After a brief respite from posting it looks like the anonymous blogger known as the Embryo Parson is back at it, blasting away at Retro-Church with both barrels. In three new posts over at The Old Jamestown Church blog, he takes us to task for synergism, sophistry, and an inability to use thefreedictionary.com (I don't always use the dictionary, EP, but when I do, I prefer the OED). It's nice to have him back at it because he keeps things interesting, but as his first post shows, he just can't seem to leave the old "Newman went to Rome so Anglo-Catholics must necessarily follow suit" hobby horse alone. Having seen the collective "meh" that went up among Continuers in response to Anglicanorum Coetibus, I'd say EP's horse exists mostly in his imagination, but as of now, it looks like he's going to keep riding it--Parson Style! We see this also in a more recent post, which looks to be a response to my observation about Classical Anglican™ historiography being stuck in the nineteenth century. There he provides a link to a pretty good summary of where Reformation Studies stood in 1997. We're getting closer here, but EP has now left us with the impression that we're living in the world of oversized coffee cups, concerns about Y2K, and the Spy vs Spy mentality of "Revisionist" against "Whig." This is the situation that Norman Jones satirizes in the opening paragraph of his insightful study of English religious culture and generational change, The English Reformation: Religion and Cultural Adaption (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd., 2002).
"Once upon a time the people of England were happy medieval Catholics, visiting their holy wells, attending frequent masses and deeply respectful of Purgatory and afraid of hell. Then lustful King Henry forced them to abandon their religion. England was never merry again. Alternatively, once upon a time the people of England were oppressed by corrupt churchmen. They yearned for the liberty of the Gospel. Then, Good King Harry gave them the Protestant nation for which they longed."
By the time Jones wrote this, revisionism had pretty much run its course. That said, most people agree that revisionism provided a necessary corrective to the Whig-derived narrative that dominated mid-twentieth century scholarship. Few people now think of "The Reformation" as historically limited, monolithic, and largely inevitable. Instead, folks are working with the concept of a long reformation, or even multiple reformations, and I would argue that this shift in perspective is a good thing. It provides, for example, a safeguard against scholarship falling into patterns of thought that arose out of the process of nation building in the early modern era. This makes for a cleaner, less partisan approach to the period in question.
It also allows us, as Anglicans, to adopt a more comprehensive view of where we come from. Facts may be stubborn things, but does this mean that we must define ourselves by the decisions of a secular body trying to stave off insurrection at home and invasion from abroad? I don't think so. As I pointed out before, I'd rather start with the catholic faith and work outward from there. This is neither being dishonest about our origins, nor is it indicative of a desire to be something other than what we are. In fact, I would say that it comes from a sense of security in our Anglican identity. I've been in the ACC for over 20 years and am happy with where I am. I think my parishioners (quite a few of whom actually came from Rome) feel the same way. We are "continuing" Anglicans in that we're part of a great tradition of the Ecclesia Anglicana and we can talk to anyone without forgetting who we are.
My hope is that EP will recognize that his horse is actually dead and put him to rest. The internet already has one imaginary rider; I'm not sure there's room out there for any more.
Hello Anon. I accidentally deleted your post (am still learning how to drive this thing). Sorry about that. I'm afraid that's not a parson's collar on Psy's neck--that's beyond my skill at Photoshop.
DeleteSpeaking of Anglican "origins" ... Anglicanism either predates the Reformation and managed to survive Cranmer's, Jewel,s Hooper's, etc. assault on Catholic Faith and Worship (often labelled "English Reformation") ... and is therefore STILL the Catholic Church .... Or it did not survive the attempt on its life and is a mere denomination among the other Protestants (which ironically includes the non-denominational groups). Iow.: Anglicanism cannot be Catholic if it first began with Henry, Cranmer, or anybody in that time and age. If it is Catholic, and therefore fully Christian, it began with Jesus Christ > continued into the 16th century > suffered a sever assault on its very existence, but survived > has progressively regained its strength > and is now in almost as good health as it first started with (thanks to the move back to Catholicity which seems to have begun in Hooker, continued to the Oxford and Ritualist Movements into the Anglo Catholic Movement of today).
