Over the past few weeks I have been thinking about the direction of my spiritual life and the direction of the Church, a process sharpened by the news of the scandals in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. Having a little experience among Charismatics and Pentecostals, I also scan material labelled as “prophetic” on a regular basis. That is not to say that I accept everything I read; but neither do I reject revelations out of hand. Recently, I have also taken to listening to the “Anglican Unscripted” series on YouTube, which focusses on problems in the Anglican Communion. My overall sense is that this is a time of change for all denominations.
The widespread endorsement of the modern -isms among the Anglican hierarchy puts me at odds with the establishment. For that reason, I am in sympathy with the GAFCON movement, but I see little chance of it making inroads in the UK. So many Anglicans have already left the Church of England, many becoming Catholics, others joining Orthodoxy, and a few have gone to the dissenting Protestant churches. Lutheranism has little presence in the UK, so there is no real liturgical Protestant option for those who want that experience outside of the Church of England.
I genuinely believe that God will do a great work of reformation in this country, but what the end results will be is hard to say. “Come out of her My people!” The meaning of this verse in its original context may be quite different from its use as a rallying cry for independent churches – nevertheless, that rallying cry has an effect. Unity is important in the Church, and while there are advantages to having clear denominations, centred on specific doctrinal positions, the overall appearance of a divided Church is a source of sadness for Christians and scorn among outsiders.
I very much believe in building the content of faith from the ground up. The chains of tradition can be a hindrance to this position, and that is why I will never formally join a church that takes an ultra-traditionalist line. Reformation is a way of life for me, not merely a point in Church history. While I disagree with individual conclusions of particular Reformers, I take their spirit with me. This should not be confused with the idea of change for the sake of change; rather, I believe it to be an intellectual virtue. We should be always seeking for Truth and willing to let things go that hinder us on the road. I remain a Protestant not because I am specifically Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, or Reformed, but simply because I cannot conform myself to the fundamental positions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Going forward, I believe all Christians will need to examine their fundamental positions in the light of what they are hearing from hierarchies in the various churches. A valuable lesson I have taken from the work of Von Mises, the Austrian economist, is that everything is a choice. Those who hold the traditionalist line against the Vatican establishment, those who hold Benedict XVI to be the true Pope, are making intellectual choices. We must all choose.
All Along the Watchtower 
Excuse me for totally disagreeing with your premise, Nicholas. For if you have grasped that there is that which is eternal, objective Truth there can be no idea of Always Reforming but like the Marine Corps one holds to Always Faithful (Semper Fi).
Only practices, how one defends these Truths might develop (without changing or overturning the previous explanations), and how one answers new questions that arise, need to develop in a changing world. But that is certainly not what one would call Semper Reformanda.
If there is a Church that one recognizes as possessing the Truth once delivered by the Apostles and defended for 2000 years one cannot change it but only deliver it intact to the next generation. The role of the Church then is to protect and defend its Traditional Teaching not to adjust the Teaching to a new world view. Where would this end, except in relative truths that are continually in change.
This, in fact, is the battle that has raged in the Church since Vatican II and continues today. We see those who are always pushing for reforms to make the Church more like the world; to change its liturgy its Traditions, its practices (even if they practically reflect a conclusion different from the Defined Teachings of the Church.
What are we all to become if Semper Reformanda is embraced (and I think most have)? We will take elements of new age beliefs, new world morality and use scientism, psychology, philosophies and ideologies to modify the Church rather than using the Church and Her Sacred Theology to change the world. That is precisely the situation we are in today and the only answer is Abandonment to Divine Providence and Surrendering to the Will of God not the will of men of this world and of this particular time in history.
LikeLiked by 4 people
If I have given the impression that I believe Truth changes, then I have been careless -that was not my intent. Rather my view is that techniques and resources for interpreting Scripture can be improved – and have been improved – for example the rediscovery of cuneiform. These elements that will allow us to shed contextual light on passages will naturally have some impact on doctrine as a given passage may be discovered to say more or less than what was said of it before. If a passage no longer justifies a particular view, that does not entail that a justification may not be found elsewhere – but it does mean that the expositor, if he wishes to keep that doctrine, must find another justification. We must believe the right thing for the right reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Historically speaking we have over a mile tall of New Testament manuscripts which other than errors in spelling and grammar come pretty much intact to us today. For the most part, scholars do understand what 1st century A.D. Roman provinces were like, I severally doubt that there’s going to be any great Biblical scholarship advancement that totally changes the trajectory of Christianity. I surmise any changes will be from a conforming to modernities post-modern philosophy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think that is right as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Even as much as we’ve discovered in the past two centuries, either in Protestantism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, not a lot has changed by these new developed understandings. In many ways, there’s a faith element, either in Catholicism or other Protestant denominations that new discoveries cannot change our understanding of faith but only rather further the understanding of the truth we always possess.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It only makes sense. If Christ’s Church was guaranteed by Christ to continue until His return, then that Truth, in its entirety is always with us. It is not going to change. Revelation has not changed since the death of the last Apostle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Understood.
