Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic?
January 27, 2013 141 Comments
Writes Rev Dr Hassert on his blog:
That Anglicanism is wholly “protestant” is an extremely simplistic assertion and hinges on the meaning of the term itself. However, so too is the contention among some that the term “protestant” doesn’t apply to Anglicanism in even the slightest sense. If asked if we Anglicans are Protestant or Catholic some will say: “We are Catholic, but not Roman–we are not Protestants.” This is simplistic and historically erroneous, and any layperson with an interest in reading would soon find very Catholic sounding Churchmen of the 16th and 17th centuries embracing the term Protestant. (But my rector said it wasn’t so!) What to make of it then?
If we are using today’s terminology perhaps “Protestant” isn’t wholly accurate, but neither would be the use of the term “Catholic,” for in today’s use of the term this means Roman. Many Anglicans are happy to explain the historic and correct use of the term “Catholic” but do not wish to do so with the term “Protestant.” This is a selective use of logic–if the historic usage of one term is explained the other term ought to be likewise explained. “You see, you misunderstand the term Catholic dear friend. . .” The follow up should be they also misunderstand the historic use of the term Protestant. However, it needs to be noted that many Anglicans today have become Latter-Day Puritans, attempting to sweep the Anglican Church of any hint of “Romanism” (which may mean choirs robed in surplices, a priest wearing a coloured stole, or keeping the 1662 Prayer Book calendar of saints days): Many from this group do indeed wish to deny any “Catholic” character or nature existing within Anglicanism. This also is to deny history.
How do the Anglican divines use the terms? It is shocking to many that the terms are used together: Protestant Catholic, Reformed Catholic, etc. Again, as I say so often quoting Bishop Cosins: “Protestant and Reformed according to the principles of the ancient Catholic Church.” What does this mean? Well, it should be clear to most. The English Reformation was built upon removing erroneous beliefs and practices (the Mass not in the vernacular, the Bible not in the vernacular, Purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation, doctrines about the excess merits of the saints, etc). All needed to be stripped away–reformation was needed, and the Church of England protested against the errors of the Roman Church.
To put it more concisely: “At the Reformation the Church of England became protestant in order to become more truly and perfectly Catholic.” William Van Mildert, Bishop of Durham 1826-36.
Let me turn to the good Father Moss for a fuller explanation (from Answer Me This):
“Remember, ‘Catholic’ means universal. Strictly speaking, only those doctrines and practices are Catholic which have always been believed and used in all parts of the Church. More loosely, the word is applied to practices and traditions (such as the observance of Christmas Day or the use of special dress by the clergy) which have a long continuous history and are universally accepted, even though they do not go back to apostolic times. The word also implies ‘orthodoxy,’ holding the right faith and worshiping God in the right manner as required by the Church.”
In answer to the question: Is the Anglican Church Catholic or Protestant? Moss replies
“Both; it is Catholic positively and Protestant negatively. It is Catholic in its essential nature because it maintains the Catholic and apostolic faith and order. It is Protestant, in the oldsense (emphasis added), negatively because it rejects the papal claims to supremacy, infallibility, and universal jurisdiction, and the decrees of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican.”
When one is confused as to the use of these terms, they ought to be clearly explained. Some will argue (as Moss actually does) that the term Protestant has changed so much that we should omit its use all together (many Lutherans argue likewise, in that the old use of the term Protestant only referred to Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians; now that it refers so loosely to almost anyone not Roman Catholic it has become meaningless). However, the same could be said of the term “Catholic,” since almost everyone means Roman when they say “Catholic” in the United States: Let’s just stop using the word since it is so easily misunderstood. In my opinion we should follow the language of the Anglican divines, using both terms correctly and explaining the meaning in a clear manner to avoid confusion.
Is Anglicanism Protestant or Catholic? Ideally it is both, in the best sense of both terms.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Blessings all,
“Is Anglicanism Protestant or Catholic? Ideally it is both, in the best sense of both terms” This is the last sentence of the blog, which appeals to me the most. I took some time
this evening to search for the defination of a Protestant and there is not one single
defination that really appeals to me. What really disturbs me is that on the internet
when we mean to discuss the Catholic Church , we are really meant to say that we discuss the Roman Catholic Church. This is due to the fact that the Roman Catholics are the only Church which calls itself Catholic, whilst I and many believe that the world ” Catholic” is universal.
Protestants… the word is derived from ” Protest” and the Protest was against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, many of which were seen as erroneous. However Lutherans and Anglicans , who are often labelled as Protestants can not be seen as 100% Protestant , because they cling to elements of Roman Catholic Tradition. The Lutherans have their altars with candles ,, the clergy robe and use Liturgical colours , the Minister still makes the sign of the Cross etc etc and most Anglicans retain their altars and beautiful furnishings and vestments and most Anglicans bow when they approach the altar. The Anglican Church in the Diocese of Sydney, which is very, very low Church, is probably the clostest to being a Protestant Church, with Clergy being unrobed , and candles that have completely disappeared, also Crucifixes as such. I am an Anglican Catholic Priest , who believes
in many Roman Catholic elements , but not all. I would definately not label myself as a Protestant Minister.So to cut a long story short , I believe that we in the ACC/OP are not protestant, I believe that Fr.Smuts is not a protestant, but I do think that a number of Churches in the Canterbury Communion could be labelled Protestant and Catholic.
This should be a good discussion I would think. This is just my humble opinion and I am not going to spend time arguing the point. Others might have more time to do so.
Have a good week.
Father Ed Bakker
Fr. Ed, When you write, “I am an Anglican Catholic Priest , who believes
in many Roman Catholic elements , but not all”, it begs the question, what exact RC “elements” do you believe in? Are you talking just outward things (like vestments and how you celebrate the liturgy), or are you talking dogma (like the immaculate conception, purgatory, indulgences, annulments)? Most Anglo-Catholics I talk with are definitely more the former than the latter. So to most RCs they just give off the appearance of being RC and since they don’t believe in the unique RC dogmas, they appear to remain fully Protestant in thought to the RC.
Any rejection of the papacy is Protestantism..although rebellion against the Ppacy predates it. You can dress Protestantism up but at the end of te day, the core issue are authority and truth..
Cranmer was an apostate heretic, who ripped the heart out of the Mass and other sacraments.The fruits of his rebellion are now working their way out to their logical conclusion.His language is beautiful, but his underlying theology is an antithesis of the authentic gospel.
Sadly once again, we must hear the ad hoc and even ad hom of a one-time Anglican who is now old-school traditional Roman Catholic. In reality the “rebellion” is in all of our sinful hearts, for we are all still yet Sinner-Saints if we are ourselves are found ‘In Christ’! This was something thankfully that the great Archbishop and martyr, Thomas Cranmer knew well!
Fr. Robert, But I guess the married Ordinariate priests and their wives might have Luther & Cranmer to thank just a wee bit for helping to ensure they can be married and be ordained a RC priest? And nearly every RC I know seems grateful to a Reformation (that eventually) brought the liturgy into the language of the people, the reading of the Bible into the language of the people, communion in both kinds, and some other things Rome no longer rejects and is kind enough to…grant…her faithful today? So hard to believe today that these common sense good, beautiful, and truthful ideas were so vehemently fought against by Rome and rejected by Rome in the 16th Century? So Medieval!
Indeed Michael, in reality Roman Catholicism is still “Medieval”, just look at Mr. Williams, still seeking to defend such “ilk”!
Cranmer’s record…curried royal favour and granted a sham annulment. Lived a secret ” married life ” whilst feigning celibacy! Received the pallium through a false “qualified” oath.
Replaced the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with a communion service. Denounced purgatory, prayers for the dead, intercession of the saints etc In his homily “In peril of idolatry” described our lady of Walsingham as like Diana of the Ephesians,
Enough said.
I think I’m starting to get you, Mr. Williams.
I’m still pro-Ordinariate, though. Still anti-Protestant. Let’s obey the Holy Father’s wishes and make the Ordinariates work! (Or that’s a lot of time and money wasted.)
How about the record of the popes? Next to many of them, Cranmer is a lightweight sinner! Btw, again, WE are all sinful beings! Again thankfully this is something that Augustine learned, note it was the later Augustine that changed his views on the depth of sin, and concupiscence (Rom. 7: 13-25).
And oh, we could say much more!
Fr. Robert, Sadly today’s RCs have little, if any real, understanding of the history of the papacy. They assume the popes and papacy were like Paul VI, JP II, and now Benedict. They have no idea as Pius IX and his syllabus of errors. They lack basic knowledge of who were prior popes. The massive amounts of temporal power accumulated. The way it radically changed over the centuries. Every RC should read Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537) just to see the temporal political and economic power weilded by the popes. When the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V needed to raise money and armies to destroy the Reformation, he signed an alliance with the…papacy. He had to go to the guy who pulled the strings and had the power! Back then, when you needed lawyers, guns and money, you knew how to call…
Yes, Michael you have hit the mark! We cannot just pick & choose in both history and theology. One wonders really where the Ordinariate’s will finally land? Not much real biblical theology here, that I can see? I have a younger friend here (a former Reformed Anglican), who has gone with an Ordinariate group. We shall see?
Michael, you talk about Popes having temporal power as if it’s a bad thing, and the opposite of that as a good thing.
Less temporal power for the Pope means more temporal power for secularists, meaning more control over culture.
Michael,
Between reading Luther and Melanchthon you have time to listen to Warren Zevon? I suggest some Frank Zappa for additional insights on ecclesial matters: “Cosmic Debris” on false teaching and “St. Alphonso’s Pancake Breakfast” on parish administration and finances. Cheers from the Ordinariate!
A-P, Yes, Frank Zappa. RIP. I still chuckle every time I think of that great album cover, Weasels ripped my flesh. And I can’t count the hours I spent in college listening to Joe’s Garage Part 1. All hail the Central Scrutinizer! Didn’t he also write Suicide Chump? I mentioned Zappa’s thoughts on suicide to my GF just this past weekend referencing the lyrics.
On a more serious note, Fr. Robert: I must have slept through the Church History class where they covered Henry’s slaughter of monastics and only delved into that aspect of the English Reformation after I already became convinced to become Catholic. What’s your take on the dissolution of the monasteries and appropriation of Church property to the King and his friends?
Ordinarian — if that’s a word
A-P, Always…follow the money and the power. Doesn’t matter whether you’re talking emperor, king, or pope, it was all about the money and power. So Henry, while vicious and ruthless, was about as vicious and ruthless as all the rest. Same for his immediate successor, the boy king controlled by others, Mary and Elizabeth. No different for German Lutheran princes or Lutheran Kings of Denmark & Sweden. Or Orthodox Czars. Or RCs like the Kings of France & Spain. Study what the RCs did to the French Protestants. One has to both marvel in wonderment and disgust at how the RC Cardinal Richeliu played all the political angles. And the RC Holy Roman Emperor. And the pope! No one was too shy about shafting their own communion or any other communion. And they’d even sacrifice Christians to appease Turks and vice versa. A very byzantine and machiavellian era? Sadly, the real losers were the lowly peasants. Religious war after religious war. From about 1520-1660. [Now I'm thinking about anarcho-syndicalists in Monty Python's Holy Grail. And the nuns. And the French. And the holy hand grenade of Antioch.
]
The loss of monasticism was unnecesary in both the Anglican and Lutheran Reformations. But it is hard for us to understand RC monasticism as it existed then. You might read Art. XXVII of the Augsburg Confession, On Monastic Vows. It surprising length is all out of its importance to Lutherans & RCs today!
Yes, of course this was Henry’s hand as King and Sovereign, and just part of his power struggle and the political with Rome, and certainly one of the signs of the times. Btw, Cranmer was certainly moderate here, though of course he had to be obedient to the King in principle. Cranmer had really nothing to do with the course of the dissolution of the monasteries, this went to Cromwell, who was really the principal minister of the Kings spiritual jurisdiction, and Cranmer actually knew very little about the details here. Though there can be no doubt that Cranmer had no love for Rome!
Yes, shameful and anything but Christian behavior all around. I’m part French due to the persecution of the Huguenots and the exile of some of the survivors. (I’m glad they ended up going straight west, instead of turning left. Otherwise, I’d likely have been a Fr. Smuts!)
Of course, the reforms of the Second Vatican Council were needed and they were anticipated by by Luther, Cranmer and the rest. Now that the Church has been reformed, why not come home? We can sing “A Mighty Fortress” at your reception– it’s in almost every Catholic hymnal.
Anyway, Cheers to you my separated brother!
But truly, the Roman Church has yet to be fully “Reformed”! And with the First Vatican Council, and the doctrine and dogma of the papal infallibility, things really have just gotten worse! And then with Vatican II, we can see the pastoral section just falling prey to humanism. As we can now see with so many so-called historic Churches in the move from modernism to postmodernism!
A-P, When you write, “Now that the [RC] Church has been reformed, why not come home? We can sing “A Mighty Fortress” at your reception”, I think you really mean reformed in appearances. Sure, you have communion in both kinds, the bible from the original languages into the vernacular, the liturgy in the vernacular, and even allow some married priests, all things Rome specifically vehemently rejected when the Reformers implemented them in the 16th century. BUT, and this is the huge BUT, Rome’s dogma is as unreformed as it was in medieval time. Rome does a good job of “hiding” it from her oft (ignorant) laity, but it is all there.
Just from the RC CCC: papal infallibility (@ para. 891), purgatory (1030-1032), indulgences (1471 & 1478-179), the super-treasury of the saints (1476-1477), filioque (246), annulments (1629), transubstantiation (1373-1377 & 1413), the sacrifice of the mass for the dead (1371), and the papally-promulgated/mandated Marian dogmas of the immaculate conception (491-492 ) and assumption (966 & 974), as well as Mary as mediator of God’s grace (970). If I’ve left any other unique dogma out, I’m sure it’s in the RC CCC somewhere.
As for my taste in hymns, I can’t ever get enough of Now Thank We All Our God, that great Lutheran hymn. Wish this were sung at the end of every liturgy. Followed very closely by Praise to the Lord, the Almighty. Those Reformers and their heirs really knew how to write hymns!
Paragraph two is a hammer blow against such “papal” doctrines! They are simply NOT biblical, or even theological!
And I too love “German/Lutheran” hymnology!
Btw, who can honestly believe that the pope can speak ex cathedra, as in faith or morals? The papal history itself does not add-up here, nor is it really biblical! And note, even at the Leipzig Disputation, the debate by Johann Eck, with both Luther and Carlstadt, Eck was forced to admit that the so-called “power of the keys” had been given to the church rather than to the pope…”the church councils may err, and that submission to Rome was not necessary for salvation.”
Fr. Robert, Don’t forget all the great Wesleyan hymns. You may prefer your theology to be Calvinistic, but you have to admit Charles and John could write some magnificent hymns! And I love Anglicans like Neale, too; bringing the ancient hymns to the modern masses.
@Michael: I was replying to “your” aspect of Lutheran & Reformed hymns. I have my share of books on just Charles Wesley! I have an Epworth Press version of J. Ernest Rattenbury’s book: The Evangelical Doctrines of Charles Wesley’s Hymns, (Third Edition, 1954). I also have the 1933 edition… first edition, of F. Luke Wiseman book: Charles Wesley, Evangelist and Poet. (another Epworth Press book).
And btw, Charles was a fair theolog of his own, his doctrine of so-called Christian Perfection, was much better than his brother John’s, biblically & theologically. He wrote hymns too for the ‘Stillness Controversy’, as too the same of the Predestination. He always saw God’s love sovereignly:
‘Before His name I knew
Me to Himself He drew,
My unconscious heart inclined
To pursue some good unknown;
Happiness I long’d to find,
Happiness is God alone.’
