Kathleen LundquistFIRING ON SUMTER
A formal Episcopal split may be a great deal farther along than anyone anticipated. According to Seattle's Roman Catholic Archbishop Alex Brunett, some Episcopalians recently approached Rome with an amazing proposal:
Just back from meetings in Rome, Archbishop Brunett revealed in an interview that Catholic officials have received a startling overture from Episcopalians who refuse to recognize Robinson.
"We were approached by a whole Episcopal diocese about coming into the Roman Catholic church, as perhaps Anglican Rite Catholics," Brunett said. He declined to identify the diocese.
Is there anything to this? It's hard to say. But it's difficult to see what motive Archbishop Brunett would have to make this notion up. After all, as the column indicates, he's been very active in interfaith affairs both in Seattle and other places:
Brunett has made ecumenical dialogue the touchstone of his 45 years as a Catholic clergyman.
He once was host for Jewish rabbis at a service at the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Mich., a church that was base for the 1930s anti-Semitic "radio priest" Father Charles Coughlin.
With aid from evangelicals, he fought back -- hard -- when King County Executive Ron Sims sought to prohibit large churches in rural King County, on grounds that churches cause urban sprawl.
Brunett was a mover in a landmark outreach to Native Americans, a pastoral letter by 12 Northwest bishops that decried the irresponsible damming, pollution and overfishing of the Columbia River.
And the Archbishop really wants to help the Anglicans settle their fight:
"I have respect for all people. I try to be very positive. I want to help the Anglican Communion resolve this issue. ... I really feel a mission, having vested time in this dialogue. I have devoted my life to this."
Whether anything comes of this idea remains to be seen. But it seems increasingly likely that a large part of the Episcopal Church has decided that it isn't going to wait for Dr. Williams' commission to finish its work.
Submitted by Christopher Johnson
at 12/3/2003 5:54:31 PM| It's that diocese's call, ultimately. Modern Episcopalians don't read the Thirty-Nine Articles and haven't for years. I imagine that people who don't care about the Thirty-Nine Articles and aren't bothered by any of that will stay with their old churches while those who are will find Protestant churches to join. 'Twas ever thus. |
Submitted by Duane
at 12/3/2003 6:14:01 PM| Is there a bulk rate? Some people will find that papal infalibility is an easier pill to deal with than actively gay bishops and same sex marriages. As a Catholic I can say with confidence that there are those who question papal infalibility. |
Submitted by Katherine
at 12/3/2003 7:41:48 PM| Very interesting. It would have to be one of the three dioceses still not ordaining women. Although why an entire Epsicopal diocese would join Rome when it might lead an Anglican renewal in this country, in communion with folks like Nigeria, is also interesting. |
Submitted by Al Kimel
at 12/3/2003 8:21:19 PM| For an entire diocese to swim the Tiber would be a remarkable event, and I certainly hope that it happens. Assuming they could secure an Anglican Rite liturgy, this would probably be the best way to save the beauty and grace of Anglo-Catholic liturgy and piety.
Regarding Anglican renewal under the leadership of Nigeria, well, I can't imagine that this improbable vision appeals much to Anglo-Catholics, like those in Fort Worth. As far as the 39 Articles, well ... they ain't no substitute for the Councils and the faith of the undivided Church. |
Submitted by Ken
at 12/3/2003 8:53:24 PM| The Anglican Use group on Yahoo is having an interesting discussion on this very topic.
For myself, in 1987, I stood before a group of monks and one Lutheran minister and professed words to the effect that I believe all the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God. In all these years, I've had many questions, and even more failures as a Catholic and a Christian. Never have I doubted the substance of that profession. Unless one believes that the Catholic Church is that Church founded by Jesus Christ through the apostles, teaching with the mind of God, preserved from essential error by the grace of God, exercised through the office of Peter's successor, one should not become a Catholic, no matter how corrupt one's church becomes. |
Submitted by mtk
at 12/3/2003 10:01:46 PM| 39 Articles . . . Tract 90
Newman does make a point that the Articles were pre-Tridentine, and that Trent did address a whole lot of problems that really were there. |
Submitted by I'd rather not say
at 12/3/2003 10:29:19 PM| As an anglo-catholic, I would say that a mass conversion to Roman Catholicism would be a catastrophe of the first order.
It is worth noting that there already is an Anglican Rite (known as the Western Rite) in communion with several Orthodox churches through the Antiochian Archdiocese. |
Submitted by alfonso
at 12/4/2003 12:45:09 AM| Tract 90 twasn't the finest moment for Newman. It is rather liberal, in fact, in its revisionist nature-both regarding the 39 Articles and the excessive right for Rome to develop doctrine. Papal infallibility is just one such revisionistic error.
