« Touchstone June 2007 | Main | Thomas Merton & Guns »
May 05, 2007
Evangelical Theological Society President Converts to Catholicism
Francis Beckwith, associate professor of church-state studies at Baylor University and current president of the Evangelical Theological Society, has been received into the Roman Catholic Church, according to reports today.
The Evangelical Theological Society was founded as an academic professional organization for conservative Protestant scholars. The ETS doctrinal statement is, in its entirety: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."
This confessional minimalism has been a subject of much discussion over the years, occasioned by heterodox teachings within the Society on, among other things, claims to non-historical saga used in biblical texts and denials of the exhaustive foreknowledge of God. Some Society members have pointed to the fact that the ETS guidelines are so minimal they do not even stipulate the Society's Protestant identity, as seen by the fact that Catholic scholar Scott Hahn is, last time I checked, an ETS member, able and willing to sign the doctrinal basis.
This development will no doubt intensify the discussion over evangelical identity and the ETS.
UPDATE: Dr. Beckwith has resigned as president of the ETS, and discusses his path back to Rome at the Right Reasons weblog.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 03:20 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8353548a469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Evangelical Theological Society President Converts to Catholicism :
Comments
More sheep stealing I guess...
Posted by: David Gray | May 5, 2007 3:28:21 PM
Russell, you need to add "http://" to your ETS link for it to work.
Posted by: Josh S. | May 5, 2007 3:33:08 PM
I don't see how this qualifies as sheep stealing. Or was your remark facetious, David?
Posted by: James A. Altena | May 5, 2007 4:57:50 PM
>I don't see how this qualifies as sheep stealing. Or was your remark facetious, David?
Partly tongue in cheek. It does point out to me though the lack of gravity to the whole concept of sheep stealing. When is someone converting from one Christian tradition to another sheep stealing and when is it not? If they have a sufficiently advanced degree? If they convert away from an evangelical tradition? If their IQ is 10% above the mean? The whole thing smacks of a patronizing approach in which I may convert to another tradition but if my plumber does then he was a stolen sheep. Sheep stealing always involves somebody else converting, not me.
Posted by: David Gray | May 5, 2007 5:08:37 PM
>>>When is someone converting from one Christian tradition to another sheep stealing and when is it not? <<<
When he going from yours to theirs, it's "sheep stealing". When he's coming from their's to yours, it's "Enlightenment".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 5, 2007 5:32:00 PM
>When he going from yours to theirs, it's "sheep stealing". When he's coming from their's to yours, it's "Enlightenment".
Precisely.
Posted by: David Gray | May 5, 2007 5:33:12 PM
If this were a baseball trade --what a victory for Team Rome over Team Canterbury. We get a noted respected scholar from Baylor University. The other side gets an aspiring priest -- and maybe a future "bishop"--- another "Bishop" Robinson who ditched his wife and kids to "hook up" with his male lover.
Posted by: deacon john m. bresnahan | May 5, 2007 5:41:25 PM
Why am I not surprised by this (Dr. Beckwith's return to Rome)?
As to the sheep stealing, doesn't there have to be a stealer? If the sheep jumps the fence or, say, swims the Tiber of his own accord, how can it be termed stealing?
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | May 5, 2007 5:51:25 PM
I share the joy of anyone who comes to a richer understanding and deeper fuller engagement in his faith and worship, which, I could probably be compelled to agree, might go in either ecclesiastical direction. I agree sheep stealing is a risible term or concept for sincere believers working out their salvation with fear and trembling. It has always seemed to me a most contemptuous, religio-clerical-careerist idea of parishioners as dupes and accounting entries. Do we really believe Jesus subcontracts His role like a franchise with no-compete clauses?
Bah! [+humbug]
Posted by: dilys | May 5, 2007 5:57:58 PM
>>>The other side gets an aspiring priest -- and maybe a future "bishop"--- another "Bishop" Robinson who ditched his wife and kids to "hook up" with his male lover.<<<
I think they would have been better off asking for two first round draft picks and an undisclosed amount of cash.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 5, 2007 6:01:51 PM
Since Dr. Beckwith was raised as a Catholic, I don't see how this could qualify as sheep-stealing, no matter what the definition. Perhaps sheep-repossession?