That is about as “Calvinist” as can be! But yes he did write a sort of polemic hymn against.. “The Horrible Decree”. But yes, he surely saw his ministry as a hymn writer: “God, having graciously laid His hand upon my body, and disabled me for the principal work of the ministry, has thereby given me an unexpected occasion of writing the following hymns. (Preface to the 1762 Short Hymns on Select Passages of Scripture.”
Blessings Michael ,
Good point indeed. When I served as Subdeacon at Christ Church Anglican Church, Brunswick, Melbourne , matters such as purgetory, the immaculate conception , indulgences were never discussed. Fr only mentioned Mary only once in the prayers after the offertory, we would never recite the Angelus. As a former ” Oud Katholiek” – Old Catholic of Utrecht , we at least clearly defined what we believed in and what we did not believe in.
I personally believe in Transubstantiation , hence I also observe Bendiction of the Blessed Sacrament. Whilst I am not 100% about purgetory , I do think that the dogma makes a lot of sense. I believe in the Immaculate conception, but am not sure about the assumption.
I believe in the Sacraments, including the confession and the ability of the Priest to forgive sins. I believe in praying those departed and praying for the Saints. I am not so much
in favour of the RC Beautification process and the making of Saints. I believe that all of us are called to be Saints. I believe in the veneration of Blessed Mary and I end my Mass with the : Hail Mary” I dont hold the same regard for the Pope as you do or believe infability when announcing matters ex cathedra. I do believe that Priest should have the choice to remain single or to be married. Complete celebacy has proved not always to be healthy.
On the basis of what I believed , the RC Bishop of Christchurch NZ, allowed me to spend three years in the local RC Parish training as a TAC Postulant. Assisting Father at Mass ( not a Eucharistic Minister ) and at Funerals. Made many lasting friendship and respect.
Well Michael, that is it from me.
Have a great day,
Father Ed Bakker ACC/OP
Fr. Ed, I’m EO, not RC, so no papal infallibility for me.
Since you appear to have a tremendous amount of agreement with Rome (e.g., the immaculate conception), your comment about purgatory–”makes a lot of sense”–seems to conflict logically with your comment about the papacy–”I don’t hold the same regard for the Pope…or believe infallibility when announcing matters ex cathedra”. The papacy has been and is the driving force behind unique RC dogmas like purgatory and the immaculate conception. So if you accept these unique dogmas and since they derive essentially from the papacy, seems illogical to accept what the papacy says must be believed but not believe in the ability of the papacy to mandatorially effect what it proclaims? I think I understand the cognitive dissonance being played out. [This sort of illogic oft is the position of those well on the road to Rome. They accept some of the unique RC dogmas but the really, really big one, the one that defines all others, the papacy itself, is the final stumbling block. Because if anyone starts off by accepting the papacy, then all the unique RC dogmas are immediately accepted without any problem, but few people go down this short path to Rome.]
Yes, spending time worshippping with others has a lasting impact on our positive ability to see them as real Christians with whom we come to respect and admire. I’ve been blessed over the years to worship at some length with Lutherans, PNCC, and Anglicans. Each time I’ve come to better appreciate their beliefs and worship.
See Michael: There are some Anglo-Catholics that still believe in the Roman Aristotelian logic of Transubstantiation! Strange, but this is considered the only way to have a so-called “real presence” with many Anglo-Catholics. But this is certainly not a biblical definition, however!
Note too St. Paul uses the word “Koinonia” (a participation, fellowship recognized & enjoyed) in 1 Cor. 10: 16. Also Paul uses it Phil. 3: 10, of sharing in the resurrection life possessed in Christ. As too of St. John of the fellowship with the Father and the Son, in 1 John 1: 3, 6,7.And finally of participation in the knowledge of the Son of God, 1 Cor. 1: 9. Here surely is what our Lord said: God is Spirit: and they that woship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4: 24)
*worship
Fr. Robert, Yes, never overlook the koinonia! As Timonthy Wengert and others have pointed out, Melanchthon’s eucharistic theology tried to stay within the articulated confines of Paul in 1 Cor 10. As he wrote in 1559 against Hesshus,
“In this controversy it would be best to retain the words of Paul: ‘The bread which we break is the koinonia of the body’…He does not say the nature of the bread is changed, as the Papists say….Nor does he say, as Hesshus, that the bread is the true body of Christ, but it is the koinonia. That is: where a union occurs with the body of Christ, it occurs during the use of the sacrament and not without reflecton, as would be the case when mice gnaw on the bread.”
All I can ever say is…it is another unfathomable holy mystery! Part of our theosis. A mystery that no one should pry into arrogantly or attempt to delve too deeply, nor analyze relying on logic or philosophy to resolve, for when one does, error usually (always?) results?
@Michael: Nice quote from Melanchthon. Yes the sweetness of “Koinonia” is just biblically profound!
Again, yes, we surely must stand on holy ground when we approach the Holy Eucharist! But we simply must be biblical too. Again, I find some scholastic use to be helpful, but more so looking at the historical backdrop of the Bible itself. Indeed the Bible did not drop out of the sky!
The “presence” of God is always such a mystery, even when we look at people and situations like Jacob in the Bible. But certainly the Eucharist is a most central act of Christian worship, but again surely the meaning of the Eucharist is inexhaustible, it transcends all our efforts to explain or interpret it. And yet, it also has its own biblical history, as for example St. Paul seeks to express it in 1 Cor. 11: 23-25, etc. And so we should seek that biblical place and expression, as does the Bible itself, i.e “the Lord’s Supper.”
Fr. Robert, I think in the 21st century, with our understanding of particle physics and all that goes with our scientific concepts tied to what constitutes matter, that for many RCs when they say they believe in transubstantiation, about all they are really saying is they agree that there is a truly real physical presence in the eucharist and they accept Rome’s determination that other groups (e.g., Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed, etc.) don’t hold to this required belief. Few RCs have taken the time to study the history of the evolution of the underlying concepts tied to transusbstantiation, applied them to what we know about the science of matter today (compared to the primitive “science” of matter in the ancient and medieval periods), or compared Rome’s choice of explanation to competing explanations (e.g., both Constantinople and classical Wittenberg believe in a real physical presence but neither explain it by transubstantiation). [I doubt the average RC parish priest could give much of a detailed explanation of transubstantiation, other than saying something about there being a real physical presence of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Then he'd have to crack out the catechism or Aquinas? And same goes for the average Lutheran pastor trying to explain Luther's acceptance of the real physical presence in the eucharist.
]
@Michael: Amen! Indeed, the early Tractarians, Pusey, etc. would have none of Transubstantiation, but based more on it being a form of Roman Catholic Aristotelian scholasticism. And surely too, the Lutheran idea of Consubstantiation is scholastic, but not Roman. Nothing wrong with scholasticism, if it has a biblical essence. But in reality “Roman Scholasticism”, simply lacks much “Biblicism” at all, it is really more of just papal dogma. And as you know, I see Augustine’s, and even Calvin’s idea as surely closer to the Bible, i.e. a sign & seal, but the so-called “real presence” is always in “spirit and truth”. The “spiirtual” is surely the essence of our God, as Jesus said, “God is spirit: and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4: 24) And again, in 1 Cor. 10: 16, Paul uses the Greek word “Koinonia”, for sharing in the so-called Eucharist. The participation here is a common life of spiritual fellowship, as in the “presence” of Christ!
How could the moral failings of a Pope, compare to a man who deleberately destroyed the Catholic Church in England and Wales, withb his novel Gospel and political pretensions.
That is your supposition! We call it part of the English Reformation! Note, btw how many one time Roman Catholics became Reformational and Reformed at the time, like the one time Augustintian monk: Peter Martyr Vermigli, and also one who was educated at University of Padua, where he received the degree of D.D., as a Roman Catholic.
Robert I.W,, If I didn’t know better I’d swear I was reading pre-Vatican II anti-protestant polemics?
But I don’t think your comments do justice to or show respect for the RC CCC. See what it says about the Reformers and the Reformation, esp. at paras.:
838: “Those ‘who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church.’” (citing Unitatis redintegratio)
1400: “Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the [Roman] Catholic Church…. However these ecclesial commmunities, ‘when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper…profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.’” (citing Unitatis redintegratio)
And don’t forget that the Joint Declaration between the RCC and the Lutheran World Federation removed “the mutual condemnations of former times…to the [Roman] Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of justification….”
I grew-up Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin in the 1950′s, and I well remember that Latin Mass Church, indeed only us Catholics (then) might make to heaven? But certainly not Protestants, especially English one’s; nor Jews! Btw Mr. RIW is from Wales.
Fr. Robert, Uhmmm…The Welsh. Isn’t Catherine Zeta-Jones, the actress, Welsh? Same for Tom Jones, the crooner? And thinking the man who restarted the Doctor Who Series around 2005 was Welsh. So I guess some good comes out of that diminutive, interesting Calvinistic land? If Scotland votes for independence in 2014, will Wales do same in…2514? (Thinking Wales part of UK around 1200s and Scotland unites in 1707.)
Robert I.W., When looking at people like Henry VIII or the Lutheran princes or Russian Czars, don’t forget to look at the Spanish & French kings. (And never forget Cardinal Richelieu! The French haven’t. The 3rd Republic named one of its most powerful WWII era battleships after him. And the current 5th Republic was going to name its nuclear aircraft carrier, armed with nuclear weapons, after him but due to secular outrage went with De Gaulle instead.) They all share a very high level of very Machiavellian behavior!
Dr Hassert’s short article which our host posted for comment seems to have been rather neglected.
As far as I can tell from what is to be found on the internet, the Rev Hassert is apparently a curate at St Andrew’s Anglican Church which is located in an “historic” (i.e. 1820′s) area of Cook County, Ill with (at the 2000 census) a population of some 48,000 (96% White). Unsuprisingly for a WASP bastion, St’Andrews is part of an ecclesial body which styles itself “The Reformed Episcopal Church” which apparently broke away from the US Episcopal Church as long ago as 1873. According to some it broke away from the Episcopal Church because of its founders’ opposition to the Oxford Movement. It website says it has 12 bishops. Apparently it broke away from the Episcopal Church because of its founders’ opposition to the Oxford Movement.
It also appears to parallel the mini-jurisdiction known as “the Free Church of England” which apparently has 2 bishops and just 18 churches. When it broke away from the CofE its early ministers were provided by the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion. It too, broke away in opposition to the Oxford movement.
Since both bodies broke away from their parent jurisdiction because of opposition to all that might be terms “Anglo-Catolic” in the CofE, one might wonder what one of its ministers is doing writing about Anglo-Catholicism. Both bodies are very low church indeed.
But the REC is a founder Member of the ACNA and the FCofE website states that it is looking at “new patterns towards unity” so perhaps we are seeing churches which were once very definitely of the “sola scriptura” and “only two sacraments”persuasion, are exploring anew how they can cohabit with the Anglo-Catholics they so recently opposed.
I don’t see bodies like the REC and the FCofE being too comfortable in communion with the Anglo-Catholics of the TAC but rather closer to admirers of Calvin, and other heretics such as Andreas Osiander whoe niece becme Master Cramner’s illicit wife.
But as one prolific commentator on this thread has recognised by his actions, one cannot be a calvinist and a Catholic – the two belief systems are mutually incompatible which is no doubt why he cut himself off from Holy Mother Church.
Let’s face up to some facts. There can be no doubt that the Archbishops of Canterbury from St Augustine in 597AD to Archbishop Wareham in circa 1500AD were Catholic bishops, enjoying the apostolic succession and in full communion with Rome. The pallium, granted by the Pope to Metropolitans still figures on the Arms of the See of Canterbury – but the last Archbisop of Caterbury to be entitled to wear it was Cardinal Reginald Pole who died in 1558. Thankfully it is still to be seen in our Lady’s Dower worn by the Archbishops of Cardiff, Birmingham Liverpool, Southwark and Westminster.
Archbishop Wareham officiated at the marriage of Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon and officiated at his Coronation. There was no doubt as to the Catholicity of the Church in England or of the people of England at that point. This was a time when the monarchs of Europe were competing for papal titles. The French King, bagged the title “His Most Christian Majesty”, the Spanish King the title, “His Most Catholic Majesty, the Portugese Monarch was “His Most Faithful Majesty”.
Henry VIII wanted a title too and on 11th October 1521, Pope Leo X granted the title “Defender of the Faith” to the Tudor King in recognition of his work, “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum”. Yet Within just 10 years Henry VIII was having his henchmen engineer a break with Rome. But not on any high-minded protestant doctrinal grounds.
Henry simply wanted an anullment so as to to get his leg over Anne Boylen and produce a male heir to secure his dynasty. This was certainly not the first spat between a monarch and the Church. Pope Innocent III had put England under interdict for 5 years when King John refused to accept Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. The spat between Henry II and St Thomas Becket is well known.
Nor were such spats unknown elsewhere: Innocent III also put France under interdict to force the King to take his wife back. There are many other examples. I don’t think that Henry VIII intended a permanent break with Rome – he just wanted his own way. Theologically his beliefs were and remained Catholic. His problem was that a reconciliation with Rome could not be negotiated politically because of the high status of Catherine of Aragon – the Emperor was her uncle. Insofar as Henry VIII had a belief system other than in his own power, it remained a Catholi one.
So I would make a distinction between the break with Rome (schism over a matter of high state policy and perhaps only intended to be temporary) and the introduction of heretical beliefs which transformed the Church IN England into the Church OF England.
The twin miscreants who brought about the CofE as a protestant ecclesial body (rather than a merely temporarily schismatic one) were Thomas Crowmwell and Thomas Cramner. Cromwell, the “lawyer on the make” did the legislation and grabbed the assets. Cramner, even though consecrated a Catholic Archbishop by virtue of a papal bull, even though allowing a fellow heretic, John Frith, to be burned at the stake for the very views Cramner held, aped the Catholic while Henry VIII survived.
Both Cromwell, and Cranmer came to sticky ends. Cromwell on the scaffold for treason before Henry VIII died and Cranmer at the stake for heresy in the reign of Queen Mary the daughter of the saintly Catherine of Aragon whose passing was much mourned by the people of England.
One is tempted to observe that God is not mocked.
Wow, seeking to somehow justify both the death’s of Thomas Cromwell and the martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer? “One is tempted to observe that God is not mocked”? Simply amazing! And thus proves as Michael has suggested that this is such a pre-Vatican II Catholic ideology, with several here.
And here btw, is a better historical look a John Firth!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frith
No. I do not seek to “justify” judicial murder in any form.
Not that of St Thomas More, nor those of many of the participants in the Pilgimage of Grace who rose up against the heresy being imposed on them at Cramner’s behest. He sat silent while the executions took place. But he backtracked. Four of the seven sacraments that were omitted from the Ten Articles were restored in the Bishop’s Book of 1537. Nor do I seek to justify the repression of heresy under Mary nor the martyrdoms of English Catholics under Elizabeth.
Nor do I seek to justify the Reconquista in Andalucia, the massacre of Hugenots in France,nor the Crusades, But we are speaking of another age when monarchs sought to impose their belief of the day on their subjects.
But Cramner took certain Oaths when he was consecrated a Catholic Archbishop and then set out to subvert the Church from within. He took away from the ordinary people of Catholic England the faith of their fathers by subtle and not so subtle means.
If Cramner had had the honesty to proclaim his beliefs as Frith did, he’d have been burned under Henry VIII, rather than under Mary.
