & Bucer (Marburg Colloquy 1529), RCs (Augsburg Confession 1530), Luther & Bucer (Wittenberg Concord 1536), Anglicans (10 & 13 Articles in 1530s, dedicating Loci Communes 1535 to Henry VIII), the Reformed (1540 Altered AC), RCs (Diet of Worms, 1540, and Regensburg, 1541), RCs (w/Bucer for Archbishop Hermann of Cologne’s Consultation) and RCs (under duress but for sack of peace at Leipzig Interim, 1548). He was trying up to the day he died. His correspondence with Calvin is interesting.
And I love the way Philip ascribed to Luther’s Smalcald Articles: “I, Philip Melanchthon, regard the above articles as right and Christian. However, concerning the pope I hold that, if he would allow the Gospel, we, too, may concede to him that superiority over bishops which he posseses by human right, making this concession for the sake of peace and general unity among the Christians who are now under him and who may be in the future.” A real EO at heart!
Yes, the Loci Communes is an easier read surely! But, that’s not the issue, as the biblical, confessional, historical, systematic and dogmatic stucture of the Sacred Doctrine for Calvin! But we can note that Calvin somewhat shaped his Institutes from or after Melanchthon’s Loci Communes. And Calvin formulated all his segments of sacred doctrine with extreme care. But with Muller, we simply must see Calvin within his 16th century! This is the real issue for me and Calvin studies, though again we simply must see Calvin’s legal mind and training, as too the time of humanism.
Yes, it was too much to expect I suppose, that the 16th century Reformational & Reformed minds could find too much unity, in such a time. Though they did achieve more than we perhaps can see now, in a Reformed Faith!
I close with Calvin from his 1559 Intro to his Institutes (the summa sacrae doctrinae) he changes to the sapientiae nostrae summa (the essence of our wisdom)…
‘The essence of our true and unshakeable wisdom consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves.’
*structure
Fr Robert, So very true and something we tend to forget when looking at the lives and thoughts of great men: “…we simply must see Calvin within his 16th century! This is the real issue for me and Calvin studies, though again we simply must see Calvin’s legal mind and training, as too the time of humanism.”
When we see the man in his world as it existed at the time, then we begin to see the real man. Of course, warts and all, but those warts are more like pimples when we realize the environment in which they lived (e.g., Luther’s anti-semitism within the prevailing anti-semitic environment) or Melanchthon’s superstition within the prevailing superstitious environment).. When we project back our world onto their’s, then we lose sight of the real man and are viewing a man of our own creation whom we either idealize or demonize, as we choose.
Wisdom theology, so EO! As Melanchthon wrote in his Apology, “This [original righteousness] the scriputrure shows when it says that man was created in the image of God and after his likeness. What else is this than that a wisdom and righteousness was implanted in man that would grasp God and reflect him, that is, that man received gifts like knowledge of God, fear of God, and trust in God?”
@Michael: Yes, the 16th century “humanism” is a “thing” itself, historical, intellectual, etc. Without doubt well beyond our 21st time in so many ways! Strange that with all our so-called progress, we are really so dumb! But this “dumb”, is in reality the great depth of sin in humanity itself! Man, fell from God’s creation & glory in the Fall!
Indeed Melanchthon’s “superstition” is a troubling aspect for such a scholar! It is here that the man Calvin is simply so simply profound, his great press was always the fear and reverence of the doctrine of GOD!
Btw, Bruce Gordon’s: “Calvin” has much on Melanchthon, and touches too on his various editions of his Loci communes! The most indepth Calvin Bio to date!
Fr. Robert, Yes, as Cottret (Engl. trans. (2000)) points out Calvin was far ahead of his time in promoting “true astrology”, which was astronomy, and rejecting “judicial astrology”, that “diabolical superstition.”
Yet, Cottret also points out that Calvin’s flaw in this area was a focus on cruelly extirpating sorcery and Satanism, which he saw everywhere:
“Calvin therefore shared in all respects the fantasies of his entourage. … its determination to eradicate idolatry and superstition did not prevent the support in broad daylight of behavior all the more shocking because it appears archaic to us. Calvin was not fully and entirely a modern. Fear of sorcery and of heretics entailed their retinue of hasty, indeed barbarous remedies: imprisonment, torture, the stake.” (p. 181)
I will always take the irenic Philip. Who like Calvin saw the need for a properly educated laity and who worked so very hard to create a modern educational system that would eventually eradicte superstition. As Manschreck points out (1958), even his response to the Peasant’s Revolt was ahead of his time: “Melanchthon’s confutation of the peasants was at the same time severe and moderate, severe in that he legalistically applied Rom. 13, and moderate in that he did not preach a crusade against the revolters.” Philip’s Confutation of the Articles of the Peasants showed great sympathy for their demands but also a concern to maintain peace and order. His peaceful moderation shows in all he does! Sadly, too many saw weakness or error in such a minset. We know better today.
