Tags
Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, Church & State, church politics, controversy, history, Newman
It was, of course, the declaration of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, which was at the heart of Gladstone’s alarm; like many at the time – and since – he placed his own interpretation of those words based on his prejudices. If one believes that Catholics are mindless zombies under the sway of the Pope, then it is easy enough to see the word ‘Infallibility’ and assume the worst. In fact, the Council had agreed to a fairly circumscribed definition of that concept, and it was one in line with the practice of the Church.
In defending the claim to Infallibility, Newman skilfully trod a line between the boundaries staked out on one side, by the Protestants, and on the other by Manning and the Ultramontanes. A forensic exercise in Patristics showed up the Protestant claim that the Bishop of Rome’s pre-eminence was something unknown to the early Church. An examination of the history of the Faith showed that the State had always sought to exercise authority over the Church – and that Rome alone had resisted this – unlike Canterbury, Constantinople or Moscow. Thus, far from ‘repudiating ancient history’, as Gladstone claimed, ‘it is our fidelity to the history of our forefathers’, which was the real object of his attacks. Newman’s own personal consistency could be seen clearly: one of the basic tenets of Tractarianism had been its anti-Erastianism (Erastianism being the technical term for State control of the Church), and it had been, in large part, the undeniable signs of the submission of the Church of England to the State, which had pushed Newman (and Manning) along the road to Rome. The Catholic Church was what it had always been; Christ alone was its head.
Newman then took the fight to Gladstone, asserting that the Pope was the rightful heir ‘of the Ecumenical Hierarchy of the fourth century. Was it possible, he asked, to ‘consider the Patriarch of Moscow or of Constantinople, heir to the historical pretensions of St. Ambrose or St. Martin? Does any Anglican Bishop for the last 300 years recall to our minds the image of St, Basil?’[i] All the arguments from antiquity led to the same conclusion which was that: ‘We must either give up the belief in the Church as a divine institution altogether, or we must recognize in it that communion of which the Pope is the head.’ This being so, belief in ‘the Pope and his attributes’ was a natural part of being a Christian; there was, he asserted ‘nothing then of wanton opposition to the powers that be … [and] no pernicious servility to the Pope in our admission of his pretensions.’ [ii] Then, in a clever thrust to the heart of his message, Newman disowned any evangelical purpose in his argument: ‘I do not call upon another to believe all that I believe on the subject myself. I declare it as my own judgement’; [iii] and there was the rub. Newman’s belief was founded not on docility or servility, but on a personal judgement based on historical and patristic foundations; others were welcome to come to different conclusions – but none could claim that personal conscience was not an attribute of Catholicism.
———————–
[i] John Henry Newman, A Letter Addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk on occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s recent expostulation (1875), p. 26.
All Along the Watchtower 
Good writing, but there are a couple of preposterous claims in there:-
(i) ‘An examination of the history of the Faith showed that the State had always sought to exercise authority over the Church – and that Rome alone had resisted this – unlike Canterbury, Constantinople or Moscow.’
There seems to be some remarkably skewed thinking here, so it seems to me. What is this item called ‘the State’ that keeps being referred to, as if it is some sort of counter to ‘the Church’ and to be ‘resisted’? Rome didn’t resist Constantines erecting of the faith as official for his empire, so the claim made can hardly be true at face value. Not to mention the irony that the bishop of Rome to this day claims the title ‘pontiff’ with its clear origin in ‘pontifex maximus’, an office that in empire days was fully co-opted by those ruling the empire. Not to mention again Rome’s claim to be an overseer of the state by erecting itself over temporal rulers – there’s Unam Sanctam again – based, in part, on Rome’s claim to rule the lands (this is ‘the State’ once again) following its promulgation of the certainty of the forged ‘donation of Constantine’ document. C’mon!
In any event England has not really been Erastian, bar a couple of troubling cases – which Newman was right to have been worried about. The polity of the C of E has been to have been guided by the Spirit as discerned by Parliament. All rather approximate and imperfect, of course – but it has never been ‘the State’ directing the church. After the dilution of Parliament by those from a non-Anglican background, the Church Assembly was set up, and later the C of E moved to a better form of that ancient church governance of group discernment of the will of the Spirit through synods. Point at imperfections in the C of E’s history if you will, but that game works both ways as regards governance with all that popes in history have got up to.
Some claim that the C of E has clearly been Erastian since Tudor days, but I don’t really buy that – we do not live in a ‘Church vs State’ duality, but rather a world where one is to be incarnate in the other – something which seems yet to be perfected.
And in other ‘Church vs. State’ news today: http://www.ucanews.com/news/cracking-the-vaticans-culture-of-opacity-on-clerical-crimes/70247
(ii) ‘the belief in the Church as a divine institution’
Christ did not found the church of Rome, except in the narratives claimed by Rome. Even if one takes the Roman viewpoint that ‘Church’ pertains to the church of Rome alone, it takes a strong stomach to view that church as being divine as an institution with all the sin of those inside it (and inside all humans, indeed). Witness that link.
Lest there be doubt, I wish Rome well, seriously. However, bubbles of puff also need to be burst!
S.
LikeLike
Constantine did not make the faith the official religion of the empire, although he did stop it being persecuted, but that is a point of detail, because Theodosius did so, and your point stands. However, in claiming the ‘ponifex’ title, the Bishop of Rome was setting out demarcation lines, and from at least the time of Leo the Great, the Pope resisted the claims of both Emperor in the East and monarchs closer to Rome to dictate theology as well as ecclesiastical appointments. There was no Western theocracy on the model of Constantinople, which was the real home of Caesaro-Papism. The various Investiture contests of the Middle Ages were about the same issue, and Henry I, Henry II and John all found Rome an obstacle to their ambitions to make the Church an office of State; it took the eight Henry to get there. This is about lay power over the Church, and Rome resisted it more successfully than elsewhere. I don’t see what is preposterous in that.
I am surprised you would see England in the later seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as not thoroughly erastian. I do not deny the continuation of the Catholic tradition within Anglicanism, but it was very much a minority faction, and as the treatment accorded to the Oxford Movement and the Ritualists by the State (vide the 1874 Public Worship Regulation Act) showed, erastianism was the dominant force. Any Church which lets the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council pronounce on baptismal regeneration has, I should have thought, a fair claim to having the label erastian tied to it. It was not until the twentieth century and synod that the Church gaind aby self-government, and even then, as the defeat of the 1928 Prayer Book on the floor of the Commons showed, it was parliament and not convocation which regulated the public worship of the Church. So, unless you are making the somewhat surprising claim that parliament, which governed the church between the restoration and the twentieth century, was guided by the Holy Spirit, I find it hard to escape the erastian charge. Sir Rob Walpole as the instrument of the Holy Spirit – Jack Plumb would have been amazed; and I thought I was a revisionist historian 🙂
I am not in the least surprised that something that wishes to be a sort of super-state should think itself qualified to tell the Church what its attitude to abortion and contraception should be, and that it should think it can take on itself to decide who can and cannot be a priest, is precisely what I would expect. I would be interested to know whether you think a secular body competent to pronounce on such things. Still, I have no doubt the Syrians and the Ugandans on the subcommittee have much to teach us all on the matter of children’s rights and how to deal with young people.
Until the Reformation, most Christians were quite content to take the Petrine verses at face value. That was not, of course, true of Constantinople after 1054, but then like London after the 1530s, there might just have been a mite of self-interest in dropping the previously held views. Henry VIII’s defence of the Pope’s claims is very good. I don’t know if you have read it http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/kjb/bible_in_english/Reformation.shtml
I wonder what could have caused the great change in his thinking in such a short space of time? Was it: a) the Holy Spirit? or b) Lust?
C
LikeLike
Lay power over the church – but even the President of France to this day has the right of veto over French bishops in your church.
Rather like your views on Churchill being seen as heretical, I know my views here on Erastianism will be seen as such – and your reply, almost to the exclusion of the other points I made – has focussed on this. So I join your revisionist club!
I don’t know what your comment on Syrians or Ugandans seeks to make – I cannot fathom it, other than its appearance to be some form of jibe. It fails to make the mark, I am afraid.
Let me address the Erastian point thus though:-
A high view of theology is that we do not live in a ‘Church vs. State’ duality, even though historical manifestations may seem to confirm this. In the ultimate Christian hope of one perfected Body of Christ, there is no such division, so to say that such division today is truly real, and not a temporal construct, is not what we are called to have hope for. All are made in the image of Christ, howsoever imperfect, so, yet Sir Robert Walpole too. I have already conceded in my first comment that there were Erastian instances, which Newman was right to be wary of, but I do maintain that in general, a high view of the C of E is that it has not been Erastian in the sense of clearly serving un-Christian ends of the state – such as with the French revolution.
Seeing as your have opened the standard bottom drawer pop-up that RCs often reach for – Henry VIII – I think that point needs to be addressed once and for all. I shall aim for that in a post when I have commented on India, and on the matter of catholicity. The man was far from perfect, but RCs do like to put their hand into a glove puppet of him, conveniently forgetting the clear context of the time.
Now, how about addressing the other points I made: Unam Sanctam, donation of Constantine and the ‘Church as a divine institution’.
Unlike you, I am not a professional historian, so I do gain much from our to-and-fro. So thank you for engaging.
S.
LikeLike
Not a problem, not least because always a pleasure. As will have been clear long ago, I enjoy these sorts of interaction for the pleasure of engaging with the minds of others.
My point about the UN was that the report you mentioned had Syrian and Ugandan representative on it; I am not sure anyone would be minded to take advice on the welfare of children from either source.
On Erastianism, since the only authority that could pronounce on the doctrine of the C of E from Tudor times until recently was parliament, which, until 1828 was exclusively Anglican, I think most would consider the case closed; one might erect an argument that those splendid Augustan bishops were spiritual fathers first and peers of the realm second, but as my own sympathies lay with Bishop Ken, they should have followed him and refused to remain in their Sees.
I shall look forward to your explaining why argument which convinced Henry when he wrote his book failed to be valid a few years later – not least since Henry himself never renounced them.
Which leads, of course, to Unam Sanctam, also unrenounced. As I never seen any Catholic use it in the last four hundred years, I have no idea why the Church does not just say what is plain, which is that it addressed a particular problem at a particular moment in time and leave it at that.
On the divine institution, I take it you believe that there is a Church which is of divine institution, founded on the faith of Peter or of Peter? If so, then one church is that church. In the West until the Reformation it was always held that it was Rome; parts of the West renounced that belief because it suited them. That does not mean they were wrong in the first place.
On the donation, yes, a forgery, designed to justify a separate state which prevented the Papacy from being directly ruled by a foreign power in its interests. Not, I think, the first or the last medieval document drawn up to justify something which had existed from the time before written documents were common.
