Tags
It is to be expected that a blog which contains Christians from so many different parts of the spectrum should, from time to time, end up discussing ecclesiology – if only by default. The question of ‘by what authority’ is, as Jessica has pointed out, one which each of us ultimately answers for personally. I have never seen a great deal of point in discussing ecclesiology formally in a space like this. When I was an Anglican I was one because I was convinced by its ecclesiology. When it seemed to me that there were unmistakeable signs that it was moving in a direction where I would be a hindrance, I ceased being a communicant Anglican – though I continued to worship in the Church of England for years thereafter. It is easier to changes one’s church than the habits of mind that go with it, and I have no doubt that had the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham existed back when I converted, it would have been an easier journey with a home that suited me better – but one goes where one feels that one is called.
Some, like Jessica and others here, have stayed where they always were, other of us have felt called elsewhere. The only thing to do here, I think, is to practice mutual respect. Perhaps someone somewhere was converted by internet apologetics, but I doubt its being a good idea.
Few, if any of us, have such a grip on the global history of Christianity to make anything but judgements based on the parts of it with which we are familiar. For my own part I have never come across men and women so obviously holy as the Coptic monks and nuns I have met; they radiated a sense of living for and in Christ. The idea that it mattered whether back in 451 their patriarch and the patriarch of all the west could agree on the hypostatic union seemed, somehow in their presence, profoundly irrelevant. I have had similar encounters with Indian and Ethiopic Orthodox Christians, well as with other Orthodox; similarly, I have met Anglican and Roman Catholic priests who struck me in the same way as men of obvious piety, merely to be in whose presence made me feel somehow closer to Christ. All of these would make the claim that they encountered Christ in the Eucharistic feast, and most of them belong to churches which, if one took their doctrine seriously, said that that was unlikely to be the case in any church other than their own. Who am I to tell men so patently obviously holier than I shall ever be that they are in error? It seemed, and seems, better simply not to get into such fruitless discussions – it it hard to see how such conversations and the points that go with them advance the kingdom of God. And if our witness does not do that, then for laymen such as myself, it is a moot point as to what we are doing if that is not part of it?
Jesus told us his disciples would be known as such by their love one for another. Sometimes the only question worth asking is whether, if that is the case, anyone would be able to convict me of being a Christian?
Philip Augustine said:
When I first moved to the city, it was my first encounter with meeting ethnic Egyptians. They were also Coptic Christians, not Muslims. I became friendly enough with one that he invented me to his father’s prayer/Bible study group. As a curious young adult I went, my only regret is that I was as well informed enough to ask questions about their faith to truly learn.
Two things struck me, as a Roman Catholic, they were deeply devout and their faith was very ethnic. I’ve spoken about my recent friend that is Russian Orthodox, very devout, goes against the grain of modernism, and very ethnic.
Perhaps there is wisdom to be found in these experiences. I wonder, and perhaps this is also the way with Anglicanism, the reason why Fides et Ratio isn’t important to their faith, as indicated by Jess’s “it doesn’t matter how it happens.”
Faith is Faith is Faith, more or less, you could present facts to these Eastern Christians (now excluding Anglicans–they can speak for themselves) and they would simply say take your facts and go. They can do this because the ties to their culture.
However, as a Roman Catholic, I look around and see not an ethnic faith but a diverse faith– like that of the Empire that adopted it. It would be interested though to explore that this empire culturally stressed an importance on logic and reason. In this aspect, the Romans desiring to explain within the realms of Western civilization is not necessarily modernism but an adherence to their culture–not unlike the ethnicity ties of other Christians.
I’m not claiming this is true, only presenting it as something to ponder.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Philip Augustine said:
Invented– should be “invited.” Sorry typed comment on phone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
An interesting point, and one congruent with my own experiences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark Citadel said:
You’re not the first to raise such interesting questions. As Orthodox, the ethnic angle is very important, not at any level of doctrine, but in the practice of the faith. We are rooted in a race to which we have profound psychic and spiritual connection, sometimes strong enough to overcome even exile.
