One reflection from all the fuss in the Catholic Church strikes me forcibly. It seems there are some Catholics who feel free to discard the teachings of their Church when they conflict with their lifestyle. I would guess there have always been, but what is new(ish) is the number who feel emboldened to say so, knowing, they think, that under this Pope they will not be slapped down. In what practical way these folk differ from some Anglicans, who can tell? They are, as Chalcedon commented here the other day, on the same spectrum – those who think the duty of the church is to adapt to our times. They are relativist on everything until it comes to their own views, when they are not; they will criticise as authoritarian those who quote the teaching of the Church, but their own relativism is a form of authoritarianism which allows them to exclude as ‘haters’ those who fail to comply with their own relativism. I suppose it must make a form of sense to them, although to me it looks like a form of cognitive dissonance.
I was struck, also, by a comment from David Monier-Williams who, in addition to managing to be even older than I am, is also (I think) the one cradle Catholic on this blog, and he wrote:
As a “Cradle Catholic,” I guess I put my head down, receive Holy Communion daily, say my Rosary do my meditation etc. etc. and leave Rome to the Romans. I have faith that it’ll all come out in the wash.
Which set me to thinking (or whatever wobbling with the brain is my substitute for it). Isn’t something similar what most sensible Christians do? As a humble Baptist elder, I can;t say I pay any attention whatsoever to what the Grace Union or whatever it is called says about anything. We are an autonomous Church and we busy ourselves with ministering to those here, spreading the Gospel word, welcoming folk to our chapel, and doing our best to cultivate a fellowship which helps all of us, and which is welcoming to everyone. We don’t mince our words, we preach on Saturdays with a banner which proclaims that ‘the wages of sin is death’ – as they are.
I wonder how meaningful the old denominational labels are now? I’m the last one to downplay doctrine – it matters and those who think it don’t have little fellowship with me. But I think I have more in common with an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Anglican than I do with a liberal Christian of any persuasion, and here I find myself about 95% of the time in agreement with my Catholic colleagues, as, I notice, does Neo. Neither of us (and Neo will correct me if I speak out of turn) have any desire to join the Church of Rome (least of all under this Pope), but what repels us is not the age-old Catholic faith, it is the liberals who infest that Church – and we encounter enough of them, I am sure, in our own denomination.
For my part, because we are a small local church, I confess to not being terribly worried about things that are too high for me. Enough to worship the God who made all things and whose Son died that I should live. To all those who believe the same, I feel a fellowship.
All Along the Watchtower 
Nice post.
LikeLike
Geoffrey, I agree with most everything you say here. What is fascinating, sickening, frightening and laughable at the same time is this thing called liberal, progressive, Marxist, Masonic and secular. I might place these folks in certain categories as they are not all the same:
First, the DENIERS: those who call themselves Christians and yet have jumped from the deck of the Barque of Peter to some worldly yacht and live life large as though it is a party or a flask of ambrosia to be drunk to the dregs. They believe nothing of the teachings of Christianity and rely on mercy and love to follow them no matter what they do or however far adrift they go. They rarely think of religion at all except as an inconvenience to keep up appearances.
Second, there are the HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO types: They try to keep one foot on the Barque of Peter and one on the fancy yacht of the secualr world. Their groins must ache by now or else they end up falling into the drink as the two boats invariably get further and further apart. They try to reconcile that which is unreconcilable.
Then there are the ACTIVISTS: who try to change the course of the Barque of Peter and work tirelessly to change its teachings. Their desire is that this ancient faith becomes modernized and indistinguishable from the secular world.
That it seems to me is what we deal with . . . along with the ever-present firing of shot from the political class, entertainment and media elites who (at the bidding of their satanic majesty) try to sink the Barque of old. It seems to me that we who actually are believing Christians ought not to keep any of the others in our pews. Seems that they should be taught outside of the Church and that we might want to elicit their fidelity before we invite them aboard. To those that already infected by these degrees of disruption there is always the plank to be walked.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There should be compulsory plank walking for some 😄
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aye, and keelhauling as well. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, you are correct, Geoffrey. In fact, it is something C and I have commented on as well, we agree 95% + of the time. You are also correct, I’m a Lutheran, and likely will die one. That doesn’t rule out changing synods, though. But here’s the thing, we have bishops, and even an archbishop, none of whose names I know, or care to. They are essentially irrelevant. My synod, the ELCA, is fairly close to the Episcopals here, and the Anglicans, in England. That has both plusses and minuses, of course.