Does that justify it, no. Was the result better than having the Church governed by a Henry VIII figure, yes, I think it was,. We stray too close to Machiavelli there, but in this world where they give and are given in marriage, it is sometimes better to marry than to burn. Or do I mean that the children of this world are sometimes wiser in its ways than the children of light?
At any rate, until we find from somewhere men who like power and will also allow to God the things that are God’s, anything which avoids the fate of the Nestorians is welcome.
LikeLike
Of course England was thoroughly erastian in the 16th and 17th centuries, as were the American colonies, in large measure right up to the revolution. That’s what all the trouble was about. There’s not a whole lot of instances of religious wars in civil controlled societies. So were the German principalities, Lutheranism was consciously designed as a state religion, it was necessary and proper, in Luther’s mind.
I do think it was made worse by rapid swings introduced by the Tudor succession, than it would have had to have been, very strong monarchs and believer in their own sects, and a whipsaw effect, which had to be disorienting.
Passing that role to Parliament was, I think, a step too far, but given the times, what else could be done.
Henry? I think lust, want of a male heir, and the health issues that have been noted, both the jousting injuries and the possibility of Kell positive blood and its subsequent McLeod Symptom, combined.
LikeLike
Thank you Neo. Of course, I would think an Erastian Church a bad thing, but I am surprised that Struans does not make what might be called the Lutheran defence. From a Protestant point of view there is not necessarily anything wrong with such a view, and it is interesting that someone who is a member of State Church isn’t willing to defend the arrangement.
LikeLike
It’s a makeable case, I think, in theory. In practice, it hasn’t seemed to work overly well. The Anglican tent got so big as to have little meaning and the Lutheran church in Prussia got shoved unwillingly into a merger with the Reformed. I think the “Two Kingdoms” which was actually Luther’s preference, and the US model is better.
Of course Luther’s alliance with the state came about because of a (at least) perceived alliance between the Roman Church and the state as well.
I’m no particular fan of the Erastian Church either but do find it preferable (for civil reasons) to the Roman church (specifically the medieval model, though), but I find separation better still.
LikeLike
America has never made enough of its unique answer to the problem of Church & State – we could all learn from it.
LikeLike
I think you’re right, although it’s decided making strength out of a problem, because at the time of the Revolution we looked very like England. But it has worked out quite well.
LikeLike
The Founding Fathers had the advantage of seeing the mistakes made in England- and the wisdom to learn from them.
LikeLike
True enough, wise men they were, and a remarkable set of compromises to pull it together. If only politicians had that vision now, they seem rather unique, sadly.
LikeLike
I have always supposed that the common threat – George III’s Hessians – helped impress upon them the virtues of compromise. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, and I’ve always thought that it was the fact that they were Hessians, rather than British, made it far more real to them. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, true born Britons weren’t – and aren’t – fond of being threatened 🙂
LikeLike
We’ve seen that, and it is much to their (and our) credit. There are lines, and one is wise not to cross them, with both of our citizenry, as some have learned, and perhaps more shall. 🙂
LikeLike
I should like to think that Norman baron’s advice to his son holds still.
LikeLike
I think it does, that was a very wise baron.
LikeLike
I’ve always wondered what happened to that son 🙂
LikeLike
As have I, I’ve always had a suspicion that he might have been one of the leaders at Runnymede. 🙂
LikeLike
That would have been wise of him.
LikeLike
Indeed, if he was wise enough to follow his father’s advice, that is most like where he would end up.
LikeLike
Quite so.
LikeLike
Indeed.
LikeLike
Re Syria and Uganda, I now see your point, but it’s irrelevant to why I was drawing attention to that article. Do I detect that you are attempting deftly to swat away something of great concern, and something of great interest to our current Erastian discussions? The Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis was chiefly the area that I had hoped that you would be able to focus on in that article. Perhaps you might care carefully to re-read it.
As regards a link to Erastianism, let me draw your attention to the paragraph mentioning the millennium (approx) during which RC canon law used to hand over priests to civil authorities for further punishment, following conviction in church courts – something your church very recently decided against. Not much respect for tradition there, one could well conclude, amongst other potential charges.
The Erastian point being that, I say again, we do not live in this sharply divided world of ‘Church vs. State’ however much Rome likes to make that claim so as to build up its grandeur. Your point about England and Parliament from Tudor times to 1828 is similarly mistaken, and so not conclusive. You do take the point though, so it seems – as in a sense I am erecting such an argument about spiritual people in Parliament, but not just the bishops, but all the people through which God conducts his work. Of course – as I have mentioned already, I am not claiming this to have been perfected in England – far from it, but nevertheless it was not the case (except perhaps under Cromwell, and a few other cases) where the state directed the church for clearly its own ends. As for Bishop Ken, the whole point about the Glorious Revolution, and the historical suppression of Romanism in general, was about maintaining the Kings peace – i.e. security. It was not doctrinal (principally, as least) no matter how much hot-heads at various points cried thus. Witness the recusants who kept their heads down – the Howard family is a particular example. The defence of the realm was of such a concern, indeed, primarily because of the position of the church of Rome – not least with Regnans in Excelsis.
Let me ask the question: how does the church of Rome see our hope for the completion of the Body of Christ being fulfilled ? As far as I am aware, Rome sees that as being a vision for all of humanity to be their adherents, whatever faith they may be at present. In such a Body, would there be this ‘Church vs. State’ distinction? Let us hear the vision that Rome has for us all in this regard. How would Rome, if its faith prevailed to the extent on earth that it would like, see it exercising its claimed spiritual power if the vast majority of the temporal powers on earth were obedient RCs? I think we have one answer: look at medieval Christendom. Indeed, some rather odd attempts to convert those of other faiths that did come into contact with the Europe that was infused with medieval RC faith – such as just after the siege of Jerusalem. Of course, one cannot read too much into such events, but the picture is clear – there was not too much of an attempt to bring the faith to others – a charge that I suspect will be haughtily contested.
I shall write about Henry VIII – later. I have no illusions about the man, but the typical RC claims about his impact of the faith are often overblown. May I encourage you to watch the TV series on the Tudors made in recent years for somewhat of a flavour for the context. The faith of the church of Rome was sullied indeed by political power posturing and popish playing at piety.
As for a divinely instituted church, I will come onto that when I write of India. What was the Gospel that St. Thomas took to India indeed, when he landed in 52 AD, prior to those written Gospels that we know. Unfortunately, much of the history of the St. Thomas Christians was erased by the attempts of the Portuguese to Latinise and Romanise their faith. I was blessed indeed to visit Mattancherry, in Cochin – home of the Coonan Cross Oath. Certainly Christ did not come to found the church of Rome as it exists today.
The points I have made about Unam Sanctam still remain largely unaddressed, but I am thankful for your recognition of the ‘donation of Constantine’, albeit with a defence of Rome’s use of it that I find does indeed demand reflection – and that takes me back to the point I have made on Erastianism:-
What, looking forward now, not back, is Rome’s vision for building up the Body of Christ? One assumes that today it renounces the methods of old (wars waged by vassals). And how does Rome intend to deal with this question of ‘Church vs. State’, given its continuing claims under Unam Sanctam?
LikeLike
There’s a lot here. In terms of the church dealing with paedophilia, we’ve been no more successful than your church, the social services, the teaching profession and the media, so it is clearly not something which can be met with by any one organisation. The Church, like your own, has tried to learn from past mistakes, and I am not sure that this is a fit subject for confessional politics.
As I read the XXXIX articles there are also doctrinal points at issue, although, as ever, governments will use the issue of national security to justify discrimination; by the nineteenth century this was mixed with some pretty crude racism about the Irish, Spanish and other Catholic nations. It seems to me an inglorious part of our national story, and best that we admit it rather than seek to stick to old myths that it was all necessary because there was a horde of Catholics going to descend on us in 1689. The Reformation in England and Wales was a nasty, top-down operation which enriched the gentry, nobility and the Crown, and did little for the ordinary people, carried out with violence and extortion; it left its mark on the nation.
I have no problem with what you say about the St Thomas Christians, and would regard what my current church did there in much the way I regard what my old church did at the Reformation – zealots who thought they knew best erasing the legacy of centuries of faithful worship; being twice in glass houses, I am not throwing any stones; but then neither am I denying that there is more than one glass house. If you look at the history of the Anglican mission to the Nestorians in the nineteenth century you will see that the Romans were not the only ones to disregard other historic expressions of Christianity; indeed, pre-Curzon, the British record in India with regard to the native religions is quite similar. These are the usual signs of cultural imperialism – we know better than you do; we see it in the way Lambeth tries to treat Uganda and Nigeria over the issue of homosexuality, and when, as here, it is a live issue, it never seems quite as clear cut as the past always does.
The problem over Unam S is that no Catholic authority asserts it. It would be useful to know the last time any did; I have asked a couple of experts who are looking at it for me.
On Church and State, it will be dealt with as it has been across the last two thousand years, by Rome trying to draw the line and by the secular powers trying to push that line. There is no grand answer. The wars now are cultural ones, and here, Rome’s Christianity has more in common with that of the global south than many other models.
LikeLike
A comment in reply to C’s about about the State Church: Oh, but I do defend the C of E arrangements – establishment and all that. History has shown that there is a place for Christianity to be at the heart of the faith, incarnate – not ‘controlled by’ for its own interests, as I have already commented.
Let us look at the history of England when Rome was demanding money from English tithe payments. Financing its Vatican constructions from milking the people with the indulgence industry. Indeed, when the people did have a strong faith then, look how Rome treated them. One can say today that there is less of a threat from Rome, and indeed, our realm has tried and succeeded in emancipating RCs from the necessary security measures imposed. However, there is still a need for this model of embodiment of the faith. As I have commented at length above – what is Rome’s model? Especially with the new security bogyman of militant Islam.
LikeLike
I am sorry to see you buy into the notion that Rome ‘milked’ England, or that there was an indulgence ‘industry’, as these sturdy legends seem to escape all attempts by historians to show that they are just that. Eamon Duffy’s book, ‘Stripping the Altars’ gives the best researched portrait of the Church before the Reformation, and you will find nothing in it which supports these idea. That is not to say there were not instances of abuse, but when unless we take the Bosco route, that unless a church is pure-white it isn’t the church, that is one of those unchanging facts of life.
The current English model can, I think, hardly be judged a great success in spreading the Gospel, as by all accounts the UK is one of the most secular countries in Europe; our own Anglican vicar here now has seven parishes to look after and, like many clergymen I know, cannot really see the Establishment lasting much longer, as he can’t see its utility.