Can one be "more catholic than the Pope"? All Orthodoxy thinks so, and so should traditional Anglicans. Rome, in its current state, is an unacceptable destination. |
Submitted by Al
at 12/4/2003 7:04:15 AM| For an Anglo-Catholic, Rome or Constantinople are the only two viable options. The decision to choose one or the other is not, for me, clear cut. Which one is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ? Both have strong claims. Both have weaknesses.
Orthodoxy's strength is its strong (Eastern) patristic rooting. The Orthodox churches really do experience themselves as in communion with the Fathers of the Church; they experience themselves as the Church of the Fathers. Holy Tradition shapes and defines their ecclesial lives. However, a question must be asked, Is Orthodoxy truly catholic? What I mean is this: When the Orthodox speak about Holy Tradition, they do not include the West in a meaningful way. This gets crystalized around the question of the status of Augustine of Hippo. Is he a saint or a heretic or something in between? The Orthodox aren't sure. The testimony of the Western Fathers rarely play any role at all in the articulation of Orthodox beliefs, and the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers. This became clear to me a year ago when I read an article by Fr Harakas on just war theory. He argued that Orthodoxy does not have a just war tradition--at which point I wanted to say to him, "How can you say that? Don't Ambrose and Augustine count as Orthodox Fathers of the Church?" It appears to me that Orthodoxy has defined itself over against Western Christianity in a way that borders on the sectarian. I for one am unwilling to call St Augustine a heretic. |
Submitted by Duane
at 12/4/2003 8:06:38 AM| The West (Roman Catholicism) does recognize the Eastern Fathers, such as John Chrysostum (sp?), whose homilies are still very relevant to this day. Rome allows the Orthodox to partake of Communion. I wish both sides could chill out and embrace what they have in common more than their differences, and not get bogged down in turf wars. It is sad that the Patriarch of Moscow refused to allow JP2 to visit Russia. I am a Roman Catholic who loves to study the Orthodox, their faith has remained strong despite Communism, wars, famine and other disasters. |
Submitted by Paul
at 12/4/2003 8:30:16 AM| Going to Rome was tried a few years ago in the C of E with much publicity about the ordination of women. Most came back. For me, as a Canadian, and a member of the clergy whose parishioners are infuriated (by and large) with the stance of ECUSA and New Westminster, and our own Primate's lack of leadership, we believe in, and pray for a uniting of Orthodox Anglicans across North America. We have noticed an increase in attendance and givings over the past couple of months as we made known our stance for the Truth. |
Submitted by Christopher Jones
at 12/4/2003 9:12:16 AM| Al,
Your characterization of Orthodox attitudes towards the Latin Fathers in general - and St Augustine in particular - is not really accurate. It is true that Orthodox are more familiar with the work of the Greek (and Syriac) Fathers than with that of the Latin Fathers. But it is not true that they regard St Augustine as a heretic. (Individual Orthodox may irresponsibly make such a charge; but strictly speaking one may not call him a heretic if he has not been formally anathematized.) St Augustine was duly canonized by the local Church to which he belonged, which was Orthodox at the time; so all Orthodox venerate him as a saint. They recognize his impressive intellect and his evident sanctity. However, St Augustine, like all of the Fathers, was not infallible, and there are aspects of his thought with which the Orthodox do not concur, particularly his views on grace and free will. (The Roman Catholics do not embrace the Augustinian view on this subject in its full rigor, either; it was left to Calvin to do that.) The difference between the Western and Eastern views of Augustine is due to the fact that Augustine dominates Western theology of his own time and for centuries thereafter in a way that no single Greek Father does. In the East the thought of any single Father (including Augustine) is read in the context of the entire patristic tradition, and judged by its consistency with the other Fathers; in the West, it is judged by the work of Augustine. That Orthodox theology is informed more by the Greek Fathers than the Latin is historically understandable; but to suggest that they do not venerate the Latin Fathers and appreciate their thought is simply not true. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Cyprian, John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and yes, Augustine all have their place in Orthodox patrology. |
Submitted by Fr. John Roddy
at 12/4/2003 9:51:55 AM| I am a priest of the Anglican Catholic Church. Just weeks ago we received our first diocese using the Liturgy of St. John Chrysotom. A Ukranian Orthodox Bishop and about forty-five parishes in and around Kiev. We consecrated bishops through the Old Catholic line and the Episcopal Bishop of Qunicy back in 1978. We have churches throughout the U.S. and South America as well as Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. We have kept a low profile and certainly for obvious resons other official Anglican groups pretend that we do not exist. Our Archbishop is The Most Reverend Brother John-Charles Vockler, F.O.D.C. and founder of that Franciscan order.