To His earliest followers among the Hebrews, Christ said he would divide families, and what is a race but an extended family. What JOY it is then when the family need not be divided, when the family at large embraces Christ!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
Thanks Mark for your insight, I think my Russian Orthodox friend would have replied in much of the same fashion. It’s definitely something that isn’t common in Catholicism where I live in the States. Perhaps there are Irish and Italian neighborhoods that ethnicity is more connected with Catholicism, but I’ve never personally come across anything like the Russian Orthodox and Egyptian Coptic.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
True, but perhaps a greater sin is the presumption that one has the wisdom to correct those set in authority above oneself because one has read a few books/websites. Those with authority to teach will know best how to identify and correct ignorance. They might even possess the wisdom to know how best to make that correction without sounding harsh. It is said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; on the Internet it is usually enough to persuade us we are in the best position to correct the ignorance of others – alas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Brown said:
C, good post. And I get it, but what knowledge we do have is enough. Who knows what brings others closer to Christ. A blog is not a place where one posts their articles and nothing happens. Books, newspaper, magazine, and church bulletin articles maybe, but blogs are discussion forums. And as we know we all have certain “personalities,” which we all discount, ignore, curse at, talk past, and refute.
The test is to answer others without ripping them a new as***le. But, what I think tough, others will let roll off their back as a duck would. So, my advice to all our readers is to step in, the water is neither as cold or as hot, as you think.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Very true Stevie. I think I shall go the book route from here unless an RCIA inquiry class or RCIA teaching gig pops up before I finish it . . . as the discussion and argumentations were the only things that mimicked what we both enjoyed doing in the past. It was a good substitute minus the ability to experience our body language, tone, good humour and the like. That was missing here . . . though I did think we knew each other well enough at this point that it had become a moot point. Guess I was wrong. See you Tuesday night . . . cheeseburger, hold the cheese.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Hey Dave, so I’m officially enrolled in theology classes to become a certified Catechist. My diocese has an agreement with Dayton University online program. The first theologian they have us reading is Elizabeth Johnson, to put it nicely she appears subtly in her writing as not practicing the same type of Catholicism that I know of, what are your thoughts on her?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
She is not anyone I would read She is a Catholic Feminist theologian and she was roundly criticized by the USCCB. http://www.usccb.org/news/2011/11-205e.cfm
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Well the next ‘theologian’ I’ve been assigned to read is Margaret Ralph, her essay appears to be very relative. Her book I see on Facebook is called “Why the Catholic Church must Change.”
The synopsis reads, “Margaret Nutting Ralph first affirms that Catholics are called to seek the truth and to follow their well-formed consciences, not simply to submit mind and will to the teachings of the Magisterium.”
I’m learning to be a Catechist for what church exactly?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Sadly it sounds like you are being formed in the Call To Action Church of activists. I guess the Spirit of Vatican II folks are still alive and kicking.
http://cta-usa.org/margaret-nutting-ralph/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
It’s strange, I the often moderate Catholic on this blog, is reigning down traditionalism on the discussion boards. I’m just being a Catholic. In the Ralph paper, it literally said that if I remind folks that Jesus preached about sin, hell, and repentance that I didn’t understand what I read. Haha!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Welcome to the siege of Satan which has descended upon my friend. I hope you have the stomach for the fight that might lie ahead.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steve Brown said:
Dave, I don’t understand this, please explain (here or Tuesday night): “. . . though I did think we knew each other well enough at this point that it had become a moot point. Guess I was wrong.”
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
A little knowledge is like a monkey with a machine gun.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Yes indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – something I’m not getting here. When you ‘converted’ from Anglicanism to the RCC did you have to get baptised again by the RCC? Or did they accept your Anglican baptism? Because if they accepted your Anglican baptism, you didn’t ‘convert’ at all; you remained a Christian, but simply switched fellowship. The church you moved to acknowledged that the church you moved from was ‘Christian’ – there was no conversion.