Yes, both men were 16th century persons! But 500 years later it is John Calvin’s theology that is still being read and studied, over Melanchthon’s foremost! Sadly even Lutherans today don’t know Melanchthon!
Fr. Robert, Not so fast…
You forget that Melanchthon wrote the Augsburg Confession, Apology to same, and the Treatise on the Power & Primacy of the Pope. These are in the Formula/Book of Concord and are official confessional statements for most Lutheran bodies worldwide today (esp. the Confession). All three are read and studied most carefully by both Lutherans and others. For example, the Augsburg Confession is mentioned in the 1999 LWF-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification.
Not sure I’ve ever met anyone who has read all of the Institutes. Not unlike Aquinas’ Summa? And the very accessible Loci Communes are available in 3 English editions: 1521, 1555, and 1559; I belive the first and last are still in print and CPH just did their 2nd ed. of the 1559.
Just be thankful Calvin nor his Geneva aren’t around today to check your…eclectic…theology for heresy?
@Michael: I did not forget, but sadly many Lutherans simply “don’t” read today the Augsburg Confession, etc. And sadly too many Lutheran Churches are hardly classic and confessional these days! Note I have preached at few Lutheran Churches, since I have been in the US, and it is just a mixed-bag as to orthodoxy and Luther/Lutheran there. This was my point. I have a few Lutheran pastor friends, all conservative themselves, but not happy with today’s Lutheran Churches, all! Save perhaps some of the Wisconsin Synod, (American).
The last version of Calvin’s Institutes (1559) is only two volumes! I have the nice Westminster Press set, edited by John McNeill, translated and Indexed by Ford Lewis Battles Btw McNeill was a Canadian.
I have an old theological student in Israel (from my time there in the late 90s), he tells me he reads the Institutes every A.M. for devotion! Now there is a true Calvinist!
And I have read the Institutes several times myself.
Finally, you would be surprised at the ideas of Calvin’s personal freedom in Geneva! As his hand-picked successor, Theodore Beza, as later Francis Turretin! What godly men and “princes” in the Word of God! It seems you have bitten down on much of the Calvin and Calvinist myth?
Don’t forget I have the 7 Vol. Banner Set of Calvin’s ‘Tracts and Letters’. As several other older books on Calvin’s Letters!
Indeed I see myself a very “free” John Calvin, i.e. in the freedom of the Gospel of Christ! His work/ministry/theology on the Work and Office (Sessons-Mediatoral) of Christ, are some of his finest! You simply must read Bruce Gordon’s “Calvin” bio!
And btw, Francis Turretin and his “Institutio Theologicae Elencticae” – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, just might be as many feel: “the best expounder of the doctrine of the Reformed Church” (Samuel Alexander). “A towering figure among the Genevan Reformers” (Leon Morris). Indeed Calvin and his Genevan school “made” theolog’s!
Fr. Robert, Did you forget that I’m just reading the Calvin biography YOU recommended to me? You were the one who suggested Cottret. So don’t complain if I use Cottret to discuss Calvin.
No Michael not “complaining” just don’t agree with every Cottret idea, especially as pressed out by you.
And I understand you want to nuance to your paradigm somewhat of Calvin! That is another reason I suggest the more historical portrait/bio of Calvin, by Bruce Gordon. But I too like much of Cottret’s writing (note he is a layman also).
Fr. Robert, Calvin is both a man of his times and tied to his acts within his time. He is who is was and what he believed in and did. Same for Luther, whose fiery temper, Germanic courseness, and anti-semitism, often make him seem crude, crass and undisciplined. I readily admit I find Calvin’s theology to be difficult for me and his ties to & use of the City/State for political and social purposes off-putting in 2012. But I say that both for all Puritans and so much of the Reformed, while recognizing his personal faith, devotion, piety, and intellectual genius. But then I’m Melanchthonian, Arminian, Laudian, and Weslyan.
Btw Michael, now ya can see I am surely more Calvinist, than Lutheran! Though again, I surely love the “man” Luther… real, human and very sinful! Like all the rest of us!
