D
Duane1966
Guest
Dang, I was betting a third time on you getting a thread shut down and I would hit the trifecta. Now I am the poorer for it.
- Status
I
Indifferently
Guest
I find Anglo-Catholicism and its various flavours very interesting. Anglo-Catholicism is certainly doctrinally much more diffuse than the conservative evangelicalism to which I have been drawn - Arminian and Augustinian priests are quite happy to coexist in the same church, for example. Some clergy who have embraced a Vatican II liberalism can be found, as can men who subscribe to some form (perhaps “literal and grammatical”) of the Thirty Nine Articles. Some will be willing to do interfaith prayer services with Muslims; others consider this an abomination. Some affirm transubstantiation, others “the real presence” while refusing pointedly to go any further. Different views on the atonement are also to be found.
Doctrinally, I tend to think Anglo-Catholicism reflects a kind of broad undeveloped orthodoxy that prevailed in the Christian church of the third to the fifth centuries. The untiy is expressed and maintained not be doctrinal uniformity (as it is in Reformed Anglicanism, where minor doctrinal discrepancies can get a preacher banned from the pulpit) but rather by liturgical unity, of some form.
Doctrinally, I tend to think Anglo-Catholicism reflects a kind of broad undeveloped orthodoxy that prevailed in the Christian church of the third to the fifth centuries. The untiy is expressed and maintained not be doctrinal uniformity (as it is in Reformed Anglicanism, where minor doctrinal discrepancies can get a preacher banned from the pulpit) but rather by liturgical unity, of some form.
C
commenter
Guest
All it takes is one careless post over on the Narnia sub forum that the Magic stair doesn’t work anymore, and I hit back against the Protestants, the SSPX, and liberals of all ilk with irrefutable logic that the **Magisterium ** still is God’s human instrument, indispensable against the forces of heresy, spiritual pride, defender of the NT Canon, definer of Tradition, preventer of chaos, mothership that carries the light that all other ships unconsciously rely on, rant, rant, beat that issue and cleaned up that thread. At least I’m not one of those trigger-happy RC’s.Dang, I was betting a third time on you getting a thread shut down and I would hit the trifecta. Now I am the poorer for it.
B
BernadetteM
Guest
Unless Anglo Catholics have changes in the last 20 years, here in the US all the AC parishes I attended believed the same thing. I know that in England they latched onto the Novus Ordo liturgy, however, not in the US or at least when I attended these parishes.
There are some very progressive ones from what I hear and they go along with the secular morality of today.
I am most thankful that I left and became a Catholic many years ago. Of course there are those who would like to change the doctrines of the Church in the US, however, that doesn’t seem very likely.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
P
Peter_J
Guest
From my experience speaking with Christians in each of those three categories over the years, I really must say that there is some truth to the idea that Anglicans are to Catholics as Catholics are to Orthodox.
Not in all ways, certainly, but in some ways.
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. That’s your experience in one area. What is that area? I’m sure there are areas where that is the case. My experience in North Carolina, New Jersey, Indiana, and Kentucky is that while numerical growth is static or declining, new people are finding God in Episcopal parishes and that’s ultimately what matters. A church is not dying as long as people are encountering God there.
Sure. But you take a leap from “numerically declining” to “dying.” That’s where you fall into worldliness, frankly. What matters in church terms is not whether a church is gaining or losing numbers, but whether it is functioning as a means of grace. This article encapsulates how many folks (many of them young) have come to feel about the Episcopal Church. These are folks who have been bruised and wounded in evangelical churches and have recovered faith through the Episcopal Church. Tell me that a church where that’s happening is dying, and I will laugh in your face.
No. The old mainline really is dying. I agree with that. But something new is growing amid the ruins. As tends to happen. God works like that. One of the reasons I have trouble giving up on Protestantism is that the continual resurgence of new life that so impresses me about Catholicism (which is always dying and always being reborn) turns out to happen in Protestantism too. As long as Scripture is read and bread and wine are broken in Jesus’ name, Jesus seems to have this weird habit of showing up.
Agreed that they are “conservative” on cultural/social issues for the most part, and even more so in their frank supernaturalism and their belief in Scripture as a means of revelation. Not so much if we define conservatism in terms of tradition, formal liturgy, creedal orthodoxy, etc. In those ways I am far too conservative to be a Pentecostal, as are most Episcopalians
I named one: Union Church in Berea. Another very liberal example (which I have not visited, other than going to a concert there once) is Church of the Redeemer in Morristown. Another would be Reconciliation United Methodist Church in Durham, NC. I’m sticking to churches that I have some experience of (in the last two cases because people I know belong to them). I think that Grace Episcopal Church in Fort Wayne would be another example but I know less about them.