Posted by: DGP | May 5, 2007 6:09:18 PM
The sheep analogy can only go so far, which is why Christ's use of such analogies was termed 'parable'. Free will and conviction are specifically human qualities and inhere in individuals.
The linked article of Dr. Beckwith's is concerned chiefly with expliating his continued relationship with the ETS. He makes brief reference to his path back to the RCC: it reminds me of Newman's cogitations. I'd like to see him share more of his journey.
Posted by: coco | May 5, 2007 9:25:54 PM
Well, we use the term "crossing the Tiber" to refer to Protestants who become Catholic, but the term could be used in reverse. The mass of Catholics certainly need more evangelization, one way or another. I am also of the opinion that regular Protestatism and Evangelical Christians standing alone can neither ultimately hold up against nor form a strong enough counter-Other to the powerful Culture of Death and the Brave New World
The Reformation, although both positive in some aspects roughly divided the parsimony of Western Christinaity into 2 parts and EACH part now is worse off for it. I am a cradle Roman Catholic.
So crossing the Tiber is not always a negative thing. Maybe in a few decades there will be a bridge across the Tiber where people can cross back and forward; but hopefully not in a capricious manner! That way they can see the full parsimony.
Posted by: Michael 2 | May 5, 2007 10:33:55 PM
What I find so very odd is Dr. Beckwith's reasoning. Having left Rome at some time in the past, he now says he returns wanting to err on her side ("Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles")? I think embracing a change such as this would mean one does so wanting to leave error behind.
As for theological and historical continuity, I have a few Orthodox friends who would beg to differ with him on that score.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | May 6, 2007 12:26:00 AM
The term "sheep stealing" refers to those who actively solicit persons of another church to convert to theirs, rather than to the convert -- which I why I raised the question. I thnk a very valid distinction can be draw between the legitimate practice of making a case for one's own communion to a person who has doubts and/or is actively seeking of his own volition, and the pernicious practice of going to persons unsolicited and deliberately fometing doubts where they do not exist (inviariably by lies, half-truths, and distortions) -- particularly with the implication that a targeted person who is a Nicene Creed Christian in faith and practice is somehow not really a Christian after all because that person does not belong to one's own denomination. This is simply NOT the same thing as evangelization of the unbelieving according to the Great Commission. It is instead pretending to preach Christ out of love of strife and self.
For my own part, I will welcome into classical Anglicanism any person who is interested in coming over to it. I will not seek to "convert" a faithful Christian of another denomination to Anglicanism.
Posted by: James A. Altena | May 6, 2007 6:12:07 AM
>>>The term "sheep stealing" refers to those who actively solicit persons of another church to convert to theirs, rather than to the convert -- which I why I raised the question. <<<
James makes the necessary distinction. Thus, with regard to other Apostolic Churches, the Catholic Church, recognizing their status as Sister Churches, officially repudiates any attempt to proselytize their members--or to take any actions that might be construed as proselytization, such as erecting a big, flashy church that overshadows the traditiona village church, or to offer material aid in competition with the other Church, etc. Of course, the Catholic Church is not nearly the monolith that some think it is, so not everybody obeys (shocking, isn't it?).
On the other hand, the Catholic Church welcomes all who wish to be received into her bosom, provided they do so without compulsion, in accordance with the dictates of an informed conscience (there's that term, again!), and without any actual or perceived bribery or inducement. Then such members are received through confession and a simple profession of faith that does not require condemnation or renunciation of their former Church. Moreover, recognizing the status of the Sister Churches outside of the Catholic Communion, the Catholic Church allows them to receive all the sacraments, provided they are properly disposed and do so freely, but ALSO encourages them to follow the disciplines of their own Churches.