His “simul iustus et peccator” is surely Pauline!
Fr. Robert, I think the Reformed would’ve been better off to pay closer attention to Bucer & Cranmer (not Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, & Knox), as Lutherans would’ve been with Melancthon (not Luther and the later Lutheran scholastics), and Methodists with Wesley (avoiding falling into the trap of social work & the social gospel). But the more “moderate”, “peaceful” thinkers who are willing to work with others to bring together real union of faith are (wrongly) viewed as weak, indecisive, and compromising. But just my own personal opinion.
Will be interesting to see the “who” will be “followed” in regard to the vision of the Ordinariate. Newman? Manning? Pusey? Lewis? Will it retain enough focus on its roots inside of historic Anglicanism and be “faithful” to the best of that tradition? Or will it just become a Anglicized ritual of the Latin Rite? Only time will tell.
I do like both Bucer and Cranmer, but they are certainly NOT in league with Calvin, theologically! Btw Cranmer followed too closely to Zwingli on the Sacraments!
Sadly, I think the Ordinariates will not follow anyone “theologically”, and in time I believe some more classic minded Anglicans will return to some form of Anglicanism. But as you say who knows? Christianity may not survive in any lasting or real ecclesiology? (Luke 18: 7-8)
And btw, Newman was in a place of his own! Sadly, his theological mind appears to have been wasted overall in Rome. He did not really want to go fully with the Papal Infallibility, at least as in the great Dogma that it became. I have read Newman the Anglican, though more than Newman the Roman! Yet, I have read him there also. A great Christian to be sure, but the Church as “just” Catholic got the best of him, i.e. his thinking.
Yep, not an ordinary year when we end up mooning over Calvin and Luther!
(goofy happy face)
And I too admit that I see Melanchthon as semi-Pelagian! And he is just too mellow & open-ended for me!
….But I do read him!
Sorry got off sequence here, with “goofy face” anglo-papist!
@Michael: Indeed many High Church Christians, especially the EO (but certainly some R. Catholics too), simply don’t believe in any doctrine of God’s Sovereign Divine Election, but here Augustine and of course with his written debate with Pelagius, stood against all those that did not believe in God’s revelation of the Election of Grace. See btw Augustine’s writing of ‘Causa Gratiae. Note btw, Peter Brown’s classic bio on Augustine, he has a chapter on Pelagius And Pelagianism, followed by the chapter: Causa Gratiae, and then the chapter: Fundatissima Fides. Just three great chapters on this such an important subject!
Of course Thomas Aquinas even called himself an Augustinian. And Roman Catholicism historically has had many Augustinians. But Augustine still sits alone, as the great Father of Augustinianism! Which of course historically became the faith and theology of the Reformers, especially Luther and Calvin, etc., etc. And we can even see the great London Baptist Confession of 1689, for the Reformed Baptist Churches in England. So this doctrine and dogma has certainly taken hold of many in the Protestant Churches, but again Augustine is always the Father here, later too somewhat with Luther and then most certainly Calvin, and the Genevan Reformers, which again moved into the CoE, and certainly Scotland. So historically in the West Augustinianism and Calvinism has had a real place! Note the great Three Forms of Unity in the Reformed: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt. And btw, here let me recommend today at least, Michael Horton’s book: The Christian Faith, A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way. Just a grand large one volume work on the history of the Reformed and Theology. Don’t under-play the so-called modern Reformed and Calvinist Theology, it is quite alive and well. And surely always centred in theological debate, both in-house and without!
Yes, it is not central as much so today, as it has been in the past, but it is still very alive in certain churches Reformed, etc. Both churches in paedo baptism and in believers baptism.
Fr. Robert, Of course Pelagianism has been condemned in the Church officially since the 3rd Ecumenical Council. John Cassian wrote against both Nestorianism and Pelagianism, and noted common theological underpinnings of each error; there is a relationship between the two. But Augustinianism was never the official theology of the undivided patristic Church. Even the Council of Orange (6th century) didn’t accept all of Augustine’s views, nor did any purely Western Council. And other Western Councils (e.g., Arles, 5th Century) were decided semi-Augustinian at best.
Melanchthon, Arminius, and Wesley were all opposed without reservation to Pelagianism. But their opponents like to label them semi-Pelagian. No, they, like the Church, are much more accuately described in such stereotypical shorthand as semi-Augustinian.