There’s also something else I don’t understand: you say you converted to the RCC, but continued to attend an Anglican church (if I have understood you properly). Doesn’t the individual fellowship you attend define you? i.e. if you go to an Anglican church, attend the prayer meeting of that fellowship where you pray together with them for the mission at home and abroad and generally engage with the activities of that fellowship doesn’t that mean that to all intent and purpose you are an Anglican? During that period you were basically an Anglican even if you called yourself a Catholic.
In my experience, the variation within a particular denomination is much greater than the differences between denominations. I’ve always considered myself a Christian, I’ve always had eyes to the local fellowship (when there was one) and that was my church, irrespective of what denomination it belonged to.
I tried posting earlier, but somehow it was eaten up. The basic point is that in Edinburgh there is a very wide variety of Anglicanism (Scottish Episcopal and also C. of E.) so it seems to me that if someone who describes herself as ‘Anglo Catholic’ ends up at a C. of S., she is much more interested in the local fellowship, whether it is welcoming, whether the sermon presents the Word, whether that local fellowship prays for the mission at home and the mission abroad, etc …. rather than these labels.
I think I don’t really understand these descriptors (Anglican, C. of S., Baptist, etc …) – which don’t have any real meaning any more. For example, Geoffrey isn’t impressed by huge chunks of the Baptist confession of 1689, most C. of S. ministers don’t take the Westminster Confession very seriously, most C. of E. don’t take the 39 articles so seriously. Any time I have found myself in a new town, the denominational stamp may have been a very rough guide, but not very informative at all. The matter of importance has been the local fellowship; the denomination it belonged to gave very little idea of what to expect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t disagree with most of that Jock. Yes the RC recognised my baptism, which the Orthodox would not have done. For me it was about which Church was the one founded by Jesus, and by what authority any church spoke that was not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – and was this an abstract issue based solely on Matthew’s gospel and Jesus giving the keys to Peter – or did you see any concrete examples where the RCC looked more like the church founded by Jesus and where pronouncements from senior RCC people were more in line with this than anything else you heard?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It was an historical argument – the deeper I got into history, the clearer it was that only the RCC could meet the claim that it was what it claimed to be. I was perfectly prepared, as an historian, to come to whatever conclusion the evidence pointed to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Fair enough. I’d say that history can lie, though. For example – if you take the Israelites from the time of Jacob through to the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, I’m not aware that there is a single piece of historical evidence to either confirm or deny anything at all in the Old Testament from that period. It also seems to me quite unbelievable that the ideas of the reformers in the 16th century could have come ex nihil’ and I conclude that they were already present and active during the first 1500 years after Christ, possibly without the historical documentation that you’re looking for.
It has been mathematically proved that the bumble bee cannot fly, but the bee does not know this and continues to fly. I’m wondering if historical proofs are any better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Archaeology is one thing, but history another. I examined the way I would examine any historical problem, quite prepared to find whatever the record showed. I kept not being able to escape that the record showed being in communion with Rome mattered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
I see where you are coming from. If you had come from a fishing tradition and your first experiences of Christianity had been in the fishermen’s meeting halls, you might have had a different perspective. They were independent and were pretty much anti- the Church of Scotland, which was strongly associated with the middle classes. They didn’t even want to be in communion with George Street (central offices of the C of S) – let alone something larger like Rome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I can understand that. For me the crucial question is what happened to the church founded by Christ?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
That question (of course) is crucial for all of us, but we all seem to come up with different answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
One of the many mysteries. I find it best to respect where people are – difficult with Bosco!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Grammatical point – is it ‘an historian’ or ‘a historian’? I know that ‘an historian’ is probably correct, but ‘a historian’ feels much more natural. Is there a general rule? How about house, hotel?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Beiing old-fashioned, I prefer ‘an’ but the modern style is not to use it.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
OK – thanks. A (Polish) student ẃas asking me about it – and thought I had got it wrong in my lecture notes. I was wondering if I had. From what you say, it sounds as if both are correct.