However, whatever is discovered and makes more clear the teaching is welcome; but on the other hand all that makes the doctrine unsure or less believable is not a step forward but a step backwards.
The Pearl of Great Price is always the same. The way we explain it and guard it changes with time as we might have gone from use of guards with swords we now use lasers and motion sensors and armed guards with lethal artillery strapped to their sides. But the Pear changes not and must be handed on to our children in the whole.
I suppose I winced in reading your post because it sounded like what you were suggesting was to dissolve the Pearl of Great Price into a gelatinous mass with a grain of sand at its center. For that spells disaster for both the gem and beauty and the dignity of the Prize of prizes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed – I do not suggest abandoning concepts like the Trinity or the need for forgiveness of sins or the incarnation and resurrection. But I do have epistemological concerns about how we “know” some things, and I am deeply disturbed by the squaring the circle problem in the Catholic Church at the moment. Catholics present themselves as safe from heresy through the work of the Holy Spirit via the Magisterium: but now you have a Pope Francis who either is proclaiming heresy or is coming dangerously close to it. In order to preserve orthodoxy and keep your claims about the Magisterium, you have to argue that he is not the Pope and that the Curia is full of wrongfully appointed clerics. This just seems perilously close to Protestantism for me – which many Catholics have pointed out. And what happens to all those Catholics who out of misguided loyalty (and other less acceptable reasons) decide to accept heresy because the Pope has pronounced it? I just feel in the light of current events it might be worth revisiting this concept of the Magisterium.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its a confusing time Nicholas but it isn’t as if a remedy isn’t at hand. First most Catholics simply go by what their parish priest says and probably have never read a Catholic mood in their lives. So their Catholicism comes from going to Mass on Sundays.
And the preservation of Teaching is something that has been tested before in our history. It has yet to be violated. The pope can on his own be a heretic and claim such but he cannot pronounce ex cathedra a heresy which the whole Church is bound to believe. Few Popes have done this, actually. You are right when you say Francis has come very close . . . and that is right. He is perhaps one of the worst popes in history.
The question on whether he is Pope or not would not be there if BXVI had donned black and left the Vatican. It appears that he may well have been abused himself by this gay mafia that infests the Vatican. Simply put, we simply have to rid ourselves of these vermin and determine once and for all if his resignation was truly his own will or that of the band of blackmailers.
So times are confusing. Once we had 3 popes at once and we declared them all antipopes and elected another. But nobody changed the defined Teachings of the Church. That is why I hold to the Teachings more than I will hold to the man who may or may not hold the office of Pope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m pretty much with Scoop on this, although not on his church of choice. Truth is truth, it is also eternal. But then, neither should surprise anyone, he and I are both orthodox Christians of traditional, liturgical churches.
There are some Lutherans about in England, mostly in the port cities, including London, most are affiliated with the Scandinavian churches, which are quite like the CofE, although there are a few affiliated or associated more loosely with the LCMS, and in fact a seminary in Cambridge as I recall. Which is fairly close to GAFCON.
For all of that, Anglo-Catholics are almost point for point similar to conservative Lutherans, although more into Marian Veneration than we are, although that, while uncommon, is present in Lutheranism as well.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed most mainstream Christian denominations and Jewish denominations have ‘reform’ groups that have broken from their traditions and beliefs. It is not just the Catholic Church though it is probably the most recognizable battle that has been waged in the last 50 years. Most Protestant and Jews waged these battles long ago and their reform elements just keep on changing from year to year. As Forest Gump says, if you walk into a reform church today and walk into it in another 10 years, it’s like a box of chocolates: you don’t know what you’re going to get.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Wise man, Forest Gump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, there were a number of gems that came from his mouth it seems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem arises, though, if, on principle, a person no longer wishes to have dealings with the CofE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not a problem if the CofE does not capture a mans heart as having the fullness of the Truth that she needs convey to her adherents. In that case, it is a blessing for the person to seek further. Seek and you shall find, says Christ and it is as relevant today as it was in His. Truth does exist and once adopted and acquiesced to, there is nothing that will drive away; not the wiles of the world or the sentiments of one’s personal desires.
