Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...
(Tim) With Bishop Gene Robinson on their left and the Traditional Anglican Communion on their right, are there any Anglicans left who still affirm the Biblical doctrine of the Reformation?
A friend on the advisory board of Touchstone magazine, an ecumenical venture I subscribe to, writes: "Were this ever to happen it would be huge." He's referring to the rumored creation of another personal prelature, following in the Opus Dei pattern, of about half a million Anglicans from the Traditional Anglican Communion. The deal goes something like this: The Traditional Anglicans promise full submission to the Pope in exchange for the Pope welcoming them into full communion while holding their submission in his own hip pocket.
And what, pray tell, does that full submission look like?
It's not pretty. Specifically, they signed the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church stating by their signatures: "We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium, which we have signed, together with this letter as attesting to the faith we aspire to teach and hold."
Here then are a few excerpts from that Catechism indicating what they believe to be the most complete and authentic expression of the Christian faith at this time:
From the Catechism:
This: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God.... The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."
This: "The Church is apostolic.... She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.... The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, ...subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."
This: "The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection.... We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ..."
This: "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect..."
This: "This sacrament (of Baptism) signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one 'can enter the kingdom of God.' ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.' ...The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.... By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin."
This: "Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice.... In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory. Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.... ...As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God."
This: Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit
for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification,
for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of
eternal life. ...The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God
makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul
to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. ...No one can merit the initial grace which is at the
origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for
ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life,
as well as necessary temporal goods.
Hearing the howls of some of my dearest friends beforehand, still I must say I can't see how this is news. This step may well be unprecedented, historically. But theologically?
Not at all.
If Reformed Protestants have abandoned their opposition to Rome, why on earth would those my Dad gently referred to as "the smells and bells folks" stand against Mariolatry or hold on to justification by faith alone?
I'm just waiting for Emergents to get their personal prelature, too.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (17)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Abram Hess on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Shaun DuFault on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Jessica on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Rebecca Nugent on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
Comments
>If Reformed Protestants have abandoned their opposition to Rome, why on earth would those my Dad gently referred to as "the smells and bells folks" stand against Mariolatry or hold on to justification by faith alone?
For the same reason Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer did? The 39 Articles are quite reformed in their character but then they don't tend to hold much sway among Anglicans in this country. And as bad as Rome is in many respects they will have chosen better than the PCUSA which abandoned Christianity and the WCF for liberalism, which, as Machen observed, is a different religion altogether unlike Rome.
Hey - I like the smells and bells!
Just this week I had a deeply disturbing email conversation with two Roman Catholic friends about the requirements for a sacramentally valid marriage. That conversation brought back into sharp relief for me the works-based nature of salvation in the Roman economy. On the other hand, it seems if you have enough money or know the scret handshake you can get a dispensation for a remarkable number of forbidden or invalid things.
At the very least, the concept of the infallible magisterium seems to breed a sort of arrogance. Have the Orthodox ever forgiven them for that little matter of fiddling with the inviolable Nicene Creed?
Kamilla
As a fan of bells (heard several times during our Eucharist) and smells (wine, incense during prayers), I need to make this point: bells and smells, or their absence, are completely irrelevant.
There is a breed of ecclesiastical animal that claims the name "Anglican" for reasons that mystify me and which give every appearance of blatant dishonesty. The TAC crowd is among these.
All his hoo-haw about communion with the See of Peter is solved in an instant by simply repenting of their separation from Rome and entering (or re-entering) the Roman Church. What is the point of all this hewing and hawing?
The only thing I can figure out is that they want to deny their rebellion from Rome and pursue it too. To claim "We're in communion with Peter" while assuring themselves that they are, after all, something distinct from the rest of Peter's flock. Of course, keeping one's episcopacy (separate from Rome's) would be dandy too, for the leaders of TAC have their mitres double-stiched with steel thread to their scalps.
Blech.
You cannot be an Anglican in any sense and be a Roman. Cranmer's rewriting of the Prayer of Consecration is a textbook example of in-your-face Protestantism against late Medieval Catholic soteriology. If you jettison the Articles of Religion, you cannot be Anglican; on the other hand, if you confess the Articles of Religion, you cannot be a Roman, for they set the English Church in blunt, uncompromising opposition to Roman dogma at any number of points.
I fervently hope Benedict strikes his deal with TAC and that this personal prelature results in all similar crypto-Roman folk among those who call themselves Anglican to climb aboard. It will rid the remaining folks who claim tne name Anglican from having to distinguish themselves from those who are some form of ecclesiastical chimera.
Bill, you and Kamilla are the best! Thanks for treating me with kid gloves.