There are already Anglican-Rite Roman Catholics. They are categorized as private use chapels and are under the supervision of the Archbishop of Boston. They use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer liturgy except for the prayer of consecration. They are required to use the Roman formulary for that. The thirty-nine articles were a political document (Elizabethan Settlement)and now a historical one. Those thinking of becoming Roman Catholics need to realize that the American Church is only about two steps behind the Episcopal Church USA. Read the Newsweek accounts of how St. John's Seminary in Marland, and other RC seminaries as well,has been taken over by the organized homosexual political movement. According to Newsweek the Rector of St. John's estimates that 70% of the seminarians there are gay. He also is quoted as saying that this state of affairs is wonderful! When the current Pope dies fireworks will commence in the RC Church especially here in America. To learn more about the Anglican Catholic Church visit us at www.anglicancatholic.org. In Christ, Fr. John Roddy Rector St. Hilda of Whitby Parish, Anglican Catholic Church Atlanta, Georgia |
Submitted by Al
at 12/4/2003 10:26:03 AM| Hi, Christopher. I do not disagree with what you write, yet I am not yet persuaded. Rarely do I see an Orthodox writer refer to Augustine positively. Rarely (like never) have I seen a 20th century Orthodox writer wrestle with Augustine in such a way as to suggest that Orthodoxy must learn from him. (On the other hand, he is not infrequently cited as the source of all Western ills--see, e.g., Fr Romanides and Fr Azkoul.) I am not talking about uncritical appropriation of Augustine. The West has not been uncritical of him either, as you note. But Augustine was a theological and philosophical giant among the Fathers, yet he is only positively appreciated if he agrees with the Eastern Fathers on a particular subject.
Other examples: (1) Atonement. The Western concern with justice and satisfaction is regularly discounted by Orthodox writers as incompatible with Orthodox faith. (2) Grace. You mention this above. As you note, the West did not accept Augustine's double predestination; but it did accept Augustine's assertion of the sovereignty of grace for salvation, over against the semi-Pelagianism of John Cassian and St Vincent of Lerins (Council of Orange). Did the West enter into heresy at this point? (And why are some Orthodox urging the rehabilitation of Pelagius?) I guess what I am looking for is a truly cathoilic appropriation of the entirety of the patristic tradition, not just that part that agrees with a particular Eastern interpretation of that tradition. |
Submitted by Ed the Roman
at 12/4/2003 10:48:36 AM| The Orthodox certainly reject Augustine's teaching on the Papacy. |
Submitted by Wesley Newman
at 12/4/2003 10:52:20 AM| So, Fr. Roddy, does the ACC not accept the 39 Articles? Is a pre-'76/'79 Prayer Book in use, or the Anglican Missal?
Is the only difference between the ACC and Rome the issue of the primacy of the see of Rome? |
Submitted by Peter
at 12/4/2003 10:58:37 AM| Fr. Roddy wrote:
"Those thinking of becoming Roman Catholics need to realize that the American Church is only about two steps behind the Episcopal Church USA." Indeed. Wander over to Mark Shea's blog [markshea.blogspot.com] to read some of the complaints about blasphemous liturgical innovations, junk music, theobabble, prominent CINOs (Catholics in Name Only) who don't adhere to the historic faith, and general Laodicean tendencies that are rampant in many Roman parishes and dioceses in the United States. One would have thought they were talking about the ECUSA. Don't think the mere act of aligning yourself with a new body is going to solve all your problems. |
Submitted by Ken
at 12/4/2003 10:59:27 AM| Fr. Roddy,
Thank you for the information on your church. If I may offer a couple of corrective comments: no Anglican Rite exists at this time. You are referring, I think, to the "Anglican Use", which is an option within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. The parishes are categorized as "personal parishes", which means that only former Episcopalians, their families, and their converts may register. Naturally, anyone may worship with them and otherwise participate in parish life. These parishes are under the supervision of the local ordinary, with their priests incardinated in the local diocese, although the Archbishop Emeritus of Boston, Cardinal Law, does have a title and some assignment to them. Honestly, I have never known exactly what he does. With all due respect, I would submit that the Catholic Church is not only NOT a few steps behind ECUSA, we are walking entirely different roads. Healthy trees may yet have a rotted branch, and if you wish to speak of "the Catholic Church", you have to look to the universal reality, not the American reality only (which is, I agree, pretty rotten). There is not an iota of wavering in the Church's sexual ethics: from contraception to homosexual conduct, the Church teaches what the Church has always taught. However, it is worth noting that most of the abuse allegations, and many problems in seminaries pre-date 1992, when the Church began to seriously address the problem. It's not perfect, and never will be, but it is improved. My own diocese is rather badly infected, but my trust is in the Lord, who sees beyond the present and the local to the whole Church which fills the universe with His presence. Best wishes in Christ for the success of your church's part in the salvation of souls. |
Submitted by Jackson
at 12/4/2003 11:05:53 AM| Noting Father Roddy’s reference to the 39 Articles as merely a historical document, I have the following observations. Could someone please correct my thoughts?
