Come on in, the Holy Water's Fine -- at both ends of the pool

What to say?  The Holy Father offers you a place at the Holy Table.  A place for sinners of the specifically Anglican variety, with all their crochets, conceits, and -- if an Episcopalians  may say so -- magnificences worth sharing widely.  It's bloody marvelous -- possibly game-changing for both parties to the Pope's generous offer today to worried,  disconsolate Anglicans the world around.

Where this leaves Anglicans who already have sound spiritual comforts and protections -- I'm one of those -- we'll have to see.  But, look, if  the theory works out, it's good for everybody.  A win-win.

We all need on some terms or other to be back together. The Reformation, as time marches on,  looks more and more like the worst idea in human history.  Undoing its consequences is the challenge: getting us all back toi working and praying together.  When, not if,  we finally get it done, Anglican parties to the deal will profit from the simple rellief of no longer having to care what General Convention and  the House of Bishops do.  Hallelujah!   But Rome potentially gets something out of it, too, starting with an accession of serious folk blessed with a light, happy touch in their human and cultural relationships. Not a few are -- all together now! -- more catholic than the pope.  Well, blessedly orthodox anyway: firm  in their embrace of the Christian essentials and ready to get on with the task of better advertisitng those essentials to a world adrift from them.

  Anglicans aren't just spiritual beggars at the gate. Many of those most touched by the Reformation spirit -- Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and these days James Packer -- have been, and continue so, Christians of deep spirituality and profound intellect. Rome needs to hear what Anglicans have been saying for centuries about the saving love of Jesus, and the approaches to his throne.  Keble, the Anglican Newman, Hooker, Jeremy Taylor, Dr. Johnson, C. S. Lewis --  a whole company of Anglican worthies waits its turn to speak to the Roman brethren.  It might happen now. It just might.

Comments

[Jordan]

The idea that the Reformation was the worst idea in human history is the worst idea in human history.

[Rev. Paul T. McCain]

The Reformation is the worst idea in human history? That claim may qualify for "hyperbole of the year" award, or at least today, since, well, because this is a blog, hyperbole, overstatement and hastily crafted and posted ideas are par for the course.

Let's be clear on what has happened. The Pope has offered a "home" for Anglicans. And of course he has, and will continue to do so for all Christians. That perhaps some special provisions might be arranged for Anglicans in particular is interesting, but the bottom line is that anyone who comes to Rome still comes entirely on Rome's terms.

As a Lutheran Christian, of the old-fashioned "yes, we still do adhere to the Book of Concord, no we don't ordain women, and condone gay marriage and clergy and don't support murdering unborn children" type of Lutheran, I'm grateful that Rome is no longer killing our ilk as heretics. And I'm grateful for any improvement in expression one finds in Rome when it comes to the Gospel, but let's not forget that Rome pointedly has not changed its tune on the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone. The Canons of the Council of Trent are still very much in full force and effect.

Anglicans who come to Rome must accept the claims of Rome that its bishop is first among equals and is the Vicar of Christ on earth. That is something that can not be tolerated in the Church of the Living God.

In other words, kinder and gentler Rome? Yes and thanks be to God, but...fundamentally, where it most counts, is Rome really that much different since Trent? No.

I'd say that the Reformation is still one of the best ideas in human history.

[LUKE1732]

There are great things happening recently on both the Anglican and Orthodox fronts regarding the ultimate reunification of Christ's church on earth.

With regards to Lutheranism, what about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification

[GL]

Maybe a better way to phrase it is as follows:

"As time marches on, the schism to which the Reformation gave birth is one of the greatest tragedies in human history."

One would hope that all sides could agree to that observation.

[Jordan]

GL,

That is a better way to phrase it, but it still assumes "blame" for the schism to be with one party and not the other, correct? Or should I read "Reformation" to include the efforts and effects of the "counter" or "Roman Catholic" Reformation?

[David Virtue]

The Reformation was one the greatest events in history to have ever occurred. The freedoms it brought from a wicked generation of Borgia popes and a corrupt Catholic Church can never be underestimated. Millions of people then and since have been liberated from the clutches of a church that claimed to have all knowledge, all wisdom and all power. Freeing the Bible from clerisy was perhaps the second greatest act in history. Luther’s clarion call that the just shall live by faith has echoed down five centuries and is still with us. His 95 Theses echoes throughout the centuries and still the Roman Catholic Church has not answered them. Works righteousness verses faith in the finished work of what Christ has done at the cross remains the cornerstone of Protestant evangelicalism, it was true then and it is true now. The Anglo-Catholics ought to go to Rome, it is where they belong…some of them are more Roman than Rome, most of them are more high church than most Catholic churches. What the Pope offers them is precisely what a pope should have done 100 years ago. I wish them God speed but I won’t be joining them.

