C
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Exactly. You read the Church Fathers not only through a narrowly Anglican lens, but through the lens of one particular faction within historic post-Reformation Anglicanism.
By the way–I envy your acquaintance with this tradition, which I love and honor and wish I knew better.
I am not sure that one can claim this legitimately. Imperial intervention in the ancient councils produced many evils, although perhaps that was the only way it could have been done in that context. I certainly would not claim that such intervention is necessary for a legitimate Council–and at any rate the Holy Roman Emperor of the West was in fact involved in calling the Council (there was, of course, no Byzantine Emperor by that time, although perhaps the Czar of Moscow might have been consulted!). Indeed, it was Charles and not the Popes who pushed for the Council (that oversimplifies decades of political maneuvers, which you can read about in Jedin–certainly Paul III did eventually decide to call a Council, but earlier Popes had been very nervous about the idea).
**
After decades of pressure from Charles V.
You’re right that the Pope (having many concerns about the effect on his authority of calling a Council at all) did his best to keep control of the proceedings.
**That is not what I remember from Jedin, though I read Jedin twelve years ago now. However, as I said, the mere fact that voices were raised against the two key definitions on salvation and Scripture/Tradition seemed to me at the time to give me some reason to become Anglican rather than RC.
Certainly there were many irregular things about Trent. In all fairness, though, the same could be said of a lot of the ancient Councils. In the end I think either the RC’s are right and papal approval is the one thing that makes a Council Ecumenical ( a conclusion from which I shrink, since it seems to lead to the reduction of the Church to the Papacy, however much the RC’s try to avoid this conclusion), or Florovsky is right and Councils are basically charismatic events through which the Holy Spirit speaks with the voice of the whole Church, rather than deriving their authority from some objective procedural criterion.
At any rate, I question whether Trent was an Ecumenical Council–I would only accept it as such if I accepted RC claims generally, and as I said above I have grave misgivings about doing so. But to say that it was not truly an Ecumenical Council is not to say that it invented something new. As you said very well above, it simply ratified (on the doctrinal front) trends that had been going on for centuries. (On the disciplinary front, it gave rise to some new initiatives, but even there the main thrust was conservative–strengthening the authority of bishops over against the religious orders, for instance.)
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I might do that. I can see why ++Haverland would favor union with the Orthodox, but after all he is not a Pope and he does not represent the ACC all by himself (thanks for the info on which jurisdiction you belong to, BTW!).
.
The problem, of course, is that “Traditional Anglicanism” varies widely depending on which Traditional Anglican you ask. ++Haverland wrote an online essay some years ago denouncing the idea of Anglican inclusiveness, but I don’t think he’s conclusively won that fight even within his own jurisdiction. Perhaps I am wrong–I have not been in touch with ACC affairs for some years now. But back in the late 90s, Prof. Leslie Cahoon (wife of the then Acting Metropolitan) told me that “we” (i.e., the ACC) did not believe in asking for the intercessions of the Blessed Virgin.
Is there or is there not a consensus in the ACC as to whether such prayers are legitimate? If the ACC holds to the 39 Articles, then of course there are good reasons to say that they are not. But if the ACC holds to the same faith as the Orthodox–to the consensus of the first Millennium–then clearly asking for the intercession of the saints is a legitimate practice.
Maybe Prof. Cahoon was speaking only for herself. But I may be pardoned for thinking that she was one of the laypeople in the ACC most likely to know what was generally believed and practiced in that body. And if she was wrong about the official position of the ACC, that underlines the fact that even Traditional Anglicans are deeply confused on just how Catholic they are and how they relate to the Reformation aspect of their heritage.
But you admit that “Trentism” is basically just late medieval Western Catholicism. So your issues go back before Trent.
What are the specific ways in which Western Catholicism differed from Eastern Orthodoxy?
If you and the Orthodox are right that the RCC is less than fully Catholic, then not being in communion with the RCC is not “the Catholic Church not being in communion with itself.” So with which parts of the Catholic Church is Constantinople not in Communion? I can see three possibilities:
- The non-Chalcedonian and “Nestorian” churches of the East. But if you accept the Seven Councils, then you believe that they are schismatics at best and heretics at worst. So that won’t work.
- Anglicans. You clearly believe that majority Anglicanism is unorthodox, so we’re talking about Traditional Anglicans such as yourself. Of course, apart from any other consideration this begs the question, because it is precisely the status of Anglicanism that is in question between us. If mainstream Anglicanism is as messed up as you believe, you can’t blame the Orthodox for not being in union with it. And if you have rejected all the unorthodox beliefs and practices of majority Anglicanism, then surely the burden is on you to show this to the Eastern Church, rather than saying that they aren’t in union with the “rest of the Catholic Church” because they don’t comb through the fragments of traditional Anglicanism for those tiny jurisdictions that might actually agree with them in faith.
