THE MCJ

I started looking for another place to sit in a pew. I've been to a congregationalist establishment (my 13 and 14 year old boys did not like it at all), and I've been to a Baptist church (the boys liked that better - the message delivered was stronger).

As much as the boys want to keep with a more liturgical style of worship, I am determined to keep away from all things Anglican (AMiA, CANA and the rest). RC not and option for me; and the others (Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, et. al.) are but a few short years away from what the Anglicans are going through now. The Orthodox church seems to be the only true liturgical option for us.

We'll keep looking. Eventually, with prayer and perseverance we will find our next church home. Bye, bye Anglican church (did I mention that my great-grandmother's maiden name was/is Temple, and my grandmother swears that we have some blood connection to an ABoC or two?). Oh well.

Institutionlism run amok. The Camp Allen principles and the Windsor bishops have demonstrated nothing more than institutionalism. No remonstrance to the destructive actions of ECUSA/TEC/GCC confirmed at the last HOB. Now this capitulation to that agenda which will last at best to the next GC when the same sort of nihil obstat will be given to the agenda which has destroyed the ECUSA/TEC and the Anglican Communion.

Alas, and alack.

Here's the bottom line: when these "network" bishops retire, it will become more and more difficult to elect a relatively orthodox person to replace him. Already, a principled objection to women's ordination disqualifies a man. It won't be long before a candidate will have to pledge "full inclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters" to get the needed consents. TEC is a homosexualist cult, folks, and cultists don't tolerate dissent.

Once again, the institutionalists have slapped the truly orthodox (Primates, priests and laity) in the face.

The Golden Idol of Process has been raised. All must bow down and worship it when the music starts!

Rome has reformed a good deal, but still teaches that there is punishment which Jesus did not take on the cross, and that you have to work off.

It still teaches that it, not what God has said, is the highest authority.

In fact, early in the history of the US, Orthodox Christians were instructed to attend Anglican liturgy for the sacrament if there was no Orthodox church in the area.

What in the world does that mean? Private interpretation has given us something like 30,000 denominations, mostly because large numbers of people are sitting around saying "this is what God has said", all of them referring back to the same Bible.

So, if "it" doesn't tell us what the Word of God means, then who does? Me? You?

As I said on the previous thread, this plan is an outright betrayal by the ACI and the so-called "Windsor bishops." (Allen Lewis)

This is not theology. It's an emotional response. I have recently visited Coptic churches in Egypt and ancient Orthodox churches in Istanbul. The icons are beautiful and emotionally compelling. I saw a fourth-century Mary and Jesus icon in silver, with the faces damaged but otherwise very beautiful. Then I stepped into an active Roman Catholic church in Istanbul. The first thing that met my eye was a large statute of Jesus with the exposed and raised heart painted red. Nothing like this is seen in ancient Christianity. I don't like it at all.

Catholics and bad taste really are closely associated in the popular mind, and for good reason. We are the original hoi polloi. There's used to be a store in Dallas (it may still be there) called "Catholic Arts and Gifts". We added "Bad" to the beginning of the name. If you are ever in Fort Worth, you should visit St. Patrick's Cathedral. It's cram packed with just this sort of art, although there are really a few lovely pieces (Sts. Anthony and Francis are lovely, in a Mexican sort of way).

As someone wiser than me has observed, an institution which customarily grants membership via infant baptism doesn't easily support an elitist aesthetic. The same Church that inspired the Pieta inspires plenty of Sacred Heart statues too.

We are technically within the boundaries of one parish but joined another (the parish boundary rules are not enforced in the South, where Catholic parishes are thin on the ground, and cover enormous tracts of real estate). Restrained and beautiful architecture (H.H. Richardson Romanesque Revival), statues in marble or in subdued polychrome wood (the latter look rather Germanic), absolutely gorgeous stained glass although in a 20th century style, church furnishings mainly saved from closed parishes in the northeast . . . it's all in excellent taste. And the music is primarily Renaissance polyphony, Gregorian chant, the French 19th century organ composers when the music director feels nostalgic for the Lyons Conservatory, and the good English 17th c. Catholics and 19th c. Anglicans.

Sound doctrine, Biblical preaching, and the Body and Blood of Christ . . . and (bringing up the rear somewhat shamefaced at being in such exalted company) Good Taste . . . all in the same place.

WRT my tacky comment on the tacky statuary at St. Pat's, Fort Worth, you have to understand that I came to that parish (for daily Mass) and found my eyes bouncing all over the place looking at the statues, windows, ornate stations, and even a couple of murals. It was BUSY. But in 2 or 3 years, I came to the point where my eyes could focus on the altar, where the Body and Blood are made - where Heaven comes to earth again. I'll always prefer the still simplicity of St. Mary the Virgin, Arlington, which is basically a concrete box, or the plain limestone of the Cistercian abbey church in Dallas, but you can come to appreciate the other end of the spectrum.