David W. Virtue DD
VIRTUEONLINE
www.virtueonline.org

[Ben]

To be fair, too, from the Catholic perspective:

Anglicans are spiritual beggars at the gate, and union with the Church will require admission of that poverty.

Intellectual beggars? Not so much. But Rome taught, and continues to teach, that Anglicans lack valid orders and, therefore, the Real Presence. You don't get much greater spiritual poverty than that.

[GL]

Jordan,

No. You are free to give "blame" for the conception of the Reformation where you will, though, as with biological conception, I would think the most accurate observation is that it takes two. I believe it would be more accurate to consider the early days of the Reformation itself (say, from the posting of the 95 Theses to Diet of Worms) to be the birth pangs of a schism which had been conceived well before the Reformation itself. (If, as you appear to believe, the Reformation was of greater good than evil, then how could its genesis be properly considered a cause for blame?)

From many years of practicing law, I have come to see the assigning of blame (almost always on "the other") as a means of justifying and exculpating oneself. As a Protestant with many Catholic friends, I don't believe that blame assigning at this late date to be a beneficial exercise.

[LUKE1732]

That is a better way to phrase it, but it still assumes "blame" for the schism to be with one party and not the other, correct? Or should I read "Reformation" to include the efforts and effects of the "counter" or "Roman Catholic" Reformation?

As a Catholic, I sincerely want to understand this from a Protestant perspective - what are we to make of the fact that one party remained whole while the other exploded into thousands of denominations that vary widely with regard to their beliefs?

[Jordan]

GL,

Sure. The metaphor of "giving birth" begs the question of who the midwife is, the mother is, the father is, and so on.

To say the Reformation birthed a regrettable schism makes it sound to me like the Reformation is the culprit.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

What about the Great Schism of 1054? That predates the Reformation.

[GL]

Jordan,

If you choose to read my remarks that way, you may. That is not what I said nor do I believe it is a necessary inference, nor, for that matter, even a logical one. By my modifying my remarks to describe the Reformation as the birth pangs of schism which was conceived well before it, I believe that I have described the Reformation as part of a process, which, as with all processes, cannot itself be assigned blame, just as one cannot assign "blame" to my wife's contractions for the birth of our children, the contraction being just as much a natural result of the conception of our children as their birth.

The point of my first post, which appears to have been missed, was to point out the unfortunate consequences of the Reformation, schism (which I took to be Mr. Murchison's point), not to begin an effort of assigning or shifting blame among those who died nearly or, in many cases, more than half-a-millennium ago.

I'll leave this discussion to others. This exercise is hardly worth my time.

[GL]

"What about the Great Schism of 1054? That predates the Reformation."

What about the schism with the Church of the East after the third ecumenical council or the schism with the Oriental Orthodox after the fourth?

All schism is a tragedy, tearing apart, limb from limb, the body of our Lord, who on the very night when He was betrayed and knowing He was about to die on a cross, prayed for unity among His followers. Our divisions are our disobedient answer to His will as expressed to His Father in His prayer in the Garden. Unfortunately, we inherited the schism and must live with it, as it cannot be escaped unless all agree to reunification (which could only now come about through a mighty work of the Spirit). I don't see much profit from blame assigning, however, centuries after the deed was done.

[Robert Hart]

My response is lengthy: http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/thanks-but-no-thanks.html

[Lars Walker]

All my life I have heard church people bewailing the "tragic divisions of Christianity." They sincerely mourn our divisions.

And yet I've never encountered one who was willing to contribute to the healing of those divisions by surrendering all his principles and submitting to a church order (Catholic or Protestant) which contradicts his deepest convictions.

Instead, they always call for others to come to them.

I see no end to the schism, as long as people have the freedom to exercise their consciences. And I, for one, won't compromise the principle of freedom.

[Kamilla]

I'm sorry to see this discussion take such a partisan turn so quickly. GL is right, *all* schism is a tragedy. And, given the fruit it has borne, I would hope men wouldn't be so quick to embrace the Reformation as, "one the greatest events in history" as if greatest is equivalent to best.