Rome’s model has not produced a ‘Gafcon’ situation, and it has lasted for nearly two thousand years, and I see no reason why it will not continue so to do. It has been encountering militant Islam since it really was extremely militant, and has no need to fear, as it has the promise of Christ that even the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. It has survived the worst efforts of Catholics during that time as well 🙂
LikeLike
No answer to that forward looking vision of Rome, I see. Well, it’s an issue that any man of faith would demand space for reflection on, so maybe later. 🙂
I have read three of Duffy’s books, they are on my shelves, including ‘Stripping of the Altars’ – I did not claim that England was ‘milked’, as you suggest.
If your yardstick is how ‘secular’ a nation is, then one only has to look at the church of Rome in France for a valid comparison – I’d rather stick with our own constitutional arrangements, thank you.
Rome and ‘Gafcon’: an absurd claim you make: let me pick the Old Catholics or SSPX or even your recognised fellow catholic Christians in the Eastern Orthodox communion.
S.
LikeLike
Before I am picked up on it, the ‘milking’ I referred to was an indulgence and not an England specific reference.
S.
LikeLike
Oh, sorry – I thought you replied to my long comment with your recent comment. Now I see that you are replying at some length. It’s difficult to track responses against comments. Sorry if some of my later comments have thus caused confusion – let me read your long comment now.
S.
LikeLike
Re your comment “there’s a lot here”.
Church and paedophilia: you pick up on a non point in my argument once again – that that matter was mentioned is really neither here nor there in what I was saying.
39 articles etc…. to what extent were these drafted by considerations of the state, other than a search for truth? Not a lot. Just like the bunch of people in Rome who search for truth. Are they Erastian, then? Did not your pope come to the UK last time on a ‘state visit’? Hardly the behaviour of one who wants to show to our nation what a wonderful pastor he can be to the world.
I don’t deny unsavoury aspects of our national story, but it’s hardly credible to suggest that if England had remained RC then it would have been milk and honey and fluffy bunny rabbits all the way up until now.
Re Glorious Revolution. You miss the point. Again. Let me use Yes, Prime Minister to illustrate the point…I think it was ‘The Grand Design’. So from memory:
Humph: “Bernard, what is the point of Britain’s defence policy”
Bernard: “To defend Britain”
H: “No Bernard, it’s to make people think Britain is defended”
B: “The Russians?”
H: “Not the Russians! The British!”
The point being that people were looking for security and safety.
What was the RC response to the reformations in Europe? Less “let’s talk”, more “we’re gonna get you”. And in England, those so-called “English martyrs” were made so because of Rome’s rather un-Christian approach to the situation – putting them in an impossible situation. And so the whole fear of Rome dragged on for years. Let us not forget the principles at stake too as regards the coming of William and Mary – the Bill of Rights came out of the affair too.
Re the Reformation in England being nasty etc.. I take this mostly to be a reference to the works of Henry VIII, which I will address separately later. However, the general point I refute as an absurd claim. The plurality of thought that the Reformations brought about in Europe led to the explosion of new knowledge, the renaissance and new science – beforehand it was Rome that claimed to be the sole authority as regards knowledge. It can hardly be claimed that the ‘ordinary people’ got little out of it all. In any event, where’s the counter case as a ‘control’ in your assessment? I think you’d struggle to put together a lucid argument there.
As regards the St. Thomas’ Christians and the English reformation, there is no direct equivalence, yet I agree that there are many things on earth that have been done and that we wish had not been done. You may not be aware that when CMS missionaries later came to Kerala, after the Portuguese had been kicked out (by the Dutch and then we kicked them out), there was a very welcome ‘Mission of Help’ to the St. Thomas Christians – the results of which are some beautiful liturgies of Syraic origin (and theology) that can also be sung with the English language of the BCP and the King James Bible. Almost sublime, I assure you.
Re cultural imperialism, Curzon and India: what’s your point? If you merely wish to equate the British Empire with the Anglican Communion, then I seriously ask you if you are feeling well. On the one hand us Anglicans are lambasted by RCs of a certain persuasion as being uncoordinated, weak, without the ability to follow through and a general irrelevance, yet on the other hand you now draw the parallel to the British Empire. Lambeth does not say “we know better than you”. I was fortunate two years ago to be at a seminar with the Anglican Primate of Rwanda, talking of all the issues, and his church’s growth and the difficulties of a large population of traumatised people following the genocide there – I did not get the impression you give. Where do you get your news from? Try the Anglican Communion news site, for one. Here’s a sample article or some relevance to your claims: http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2014/01/more-primates-issue-statements-on-lgbt-community-treatment.aspx
Re Unam Sanctam – this one seems to have been flogged to death. Yet I am assured that Rome will not “repeal” it, nor do such documents have any form of half-life – therefore the concerns remain, unaddressed. Except that if one does try to address them then it is suggested that I may be “anti-Catholic”. Perhaps I can suggest that I am a candid friend of the church of Rome, and certainly wish the universal church, of which I am part, well. I do look forward to your expert opinions though when they come through. Perhaps the matter can be put to bed then – in which case, good! Ecumenism, and all that!
Re ‘Church vs. State” you again draw a north-south line and refer to today. What if those secular powers are loyal RCs – what then? That’s the point from which might learn in this regard.
S.
LikeLike
Not quite sure what point you are making on the 39 articles? Mine was that they reflect real theological differences.
No one is suggesting that Jerusalem would have build in this green and watery land had she remained Mary’s dowery. However, if one examines what happened during Henry’s reign, and that of his son and one of his daughters, one sees a top-down seizure of church property for largely secular reasons. The Elizabethan poor law was a belated response to the loss of the network of monastic support removed when the church was nationalised. Was Rome’s response to this violence violent, yes, but the British do tend to forget where the violence originated, and, as so often, seem to find it surprising when others fail to see that they were motivated by nothing but the very best of motives.
My point about Curzon was that he was the first Viceroy to recognise the damage the British had been doing for more than a century to Indian heritage; in other words, the British had behaved quite as badly as their fellow Europeans had in Kerala; that was how we behaved back then, and it is invidious to suggest that the Catholic Church was alone in its cultural insensitivity. Curzon’s record here is admirable, as he took steps to protect and preserve India’s heritage.
As much of my news comes from Gafcon circles, it will reflect the reaction of those who do not agree with those such as yourself, I suspect.
In terms of Unam S, we are, I suspect, in agreement. My point is that I have never seen a Catholic deploy it as an argument; but I have often seen it deployed by those wishing to suggest that the Catholic Church is on some mission to rule the world.
On Church & State, I struggle to identify a loyal RC secular regime 🙂
LikeLike
Re 39 articles: you say that a group of Englishmen searching for truth (Cranmer etc) constitutes Erastianism. Yet the Roman magistirium (also aligned with a state) when it does the same is not.
Re Henry VIII (and Elizabethan poor laws), I will address later – however, let me note now that church property has been seized at various times in other places – e.g. Spain, France – so does that make the church of Rome today in those places Erastian?
Re Curzon – I never made a claim that the church of Rome was alone in its cultural insensitivity – heavens knows there have been oodles of instances when all and sundry make such errors.
Gafcon people: well, please share some of this news, so we can see the evidence that Lambeth is somehow imposing its will (or trying to) on others.
Re Unam Sanctam – let’s leave that, agreed, until such point as your expert friends come back with something more certain or interesting.
On Church & State: that’s not the point. I am seeking Rome’s intentions for the future – and I assert that if we look there, then it will be seen that there is no true duality, but rather a reality that reflects our faith, of incarnation.
S.
LikeLike
There is a clear difference between a theocracy, which is what the Papal States were, and a State where the Monarch and Parliament nationalise the Church; I am surprised it is a question you. There is also a difference between the confiscation of church property and having a parliament which rules on issues of theology; the latter is erastian.
Rome has ‘no intentions’ with regard to states! except it will continue to resist attempts whether by the British State to redefine marriage, or the UN on contraception, to persuade it to follow such lines.
LikeLike
I think you’re missing the point. The papacy is (was, perhaps) just as Erastian as the British monarchy, with a supreme governor for the English church (to leave Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, the dependent territories and the commonwealth realms out of it for a moment). That is to say that neither England, nor the papacy has been Erastian – yet there are parallels between the two. This may seem paradoxical at first, but in essence it is true. Let me explain.
The idea of ‘the state’ in control of ‘the church’ is an old one, and the ultimate cause of the increase in the political power of the Papacy. The Church under Constantine is the first example of an official established church. History is characterised by the church being under the control of a strong state and being independent at times when the secular power was weak or non-existent. St. Jerome as said: Ecclesia persecutionibus crevit; post quam ad christianos principes venit, potentia quidem et divitiis maior, sed virtutibus minor facta est (The Church firstly languished under persecution. After this, she turned to Christian rulers who gave her wealth and power, but she thereby grew weaker in virtue).
The power the church obtained from kings and emperors prepared the way towards the schisms between Rome and the Oriental Patriarchates, Luther, King Henry VIII and the Church of England, and the Old Catholics. The Church in Russia and the Balkans was subjected to imperial domination, a sort of cæsaro-papalism, and in the west, the rule was papo-cæsarism.
The first step of the rise of the papacy was the Gregorian reforms undertaken by Pope Gregory VII. The essential theory behind his reforms, which imposed clerical celibacy in the western church, consisted of affirming that the church was founded by God and entrusted with the task of embracing all mankind in a single society in which divine will is the only law; that, in her capacity as a divine institution, she is supreme over all human structures, especially the secular state; and that the pope, in his role as head of the church under the Petrine commission, is the vice-regent of God on earth, so that disobedience to him implies disobedience to God: or, in other words, a defection from Christianity. This, under Boniface VIII, who issued Unam Sanctam in 1302, became the two swords [for emphasis, TWO, and two SWORDS]. Both spiritual and temporal power were to be under the pope’s jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the church.
Now we understand the reason for the revolt of Elizabeth I and Henry VIII before her against the papacy! It was simple rivalry over who pretended political power, the local monarch or the pope as emperor of the world. This is the whole key to understanding what has gone on in the Christian world since the fourth century, but especially since the mid-eleventh century, which was – no coincidence – when, in 1054, the schism occurred between Rome and the Byzantine church.
As the power of the Papacy became extreme through centuries of weak kings and princes, that power went to their heads and corruption set in. How can there become a check on the pope’s power in such circumstances? Only through the use of the state. Yet, there then comes into being the parallel concern of the tyranny of the state over the lives of the people.
Erastianism is a political theory of absolute state primacy over the church, yet the origin of the term is a development, and not the same, as the original idea from Thomas Erastus, a Calvinist who debated whether religious leaders had the right to punish sinners and dissidents in matters of doctrine. He argued that sinners (against church precepts or morality, or those who for example denied the Trinity) should be punished by the state. This ties into matters of the law of the land.