Not a movement. A specific congregation. And it doesn’t make all Epioscopalians look moderate, just the ones in Madison County, KY. You keep trying to speak in general terms. I’m keeping it local, because that’s reality. (This is, in fact, one of the fundamental reasons I have trouble becoming Catholic. Catholics keep inviting me to ignore the local church and just keep my eye on the Big Truth. And I can’t do that.) Statistics are abstractions. If elevated above real experiences of real people, they are demonic lies.
Yes, you are
You keep confusing those two things. No dispute on the numerical decline. Dispute on the spiritual decline and the “dying.”
What statistics are you relying on now? Care to cite them? Do they speak specifically of social liberalism? Because again, what I’m experiencing is that a lot of younger folks want creedal orthodoxy and social liberalism. Now maybe that’s their problem. But if you want to note social trends, this seems to me to be a trend.
Absolutely. You keep speaking as if I’m disputing that part of it. Of course I’m not.
A certain eminent person, not generally regarded as a liberal, said something once about a smaller and purer Church, I think
. This is going to be the reality for everyone in the Western world for the foreseeable future–and probably that’s a good thing.Edwin
I
Indifferently
Guest
Edwin, I disagree with you that NT Wright has overthrown the traditional Protestant reading of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Have you read John Piper’s materials disputing Wright’s new perspective theology?
C
Contarini
Guest
No–I need to, since I have read Wright’s side of the debate. But I have read plenty of traditional Protestant interpretation (I have a Ph.D. in church history, focusing on the Protestant Reformation).
At any rate, I think you miss my point here. Even if Wright turns out to be wrong in his exegesis, the fact that someone as learned as Wright, and as committed to evangelical Christianity of a broadly Reformed stripe, would come to these conclusions makes the triumphalist tone of your earlier post completely inappropriate. Clearly Wright has read Romans very carefully and come to different conclusions. Even if he’s wrong, the fact that he could be wrong on this raises the possibility that the Protestant Reformers (who frankly did not have the time or resources at their disposal that Wright has) were wrong too.
Edwin
I
Indifferently
Guest
I don’t think I’d call Wright evangelical or Reformed. He seems to have an especial distaste for conservative evangelicals in the Church of England, and he also ordains women.
C
Contarini
Guest
Oh, I’m sure he doesn’t meet your high standards of ideological purity. But that’s the background he comes from. There is no reason to think that he is somehow biased against traditional Protestant interpretations. In fact he maintains, somewhat incongruously, that his exegetical findings don’t undermine basic Protestant theology on justification.
Edwin
I
Indifferently
Guest
It’s not just ideological - it’s the way Bishop Tom actually behaved towards those of our party during his ministry.
P
Peter_J
Guest
If I might go out on a limb here, I get the impression that you have trouble becoming Roman Catholic, but not so much trouble leaving Anglicanism/Protestantism (or protestantism).
If I’m wrong,
, keep in the “I get the impression that” part.
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually it’s the other way round. It’s leaving Protestantism that is the problem for me. Protestantism as a network of Christian communities (chiefly Anglican and Wesleyan, but not exclusively so), not Protestantism as an ideology. You are absolutely right that Protestantism as an ideology is worth very little as far as I’m concerned–insofar as there is a single Protestant ideology. Specific Protestant traditions, on the other hand, have great value, and I’m not convinced of Catholic claims that the fullness of everything good in them can be found in Catholicism. Women’s ordination is the touchstone issue here, since the ministry of ordained women is certainly a great good I have experienced in Protestant traditions which cannot be found in Catholicism. But far from the only one. Intercommunion is the other major issue.If I might go out on a limb here, I get the impression that you have trouble becoming Roman Catholic, but not so much trouble leaving Anglicanism/Protestantism (or protestantism).
If I’m wrong,
Hence the emphasis on the local church. It isn’t that Catholic parishes are unbearably bad. It’s that when I look at the reality of the local community I see both Protestant and Catholic communities as flawed embodiments of one common Faith.
Edwin
P
Peter_J
Guest
Oops. I forgot the “mind” part of “keep in mind”. HowIf I’m wrong,
.Well fair enough, as you presumably know yourself even better than someone on a web forum does.
… which didn’t exist in even mainline protestantism until the 1970s. (Not to state the obvious.