- The Old Catholics. Essentially the same remarks apply–these are small groups dissenting from Roman Catholicism, and not united among themselves with regard to what they believe.
It seems that you are playing a bait-and-switch. You denounce Roman Catholicism as “mere Trentism” when it suits you, but at the same time you implicitly seem to be saying that the Eastern Church isn’t the one Catholic Church because it’s not in union with Rome (and with an Anglicanism that by your own admission is largely unorthodox, at least today).
Please understand that the fervor and emotional force in what I’m saying comes from my conflict with myself. I don’t want to leave my parish and imperil my job, but I’ve been wondering lately whether my reasons for not becoming Orthodox are other than frivolous, given that I question some of the Roman “additions” to the Faith and am certain that Anglicanism lacks a firm adherence to Sacred Tradition.
C
Contarini
Guest
And you seem absolutely certain (as I am not) that one of them is wrong. That logically leaves the other. It’s really quite simple, on your own principles.
Sure it is. If you think that medieval Western Catholicism included “accretions” to the Faith, and that Anglicanism is a rejection of those accretions, then Anglicans were duty bound to seek out the Christians who had always rejected those accretions and seek union with them. In fact only a minority of Anglicans have ever shown any interest in doing this (beginning with the non-jurors) and even they have quickly discovered how Protestant they actually are when confronted with the reality of Orthodoxy.
That’s fine. Some Episcopalians would say that you aren’t an Anglican because you aren’t in communion with Canterbury. I don’t really care about being an Anglican per se, though I love Anglican liturgy and spirituality. I care about being a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And I think that the problems with the Catholicity of Anglicanism go back well before the specific issues in American Anglicanism which led your folks to separate.
And sixteenth-century Anglicans clearly considered themselves Protestants.
And the Catholic Church in England went into schism along with it (if you are talking about the East-West schism).
So Anglicans are doubly schismatic–or perhaps they are both schismatic and heretical. Either way, not a good situation by your own standards.
Who are “we”? You keep speaking as if all Anglicans agreed with you. But in fact the initiatives toward union with the East and/or Rome have usually been the work of one minority faction within Anglicanism. Anglicanism as a whole has maintained an ambiguous status as a church with apostolic succession and a reformed Catholic liturgy but broadly Protestant doctrinal formularies. The attempt of the 19th-century Anglo-Catholic movement to change this by rejecting or re-interpreting the Articles simply led to a situation of doctrinal indifferentism in which it’s practically impossible to say what Anglicans believe. This is relatively less the case within Continuing Anglicanism, but there’s still a great degree of confusion on just what “Traditional Anglicanism” is, how the Protestant and Catholic sides of Anglicanism relate to each other, and whether Anglican Catholicism ought to seek union with Rome and/or the East or simply sit back, claim to be Catholic all by itself, and let the others come to you.
Indeed. And you and many other traditional Anglicans appear to be in deep denial about the fact that the 39 Articles, and historic, official Anglicanism generally, have clearly endorsed some of the Protestant deviations from first-millennium Tradition, even before we get to the issue of the Filioque!
What addition to the Creed?
Speaking of the Filioque. . . . that’s an addition to the Creed.
Does your church use it?
Edwin
S
Soldier_X
Guest
As my old preaching professor used to say, “Talk, sir!”
Good thoughts here.
L
LBKat
Guest
My simple answer:
Rome went wrong when it upheld that which was extra-biblical as high as what was truly biblical. In other words, when the Roman Catholic Church did not believe the Bible (because the Bible accounts for it’s own sufficiency) and had to add to it, such as traditions–it went wrong. As a Protestant, it’s impossible for me to trust the Roman Catholic church–because it does not trust the Bible as infallible–as in the case of not believing it its sufficiency (among other things). I cannot trust a religion that picks and chooses what truth to believe from the Bible–when it is all true.
That is said with all due respect, but hopefully that will help in understanding a Protestant perspective.
Rome went wrong when it upheld that which was extra-biblical as high as what was truly biblical. In other words, when the Roman Catholic Church did not believe the Bible (because the Bible accounts for it’s own sufficiency) and had to add to it, such as traditions–it went wrong. As a Protestant, it’s impossible for me to trust the Roman Catholic church–because it does not trust the Bible as infallible–as in the case of not believing it its sufficiency (among other things). I cannot trust a religion that picks and chooses what truth to believe from the Bible–when it is all true.
That is said with all due respect, but hopefully that will help in understanding a Protestant perspective.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Please tell me these things then.