Even if it was necessary, Mr. Murchison is right about the march of time making it look like it was the worst idea in human history. All schism is a tragedy and it looks as if Protestantism will never cease its splintering ways.

Kamilla

[Christian]

"I'm grateful that Rome is no longer killing our ilk as heretics."

May as well throw in the Greeks and 1204 while we're at it.

[Irenaeus]

Anyone who can look back at the fracturing of Christendom, especially in light of the multifold heresies and heretical groups and sects that have resulted, with anything other than profound sadness... well. The Renaissance popes may have simply sucked, and things might have been a royal mess -- Tetzel and all -- but the Reformation's severing of nature and grace and nominalist ethos have led (I think; I know it can be argued) to modernity and its horrors. In fact, what is today's biotechnological nightmare if not the triumph of a post-Protestant, secularized "grace" destroying nature at the behest of (nominalist) Will? The same goes for the decline of the sexual constitution of the West.

Look, Luther's a genius. Calvin too. Fine. But we Protestants need to get real: we're in a worldwide disaster, and the Catholic Church and its Pope are the duct tape holding things together. And it's not so obvious that Luther and Calvin got Paul right, in light of the New Perspective on Paul and in light of the fact that they didn't happen to agree with each on what Paul meant.

All of which is precipitating a crisis for this Protestant.

/ramble

[Joel]

Did Rome stop bowing to images? Praying to saints? Forbidding marriage? Anyone who accepts the 39 Articles can never be excited about this move, but the TAC and other Anglo-Catholic groups never did accept the Articles. They have nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooker and Donne. This is a logical move that they should have made a long time ago, but I suspect the priests and bishops wanted to keep their jobs, so they held back. Now they can move on and a more Reformed Anglican Church can emerge.

[Joel]

"we Protestants need to get real: we're in a worldwide disaster"

Really? Exploding numbers in Africa and Asia equal a worldwide disaster?

[Fr Nathan Thompson]

So much to comment on. First of all, I've always felt that if Luther could see then what his actions would bring (30,000 denominations, many of them just wacky) he might have been a little more willing to recant. Having said that, as a wise priest once pointed out to me, the best fruit of the Protestant reformation was the Counter Reformation.
I am not looking to argue here, but there are many things that I misunderstood when I was an Evangelical Protestant. As for the classic charges of "worshiping" idols, God Himself told the Israelites to adorn the Temple with images, including the Cherubim on the Ark, this occurs in the same chapter as the prohibition of graven images.
In terms of the issue of faith versus works, I once heard an Orthodox Bishop, when asked how he reconciled faith and works, state that he saw no need to reconcile friends. Likewise, both St Paul and St James make it clear that we are saved by faith, but that works are a natural outpouring of that salvation. Likewise, our Lord tells us in no uncertain terms the consequence of not doing unto the least of these.
Having said all of this, I do believe that schism very well may be the most damaging sin. What witness do we have to nonbelievers who are supposed to know that we are Christians by the love that we have for one another. There are many things that I disagree with Rome as well as with Protestants. Some of these things can be overcome, some (especially with groups of Protestants that have completely jettisoned traditional episcopal, sacramental, and liturgical forms of Christianity) seem insurmountable, but this does not mean that we stop praying with our Lord "that [we] would be one."

[Bill R]

Having lobbed a rhethorical hand grenade into the Marian thread today, I'll continue to blunder in where angels fear to tread.

The last two Popes have been wonderful men: I admire both of them greatly. That said, however, I regard the Reformation as the birth of the modern age, for all the good and ill that that has generated. As Dickens might say, it brought about the best of times and the worst of times. But as a believing Protestant, I'll take the worst in order to have the best.

"As a Catholic, I sincerely want to understand this from a Protestant perspective - what are we to make of the fact that one party remained whole while the other exploded into thousands of denominations that vary widely with regard to their beliefs?"

This is how it looks to most Catholics and even to a few Protestants, but the evangelical view is radically different. Evangelical unity is quite real, though you may think Protestantism is rent with divisions. The Bible study I lead is composed of folks from several different churches, but we almost never have any doctrinal disputes. Evangelicals regard themselves as brothers and sisters and usually don't give a fig about what church you attend as long as it's "Bible-believing." That leaves a lot of latitude. On the other hand, most evangelicals (ironically, perhaps) regard Roman Catholicism as divided between those who subscribe to supernatural Christianity and those who wouldn't recognize a dogma if it stood up and bit them. In the end, though institutional unity has a fine ring to it, I'll take true conversion and heartfelt devotion to Jesus, whether I find it in your denomination or mine--and of course including Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, God bless 'em!