@Mourad: Just what was your meaning and point then, if you were not seeking some idea that both Cromwell and Cranmer got what they deserved…”One is TEMPTED to observe that God is not mocked?” (Of course the emphasis is mine)
And note our EO brother Michael has stated well and honestly from the Roman Catholic Catechism, about their position of the Protestant Church as separated Brethren. And again, we can note what Ratzinger/Benedict has said positively about Martin Luther’s desire for Reform. This is not the 16th century btw! And yet, the Anathema’s of Trent still stand! Btw during the third stage of the council , they abandoned any effort at conciliating the Protestants, and the Jesuits dominated the sessions 15 thru 25. But the council reached agreement on the echaristic Communion in one kind, the doctrine of the Mass, purgatory, invocation of the saints, the veneration of saints and images, indulgences, and much else!
Mourad, The Reformed Episcopal Church–USA (REC) is a fascinating body. Where they were once considered rather low church in liturgics, that isn’t necessarily the case today after over 130 years. You should check out their prayer book and attend a service. There is a REC church in my area with a very interesting priest (Fr. Victor Novak) who has his own blog; Fr. Victor has become very pro-Orthodox (esp. Russian). Interestingly, when the ECUSA went liberal in the 1970s, both ordination of women and the post-Vatican II RC-influenced modern BCP, REC didn’t. So slowly over time they’ve become more traditionalist, though I suspect liturgical practices do vary somewhat within their communion. In many cases it wouldn’t surprise me to see REC liturgics being more traditional than your average New Order liturgy on any given Sunday in any given RC diocese in USA.
I know a few people that used to be in the REC, mostly from St. Luke’s, once here in So. Cal., this particular Church body is now defunct. My younger friend that has gone to the Ordinariate, came from here. Btw, way back in the late 80′s I believe, the now well known Reformed theolog Michael Horton was a co-pastor here, though as I understand it, he was only ordained a deacon there then? But, as I understand it again, the church has historically been Reformed obviously! Though as you note, it has gone over certain change in the last many years.
PS..St. Lukes REC in the OC, defunct this last year as they tell me.
I believe the REC in southern California experienced an influx of Theonomists in the 80s and 90s of the past century. On the other hand, the Rector of their Anaheim, California, parish subsequently became Antiochian Orthodox, and later on Melkite Catholic. Their doctrinal position seems to be somewhat in a state of flux.
Yes, surely when Greg Bahnsen was alive he quite affected that area, with his teaching and books on Theonomy. My younger Irish brother was an American Marine in the 80′s. He is now an American citizen, but no longer close to Theonomy. A Calvary Chapel guy these days.
Mourad, If you’re going to analyze an individual’s behavior in the 16th century by today’s PC standards, I doubt anyone will come up to your expectation.
You might spend more time studying RC rulers and leaders of the era to see how disappointed you are in them, too. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, emperor during the early Reformation, was no paragon of virtue and could use both the Muslim Turks and Lutheran Germans for his political purposes against both Rome and his fellow RC kings of France and Spain. And don’t even get me started on a prince of your church like Cardinal Richelieu! He had no problem using German and Scandanavia Lutheran alliances to bolster France at the direct expense of Rome and Spain. In some ways he might even be considered the Machiavellian savior of the Reformation in the 17th century. Isn’t that interesting. A RC cardinal allying himself at various times with Protestants all in the interest of advancing the political and economic fortunes of France over and against ALL others. Neither he nor the French monarchy really cared a whit about the religious issues; it was always about the power, money, and national glory. What is that odd French imperial saying, something about “Paris is worth a few masses?”
Michael: I’m not sure that “political correctness” has anything do do with the subject matter of our discussion save to observe that what is generally understood by that term is, for me, just another dead end in the “populorum progressio”.
I would argue that the standards by which those in authority over others , whether religious or secular, are to be judged are eternal and unchanging. All were fallible humans. The question is therefore one of how well they did in living up to those standards. Often, history will give us a clue in the way they are remembered: Charles, Count of Flanders, is remembered as “Charles the Good” while a certain Prince of Wallachia is remembered as “Vlad the Impaler”.
Henry VIII had many faults, but he was concerned to secure his dynasty at a time when it was thought that women could not rule (and we had had the example of Matilda). Further, this was a time when there were many struggles between secular monarchs and the papacy. Schism could well have been temporary. I do not regard Henry VIII as primarily responsible for the introduction and imposition of heresy in Catholic England against the wishes of his people. Cramner, was a different case altogether. He was unfaithful to the vows he took at his consecration.
I was interested to see what you said about the REC in the USA. Likewise on further investigation of the FCoE, while their web site proclaims their belief in only 2 sacraments, “sola scriptura” and the like, it appears that their orders are now (this January) recognised by the CofE although how they will coexist with some of the remaining “High Anglicans” in the CofE remains to be seen. Or with females as bishops and priests. So, while I still have the FCofE as about as Calvinist as one can get in the UK – there may be common ground with the CofE Evangelicals some of whom are looking for somewhere to go when females are admitted to episcopal orders in the CofE.
But if they do not believe in Holy Orders as a sacrament, surely they think rather in terms of “ministers” as opposed to bishops and priests? This would accord with the position of the CofE in Georgian and Victorian times when the CofE did not address its clergy as “father” but rather as “Mr”. It seems both mini- jursidictions were born of objections to the “Catholic Revival” in the Victorian CofE.
Perhaps they have formed the view that when women bishops come along, there might be someting of a 3 way split: Evangelicals into something more calvinist, genuine Anglo Catholics towards the Ordinariates or the TAC leaving the CofE with a sort or “it doesn’t matter what you belive as long as it’s vaguely Christological” rump.
BTW “Paris is worth a Mass” was not an imperial concept. The saying is ascribed to Henri of Navarre who was a Hugenot but reverted formally to Catholicism in order to succeed to the French throne as Henri IV.
Mourad, I think your prejudice for Cranmer is seriously misplaced. Do you ever ask yourself how much blame Rome has for the Reformation? Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Cranmer, Calvin, Knox,and so many others (of whom so many were RC clergy at one time) wouldn’t have needed to do what they had to do if only Rome had been faithful to the Gospel. But Rome’s real interest was politics, power, money, and control. Over everyone. The desires and whims of the papacy, as interpreted by whichever incumbent wanted to use it for his own purposes, drove everything. The Reformers were so right, and Rome so wrong, when it came to such simple things like communion in both kinds, the liturgy in the language of the people, active participation in the liturgy, faithfully & regularly reading the bible translated from the original languages into the language of the people, clerical education, opposition to simony, and married clergy. Things all RCs now take for granted as being good, beautiful, and truthful! Notice how Vatican II finally led to so many things the Reformers had pointed out were part and parcel of being faithful to the Gospel. What might’ve been if only Rome had gone so far astray from the Gospel?
My comment about “Paris being worth a mass” was in the form of ironic sarcasm. The truth it represents is that for the French monarchs (as well as for their counterparts in the Roman papacy, Holy Roman Empire, England, Russia, Spain, Sweden, etc.) the primary issue was political power, not religious disputes. So, for the most part, Henry VIII is no better or worse than his peer counterparts and their respective religious backgrounds don’t matter much when it comes to political power.
@Michael: Oh Amen here mate! Our R. Catholic friend Mr. Mourad, a lawyer, is always bound by that whole “Judaization” of Catholic canon law and just “Catholicism”, and to defend it and its basic history to the end! As you note, the whole reality of Archbishop Cranmer was the Reform of the Church, and here Luther, as other Reformed Calvinist people, surely affected him, and thus later especially to the CoE. The issue for Cranmer was always true “religion”, and Christianity to the end, for which he finally gave his life! And indeed the whole fundamental life and reality of the Reformation was/is simply the Gospel of Christ! Surely again no perfection here, but the renewal of the historical Church is still being felt these some 500 years later!
And btw, as too Mr. Tighe notes, the great “failure” of the papacy with Henry the VIII, noted by Mr. Kelly. Indeed the cause and Gospel of Christ was never central here! And yet, to my mind at least, the Reformation of England and the English Church, was most surely God’s will & providence. As again we can see later for Anglicanism, with the Wesley’s and Methodism, both Calvinist and Wesleyan!
I certainly agree that by the standards of the age Henry VII was, perhaps no better or worse than many of his European cousins, although I can’t think off-hand of another European monarch who went through the whole “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced beheaded, survived” routine.
I can also agree that over the years there have been many clerics in the Church unworthy of the offices they held. When our Lord founded His Church (singular) he entrusted it to humans who by definition are capable of error and sin.
The Divine assurance that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church was not a promise that it would be immune from attack by the forces of evil. Indeed, given the mission of the Church, it was was perhaps implicit that it would be the object of particular attention right up to the great day of Judgment.
Indeed the truth of – as noted that even Eck had to admit to Luther – was that the “Church” was given “the power of the keys”, and not the pope/popes, or papacy. And this Church is the true Church Historical, and both visible and invisible! So the Pilgrim Church “catholic” and “reformational”, and biblically “orthodox”, is the Church of 1 Tim. 3: 15-16! The great question is: Do we believe in 1 Tim. 3: 15-16, and where is this Church?
The letter to Timothy was had a context of a Christian community having been established by agents of Christ. It does not mean we should all return to the days when there were only 12 bishops, no priests, and people met at houses. This is primitivism that does not serve Christianity and throws away even your precious “reformers”.
Our Church was founded upon Matthew 16:18 by Jesus Himself, unless you would call Jesus a liar and say that He did not mean what he said. The keys belong to Peter, and to his successors, not “The Whole Church” not even the other Apostles nor their successors. For if the keys belonged to “The Whole Church” that pretty much justifies every protestant being his or her own pope, doesn’t it? How convenient.
Likewise, the Acts of the Apostles ended in Rome, with the bones of the Apostles at the foundation of the great Church there. The Acts continue from there, and His Apostolic Church continues even today, until the End of Times. .
I suppose there are some people here and now who call themselves “Christians” who could not wait to practice their Eisegesis, when transported to the very moment when Jesus Christ declared that no one can be saved unless people eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood.
Nor can they wait to assert that “Everyone, including Jesus didn’t really think it was really His Real Flesh or Blood.”
“HOC EST ENIM Corpus meum.” (enim = “in fact) as a matter of fact, emperical.
“This as matter of fact is my body,”
“The Original Aramaic didn’t say that!” And then they would interrogate every Middle-eastern Christian for some sort of exception that would justify rebellion against 2,000 years of tradition, even warping 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 where “Do this in remembrance of me” suddenly made the Eucharist nothing more than a dinner party rather than a sacrifice in contrary to what we find from people like:
Pope Clement I in his Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]:
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release”
and St. Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]:
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God”
Where a sacrificial nature, not a commemorative meal, is the identity of what happened in churches then, what happens in real churches now.
Of course, Protestants will throw away these letters and histories because as far as they’re concerned, the Bible starts from Genesis, and ends with Revelations. Nevermind what people actually did.
One can only conclude that commentators and scholars who take issue with Peter’s primacy have, for various reasons, taken an anti-Catholic, anti-papal stance. They labor under a skewed understanding of what the papacy is and how the papal office relates to the Church as a whole. As a result, they are prone to interpret Peter’s actions and the history of the early Church incorrectly.
If James was the leader of the early Church, or even the first pope, why aren’t his successors the head of the universal Church? These and related questions are not adequately addressed by those who say James, not Peter, was the leader of the early Church.
Or by those who talk about “The keys” belonging suddenly to “The Whole Church”- It was given to Peter, if protestants deny the primacy of Peter, then why conflate Peter with “The Whole Church”?
Ioannes, Your arguments about papal primacy and infallibility almost come across as rather medieval. I was surprised you didn’t trundle out that old hoax, The Donation of Constantine, which Rome “used” for centures and centuries. Oddly, it was an Emperor who purportedly gave the pope all the power. Hmmm…
The Antiochians have no trouble talking about St. Peter. He was the first bishop of Antioch, were the disciples were first called Christians. So using your argument, I guess Antioch is the primary see? I mean, what makes Rome so special? That it was an imperial capital? So was Constantinople, and for about 1,000 years after Rome in the Christian era!
Acts’ Council of Jerusalem clearly shows the collegial nature of the apostles, working together inspired by the Holy Ghost. And the 7 great Ecumenical Councils, all called by emperors (not popes) and none attended by popes, forever proved to the world and the Church that Christendom was, is, and always will be collegial.
And don’t forget popes have been declared heretics. I’d agree with the Reformers that Rome fell into great and lasting heresy when she denied the Gospel to Christians! Can one imagine a worse heresy for a church to do than tell her believers they can’t worship in their own language, can’t read the bible, can’t translate the bible from the original tongues, denied communion in both kinds, and more? So for century after centure ignorant peasants, the illiterate, and others sat in churches around the world just watching without understanding or participating. The more learned just read their devotional books. And everyone waited for those critical moments in the liturgy, announced by bells and elevation, when something magical happened. They didn’t know what or why, they just knew something was supposedly happening. Essentially turned both the bible (forced onto them from the Latin Vulgate, a strange tongue and not an original language of any book of scripture) and sacraments into “magic” for the masses. Things were so bad that Rome ordered the faithful to go to communion at least once a year lest they never go at all. And all that certainly was never the Gospel! So what were the Reformers supposed to do, help Rome keep the Gospel from Christians? God forbid!
Rome will always be relevant in ways that Antioch never will be as Antioch is irrelevant now- it is as relevant as “Constantinople” (With its dying church) or even Kiev, that puppet church of the Russians. You might as well be a member of the “Maltese Orthodox Church” with some tenuous link to St. Peter. Tell me how many “Antiochians” are there who aren’t disaffected Catholics or openly anti-Catholic protestants unhappy with their lack of sacraments? And then to cover this embarrassing fact, you’d insist on “Western Rite” nonsense in an EASTERN Orthodox Church. Where is your “Western Orthodox Church”?
If you consider the Catholic sacraments as “Magic” then so are your ridiculous “Mysteries” and your bearded (If they even are) priests as nothing more than charlatans. So much for any sort of “Unity”- you can’t even idenitify yourself as either Orthodox or Protestant- if you are Protestant you must accept the historical fact that you need the Pope to protest against, much like how atheists need a God to atheate from.
In fact, I didn’t know you spoke for the Patriarchate of Antioch- you’re probably a convert who’s trying to spread Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric to an Orthodox church who accepted people like you because they’re hurting in numbers. You have, how many members? 41,840?
And you wonder why Rome is more relevant than Antioch. Antioch is nothing but a footnote in history, and you feel bad about it so you attack Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics have produced great learning and scholarship in the faith, and the fact that rebels like Martin Luther and Calvin popped out of nowhere (oops, I meant from the Catholic academic tradition, not Orthodox tradition, which was heavily dependent on Thomas Aquinas at the time) gives self-identified “Orthodox Christians” such as yourself a way to validate your anti-Catholicism. Why? Because you have no words otherwise. You might as well have been an Episcopalian, if it weren’t for the women and homosexuals infesting their community.
Mourad,
If you are not aware of it already, you might find it interesting to read *The Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII* by Henry Ansgar Kelly (1976). It is simply the best book on the Canon Law of Henry VIII’s three marital annulments. Kelly was a Jesuit canon lawyer who was laicized, married, and became a distinguished medieval historian. The book is very useful, as well, in furnishing information which can disabuse those ill-informed people who insist that the Pope could have granted Henry an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had he not been “constrained” by the Emperor Charles V. Rather, Henry’s whole case was based, on his own insistence, on the argument that no pope had the authority to dispense a man to marry his deceased brother’s widow, such a marriage being against “divine law.” Kelly demonstrates that such a notion ran contrary to both Canon Law precedent and practice, and to conventional “Roman” theological thinking, and was bound to end in failure — and hence the interest on both Henry’s part and the pope’s in delaying a resolution of the case from 1530 onwards.