But in many ways, it doesn’t really matter, when you move, you find a church that teaches what we have always believed. Sometimes you have to look for a while! And that’s essentially why I’ll not cross the Tiber, the hierarchs are too important (especially in their own minds). “The age-old Catholic faith” is very appealing, in fact, as is Anglo-Catholicism, but the old Lutheran services aren’t bad either 🙂
I can influence my local church to help it stay on track, I can’t Rome (or Stockholm, or even Canterbury).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have some questions if you don’t mind me asking, because I’ve always considered ELCA to be a fairly liberal organization and as I think the Missouri Synod would agree. I’ve read Christmas: Festival of Incarnation by Donald Heinz an ELCA minister and professor who had from the context a more liberal world view.
Doesn’t ELCA allow Women and LGBT clergy, the blessing of same-sex marriages, and a more open consideration of abortion? However, I understand there are different groups within the ELCA synod that disagree with these issues? I think, this why I’ve decided to withhold my judgment on Pope Francis as he may be trying to maneuver through a passing schism to keep Church unity, which I guess as a cradle Catholic I find comforting.
These positions, if you can explain, are vastly different from Catholicism and would ultimately explain your desire not to cross the Tiber.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem.
It is, my point is that we tend to ignore a lot of noise from the synod, the synod is much like the Episcopalians. Local churches, not so much. (I suspect that to be true of the Episcopalian church as well, but don’t know.) To your questions:
Women clergy, yes. Frankly I agree with them, better a good woman pastor than a bad man. In fact, I’ve had two, one Lutheran, and one high Episcopalian, both were excellent. LGBT, I simply don’t know, but likely so. I don’t agree with that. But then, I’ve read the Bible!
SSM, Probably, but I don’t know, and again, if so, don’t agree for the same reason.
Much of that, to me at least, comes down to, “If you want to join the club, obey the rules”.
More open, probably. But last I knew the doctrine was still contraception OK; abortion: no.
Of course there are, the ELCA is an amalgamation of several Lutheran churches, mostly Scandanavian national churches, but some others as well.
You hit on one of the main reasons that I don’t criticise Pope Francis all that much either, big churches are unwieldy craft, very hard to navigate.
No, doctrinally, with the exception of women clergy, as always noting the difference between the priesthood, and the clergy (at least in theory) I have no problem at all with Catholic doctrine, which is, in fact, very close to historic Lutheran doctrine, and why I’m likely at some point to end up in LCMS or perhaps the Confessional Lutheran Church. I’m a misfit, in the ELCA, but it is my historic home church, and my ex-wife’s as well, which is why I joined it.
The reasons, I won’t join the Catholic church are basically personal, having to do with how I have seen it (or members) act, both towards me, and others.
The thing with Protestants, that sometime Cradle Catholics miss is that we don’t pay all that much attention to the hierarchy in our churches, we often look at what they say and simply ignore it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for such a careful and considerate response. I’m Catholic and my wife is Missouri Synod, she’s very, I would say, sensitive about of her faith when I ask her about it. So much of what I know about Lutheranism comes from observation or listening to others in her church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re quite welcome. In my opinion, she has no need to be. It varies slightly, very slightly from historic Catholicism, but as I’ve said C an I have found we agree over 95% of the tine (actually, I think we said over 98%). Nothing to be ashamed of in the MS, although I do feel that way about the ELCA often.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a cradle Catholic, and I get the gentleman’s sentiment. I will tell you two things. #1 I am still withholding judgment on Pope Francis, I am attempting to not to form some rash judgment on the man himself. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and I think this may be the case for Popr Francis’ intention, if that makes sense. He wants the Church to bring people to follow Christ and that’s a noble cause, yet, The Church cannot give up it’s principles and dogma to do so. As discussed on this blog a lot is the man is very ambiguous when he speaks; however, this causes me and others to be suspicious of the man. #2However, The main issue with these divorce synod proceedings from what I understand is the remarried Catholic after their initial divorce and the state of sin when taking Communion. Christ makes VERY clear his thoughts on the matter, Matt 19:9 RSV 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Many consider, and I believe they have scripture on their side, that by relaxing the Communion laws of the Church it would, in effect hollow out the Church’s views on rejecting the flesh’s sinful nature. It appears that many have given examples in other faith’s who have done similar things.