I understand, perhaps incorrectly, that the 39 Articles were never formally adopted by PECUSA, *but* from the outset they were acknowledged by PECUSA as statements of the Anglican faith. At least one continuing jurisdiction (the REC) continues to adhere to them. The 39 Articles were first relegated to a “historical document” in the 1979 ECUSA prayer book. I also understand, perhaps incorrectly, that most of the WWAC continues to adhere to the 39 Articles as articles of faith, and that the part of the WWAC that is growing (including the African jurisdictions) still adhere to them. For example, Nigeria’s Canons refer to the 39 Articles as doctrinal: http://www.anglican-nig.org/articles.htm Similarly, the AMiA, overseen by the Rwandan House of Bishops with input by the Primate of Southeast Asia, also adheres to the 39 Articles: http://64.118.70.157/amia/resources_sub.cfm?id=3 Is it fair to say that only in PECUSA are the 39 Articles considered merely “historical” documents? |
Submitted by TM Lutas
at 12/4/2003 11:24:42 AM| I would suggest one research wrinkle for anybody who is interested in coming to full communion with Rome. I do not believe that it is absolutely required that you join a latin rite diocese. Since there is overlap between the jurisdictions, you can choose. Choose wisely. |
Submitted by Peter
at 12/4/2003 11:41:54 AM| I think the acceptance of the Articles of Religion was implicit at the founding of the PECUSA. This does bring up the essential conservativism in the Episcopal polity in the USA that held sway for about 150 years. To wit: this excerpt from the Preface to the 1789 Prayer Book.
But when in the course of Divine Providence, these American States became independent with respect to civil government, their ecclesiastical independence was necessarily included; and the different religious denominations of Christians in these States were left at full and equal liberty to model and organize their respective Churches, and forms of worship, and discipline, in such manner as they might judge most convenient for their future prosperity; consistently with the constitution and laws of their country. The attention of this Church was in the first place drawn to those alterations in the Liturgy which became necessary in the prayers for our Civil Rulers, in consequence of the Revolution. And the principal care herein was to make them conformable to what ought to be the proper end of all such prayers, namely, that "Rulers may have grace, wisdom, and understanding to execute justice, and to maintain truth;" and that the people "may lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty." But while these alterations were in review before the Convention, they could not but, with gratitude to God, embrace the happy occasion which was offered to them (uninfluenced and unrestrained by any worldly authority whatsoever) to take a further review of the Public Service, and to establish such other alterations and amendments therein as might be deemed expedient. It seems unnecessary to enumerate all the different alterations and amendments. They will appear, and it is to be hoped, the reasons of them also, upon a comparison of this with the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. In which it will also appear that this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require. -------------- As they say in the Virginia Slims ads, "ECUSA, you've come a long way baby." |
Submitted by Christopher Jones
at 12/4/2003 12:34:03 PM| Al,
On the atonement: the Western view of the atonement is not regarded by Orthodox as "incompatible with Orthodoxy," but it is regarded as one-sided. It's not that justice and satisfaction are absent from the Eastern view (far from it!), it is that the Western view focuses on it to the exclusion of all else - particularly to the exclusion of theosis, which is central to the Eastern view of it. On Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, etc: Orthodoxy regards Orange as a local council whose decrees have never gained ecumenical acceptance. I've never seen an assertion on the part of any Orthodox writer that the teaching of Orange is heretical (although I wouldn't be surprised if Romanides had said that; he's something of an anti-Western extremist in my view), but as a canonical matter it's not binding in the East (unless, of course, you accept the Papal claims). Of course, there's certainly a hint of hostility to Orange in the fact that John Cassian is venerated as a saint in the Orthodox Church, but by the same token the taint of semi-Pelagianism doesn't prevent the West from similarly venerating Vincent of Lerins. I'm astounded at the notion that "some Orthodox are urging the rehabilitation of Pelagius." (Unless they think somehow that Pelagius did not actually teach Pelagianism!) Pelagianism was condemned at Ephesus, and there's an end to it. I agree with you that what is wanted is "a truly catholic appreciation of the entirety of the patristic tradition," although in my (very subjective) opinion the Orthodox approach this more closely than Western Christians do. I agree that Orthodox writers should engage Augustine more substantively*, rather than rail at him as the source of all Western ills. But I also think that later Greek Fathers - particularly St Maximos Confessor, St Symeon the New Theologian, and St Gregory Palamas - deserve to be much better known and appreciated in the West. Both sides would be the richer for it. And there is a sense in which Augustine is indeed the source of some "Western ills," not in himself but in his more extreme intellectual heirs (I'm thinking primarily of Calvin here). It has been said (I forget by whom) that the Reformation was "Augustine's doctrine of grace rebelling against Augustine's doctrine of the Church." *Not all Orthodox theologians fail to engage Augustine. Have you read Lossky's discussion of Augustine's triadology? It's critical, to be sure, but fair-minded and substantive, in my opinion. |
Submitted by JonathanR.