Luther, not being much of a systematic theology, and a lot like both Augustine and Melanchthon, said or accepted different things at different times. I guess we could say they all matured and grew in wisdom? Just compare the Augsburg Confession (1530), involving RCs, which he accepted to the Wittenberg Concord (1536), involving the Reformed, which he also accepted, to the slightly later Smalcald Articles, again involving RCs, which he wrote. Luther never disagreed with Melanchthon’s Altered Augsburg Confession (1540) or the various, maturing editions of the Loci Communes. Melanchthon radically expanded the Loci in 1543-1544 and Luther was alive and well when they were published. He didn’t disagree and he taught those around him to rely on the Loci for their theological training. You won’t find significant disagreement with Luther and Melanchthon while both were alive.
I think the entire Church believes in such clearly biblical concepts as foreknowledge, election, and predestination. Don’t think you could be a confessing Christian without accepting such basic concepts. I like the way Paul lists their interlocking order. The issue is always in giving precise definitions to the terms and explaining their relationship with the sovereign providence of God and man’s will. And as Luther, Melanchthon, Wesley, and so many others have pointed out, delving too deeply or trying to define all things with exact precise is fraught with difficulty and usually leads to error, so much better not to do it Even the 39 Articles keep things at a rather basic level and with areas for interpretive nuance. Which the Oxford Movement, like Laud and the Non-Jurors, thus nuanced.
The Ordinariate’s theology in these areas will be that of Rome, though I’m not sure that theology (as in the East) has ever been fully explicated or made dogmatic. Rome has always tried to balance Augustine’s theology. Molina was one who speculated in interesting ways to reconcile some of the perceived tensions in these areas. Thinking his RC opposite/opponent at the time was Augustinian, Suarez. Didn’t the pope tell both sides to agree to disagree and didn’t make any final or binding decision? Most of the High Church Anglicans I’ve known over the years appear to be far more Arminian/Wesleyan than Calvinistic. They wouldn’t have major difficulties accepting what Rome is holding today.
@Michael: Indeed again we are not going to agree here! For I would still see Melanchthon as semi-Pelagian, and of course I am not “Lutheran” per se. But indeed Luther was not a systematic guy. And Luther and Melanchton sometimes disagreed, and indeed the SA was mostly Luther’s! See btw Walter von Loewenich’s bio on Luther (Martin Luther, The Man and His Work), pages 347-348, as Luther aged they did suffer some real theological differences, on like the Lord’s Supper. In fact they had many disagreements, but not in public.
And surely no, the general so-called church does not agree on “foreknowledge, election, and predestination”! The better theological precision was always with the later Augustine for Calvin, and note on Romans 7, Cajetan and Calvin had common ground and cause, perhaps here was some semi-Augustinian thought.
Yes, we Anglican Reformed and “Calvinist” are surely in the minority… “For who has despised the day of small things?” (Zech. 4:10)
Fr. Robert, Yes, we can’t agree on all things. But I hope the major areas of disagreement are in the more speculative areas? We’ll have to agree to disagree like…Calvin & Bucer? Luther and Melancththon? Calvin and Melanchthon stayed on rather friendly terms throughout their lives, even on difficult subjects. I like Melanchthon’s letter to Calvin in 1554 in which he says he believes everything happens by divine foreknowledge and human will but he didn’t know how to harmonize the two. Philip never claimed he knew everything, and he didn’t believe anyone else knew everything either.
As for Luther and Melanchthon disagreeing, the record is very sparse while they were alive. More the false rumors of the times and the divisive thoughts of future partisans. Take the famous eucharistic controversy of 1543 out of Eisleben. Rumors started flying that Luther was going to attack Philip and Martin; Melanchthon even writes letters to Bucer discussing leaving Wittenburg. But when Luther publishes his A Short Confession on the Holy Sacrament, Against the Fanatics (Oct 1544), neither is mentioned! Luther goes after Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Carlstadt, and others by name, but not Melanchthon and Bucer. Luther even wrote the Venetians about it to tell them not to believe false rumors that he or Philip had fallen to the Sacramentarians.
@Michael: Yes, thank goodness agreement is hopefully Christ Jesus, Calvary, Resurrection, Ascension, etc. … 1 Tim. 3:16, “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness…” Often we can only express the great revelations of God in poetic language, but surely though the great doctrine of God’s Immutability & Otherness is transcendent, we still most know (to degree) that God is always Sovereign therein, always such is GOD! And Karl Rahner’s fine theological statement of the ‘Axiomatic Unity of the “Economic” and “Immanent” Trinity’ is helpful for us in God’s great mystery!