In this way, the Catholic Church hopes to eliminate all charges of "sheep stealing" while respecting the freedom of conscience of the individual believer, and his right to seek God wherever the Holy Spirit should lead him, for true belief cannot be coerced, either by keeping people in, or by keeping people out.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2007 6:32:06 AM
>I thnk a very valid distinction can be draw between the legitimate practice of making a case for one's own communion to a person who has doubts and/or is actively seeking of his own volition, and the pernicious practice of going to persons unsolicited and deliberately fometing doubts where they do not exist
I think much of what you describe is simply different cultures of witnessing. Those who witness to other Christians in an unsolicited fashion are also those, in my experience, who are much more likely to witness to pagans, also unsolicited. Now an entirely different topic might be the wisdom of the cold, unsolicited witness, both conceptually and by what practice. But it also seems to me that people I've known who'd embrace the idea above are unlikely to be found knocking on doors, either Christian or pagan.
Posted by: David Gray | May 6, 2007 6:33:06 AM
>>>The term "sheep stealing" refers to those who actively solicit persons of another church to convert to theirs, rather than to the convert -- which I why I raised the question. <<<
James makes the necessary distinction. Thus, with regard to other Apostolic Churches, the Catholic Church, recognizing their status as Sister Churches, officially repudiates any attempt to proselytize their members--or to take any actions that might be construed as proselytization, such as erecting a big, flashy church that overshadows the traditiona village church, or to offer material aid in competition with the other Church, etc. Of course, the Catholic Church is not nearly the monolith that some think it is, so not everybody obeys (shocking, isn't it?).
On the other hand, the Catholic Church welcomes all who wish to be received into her bosom, provided they do so without compulsion, in accordance with the dictates of an informed conscience (there's that term, again!), and without any actual or perceived bribery or inducement. Then such members are received through confession and a simple profession of faith that does not require condemnation or renunciation of their former Church. Moreover, recognizing the status of the Sister Churches outside of the Catholic Communion, the Catholic Church allows them to receive all the sacraments, provided they are properly disposed and do so freely, but ALSO encourages them to follow the disciplines of their own Churches.
In this way, the Catholic Church hopes to eliminate all charges of "sheep stealing" while respecting the freedom of conscience of the individual believer, and his right to seek God wherever the Holy Spirit should lead him, for true belief cannot be coerced, either by keeping people in, or by keeping people out.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2007 6:33:31 AM
>I thnk a very valid distinction can be draw between the legitimate practice of making a case for one's own communion to a person who has doubts and/or is actively seeking of his own volition, and the pernicious practice of going to persons unsolicited and deliberately fometing doubts where they do not exist
I think much of what you describe is simply different cultures of witnessing. Those who witness to other Christians in an unsolicited fashion are also those, in my experience, who are much more likely to witness to pagans, also unsolicited. Now an entirely different topic might be the wisdom of the cold, unsolicited witness, both conceptually and by what practice. But it also seems to me that people I've known who'd embrace the idea above are unlikely to be found knocking on doors, either Christian or pagan.
>Thus, with regard to other Apostolic Churches, the Catholic Church, recognizing their status as Sister Churches, officially repudiates any attempt to proselytize their members--or to take any actions that might be construed as proselytization, such as erecting a big, flashy church that overshadows the traditiona village church, or to offer material aid in competition with the other Church, etc.
So presumably Protestants would be fair game?
Posted by: David Gray | May 6, 2007 9:06:28 AM
At one of the Touchstone conferences Fr. Reardon said that Orthodox usually do not 'evangelize' other Nicene Christians because we don't believe that one is necessarily unsaved by the mere fact that he/she isn't part of the Orthodox Church (despite the fact that she is, in our opinion, the "one, true, Holy, Apostolic" one.) Bishop Kallisos Ware has said similar things as well.
Having said that however, I firmly believe that one can lose one's soul by NOT joining the Orthodox Church, if the Holy Spirit through one's "informed conscience" convinces you to do so and you choose to do otherwise. In other words, as I had it put to me once during my catechesis, "Don't become Orthodox unless you have to," that is, unless your conscience leaves you no choice.