at 12/4/2003 12:49:24 PM| "Those thinking of becoming Roman Catholics need to realize that the American Church is only about two steps behind the Episcopal Church USA. "
Apples and Oranges... The Catholic Church in the USA is not independent of the Vatican. The ECUSA doesn't give a hoot about the Anglican Communion. The next Pope will not be a Griswold/Williams clone. Even the most liberal papabile (guys like Godfried Daneels) would not even dream of consecrating an openly gay bishop, let alone allowing the Church to have relations with one that does. Oh and another thing...the bishops of the US are accountable to the Pope. The Pope and the rest of the worldwide Catholic Church can still salvage the rotting branches in the Catholic Church of the US. No such mechanism exists with the ECUSA. |
Submitted by Mark C.
at 12/4/2003 12:55:10 PM| Here is an Orthodox website proposing the rehabilitation of Pelagius as a misunderstood and maligned reformer who was only concemned by Ephesus under (presumably wicked) Latin influence. |
Submitted by Captain Yips
at 12/4/2003 1:10:46 PM| About the 39 Articles:
In the Henrican and Edwardian church, Abp. Cranmer clearly intended the Articles to be definitive. Had King Edward lived, the Articles probably would have become more Protestant as part of the Archbishop's gradual and deliberate Reformation of the Church of England. Ordinands of the Church of England are still, I believe, required to swear to adhere to their Articles. I don't find anything indicating that the nascent American Church made the revised Articles definitive. Bps. White, Seabury, and Company probably couldn't have imagined the need to do so, any more than they could have imagined Pike, Swing, Spong, Griswold, and Robinson. So it was probably a mistake not to make the Articles definitive. A specialist in the founding Convention (1801, wasn't it?) might have more insight. Re the original news item, I wonder if Abp. Brunett was accurately quoted, or if he understood whatever "inquiry" came over the transom. I don't know of any diocese in ECUSA where there's sufficient solidarity to jump the Tiber lock stock and barrel. Even in the very Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Quincy, that's a move that would leave many parishes deeply divided. A Bishop who attempted to lead his Diocese to Rome would possibly come under the Canon about publicly leaving the ministry of the Episcopal Church and be subject to rapid dismissal without trial; I forget the Canon, but it's the one Bp. Bennison tried to use vs. Fr. Moyer. In this hypothetical case, the use might be proper. The House of Bishops would then appoint a caretaker Bishop, invoke the Dennis Canon on property, and would win. I can't see this as a practical approach. |
Submitted by Deep South Don
at 12/4/2003 1:11:05 PM| I am a minister in the PC(USA), and we Presbyterians are facing in our denomination the same political dynamics that have led the EC(USA) to its present state of apostacy. The time is coming when we Presbyterians will have to face our own Gene Moment, rather sooner than later I suspect, though the exact shape of this moment is not yet clear. As an longtime admirer of Anglican tradition and worship, and as one who has long prayed for a rapprochment with our Mother Church, I for one would welcome an Anglical Rite under a Roman umbrella. I would, of course, have to bring my Calvinism with me, but what a glorious combination that could be! |
Submitted by J.
at 12/4/2003 1:28:40 PM| Deep South Don:
But isn't the PCA calling? |
Submitted by Christopher Jones
at 12/4/2003 1:30:57 PM| Mark C
Thanks for the link. I haven't read the whole article, but he does seem to think the condemnation of Pelagius was some kind of mistake. If he thinks an ecumenical council can err in a matter of doctrine, he's on mighty thin ice from an Orthodox (or Catholic for that matter) point of view. |
Submitted by Tim
at 12/4/2003 1:43:00 PM| "Those thinking of becoming Roman Catholics need to realize that the American Church is only about two steps behind the Episcopal Church USA."