Where did the Bible come from? What was the religion of the men who, in AD 382, examined the many different writings that were submitted and picked what is the canon of the Bible today. Please cite a ‘proof’ if you contend that these were otherwise than Catholic, indeed “Latin”, “Western” or what is known colloquially as “Roman” Catholic. If you do allow that they are “Latin” or Western", please provide a proof to demonstrate when these people ‘disappeared’ and the “Romans” appeared. P.S. “Constantine” doesn’t work as a charge since the canon was assembled over 50 years after his death.
Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is ‘infallible?" "Sufficient’ is not 'infallible. Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant (which is different from infallible) but the Bible is NOT self-interpreting. It cannot be.
Finally a question for you.
Two different Protestant faiths, both of which teach Baptism as salvific. Baptists and Presbyterians.
Baptists teach, citing Scripture, that only adults may receive Baptism.
Presbyterians teach, citing Scripture, that infants and children and adults may receive Baptism.
Now please tell me whether the Baptist or the Presbyterian is correct in his teaching, and why. Only one can be correct, and since Scripture is your authority, you should be able to show me the verse that ‘proves’ it.
L
LBKat
Guest
Good Questions. Glad you asked.
I’ll answer the last question first. I will need to do a little more research to answer your your questions on the Canon–meaning I may have to post on that later. Currently I am in a Bible Doctrines class and we are studying the unit on this, so I think it would be beneficial for me to make sure I have all my data correct and organized before I just come out and tell you what I believe.
Regarding your question on Baptists vs. Presbyterians:
First of all, I am a Baptist–Fundamentalist Christian Baptist (but not KJV-only Fundamentalism if that means anything to you–if not, don’t worry about it). My church–and other Fundamental Baptists (Southern Baptists as well) do not believe baptism saves. Baptists who hold to the Bible teach that baptism is a picture of salvation and renewal of live and should be practiced after conversion as an ordinance–just as communion is practiced as an ordinance after salvation. Baptism, therefore is interpreted as an act of obedience–not a means of Salvation.
Regarding Presbyterianism: One of my closest friends is Presbyterian–Fundamentalist Presbyterian. She is no less “saved” than I because of a difference of doctrinal interpretation on baptism. Her church practices baptism in two forms with two meanings. The first form–is the same as the above (the Baptist for as mentioned). The second form–the so-called “infant baptism” has more to do with covenant dispensational theology than it does with salvation. In other words–infant baptism is done to set a child apart in hopes that the child will be nurtured by the church and the Christian family and will accept Christ (this is salvation) as Savior. It can be compared to Baptist, or various other Protestant denominational baby dedications–but with the added doctrinal covenant which replaced the “set-apartness” of circumcision. Again, this all has to do with doctrinal interpretation–not salvation.
Again both my friend and I would call ourselves Fundamental Conservative Evangelicals. Our Protestant churches might have a difference of interpretation on certain Doctrines–but in both, the Gospel is not disputed between them.
Does that make any logical sense? Try to disassociate yourself from the thinking that Biblical and Historical Protestantism believes that baptism saves–because that isn’t true. Liberal Protestantism may teach that in some cases–but Liberals do not hold to the authority of the Bible.
As far as the verse that proves baptism to not be a means of salvation is Ephesians 2:8-9 (among others). It couldn’t be clearer.
A
adrift
Guest
These verses do not prove that baptism is not the means to salvation. It is by grace that we have been saved. How is that grace imparted to us? According to Peter, baptism saves. 1 Peter 3:21
G
guanophore
Guest
It is a relief to see so many misunderstandings in your reply. This means that, if you can stay here long enough, you will be able to learn that what you have been given to believe about Catholicism is erronous.
Did you know that the bible was not formed until 382 AD? Did you know that the whole faith was “extrabiblical” until Catholics wrote the NT?
I think it will be helpful for you to learn the history of your own faith, perhaps beginning with where the Bible came from!
If what you were saying were true, you would be right. However
The Roman Catholic Church believes the whole bible.
The Bible does not claim that it is formally sufficient. In fact, it claims the opposite.
- The Bible never claims to be a full compendium of the faith.
- The bible was created out of the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church
- The Apostles commanded that we keep the traditions, so to abandon them is unscriptural
This is actually good news. Since your lack of trust is actually based on things that are not true, it should be easy to amend.
The bible, however, cannot be infallible, because infallibility requires a person, who can act. The Scriptures, though Holy, inerrant, and inspired of God, do not have will, discernment, and the ability to make choices, and therefore, do not have the quality of infallibility.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Scriptures are materially sufficient. If you have been given to believe otherwise, you have been misinformed.
This is also a good sign. It means that the possibility for you to come home is very high.
Indeed, I think you represent very well that most objections to Catholicism are based in misinformation.