I'd imagine that the RCs here would take a similar view of things. Neither of us, I think, want people "converting" out of mere preference, but instead, out of a real commitment to truth.
Posted by: Rob Grano | May 6, 2007 1:30:07 PM
>>>So presumably Protestants would be fair game?<<<
For the most part, the Catholic Church makes little organized effort to proselytize Protestants--in fact, it is far too busy trying to fend off Evangelical efforts to win over Roman Catholics. Catholic doctrine does not in any way imply that Protestants (or any non-Catholic Christians) are condemned to hellfire simply because they are NOT Catholics. Quite a few Protestants hold that Catholics ARE damned, simply because they ARE Catholics. This belief makes proselytization a mandate for them, and their efforts have borne considerable fruit in Latin America, Africa and Asia among traditionally Catholic populations. For this, I place the blame entirely on the Catholic Church, which has done a miserable job of catechizing its own people for the last half century.
By the way, proselytization hasn't made Evangelical Protestants any too popular in traditionally Orthodox lands, either.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2007 1:35:55 PM
>By the way, proselytization hasn't made Evangelical Protestants any too popular in traditionally Orthodox lands, either.
Nor has the readiness of the Russian Orthodox Church to use the coercive power of the state against fellow Christians necessarily impressed others.
Posted by: David Gray | May 6, 2007 1:45:04 PM
>>>Nor has the readiness of the Russian Orthodox Church to use the coercive power of the state against fellow Christians necessarily impressed others.<<<
Well, it certainly hasn't impressed Roman Catholics. Their high-handed tactics in Ukraine haven't even impressed the Ukrainian Orthodox. I don't expect any real progress in that area until such time as a former colonel of the KGB (decorated for meritorious service) no longer serves as head of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2007 2:05:31 PM
While I agree with the ROC's concern about proselytization, the ham-fisted way in which they're resisting it seems to me to be just as bad.
Posted by: Rob Grano | May 6, 2007 2:14:06 PM
"Catholic doctrine does not in any way imply that Protestants (or any non-Catholic Christians) are condemned to hellfire simply because they are NOT Catholics. Quite a few Protestants hold that Catholics ARE damned, simply because they ARE Catholics."
One could as easily say that "quite a few" Roman Catholics, being under the impression that the anathemas of Trent have never been rescinded, believe that Protestants ARE damned, simply because they are Protestant.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | May 6, 2007 2:52:41 PM
>>>One could as easily say that "quite a few" Roman Catholics, being under the impression that the anathemas of Trent have never been rescinded, believe that Protestants ARE damned, simply because they are Protestant.<<<
Even Trent made allowances for what is quaintly called "Invincible Ignorance". The entire understanding of extra ecclesia nulla sallus has never been rightly understood by many of the clergy, to say nothing of the laity. Nonetheless, the excommunication of Father Feeney, for all the attempts of Feeneyites to change the subject, was grounded in his personal conviction that non-Catholics were categorically damned.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2007 3:53:12 PM
Apart from folks who believe Catholics are damned because they are Catholic (like James White and quite a few commenters on Dr Beckwith's blog) there are those of us in largely Catholic countries (60%+ of population) where only a small percentage practice; yet the RCC clergy, for the most part making little effort at (re-)evangelization themselves, consider evangelism by Evangelicals "sheep stealing".
An example:
In Austria, the RCC, unlike Evangelicals, has program slots on public radio; none of their programming is evangelistic in nature, all of it seems to assume that all listeners are adequately catechised practicing Catholic Christians.
Card. Schönborn is a notable exception in this regard; but when he suggested that the Church needs to move from the current model of semi-automatic membership through infant baptism towards a model of voluntary, committed membership (which would provide more impetus to catechize/re-evangelize all those infant-baptized), he was roundly criticized from within his Church.
A main argument of his critics was that this would also imply giving up the "church tax" which Hitler introduced and which was carried over into the concordat between the Vatican and post-WWII Austria (where the gov't enforces the Church's title to a small percentage of the income of every baptized person who has not publicly declared his/her resination from the RCC), and who knows whether voluntary giving would permit the continuation of church life as we know it.