Among certain factions this is undoubtedly true (i.e. many Jesuits). However, a new generation of young, orthodox priests and laity is rising within the U.S. Catholic Church, inspired by the contemporary witness of John Paul II. The future of the Church is not to be found among the aging leftists and their dead-end, fashionably cynical ideologies. Strengthened by the growth of the Church in the developing world, the influence of conservative/orthodox groups eager to live the high adventure of following Christ is rising. |
Submitted by Christopher Johnson
at 12/4/2003 1:48:22 PM| Judging by what I've heard and read, the Catholic Church is in little danger of an Episcopal apostasy(although, our enemy being who he is, one should never say never). I can, however, forsee a possibility arising in the Catholic Church similar to the one in the Episcopal Church. That is, an American church that is fundamentally at odds with the rest of the Catholic world(most of the rest of the Anglican world is, remember, completely orthodox). But I trust that that Catholics will profit from the Episcopal example and not let apostasy in. |
Submitted by Deep South Don
at 12/4/2003 1:59:17 PM| I hear you, J., and I appreciate what you seem to be saying. But Presbyterian worship in its various and sundry expressions really leaves a great deal to be desired when compared to the richness of historic Anglican worship. PCAers definately have PCUSAers beat when it comes to theology, morality, etc., but when all if said and done, we're both really just a couple of puny, little sects pretending to an importance that we do not possess. We all need to be tied back into Rome, even though that will be uncomfortable in many ways. Better to be a part of the Big Picture and work for change within the Larger Church, than to keep on doing our own little sectarian thing. The Church can benefit from what we bring to it, and we can benefit from what it has to offer us. |
Submitted by Bonnie Blue
at 12/4/2003 2:05:22 PM| I must be reading a different press then many contributors. It seemes to me that Governor Keating and many "prominent" Orthodox Roman Catholic leaders agree that almost 50% of the current Roman Catholic priesthood is homosexual (would that not include some Roman Catholic bishops?) Father John Neuhaus and Roman Catholic authors posit that the vast majority of American Roman Catholic Seminaries are controlled by the pink Mafia. How does this bode well for the future of American Catholicism?
As for the new "crop" of Orthodox priests, have any of you been following the scandals in the order of the Legionnaires of Christ? This Mexican based organization of super Orthodox priests controls many schools here in the U.S. Their members are bailing out left and right over the scandals within the order. Is this the face of the new orthodox Roman Catholic clergy? Looking to the American Roman Catholic Church as a safe haven for disaffected Anglicans seems to be going from the frying pan to a potentially large fire. |
Submitted by Ken
at 12/4/2003 2:18:30 PM| Christopher -
The Catholic Church in the U.S. is in a fundamentally different position that ECUSA to the Anglican Communion. The AC is a collection of self-consciously autonomous national churches. There actually is no "American Catholic Church". Each diocese is a local Church in communion with Peter. The national conference of Catholic bishops - or even a national plenary synod, should one be called - should not be confused with the General Convention of ECUSA, or any similar legislative body. As to the enemy, yes, he is powerful, but He who is within is greater than he who is in the world. If I may borrow a protestant voice here: Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing, were not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choosing. Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he; Lord Sabbaoth, his name, from age to age the same, and he must win the battle. And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us, we will not fear, for God hath willed his truth to triumph through us. The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him; his rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure; one little word shall fell him. |
Submitted by Rod McFadden
at 12/4/2003 2:34:05 PM| A somewhat peripherally related column from the inimitable Peggy Noonan:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/ |
Submitted by Bonnie Blue
at 12/4/2003 2:59:20 PM| Ken: If Catholic has a capital "C" then Protestant has a capital "P" Thanks for your future corrections. |
Submitted by Al
at 12/4/2003 3:11:18 PM| Good discussion going on here!