Note, I am in reality always more a “Biblicist” in my so-called theological desire! WE simply must stay close to the Holy Scripture!
Btw, if I had the time and energy, I might try to write a Ph.D. on John Calvin’s Genevan Academy.
Theodore Beza and later Francis Turretin, were such profound Calvin students! But better yet, getting pastor’s and theological students to read Francis Turrretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes), and then circle back to Calvin’s Institues (two volumes) would be my method, perhaps! 
Now, there would be some reading! 
Btw, see Jeffrey Mallinson’s nice book, (from the Oxford Theological Monographs)…Faith, Reason, And Revelation In Theodore Beza! (2003)
So much to read, so little time!
Btw, I have been reading my copy again of Francis McConnell’s “Interpretation” of John Wesley, (Abingdon, 1939…aye a first edition. Oh how I miss them London book shops!) McConnell (1871-1953) was a American Methodist bishop, Ohio Wesleyan University, and Boston University School of Theology grad. Sad today, that so many older books like this are OP!
At the Prayer Room at John Wesley’s House, London, he used to pray here night and morning: ‘I sit down alone; my God is here.’
Fr. Robert, Oh how I love and loath “semi-Pelagian”! More accurate to say semi-Augustinian. And Eastern Patristic. John Cassian and Faustus of Riez stood up to the ideas of Augustine. Have you studied John’s Conferences? Of course, they suffered as a result. But thankfully both are being rehabilitated within RCC. See RC CCC: “Vices can be classified…following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great.” (at para. 1866) and the quote directly from and attributed to Faustus’ De Spiritu Sancto (at para. 169).
And I say the same for Arminus & the Reformed and Wesley & Anglicanism. And Melanchthon’s Loci Communes (1555) on “Human Strength and Free Will” versus Luther’s discourse with Erasmus. The later Loci are pure Gospel!
As I’ve said, I think the best “solution”, at the speculative level, for all the conundrums of election, predestination, foreknowledge, and the human will is through Molina and his ideas on middle knowledge. Talk about an all-powerful, all-knowing, providential God.
Despite the best attempts of the “Augustinians”/”Calvinists” over the centuries, the Cassian & Melanchthonian ideas seem to dominate the life of the laity in nearly all Christian faith communions. Something just doesn’t seem “right” with the aggressive views of Augustine and Calvin. I remember discussing abortion and the instant eternal damnation of the aborted with three Reformed pastors on their radio program. Even they blanched at the outcome of their own thinking.
WE are simply NOT going to agree here! And I simply “loathe” Molinos (and middle knowledge…talk about Roman Scholasticism!), note his work: Guida Spirituale, regarded as one of the founding documents of Quietism! (From which he in the end recanted!) And btw, John Frame’s book: No Other God, A Response To Open Theism, simply drops the hammer on this subject!
Once again we must turn to the bear Word of God itself, as St. Paul’s chapters in 1 Cor. 1 & 2! … Verses 18 thru 30 in 1st Corinthians. 1, are again like a hammer blow, at least to my mind and experience!
I have only read some Cassian, and he just does not touch me, “theologically” at least!
Again, I too have read John and Charles Wesley, and I (as John himself did) would place John Wesley closer to Calvin on Justfication! I have a great old book (1946, Abingdon): The Theology of John Wesley, by William Cannon, Ph.D. (an American Methodist, and one time dean of Candler School of Theology at Emory University). The book 284 pages with footnotes and index, wow what a gem! Perhaps simply the best book I have read about the theology of John Wesley! And I have my share here!
Most assuredly the great Doctrines of God’s Sovereignty, Purpose & Providence, strike us dumb! – “Behold the goodness and severity of God”! (Romans 11: 22)
Fr. Robert, Notice I mentioned Molina in regard to potential “solutions” of difficult issues within clearly “speculative” theology. I agree with Melanchthon that the Church’s pastoral handling of the mysteries of foreknowledge, election, predestination, and human will is to stick to all of scripture, not delve beyond what God has revealed, and avoid unnecessary dogmatization. The Church can’t state with certainty what God hasn’t revealed specifically to her and we shouldn’t try to force the Holy Spirit to reveal what God wants veiled.So I think these areas remain mainly in the realm of speculation, at best. [I don't remember Molina directly promoting full open theism. Clark Pinnock and the open theists may use some of his ideas, but they use many theologians for their essentially flawed speculations.]