I don’t remember being taught any rules.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
Happy Easter. I said a while ago that I would not comment again until Easter, but there has not been much to comment on during this past week. The interminable ecclesiological bickering, punctuated with the occasional “my friend” (as if that phrase makes a ratty conversation “friendly”) has only merited a brief visit and a hasty flight, as far as this reader is concerned. Thank you John for providing a much-needed antidote!
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thanks Gareth – sometimes a bit of steam needs letting off.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Gareth – and (retrospectively) a happy Easter to you. I trust all is well at Finestrat.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Gareth, “my friend” let me examine your comment since it seems directed squarely at me. For during this period I defended Catholic docrinal and moral teaching as formulated by Tradition, the Bible and Holy Theology. I also defended Transubstantiation which was maligned as being an invention that took the mystery out of what happens during the institution of the Eucharist; and finally defended the authority of the Catholic Church because it was pointed out that the authority given by Christ in the Bible to Peter and the apostles was not handed down after they died. Those were the substances for the ‘ratty’ conversations with the occasional “my friend” added due to the fact that we cannot read each other’s body language to determine anger or friendliness during these conversations. How would you prefer that we do this in writing without agreeing with people about things you don’t really agree with at all?
As the appointed judge and jury of all conversations here you have achieved your mission to stop all spirited debate and disagreements. C also seems to think that some steam needed to be let off though I saw and felt none except in one or two responses which were, as far as I could tell, calmed before the conversations ended.
Therefore the ‘interminable ecclesiological bickering’ should stop as both of you find this unsuitable as a subject or content of an internet post or any conversation that develops from a post. But since ecclesiology is a wide and broad subject that covers everything from what we believe to why we believe it and how it is being done in our churches or in other churches, it seems that religion is pretty much off base unless we take the stance that all churches are substantially the same and that any incorrect statements should be left to die without pointing out another viewpoint. That sounds a lot like relativism and indefferentism to me . . . but that is my purely subjective view which I should certainly abandon. It sort of sounds like an internet version of the old 1960’s love-ins (I used to love all the music in Central Park during the day) that you think might attract better stats and views and might even entice you to participate more. So by all means put your ideal conversation and/or posts in print here and lead us by example in what it should be like, in your estimation.
For me, it seems that it has gotten very silly around here. Everyone seems afraid of being called out for fear of being accused of replying with an unaccetable tone or perhaps earning the feared label of ‘hate speech’, writing on politically/religiously taboo subjects, of being boring or speaking of something that was written about before; boring the readers and running off viewers. Outside of exchanging weather reports from each of us around the world and telling amusing atecdotes about your donkeys or my dogs is there a list of subjects that we would all have fun speaking about that might satisfy you? It seems like we need a manual to participate here now. But until I understand how it is possible to participate here without offending anyone, have no fear, I will cease and desist in having the temerity to think that conversations like we had this past week were interesting, simply because they were to me. It would be nice to see all those who didn’t or wouldn’t participate in them to now show us what is actually interesting and get their hands dirty. Then maybe I can play the part of judge and jury; or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Ummm ….. well …. I’ve enjoyed these discussions. Perhaps I need to go to confessional and receive absolution …..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
No, I think an exorcism is in order if I remember correctly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
And I wonder if it may be a sin against charity to “instruct the ignorant” with such self-righteous pomp that the “ignorant” lose their charity towards Christians – of whatever denomination – and quickly move away? An ecumenical blog should have the advantage that those outside the faith can recognize the essence of it (i.e. Christ) unites rather than divides. Making clever points to annoy other readers is no better than the clown’s constant habit of making stupid points to annoy other readers.
LikeLiked by 1 person