[Jessica Watson]

"but this does not mean that we stop praying with our Lord "that we would be one."

Amen. As painful as all the schisms might be, we can do our part to heal them, just as Touchstone has done. Along with praying, we can recognize the precious truths that really do bind our hearts together as one - the truths of the apostle's creed - and we can focus on that. Our divisions will pale as we gaze together on our crucified, risen, and ascended Lord. It was Lewis who said something to the effect of, "The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ('mere Christianity') which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective."

[Irenaeus]

Joel (Osteen?:)),

You wrote, "Really? Exploding numbers in Africa and Asia equal a worldwide disaster?"

Having close relatives who are missionaries in Africa, and having some familiarity with the situation in Korea, I would say the following:

(1) Quantity: The numbers are inflated, at least in Africa; my missionary family members tell me a lot of people get counted, say, 6 times, because they attend 6 events -- a Jesus film here, a crusade there -- and come forward or indicate some sort of commitment. The more numbers certain missionaries or pastors count, the more funding.

(2) Quality: The kind of Christianity a lot of Africans are coming to is a version of moral therapeutic deism mixed with an emotive pentecostalism that is, in my book, superficial and unsalutary, and marked by low levels of real commitment.

(Of course, how one thinks of "quality" here depends on prior theological decisions.) Were that they were all, say, LCMS-style Lutherans... Anyway, I don't think numbers are a great measure.

(3) Salvation may well be from the Africans and Asians. Got no problem with that, Jesus being far from western European. I guess when I used the phrase "worldwide disaster" I was perhaps thinking more of the situation in Europe and America, but also round the world, for the reasons given above.

(4) Asia, especially Korea with which I am familiar, may be a different story, for several reasons. In Korea, however, creeping westernism -- liberal theology and capitalist values -- have eroded the edges, as it were, IMHO.

Just my thoughts and impressions. I certainly miss the days when we'd all just bash libs together. That was much more fun.

[MCModerator]

Some of the comments here are clearly crossing the bounds of charity, and violating the ground rules against sectarian polemics. Let's keep it civil, please.

[Rob G]

"the Reformation's severing of nature and grace and nominalist ethos have led (I think; I know it can be argued) to modernity and its horrors. In fact, what is today's biotechnological nightmare if not the triumph of a post-Protestant, secularized "grace" destroying nature at the behest of (nominalist) Will? The same goes for the decline of the sexual constitution of the West."

Agreed, although the path was a long and twisted one, and not entirely the fault of the Reformation. Coming to this conclusion is part of what led me out of Protestantism some 18 years ago. Hence, even though I eventually became Orthodox and not Roman Catholic, I view the Reformation in a largely negative light.

Someone still needs to write a book on this. You get a little of it in Richard Weaver, a little in Louis Bouyer, a little in Marion Montgomery, even a little in Alastair McGrath, but no one to my knowledge has pulled these diverse threads together in a substantial, scholarly way.

[Tony Esolen]

May I say as a Roman Catholic that I have never bowed before an image in all my life?

Ladies and gentlemen, the hour is late. The biotechnocracy is coming upon us, ready to sweep aside the last remnants of a truly human community. One thing that has confirmed me in my adherence to Roman Catholicism is that, virtually alone for many years, and still virtually alone for some issues, Rome has stood against the reduction of human sexuality to will, even the will of faithful spouses. Because of the separation of grace from the rationally discoverable natural law (I know, not in Hooker, but in Ockham and in the late medieval pietists of the devotio moderna, even in Thomas a Kempis), we now have Christians making embryos in petri dishes, and leaving us almost no wherewithal to oppose the deliberate cobbling together of genes to produce babies according to our specifications. Once that happens, goodbye any chance for a resurgence of Christian civilization -- not until such a monstrosity destroys itself, anyway. I hope I do not live to see that filthy advent.