The book also, and amusingly, demonstrates how the legal “definition” of what constituted a valid marriage was legally revised on several occasions between 1536 and 1545 in England, after the breach with the papacy, to suit the necessities of Henry’s marital annulments in the cases of Anne Boleyn and Anne of Cleves.
Thank you. If I remember correctly, the problem for King Henry was that once a petition for a dispenstion had been granted (which it had been) for Henry to marry Catherine of Aragon, that same impediment could not be prayed in aid in subsequent annullment proceedings. The issue was res judicata.
Our Lord gave us tangible proofs of the Catholic Church’s dogma of “Transubstantiation” – the Eucharist Being HIS ACTUAL Body and Blood: in the numerous ‘Miracles of the Eucharist’, wherein the Sacred Host has Bled and even in some cases where the ‘appearance’ of bread is visibly changed (and scientifically proven) into the flesh of the ‘pericardial heart muscle’– e.g.”the Miracle of Lanciano”, but there are many others!
Many of Jesus’ disciples left HIM after HIS declaration of this dogma: “he who eats MY Flesh and Drinks MY Blood…”!
If there was nothing else, this is the ONE sure and TRUE tenet that keeps me tethered to the Holy Catholic Church! Even if Popes fail in their humanity, if clergy do not live up to their Holy Orders, if laity prove lukewarm and ignorant of their Faith, I will ‘not walk-away’ from Jesus in the Eucharist!
Margaret, I’d encourage you to understand what “transubstantiation” means as action in the real world. Never forget that ultimately it is meta-physical. “Transubstantiation” as a theological term tied to the eucharist arises in the medieval RC Church. It is NOT in scripture, the Apostolic Era, the Patristic Era, the creeds, or the 7 Ecumenical Councils. It is based on Aristotolian ancient Greek pseudo-science (accidents and elements) and has no ties to the physical world as we know it today (particle physics, quantuum mechanics, laws of thermodynamics, our sun’s place in the galaxy & universe, etc.). Back in the ancient world, the origin of the understanding of “transubstantiation”, the four basic elementals were air, fire, earth and water. And alchemy (turning base metals into gold) was “science” up through the Reformation.
“Transubstantiation” is a mechanism to explain the HOW, not the IF, of the real presence. RCs are NOT alone in believing in the real presence but they ARE alone in defining HOW it happens, thru “transubstantiation”; Lutherans have their discussion in the Formula of Concord.
As to “the real presence”, as Orthodoxy has proven for 2,000 years, that doesn’t require defining it at all, not the “how”, and certainly not as “transubstantiation”. Don’t forget that Luther was an ardent proponent of the real physical presence. But Lutherans don’t use the idea of “transubstantiation” to explain it.
Amen here Michael, as to “Transubstantiation” being that “mechanism” of mere explaination, but not the biblical mystery itself of the Lord’s presence in the Eucharist! Our best statements here simply must include the original Greek words themselves – “artos”, bread, the loaf at the Lord’s Supper, and “the breaking of bread” became the name for this so-called institution,(Acts 2: 42 ; 20:7). And we have already noted “Koinonia” (a particpation), 1 Cor.10: 16. We can see the layers that the Church itself has put on so many biblical mysteries! (And here we are just stewards, 1 Cor. 4:1). From Baptism (being the salvation itself, rather than the sign & seal) the Eucharist (Breaking of Bread, to the elaborate doctrine of NT sacrifice). To the ministry (Presbyteri to the Roman idea of Sacerdotes and priesthood). This comes from both the Judaistic nature of the OT, to just paganism itself. Attached to the Church of Christ. So yes, we must always be reforming and renewing the Church, itself, but in “spirit and in truth”, and the Word of God!
Fr. Robert: I don’t see it as “layers” that the Catholic Church has put on “biblical mystery”, but rather she (the Church) is preferred as the ‘thick sap’ from which all other Christian Faiths have derived their nourishment. Grafted onto the “vine”–which is Christ, all are invited…to eat of her Fruits and rest in her Shade – the FULLNESS of riches is her Inheritance!
Michael, you say: “…to understand what ‘Transubstantiation’ means as action in the real world…ultimately it is meta-physical…”.
Ah yes, the REAL World?! Are we not speaking here of that which is incredibly more REAL–Jesus, present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist – than much of what we delude ourselves into believing, but are in ‘reality’ illusions we encounter in the ‘physical world’! Jesus retains HIS two Natures–Human and Divine and even though HIS ‘Glorified Body’ is Transcendent and Impermeable, it is nevertheless HIS Resurrected Human Body. Remember when, after Jesus’ Resurrection, the doors were locked but Jesus came through them to appear to the Apostles. Then again, when Thomas was with them, Jesus said to him “place your fingers into MY Hands and into MY Side and BELIEVE”. Jesus, in HIS ‘Glorified Body’ asked them for something to eat. Only God–in Jesus–can forge this symphysis between the physical and meta-physical worlds – and HE does so MOST perfectly in the Eucharist!
Yes, HE is meta-physically/spiritually present (as you say many other Christian Faiths believe), but HE IS Intimately, Physically present – most especially – when at the moment of the Consecration in the Holy Mass, HE is “Transubstantiated” whole and entire…but, as even we consume the host, in ‘reality’ we are ‘absorbed into Christ’. The “How” then, as you say, is the ‘very Essence’–of the MOST Intimate Physical/Meta-Physical conjunction – for the commingling of the ‘Soul’s purpose’–BE Perfect as your Father in Heaven is Perfect!
Are we not also Spiritual Souls in a Physical Body, but oft inconstant in Intent and Action. Did not St. Paul say “that which I wish to do, I do not do and that which I do not wish to do, that I do”. Jesus IS Perfection – whole and entire in HIS Intent and Action- there is no contradiction in HIM: “he who eats MY Flesh and Drinks MY Blood will have LIFE in him”! HE desires FULL communion with us, so that is why when the disciples walked away at this ‘hard saying’, Jesus did not call them back and say something like “OK I’ll simply fellowship and break bread with you if that is more acceptable to you”.
We are constantly and uninterruptedly called to make an ‘assent of Faith’!
Margaret, “Transubstantiation” is all about the HOW of the real presence, not the IF of the real presence. RCs are NOT alone in believing in the real presence. They are just alone in wanting to tell God how he has to do his mysteries.
Don’t forget that there was NO “transubstantiation” in Christendom for well over the first 1,000 years, as the RCC didn’t invent the dogma until the 13th century. The RC CCC discusses “transubstantiation” primarily at paras. 1373-1377 & 1413. The supporting references directly cited are just to the RC Council of Trent, which is from the 16th century. We both know that before “transubstantiation” was invented, the Churches, East & West, believed in the real presence. The East still does and without reference to “transubstantiation”.
The issue for the West, RCs and Protestants, is more one of hubris, trying to apply logic, reason, science, and philosophy to the awesome mystery of the eucharist. All such attemps are doomed to be inadequate and tend to overthrow the meaning of the sacrament (which may be why in medieval times the RC laity stopped receiving communion and merely spectated; Rome had to order them to receive at least once a year).
Margaret, I do hope that we can all agree that St. Paul is sufficiently orthodox in his teaching and scriptural letters. St. Paul was guided by the Holy Ghost to teach and preach this for all earthly time. The real presence of Christ in the eucharist is supernatural (an awesome mystery) and certainly doesn’t require a denial of the physical presence of bread. I’d encourage you to read 1 Cor 10. Paul starts out in verse 3-4 by discussing the Mosaic times:
“…3. and all ate the same supernatural food 4. and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”
Then, at verses 16-17:
“16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? The BREAD which we break, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? 17. Because there is one BREAD, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one BREAD.” (capitalization emphasis added)
From RSV–[Roman] Catholic Edition, 1966, w/ Nihil Obstat and 2 Imprimaturs, one USA, the other UK. Forward by Cardinal Cushing.
Note, Michael: That 1 Cor. 10:1-6, etc. is really connected to the OT examples, so here is both Covenant and Salvation History! And yet Paul expresses…”Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God.” (Verse 32) What a “spiritual” and real connection! (Note too, how WE must flee from Idolatry! (Verse 14)
@Margaret: I am myself certainly not suggesting that the Lord Jesus is not “present” in His Eucharist! But, as Michael has showin the word and definition of “Transubstantiation” is just most certainly Aristotelian! And btw, Aristotelian logic tends to be deductive and characterized by the syllogism, and tends to be empirical actually. The whole idea that one substance is changed into another, is really the essence here. But is this the real meaning of the biblical texts in question? I mean just in what sense is Christ speaking of His presence? To use John 6, we must see what Jesus meant… “And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” (John 6: 35)… the rest of verses 36-40. And from verses 41 thru 51, we can see that this meaning is most certainly “spiritual”, and really has to do with belief! And the metaphors of “eating” and “drinking” are really pressed here: “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds (believes) on Me will live because of Me.” (John 6: 57)
Again, the connection between Jesus and His people and real “Body”, i.e. believers is very close, but as the whole of Scripture, is very “spiritual”! One does not really need to be spiritual to carry out a literal act of eating & drinking, I have personally seen this myself as one raised Irish Roman Catholic… people eating and receiving Christ, “literally”, but hardly, if at all changed by “spiritual” belief ‘In Christ’!
So I would maintain myself, that the essence of John 6, etc. verse 27: “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” As verse 29: “Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” Is spiritual and biblical-theological “belief”! And surely the Eucharist is part of this belief and spiritual “Communion” & Participation (Koinonia, Gk. / 1 Cor. 10: 16).
“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the TRUE worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. GOD is Spirit, and those who worship Him MUST worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4: 23-24) (Of course emphasis, mine)
Btw, on the so-called “Real Presence” I would be somewhere between both Luther and Calvin. God is Spirit, and I am “spirit”, created and redeemed in His likeness! See too both John and Charles Wesley on the Eucharist,…
O The Depth of Love Divine,
Th ‘ Unfathomable Grace!
Who shall say how Bread and Wine
God into Man conveys?
How the Bread his Flesh imparts,
How the Wine transmits his Blood,
Fills his Faithful Peoples Hearts
With all the Life of GOD? (C. Wesley, HLS, no. 57)
@Irish Anglican
Margaret wrote above: “If there was nothing else, this is the ONE sure and TRUE tenet that keeps me tethered to the Holy Catholic Church! Even if Popes fail in their humanity, if clergy do not live up to their Holy Orders, if laity prove lukewarm and ignorant of their Faith, I will ‘not walk-away’ from Jesus in the Eucharist!”
What Margaret said was well said. Those like you who reject the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist often claim to rely on a literal “sola scriptura” justification of whatever they do profess. They then get into a dreadful twist over the words of John 6: 25-66 – just as you do here with your attempt to interpret away the plain meaning of the text. You are certianly not the first to find this teaching difficult. As the Evangelist recounts from Verse 60 onwards:
“On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them”. From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.”
It is, of course, as the Evangelist makes clear, “a hard teaching” which many would-be disciples could not accept.
Perhaps a little more St Ambrose, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas in place of the likes of Calvin and Luther would help you to recover the faith of your fathers.
Fr. Robert: Yes, I understand that the ‘Spiritual’ assent must be in place – a True ‘act of Faith’ and ‘Belief in Christ and HIS Gospel’. And it is also true that ‘he who eats and drinks of the Body and Blood of Christ [unworthily] does so unto condemnation’ – that is to say, knowledgeable and unrepentant of such a grave matter. But I also understand what you mean about people receiving ‘Holy Communion’ but yet NOT ‘living-out’ what they profess in a REAL way by thought, word and deed. That is the REAL challenge of the Christian and in a particular way the ‘Catholic Christian’ – because it can cause scandal in the ‘body of Christ’…which does not edify, support or CONFIRM THE FAITH…”going out into the world making disciples of all nations”.
It seems this malaise or sluggishness is prevalent in all times and places and has much to do with the “lukewarm-ness” Jesus spoke about. And it is probably the greatest deterrent – or ‘seed sown among thorns or rocky soil’ – of giving witness to the Faith. I believe it was Gandhi (when asked why he didn’t become a Christian because he was so much like one) who said: “If I ever met a Christian, I would surely want to become one”.
And yes, we can and should make “Spiritual Communions” whenever possible, but that is not the Jewel or [Essence of FULL Communion] of which God desires to give us – of which HE does Impart to us in the Holy Eucharist–by our commingling with HIS Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity by the very act of “Transubstantiation”! We are invited to receive the “Bread of Angels” – that thought alone should give us pause and animate our very lives….
Fr. Robert, I wonder if Mourad forgot that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others were RC. RC clergy no less. And that the Reformers didn’t come to divide the Church but to return her to the Gospel. Though I’d bet Mourad is glad that in the latter half of the 20th century Rome finally decided to agree with the Reformers on things like communion in both kinds, allowing the faithful to (finally!) read the Bible & have it translated from the original languages, etc?
I have a dream that all the uber-RCs of today would have to spend 25 years living in the 13th century. They could “enjoy” no bible reading, the Latin Vulgate being read to them, communion in one kind, reading their devotional during the liturgy since they couldn’t hardly see, hear, or understand what the priest was doing, communion once a year, massive fasting on all the now forgotten mandatory religious days that filled their calendar, paying religious taxes and being forced to use religious courts, trying to pay for private masses to be said on behalf of themselves or their family members to get them out of purgatory, etc. I wonder how many would come back extolling pre-Reformation RCism?
@Mourad: YOU, might be surprised in reading Augustine on the Eucharist! He certainly does believe in the so-called “Real Presence”, but not without doing justice to the spiritual side of the Texts and mystery itself! For Augustine the sacramental is both visible words and visible symbols…’by sacraments, which are certain visible words.’ (Augustine’s verbum visibilis). And to speak of an ‘invisible’ mode of presence is not the same as to speak of transubstantiation! I am myself quite convinced that Augustine would reject the latter (his Eucharistic theology certainly does!) The common sense answer must be Augustine’s ‘What you see is bread’, Quod vidistis, panis est. And Augustine certainly saw the necessity of “abiding” in Christ before there can be a partaking of His body. (De Civ. Dei 21.25)
Yes Mourad, I read Augustine more than you think! How about you? See btw, the sweet Eerdman’s copy (1999), Augustine through the Ages, An Encyclopedia, General Editor, Allan Fitzgerald, O.S.A., with Foreward by Jaroslav Pelikan (RIP)…written I think before he went with the EO?
And note too, there are several “Protestant” contributors!
Fr. Robert, It almost seems that RCs are the ones who stopped reading Augustine or taking him seriously? The medieval scholastics and Aquinas dominated RC thought for about 700 years. The Reformers took Augustine very seriously. Luther couldn’t help but! And in the recent past giants like Barth.
Margaret, The issue isn’t you or any other RC “walking away” from Christ in the eucharist. It is RCs telling everyone else that they have “walked away” from Christ, because they don’t except the (relatively) recent invention of the pseudo-scientific/pseudo-philosophical defintion “transubstantiation” as the one and only way God could possibly effect the awesome mystery of the real presence in the euchcarist.
Contrary to what you believe, there are other Christians who also believe in the full real presence; they just don’t agree with your definition of how. Some, like us Orthodox, haven’t ever in 2,000 years even tried to explain the how. That doesn’t make us less or you better. The how doesn’t matter. Mysteries can’t be defined and man can’t tell God how God does what He chooses to do for us. The “who”, Jesus Christ, is all that matters!