And how you do write! Chuckling all the way through, I was.
Hey, maybe there is still hope for the Federal Vision and Bishop Wilson.
David,
How is "And as bad as Rome is in many respects they will have chosen better than the PCUSA which abandoned Christianity and the WCF for liberalism, which, as Machen observed, is a different religion altogether unlike Rome" made as a serious statement when they preach themselves, human works, etc., not Christ? Luther denied Roman Catholicism was Christian, why don't we? He stated the justification was the central doctrine of the gospel. Without that, you have no gospel: Rome teaches that it is by works, by their own self-declared (as opposed to all believers) "priests" administering grace, etc.. They do not preach Christ.
Kamilla,
No, most Orthodox don't seem to have forgiven Rome for the filoque; the more I here from the E. Orthodox, the more venom I see whenever this comes-up. Speaking of which, it appears that extra statement was a clarification against Arianism in Gaul, and it has a possible source even all the way back to Jerusalem (if we are, like Rome and the Orthodox, to put a lot of stock in traditions). The Orthodox protest over that little clarification seems to be more over politicking, anger that Gaul and the West didn't invite the eastern groups in over matters that didn't concern them, like world leaders incensed that other countries would dare deal with their own affairs, as necessary, internally. It would be like churches in America angry over spanish-speaking churches in spain making a modification to their statement of faith to fend-off the wolves in their particular context. It's pathetic, and what's hilarious is the Orthodox arguments about how this is the most damnable of all heresies are also pathetic, and consequentially lead to them ignoring or even denying scripture altogether that that bit can be demonstrated from. I know a couple Orthodox folk, and love them to death (don't think they're the type that poop themselves in anger over the filoque, either), but the politicking between these "churches" really makes me question them with increasing scrutiny.
Bill,
You've nailed the dishonesty, bravo.
GLW Johnson,
Why would you ever wish to poison the sheep with theonomy like the Federal Vision? Or am I missing something? (Too dense or unfamiliar here, maybe?)
>Luther denied Roman Catholicism was Christian, why don't we?
Men like Hodge and Machen disagreed so it must be possible to do so without being at the margins of reformed life. And I'd like to see an actual Luther quote that says that given some of the other things I've read that Luther had to say on the subject.
John
It's a 'Confessional' Reformed thing.
Moreover the Pope called all the world to the obedience of the holy church of Rome as to an holy state in the which they might undoubtedly attain salvation and yet after he had brought them under the obedience of the laws he commanded them to doubt of their salvation. So the kingdom of Antichrist braggeth and vaunteth at the first of the holiness of his orders his rules and his laws and assuredly promiseth everlasting life to such as observe and keep them. But afterwards when these miserable men have long afflicted their bodies with watching and such like exercises according to the traditions and ordinances of men this is all that they gain thereby that they are uncertain whether this obedience please God or no. Thus Satan most horribly dallied in the death and destruction of souls through the Pope and therefore is the Papacy a slaughterhouse of consciences and the very kingdom of the devil.
Martin Luther: Commentary on Galatians p379
Tim wrote:
"With Bishop Gene Robinson on their left and the Traditional Anglican Communion on their right, are there any Anglicans left who still affirm the Biblical doctrine of the Reformation?"
If you don't know about the Common Cause Partnership (http://www.united-anglicans.org/), a group of several Anglican denominations in the U.S. and also and Canada (I believe) with about 200,000 members combined. We are working together to develop a new Anglican province in America. We are probably the Anglicans you are looking for.
--Sue
Dear Sue,
Actually, I know about them, but here's a shocker.
This from Article VIII of the Common Cause Partnership's "Provisional Constitution:"
"The Province shall make no canon abridging the authority of any member dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as jurisdictions with respect to its practice regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate or presbyterate."
Then, these statements from the "Provisonal Canons:"
"Every Bishop shall take care that he admit no person into holy orders but such as he knows either by himself, or by sufficient testimony, to have been...."
"No person shall be ordained a Deacon or Presbyter in the Church until such person shall have...."
So what's with this word 'person'?
Well, you see the Common Cause Partnership is refusing to affirm the Biblical doctrine of sexuality. But this is our hope in North America?
Sorry, but I'm finding my prejudices confirmed.
Warmly,
Tim,
The other dirty little secret about the CCP is that the Archbishops who are ostensibly supporting it appear to be a bit peeved that things are going ahead without their approval. At best it will be a federation of everyone doing their own thing but claiming to be the single voice for orthodox Anglicanism in North America.
That's what my AMiA sources tell me. FWIW, neither GAFCON or the CCP will last a generation in my estimation.