Of course, it helps to remember the great devotion of the folks who gave the statuary, who's souls were nourished by devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Little Flower (St. Therese of Lisieux), St. Joseph (my patron) and so on. Remember, always, that popular devotions are not the heart of the Catholic Faith. They are expressions, and, like all expressions, they can go over the top.

And, by the way, I suspect that were the Orthodox in the U.S. not a series of small ethnic enclaves that benefit from American fascination with the exotic, we might look at their art somewhat differently. I saw some vestments once...

Gosh if only the Catholic Church would stop letting those artistically challenged peasants in. Then we might attract more high and mighty types and get some real taste in our artwork.

The Catholic Church has done its best recently to stymie true art. Remember the uproar over that artistic renderings of the Virgin Mary. Just cause it was made of mosaics of pornography or elephant dung the Church got its garters in a twist. What Philistines. They can keep their tacky statues I would rather play in the sandbox of heresy than compromise my artistic standards.

Better a gaudy Sacred Heart than a crucis with a woman on it as was permitted at Saint John The Divine. At least the former does not smack of outright heresy.

By the way Eastern Rite Catholic churches also give all three sacraments of initiation to infants. Are they too tacky as well?

I suppose it must go along with why I am so Anglican. Viewed in its most positive light, in the thinking of the Caroline Divines, the Anglican experiment has been an effort to reclaim the faith and practice of the early centuries of Christianity in an English way. It was an effort to renew the church of the English-speaking people. Even for those of you who feel that it was an ineffective effort, give us the benefit of the doubt here. The Anglican experiment was heavily influenced for many generations by some very low-church and iconoclast thinking. It is therefore difficult for many of us to adjust to the various statues and images used in either Catholic or Orthodox worship. This is difficult even for people like me with an appreciation for the "one, holy, and apostolic" Church, rather than just a collection of sects. Arthur, I don't hate Catholics or "ethnics." I married one. However, it is far easier for someone like me to accept iconography and images that date to the early centuries of Christian devotion rather than those which developed much later -- that is, Orthodox icons and medieval European paintings have much in common, but Baroque and modern Western images (the Sacred Heart among them) are quite different.

That's an intriguing question you pose. I guess in the case of the Church of England, it was something the C of E was born with, what with the circumstances of its birth, the Armada, the Gunpowder Plot and all the other plots, real and imagined. Yeah, I know, it was 500 years ago, get over yourselves, which is quite right.

But the really interesting thing is that this attitude does persist on this side of the Atlantic, albeit in a different way. At the liberal TEC outlet I used to attend, there always seemed to be this implicit attitude of bemused contempt for the Roman Catholic Church but I wouldn't call it anti-Catholicism.

Because the Episcopal attitude toward Rome was nothing compared to the corrosive scorn directed toward people like Southern Baptists or Pentecostals. And you will not find too many more enthusiastic admirers of liberal Catholics than liberal Episcopalians.

In my admittedly limited experience, Episcopalians seemed to be contemptuous of anyone who deliberately refused to be Episcopalian. And even that was mitigated by whether or not you agreed with the Episcopalians even if you were officially a member of some other denomination.

Think of it like this. If you believe what the Roman Catholic (or Orthodox or Southern Baptist) Church teaches you, you're wrong.  If you're actually an Episcopalian even though you can take Communion in a Catholic church, you're fine.  In certain Episcopal circles, people like Joan Chittister are greatly admired. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are, well, not and never will be.

Hope this helps.

Alfonso, that statement would get you a stern warning by the powers that be at the Stand Firm blogsite. Sarah Hey and Greg Griffith are still content to remain in TEc under these conditions, and they would not appreciate you saying shame on them.

In my admittedly limited experience, Episcopalians seemed to be contemptuous of anyone who deliberately refused to be Episcopalian.

What goes around... comes around.

Liturgy is a blood sport for Catholics; a Catholic blog can generate 100-200 comments on a liturgy thread that would make an Anglican pale.

A little ecumenical book shopping is a good thing. I used to shop at a place called Dallas Books on Forest Lane at Central. I think it had been a Presbyterian place. And I have even been known to frequent the bookshop at All Saints Episcopal, Fort Worth.

Dr. Mabuse, you have a good point, and it's not what I meant.

I don't know if there's a theological point here, Athanasius Returns. However, the icons are one-dimensional stylized representations of theological and scriptural teachings. Each item in the icon, and the colors used, has a meaning, a teaching meaning. If you go to the museums in Europe, where the older decorations have been moved after being replaced by Baroque and later decorations, you'll find the same or very similar effects in the old paintings, and in the medieval stained glass. These are unrealistic theological presentations intended to teach concepts and point to the reality behind. This was, as I understand it, a way to use art but not violate the restrictions on worshipping images. The gorgeous statuary in St. Peter's has in common with the Sacred Heart statues the realistic three-dimensional representation of the human body (except for the heart, of course). As a troubled high-church Anglican, I am more comfortable with an icon which suggests the truth than with realistic statuary. Perhaps art historians and theologians, of which I am neither, could help us here.

Since its pile on Katherine day I thought I’d join in