LikeLike
I know, and have no real answer, depends where you live, amongst other things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get where your coming from, and I’m not denying that truth is eternal – but I am arguing that the Catholic position is fundamentally different from the Protestant one and is now creating problems for them. I’d recommend reading Archbishop Cranmer’s piece on Pope Francis and the death penalty pronouncement.
http://archbishopcranmer.com/death-penalty-pope-francis-developed-doctrine/
That would never create a problem for Protestants because we don’t have a magisterium. While Protestants do have some binding things, overall there is greater freedom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps, you should lay out exactly what you’re looking for in doctrine?
As you’re one who seems to look to history as a source for clarification, can you tell me in the history of the Church, what is more historical; the traditional Magisterium or Sola Scriptura?
LikeLike
I agree with Phillip that you might be a bit more specific.
For instance, it is not that our Position, Dogma, Tradition or Morality is causing the problems at all. There are problems caused because there are those worldly men and women, clerics and perhaps pope who no longer like them nor do they want to adhere to them. That is their problem but not the problem of the Church. If Francis tries to make an ex cathedra statement on some of the things he has stated the Holy Spirit would strike him dead on the spot before he could sign the documents or at the least a group of Cardinals would be convened and he would summarily lose the title of pope and be deposed.
LikeLike
Also, if I might ask, what additional freedom are you desirous of in a Church. The life of Christian is only asked to remain faithful to what the Church Believes and Teaches as given Her by Christ. Is that too much to ask? We are certainly free to operate freely in many things in this life, actually most things, but we are constrained (bound; as in the root of the word religion) to Christ’s Will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certainly, the Church has many traditions, which is why in its intellectual freedom, I’ve dove more into the development of Grace and how it interacts with our will rather than a radical free will Theology of the Jesuits. Am I denying Free Will? No. What I am exploring is cosmologically our will being a creation of God cannot exist outside of the essence of He who is existence. So, I find it puzzling to assert that Catholic system to be less “free,” especially when it adheres to the tenants of tradition rather than Sola Scriptura. The question that naturally arises that Scoop asks, “What freedom are you looking for?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s a point, of course, and I’ve touched on the dangers of a hierarchical church often enough.
But the Pope on the death penalty violated (as far as I can see) his own Magisterium, as well as clear Bible teaching applicable not one the the Church but to all Christians and Jews. That doesn’t mean that the DP has to be used, but it is not forbidden in Christianity. In other words, the Pope is simply wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Going forward, I believe all Christians will need to examine their fundamental positions “…….correction………Going forward, I believe all unsaved religious people will need to examine their fundamental positions
LikeLike
The reason the Church is always reforming is not because truth changes, but because the visible church is composed of sinners who always gravitate away from the truth. The church is always in need of reformation because she is always in need of repentance. “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance,” to quote the great reformer.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pastor, it appears you’re a confessional Lutheran, what branch if I may ask?
LikeLike
Another dad gummed Lutheran eh? We wouldn’t be in this mess if it wasn’t for good brother Martin Luther.
LikeLike
it’s funny how you guys never get tired of saying that. But I keep thinking about how a Tridentine Catholic in Francis’ church is, for all intents and purposes, a protestant. That has to be painful.
LikeLike
i’m lcms
LikeLiked by 1 person
I figured. I’m Catholic, my wife is lcms. We have a good friend who is lcms pastor and I’m a fan of Pastor Hemmer’s book Man Up.
LikeLike
I haven’t read it, but we would do well in the LCMS if we returned to the ordered relationship between men and women described by our old theologians. Half measures don’t work with feminism.
LikeLike
Good to see you here, Pastor. I have often found your words of value, and continue to read them avidly as I have for the last 5 or so years.
LikeLike
thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I may be blunt Nicholas, just from observation, it appears if I comment on a particular thought that appears to be different from mainstream Catholicism, I get the notion that you leap at the conversation in some search of a revelation that will either put us at an agreement of like mind against the Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or even orthodox Christianity. And when it appears that my thoughts are still rooted in that tradition, instead of developing those thoughts further, the conversation simply drops off. If I may, what is conjecture, it appears when it comes to Christianity you’re rifling through its history and combined theologies in search something that may dispel some sense of rejection, scrupolosity, or despair?