But Evangelicals, who, confronted with nominal Catholics whom the Church seems content to leave in this state, share Christ with people and then invite seekers to their churches are maligned as "sectarian" and "cultist" by many clergy.
Go figure.
Posted by: Wolf Paul | May 6, 2007 4:02:31 PM
For those wondering why Hitler introduced the "church tax": his regime outlawed most of the previous ways the churches had been funded by dissolving the close ties between church and state that traditionally existed in Germany and Austria, and the church tax was a way to shift the responsibility of funding the churches to their members. It applied to all the churches, but as far as I know only the RCC and the Lutheran/Reformed Protestant Churches in Germany and Austria retained the system post-WWII.
Posted by: Wolf N Paul | May 6, 2007 4:13:43 PM
I should also mention that it's pretty hard these days to find a dyed-in-the-wool Feeneyite amongst those who actually belong to the Catholic Church. There are many amongst the schismatic Lefebvreites of the SSPX, and even more among the sedevacantist loonies, but not too many in canonical Catholic parishes.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2007 4:13:47 PM
>>One could as easily say that "quite a few" Roman Catholics, being under the impression that the anathemas of Trent have never been rescinded, believe that Protestants ARE damned, simply because they are Protestant.<<
In Catholicism, however, one is not permitted to make up one's own mind about the application of such things. We have governing authorities whose decisions are binding. These authorities say that the anathemas of Trent cannot be applied in their full force to most present-day Protestants, if for no other reason than most Protestants are now innocent of schism. They are raised in well-rooted, historical traditions, and in the natural order would be expected to adhere to the teachings of their ancestors and communities.
The schisms and heresies of the 16th century are first and foremost the responsibility of the people of the 16th century (Catholics included). The anathemas were written for that generation. That doesn't mean they have no force now; it only means they can't be presumed to have the same force they once did.
Moreover, as the generations pass, many Reformation "heresies" have softened themselves in the Protestant communities where they live. Of major interest are recent mutual understandings reached by the RC Church and some Lutherans. We don't agree on everything, but it's clear that the Catholic Church is not holding every living Lutheran personally responsible for every Reformation error and all the damage done to the Church by divisions now nearly 500 years old.
"Quite a few" Catholics may believe as you have indicated. They are wrong. Most Catholics are aware that accountability to Church authority is very high on the list of Catholic virtues, so they should know they are wrong. As Mr. Koehl suggests, we RCs are going to have to work on that. But neither should anyone outside the Church pretend to misunderstand: There *is* an authoritative Catholic position, and it does not include believing in the damnation of all Protestants.
Posted by: DGP | May 6, 2007 4:30:39 PM
Nevertheless, Feeney and those of his followers who were reconciled in 1972 were not required to give up their views on "extra ecclesia nulla salus" -- because "diversity of interpretation of this doctrine is permitted". And this was after Vatican II. So while there may not be many Feeneyites, their views could still be viewed as legitimate.
Posted by: Wolf N Paul | May 6, 2007 4:45:56 PM
>>So while there may not be many Feeneyites, their views could still be viewed as legitimate.<<
They may be correct that most or all people outside the Catholic Church are headed for damnation. (For that matter, I have reservations about those of us *inside* the Catholic Church.) Nevertheless, they are not permitted to offer such an opinion as if it were *de fidei* from the anathemas of Trent.
Posted by: DGP | May 6, 2007 5:15:41 PM
Come to think of it, in Dr. Beckwith's case the anathemas could have been applied more strictly, for the same reason this can't be considered sheep-stealing. Since he was raised as a Catholic, he may have had more of an opportunity to know better than simply to wander off into evangelicalism. Of course, that depends on what he actually learned from his parents and others: Heaven knows, Catholics have not always been very good at passing on the riches of the faith to subsequent generations.
In any case, I join others in welcoming Dr. Beckwith (back) to full communion in the Church.