Interestingly Roman law, as recovered in medieval times, and studied at the first modern university at Bologna, set up for this purpose, was not able to be established in England as common law from Henry II was already seen as better – and so this difference remains to this day.
So the English reformation, perhaps uniquely, as can be seen in retrospect, formed a church where the episcopate and clergy were kept, and where the head of state is, like with Rome, the head of the church. However, the head of state in England, whilst in essence having reserve powers in respect of the church, has always placed church governance elsewhere – with bishops, in parliament, or with the synods – where the will of the Spirit, arguably, is able to be discerned better – as I have already previously commented. Some may erect an argument about various parts of the history of England and the church, chiefly under the Stuart kings, but as I have already previously commented, again, that was about the security of the realm, and not, in essence, a matter of doctrine. Show me when the English church abandoned Chalceldoneon Trinitarian Christianity? It cannot be done. Show me when the English church became sola scriptura? Even with Somerset under Edward VI that was not the case – as the church went through a difficult period, establishing itself in the manner we know today, broadly speaking, under Elizabeth I. It was security from the threats of the papacy in Regnans in Excelsis that caused there to be a suppression of allegiance to Rome, but catholic faith continued in England, let us remember.
Now, I have not denied that there have been instances – very unfortunate instances – of pure Erastianism in England. Notably the Cromwellian period and the Gorham case. However, let us also recall that arguably there have been cases where Rome has been Erastian in that sense, with Unam Sanctam being the prime example – a grab of an increase in the power of the papacy over state affairs, for no apparent spiritual ends. How much effort, let us ask the question, did the papacy go to when analysing its claim over secular power as to how it was going to make its universal jurisdiction work all over the world? Not a lot!
So there we have it. C has claimed in his former comment that there is ‘a clear difference’, but it can be seen from my notes above that this is not so. C seems to imply that the British Parliament today has been Erastian with its recent laws on marriage. I have commented elsewhere on that affair with my views, but Parliament has not legislated for the English church, so there has been no repeat of Gorham.
I sense that the real point C wants to make it that the gents at the top of the Roman pyramid of power are all clergymen, whereas that is not the case in the English situation. However, whether those people are clerical or not when it comes to matters that are in essence non-spiritual, is somewhat of an irrelevance.
S.
With thanks to the author of The Anglo Catholic blog for lifting a lot of his text.
LikeLike
I do not think that the Pope is a secular ruler, therefore reject the idea that rule by the Pope is the same as rule by a secular ruler; your definition of Erastian must be coming from that new Jesuit dictionary 🙂
I am unclear why you think Constantine made the Church and ‘established’ one, he didn’t, he simply made it a tolerated one, it is not until Theodosius, fifty years later, that you get an establishment, and then, as any student of Leo the Great will know, you get an argument between Rome, arguing that the Pope is not subject to the Emperor in Constantinople’ and Constantinople, where the Emperor tended to take a different view, but one he was generally unable to enforce as his writ seldom ran in Italy. It is a not uncommon mistake to see Gregory VII as the origins of this, but that stems for general ignorance about the history of Late Antiquity, which I think should be compulsory reading for all those interested in these matters.
So, the powers of the Pope did not stem from anything delegated from secular powers, they stemmed from generally successful attempts to resist the sort of thing Henry VIII did. From at least the time of Leo the Great, secular rulers had claimed rights over the church, and the church resisted, and it is that long context we should see Unam Sactam; we might also note that it failed because the secular rulers ignored it.
The Church of England chose to follow its tyrannical ruler, thus breaking a connection of more than a thousand years with the See of St Peter, and to compare a monarch with the successor of St Peter and claim a definition of erastianism which includes them both is surely to empty the word of any meaning?
The XXIX articles deny any transformation of the bread and wine, that is not the doctrine of the Church, and to describe the Mass is they do, well, if you think that is Catholic, your definition is one unknown to the church of old. Either the elements become in some way the ‘real presence’ or they are a memorial: those who hold the first have some claim to be Catholics; those who hold the latter are not. Which way does your Church face on this?
In terms of Erastianism – that is State control, it is definitional as to whether those in control are clerics or not.
Of course it is necessary to make a distinction between those things which are of Caesar and those which are of God, but if we always leave Caesar to make the final decision, we can be sure that God will find his sphere constricted. If you really hold that laymen appointing bishops (as was the case with your Church for centuries) and vicars to benefices is the same as the Pope or bishops doing so, then it seems to me you are lost in an erastian fantasy; to any catholic the difference is clear.
The idea, prevalent for centuries, that the occupant of Downing Street was the right person to tell the Queen who should be the Archbishop of Canterbury, is erastian, and that is not just a Gorham case here and there, it was the way your church was governed.
Thanks to the Oxford movement, there was a move against such blatant state control, and in the C20th synod was reconvened – but the House of Commons decided on what liturgy your church should use in 1928 – with Jews, atheists and Catholics all having a say. That would be within my definition of erastianism.
LikeLike
Re the Jesuit dictionary, I’ve already acknowledged that I can be seen as a bit of a revisionist on this one, but whilst I do stick to my guns in defending my own trench, I won’t be making a scorched earth effort here.
Suffice to say that if you don’t consider the bishop of Rome a secular ruler, then so be it – we will inevitably be differing.
I apologise for the error of mine, again, about Constantine and Theodosius – I lifted that text from elsewhere without correction.
Concerning arguments between Rome and Constantinople, you are no doubt better informed on this than me. I have on my shelves a book – as yet unread – titled The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, by an Orthodox scholar. I shall open it soon – indeed, I had intended to when preparing my comments to come on catholicity. If you were to care to offer a precis of the situation in a new post though, I would welcome that very much. I am somewhat doubtful though, at present, as to this claim of Erastianism as regards Constantinople, in the same vein as my defence of the C of E as regards England – but I am prepared to be corrected, as – as I said – I have not seriously read up on this part of history yet.
I don’t agree with your claim that to make the comparison I have re popes and English monarchs empties the word ‘Erastianism’ of meaning. I sense that a clearer way forward on this point of principle and understanding might be found not in adherence to that term (after all, it is today used in a way that Erastus did not mean it), but rather to have that ‘look forward’ that I have mentioned concerning the day when – in the hope of RCs – the Body of Christ is built up to the extent that there might be a Church interacting with several secular governments of loyal RCs. What then? How would the relationship look then? As I have said before, I see the matter as one of incarnation, with the duality of the two swords (according to Unam Sanctam) a false distinction in the true reality that we have of our Christian hope.
Re the XXIX articles, your claim is false. The articles deny transubstantiation, but do not deny, as you claim, ‘any transformation’ – therefore it is clear that whilst some have wished there to be a memorial, the articles conform to the view of a sacrament of real presence.
Re layman appointing bishops – really, this is an irrelevant point, it is not so much who does the appointing, but rather how the decision to select such-and-such a person is made. Is the decision made on spiritual terms, with the spiritual leaders involvement, or on other non-spiritual grounds. Let us remember that Rome has appointed bishops on clear non-spiritual grounds (even popes!), yet because that appointment was done by a cleric, you seem to be claiming that there is a material difference – I think not. I am not claiming perfection for the appointments to English sees in history, rather the claim I make is that, broadly speaking – Gorham et al excepted – the English church has not been Erastian. I also refute the argument, lest it be made, that there are so many exceptions to my non-Erastian description as to make the argument void. Again, the ‘control case’ for comparison is with the history of Rome.
The 1928 prayer book was promoted by the Church Assembly, and was – for a time – defeated by Parliament. I think you have now exhausted the limited number of cases to defend your argument.
One of these days I may list out the dabblings of Rome in secular affairs – I think you will find the list a long one.
So, again, how about that forward look – with Rome having secular governments with loyal RCs – what then? A duality, or incarnation – you have yet to address the point. I make the claim that England has attempted a limited incarnation, as has Rome – albeit that Rome and England have strayed over acceptable boundaries from time to time. Time for a union between England and Rome, no doubt, but then the ARCIC has been at that for years. And so we are back to the ‘who calls the shots’ thing once again.
S.
LikeLike
I suppose if you cannot see the difference between a bishop and a king, we are bound to differ; but that does not change e definition of erastianism. If you want a balanced view of the east and Rome, try Aidan Nichols’ book on that subject; it is very fair.
If secular forces appoint bishops and priests they do so for their own motives. Sometimes, as in the case of Becket, the king gets it badly wrong from his own point of view, but more often than not he appoints a Wolsey – even when Rome has the final say.
I agree that the XXIX articles can be read ambiguously, but that if the fatal weakness of the C of E. If you look at the reaction to Newman’s Tract 90, you will see the the Victorian bishops did not agree that the art lies could properly be read in a catholic way; still, not that church has moved even further from the Catholic tradition, these things are hardly relevant. The c of e is moving in its own direction! as is its right, but neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics can accept the ordination of women, so if one seeks the cause of continuing disunion, it lies with the Anglican insistence on confirming tooth e spirit of the age on matters of sexuality and definition of the priesthood and episcopate.
On 1928, the book was never approved by parliament. But again, given the ghastliness of all those alternative books, it hardly matters, as the general standard of liturgical writing is so low that Cranmer’ ashes must be whirling. The abandonment by the c of e of its great treasure! the BCP, was a fatal decision.
What will come out of the synod will be a church more and more centred on a small group of believers, which may be good for its spiritual life; its effect on the public life of England is negligible, and at some point disestablishment is inevitable. Perhaps little Milliband may seek to make some small name for himself here, should we be stupid enough to elect him?
LikeLike
There’s certainly a difference between a king and a bishop – I did not claim that there is not. However what happens when one has a ‘king-bishop’ (as with the bishop of Rome) making decisions about non-spiritual affairs. You seem to constantly avoid that point – the one about when there is no duality, but one with the other.
Re appointments, the papacy itself has determined whom they wished to be the king of various lands: by the crowning by Pope Leo III of Charlemagne, first of the Carolingian emperors, rather than a man proclaiming himself king. It’s not just kings who appoint bishops, but the other way around too. There is no clear-cut determination as you seem to be trying to outline.
You suggest that that the XXIX articles can be read ambiguously, this is “the fatal weakness of the C of E”. What about all those papal documents that can be read ambiguously – is that a fatal weakness too, in your view?
It has been claimed that there is no ‘half-life’ for papal documents, such as Unam Sanctam. Yet it would seem reasonable to me to state that such documents are to be interpreted in the light of the time in which they were written – which is, in general, how much of the C of E looks at the 39 articles. Yes, they have importance, but nevertheless they are a dated document. However, with Unam Sanctam, I am told that the document might as well have been inked yesterday, given that I have been told that it is still totally valid.