Christopher, an example of the Orthodox polemic against Western atonement theory is The River of Fire. On Orthodox rejection of Augustine, here's an extract from Fr Michael Azkoul's book. Perhaps these are idiosyncratic views. But what I have yet to see from Orthodoxy is the kind of sympathetic treatment of Augustine parallel to von Balthasar's presentation and evaluation of Maximus the Confessor. I would love, for example, for an Orthodox theologian to ask, "Why did Augustine get so upset with Pelagius?" and "Why did the West reject semi-Pelagianism?" I am not fond of Augustine's formulation of the problem, but I do think that he saw something crucial in a proper understanding of the Gospel--all is grace. How might the Augustinian intuition be explicated within Orthodoxy? It seems to me we must begin with Gregory Nazienzen's dictum "What has not been assumed has not been healed." Even our will must be redeemed in Christ; we must be reborn in our Lord's sacred humanity. And this, of course, is theosis. Thomas F. Torrance's brilliant exposition of the Eastern Fathers, The Trinitarian Faith, directs us along such a path. I remain convinced that the East needs Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great, and the East needs the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Confessor. Call me a romantic ecumenist. :-) |
Submitted by Captain Yips
at 12/4/2003 3:26:43 PM| The Anglican "Apostasy" newsgroup is carrying a fairly well confirmed story that the Anglican groups concerned are Forward in Faith/North America and Forward in Faith/Australia. Updates as I find 'em. |
Submitted by Kathy
at 12/4/2003 3:38:44 PM| I don't recall ever being shocked by anything Christopher has said, until I read the following:
" 'We were approached by a whole Episcopal diocese about coming into the Roman Catholic church, as perhaps Anglican Rite Catholics,' Is there anything to this? It's hard to say. But it's difficult to see what motive Archbishop Brunett would have to make this notion up." You mean that Archbisop Brunett's statement could be a complete and deliberate lie, although the reason for it might not be clear? I'm dumbfounded. Even what the despicable Griswold says isn't lies; it's just stupidity, error, and arrogance. JohnathanR is right. While we American Catholics are just two steps behind ECUSA's abysmal record, we have a strong root in Rome that is not going to succumb to Americanism. One of the main reasons I converted to Catholicism is the issue of authority. Jesus could never have intended the mess of divisions and hatred that have come out of Christianity. I read recently in this weblog that a sort of bishop-arbiter might be useful in times like this, but of course that power must be carefully circumscribed to avoid abuse. That is precisely the usefulness and definition of Papal Infallibility. In very precise and specific instances only, the Pope can rule infallibly on matters of faith and morals only. People who hate and fear Papal infallibility have not examined what it means. |
Submitted by Christopher Johnson
at 12/4/2003 3:58:31 PM| Kathy,
I certainly didn't mean to imply that it was a lie. I happen to think it's true. I just took the view that an ECUSA liberal might take, that it was nothing more than a Catholic bishop stirring up trouble. Which I certainly don't believe. |
Submitted by Ken
at 12/4/2003 4:39:15 PM| Bonnie Blue -
Actually, I type rapidly, and you err to assume ulterior motives. In a perfect world, I would have both substance and style down pat. I strive for the former, but often fail in the latter. However, I doubt that I would capitalize protestant, unless it were in the context of a proper name, such as the "Protestant Episcopal Church". That may not be correct, but it isn't an ecclesiatical statement. Speaking of errors, though: 1.) What scholars other than Fr. Cozzens posit a 50% rate of homosexuality among priests? Except for him, most figures I read (including Fr. Neuhaus, I think) set the rate at around 20%. Of course, neither rate addresses the question of whether a priest is chaste. A monastic once told me that about 25% of their community were homosexually oriented, but it was the heterosexuals they had to watch. Gov. Keating, who I respect for his take on the bishops' recalcitrance, is not a scholar, though he might have repeated Fr. Cozzen's claim. 2.) I think I've read all of Fr. Neuhaus' writings on the current sex scandals, and I don't remember him saying anything about a "vast majority" of seminary's being gay havens. Do you have a reference? Of course, everyone agrees some seminaries are infected, but "a vast majority?" 3.) Fr. Neuhaus has written about the Legionnaires of Christ, and fairly well debunked the allegations, which were, btw, investigated and dismissed in the 1950s. I don't know the disposition of the current allegations. I have met a young man who attended a the Legionnaires' school and he had nothing but good to say. Where did you read that they are loosing vocations? |
Submitted by Jackson
at 12/4/2003 4:54:01 PM| Deep South Don:
I appreciate what you're saying regarding the liturgical differences between Pres. and Anglo-Epis. But! Take heart: a good friend of mine in Texas is a PCA minister who has planted a PCA church with quite a few Episcopal liturgics. (He would have been part of ECUSA, had a bishop not warned him years ago of the future disaster that now is before us). There is liturgical hope for you, my friend. Jackson (layman in a very low AMiA plant). |
Submitted by Christopher Jones
at 12/4/2003 5:57:30 PM| Al,