So let us on both sides stop the shouting. I would appreciate it most deeply to hear from my fellow Christians of the Protestant persuasion that they are sorry to have tagged abortion as a "Roman" issue for so long -- until Frank Schaeffer woke them up, after precious years were lost, not to mention precious lives. I for my part am perfectly willing to concede the worldliness and downright wickedness of Alexander VI and some of his predecessors; affirming at the same time, however, that we have not had a wicked man in the papal chair since Trent; and that plenty of Roman cardinals (Reginald Pole was one) at Trent had sympathies with the reformers. They had legitimate complaints ...

Might we all agree that what separated a Luther from an Ignatius of Loyola, each with a profound sense of our utter dependance upon God's grace for the least deed of merit we can perform (however one wants to define that merit, or explain it theologically), or a Melanchthon from a Pius V, is as nothing compared with what separates all of those battlers on the issue of grace from the Pelagians who complacently fill up our pews, in all our churches?

One last thing, whether some of the interlocutors here like it or not. I'm a committed Christian. Jesus is my savior. No answer besides Jesus can be given to any of the great questions in this universe. I can do absolutely nothing of merit on my own, without Jesus; and I don't mean that I do half of a good thing while He supplies the other half, either. Now you all who believe in Scripture are my compatriots in the battle. I may grumble that you take insufficient stock of the Church fathers and of the natural law. You may bemoan the fact, as you see it (for of course I don't see it that way, or I would not be Catholic) that I accept unwarranted additions to Scripture. But whether we like it or not, the battle is here, the trenches are dug, and our rifles had damned well better be pointed in the same direction. And here we bicker -- to quote Milton, "As if we had not foes enow besides, That day and night for our destruction wait."

[Bill R]

Tony, amen. We stand side by side. Hallelujah!

[Rev. Paul T. McCain]

Luke1732 posted a link to a story about the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. While the public relations and media machine of the Lutheran World Federation did a wonderful job spinning this story in a certain direction, there are a whole host of critical facts and information that was ignored in the process. If you are interested in more details about what the so-called "breakthrough" was on the doctrine of justification, or, frankly, what it was not, please refer to: http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/09/08/the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification-was-and-is-a-fraud/

[GL]

Amen, Tony.

Last evening I met with a small group of Touchstone readers for our monthly discussion of a recent article. Last night's discussion was on Fr. Reardon's article on his trip to Kosovo and Serbia. (See http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-07-021-f) When reading that article, I was struck by the absurdity of the Serbian desire to reclaim Kosovo. Kosovo, as described by Fr. Reardon, is a rapidly developing, economically robust area, populated by a people with the highest fertility rate in Europe. Serbia, on the other hand, has a very poor economy, populated by a people with a very low fertility rate, who abort many of the children they do conceive, with the few children who are conceived and survive the abortionist growing up with a desire to leave Serbia for the West, and with a Church which is divided on the desire to evangelize the secularist Albanians who populate much of Kosovo. In short, the Serbs are doing exactly the opposite of what they need to be doing if they ever hope to regain Christian dominance in Kosovo.

My observation is that we in the West are much like our Orthodox brothers in Serbia, desiring to regain what we have lost (in their case land and in our case culture), but unwilling to do what is necessary to achieve that end. One of those things which we must do if we are to have a chance in this struggle is to stop picking at scabs and fighting each other. If we wait until all Christians are formally reunited to do what we must to regain the culture, the battle will have been long lost. We could, however, stop acting like a dysfunctional family of children, whose Father and eldest Brother long to see reunited, but each of whom seek to be Daddy's favorite, while accusing our siblings of being the cause of the division and family strife. I don't see any good coming from our expending finite energy and time on attacking each other and refighting battles from half-a-millennium ago while our culture collapses around us. To see where that will lead us, look to the Serbs.

[Rob G]

I fully agree with Tony and Greg, but with one small caveat. I believe it's important to examine the history of ideas, to see how we got to where we are, so that past errors can be corrected (if possible) and future ones avoided. It isn't the placing of blame that's at issue (that's a fool's game, as fault inevitably lies with all parties) but the origin and trajectory of the errors.

From that angle then, I believe that it's important to discuss/debate these issues charitably, while striving as much as possible to avoid the blame game. Obviously it's not easy, but I believe it can be done, and that without necessarily distracting us from what Francis Schaeffer called our "co-belligerence."

[Eutychus]

Tony,

Amen.
A wise man once said, "In the end God will not ask whether we've won the battle, for in truth that battle is already won. But he will ask whether you shouldered the fight."
Sound familiar? (you may not because I probably mangled it but I hope I've gotten the gist right)
Proud to be in the trenches with you.