ReplyDeleteDuffy, Scarisbrick, and others have convincingly shown that there was no real widespread desire or even need for the Reformation Cranmer and his ilk wanted, and I think it has also been shown that Catholicism lived on after the Reformation and that Catholicism has gradually been regaining its strength and health. The ACC is a clear example of this (though admittedly we still have work to do).
As far as the synergism thing goes ... Thomas P. Scheck notes in his study on the appropriation of Origen's Commentary on Romans in the Western Church, that Saint Augustine expresses his agreement with Origen that pos-baptismal work are of a synergistic character and necessary for salvation. They also happen to agree on what would later be called "prevenient grace." Being more a student of Origen than Augustine (and unable to read Latin) I take Scheck at his word. The synergism descibed by Origen, and the monastic movement of the 4th and 5th centuries until today, seems to me to be firmly established Catholic Dogma. The extremer views among monergists are newcomers to the Christian scene and I suspect quite possibly heretical.
Gregory Wassen +
Hi, Fr. Wassen! So good to see you posting!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%. And furthermore, Augustine would have denounced any idea that cooperation with divine grace somehow detracts from the glory of God. This was a defect in later Reformed/Lutheran logic. Aquinas was smart enough to see that cooperation is an effect of grace, but that cooperation was necessary is yet maintained.
Just because Cranmer was bit by the Zwingli/Calvin bug doesn't mean we have to keep scratching his itch 475 years later. I maintain that Calvin has much that is profitable in good, and can be largely rehabilitated for catholic use -- but that does not mean we have to keep coddling and codifying the defects in his (or his progeny's) system of doctrine.
We're so quick to just tell the Anglicanorum Coetibus folks not to let the door hit their arses on the way out--I say let the Prayer Book Presbyterians have their own exodus if they're that convinced the Via Geneva constitutes pure orthodoxy. The REC or PCA will welcome them with both arms.
Hi DI. While you're probably right in thinking that "Prayer Book Presbyterians" are going to be happier somewhere else, I would prefer to keep people within our doors through sound exposition of catholic principles and charity on matters indifferent. Your point that "Calvin has much that is profitable and good, and can be largely rehabilitated for catholic use" is worth considering further. Perhaps you'd care to take this up in a post on The Discarded Imagineer?
DeleteFr. JSF,
DeleteHaven't tipped my hand yet, but I've been working on a blog (without the polemics) for this very purpose. I will send you a link at a more opportune time to see what you think.
I look forward to seeing it DI.
DeleteHi DI,
DeleteThank you for your welcome;-) I find myself in agreement with you as well. Like JSF+ I am looking forward to your efforts!
Gregory Wassen +
Uh, my argument is that Anglo-Catholicism will continue to "bleed" people, slowly but surely, to Rome and Orthodoxy, not that they'll break away in large groups a la the ill-fated Anglicanorum Coetibus. This has been happening ever since Anglo-Catholicism came on the scene, and I am confident in my prediction that it will continue in the future. I also suspect that your PTB believe this as well, and my theory for now is that this is a key reason they're casting about for a way to come into communion with the Orthodox. After all, if the Anglo-Catholics could come into communion with at least one of the Two One True Churches, that would prove to everyone that "we're REALLY Catholic TM after all." Problem solved.
ReplyDeleteBut like I said, it's just a theory at this point.
And yet, EP, you "bled" the other way, much like the former Romans in my parish, and we're glad to have you all.
DeleteAs for Anglicanorum Coetibus, I would say that despite all the hoopla, it has been a slow bleed (more like the emptying of a blood blister than a cut to a major artery) and its influence, like the earlier Pastoral Provision, is bound to end. Yet on the whole, I think its appearance on the scene has been a good thing. It's given the Anglo-Papalists a place where they can be happy and has clarified to everyone else where we Anglo-Catholics stand--that is, in the catholic tradition of the Church of England that stretches back to the days of the Apostles (as Father Gregory points out above).