When I read this, I have to ask are you searching for a truth that corresponds to what you believe or wish to be true or rather what is the truth?
LikeLike
Good brother Phillip…a easier question would be…..”why is there air?”
LikeLike
Yes, Philip, that was rather blunt. Most of us struggle to articulate even the tip of the iceberg.
LikeLike
Much like Aquinas describes that the only thing we can know about God is what He is not, so I’d surmise that it maybe easier to articulate what we don’t want.
LikeLike
But of course, because rejection is much easier than change.
LikeLike
The reason good brother Aquinas said that is because he didn’t know Christ and never did. TRhats why you semiramis worshipers love him
LikeLike
Nicholas, I too am curious as to your answer to Phillips comment above. I too thought that perhaps there were individual things you would like to discuss and that is why I sent you an email so that they could be discussed offline should you rather do that. However, it seems that after one question the conversation stopped. I’m not sure why. Maybe you can tell us or if you don’t want to make it public, send me an email and perhaps I can share it with Phillip if that would be OK with you. Neither of us is trying to embarrass or humiliate you but we are curious as to what seems to trouble you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed, my friend.
Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would say that I have deep epistemological concerns which are also tied to my conscience. I can’t believe things because I am ordered to do so – there has to be free assent on my part, otherwise I have a crisis. I am not sure that my kind of psychology fits within the system of Catholicism. If the Pope or some other element of the hierarchy told me to believe X and I didn’t, I would feel like I had to options: either pretend in order to get along (which would feel disingenuous) or leave (assuming I had no option in the situation to persuade people to change their mind).
As things stand, I cannot commit myself to sacramental theology, certain interpretations of the atonement, salvation by works, and various other doctrines and practices. I am still uncomfortable about some praying to the saints. In short – I think I would make a poor candidate for catechesis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you read the catechism of the Council of Trent or the Baltimore Catechism? If you don’t believe that then you need, like I did, to read a few Catholic books of exegesis on the particular topic (written before the Council. Then tell me if you believe what the Church teaches. As I said before I will be surprised if we will hear an ex cathedra statement from this pope as most never do. The faith is rather straight forward is you don’t start trying to make it fit some predisposed idea of what many of things that we do are all about.
There is another great book for you to read called: Why Do Catholics Do That. Order it from Amazon. I think you will be surprised.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll use a specific example to illustrate the kind of problems I face – one I think Philip mentioned earlier.
“‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23)
You can draw a number of inferences from this verse. It can be interpreted as meaning simply that the Apostles are empowered to proclaim the forgiveness of sins through belief in Christ; retention here may mean simply that those who reject the Gospel are proclaimed unforgiven by its heralds. Alternatively, it can be interpreted as a media via concerned with Church discipline. Or it can be presented as the/an authority for the full confessional system that exists today. If each interpretation seems plausible, then I need some other criterion to tell me (where versions are mutually exclusive) which is the right one. History can provide a guide, and I understand it is important in apologetics debates between Catholics and Protestants. If the Early Church practiced the confessional system and the Fathers interpret the verse in accordance with it – that suggests that this was the favoured interpretation and may well be what the Apostles taught. If you have a Sola Scriptura mentality, however – and an extreme version at that – you will be left with the problem that Scripture itself describes no such system in detail. We have a gap between the simplicity of the text and what existed at points in history and what exists today. The Bible itself does not proclaim Sola Scriptura, so I suppose I could just reject that and say Tradition is the guide for what the Scripture means. But I will then be left wondering about how I know what is Tradition, and what is not…and this is just a sample of the kind of OCD thinking that torments me every time I want to get close to Rome; every time something springs up that sends me away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At least we see in the scriptures that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Given that, Christ has given to the Church the ability to decide on how it is going to practice what He commanded. So Confession has developed into a private affair between the penitent and the successors of the Apostles. We see the practice as early as the Didache (A.D. 50-ish).
Christ did not give us particulars but principles which the Church was left to work out. It is another reason why asking intercession of saints is something that bothers you. It is the love of God for man that our entire purpose is to praise, reverence and serve God in order to save our souls. And if we are adopted children we rightly will be given some ability to continue to serve God as angels serve God: though He has no need of them. He has no need of a priesthood but He gives us something material (in the presence of the priest and the words of absolution) that we can believe delivers the Mercy and Forgiveness that God intends. A lesser God would not do such a thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It certainly strikes me that what I see in Catholicism and Orthodoxy shows some concession/regard for corporeality: having a priest and all the physical signs allows more of the person to engage with spiritual things.