The C of E has not abandoned the BCP at all – it is still the primary prayer book, even with Common Worship. In any event, the evidence is that there has been no death of the C of E since the ASB came out. In any event, since the threats to England by the papacy have now been overcome – the people being happy with the security of the realm to allow a RC heirarchy in our lands – there is no need to have this forced conformity to a single prayer book, as is gradually being recognised. The C of E is strong and growing, with the open evangelicals and the liberal Anglo-Catholics working hand-in-hand to the glory of God.
What will come out of the C of E synods will be God’s will – the universal church is not just mediated through the bishop of Rome, so matter how much that embattled claim is re-erected.
You may label as negligible in advance what the effect on the public life of England a C of E synod may be, but we shall see. Disestablishment is not inevitable – indeed that is not, so I understand, even the position of your bishops in our land.
Re Miliband: this is where all right thinking Christians must band together and keep the red menace out. Just as Francis is right to think that it is to be regretted that Christianity is divided, so we ought not to divide ourselves at the ballot box, and keep the atheistic parties out of power, whatever the cost.
S.
LikeLike
and seeing as you suggest that the C of E will become focussed on a smaller and smaller number of believers, let me share some news just in:
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/07/roman-catholics-decline-england-wales/
LikeLike
In the UK – but then we are the Universal Church 🙂
LikeLike
Are we? How gratifying 🙂 Thank you.
S.
LikeLike
I thought the Anglican bishops abroad weren’t taking orders from Canterbury 🙂
LikeLike
You see, with us Anglicans, many of our family of bishops do pay heed to Canterbury, even though there’s no ‘reporting line’.
Whereas many of your family of bishops don’t pay heed to Rome, even when there is a ‘reporting line’.
🙂
S.
LikeLike
Whether they pay heed or not, it is Rome which sets the teaching. Remind me who does that for the Anglicans? 🙂
LikeLike
True discernment of the will of God is where Anglican teaching is derived – not from a pope of Rome selected on the basis of factionalism and Vatican politics in a winner-takes-all show-of-hands election. 🙂
S.
LikeLike
No factionalism then in the selection of Anglican bishops and archbishops? We all seek to discern the will of God, the question is who has authority to pronounce where there is no possibility of consensus? Newman came to Rome on that issue, as I and many others have. maybe ++Rowan’s Indabas are a better way. We shall see one day clearly.
LikeLike
If there is factionalism, then so much the better for there to be a college of bishops, and not have an institution lurching back and forth according to the various whims depending on which faction occupies the position of head boy. Vicar of Bray? Pope of Rome! It certainly used to be like that. But it’s not like that now, of course, because for a long time popes of Rome have appointed those who elect the new head boy in a closed show-of-hands. So it’s become a club for those of particular opinions, perpetuated through time by the closed system.
First among equals? Of honour – I hope that can be restored, when there is honour due, and the power-laden current claims of the office of pope of Rome have been laid aside in a new reaching for authentic Christian faith.
S.
LikeLike
Your highly-coloured view is puzzling. I am unaware of these fascinating ‘factions’ you describe. Clearly, if you were even in the right ball-park, John Paul II and Benedict XVI would have been followed by a Pope in the same mould. You will, I am sure, have heard of Pope Francis, and if you could explain to us all how he fits into your Dan Brown-esque narrative, it might provide a moment’s amusement.
If you imagine a global church operates a ‘closed system’ despite the evidence to the contrary, no one can stop you, but the Anglican context within which your views seem to have been formed rarely offers the best one from which to understand the Church.
It would also pass the time were you to explain what is inauthentic about Pope Fracis’ Christianity, or indeed, that of his predecessors across the last few decades.
I see your own Archbishop wants you to engage with contemporary culture. Why did St Paul not think of that? How much trouble it would have saved – after all, his society was sexually permissive and multi-faith and multi-cultural and pan-sexual. If only St Paul had had the insight into authentic Christianity possessed by yourself and modern Anglicans … 🙂
LikeLike
You clearly have an issue reading the most simplest of texts. 🙂 I did say that there used to be a problem with factions. The examples are easy to find: the Avignon papacy issues, the ‘pornocracy’ and all the rest of it.
Is it not fair to call the papal conclave a ‘closed system’? You seem to indicate that it is not. Yet, the previous occupant of the office gets to fill up the panel of electors for the office when he has left it. I think it fair to call that fairly closed – and I think most people would agree.
Now to the question of authentic Christianity. I refer, of course, to the principal issue with Rome – its claims of power. Christianity is closely tied to the issues of love, power, anger, fear and such like, as I hope you will be aware. Pope Francis has the appearance of being more authentic, and, of course, it is not me being the judge, but rather passing comment on what I perceive to be a common and valid opinion of the church of Rome. Why does it claim to be the one true church? It has constructed an elaborate narrative with all sorts of suggestible interpretations of history, mythology and philosophy – but incarnate faith is surely to be demonstrated not by the setting out of such claims – as if to implicitly label others as lesser – but rather to seen by actions in the world of Christian love. I read the magazine of, and I know some of the fathers of, the Columban Missionaries. They are good and true Christians. Yet not all of your church is like that – and nor do I claim mine is too.
Rome does change. Let me quote an example: the context is that of the ‘rites controversy’ and Matteo Ricci of the Jesuit mission to China, where new converts were allowed to continue to venerate their ancestors and Confucius, practices central to Chinese identity. When the Jesuits were later denounced by rival RCs orders, the Emperor K’ang-hsi issued an official affirmation that Confucius was only venerated as a teacher and not as a god, and that the veneration of ancestors was a memorial and not a divine service. Nevertheless in 1704 the Inquisition of Rome definitively stated that: the ancient Chinese were idolaters and the more recent ones atheists, that Confucius was a public idolater and a private atheist, and that such Chinese rites were to be forbidden to Christians.
Why recount this history? Because it is probably the weightiest of the numerable fallible papal decisions in matters of faith and morals. Only 350 years later, using the turbulence of 1939 (China was already at war) this definitive teaching of Rome was corrected – as always with Rome, too late and without admission of guilt.
So, it’s nice of Rome to take a look at that issue and change it. We’re still waiting for Francis to look at Regnans in Excelsis and Unam Sanctam. I’d happily enter into church sharing arrangements with RCs after some form of rapprochement – after all, we’ve got oodles of buildings in England, Wales and Ireland.
Oh, but it’s all so out of date. If that’s true and these are ‘dead letters’ then lets have that stated definitively.
And if not a start there on authenticity, at least repeal Crimen Sollicitationis – re this article I have linked to before: http://www.ucanews.com/news/cracking-the-vaticans-culture-of-opacity-on-clerical-crimes/70247
Why do people treat Germany differently to Japan when it comes to history? Because people trust that the Germans have truly repented. When it comes to Japan, there are question marks. Which one, in this metaphor, is more like Rome?
S.
P.S. and on Macaulay, are you not aware that he was a staunch defender of funding for Maynooth College? Indeed, he lost his seat in Edinburgh chiefly on this issue.
LikeLike
Yes, I was aware of Macaulay’s stand on Maynooth; when you have read his history you will see my point.
I think you have the usual Anglican blind spot on the Papacy; if you cannot see that a system where B16 is followed by Francis is not ‘closed’ then you can’t and there’s not much use continuing; you are determined to believe what you want and evidence is immaterial.
I am not sure who, other than QVO, has ever said Rome ‘does not change’; this King Charles’ Head of Anglicans is something else immune to evidence. Where has the Church said what you claim – that is that it does not change?
What does not change is the Apostolic deposit and the ability of the Magisterium to interpret it; only the Magisterium can tell us what is and is not orthodox in matters of Christian dogma. As it stands between Christianity and the descent into appeasement of the spirit of the age, I can see why you have problems, but it does not help your case to make statements which the Church does not make for itself.
I decline to follow your grotesque likening of the Church to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, as you would, were I crass enough to make that with regard to the Catholics burned by your own Church.
If you want a good and very detailed analysis of the complicated question of the church and child abuse, I’d recommend something more serious than an article. Try this:
http://popebenedictandclergyabuse.blogspot.co.uk/
The ABC is doing precisely the opposite of what St Paul recommended and adapting to the spirit of the age. I am sure that the Anglican Church will carry on encouraging ‘spirituality’ in that secular culture, and I wish it well, but I suspect within two decades it, like parts of the Episcopalian Church now, will be scarcely recognisable in terms of historical Christianity.
The wonderful thing about adapting to contexts is that when the context is secular, the result is secular; I should have thought even the current Anglican hierarchy could spot that one.
LikeLike
And so we continue – with a rather gentle fusillade. Certainly yours are nothing as to being under a the continued laying down of a barrage of fire. I recall being in the ‘Bombard Observation Post’ in the middle of the impact area of Salisbury Plain as a battery of guns laid down fire 50 yards in front of the meagre portholes with 5 inch thick laminated glass.
On the papacy, we shall see. The noise from many RCs on Francis’ election was that he is just as conservative as previous popes (within some band of tolerance), and it was just his style and emphasis that is different. I suppose it’s always possible that once someone becomes head boy, he throws off his cloak and transforms into the man he is truly meant to be, instead of keeping his nose clean with the hierarchy.
On change, do I not often hear the charge that Anglicans are innovating compared to the semper eadem nature of Rome? If by ‘Apostolic deposit’ you mean a deposit of faith that includes sacred tradition, then that does change – is not tradition something ongoing and open ended with today’s apostles of the church? If, instead you mean the deposit of faith of the first apostles, then even so – if there is no change in interpretation, why is there a need for your magisterium to interpret? I don’t disagree that the Way, the Truth and the Life is eternal, but it is rather how humans apprehend it that changes. Certainly the nature of the magisterium has changed, with Romes leaps and bounds to claim this definitive interpretive role solely for its own clique tied closely to the papacy.
As for Germany and Japan, I did no such thing in likening the church of Rome to Nazi Germany or the Imperial Japan – another of your clear ability to mis-read the comments of others and read them according to your imagined interpretations. I referred to the history of Germany and the history of Japan and how people today view present day Japan and Germany, and I suggested that, using this as a metaphor, not as a direct comparison – your church was more like Japan. Where is there the grotesqueness in that?
If one does seek to bring up Imperial Japan, then let’s look at that change of Rome in 1939 as regards the Chinese rites issue. Rome, so it seems, decided to use a fig leaf of a wartime consultation with the Japanese puppet Manchuko government (understandable at the time) to change its previous definitive teaching on the matter to the whole of China. Thank goodness Rome did change, but as usual, how the matter came about was distasteful, particularly since the events in Nanking in 1937.