Kamilla
It's not self-evident that the excerpts from the Catholic Catechism are wrong. It is only self-evident that they are not Reformed/Protestant. If you don't find faith alone in scripture, for example, then you wouldn't object to a statement that states the reverse. Catholics have very detailed reasons and scriptural support for their positions, including all of the above. It especially doesn't make sense to me to ridicule them for saying that the task of interpreting scripture was given to the Magisterium and Pope, and instead claim that it was given to each individual believer. There is no authority with the system of private interpretation, and way too much disagreement.
Pr. Tim,
You have put your fingernail on the boil that will necessarily pop to the dismay and disgust of the sorts of Anglicans you inquired about.
The battle over sex is the defining battle of this generation. S. M. Hutchens will be shown correct when he points out that because of the nature of the Incarnation, errors in anthropology inevitably and immediately provoke the most profound errors in theology proper.
Whether there ever again will be a significant strain of the English Reformation in the world -- and here I mean Prayerbook Anglicanism, not Presbyterian Puritanism -- is very much in doubt. It could happen. Our Lord has shown astonishing grace to errant Christians in the past.
But, not without their repentence. And in today's climate, the repentence required will be very, very costly.
Watch the best of Anglicans today on what they will do with ordination of women. That one issue settles all the others over time.
> It especially doesn't make sense to me to ridicule them for saying that the task of interpreting scripture was given to the Magisterium and Pope, and instead claim that it was given to each individual believer.
I don't think he's ridiculing those people per se, but rather observing the irrationality of signing on to those RC errors while seeking to maintain a separate identity from the RC. And by saying that it's "not pretty" it is because the errors he draws from their catechism are very serious errors and can have grave consequences.
>I don't think he's ridiculing those people per se,
Dear CJ,
David has it right, and I thank him for his comment.
I think ridicule is an honorable tool and has often been used to honorable ends in doctrinal controversy and instruction in salvation history, but in this matter, my quotes from the Roman Catholic Catechism were not meant as ridicule. I'm sorry you read it otherwise.
My point was simply to observe that signing on to such statements as these made it clear how far from anything Protestantly Anglican these men have strayed.
In Christ,
PS: As always, Bill demonstrates his character in owning up to the disappointments close at hand, first; and to warning day and night, with tears, of our departure from God's Word. He is one of the best shepherds I've ever known. Praise God for him!
I guess I'm not completely following the argument, because I thought Pr. Bayly was talking about a group that wants communion with Rome; then it would make sense that they would agree with the teachings of Rome. It just seemed to me that he was horrified by the statements he gave from the catechism. But we could have a long discussion about each one, and perhaps if we let the Catholics explain their positions, they would not seem so horrifying. The accusation of Mariolatry, for example, I don't see as following the statement from the catechism.
Fr. Bill: "Watch the best of Anglicans today on what they will do with ordination of women. That one issue settles all the others over time."
Both GAFCON and ACNA allow for some dioceses and/or provinces to ordain women.
As far as I know, the Continuers do not. But then again, the Continuers do not have the Canterbury connection.
John,
What does theonomy have to do with FV? You most assuredly are not trying to use a GBA argument are you?
Truth Unites ... and Divides wrote:
Both GAFCON and ACNA allow for some dioceses and/or provinces to ordain women.
I'm not sure about ACNA (never heard of it, actually), but CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) has always allowed individual parishes to decide whether they support ordaining women to the priesthood and the diaconate, ordaining women to the diaconate only, or not allowing any form of women's ordination. Parishes must agree to honor and respect those that don't agree with them on this issue to be part of CANA.
And Fr. Bill wrote: "Watch the best of Anglicans today on what they will do with ordination of women. That one issue settles all the others over time."
I realize that one example doesn't make a precedent, but what about the Diocese of Pittsburgh -- a very orthodox Episcopalian diocese that left TEC, but allowed the ordination of women?
Sue
>a very orthodox Episcopalian diocese that left TEC, but allowed the ordination of women?
A diocese that allows the ordination of women cannot, by definition, be orthodox.
Sue,
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with David Gray. the "ordination" of women to the priesthood has not part of orthodox Christianity.
Kamilla
David and Kamilla,
I appreciate your opinions on this issue, particularly since you're not a part of CANA, and it's nice to get views from Christians outside my denomination. We would welcome you and anyone that contributes to this blog graciously if you are ever able to visit us in the Columbus, OH exurb/suburb of Lewis Center.
--Sue
In the post above, when I said "we would welcome you..." I meant St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Lewis Center, OH. Of course, you could also visit my home, but that's not in Lewis Center .
Add new comment