Michael, you said: “…The how doesn’t matter. Mysteries can’t be defined and man can’t tell God how God does what he chooses to do for us. The “who”, Jesus Christ , is all that matters!”
The “How” here IS the “Who”–Who IS Jesus Christ! It is God Himself Who has “defined” this ‘Mystery” for us, as it is HE WHO has circumscribed HIMSELF in this very Act of “Transubstantiation”–by the Power and through the Action of The Holy Spirit!
The many historical Miracles (still visible and preserved over time) of the Consecrated Sacred Host having Bled and even in some cases becoming Actual Flesh, are a Testament to/of the ‘Action of God” and NOT “man telling God how God does what HE chooses to do”!
‘The Holy Eucharist–Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ’ – IS what it IS!
It’s not about the vertical dimension of “who is less or who is better” (orthodox or RC); it is NOT about human power, manipulation or invention/intervention. It is about a “Passionate God” – madly in Love with the Human race, so pulls-out all the stops! WHO Alone can concoct such a Marvel as to most Intimately commingle HIS VERY FLESH & BLOOD with our very own – just mind boggling! That is ‘Outrageous Love” – that is why it is a “hard saying”–because we are incapable of such Love! Only in Heaven can we begin to Truly unravel this Mystery, but even then we would need to ‘burn with the Love of the Holy Seraphim’–to pulse and vibrate with HIS Unfathomable Love!
So who are we to put [limits] on what “God chooses” to do for us?!
If God is “Pure Spirit” and took on ‘HIS Sacred Humanity’ in the womb of Mary–the Incarnation, why then the disparaging thoughts that God could not/would not and does not “Transubstantiate” HIS same Sacred Humanity–behind the veil of bread and wine?!
Margaret, There is nothing “disparaging” about leaving the “how” of mysteries to God, the author of the awesome mystery. That is both prudent and respectful!
But there is something both odd and wrong with RCC in that it believes it has to attempt the “how” of the real presence, by inventing “transubstantiation”. Notice that you don’t then do the “how” to so many other awesome mysteries? What is the “how” of baptism in regard to original sin? Why no dogma on the “how” of the incarnation? Come up with some term to explain exactly how Mary conceives by the Holy Ghost? Talk about the “who” of a mystery! That is Jesus’ becoming flesh for all time. Why not try to force the how of manna in the desert? Or Jesus turning water into wine? Or how did Jesus bring Lazarus back to life? Or the Resurrection? Or how does God take OT saints like Enoch up to heaven? Or exactly how God the Father begets the Eternal Word? Or how God the Father effects the procession of the Holy Ghost?
Oh all the possible “hows” only the real presence is created as dogma? But the East had no such compunction to false precision. Likely the result of scholastic hubris. Attempting to use logic, reason, science, and philosophy to explain what can’t be explained.
It is quite obvious to me anyway, that with many Roman Catholics especially in the so-called laity, that the term “Transubstantiation” is simply believed to be the reality of the Real Presence itself! They just don’t realize that this is a “definition” itself, and just NOT really that essence. Sadly, the idea that the host can bleed, or has solidified as blood, is simply close to being idolatry, which is of course that excessive devotion to or reverence for a thing or person. If Catholic intellectual people would read Augustine, they would surely see that Augustine’s doctrine here was both spiritual and literal, a belief in the spiritual & “real presence” of the body & blood of Christ, but not seen in some overt definition scholastically, as such. Scholastic terms and thinking can be helpful, especially as we try to grasp the “mystery” and mysteries of God, but in the end, we are always left with the GOD Who is simply always “Other”! The doctrine that Christ gave us of GOD who is “Spirit”, should always be central in any of our desire to see and understand God. Quite often this is simply forgotten here! Btw, I can remember the Dutch Roman Catholic idea and word of “Transub-niffication” (spelling?) for the Eucharist, yeah this was right around Vatican II.
Fr. Robert & Michael: First, I acknowledge as Truth all your Scriptural quotes and that God indeed is “Spirit and Truth”…that Awesome “Other” as you give witness too. Please know that nothing in your Testimony is contrary to the ‘Truth of Transubstantiation’, but in reality only supports this dogma; you only but need to look deeper in the ‘breath, depth and scope’ of that which has been revealed to us in Christ. For TRUTH is ONE and The Lord Our God is ONE TRUE and Immutable! However, the difference (or contradiction) here is justifiably (in your mind) seen as “Transubstantiation” being simply a word to define or a mechanism to elaborate upon. This is where the ‘rubber doesn’t meet the road’–as you place The Holy Eucharist on a ‘biblical sliding scale’—which translates: Jesus is really there–the “real presence”, BUT…”not really”–no different than HE IS anywhere else in HIS Creation or any other Biblical manifestation given…. This is just not the [Fullness] of the Truth!
The ‘reality’ of the Eucharistic Miracles ( the Consecrated Host exuding Blood and/or becoming Real Flesh) is NOT an idea, Fr. Robert – it is REAL – “for those who Believe, no explanation is necessary and for those who do not, no explanation will matter”!
How can you apply “Idolatry” to that which is OF GOD?! And that which you refer to as “excessive devotion to or reverence for a thing or a person” happens to be the VERY PERSON of God and the “thing” is HIS Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!!
You know, in the Bible the demons ‘knew who Jesus was/is’ – no mistake among them, only humans had this problem. And now still, the demons [know] what the “Consecrated Host” REALLY is – that is why Satan wants to desecrate it at his ‘satanic masses’ (and tries through his agents, to obtain it for this purpose)! And NOT the bread/wafers that are only “symbols”, BUT ONLY the “Consecrated Host” from a True Holy Mass!! So Satan and his demons give witness to the “Reality of Transubstantiation” – not a definition, not a mere mechanism BUT, they say: “we know WHO YOU are Jesus of Nazareth”!!
May God BE Praised, Adored and Loved in The Most Blessed Sacrament!!!
@Margaret: I can appreciate that this subject runs right into your deepest place of faith, with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. But you surely must realize that the word, and definition of Transbustantiation, is not itself the “mystery” or fully the reality of the Eucharist! Augustine surely did not define the Eucharist in such a manner, though he did believe in the physical “Real Presence”, though with both the spiritual and mystical reality also. For him, sign and symbol were still part of the objective reality of the “Sacrament” itself! And when we loose this, we can thus move towards an idea that can be a form of idolatry. Of course my point to the idea of idolatry, borders on any idea that the host can bleed, this is even quite beyond the definition of Transubstantiation, itself. And of course too, for me there can be no real reserve sacrament, to gaze on or worship! The Anglican Article XXV. Of Sacraments… ‘The Sacraments were not ordained to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholsome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation (or judgment), as Saint Paul saith.’
As I have stated, I believe myself in the doctrine of our Lord’s Eucharist, of which HE is surely present, both spiritually & literally, but in, around and above the whole liturgical act itself! As I have said too, I am closer to both Luther and even Calvin here. And yes sadly many traditional Roman Catholics don’t see a wit of any of this in the so-called Protestant Church. Note here even Michael and I have some differences, as to the Eucharist. He is of course Orthodox.
Btw, I have quite noted that no one else has said a word about the Jewish Idiom, here! As in John 6, etc. The Bible just did not drop out of the sky! And the Ascension of Christ must surely be dwelt with here also! Something certainly that is a weakness in Catholic theology to my mind anyway. The Mediatoral Work of Christ cannot be left aside!
Margaret, I appreciate your devotion to RC dogma on the eucharist. If only more RCs took the eucharist as seriously! Two thoughts:
Since the very idea of “transubstantiation”, tied to pre-Christian Aristotelian pseudo-science and ancient Greek metaphysics, was ABSENT from Christendom for over the first 1,000 years or so of its history (both East and West), we know it was NOT part of scripture, the apostolic age, patristic age, or the Ecumenical Council age. Yet no one–then or now!–said the Church didn’t believe in the real presence! The East to this day has preserved the most awesome mystery of the eucharist by not attempting to define the HOW since the very essence is the WHO, Jesus Christ, truly present at the liturgy.
Since the WHO is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, we must first acknowledge that the eucharistic real presence follows after the Incarnation, where the Theotokos carries Him in her womb and gives birth to the incarnate Son of God. Yet if the HOW of the eucharist is so important as it relates to his real presence there, why don’t you dogmatize on the HOW of the Incarnation at the Annunciation and Virgin Birth? Why the silence on attempting to explain exactly HOW the Holy Spirit interacts with Mary? And the HOW of her virginal birth? It is equally possible to use pseudo-science and metaphysics, as applied through logic, reason, and philosophy, to define the HOW here. If the HOW isn’t necessary for the Incarnation, then why is it necessary in the eucharist after his Resurrection and Ascencion? (It isn’t.)
Sorry to step in for the moment, but indeed “Rome” and Catholicism surely has stepped into the area of the “how” somewhat of the Incarnation, with Mary as in the idea of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception! But indeed Holy Scripture says nothing here! The idea that Mary had just one Son can I believe be sustained from Scripture, and even perhaps Mary as ever Virgin. But an “immaculate conception”, one born without sin…in any manner? I believe not! Note even Aquinas, as Bernard of Clairvaux, did not believe Mary was born sinless, at least in measure.
Fr. Robert, As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, know that you’re in good Reformed company! See Luther’s Smalcald Articles (Latin, 1537), Part 1, #4. And Bullinger’s 2nd Helvetic Confesssion (1562), Chpt. XI, Of Jesus Christ, True God and Man, the Only Savior of the World, in “Christ is true man, having real flesh”. As for the idea (God forbid!) that Mary had other biological children with Joseph, who were Jesus’ blood siblings, I’m not aware of any major 16th century confession or magesterial Reformer who so argued as dogma.
I’m not sure the RC idea of an “immaculate conception” for Mary, which is tied directly to Mary at her physical conception while in the womb before her birth, really has all that much to do with the physical incarnation of her son, Jesus. Like, how do Mary’s DNA, genes, and physical humanity combine with the divine to effect the Incarnation? Is that, too, some sort of or a different type of “transubstantiation”?
@Michael: Thanks for the Reformed and Reformational quotes, I already knew the best of the Reformers held to Mary as Ever-Virgin. Myself, yes I would see that Rome’s statement as to the I.C., would sort of piggy-back on the purity of the Incarnation, for them anyway. Certainly Mary as the Theotokos (of which I would agree with Ephesus) simply must not be pressed into Mary as some kind of Intercessor, i.e. Advocate, Help, Benefactress, Mediatrix, etc. The fine line between veneration and adoration with Mary in Roman Catholicism, is simply badly blurred, if not really allowed to create ideas about Mary, that are simply in grave error for her as an elect creature! She is most certainly an “elect” vessel & creature of grace, for Christ and the Incarnation, and even perhaps something of the New Eve? But we simply must NOT give her titles and honours, that quite simply belong only to God the Father, and the eternal Logos and Son of God! Something btw the best of the Reformers surely did not do!
Fr. Robert, For RCC and Marian invocations, see RC CCC at para. 970, which touches on the Annunciation, her presence in front of the Cross, and the RCC dogma of her Assumption: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the [RC] Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.” I wonder how a Muslim or Jew would see the difference between her titles, described here, and those of her Son and the Holy Spirit, as described in Scripture?
As we all seek to debate and define many of these great biblical mysteries, most surely OUR Lord sits above, literally on the Throne of God & of Grace and Glory! Indeed HE is the Risen and Ascended “crucified Lord of glory”! (As St. Paul, by divine revelation says: 1 Cor. 2: 8). Funny, but our friend Ioannes quotes the very verses that express this great mystery: “What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who giives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6: 62-63) So Jesus uses this whole point of Jewish Idiom, actually a “Metonymy” in the figures of speech, but one that was surely most common in the days of our Lord. (See Ecc. 5:19 ; 6:2). So eating and drinking denoted the operation of the mind in receiving and drinking and “inwardly digesting” truth or the words of God. See Deut. 8:3 (spoken too by our Lord – Matt. 4: 4) and compare Jer. 15: 16 / Ezek. 2: 8. Our Lord challenges us all to “eat the Word”, i.e. the Word as spiritual food and life, which of course is found in Him, “the bread of God”…”who comes down from heaven and give life to the world.” (John 6: 33). And we must remind ourselves that in this Textual section of John historically, the Jews knew nothing of any “Eucharist”, which had not yet been given! But by comparing verses 47 and 48 with verses 53 and 54, we see that “believeing” on Christ was exactly the same thing as “eating and drinking Him”! And yes, certainly this is a precious lense for the Eucharist later, but one that simply must include all of this in “belief/believe” (pisteu, Gk.)…to have faith, hence to believe! Used 99 times in St. John’s Gospel!
Fr. Robert, Your RC disputants should read Sasse’s This is my body. Some great exposition of Augustine’s sacramental theology, in general, and eucharistic theology, in particular. Augustine argued that there was both a bodily/physical and spiritual reception of the sacrament. Both were equally “valid”. Yet there must always be a spiritual reception which imparts the reality of the sacrament to the believer in conjunction with the physical sign. This carried over into Aquinas. Thus, baptism could be “validly” received by water, blood, or desire. Even today, RCC accepts the spiritual reception of communion in rare cases. They do so with each of the 3 primary sacraments for everyone: baptism, communion, and confession.
Surely Roman Catholicism is just so practically and theologically inconsistent! What can we say more? And Augustine has long been put on the back burnner there! And btw, I see 1 John 5: 6…”And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.” HE is the greatest witness… and HE leads the great testimony! And verse 9: “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.” And then verse 10: “Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself.” Wow! And we can’t forget verses 11 & 12: “And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (ESV) Powerful and actually rather simple!
Btw, our friend and brother Michael is hitting the marks on many of these issues! May we all think and reflect here!
*Forgive my spelling errors! Not sure how ya do spell check? Must ask my wife, this is her computer! My laptop is toast!
Fr Robert. Could you try to less patronising. You are obviously a man who reads a lot but your language does need to be more considered.
*insert protestant author’s name here* “Surely, we could benefit from being Biblical! The Holy Trinity wasn’t even in the Bible! We should all be Unitarians! Even the word Bible was never in the Bible! But somehow, I get to choose which extra-biblical language I get to believe as valid, and which ones I can condemn so I can have a moral high ground and be self-satisfied. Oh, and Catholics are evil, death to the Pope and all that. ”
That’s basically the 2-man wankfest irishanglican and Michael Frost are having in a nutshell. It will save you time from post after post of the same pompous pseudointellectual posts.
Ioannes, When someone has to resort to personal tactics as essentially their sole serious response, that person has all but acknowledged the validity of the ideas they can’t respond appropriately to.
You may not like Fr. Robert’s opinions or scriptural exegesis, but he does come to the table fully “armed” with very good sources, including RC ones & RC ones that use Protestants (like Barth). At least he doesn’t just repeat endlessly “insert: ‘On X date pope told RCs we had to believe Y dogma and since he is pope we do what we are told when we are told.’” I don’t ever remember him saying anything about RCs being personally “evil” or that he wants any pope to die. Those are completely inaccurate and unfair accusations. You might seriously study how Robert Bellarmine disputed with Reformers during the Counter Reformation.
As a believing Christian you have no trouble quickly and easily finding the doctrine of the Trinity spelled out rather clearly and specifically in Scripture (e.g., Jesus’ “I ams”, at his baptism by John, etc.). Christianity has had little trouble teaching and preaching the Gospel about the Trinity to Jews, Muslims, and Unitarians. Yes, it is a most awesome mystery and makes Christianity very theologically complex indeed, but our apologists have never lacked decisive scriptural proof, including from the Hebrew Old Testament.