I do not doubt the goodness of Razinger with regards to his direct dealings on the abuse matter. Rather it is how Rome has imposed a recent rule on its bishops to keep all matters under wraps, and that is yet to be lifted.
Re ABC, not as all. The spirit of Truth, not of the age. I find your jibe about ‘adapting to a secular context’ laughable – presumably you use the term ‘secular’ to mean ‘not of the church’ as opposed to the different meaning of ‘out in the world’ and contrasted with ‘religious’. Did not Rome adapt itself to claim the title pontiff? Your thrust is very wide of the mark here, my friend. 🙂
S.
LikeLike
It is not always the case that one realises that analogies which come naturally to one reveal more than one might have meant to reveal. I think that comparing the Catholic Church of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan tells its own tale; that it may not be clear to you, does not mean it isn’t to others. I doubt you would find it palatable when discussing your own church.
B16s rule was designed to modify ‘SC’ and did so; but some people cannot let it go. My usual advice is that as there is no body which deals with children where this is not a problem, and where coverups have not occurred, it distorts our analysis of possible solutions by concentrating on one church. If you have been following events in Jersey and the Anglican situation there, you might sympathise – Peter Ould is an excellent source for this topic.
What no one seems to be willing to admit is what anyone who had any connection with those areas in the 70s knows, which was that a more libertarian attitude towards sexual matters made many ‘squares’ worried that they were being old-fashioned about sexual mores, and led to some quite dreadful decisions being made. When that coincided with the usual institutional desire to protect the institution at any cost, we got what we got.
I could cite examples from all areas of public life, not least my own. I don’t say it makes educational institutions as a whole guilty. No one has denied terrible mistakes were made and crimes committed and concealed. Those who imagine that the best way to deal with them is to focus on one body can, of course, do that. Quite how it helps I’m unsure. C
LikeLike
“analogies which come naturally to one reveal more than one might have meant to reveal”
Well, I might easily turn that comment back at you, my friend.
I did not compare the church of Rome of Nazi Germany with Imperial Japan.
I was making a point about repentance, forgiveness and suspicion. In that sense todays church of Rome was being compared with the general aura of Japan’s attitudes to its wartime record, as opposed to that aura as regards todays Germany.
I hope the matter is now clearer for you, and that you can see that I was not suggesting what you seem to have read into my words. 🙂
Having finished the Macaulay biography, I am now reading the excellent autobiography My Struggle For Freedom, by the eminent and respected Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung.
Kung notes that there was hope at VII for there to be a declaration of repentance by the church of Rome. Indeed, it was hoped that such a repentance would be a truly Christian act if the pope and Council were to express this truth: forgive those sins, and in particular the share of Rome in the sin of schism. Do you not think that there is an element of the mealy mouthed about the attitude of your church to this all? I’m not going to bang on about the repeal of Unam Sanctam, but look at your official Catechism, where (thanks to SF drawing this to my attention) schism is defined thus: “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”. So Francis carefully uses the term ‘separation’ instead when making overtures like this: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/02/we-know-pope-francis
Now, do I think Rome evil? Of course not. Overall Rome is a force very much for the good of the world and for the Kingdom. However it does have tendencies to power that are unhealthy, amongst other objections that you will be aware that I hold.
I see Rome as like an oil tanker, trying to change its direction after the ultramontane grip on its church which clearly has been a disaster.
Francis has in the past few days opened a new session looking, so I read, at teachings. Let us see what comes from it.
I am unsure of what you mean by ‘SC’…if you mean ‘Crimen Sollicitationis’, and Benedict has tried to make changes, then so be it – I am glad. I am not throwing mud at your church on the abuse issue, so there’s no need for defensiveness there, and I am aware of many similar shortcomings elsewhere, so there’s no need to point at the speck in my eye, were I referring to the beam in yours, which I am not. However, the point I wish to make about ‘CS’ is rather in the same line as other Vatican pronouncements: yes, let’s take Unam Sanctam and Regnans in Excelsis once again, and we can throw in Apostolicae Curae there for good measure.
I am told that there is no half-life to these documents, which remain, so far as I can see, in full force and effect. What really is my issue, you may be asking – am I not just banging my head on a wall down a cul-de-sac that no-one else wants to go?
Not so. Look, let us look at the law of the land in England. State law, therefore, as opposed to canon law. Maybe I misunderstand your church, which is why I keep banging on about these issues.
In English law, legislation, when amended, will be clear as to which laws have been repealed, which are not, and which have particular line items struck out, or altered in some way. As far as I am aware, this manner extends to that part of the law of England that covers ecclesiastical law for the C of E.
Ah, but teaching is not the same as law! Well, that is true. But I do not make a claim for the C of E that what its bishops teach one day has no half-life (to use that term loosely) Bishops teaching is to help shape the church. Yet for your bishop of Rome, there seems to be a different quality about many of his pronouncements: they are held to be in some sense definitive in a manner that is more akin to how state law operates than how teaching operates in the manner I have described. That is to say, something stands unless it has clearly been repealed.
So, if that is the case, where is the clarity over these many matters about which people in my church – and elsewhere – feel that Rome prevaricates over?
It is this prevarication, this sense of being unsure if they really are sorry and ‘mean it’, that I was referring to about todays Japan about their record in history. It is a similar sense to which I was referring to your church. I was, and make, no comparison whatsoever as regards Japan’s record and that of your church – that would indeed be grotesque. However, there is a valid comparison to make there, so it seems to me.
I hope this reply from me is less combative, as I really do mean to address the points you make. I would also like to learn more about your points on ‘squares’ and the other matters you refer to in your last two paragraphs of your most recent comment here – I am not really aware of what you refer to.
Wishing you and your church well, my friend. For all I have said about your church, I do care for it, which is why I offer candid criticism. I am a candid friend of Rome, believe it or not. Indeed, my church hopes to be reunited with yours, which is why we have a commission to look at all these matters. 🙂
Peace.
S.
LikeLike
Quite why the apologies delivered by John Paul II should be thought to equate with the Japanese attitude to repentance is one I have to leave with you, as for me it suggests the inadequacy of the analogy.
Dear old Kung. Not, I fear, entitled to call himself a Roman Catholic theologian, and hugely respected only by those who, by trying to claim he is a Catholic theologian, use him in the cause of sowing dissent and disunion. I think we know what Kung wanted, and why he is so sour about his old colleague Benedict XVI, as he didn’t get his way; his sin is that of Adam – pride, and he is a guide only to very poor Catholic practice. Again, you seem to have overlooked John Paul’s apologies, reinforcing my view that it would not matter how many things the Church apologised for, there would always be someone wanting more; if the intention of this brigade of Olivers was not so obviously polemical, its lamentations might carry more weight; as indeed would they if they included an apology for the sins committed by their own church. I wonder if Geoffrey can point us to the Anglican apology for the way his forbears were treated? Or would that question be more properly directed at yourself?
Thus ultramontane grip of which you speak, these would be those dissatisfied with the results of Vatican I? If so, that suggests their grip to have been somewhat less complete than the John Cornwells and Hans Kungs of the world would have you believe; if you take your history from such sources, it will come out tainted by what was put into it.
In terms of what documents remain in force, ye, as you acknowledge, this is a problem with which even the super-modern British State with infinitely greater resources is only just coming to grips. As we see how it works, perhaps we can learn lessons from it; until then, we proceed as we always do, in cases of perplexity we ask the Magisterium.
of course the successor of Peter will speak in a manner no lesser bishop can use, for on Peter falls the power to bind and loose. Other Apostles had such power, but I see no successors willing or able to use it. If your bishops are, as they claim, successors of the Apostles, they could always try acting the part rather than behaving like insecure middle managers.
The hopes to which you refer were once mine, but the Anglican deliberately and with full knowledge of the consequences, went off, unilaterally in ways which nether the Catholic nor the Orthodox Churches can follow, so I fear I look at such ind hopes as illusory; actions have consequences, and what the C of E has done with women ‘priests’ and not with homosexuality has widened a chasm between us.
Another former Anglican, Fr Longeneckers, expresses it better than I can here:
‘It’s not too difficult: For years now there has been a fundamental shift in what Christians believe. The shift has been from Christianity being understood as a religion revealed by God for the salvation of the human race to the idea that religion is a human construct–devised from a particular set of cultural and historical circumstances and that the use of religion is to make the world a better place.
Those who hold to the first view understand the Christian religion as necessary to salvation. To put it bluntly you can’t go to heaven without being a practicing Christian and you will go to hell if you are not a practicing Christian. In other words, religion is necessary. Big time.
The second view of the Christian faith is that because it is a historical, human construct which has the purpose of getting people together to make the world a better place, then it can also be adjusted to different historical and culture circumstances. Indeed it MUST be adapted to different historical and cultural circumstances if it is not only to survive, but do its work of making the world a better place”
My old Church seems on the wrong side of this development. It thinks it is going to lead to society accepting the Church; I think it is going to lead to the church becoming indistinguishable from society. Unless a man knows he needs the mercy of God, he has no reason to seek it.
LikeLike
And a further clarification:
“However, there is a valid comparison to make there, so it seems to me.”
I mean the comparison I make as regards repentance, not – I again make clear – a comparison about historical record.
🙂
S.
LikeLike
Re the apologies of JPII, I am not equating his apologies to a common apprehension of Japanese attitudes – I am drawing a parallel between those attitudes of Japan and those similar attitudes of your church – not a particular pope.
As far as I can see JPII did make several gestures, but yet the changes to documents are still not there.
Let me put it like this. Did the Unionists doubt the Dublin government whilst the Republic claimed as its territory all of Ireland? Yes. Now the Republic does not claim the North, but still can express what its people want with a documented ‘aspiration for unity’. Let me hope this parallel of Ireland works better than the Japanese one. Jesus used stories to express his meanings though 🙂
Re Kung, I think you are a bit harsh – cannot call himself a Roman Catholic theologian? We all know his position, but he still is a RC and is a theologian 🙂
As for sowing dissent and discord – my goodness me, is this a new call for a suppression of those who do not have approved thoughts? “Let them be quiet! On pain of…..”…what?
You also judge Kung’s sins, I see, and accuse him of pride, and of being a guide to poor RC practice. Well, that is your affair. I suggest you read some of his books though, if you have not yet done so. I can recommend the one I am reading for starters, with all of the history of VII that permeates it.
No apologies have been overlooked, my friend. You show me precisely where the points I raise have been addressed. If your view were not so reinforced, as you put it, perhaps we could get to the substance of why you seem to think that there is no case to answer with what I have put to you.