[Rev. Paul T. McCain]

GL, the Church's mission is not to "regain the culture" [whatever that means] and as for the rest of your comments, I understand how appealing such sentiments are, but let's bring things down to some realities with which we must deal.

(1) Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ on earth?
(2) Does all authority in the Church flow from Christ exclusively through the Pope, who in turns shares it with bishops, and they the priests?
(3) Is our salvation a result, in any measure or way, our works, or by God's grace alone?

If, on the other hand, these things make no difference to you, then by all means, join the Roman Church. They, on the other hand, have the integrity of their convictions and will not compromise on these points.

And neither will we who can not agree.

For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 1 Cor. 11:19

[Anonymous]

>>>(1) It the Pope the Vicar of Christ on earth?
(2) Does all authority in the Church flow from Christ exclusively through the Pope, who in turns shares it with bishops, and they the priests?
(3) Is our salvation a result, in any measure or way, our works, or by Gods's grace alone?<<<

The tone of this discussion would improve immeasurably if participants would bother to inform themselves about the reality of Catholic doctrine, as opposed to the polemical caricature of that doctrine that has colored attempts at fruitful dialogue for centuries.

[smh]

Our ambition here at the Fellowship of St. James and Touchstone has never been either to ignore or to solve the disputes between Protestants and Catholics, nor even to seek "common ground." Rather one could say that the editors are people upon whom apprehension of the reality of common ground has been visited, or even forced, because we cannot deny that we know and worship the same Lord.

It would be perilously easy to pronounce, as a great many have, a pox on everyone's houses but our own, but we have been brought to the strong suspicion that this does not please the Lord.

There is a place for polemics, for what is wrong must be set right, and the Church must be rid of heresy. Lines must be drawn and battles fought, and each of us must do his part in attack and defense. But at this particular place we operate under a flag of truce in the face of common enemies, and that requires protocols that allow the bonds of brotherhood and strong agreement many vital matters, which we also recognize, to prosper and strengthen. We are practiced at not saying everything we think, for that is appropriate at this venue.

I hope I have this story Fr. Reardon tells close to right:

In a game between rival baseball teams from Catholic and Protestant counties in Tennessee, the former were beating the latter at the Catholic home field, where the stands were jammed with Catholic fans. One of the Protestants, seeing that the situation was desperate, yelled, "Down with the pope!"

The stands erupted, and although the ensuing melee ended the game, the Protestant players barely made it back to their bus alive. "Now why did you have to go and yell "Down with the pope!" in front of a bunch of Catholics? his teammates asked the offending player. "How was I supposed to know the pope was Catholic?" he said.

May I suggest we all take a page from the senior editorial playbook here and avoid yelling the Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox equivalents of "Down with the pope!" All that's likely to come of it is a bloodied-up trip home.

[GL]

Rev. McCain, I will not argue with you. It would serve no purpose. I believe schism is a scandal. If you do not, then we must disagree. I certainly have no hope of convincing you to my view. Even if we cannot unite on doctrine at this late date, I would at least hope we could be united in mourning our divisions. It is beyond my comprehension how any bondservant of our Lord could feel otherwise.

[David Gray.]

Rev McCain,

Unfortunately your history of misrepresenting Reformed theology and understanding (such as your howler on Issues Etc that Calvin and Zwingli had basically the same understanding of the Lord's Supper) do not lend you credibility in your current efforts. Even if you are right in some aspects.

[Irenaeus]

"Someone still needs to write a book on this [nominalism etc in Protestantism, nature and grace, etc]. You get a little of it in Richard Weaver, a little in Louis Bouyer, a little in Marion Montgomery, even a little in Alastair McGrath, but no one to my knowledge has pulled these diverse threads together in a substantial, scholarly way."

Really? Part of me thinks it must have been done. If not, then there's a book project for me. (Although I'm trained in Bible, not intellectual history or historical theology, so it'd be heavy sledding.)

[Irenaeus]

Here's the horrifying side of the kind of African Christianity I was discussing above, involving the killing of pentecostal/evangelical children accused of witchcraft in Nigeria. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT OF AFRICAN CHRISTIANITY IN TOTO OR PENTECOSTALISM/EVANGELICALISM IN TOTO, but another example that numbers don't tell the whole story. Sancta Maria Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis...