I think I agree with the principle that the Church must work out how to implement what Christ teaches – and there will be room in that for adaptations according to the contingencies of life. But how do I know that Rome, and Rome alone, is the Church? It just seems unchristian to say that the Orthodox and the Protestants are not part of the Church – especially when there have been so many saintly people in each branch. It would surely be disgraceful to say that someone like William Wilberforce was not a saintly man – but he was not a Roman Catholic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One’s baptism is the link to the One Church that Christ began. The confusion and in-fighting amongst men of differing ideas is purely human. What is not human, in origin, is the giving of the keys specifically to Peter and where Peter is, there is the Church. It is that simple if one believes that the Teachings that She guards are the same Teachings given by the Apostles to be handed down. So yes there are connections between us all but there is only one authority that God has given us . . . and it wasn’t a Bible . . . since it didn’t exist at the time. He gave it to the Church and He gave the head of the human aspect of this Church to Peter. Nobody else can claim that. So even with the corruption and the disagreements etc. that come with fallen man, the Holy Spirit was given to the Church in order that even despite our wickedness the Truth would and will survive until He returns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have we gone wrong with our understanding of the Atonement and “original sin”? One of the reasons I get drawn into debate with Philip when he talks about free will etc is because these two issues are so important and because they stir up my emotions. The formulation of these things is so important because they affect how we see God and therefore how we honour or dishonour Him and otherwise interact with Him. I do not want to have a wrong view of God and I want to present Him correctly to non-Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then do as Christ did. Speak of them as family members. Christ didn’t teach us to say: God who art in heaven, but Father who art in heaven.
Do we also not remember that in Hebrews 12:6 we are told: “For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.”
Isn’t that what fathers do as they correct their children so that they will grow up to be good and honest men. In this case, He is trying to make us fallen children into heirs of His Kingdom. Are we going to think that we are deserving of this. And are we so proud to think that we need not be chastised for sins committed against our Loving Family (the Trinity and all the Heavenly Hosts). Is there anything we would not endure to gain an eternity of full and complete happiness spend in loving contemplation of God Himself, face to face as it were?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That we should mortify ourselves seems fair enough to me. If we are truly aware of our failings, then we will seek to grow out of them, to become better people. But what are we saying when we claim that Christ died to take away our sin? Are we saying that God’s anger at sin was spent on Christ and now that the anger is spent He feels no urge, no impetus, no obligation to be angry with those who believe in Christ? That seems to be the claim made by various evangelicals, but there seems intuitively to be some mis-step in that formulation, even if I cannot precisely pinpoint it – it just feels off.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anger against evil, as St. Thomas says, is part of Charity. That we are the agents of this evil, evil working through us, it is up to our Creator to find a way to turn us away from being the agents of sin. How does one do this if not through loving correction? We know we face death and Christ was willing to show us that God’s love for us can embrace death and all sorts of suffering for love. He can turn death into a door that leads to Heavenly Beatitude if we but return Love for Love. O death where is thy sting?
LikeLiked by 2 people
That interpretation seems to present Christ’s death as an example, and that interpretation seems to fit what the Scriptures actually say. But example and the strict evangelical position are not the same thing. We held an Alpha course a couple of years ago, and one of the members who attended said, “It doesn’t seem just that God punishes an innocent man and lets a guilty one go free.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
And a father chastises his own children but not those who have a different father . . . like the father of lies?
Remember also these: https://biblehub.com/drb/romans/6.htm
LikeLike
Paul seems to be saying here that the only way to escape sin is to die. The logic of the passage seems to present sin as an Entity with some sort of claim on us: if we die with Christ it will lose its grip on us and we will escape; a corollary seems to be implied: if we do not die with Christ, sin will have us forever – and that will be bad for us. But what does this word “justified” (δεδικαίωται)mean? That is something I must research because I am not convinced that it means what some claim it does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also read the links that were cited on that passage as well. They are also helpful. And you will see that virtues are also spoken of as an entity. I think it is fitting since the temptation of the entities of satan and his minions is opposed by the entities of God and the Grace bestowed by the Holy Spirit to develop in us the Virtues. In that way they are, in a sense, living and palpable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a good link I think on the subject of “development” of doctrine:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2018/08/development-and-newman.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
The issue with epistemology is tackled extensively in the Grammar of Assent by Bl. John Henry Newman, in short he basically breaks down for his skeptical reader that pretty everything we know is an assent of faith.
Eventually you just have to decided what the truth is and live it.
LikeLike