As for Anglican apologies, you miss the point. I don’t know if apologies have been asked for or given – but I am sure that if they were asked for, then they would gladly have been given. After all, as I have stated, the matter for many years in our nation was principally one of the defence of the realm from those connected with your church. Of course, hindsight can teach us much about that period that is to be regretted. However, you miss the point because it is not words of apology or the lack of them that makes the repentance distrusted, it is the very real (so I am told) claims of Rome that I have outlined that have yet to be rescinded. I don’t think the matter of resources is the cause of this current state of affairs – you seek to make that an excuse with your parallel with the British government and law revision.
Anglican bishops are insecure, are they? Care to give some evidence of this sweeping generalisation?
Now to the quote you give of another convert to Rome. As far as I can understand his summing up, he says ‘religion is necessary’ ‘Big time.’, and I don’t disagree, although I would like to add ‘good’ before ‘religion’ – a word to avoid bad religion, a label that I do not care to assign to your church – I have stated that I am a candid friend of Rome. However, this convert seems only to list two options in his analysis – which falls woefully short of reality. I am not in option two of his, and I don’t really fit into his description given for option one. Nor do I think a truer form of Christianity lies in the scope of these two options that he gives. If that is how he – and perhaps you – see things, then no wonder that there seems to be some raging, confusion and bafflement.
As for your final paragraph, you are – once again – wrong in your assessment of what is thought. I do find favour with your last sentence though, and heaven knows that most peoples lives offer ample opportunities to face the need to seek God.
Wishing you well, as ever.
S.
LikeLike
On Kung, his licence to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian has been withdrawn. There is a wide latitude given to Catholic theologians, Kung has time and again gone beyond it. It is as though I had constantly criticised my own institution and was then surprised at being told that it no longer recognised my right to speak as part of it; well, not quite, I would understand, Kung’s pride will not let him. If you regard telling someone who constantly criticises his employer than he is no longer qualified to speak on their behalf, as persecution, well, I would be surprised. I have read most of Kung’s work, and know people who know him; my opinion is partly formed by my reading of his works and public pronouncements, and partly from those who know him. He is a not uncommon type in academia, not least in his generation. A conviction of personal infallibility and an autocratic style combined with criticism of all other authority; such types have a dictionary without the word hypocrite in it.
I don’t see the parallel with Japan. The Japanese deny anything happened, we don’t. But if you want someone to go through every document ever issued by the Vatican and comment upon it, that is unlikely to happen, simply because there are other, and more important priorities.
On Anglican apologies, why is it necessary for someone to ask? Is the spirit of spontaneous repentance to be supposed to be confined to the Catholic Church?
Perhaps you can provide an alternative explanation to mine for the fact that your own successors to the Apostles fail to speak as though they had inherited the powers of binding and loosing? I am open to a variety of explanations for their inability to speak as though they were successors to the Apostles.
I think Fr Longenecker’s comments go deeper than you seem to allow. Geoffrey, in his usual manner, cuts to the heart of it when he asks what was the Atonement for? For me, it is to save us from the death which our sinful nature otherwise entails. We are faced with a radical call to repentance and self-denial; I, like so many others, fall too far short.
But yes, we all have the opportunity to do what we can in His name.
I reciprocate your own good wishes,
C
LikeLike
On Kung, I repeat that we know his position, meaning his treatment by your church. Why raise the matter of persecution? That is not a claim I made, yet I now wonder whether your turn of phrase here is a form of projection, and that there might be some truth in it – I don’t know.
However, given your claimed better knowledge of him than I – through your reading of his works and your academic contacts – I will not defend him against your stated position as regards his character. Your statement as to a common type in academic I am aware is true. I understand that research has shown such employment to be one of those where the proportion of narcissists is higher than society’s average – along with clergy and management roles.
Re Japan – they do not “deny anything happened” at all in a general sense. Some people do though, to be sure – and they are occasionally and alarmingly accommodated, as the relatively recent school history textbooks affair showed.
I am happy to confirm to you that I don’t want the Vatican to go through every single document that it has issued, and comment on it. Just the documents that I have highlighted would be good enough. You see, that’s why it is necessary for someone to ask – a question you ask as regards Anglicans – because it would indeed be onerous to comb through each jot and title of ancient and not so ancient archives looking for nuances that might be able to be objected to. 🙂 Whether your current pope has been contacted about this, I do not know.
On Anglican bishops, I am heartened to read of your referring to them as “successors to the Apostles” – and I am glad of your recognition of this. As to their alleged insecurity, you write of “their inability to speak as though they were successors to the Apostles.” Your generalised claim is without foundation – and is easily refuted by reference to this news article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/oct/21/comment.religion
You will of course be aware that the Abortion Act 1967 was a private members bill of a Liberal, and backed by the Labour government of the day – and you will also no doubt be aware that the majority of RCs in the UK, so research tells us, are Labour inclined, unlike with the C of E which still tends to be the Tory party at prayer. So your own bishops are therefore not doing very well at ensuring that some of your core moral teachings, such as with abortion, translate into voting for a party that will at least take the Christian case seriously. Not much binding and loosing there, it would suggest, by your bishops.
What was the atonement for? I don’t really know what you mean by that question. Perhaps you instead mean the Passion? As to the question of atonement, and where the Passion features in that, then generally speaking I am inclined towards that Christus Victor and moral influence theories, and inclined against penal substitution. As regards saving from death, it is spiritual death that our Lord wishes us saved from – and indeed atonement necessarily involves a radical call to repentance, so I agree with you there. I do not agree, however, that we are faced with a radical call in respect of self-denial: our Lord wishes for us to flourish, not to suppress our selves. He wishes that His Light fully shines through each of us. If you mean that there is a radical call to resist behaviour which is purely aimed at pleasing the self, then I do agree that there is a radical call to resist that.
Finally, let me concur with your last statement, and add that I perceive that I personally fall far short of the vision for flourishing that He holds for me in building His Kingdom.
S.
LikeLike
It seemed to me, on Kung, given what you wrote, that you were implying there was persecution, a common claim from HK and his friends. If you clearly teach contrary to what the organisation to which you belong believes, it tales chutzpah to claim it is persecution when they take away your licence to teach in the name of that institution.
On ancient documents, unless they are brought into play, it is usually best to let dead dog skeletons lie; but there will always be those who want to dangle them from chandeliers 🙂
On the Atonement, we are not far apart, but I don’t find the Christus Victor argument covers all the angles, so to speak.
Anglican bishops speaking like the Apostles is good, and one day it will be more than once every five years 🙂 C
LikeLike
The oath that Thomas More refused to take….I understand that he was essentially saying that he wouldn’t deny Unam Sanctam. That’s how it reads. There are so many sad parts of our national history. Alas, what can we learn from it though? One principle might be always to keep political ties to the continent loose, not firm. Whether they be to Rome or to Brussels. 🙂
S.
LikeLike
If the Tudor period is the last time it was that important – I shouldn’t be at all surprised. No one said it didn’t matter at the time – after all the Pope who promulgated died because of it/ I don’t know quite why Anglicans have a problem not realising that Kings ruling on religious matters of conscience and threatening to chops peoples’ heads off if they don’t agree, is not regarded by most Christians as a desirable model. But I suppose when you are the State Church and think it is your King making decisions which suit you, you get a different perspective?
LikeLike
Of course, England has developed then you know. Elizabeth I, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, Great Reform Act, etc… removal of England from the power of the King-Bishops of Rome. And all in all, when compared with the other European nations (is there any which has not shed Rome?) it was done without too much bloodshed, tragic always that that is.
How has the church of Rome evolved in that time? No constitutional monarchy there. Maybe if we get another pope of Rome bent on something or other he can chop someone’s head off. Oh, sorry – burn at the stake. That’s what happens when ones church or state is run with a human at the top who has no limits on his power. After all your church catechism still says that the death penalty is permissible in extreme gravity. Ought we to trust your church, and the quality of the people in it’s senior congregations? Have a read of this: http://www.ucanews.com/news/the-story-of-one-jesuits-battle-with-the-vatican/70358
LikeLike
And there was me thinking the Pope started as a bishop and was still primarily one; I must have missed that Anglican text-book which showed how he started off as a king; would he have had Babylonian antecedents? 🙂
That same book must be the source for the inaccurate idea that there are no limitations on the Pope’s power. Were he, for example, to suddenly announce that same-sex marriage was OK, but not for priests, not only would we all conclude he was incapable of making a clear decision, it would have no binding force on the church.
On Dupuis, I don’t know the details, but as the statement from the CDF makes clear, this is not a judgment on his work, but a statement of where it departs from Catholic teaching:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/vatican-notification-on-jacques-dupuis-book
I can appreciate that, since no one actually knows what it is the Anglican church teaches definitively, this would pose problems for you. C
LikeLike
It seems that your position on the teaching of bishops (whether Roman or Anglican) is that it is just comment, and definitive teaching is all that matters.
Well, how can it be that those who are, in the RC fashion of things, appointed by people who are themselves sinners and whose word, whose opinion, whose teaching, is, so it would seem, just optional?
Your pope has here (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100260643/pope-francis-opens-his-heart-to-protestants-were-into-new-territory-here/) been speaking to a ‘brother bishop’ who seems to be in some form of Anglican splinter group. Not very canonical that, is it? So this pope has opinions that are dodgy: that seems to be the conclusion. Indeed, QV would no doubt say more on that score. Yet, his opinion is supposed to be more certain when it comes to matters of appointing people to a body with claimed infallibility on matters of faith and morals. I really don’t follow the logic there. It’s not as if popes of Rome have a habit of looking for the best people for this claimed definitive teaching role. Basically, it all seems to be bishops who have served their time as priests, excluding those in academia who might be great on all the RC stuff, and excluding holy people who are not RCs – even those Orthodox that RCs claim to be almost the same as them in faith and morals.
Yet, as I have written to you before, faith and morals, even if definitive change: I pointed to the Chinese rites teaching that was definitive, and then changed, because – so it seems – of some whim of convenience.
Look at this link (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/02/14/marriage-must-be-built-on-the-rock-of-love-pope-tells-thousands-of-couples/) and it appears that your pope is redefining marriage as being not so much about procreation, but about love. Yet he’d not sat on his throne, so that can be safely ignored I presume. Yet his judgement is clouded, so it seems.
And at for your last pope, it seems, from the Dupuis affair, that Razi isn’t this wonderful teaching bod at all, with all the slackness that is described there.
The conclusion is that this claimed RC definitive teaching role is a sham and a falsehood.
As for Anglican definitive teaching – you know the answer. The faith of the church expressed in the catholic creeds.
So, it looks like you have a lot to defend there, my friend. What’s the next step forward for you on this?
S.
LikeLike
I am not drawing that hard and fast distinction – any more than the Catholic Church does; but clearly bishops can disagree on some matters, and, in the Catholic Church, there is a definitive authority! the magisterium.