I presume you meant "... the West [not the East] needs the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Confessor." And I heartily concur! I too could be called a "romantic ecumenist". I have no quarrel with the notion that "all is grace." The Orthodox explication of this intuition is to be found precisely in the thought of Maximos Confessor (the "Augustine of the East"), who shows how grace, far from being opposed to human will and human nature, is intended to complement and complete human nature and human will. The Confessor's profound understanding and explication of Christ's human nature and human will, and his application of it to a properly Incarnational soteriology, are (to me) the necessary complement to Augustine's doctrine of grace. I recommend Farrell's Free Will in the Thought of Maximus Confessor to explore this. It's precisely the Orthodox engagement with Augustine's thought that you're looking for. I haven't read the articles you linked to yet (I'm looking forward to it). However, I would in general caution you very strongly about authors such as Kalomiros (The River of Fire) and Fr Azkoul. They do represent one school of though in contemporary Orthodoxy. But they belong to the Old Calendarist, anti-ecumenist wing of Orthodoxy, and are definitely not in the mainstream of Orthodox thought. In fact, the Churches to which they belong (ROCOR and the Greek Old Calendarists) are not canonical Orthodox Churches. They are to the canonical Orthodox more or less what the SSPX and sedevacantists are to the Roman Catholic Church. (They themselves would condemn the "canonical Orthodox" as being nothing of the sort, and would condemn me (an LCMS Lutheran) as hopelessly heterodox.) That's not to say that what they have written is necessarily wrong; as I say, I haven't read it yet. But I want to let you know what is and is not "mainstream" Orthodox thought. Also, I would recommend that in addition to Kalomiros's discussion of the Atonement you should read Vladimir Lossky's essay "Redemption and Deification" (in his collection In the Image and Likeness of God). It's strongly critical of the Anselmian theory, but I think it's intellectually honest and well worth reading. |
Submitted by John G.
at 12/4/2003 6:43:24 PM|
Christopher writes: [[ I've never seen an assertion on the part of any Orthodox writer that the teaching of Orange is heretical (although I wouldn't be surprised if Romanides had said that; he's something of an anti-Western extremist in my view)]] That's one impression, but in some ways he talks in a way that echos Revisionists and Protestants too, so don't jump to conclusions. His position on Judaism as it relates to Orthodoxy has points of comparison to Bp. Spong's. Here's his anti-Western extremist stance on Lutherans: "Parts of the Reformation made a cleaner break with Franco-Latin Christendom than other parts and returned to justification by that faith which is the gift of the Holy Spirit in the heart. The recent agreement between Lutherans and Orthodox on the Canon of Holy Scripture and Divine Inspiration accepted that justification as gift of the Holy Spirit in the heart is completed in this life by glorification. This should prove to be the major step in the right direction, not only for the re-union of the Churches, but also for the elevation of a still developing Western Civilization." Is that raving anti-Western or just anti-Latin. There's a difference. There is a *side* of Orthodoxy that is anti-Western, but to that extent it draws near to a kind of Protestantism (unless, as you say, it is extremist). But Romanides is not an extremist. His opinion on Council of Orange is here, section 31 (he thinks its findings have been misinterpreted and misrepresented, and did not relate to "St. Augustine vs. St. John Cassian" at all) http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.03.htm#s31 Full works here: http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm |
Submitted by William in Texas
at 12/4/2003 7:31:06 PM| Bonnie Blue,
I am probably jumping into this discussion against my better judgment, but I, as a lifelong and very orthodox Episcopalian, am puzzled about people who have such an obvious revulsion against Catholicism. One does not need to agree with all of Catholic doctrine to appreciate the greatness of this Church, a Church that has been effectively and lovingly working for the salvation of souls since the first century A.D. There is a lot I could (and probably should) say, but I'm tired from a long day of work, and irritated as well, so I'm not going to. Protestanism, as we all know, has made vital and enormous contributions to the salvation of mankind, and has worked diligently to build up the Body of Christ. But please, try to be a little less hostile and defensive toward the Mother Church. I thank God for her. |
Submitted by Mark C.
at 12/4/2003 8:36:29 PM| To Fr. Roddy, Bonnie Blue and others who believe that the Catholic Church is just "two steps behind" ECUSA. At one level, this is true. Just read a few books like Michael Rose's Goodbye, Good Men or Donna Steichen's Ungodly Rage and you will have enough heresy and scandal to curl your hair. But what Catholicism has, which the Anglican Communion, and apparently the rest of the Protestant and even Orthodox world, is a means of taking care of these periodic messes in the Papacy. Even more importantly, we have the words of Our Lord: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." |
Submitted by Christopher Jo
What the 39 articles refer to as the "Romish doctrine of the worship of Saints and Relics" creates its own problems, no?
And then there's the asserted infallibility of a human being. Granted it's not invoked often, but a little of that form of heresy goes a Loooong Way.
You'll recall that a retired EC Bishop converted a few years ago with much public to do. What was less well covered what the return of the Right Reverend 'home' a few months later.