@Ioannes: Hang in there mate, you might have an “epiphany” yet, and learn something true and “spiritual”, and outside of “your” purview! (How’s that for patronising –
Michael, by the same logic, people who avoid responding to those personal attacks has all but acknowledged the validity of those claims.
@Joseph: “patronising”? If that is my only problem, then I am lucky! In reality, I am only seeking to speak to something historical, in the biblical and theological. But I do admit I am a bit crusty, as an older Irish Brit, but who btw is actually thankful to be in the USA! And note again, I am an old resident “theolog”! So read mate, read your Bible, and read it historically and theologically, with the best of the whole Church Catholic! And I think I can say for Michael also, that we are both after and seeking that desire. But indeed there is no perfection in any of us! And that includes the pope.
And that’s what I see a patronising view of life. How sad I am sure you are seeing the mote without noticing the plank!
@Joe: I always seek to write as a pastor-teacher! And quite often we poor shepherds must stick our finger in the eye of the so-called flock! Its just that simple. Indeed we must answer to the Lord alone! (James 3:1)
Huh. You know, after reading irishanglican and Michael Frosts’ comments, I think I’m beginning to understand and agree with their positions. But then, if they’re right, why do I even bother to believe at all?
Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in God or in any gods is the absence of good reasons for doing so. Since the burden of support (or proof, depending on the nature of the claim) lies first and foremost with those making the positive assertion- the theistic, religious believers who say their God exists- non-believers don’t need reasons not to believe. They may help, but they aren’t particularly necessary. Instead, what is required are reasons to believe.
This is not to say that there aren’t any good reasons not to believe; on the contrary, there are many arguments which cast enough doubt on the claims of religious theists to easily justify either not believing, or questioning -and eventually leaving- whatever theistic and religious beliefs a person might have had in the past. Most of those reasons, though, assume the premise that there is some reasonable basis for at least considering belief in the first place. They also tend to assume some particular religion and some particular god or gods, excluding all others from consideration for the sake of argument.
Once a person gets beyond the bias in favor of belief, though, they may realize something critical: the burden of support lies with those claiming that belief is rational and/or necessary. Believers, in my case Roman Catholics, fail to meet this burden and thus fail to provide good reasons for me to accept their claims. As a consequence, those who don’t already believe and/or who are not biased in favor of belief aren’t given a reason to start. Those who are not biased in favor of some particular religion or some particular god aren’t given a reason for favoritism and don’t have a reason to pick just one of them for belief, excluding all others.
The question “Why don’t you believe?” is a request for justification from the nonbeliever; the response “I haven’t seen any good reason to bother believing” returns the need for justification back where it belongs: with the believer. Too often, believers fail to realize that their position is the one needing defense and this response may help them understand that. If they can’t offer any good reasons for singling out their religion and their god for belief, dismissing all others as false, then they shouldn’t expect nonbelievers to provide any arguments for why this one religion and this form of theism are not accepted.
Theists should think of a god they don’t believe in and ask why they don’t believe in it. Some may answer that their religion teaches them not to. Others, however, will respond in a way similar to the above — they have no reason to bother and/or they have good reasons to think that that god does not or cannot exist. Well, atheists don’t believe for the same sorts of reasons. This helps reveal the fact that theists and atheists aren’t always as far apart as they sometimes imagine. Most theists are monotheists, which means that they reject all of the tens of thousands of alleged gods except one; atheists simply don’t make an exception for that last one. So if Roman Catholicism is wrong, and it happens to be the One True Church, then -all- religions and churches are wrong, and atheism is right.
The larger and more important difference between atheists and theists is probably the methodology used to arrive at these conclusions. Why does the theist disbelieve in all other gods except for the one or few in their belief system? Why does Roman Catholicism need to be “reformed”? Why does the atheist, skeptic, or freethinker not make an exception for just one god out of the tens of thousands which humans throughout history have believed in? It’s not what atheists and theists do or do not believe in which should receive the most attention, but the reasons why they do or do not believe in things.
Once we have a decent idea of the different methodologies people use for forming beliefs and opinions, we should then ask which methodology seems like the best general tactic for arriving at truth. What I mean is, we should ask which method will do the best job of helping us sift through the myriad of claims we face every day, discarding more false beliefs than true one and allowing us to accept more true beliefs than false ones. For example, would you use the method in question as a sound basis for deciding whether to buy one house versus another? Would you use it for deciding whether to buy a used car? Would you use it when evaluating the claims made by a politician who wants your vote- or even better, would you use it to evaluate the claims made by a prominent, national politician who belongs to a party other than your own?
These are important questions because they will reveal if one approaches the question of whether any gods exist and whether any religions are true with the same basic standards they use when approaching other claims in life. It is my experience that few people are so consistent, and they often apply far lower standards of evidence and logic to theistic and religious claims they grew up with than they do to anything else. Put simply, they know better than to apply such standards to buying used cars and to believing politicians, but for some reason “knowing better” doesn’t get translated into areas like religion.
Ioannes, Since we all appear to be believers, the discussion about non-believers seems misplaced here. I will agree that we are seeking “truth”. And thus “methodology” comes to the fore as we seek. But since we are talking about awesome mysteries and amazingly complex ideas (Christianity is the most complex religion, with the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.), logic, reason, and philosophy can’t suffice for Christians. We have to rely on God’ revelaing of himself and his grace that gives us faith. But we filter that through our upbringing, our religious education, experiences, culture, friends, and family. Which is why most faith groups realize that religious education, esp. in the teenage years, can be so critical.
We instinctively know and can readily see the differences in methods of analyzing information to arrive at “truth” across various Christian groups. The base stereotypes do give us some very important information: RCs rely on one man and his magesterial hierarchy to guide them; EOs rely on history and worship, continuity with the past, to guide them; and those out of the Reformation rely on scripture, as each unique, specific group interprets it to guide them. (Of course, each group also partially relies on their specific elements of the other ways, too. So, for example, Lutherans look back to Luther and the Confessions; EOs look to their patriarchs for guidances; and RCs translate, study & interpret scripture.)
In my own experience I’ve found the average man and woman to be pretty much equally ignorant of all those things they don’t really care about, no matter how “objectively important” the issue should be to them. So ignorant people buy houses without knowing much. Or are influenced in their investment decisions. Or choose cars (often on mere whim or style). Or neglect their retirement decisions. Or even their health (not worrying about diet or exercise). BUT compare that to what they do love in their life! If the man loves sports, he studies and learns about whatever sport he likes. He becomes both a fan and a fanatic. And the same for the woman who likes cooking or needlepoint. Look at anyone’s hobby. We tend to pay close attention to only a few things in life and those things tend to be nearest and dearest to our hearts? Which is why Christ warned us about being careful about all the false gods we let into our minds and hearts that lead us away from Him?
@Michael: This post sounds almost “Reformed” like? Indeed, we are surely fully and totally sinful beings, and so even our will is only subject to the power and purpose of God! Here I think of John 1: 11-13, “He came to His own (his domain and Jewish people), and His own did not receive Him.” (John 1: 11)… and certainly verse 13, expresses the meaning of verse 12!… “who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Verse 13) Indeed the longer I deal and work with sinful human beings, as a pastor, the more I am surely inclined to both God’s Sovereignty and His Providence, in the salvation of souls!
To God be the Glory, alone! (sola Deo gloria) – Rom. 11: 36!
@Ioannes: You wrote: “You know, after reading irishanglican and Michael Frosts’ comments, I think I’m beginning to understand and agree with their positions. But then, if
they’re right, why do I even bother to believe at all?”
You should perhaps bear in mind that Michael Frost and Irish Anglican are arguing from very different points of view – even if they happen to combine on certain issues. Schism
is not the same as heresy.
Michael Frost says he is now a member of an Eastern Orthodox church. I do not know for how long, or whether he was first a member of some other denomination but, while there are issues to be resolved between the Catholic Church and the autocephalous churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, those churches do have the apostolic sucession, valid holy orders and sacraments, a great monastic tradition and much else of value.
This is not the place to debate the origins of the Great Schism and only the Almighty knows how long it may take to heal the rift but there are good people on either side of
the divide praying and working to that end. Since the Joint Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Eucumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of 7th December 1965 various commissions have been hard at work.
While 950 years of what may be termed “the good persecuting the just” are not going to be swept away in the blink of an eye, one can discern progress – see for example Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future.
So, while Michael Frost has on occasions criticised things popes and prelates have done, or the Catholic approach to other issues (and criticisms can go in the other direction too), heis speaking as a member of the Orthodox Church and there is good reason to hope and pray that full communion will the EO Churches will one day be restored.
Irish-Anglican blogs from quite another perspective. He is a Catholic who has chosen to cut himself off from Holy Mother Church, taken orders in the Church of Ireland and now
blogs from a “Protestant”, “Reformed”, even “Dispensationalist” perspective. Many of the propositions he advances have long been condemned by the Catholic Church as heretical. Now, heresies have troubled the Church since the earliest times – by way of example: Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries), Montanism (2nd Century), Sabellianism (3rd Century), Arianism (4th Century), Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism (5th Century), Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries), Catharism (11th Century), Protestantism (16th Century), Jansenism (17th Century), Modernism (19th Century); Christion Zionism (20th Century).
Should we be surprised? No we should not. Satan and his helpers will doubtless keep at it until the great day of judgment. But they will not prevail against the Church. See Matt. 16:18. Wikipedia in its review of protestantism summarises the consequence thus: “The doctrines of the over 33,000 Protestant denominations vary, but most include justification by grace through faith alone, known as Sola Gratia and Sola Fide respectively, the priesthood of all believers, and the Bible as the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals, known as Sola Scriptura, Latin for “by scripture alone”. 33,000 different denominations! That is the inevitable consequence of denying the magisterium of the Church to interpret scripture.
The fact that the protestant heretics have spawned so many different sects all competing for the hearts, minds and money of would be Christians recalls to me the article that the late C.S. Lewis wrote for the Saturday Evening Post Screwtape Proposes a Toast. Towards the end, when he sniffs the wine in which he proposes the toast, he discerns from whence it comes:
“You know how this wine is blended? Different types of Pharisee have been harvested,trodden and fermented together to produce its subtle flavor. Types that were most antagonistic to one another on earth. Some were all rules and relics and rosaries; others were all drab clothes, long faces, and petty traditional abstinences from wine or cards or the theater. Both had in common their self-righteousness and the almost infinite distance between their actual outlook and anything the Enemy really is or commands. The wickedness of other religions was the really live doctrine in the religion of each, slander was its gospel and denigration its litany, How they hated one another up
there where the sun shone! How much more they hate one another now that they are forever conjoined but not reconciled.”.
If you keep those 33,000 competiing sects in your mind, you may come to a conclusion about the nature of protestantism and the inherent danger of paying too much mind to anyone seeking to promote continued and increasing disunion. We should be seeking unity not fragmentation
Mourad, Yes, I am EO, Antiochian Orthodox. (As are my children.) I do wish you’d get into the 21st century, post-Vatican II in regard to the Reformation, Reformers, and their Churches. Just read what your RC CCC says about them. Or all the comments by various popes over the decades. You should be ashamed to equate them with Satan or as great heretics (as if they were Manicheans or Gnostics). Start by reading the relatively recent (1999) mJoint Declaration on Justification with your RCC and the LWF. The RCC didn’t say anything like you say about their Lutherans counterparts.
Nice try to seek to throw all Reformational and Reformed churches into some kind of mere “sects”, but this certainly is not the history of the Reformers themselves, nor the truth. In fact if any church that is more sectarian and authoritarian than a church with the Roman papacy, at least historically, I simply don’t see it more than Roman Catholicism! And now the strench once again of her hierarchy caught covering-up the sexual sins of her own priests, sad, so very sad, but very evil simply!
Michael – I note and accept that you are among the separated brethren in the Orthodox Church. I hope and prey for eventual restoration of full communion.
Of course, I am not saying in any way shape or form that individuals who are now Lutherans, Methodists. Presbyterians or almost any other of the mainstream protestant ecclesial bodies are anything other than separated brethren too and I would add that I feel precisely the same way about those of the Jewish and Muslim faiths too. I am glad that there are talks between believers of all kinds.
But you are making an entirely false distinction between the person who starts the heresy and someone who happens through no personal fault to be of a particular persuasion centuries later.
After all, if you go through any list of the various heresies before or after the Great Schism you will almost always find a bishop, or a priest or other theologian who starts off in good standing with the church but who thinks he can set himself up in opposition to the consensus of the Church and is condemned by a Council or Synod accordingly. Are you saying that it is not part of the duty of the leaders of the Church to condemn heresy for what it is ?
The fact that there are now over 33,000 protestant sects seems to me to be res ipsa loquitur in relation to the core approach of protestantism. Our Lord desired unity: “Ut unum sint”.
Do not the Orthodox Churches also anathematise unrepentant heretics and heresies? I think you will be familiar with the Synodicon pronounced by the Protodeacon at Is it not their duty so to do? In a commentary on the Synodicon (which I am sure you hear read by the Protodeacon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the first Sunday of Lent) I found this passage:-
“Another tenet of the Iconoclasts, which had far-reaching consequence was the authority they gave to the emperor. They subordinated the Church to the state, even in doctrinal matters, an action which reflected their devaluation of Christ’s Incarnation. It was easy to secularize His body, the Church, and subordinate it to the state since all things material were of no account. It is interesting to note how most of the Protestant reformers, such as Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, and Cranmer, who did not believe in icons, in saints, or in relics (in short, in the sanctification of the material world), also had no qualms in subjecting their churches to the state…The Synodicon makes an explicit condemnation of this splintering of our redemption.
(From “THE SYNODICON – An Introduction” – published by the Orthodox Church of North America.)
I note in passing that Cramner certainly played his part in the subordination of the Church to the state in England.
A typical reply from a ultra type Traditional Roman Catholic who happens to be a lawyer, but who certainly is not theologically minded, even in his own church! What ignorance, comparing so-called “separated brethren”, i.e. Protestants, generally with Muslims, who are certainly NOT “believers”! In some sense all Christians are Judeo, since Jesus was a Jew, and all Salvation History, and the Covenant/covenants come from the Jewish promises, (Rom. 9: 4-5 ; 11: 25-29, etc. ; 15: 8)
And btw, we can surely note, how many of the EO in Russia, and other ethnic Orthodox have also fallen to the secular state in history. Very sad indeed!
Mourad, You might study the Orthodox review of Anglican orders around 1920. Things with all non-Orthodox aren’t quite always as they seem. Our dogma is not as specific as Rome’s in regard to many of the various issues of the Reformation, and in so many of those Rome had already moved away from Orthodoxy (purgatory/indulgences, transubstantiation, clerical celibacy, etc.). The last Ecumencil Council was in the 8th Century!
But do keep in mind that if the Reformers are heretics or schismatics, then certainly Rome is also. You might read the encyclical the Patriarchs sent Leo XIII in the 1890s, discussing Rome’s many errors. And within the past decade or so the Ecumenical Patriarch talked about how Rome had become ontologically different from Orthodoxy, and by that he essentially meant permanently separating themselves dogmatically from us. Rome no longer thinks or acts like the historic Christian Church in too many areas. Yet in light of economia and the grace of God… all things are potentially possible. Orthodoxy always hopes and prays (thinking of prodigal sons and lost sheep) for the return of the West.