Do you not find your own position somewhat compromised by polemic? Had the Pope not called this man by his own title, I suspect those of your frame of mind would have been saying this was small-minded and sectarian; when he calls him by the title he bears, you say it is uncanonical; heads you win, tails the pope loses. I don’t really find that helps us get anywhere here.
We are all free to draw from this what conclusions we like. If you wish to take QV’s sedevacantist view on this, or find it attractive, fair enough; I take the common sense view that the pope, like his two predecessors, is reaching out to other Christians, and find it something to commend – as I am sure that you do, when you are in less quizzical mode. I shall have to bow to your detailed knowledge of the make up of the Bishops and their background, although, apart from the polemic, am uncertain if there is a point you are seeking to make here.
You still seem intent on not understanding what is covered by infallibility; rites are not.
I am unclear why, polemic apart, you seem to be suggesting that saying marriage is about love is incompatible with the long held Catholic view that it is also about love. If you read though this pope’s opinions, you will see he is keen that love should lead to procreation – so he is fully in line with Catholic teaching on contraception and homosexuality; not all those who claim the title catholic are.
My, you are in polemical form tonight. Instead of acknowledging the very wide range given to those licensed as catholic teachers! you choose to impute slackness to the popes who let this happen; is it unkind and unworthy of me to think that had they slapped him down, you’d have cited it as an example of catholic intolerance and gone on a bit about the index of forbidden books?
I think we both know that your answer on definitive teaching shows there is none in the Anglican Church.
You really need to make up your mind as to whether you wish to quiz me because my church is too slack or too harsh. You are doing a splendid job of showing that those outside a church really do not understand it. C
LikeLike
And with yesterdays Cardinal Pell announcement, it seems that Rome is continuing down its Erastian road, with the combination of economic affairs of the Roman Curia and the Vatican City State.
Let us see how Francis combines all of the other roles that he may be changing in his reforms.
S.
LikeLike
A curious, but predictable reading. As the Vatican City State is designed to protect the Holy See from pressure from a secular ruler, it is hardly, as its UN status suggests, the usual polity. Oddly enough, when the Vatican used to allocate this to bankers, there were those unkind souls who criticised them; strangely enough, when they get a bishop to do it, there will be others who will criticise it.
There are times when one wonders why some Anglicans don’t realise that it is their own caricature of what the Vatican is which they are criticising; answers could fill books I suppose.
Schisms last a long time, but even though the Montanists and the Arians and others lasted hundreds of years, in the end they died away – it will be interesting to see whether Anglicanism follows suit. The Catholic Church, having survived these two thousand years and having Christ’s promise, will continue, and will offer refuge to all Christians who need it. C
LikeLike
Does not having one budget across Curial and State matters border on Erastianism?
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/02/25/3952288.htm
I do not criticise because either bishop or banker does such roles.
As I mentioned, when Francis’ other reforms come out, then we shall see which way things are going with more certainty.
I have no doubt that the church of Rome does offer a refuge to all who need it. Many upstanding Christians do not see a need for the church of Rome for their faith to flourish. Anglicanism isn’t a narcissistic institution that seeks to ensure that it lasts 2000 years or whatever, so whether or not it survives is neither here nor there. It is the building of the Kingdom that matters. SF commented something the other day that was quite similar to your suggestion: that the survival of the church of Rome is of the highest importance. I suppose that we can excuse that as not being the narcissistic impulse that it on first look seems to be – if one holds that the church of Rome is co-terminus with the Kingdom of God on Earth (indeed with the whole church catholic) then I suppose it is a passable desire in the circumstances – although an emphasis on God’s Kingdom, rather than Rome’s church, might have been more welcome.
Please do point me in the direction of one of these books about Anglican caricatures of the Vatican….if there is not one suitable, then it would seem that perhaps there is not much content. Or maybe no market – there can only be a limited number of RCs who delight in such imagined splendours.
As to bishops and definitive teaching, there is indeed a definitive authority in the catholic church – bishops in ecumenical council. That is why your jibe about there being no definitive teaching in Anglicanism is a shot that is far wide of the mark. Anglicans don’t claim to be able to issue definitive teaching for themselves and the rest of the church – whereas Romans do. How much liaison was there after the Great Schism with those so-near-yet-so-far Orthodox when it came to deciding upon definitive teachings?
Re what is covered by infallibility, it is not me that is intent on not understanding, my friend. If you had recalled what I have previously written on Chinese rites, you will have observed that the rites concerned are not church rites of worship, but Chinese traditional rites of worship, and whether Chinese RCs could maintain them or not. As you are no doubt less familiar with Chinese culture than me though, no doubt it is for me to apologise here for not making that clearer earlier to avoid the confusion.
Re Francis and marriage, you miss the point: is not Francis highlighting love as ‘the rock’ of marriage – i.e. true love the most important aspect of aspect of marriage? Of course, it makes sense to me, but it is interesting that he makes love a ‘rock’ in this matter – that of the utmost importance in marriage. Not church teaching. A subtle, but welcome difference. Or ought we to doubt the claims of popes of Rome when it comes to what they say about the importance of what is of ‘rock’? The claimed status of the bishop of Rome with a primacy of power does introduce some doubt here.
On the video, I was making no real opinion on the matter of my own, so your heads or tails win or lose analogy does not arise. The point I was making is that this matter is an example of many many situations where questions may legitimately be raised about whether we can trust the judgement of one man, a pope, in the matter of appointing people to a body that claims for itself the ability to issue definitive infallible teaching.
On Dupuis, the point made is the same: it raises questions as to the competence of your last pope.
Finally, whether on the state of my mind and my comments on your church, as I have previously said, I see myself as a candid friend of Rome. It is not out of a desire to disparage Rome that I make these comments, but rather to test to see if what seems to be questionable can be defended. As you will know, my church seeks corporate re-union with Rome, as well as with many other of our separated brethren. One has to try to understand the other fellow too – not least to assist in local ecumenical relations.
Out of interest, why do you criticise Anglicanism so much? It is to confirm to yourself why you left? As you have no real need to seek union with Anglicans, as Rome believes itself already to be the whole true church, and therefore there is not so much of an imperative to repair Christ’s Body, it has crossed my mind that there might be some truth there. Perhaps when you were assessing whether to pope or not those on the ‘liberal side’ of Anglicanism were loudly making all sorts of secular arguments, and you didn’t hear the others – I can imagine that to be true, and it is indeed to be regretted that that is often the case. Sinners are in all of our churches, and we ought to pray for all to repent together in my view.
S.
LikeLike
I think Erastianism goes somewhat deeper than that; but as you seem determined to insist on your own definition, I am happy to leave it there.
By what authority do you say these things? This is the question at the heart of our discussion. I see what the Anglican Church claims, and I was part of what it did; the two began to align so poorly that for me the question became pressing; the old, and sensible, reason, scripture and tradition became unbalanced in favour of modern reasoning about scripture which overturned so much that the Catholic Church upholds, that it seemed to me, and to many, that our Anglican church wanted to be something more like a cross between a debating society, a branch of social services, and a glee-club. Nothing wrong with any of those, but they were not part of tradition and not mandated by scripture, and when the church claimed it had the right to change the nature of the Ministry, that was enough.
It was perhaps over-sublte of me to expect you to get the reference to the ‘black legend’ which informs so much of what Anglicans say about Rome; Edward Norman wrote a very good book on it, which I commend to you; you will be surprised to see how much of it informs your discourse and that of Bosco, and even Geoffrey’s at times, although he appears to be mainly over it.
I shall deal with the other points in a post rather than prolong the comments box discussion.
C
LikeLike
Fair enough. I await your post. I shall look up Norman’s book too. I do note, however, that you have not responded directly to the facts on the flawed nature of Rome’s definitive teaching of faith and morals.
S.
LikeLike
Rome comments definitively on Christian doctrine – how could it comment on what non-Christians believe definitively? On morals, we allow a wide dispensation to scholars commenting. You use the old trick poorly – the old trick being that when Rome finally comes down on dodgy teaching, you cry persecution, and when it allows latitude, you cry laxity. You do so, perhaps, because you have an image of Rome in your head which derives from Norman’s sources and not from the thing itself?
LikeLike
Not at all about the Chinese rites. Incidentally, that change of definitive faith and moral teaching was highlighted to me by Kung.
What is Norman’s book title by the way please?
S.
LikeLike
I am not sure that I would trust King as a reliable authority, as he is not licensed to speak on behalf of the Church. As I say, in the Catholic Church there is authoritative teaching – and Kung has no authority.
Here is the Norman:
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Anti_Catholicism_in_Victorian_England.html?id=WiJDAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
LikeLike
I have commented, but WordPress has put my comment into the spam folder.
Can someone fish it out from there – I’m afraid that I don’t know how.
Thanks,
S.
LikeLike
I have done so, Struans C.
LikeLike
Many thanks! One hopes that you don’t think it was divine intervention that sent it there in the first place! 🙂
S.
LikeLike
Not at all 🙂
You will see have I have attempted to do it justice. C
LikeLike
Another excellent post on the Newman-Gladstone debate. One quick question though – is it true that the reason Papal Infallibility was ‘on the table’ at the First Vatican Council at all, was actually because of and (in a sense) in opposition to the Ultramontanes (i.e.; their overreaching claims for the powers of the papacy were what necessitated a carefully circumscribed definition, in order to set out its limits)?
LikeLike
No, interestingly, it was there because of the Ultramontanes, and there were many around Newman who wanted him to contest it for that reason. He claimed that if the Spirit really did guide the Church, the Ultra would not get what they wanted – and turned out to be right.
LikeLike
Ah okay – thanks for the info there. It is, as you point out, another marvellous corroboration of the claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. Something that cannot be said about Privy Councils or General Synod 🙂
Actually, reminds me of a medieval story from (I think) The Decameron, where two good friends, a priest and a rabbi, often spent their time debating points of theology, and after some time the priest became convinced that the rabbi was nearing conversion, and had in fact enquired about baptism. Just after this, he said that he had to visit some relatives in Rome. The priest, knowing of the loose morals and corruption amongst clergy and laity there, became consumed with worry, and begged his friend not to go. The rabbi however insisted that he must. He went on his way, and after a couple of months returned.
‘Well’, said the priest, ‘what did you think of Rome? I suppose baptism is out of the question now?’
‘Are you kidding?’ replied the rabbi. ‘The Church is completely riddled with conflict, corruption and scandal, and yet it has still survived for over a thousand years – it must be from God!’
LikeLike
I love that story – which is, of course, true. Nothing save Divine Grace could enable the Church to survive for two thousand years given the sort of people who often run it.
LikeLike
Pingback: Friends of Rome? | All Along the Watchtower