Posted by: DGP | May 6, 2007 5:27:42 PM
I Sorry to be "that guy," Michael 2, but I believe you want "patrimony, " not "parsimony."
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | May 6, 2007 5:39:47 PM
"I think much of what you describe is simply different cultures of witnessing."
I respectfully but firmly disagree, David. Someone coming up to me and saying, "You're not really a Christian because your church teaches X and mine teaches Y about doctrine Z" (I've seen it happen, and had it happen to me) is not something reducible to "simply different cultures of witnessing." It is a deeply-rooted sin of pride, in which the person speaking has elevated himself to the status of God and presumes to know certainly the salvation or damnation of all human souls.
"I firmly believe that one can lose one's soul by NOT joining the Orthodox Church, if the Holy Spirit through one's 'informed conscience' convinces you to do so and you choose to do otherwise."
Well, Rob, this principle applies not only to any and every church, but indeed to any and every moral issue. Knowing, willful, deliberate resistance to the Holy Ghost, persisted in until death, is called "final impenitence" and is held by many of the church fathers to be the unforgiveable "sin against the Holy Ghost" to which Christ referred. But I would suggest that sheep-stealers need to be an awful less cocksure that they are infallible oracles of the Holy Ghost, and that those who do not heed them are doing so out of knowing and willful obdurance.
Let me be clear that sheep-stealing is a sin in every Christian denomination. It is primarily a matter of an personal sin of pride. There also may be some sects that have elevated it to a characteristic doctrine, but I don't see those represented on Touchstone.
Posted by: James A. Altena | May 6, 2007 7:05:00 PM
I find the comments on "sheep stealing" humorous at best, and quite ignorant at worst.
It is not considered sheep stealing when a person leaves the clutches of a heretical cult to come to the Church. There is only one Church. The evangelistic mission of the Holy Spirit is to make all men members of that Church.
The Early Fathers would have none of your pretensions of sheep stealing. They would be glad that a heretic repented and came to his senses.
May more do the same.
Edward A. Hara
Posted by: Edward A. Hara | May 6, 2007 7:18:48 PM
>They would be glad that a heretic repented and came to his senses.
I wonder if Edward A. Hara will...
Posted by: David Gray | May 6, 2007 7:23:17 PM
James,
I understand 'final impenitence' to refer to a refusal to seek forgiveness for sins committed. Few (if any) persistently hold to an erroneous belief if presented with convincing evidence to the contrary. I think it's very unlikely that (m)any are condemned before the Judgment seat for erroneous opinions. Matt 25 speaks to this.
Posted by: coco | May 6, 2007 7:24:21 PM
BTW let it not be supposed that I exclude from danger those who in John's words shunned the light "because they preferred darkness". That is an instance of moral corruption coloring one's attitude to the morality of particular actions. I don't see much argument about such things between those who congratulate and those who lament Dr. Beckwith's announcement.
Posted by: coco | May 6, 2007 7:31:27 PM
hmmm...
The linked blog comments booing Dr. Beckwith (whom I've never heard of...) sound depressingly like something I might have written some 15 years ago. I applaud his decision. When I left my evangelical church it was a monumental decision...with people ascribing the worst motives to myself.
A question for the RC clergy here: What is required of a Baptised/Confirmed Anglican who wishes to enter into Communion with Rome? Do we start from scratch, or is there some slack there (does Rome recognise Anglican Sacraments)? Just curious, as I believe that RC laity simply are "received" as is into Anglicanism if they decide to convert. Is the current stronger one way or the other? :)
Posted by: Dominic Glisinski | May 6, 2007 7:45:56 PM
The ETS doctrinal statement is, in its entirety: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written ...
-----------------------------------------------
A Roman Catholic would have to parse that out a bit...I would hesitate to use that "alone", smacks of "sola". It can be parsed, but why bother? and then the debate becomes...so what books constitute the canon? sheesh. I recently quoted 1 Maccabees 2:19-22 in a mailing to protestants, no one complained.