From my own interactions with continuing Anglicans and from their own doctrinal-related statements & their liturgy, they seem far closer to Orthodoxy than to Rome. One is often hard pressed to find any substantive difference in faith with our Anglican brothers. (Many a time over the years have I joked with my local (now retired) Anglican Archbishop that it would be pretty easy for them to cross a different body of water….and go into Constantinople.) But, for the most part, they continue to recoil, as we do, from the dogmatic innovations of Rome over the past 1,000 years. I have never once had a Anglo-Catholic Anglican tell me that Orthodoxy is in clear error in regard to any specific dogma; I’ve usually heard them tell me that Rome is still in error in regard to many of her dogmas.
Orthodoxy has had some interesting and fruitful ecumencial discussions with both Canterbury and Wittenburg. Have you ever read the Moscow and Dublin agreements we reached with the Anglicans in the 1970s and 1980s? And our discussion in USA with Lutherans on Justification and Theosis is quite fascinating.
Of course, the written correspondence between Orthodoxy and the Tubingen (Lutheran) theologians in the 16th Century and with the Anglican Non-jurors in the 18th Century make for interesting reading in light of today. It is sad that neither they nor us could speak comfortably and confidently in the language of today’s ecumenical thoughts. But neither of us speak as we did back then.
As this dialogue is seemingly coming to a close (?), I can understand, in the way of a neologism, that after the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, why the Apostles went fishing. To me, God is so incredibly Simple (but not simplistic)–”HIS Ways are not our ways”, yet Mankind fashions such incredible complexities in and around that which, for the most part, we cannot fathom–in our fallen human nature, struggle and wrestle with in our search for Understanding, or outright reject or manipulate–to ‘bring order out of chaos’.
God is Order–HE brought Order out of the chaos, by way of Creation–HE fashioned the Earth from a ‘formless mass’ etc.. We, made in HIS Image & Likeness, seek to do the same. But…our “knowledge is imperfect”, our “intellect darkened” and our “will weakened”. So we go about making ‘ordered’ sense of our world, of our very selves and indeed of God Himself! “Faith, Hope and Love, these three but the greatest of these is LOVE”–Love alone we will me ‘measured’ by/on…in Eternity–where Faith is certain, Hope is no longer needed and ‘Knowledge made perfect’! That is because GOD IS LOVE! If we don’t have Love, we have nothing…we are a “clanging symbol, a noisy gong” – so “in ALL things put on Love”!
The source and summit of Christian Faith and Hope is LOVE and the ‘Holy Eucharist IS Love INCARNATE’ – Jesus, Physically, Substantially yet Mystically Present among HIS people–”I will BE with you even unto the consummation of the world”!
Fr. Robert & Michael, I can surely appreciate all that you give witness to and your great love and search for Truth and God’s Holy Word. I have not been exposed-directly-to just how the Protestant and Orthodox minds perceive the RCC from without and indeed how we are perceived from within and so I thank you for this. It is far better that we become ‘Holy’–transformed into Christ–in the Christian Faith we find ourselves in, rather than to be a ‘bad Catholic’ or a bad…. “I rather you be hot or cold but if you be lukewarm, I will spew you out of MY Mouth” – Jesus’ Words are indeed “Spirit and Life”!
But, in regard to The Eucharist, I will always stand by what I said…because Jesus has personally revealed this to me…it is more REAL to me than my very existence–for ‘my body is dust and into dust I shall return’!
Also simply put, in regard to ‘Mary most Holy’, She IS the greatest ‘Intercessor’ we have before Our Lord and ALWAYS ‘points to Christ’ saying, as she did at the Cana wedding: “Do whatever HE tells you” – devotion to Mary is Christocentric! The Catholic Church’s many titles and devotions to Her, is Always – in Intent and Purpose – to lead the Faithful to Christ! And so no matter how imbalanced(?) someone’s Marian devotions may appear, Mary always refers ALL to Her Son and gives ‘God the Glory’!
With these thoughts I too need to ‘go fishing’ (rest and wait on the Holy Spirit)!
(perhaps that is what Fr. Smuts is doing in these couple weeks)
@Michael Frost
Is there much point in raking over the mutual recriminations between Catholics and Orthodox since the Great Schism. It would certainly be possible to draw up a long list of offensive and improper acts on both sides. We all have to acknowledge that while the Church is divinely instituted and should be one Church, its governance is entrusted to humnans who are by nature both fallible and prone to sin. What is encouraging is that progress is being made toward healing the schism.
There have in the past been dealings between the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox Churches. But as you may be aware, when the CofE started to debate the issue of women bishops, representatives of the Orthodox Churches made it very clear that an attempt do do the impossible and confer episcopal orders on females would have a very negative impact on CofE/Orthodox relations.
Rather than refer back to material from the last century or earlier, I think it is perhaps more relevant to read what Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church had to say recently: Metropolitan Hilarion lectures at Villanova University in the USA:-
“The teaching of the holy fathers of the first millennium, when the Churches of the East and the West abided in unity, although at times this unity was subjected to serious trials, is the sure foundation upon which dialogue between Christians can develop successfully and fruitfully. It is my profound conviction that fidelity to the Christian tradition, the preservation of continuity in the teaching and life of the Church is the proper means for the restoration of unity among Christ’s disciples.
It is because of the renunciation by some Protestant denominations, as well as parts of the Anglican communion, of the ancient Christian tradition that it has become ever more difficult for the Orthodox Church to continue co-operation with them. I regret this, but the dialogues with Protestants and Anglicans which we have had for decades are now under threat because of processes taking place in the Protestant communities of the West and North. I mean the continuing liberalization in the field of theology, ecclesiology and moral teaching. Certain denominations have legitimized the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of people openly declaring their non-traditional sexual orientation.
We are obliged to speak about this because we want to preserve the good that was achieved during the years of dialogue between Orthodox on the one hand and Protestants and Anglicans on the other. In defending the two-thousand-year-old tradition of the Church, we remain true to this dialogue, yet at the same time we see that Protestants and Anglicans are growing away from us by accepting innovations which we find unacceptable.
I am speaking of this in the walls of a Catholic university by no means because I am afraid to criticize Anglicans and Protestants to their faces. On the contrary, every time the opportunity arises, I speak openly of our concern in direct dialogue with our brothers from the Anglican and Protestant communities. Thus, for example, in 2010 at a festive dinner at the Nicaea Club in London in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams I stated the sad fact that the ‘Orthodox and Anglican Churches are to be found on different sides of the abyss which separate Christians of a traditional direction and Christians adhering to liberal teachings’. And as recently as the day before yesterday I spoke of the same things at the old Episcopalian seminary at Nashotah House, a contemporary of your University.
Unlike dialogue with the Protestants and Anglicans which has reached a dead end, dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church seems to have a future to it precisely because, like the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church does not think of itself outside of Tradition and strives to teach and live in accordance with the tradition of the apostles and holy fathers. In my view, the significant improvement and strengthening of relations between our Churches that can be seen in recent years is connected to an awareness that we are united by a common heritage, thanks to which both Orthodox and Catholics can and must together bear witness to the world of the eternal values of the Gospel.”
The reasons which have led some Anglicans in the UK, the USA and Australia to join the Catholic Church whether directly, or via the Pastoral Provision (and more recently via the Ordinaraiates) are not difficult to discern and may be summarised by the observation that they did not leave their churches, their churches left them.
In the UK, there are still quite a number of Anglo-Catholics “clinging to the wreckage” as it were, hoping against hope that that the General Synod will come up with some face saving formula while the majority of the CofE goes down the TEC route – but with one big difference: over here there is the added pressure from the state for the CofE to conform to the state’s secular “equalities” agenda. Of course, that erastian subservience is the ultimate consequence of what was done to the Church in England by Masters Cromwell and Cramner when the Church of England was created out of the remnants.
St Paul warned that there would be heresies: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4). The idea that one can be “Protestant and Reformed” and at the same time part of the “one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” has always been just that – a myth.
Mourad, As surely you know, no one, myself included, is talking about the modernist elements of the now heretical portions of Anglicanism. This isn’t about ECUSA, Canada, the CofE or any other areas that have succumbed to heresies like WO. And this sadly includes most of the Old Catholics. We’re talking the traditionalist, Anglo-Catholic remnants. And communions like PNCC. Our discussions with those groups have showed little dogmatic difference.
You should read over the patriarchial letter to Leo XIII. That wasn’t too long ago. Though I do agree that some of the old issues, tied to things communion in one kind and unleaven bread in the eucharist, are no longer active areas of major concern.
If memory serves me, when the Ecumenical Patriarch told the RCs that they were now ontologically different, he did that at a RC university. Maybe the DC area.
I realize that we both want the other to “change”, to return home. But neither of our communions will be faithful to our heritage if we do that. It isn’t as if the RCC is going to drop any (let alone all) of the disputed post-1000 AD dogma. Nor could Constantinople suddenly say, Oops, guess we’re wrong and Rome was right on everything.
@Michael: Nicely stated for Mr. Mourad! As you can see by his last paragraph, he is really bugged with people like me, who have left Rome and her ill doctrines & dogmas, for what I consider to be the Reform and the doctrine of the Reformation of the Church by Holy Scripture. And of course as an Anglican, I have taken holy orders there. Indeed if I am correct, that the Church as the Body of Christ is both visible & invisble, then his Traditional Roman Catholic doctrine is really in error and wanting! The issue is biblical and theological!
Btw, note how the Text of 1 Tim. 4: 1-5, though in the first century was perhaps some early form of gnosticism (as chapter 6: verse 20-21), is actually closer to some doctrines of Roman Catholicism, by application, especially the older traditionalism! Indeed R. Catholicism has so many doctrines that are simply well beyond both Holy Scripture, and some aspect of good tradition guided by Scripture.
All Anglicanism derives from the original break with Rome engineered by Masters Cromwell and Cramner. Such theology as Anglicans have inherited has always been tainted by the heresies introduced by Cramner and other like-minded people he promoted. In effect the current excesses in the TEC and the CofE are akin to a train-wreck in slow motion.
We know that there are many in the half-millenium or so of Anglicanism who have sought to maintain much of Catholic belief, tradition and practice. There are still Anglican Churches in London and throughout the UK which are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from their RC neighbours: the Mass is said or sung in both, Confessions are head in both. Our Lady is venerated and her feasts celebrated, pilgimages are made to Walsingham or Lourdes. Some CofE vicars have gone so far as express it thus: My stipend is paid by the Church of England, but I regard the Pope as the head of the Church. It is said that the late Archbishop Amigo of Southwark was approached by one Anglican who said something like that and received the response “Then I suspend you a divinis!”
One has various gradations of belief in Anglicanism from that “Anglo-Papalist” tendency to the ultra-evangelical – such as the two bodies which were the original bodies in issue on this thread – one proclaiming on its websiite the unmitigated “sola Scriptura” approach and belief in only two sacraments. In the middle one finds a “pick ‘n’ mix” approach. Father Ed Bakker’s posts above are not untypical – he can accept this or that dogma, but not another.
In other words, one might say that the CofE and its daughter churches are akin to a network of computers infected by the viruses introduced by Master Cramner. Sooner or later the different computers will crash. I really don’t think that the “continuing Anglican” movement provides any solution without a good anti-virus program. To take the analogy a bit further – the anti-virus and firewall is provided by the teaching and disciplinary authority vested in our bishops: “this you need to believe – this you may believe, that you must abjure.”.
Mourad, Here is a link to the Ecumenical Patriarch’s Oct. 1997 discourse at Georgetown University (USA). A lot of important issues discussed. I sometimes think we in the West give too much prominence to the thoughts of Rome or even Canterbury over Constantinople. We should pay attention to all three equally in regard to the serious ecumenical issues under discussion. The world in this regard doesn’t appear to have changed hardly a whit even with new pope. Though, as your discussion above about Metropolitan Hilarion’s words show, the “tension” between the Ecumenical Patriarch and his peer Patriarch of Moscow remain, and Rome likes to “deal” with both in various ways at various times.
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
@Mourad: Sadly to inform you, a “Catholic” apologist your not!
Thank God the best of today’s Roman Catholics are really somewhat “Evangelically” moved, both laity and even some theolog’s. I know, for I actually know some personally! Indeed they even consider the old “irishanglican” a brother ‘In Christ’! I get a bit “salty” here with old-school traditional RC people like you, but thank goodness your likes are not the majority of today’s thinking and biblically-theologically minded Catholic’s! As noted btw, with our “good” Margaret, God Bless her! Indeed we need to remind ourselves, as St. Paul noted: “For we know in part … “For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Cor. 13: 9-12)… and of course verse 13: “And now abides faith, hope, and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” Indeed may we all not forget this great triad, ending always with “great” love!
* But St. Paul never sacrifices right and wrong….[Love]…”does not rejoice at wrongdoing (“planao, Gk. ‘To cause to wander or go astray; used of doctrinal error and religious deceit’) but rejoices with the truth.” (1 Cor. 13: 6)…note too the Greek article: “the” truth! True love is always seeking the “truth”! But, may we do so as with Christ, faithfully and in great hope!
@Michael: I have read some of this by the so-called “Ecumenical Patriarch” from Georgetown (1997), in the past. There is much to agree with…but there is a bit of it’s own “description” and the “descriptive”, certainly. Indeed how can we escape some form of such…”line upon line”, etc. I will always see Paul (for I am certainly something of a “Paulinist”!) from his Judeo-Hellenistic and Greco-Roman place and influence! Noting biblically like his great Galatian Letter and Work… Gal. 4:4-7! Here we can see God’s work in Christ as both forensic & formal, i.e. the law court of God’s righteousness (to Himself btw), Justification, (Gal. 3: 13-14). And also His personal and so-called mystical work withiin us as believers, i.e. Sanctification, (Gal.chap. 5 & 6). Indeed here I am most certainly drawn towards the men and thinkers like Tertullian and Augustine!
Fr. Robert, When you align yourself with Tertullian, you have to be very careful indeed. I’m going to assume you mean when he hadn’t become a thorough heretic. I don’t find him to be of any real sustained use. Not reliable. I don’t consider him to be a true ante-Nicean patristic father. He fell into serious error and stayed into it. Sad! There are so many more and more reliable patristic fathers of both the ante- and post-Nicean periods to use.
Oh Michael you EO “purist” you!
I have been reading (Quintus/ old Quint) Tertullian longer than I want to admit! Btw, even when he became a Montanist, he did not really leave the Catholic so-called church, though he certainly did lead a group increasingly critical of episcopal leadership! I love this guy! A true eclectic, but as with anyone surely not infallible. He wrote extensively from 196 to 212 in both Greek and Latin, though many of his Greek works have been lost… Ecstasy, Paradise, Fate, The Hope of Believers, Flesh and Spirit! Wow, would have loved to have read those! His extant books of course make up the first and most significant corpus of Latin Christian literature. And these writings fall into three categories: Apologetics, moral and disciplinary instruction. He was one fine apologist! His theological writings consisted of both refutation of heresy and exposition of sound doctrine! I love his work: Against Praxeas, perhaps this is the first orthodox definition of the Trinity! And then of course his doctrine of Traducianism…laying the foundation for Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. And yes, a millennialist 
with belief in prophetic gifts, asceticism…though a nasty doctrine of perfection, ugh! And yet simply a most brilliant theolog, and one skilled in rhetoric and logic, and just a master of the Latin language. And btw his terminology provided the base for the Trinitarianism and Christological ideas for centuries. A true dogmatic deveoper for the nascent church!