The process is frustrating and there’s nothing I can do, at least, it appears so…
However, in the wake of such changes, I have felt the responsibility to make my thoughts known on the matter, perhaps this is the Holy Spirit. I wouldn’t call myself an Orthodox Catholic, however, I’m a Catholic and these proposed changes are not in my view connected with teachings of Catholicism. All are the Children of God and as Pope Francis calls for a year of Mercy in one hand, we must ask what lies in his other hand? What is the Holy Spirit’s purpose of choosing Francis if his reward may be the milestone?
LikeLiked by 2 people
That seems mosr sensible – some excellent thought there 😄
LikeLike
All this change has been strongly influenced by the Internet and especially by the Social Media. Those who before had no voice, now can shout from the roof tops without being discovered. Two current examples are, the Anonymous Group riot in London and the Black Lives Matter here in the US. They both want to right, what they perceive as, wrongs done to them.
So now we see in the Church in both high and low places this same kind of rebellion be it in the palaces of Rome or your local pew.
In terms of the London group, that’s your bailiwick, the trial in Baltimore will see one of two responses from Black Lives Matter, i fear many more will leave the Church as Rome dithers.
LikeLike
I remember when Pope Benedict XVI was made Pope and some folks were concerned that being a master of theology that he was going push folks away from the Church. I think there are two questions here to be made. #1 Does the Church want it’s faith to be easy to follow, and if doing so, would it cease being the Church? #2 IF the Church sticks to its doctrine and causes people to leave, will it be better for the health of the Church in the long run like giving a person medical treatment that makes them sick to kill off disease or cancer in their body?
LikeLike
Your last analogy is faulty as it is the slash, burn and poison therapies that in fact kill people rather than the cancer.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but interesting, as your answer resembles the depth of a street puddle, you might as well have answered, No. However, I see you’ve desired a more pointed remark to dismiss the submitted idea.
As the analogy presented is one where I have no issue with agreement or disagreement, as it was presented to explore the depth of ideas presented by others.
There have been many people who have thought it wise to throw out those who go through the motions and lack an actual faith, analogies aside since you seem to get hung up there, are those people right or are they wrong and why?
LikeLike
I agree pretty much with you here, and yet I note, that is the traditional parts of all our churches which are actually growing, Not to mention the fundamentalists, which have made huge inroads in latin America. In many ways, in Europe and North America, Rome seems to want to follow a failed Protestant model.
LikeLike
NEO, whomever taught you to yield a hammer, was a master. “…Rome seems to want to follow a failed Protestant model.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
wield, not yield.
LikeLike
Believers are naturally repelled by satanism, and that is what Liberal Christianity is. This is why you feel more in common with a Catholic than with a ‘Liberal Baptist’ because the latter isn’t a Christian at all, but a Svengali. We don’t have a huge number of Liberals in Orthodoxy, but when they do show their faces, I can tell you that Pope Innocent IX was a hundred times more authentic as a Christian than they are, even if we disagree doctrinally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Theres a big difference from founding a church and building on a foundation. The church existed befor the earth. My catholic friends mistakenly think Christ founded his church 2000 yrs ago. Christ was going to build on his church now that the the curtain was torn open and men can now go directly to him with no need of Levite priests.
and upon this rock I will build my church
He doesn’t say found or start his church as some false religions like to twist.
LikeLike
Hello, Bosco dear, are you saying that the Church was already built upon Peter before Christ told him it would be? Isn’t theology complicated for people like us with small minds?
LikeLike
It is complicated for false religions that need canon lawyers. Jesus burden is light.
LikeLike