I'm not sure what you mean about our "powers that be" casting about for a way to come into communion with the Orthodox. Perhaps you're thinking of Victor Novak's recent post, which argues that Continuing Anglicans should attach themselves "to an historic See," by which he seems to mean the OCA or ROCOR. I would just note that Father Novak is a priest in the REC and his ideas are his own. The ACC's position vis a vis Orthodoxy and Rome has always been that the goal of dialog is not submission or absorption, but communio in sacris. While we believe, as the Affirmation states, in seeking communion "with all other Apostolic and Catholic Churches," (and isn't this in line with Our Lord's prayer that all might be one) at the same time, we are who we are and are not going to change our core beliefs in order to achieve this goal.
In short, we believe that "we're REALLY Catholic TM after all" and don't need to look for confirmation elsewhere for reassurance. It would be nice if, in this at least, we were taken at our word.
Hmmmm....EP, I'm not sure your argument will stand the evidence on the ground which seems to be Roman Catholics (and some Orthodox) "bleeding" TO the Anglican Catholic Church. I know our parish has a considerable percentage of former Roman Catholics.
ReplyDeleteYes, I bled the other way (from Orthodoxy to Anglicanism), but as a *revert*, not a convert. That is to say, I found in Anglicanism a place where I could reclaim my former Evangelicalism but possess as well 1) the devotional and liturgical richness of the BCP and 2) the historic three-fold ministry (among other things). I came into Continuing Anglicanism through the ACC ONLY because St. Mary's in Denver was the only real functioning CA presence within a reasonable distance from where I live. (I consider myself a staunchly Evangelical Central Churchman, and not so much a Low Churchman.) Since then, I have become more aware of the intense and abiding anti-Evangelicalism in the ACC, which is why I currently find myself on the way out. I have known for quite some time that there are ACC low church parishes hither and yon in the ACC, and Bishop Hutchens recently reiterated to me that this is so. However, I wonder what kind of a future they have there, and now we have Abp. Robinson wondering aloud about that as well.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I have no way of knowing for sure, but I'll take an educated guess and say most of the folks who've come from the Roman and Orthodox communions to the ACC didn't do so because they were looking for a more Evangelical expression of the faith.
An Evangelical Central Churchman at St. Mary's Denver...that explains a lot ;)
DeleteYou need to come visit us out East. There are lots of ACC parishes, especially in DMAS, that would be more to your liking. Even in the DOS there's a range of churchmanship. Lately I've been supplying in various places across the diocese, and wherever I go, I try to conform to the service they're used to (when in Rome, right?).
I can do full on Missal and straight up Prayer Book and just about anything in between. I have my preferences, but to my mind at least, they're all valid Anglican liturgies. Each, too, has its own beauty, and I appreciate that.
I suspect, though, that churchmanship is not your primary concern.
I am not convinced the ACC's commitment to the Catholic Faith is driving people to Rome at all. Of course this is based on my personal story:
DeleteMy move into the ACC has never been about the BCP. Its devotional austerity make it very poor liturgy but - as JSF points out - valid liturgy. The requirements for validity are very minimal. Liturgy, unless it is mutilated, is not. I was convinced of the catholicity of ACC (partly) because of its use of the Anglican Missal though the lack of an accompanying public use of the Anglican Breviary continues to be disappointing. The BCP and the 39 Articles were the biggest obstacle for me to overcome. The 39 Articles were taken care off by Archbishop Haverland's artciles on this blog and his book "Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice." The BCP issues was overcome by attending Mass in St. James Cleveland with Fr. Cyril Crume (blessed namesday Father ! ) as celebrant. I have never seen a more beautiful celebrant (it helps that St. James' music program is excellent ! ).
Like JSF I agree with being liturgically sensitive to where people are at. However liturgy is what shapes belief and it is for that reason validity alone is not enough and "good liturgy" is necessary - which is where the Missals (and Breviary) come in. The problem with "reformed" liturgies - either in 16th century England, or 1970-ies Rome - is that the rule of a new (and more fashionable) theology becomes the excuse to create new liturgies with all the chaotic consequences that follow. "Reformations," or revolutions rather, reverses the "lex orandi lex credendi" and that is where the problem really is. Dom Alcuin Reid's "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" contains truths from which Anglicans (and Roman Catholics) could learn a lot. One of those things ... Don't reverse "lex orandi lex cedendi" or bad things will happen.