What brings you here to CAF?
C
Contarini
Guest
It isn’t a liberal-conservative thing, except in the sense that the more high-church variants of Protestantism tend on the whole to have larger liberal wings. Ask conservative Lutherans if they believe baptism saves–you will be surprised. And even among the Reformed, I have been roundly rebuked in the past by conservative Presbyterians for describing their position in the way you did above (in other words, separating baptism from salvation). One could argue that conservative high-church Anglicans are not really Protestants, so I won’t push that example.
Also, you have the phenomenon of the “Restoration” movement (Christian churches, Churches of Christ, etc.) The most conservative wings of that movement are the ones most likely to insist on the necessity of baptism for salvation.
It could be a lot clearer–if, for instance, baptism were actually mentioned in this passage!
You make the huge assumption that baptism is among the “works” being described here, or that salvation by baptism is in any sense salvation by works. This position might have some validity against the Restorationists, who see baptism as an act of obedience. (I say “might”–many scholars today would say that the “works” spoken of here are specifically works of the Jewish Torah anyway, but I don’t want to get into that debate right now.) But it makes no sense at all as a criticism of the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican/Lutheran (i.e., the traditional, historic, orthodox, Christian) position, which sees baptism as the means by which God gives us grace and not something we do to earn God’s favor.
In Christ,
Edwin
From the Augsburg Confession
Baptism is certainly salvific. All confessional Lutherans will agree on this.
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
1 Peter 3:21
Jon
T
Texasgringo70
Guest
While that passage might be convincing for a Catholic and liturgical protestants it probably won’t convince many evangelical protestants. Let me explain.
*1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, *
Most evangelical protestants would interpret “not the removal of dirt” to represent the physical aspect of baptism, so they would say that being physically baptized does not save. But “an appeal to God” is what the believer has already accomplished in the conversion process is the part that actually saves. Most protestants consider themselves to have already been baptized by the Holy Spirit prior to physical baptism, so the getting wet part is primarily symbolic, but still very important in ones public confession of faith.
While this interpretation is not universal amongst protestants it does cover a significant portion of them. I hope that helps your understanding. Perhaps LBKat can confirm that this is consistent with his and his church’s beliefs.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, this seems to be a consistent response. It does represent a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught, since they never separated the action of the HS from the water.
The notion of “public confession of faith” is also a modern innovation. Since Christianity was illegal for the first 325 years, all baptisms were done in secret, in caves with running water, or in remote areas. When this could not be done, pouring was permitted. Never was baptism used as a “public confession of faith”, since this would have resulted in the immediate death of the candidate.
W
workingman
Guest
Texasgringo, 1 Peter 3:21 does speak of baptism.
1Peter3:21; Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It is drawing the parallel with Noah’s ark and how he and his family were saved by the water and ark. Relate this to Hebrews 10:22.
Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water.
Just as in Col. 2:11-12 states that baptism mark of the new covenant in place of circumcision.
Col2:11-12; 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.
Finally Jesus himself states himself in Saint Mark 16:16;He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
One can believe all one wants but baptism is also required.
T
Texasgringo70
Guest
Oh, I don’t dispute you view at all. I was just adding content to the discussion and providing the evangelical protestant view of the subject. I just wanted to point out that no matter how compelling the argument might seem from a Catholic point of view it will most likely not be very compelling to an evangelical protestant.
Cheers.
T
Texasgringo70
Guest
It probably is a modern innovation. They are not very public today either. By public I believe it is meant public in respect to the church body. You would have a hard time getting a non-believer to sit through a baptism.
G
guanophore
Guest
You mean, as a spectator?
The other problem is that there is absolutely nothing in the Scritpture that references anything about a “public” aspect to baptism or it being any kind of witness or testimony to others, either in the church, or out. There are many references to the spiritual aspects and effects of it, but this is not one.
P
PRmerger
Guest
LBKat–while it was interesting to read about the doctrinal teachings of Baptists and Presbyterians, I don’t think Tantum was requesting a summary of their catechisms.
The question was: both of these denominations support their views* citing the very same Scriptures, *yet come to different teachings (i.e. interpretations) on this. How can this be? How can 2 different entities read the very same Bible and yet preach different doctrines?
That’s the question!
B
brb3
Guest
About 100 years before the Protestant Revolution. But, the Church recovered with the likes of St. Francis DeSales, etc.
Luther should of done his reformation within the Church … but he wished to leave and marry a nun, breaking his vows to Christ & Church.
In his later years … he saw his many errors.
Luther should of done his reformation within the Church … but he wished to leave and marry a nun, breaking his vows to Christ & Church.
In his later years … he saw his many errors.
- Status