[Bill R]

Have we forgotten that this is a conservative ecumenical blog? That, as Steve Hutchens points out, we must have at least a temporary truce from opening old wounds in order to recognize that a most awful night is coming upon us? Let other blogs be an outlet for our divisions, and let this blog be a place where all who recite and believe the Creed may, in some measure, be one.

[GL]

While we fight over whose Daddy's favorite, this is but one example of the consequences of our loss of the culture.

See Conscience, Courage, and Children With Down Syndrome

[Don]

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Peter"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power...

[smh]

To be sure, but also, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men, not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber--not even to eat with such a one" . . . . "Fight vigorously for the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

I would not be misunderstood--excision and exclusion is as much our duty as seeking peace and unity--these are, in fact, necessary for peace and unity. Christians who are thinking as they should hold both sides of this truth before their eyes. Timeo hereticos et pacem praedicantes.

[Bill R]

"I would not be misunderstood--excision and exclusion is as much our duty as seeking peace and unity--these are, in fact, necessary for peace and unity."

As a corollary to SMH's statement, I would assert that we also have a duty to associate with, and support, brothers and sisters in Christ who fight the good fight, howevermuch we may differ between and amongst ourselves on many and varied aspects of the faith, which corollary came to mind while reading Archbishop Chaput's comments on Down Syndrome, linked above by GL.

[CMA]

Rev. McCain,

The Reformation was not the work of the Spirit(the Spirit cannot author confusion) but thanks be to God, who can and does make good come out of anything! We Catholics cleaned house at Trent and frankly it started before Trent; addressing issues that were sorely needed, for example, seminary requirements for priests so that the second son of the duke didn't get to rest in the parsonage, giving one sermon in Latin for 5 years. And that is just one example, we are a hospital of sinners and we were in need of meds. However, when it comes to doctrine, Protestants were invited to Trent and did not come. Our Bishops studied and decided that our doctrine was sound, considering that St. Paul (as the Anglican theologian, N.T. Wright points out very clearly)tells us in Romans that our salvation is dependent upon our works AND as we all know, there was never the phrase 'faith alone' in scripture. That was Luther doing something we all consider wrong, adding to sacred scripture.

Are we Pelagianists? No and we never were! We are saved by Grace Alone through faith working in charity (love whichever word you prefer) and this has been our faith from the beginning. In other words, we are saved through no effort of our own, but by God's grace alone and it is through His grace that we are offered the gift of faith. We must accept the gift and make a decision of the will. AND our faith if it is true, must be actualized. Our lives should reflect our faith. We are to do those things Jesus talked about, give some water to a thirsty person or some change to a beggar without giving him the third degree. Matthew is clear about this in his Gospel as well, but I bring up Paul and Bishop Wright because it always seemed to me, when I was a Congregationalist and then an evangelical, that St. Paul always was held in higher esteem than the Gospels and because N.T. Wright is an acknowledged theologian on the New Testament and St. Paul in particular.

History is proving that much of the negative is myth propogated by our separated brethren and like it or not, through good and bad times and people, clery and laity, the Catholic Church has survived, the gates of hell have not prevailed. Our history is our witness to the promise Jesus made to Peter. It is quite impossible to study the history of the Catholic Church and not believe that the Holy Spirit guides her and protects her. We couldn't have made it this far!

We have all sinned, but in His mercy we have forgiveness. For those of us of all stripes, who cling to the orthodox faith, Historical Christianity, there are things that we need to work out in truth and love, but those things are fewer than many of us in our territoriality and prejudices would like to admit.

The Catholic Church has a long history of allowing for diversity which can be seen in the numerous 'Orders' within the Church as well as the various Rites. We are a both/and faith not an either/or and that opens the door for reconciliation. On the few things where we may differ, many are semantics, some do not denigrate our faith in Jesus, incarnated, crucified, died and risen that we share and can live side by side. Imagine a pope (Benedict) who has said so many times, that we cannot expect the Orthodox to reunite under any circumstances different from the time of our split...1000 AD. How does that fit your discussion above? Or JPII saying to you all, find a place for Peter? That does not sound very narrow to me. But then, I have been on both sides and find much to love in all. The Anglicans DO have a lot to offer us Catholics and I hope they will come in and bless us with their charisms.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I always thought that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is, if nothing more, a very badly named doctrine. It just begs for the following rebuttals:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

"If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

It's rather embarrassing, actually. I mean, there's an important point to be made about not earning your salvation by good works, but we should really get a proofreader when we name our doctrines.