Posted by: Dominic Glisinski | May 6, 2007 8:02:59 PM
>It can be parsed, but why bother? and then the debate becomes...so what books constitute the canon?
Intent of the drafters might provide clues to the curious.
Posted by: David Gray | May 6, 2007 8:04:51 PM
Here's a conversation between two young girls, maybe 10 or 11 at the local Y pool. "Do you know Coach Smith?" "Oh yes, he's so and so's father from my church." "Well that's good. He's a Christian; I thought he was a Catholic or something. Are you sure he's a Christian?"
I was stunned. Where I live, Catholics are still not thought of as Christians.
Posted by: Southside | May 6, 2007 8:18:51 PM
>>>It is not considered sheep stealing when a person leaves the clutches of a heretical cult to come to the Church. There is only one Church. The evangelistic mission of the Holy Spirit is to make all men members of that Church.<<<
Father Feeney speaks with the voice of O'Hara!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2007 8:44:02 PM
>>>A Roman Catholic would have to parse that out a bit...<<<
Not really. The statement is merely incomplete.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2007 8:44:57 PM
I've heard Frank Beckwith speak on a number of occasions. He's also a "friend of a friend," so I have the illusion that I almost know him! ;-) Yet the thought I had after reading his apology (to which Dr. Moore linked above) is that Beckwith acted too hastily. If he really only took up the issue in earnest in JANUARY of this year--well, my goodness, he really hasn't had an opportunity to reflect on what he's read. He may well still have returned to the Roman Catholic Church a year or two down the road, but I do feel sorry for him. A man in the "spotlight," so to speak, doesn't have the opportunity to consider issues in depth the way most of us do. He's expected to have the "right" answer just as soon as he has read the Church Fathers and treatises on justification? I'm sorry, but few people--even the most brilliant--are really so wise so quickly. God preserve us from such haste.
Posted by: Bill R | May 6, 2007 9:08:28 PM
>>I think it's very unlikely that (m)any are condemned before the Judgment seat for erroneous opinions. Matt 25 speaks to this.<<
Oh, dear. Where to begin? I think you've rather seriously misunderstood Matthew 25, not to mention the implications some "opinions" may have for our saving relationship with Christ and the Church.
Posted by: DGP | May 6, 2007 9:15:32 PM
Explain, DGP, explain and convince me of the errors that otherwise might damn me. What is the true meaning on Mt 25?
Posted by: coco | May 6, 2007 9:30:40 PM
It's really laughable (as far as I can conceive). Unless I, a mere layman, extract the correct meaning from Holy Scripture, I am damned? Give me the Church any day...
Posted by: coco | May 6, 2007 9:35:11 PM
>>What is required of a Baptised/Confirmed Anglican who wishes to enter into Communion with Rome? Do we start from scratch, or is there some slack there (does Rome recognise Anglican Sacraments)?<<
An Anglican who wishes to become Catholic does not start from scratch. His baptism is recognized. Depending upon his personal history, he may also be recognized as having already sustained a long-term Christian life, obviating the need for formation in prayer, reflection, and/or morality.
Normally, Anglican confirmation is not recognized, as the Latin Rite requires that the ordinary minister of confirmation be a bishop, and Anglican episcopal orders are not generally recognized. (At very high levels there have been some rather curious exceptions made on this point, but for the average joe it would be easiest simply to receive a Catholic confirmation.)
The governing document on the matter is called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, and is widely available in Catholic rectories or from booksellers. The RCIA leaves a lot of discretion to the local pastor to evaluate the baptized Christian and determine what should be required of him to become Catholic. The maximum requirement would be to treat him as if he were a pagan in all but name, and ask him to proceed through more than a year's worth of formation, almost identical to what a catechumen would receive in preparation. The minimum requirement would be a quiet, unpublicized Mass at which the candidate would (1) profess his faith in the teaching authority of the Church, (2) be confirmed by the priest, and (3) receive holy Communion.
Posted by: DGP | May 6, 2007 9:37:37 PM