I share Bp. Robinson's suspicion that the use of the Missals will end up eliminating certain Protestant theological tendencies, but unlike him, I welcome that development. The Missals provide an unambiguous context for the ambiguity of the BCP in a solidly catholic direction. This returns Anglican prayer to its pre-reformation origins and is a good step in the direction of undoing the reversal of lex orandi lex credendi.
In short it is precisely the ACC's firm commitment to catholicity that brought me and my family in and I am certain I am not the only one. Also in my experience it is precisely that commitment which also keeps many people in so that very few are making use of Rome's Ordinariate offer.
Gregory Wassen +
Embryo Parson: Should we Anglican Catholics in the Anglican Catholic Church appreciate that you have given us so many chances to mend our ways and come around to your way of thinking? I wonder. I marvel less at your forbearance of us and more at your willingness to be a member of a church with which you so strongly disagree. Apparently you have no qualms about participating in a liturgy and breaking bread with a community that you are not in communion with. How convenient for you to use a parish which uses the 1928 BCP. Because you are using them - you hold your nose and take communion with a body you rail against in the blogosphere. I bet that makes for some genuine fellowship at coffee hour. Good luck with your house church. Perhaps you will find a half dozen people in your area who agree with you. It could happen.
ReplyDeleteWell, Striped Rose, I actually haven't been to Mass for a couple of months. I believe I did say in a comment above that my wife and I are making our way out.
DeleteThe priest and people at St. Mary's are wonderful, but the anti-Evangelical comments and the outright misrepresentations of Lutheran and Calvinist views really started to wear on us after awhile. We accordingly came to the conclusion that St. Mary's would really never be a welcoming place for us in the long term, and on my blog I have wondered aloud if the ACC will be a welcoming place for anyone but an Anglo-Catholic in the long term. And I am not the only person among the Continuing Anglicans who so wonders. I am not the only person in the *ACC* who so wonders.
If you've paid close attention to my blog at all, you'll have seen that it is designed largely for Evangelicals who are seeking a church that has some ancient historical roots on the one hand and fidelity to the Gospel, as Evangelicals understand it, on the other. And that's why I have to point them away from the ACC to toward more, er, "classical" expressions of Anglicanism.
As for the house church option, that's only if we end up staying here in Colorado. There are a lot of Evangelicals looking closely at Anglicanism these days. There may only be a half dozen in our area, but a half-dozen will do if that's all it is to ever be. "Where two or three are gathered. . . ." The numbers are in God's hands. We are called simply to be faithful.
EP,
DeleteI agree with you 100% mischaracterizations about Luther and Calvin are rampant, it ticks me off as well. Most people who hate Luther or Calvin haven't read 10 pages of their works. Fortunate for me I spent almost 10 years doing almost nothing but reading the Magisterial Reformers. Guess what? Shocking revelation: Calvinists misrepresent Lutherans and Lutheran the Calvinists. Welcome to the wonderful world of party religion. For my money, I'd prefer to deal with a real Calvinist versus his later deformed children's theology, but alas they are relatively few here.
But, that doesn't mean they get a pass just because they were leaders of the Reformation. Calvin and Luther were shaped by their catholic context, but decisive breaks cannot be denied, as well as peculiarities that, not checked by Catholic consensus, derails some fundamentals of belief. I defy anyone to show me how Calvin conforms to the 2nd Council of Orange's theology? (Sproul even admits Reformed theology does not agree with its decrees). Yes the council was provincial, but it was echoing what East and West Christians always knew and confessed: God does not predestine evil. Augustine and Aquinas agree that God cannot make anything evil because He is by nature Good.