)
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not to sound all yeah-yeah-I’ve-heard-it-all-ish, but I have many times heard something similar from certain Catholic polemicists.
Specifically, they claim that the fact that Roman Catholics permit intercommunion with the Eastern Orthodox, but the Eastern Orthodox do not permit intercommunion with Roman Catholics, proves that we’re good and they’re bad, etc etc etc.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
An interesting development is that as womens’ ordination has become more mainstream in the CofE, rather than the activity of a “liberal” fringe, more and more orthodox women have been ordained. This has certainly affected my perspective on the issue.
A friend of mine is in touch with an American RC woman who (a) feels a strong priestly vocation, and (b) wants to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Now, orthodox Roman Catholics are clearly going to say that this is absurd, but it does show that there’s more to the issue of women in the priesthood than a simple conservative/liberal divide.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well, unless you count Methodists, Baptists, Quakers or Congregationalists as mainline.… which didn’t exist in even mainline protestantism until the 1970s. (Not to state the obvious.
C
Contarini
Guest
Peter, for me it has nothing to do with “good” and “bad,” but with right and wrong. What I mean is that many Episcopalians act as if Rome’s policies on intercommunion are just obviously mean and uncharitable and so on, and that’s not my argument at all. My argument (not even argument so much as ineluctable fact of my religious experience) is rather that I know that I’ve encountered Christ in Protestant Eucharists as surely as I know that Christianity is true in the first place, and I cannot possibly turn my back on any place where I have encountered Christ. That naturally is most easily explained by an ecumenical Protestant ecclesiology.
Indeed, one thing I’ve realized over the past few years is that my desire to be in communion with Rome stems from my ecumenical theology. So in a sense I’m (theologically) ecumenical first and Catholic by consequence. (I say “theologically” because of course I’m not in full communion with Rome at this point–but insofar as I proceed theologically from Catholic premises, I do so because I think those premises are required by my commitment to “mere Christianity” and to the unity of all “mere Christians.”) That’s why the standard “arguments from authority” leave me completely cold. I don’t really see any force in them at all. The proposition “the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded” seems to me to start from the wrong premises entirely (since my basic starting point is that all baptized people are members of the Church Christ founded, and the question is how that Church should be ordered).
What’s confusing is that many things about Vatican II and about figures most “conservatives” respect (like Benedict XVI and Richard John Neuhaus–not that they are in the same category at all, but both of them are heroes to many folks on this forum) seem to support my premises. Fr. Neuhaus routinely spoke in terms of “The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ most rightly ordered” rather than “The Catholic Church is the one true Church Christ founded.” Pope Benedict’s ecumenical speech at Cologne seems to respect the integrity of Protestant traditions and repudiates “ecumenism of return.” And so on.
So it isn’t entirely clear to me whether my premises really are in conflict with Catholic teaching. But perhaps the very fact that these premises definitely take precedence for me over the authority of Rome (i.e., if it were proven that my ecumenical premises were unorthodox by Catholic standards, that would prove to me that I couldn’t in good conscience become Catholic) is evidence that I ought to be part of the corporate reunion route to unity rather than the individual conversion route.
But as with my convictions about women’s ordination, this is a theological issue and not a straightforward moral one (as it is for so many other people). It’s not about who is nicer or more charitable or whatever. If things are as folks on this forum believe, then their relatively hardline attitude is charitable. Indeed, if things were as the Feeneyites believed, then telling Protestants they were all going to hell would be charitable (though it might not be wise).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, mine too. This is a point my wife has made over and over. It’s more evident among Methodists than among Episcopalians, because Methodists have been ordaining women longer and because Wesleyans have more theological reasons for ordaining women in their heritage (“Holiness” groups ordained women more than a century ago). But it’s an increasing trend among Episcopalians too.
Yes. An online friend of mine (a convert to Catholicism, though definitely not what folks on this forum would consider an orthodox Catholic) has been reading the work of a feminist theologian called Tina Beattie, who (according to my friend) approaches feminism in a way that transcends liberal/conservative categories. The same could be said in certain ways for the gay theologian James Alison (who actually loves the theology of Joseph Ratzinger and has even, impertinently, argued that some of Ratzinger’s theological positions point toward the legitimation of gay unions).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
But it did exist in my Holiness tradition for much longer (at least a century–of course, in low-church Protestantism ordination is defined rather differently).… which didn’t exist in even mainline protestantism until the 1970s. (Not to state the obvious.
Still, of course, very recent in terms of all of Church history. But not tied to theological liberalism in the way that mainline women’s ordination has often been.
Edwin
- Status