I have and love Eric Osborn’s book: Tertullian, First Theologian of the West, Cambridge, (1997 / 2003 in paperback). Again Tertillian’s idea of the great antittheses in God, are profound… paradox and antithesis’s everywhere! “The two attributes of goodness and justice together make up the proper fulness of the divine being as omnipotent (Marc. 2: 29.1). Second, the world is immature and embraces a conflict of opposites.” The latter is of course from the world as fallen!
For more indepth work and bio like, see Timothy Barnes ‘s several books!
Aye, I am a Tertullian fan!
*Sorry I got to remeber spell check!
lol
Btw, I just don’t get the EO with Tertullian? I have found it almost a “prejudice” like ??? somewhat like their great dislike for Calvin! I have had my times of going round and round with some EO’s, on certain subjects.
Fr. Robert, If I had to guess, probably because he was such a bright mind that had so much promise and yet he ended up so horribly wrong? To go from truth to such error… Reminds me a bit of some of the Reformers like Carlstadt, Luther dealing with the Zwickau “prophets” or or those who tormented Master Philip in the 1550s and fell into terrible error out of their spite. The error of false prophets like Montanus and other Gnostic-like enthusiasts!
One of my first old theological books, in Ireland, and just after my R. Catholic confirmation (5th grade?) was a copy of Tertullian’s: Against Praxeas. I lost that copy somehow? But I have another. Of course then when I read it, it was way over my head at the time, but I keep read’in! The doctrine of the Trinity has always been one of the most profound for me in my Christian life! I have the Catholic Dominican Gilles Emery’s book: Trinity in Aquinas, and I have read the old Ox on the Trinity of God myself. And I have too, Emery’s 2011 book: The Trinity, An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God. I have been reading and collecting books on the Trinity for years! Btw, every serious Trinitarian Christian, should read Augustine’s: De Trinitate at least once! And, one of my modern so-called favorites here is T.F. Torrance’s book: The Trinitarian Faith, The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church. A book very EO friendly! I do stand closer in most places too with the Orthodox on the Trinity of God.
Fr. Robert, Know what you mean about certain works. Ever time I study The Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church I have a fleeting moment of feeling like I finally understand The Trinity! But then like Flowers for Algernon (Charlie) the understanding goes away and I’m back to understanding things thru a glass darkly. (Most of Pelikan does something similar, but the understanding lasts!)
@Michael: You and I would really differ on Tertullian and Montanism! And putting Tertullian next to the “Zwickau prophets” is certainly unfair! Myself, I just don’t see any “gnosticism” in Tertullian!
Note this link…
http://www.tertullian.org/readfirst.htm
Fr. Robert, I’m mainly just commenting on Montanus/Montanism. Which is why I couldn’t imagine a mind like Tertullian falling for it.
I have this link on my blogroll…
http://www.tertullian.org/
All Novus Ordo Catholicism derives from the original break with Tradition engineered by Paul VI and Bugnini. Such theology as post-concilar RC’s have inherited has always been tainted by the heresies introduced by Bugnini and other like-minded people he promoted. In effect the current excesses in the US Episcopal Conference and the England and Wales Episcopal Conference are akin to a train-wreck in slow motion.
We know that there are many in the fifty years or so of post-concilar RCism who have sought to maintain much of Catholic belief, tradition and practice. There are still traditionalist chapels in London and throughout the UK which are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from their Anglo-Catholic neighbours: the Mass is said or sung in both, Confessions are head in both. Our Lady is venerated and her feasts celebrated, pilgimages are made to Walsingham or Lourdes. Some RC priests have gone so far as express it thus: My stipend is paid by the RC diocese, but I regard the Archbishop of Canterbury as the head of the Church. It is said that the late Archbishop Basil Hume of Westminster was approached by one RC priest who said something like that and received the response “Then I suspend you a divinis!”
One has various gradations of belief in post-concilar RCism from that “Traditionalist” tendency to the charismatic renewal and Communione e Liberazione – such as the two bodies which were the original bodies in issue on this thread – one proclaiming on its website the unmitigated “sola Papa” approach and belief in seven or two sacraments, or none. In the middle one finds a “pick ‘n’ mix” approach. Joe Catholic’s posts above are not untypical – he can accept this or that dogma, but not another.
In other words, one might say that the post-concilar RC Church and its daughter churches are akin to a network of computers infected by the viruses introduced by Master Bugnini. Sooner or later the different computers will crash. I really don’t think that the “Lefebvrist” movement provides any solution without a good anti-virus program. To take the analogy a bit further – the anti-virus and firewall is provided by the teaching and disciplinary authority vested in our anti-clerical team leaders: “this you need to believe – this you may believe, that you must abjure.”.
* * *
In other words L’hispice se fout de la charitéSeriously, I ought to send a copy of this boring thread to Richard Dawkins – excellent apologetic material for those who want more catchy message strips on London buses.
Fr. Anthony, Too funny! But as regards your comment–”I ought to send a copy of this boring thread to Richard Dawkins”–I’m not sure their discussions are more interesting or enlightening. We just always think the grass is greener on the other side?
Recently I went to pick my daughter up at her 30,000+ student public university in the American midwest on a Friday at their very busy Student Union. I saw four bored kids sitting at a table under the banner “Atheist & Agnostic Society”. Even though hundreds of students were walking all about and around them, no one was stopping to talk to them. Taking pity on them I walked over. I pointed out how none of them was smiling and how dour they all looked. The four had not a single handout, brochure or pamphlet. Other than their own laptop PCs, which they seemed glued to, there wasn’t anything on the table. So I asked, which one of the them were the atheists and which were the agnostics? But they were too agnostic to take a side! I kidded them that they didn’t have anything on the table to hand out or show. Where was one of their sacred works, like a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species or anything by Dawkins? They just shrugged. I’m not sure they got the references. One of the kids looked at me with sad eyes and in his forlorn voice he said, “No one wants to give us any money. Atheism and agnosticism aren’t popular here.” I laughed and said, “Have a bake sale. Like the three big churches across the street probably do.” [ECUSA, ELCA, & RC] But I got the distinct feeling they were too lazy and disinterested in their own cause to even take the time to come up with a fundraiser. They just wanted to skate by on mandatory student fee money! I went and got my daughter and when we walked past the table 10 minutes later they were gone and so was their sign. What does it say about our godless public universities when the atheists and agnostics have no energy, ideas, money, or followers? Dawkins would be ashamed?
Don’t worry, I find atheism just as soul-destroying and intellectually bankrupt. How about Catholicism, but based on ontology and spirituality rather than law or some kind of “authority” that is just as bankrupt? Of course my “free Catholicism” won’t work! We’ll understand better in the next world…
@ Father Anthony
I rather enjoyed your parody of my post.
I did not particularly like some of the Novus Ordo innovations introduced by Archbishop Bugnini – in particular the use of “dynamic translation” – which suffers from exactly the same defect as the “politically correct” English now used in the secular world – for example gender neutrality whereby “Madam Chairman” is rendered as “Chair” at meetings of the Greater London Council so that all the all the participants are addressing a piece of furniture rather than a person. So the “reform of the reform” being undertaken by the present Holy Father is welcome and, for me, an indication of what one might term a self-correcting mechanism built into the way the Church is governed.
You may recall a Sea of Faith report to its 2003 AGM Theological diversity: health or heresy? . which contained many “gems” including this:
“The issue of doctrinal diversity has deep implications for how we understand religious faith and religious language. If, as proposed by the Sea of Faith, religious faith is a human creation, then we have no access to absolute, unchanging religious truth; rather, truth is ours to construct by thought, argument and persuasion. To reject exploration is not simply to freeze truth in a certain historical form, but to deny the very process by which we develop truth.”
The whole of the document was directed to the idea that no religious denomination (in particular the CofE) should impose any kind of resraint or discipline on what the clergy preach or teach – in effect a denial of any magisterial authority. Where role does that leave the bishops in the CofE and its offshoots?
As a former Catholic you ended up in the TAC and at the time of its troubles with its former Primate you were thinking about the posiiton of the “vagantes”. I was , of course, very glad to note that numbers of the TAC have found their way home to the Catholic Church.
But I do wonder whether the efforts of the “rump TAC” to preserve Anglicanism will come to anything purely and simply because the same inherent vices and heresies that were brought into the CofE at the time of its creation must of necessity be perpetuated in the TAC.
While I have enjoyed the majority of this thread and equally despaired over the lack of Christian charity in some of Ioannes’ diatribes, one thing has really got under my craw. For the sake of all that is beautiful would somebody please pass on to our separated brother Mourad that the man’s name is C-R-A-N-M-E-R not Cramner. As Fr Robert has pointed out, perhaps a trip back to school and some objective history lessons about English Christianity might mellow some of his other inaccurate assertions. But in all of this, never let us forget that each of us claims the same God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Be gentle with each other.
PS Loved the quote from C S Lewis – not bad for a heretic Anglican!
Correction noted – No spell checker on Notepad and this kind of blog doesn’t take cut and paste from MS word too kindly.
As for English history, it was not imbibed with my mother’s milk – she was unable to breast-feed – but she was also a history teacher and by the time I went away to school, I had been well immersed in the history of England – in fact, I have just looked at Professor J.E. Neale’s biography of Elizabeth I and I note that my edition is dated 1952,
Glad you liked the CS Lewis piece. One can easily visualise such a dinner at the underworld equivalent of Pusey House and you might also enjoy a sermon which was in fact preached at Pusey House by the Revd Canon Dr Robin Ward Principal of St Stephen’s House Oxford on the text t The sinews of Behemoth’s testicles are tightly constricted (Job 40.17).
It concludes thus:
“Which leads me inexorably back to Behemoth’s testicles. Pope S. Gregory the Great in his great commentary on the book of Job known to us as the Moralia, took this verse as a type of the perplexed conscience – the constriction of the sinews being the sign of the entangled nature of the moral choices which confront us. You do not need me to tell you that Catholic Anglicans are in a place of acute perplexity at this time. Our mission, the mission of this House and of all those who have served the Movement since its inception, is founded on a confidence that we have an authentic ecclesial mandate grounded in Scripture and Tradition, and sacramental assurance in the ministrations which arise from that mandate. We must be frank when we admit that the great majority of the Churches who name themselves catholic in faith, order and practice have always seen this in us as more a matter of assertion than fact. But for us it has not seemed to be a house built on sand. S. Gregory tells us that if we are hemmed in and held captive, then the best rule is to jump off where the wall is lowest – the shortest fall makes for the softest landing. If we are not to be entirely strangled by our perplexity we are going to have to learn to jump, because the basis on which we have carried out our mission in recent years – the doctrine of a Church of England with two integrities – is coming to an end. Blessed Pius IX told Dr Pusey that he was like a bell summoning people to church but never entering it himself; might we not hope for a better future in a larger room for Pusey House?”
Food for thought?
To Mourad, February 10, 2013 at 13:53
Former Catholic? There is a subtlety – I am formerly Anglican from the Church of England. I spent a very miserable time as a Roman Catholic. You may be right about the TAC. As I found when my mother died, everything is finite and life has to go on.
Whatever artillery can be shot at Anglicanism the same can be shot at the RC Church, even if there is a temporary respite to a small and timid extent with Benedict XVI. Don’t try to force other people over – just be grateful for what you have. However, I have to admit you have been a lot kinder than other RC apologists.
I become ever simpler in my reasoning, to the extent of finding the cause of the Church’s woes and the effects of secularism. The problem is caused by Christians, the reason I suggested that this thread plays into the hands of aggressive atheism apologists.
Had you not already taken Holy Orders in the Catholic Church ? I recollect that you had some photographs on your blog ? Or perhaps my memory is at fault.
I think we had some discussion in the context of feu Archbishop Hepworth to the effect that for both of you returning to communion in the Catholic Church was via the last religious superior rather than via the Ordinariate – a step you then said you could not contemplate which is obviously very sad.
I do think the Catholic Church might do well to think of some better way of reintegrating its former clergy who are now in” irregular situations”.
Thank you for your kind reply.
I do think the Catholic Church might do well to think of some better way of reintegrating its former clergy who are now in” irregular situations”.
It is quite clear that those responsible for such have not a care in the world. They simply don’t care At least the legal authorities in the US take the trouble of executing those it condemns to death.
That chapter is closed in my life, and life will go on. Apparently, Pius XII said towards the end of his life: Après moi le déluge. Almost the totality of humanity would not care either, evident from the number of churches going from rarely used to disused to derelict and finally to demolition or being sold for redevelopment. The way of all flesh just like the Anglicans – that is why I parodied your comment, since the glove fits exactly.
Well, Mourad, Robin Ward has apparently changed his tune, as he has just been appointed Bishop of Ebbsfleet in succession to Jonathan Baker, who is to go from Ebbsfleet to Fulham.
Somehow I had not read that Behemoth’s testicles had become unconstricted, and that “If we are not to be entirely strangled by our perplexity we are going to have to learn to jump, because the basis on which we have carried out our mission in recent years – the doctrine of a Church of England with two integrities – is coming to an end” was no longer a problem. So, how have the “two integrities” been guaranteed? Or has Dr Ward decided to embrace Pio Nono’s characterization of Dr Pusey, and “live into it” on his own?
As you may recall, in July 2012, the so-called “Catholic Group” of CofE Bishops launched an initiative which they called “Better Together”. It is perhaps unfortunate that it has the same name as the group campaigning against a “Yes” vote in the comnig referendum on Scottish Independence. Here is the link to the (ecclesiastical) Better Together Campaign and the letter from the bishops launching the campaign Bishops put down pre-Synod marker..signed by: “The Right Rev Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe; The Right Rev Jonathan Baker, Bishop of Ebbsfleet; The Right Rev Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester; The Right Rev Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn; The Right Rev Norman Banks, Bishop of Richborough; The Right Rev John Ford, Bishop of Plymouth; The Right Rev John Goddard, Bishop of Burnley; The Right Rev Martyn Jarrett, Bishop of Beverley; The Right Rev Tony Robinson, Bishop of Pontefract; The Right Rev Mark Sowerby, Bishop of Horsham; The Right Rev Peter Wheatley, Bishop of Edmonton”
Bishops Jonathan Baker and Norman Banks had been appointed and consecrated by Archbishop Rowan Williams on 16th June 2011 to replace the then Bishops Keith Newton and Andrew Burnham who had resigned and joined the OLW Ordinariate.
Those appointments were made before the Synod debate on women bishops – plainly a sop to the “Catholic Group”. But, as you may be aware, one of the suffragan sees usually entrusted to a “Catholic” bishop is that of Whitby. Bishop Martin Warner held that appointment before he was appointed to Chichester. Fr Philip North (a FIF Member) first accepted that post and then withdrew when the modernsits protested – see Church Times – 11 Feb 2013 – Philip North withdraws.
The Fulham appointment has also been a “Catholic” appointment with the incumbent ministering to the “Catholic” parishes in London and the South-East, the incumbent also being licensed as an assistant bishop in Southwark and, I think, Rochester for that purpose. Two incumbents in the recent past have become Catholics. The Bishop of London announced some time ago that he intended to rethink the precise responsibilities of his Fulham suffragan at about the of his famous ad clerum on the use of the Roman Missal in Anglican parishes. So, in a further apparent attempt to bolster the “Better Together” movement Bishop Baker has been appointed to Fulham before he had got his feet under the table at Ebbsfleet and Fr Ward nominated to Ebbsfleet.
The “Better Together” movement will attract some support. There have long been many clergy in the CofE, particularly those who’ve been up at Oxford, who use the White Queen’s technique:-
“‘I can’t believe that!’ said Alice.
‘Can’t you?’ the Queen said in a pitying tone. ‘Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.’
Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’
‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” [Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking Glass].