Also, another outright distortion by some Evangelicals is that the Evangel is hidden or obscured by catholic Christians. Well, I know when I preached for a whole year at my old parish, I gave no sense that moralism, self-justification, self-righteousness, or anything we could do could leverage God's favor towards us. I've preached nothing but the Cross of Christ and our absolute need for His grace. And know what? I've not once been accused of being a Calvinist. You know why? Because evangelical preaching is a catholic exercise. Catholic and Augustinian monk Johann Von Staupitz, Luther's confessor, was praised by Luther for being a Gospel-centric mentor. “I should be a damned, ungrateful, papistical ass, for he was my very first father in this teaching, and he bore me in Christ," Luther wrote.
The ACC is evangelical. We decry "Evangelicals" who minimize the sacramental life of the Church, or who want to usher in Reformed sentiments that would threaten catholic sensibilities. I was gobsmacked that I could find ACC priests who believe in Limited Atonement (a la Puritan John Owen). That junk cannot be taught to Christians.
At the end of the day you have to find what you believe God is calling you to, but the smear campaign against the ACC for not being authentically Anglican or anti-Gospel (that's heavily implied if not outright stated) is born out of something other than reality. Talk about misrepresentations.
Steven: For the most part, you are railing against positions I have nowhere defended. Please try to pick up the nuances of what I write. I don't argue that II Orange represents Calvinism. I don't defend modern Calvinist anti-sacramentalism. Heck, I don't even believe in the doctrine of limited atonement.
DeleteIf anyone is misrepresenting anything, however, it is the person who claims that authentic Anglicanism isn't Protestant. It's not any kind of "smear campaign" to point out the obvious fact that the ACC's leadership is claming just that.
Ok, Chris, please tell me what you mean by "protestant" so I might understand. You well know that term is a wax nose, so perhaps I am just talking about things you already agree with.
ReplyDeleteWell, in context I mean precisely what is meant by those who argue that authentic Anglicanism isn't Protestant. Look at the anti-Reformational sentiments of historic Anglo-Catholicism, from the Tractarians and Ritualists to the new ACC web page. Whatever it is they've wished to extirpate from Anglicanism, that's what I mean. This isn't rocket science.
ReplyDeleteSo, am I a protestant if I agree with everything in the Heidelberg Catechism except for maybe accepting Purgtory? Or what if I believe the 39 articles but believe justification is gratia infusa rather than favor dei? Maybe I think the WCF was right about everything except predestination and i believe in invocation of the saints: am I Protestant?
ReplyDeleteYou see, Chris, I asked you to give me exactly what you mean positively and you didn't respond, your unhelpful remark about "rocket science" notwithstanding. I consider myself a kind of Protestant but think the term has run its course of usefulness because the historical exigencies do not obtain like they did in the 16th century. I am a catholic plain and simple. I have a few reservations about papal claims that would mark me out as Protestant, but so what? It's not my badge of honour. Being a Christian is my glory because the cross is all I have to boast in.
Again, what is a Protesant? Can you give specific perimeters?
I simply bear back my former answer and ask you: that stuff that Anglo-Catholics want to extirpate from Anglicanism, did it stem from the Protestant Reformation or not?
DeleteThis stuff about challenging me to define Protestantism is just a red herring, IMO.
Well, it's not a red herring because it appears you assume Anglicanism wasn't Classical Anglicanism TM until it adopted a certain checklist of theologies during the Reformation era. And by doing so it became genuinely "Protestant". I am asking you what's THE DEFINITIVE checklist that would make the ACC sufficiently Protestant in your mind? Or any ecclesial body for that matter. I am genuinely interested to know who passes Protestant muster in your mind, since it's the All Encompassing question of the hour.
DeleteSince you've no interest in defining it then I guess it cannot be that important to subscribe to or defend it. If somebody asks me, "What is the Gospel?" or "Define the Gospel," I would jump at the very opportunity to make certain they know what I mean. "What is the Trinity?" "What do you mean by Resurrection?" Yes, you see I could just say, "Well, it's what your sect doesn't like about my beliefs." But that wouldn't be nearly as fun as being dismissive, now would it?
Anyway, I hope you really do find what you are looking for, I truly believe you want to be obedient to the Lord's voice and I commend you for that.