The Reasoned Loyalty of Catholicism
Oct 5, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
In the weeks leading up to the beatification of John Henry Newman, more than one writer asked whether the Anglican convert might be embraced by some, particularly by progressives, as “the patron saint of dissenters.” Newman’s willingness to launch his spacious intellect into debate within the church was so glamorous to contemplate that some writers lost sight of the fact that what is now called his dissent, honed by his openness, was always exercised in full conformity with the church's teaching. Loyalty, as it were, not only won out, it was the ground of this dissent.
Intellectual rigor and loyalty are not mutually exclusive, as some progressives are prone to insist. What Newman models is, perhaps, a willingness to apply one’s own intellect to any question with enough openness as to leave room to be surprised at one’s own conclusions.
In that sense, Newman is hardly the first prominent Catholic to wonder “yes, but . . .” and then prostrate. Dorothy Day was able to reason with such openness, and she self-identified as “an obedient daughter of the church.”
Reasonable Catholicism is reasoned loyalty, or sometimes even loyalty with gritted teeth; it is loyalty that insists upon the application of reason lest its value be questioned. By the same token, intellectualism that is not tempered with loyalty ends up pickling itself in its own ego. Either one, by itself, is incomplete. Both are required.
This openness is the difference between reading Paul’s words to Timothy that women “will be saved in childbearing, provided [they continue] in faith, love and holiness” and either rejecting them as the discriminatory and archaic utterances of a misogynist, or grimly trying to conform to the stricture without question, which may also mean without understanding, and possibly without charity.
Believing that nothing in Scripture is accidental, Catholics are obliged not to sneer, but to wonder about the theology behind Paul’s words and to discern what in that surprising verse is worth pondering, in an era where human life is held cheap. Can we discern within the verse a notion that women are, in God’s sublime and mysterious mercy, privileged in their ability to assist God in his continual re-entering into our world, disguised as he is within that helpless, vulnerable, and unconditional love that instantly forms between mother and child, father and child, siblings, and grandparents and child?
If we can openly allow ourselves to reason upon the foundational stipulation that God wants only our Good, we can surprise ourselves with our conclusions. Suddenly “misogyny” looks like an expedient and human explanation, and blind obedience looks so unsatisfyingly empty; the whole verse is suddenly fraught with a deeper, holier and ultimately more idealistic meaning than either the intellectualist or the unquestioning loyalist could have imagined.
The church is egalitarian in whom it regards as holy; the canon of saints includes the highly educated Augustine and the loyal little bourgeoisie known as Therese and calls both of them Doctors of the Church. She recognizes that intellectual gifts are only remarkable because they are, in fact, gifts, conferred over a lifetime, as with Newman, or spontaneously bestowed, as upon Catherine of Siena.
When intellectualism and loyalty are open each other, all understanding is enlarged. The first without the second breeds cynicism, and the second without the first tempts it. And both breed complacency and self-satisfaction, and close us off from the mystery.
Sometimes, the commingling of faith and reason is a neat and natty thing. More often it is a bit messy, but once our intellects have thrashed a matter to its frayed ends, we realize that we have stumbled into mystery and then, if we are open, we (very reasonably) throw our hands up to heaven and submit to it, because we know mystery for a good adventure, and we are loyal to it.
It is a loyalty that peers into a mirror, darkly, but is never wholly blind.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress.
Comments:
10.5.2010 | 2:27am
Don Roberto says:
I share these sentiments. Even the greatest human brilliance, if not tempered by humility, will lead the owner astray. Lucifer was/is no doubt quite brilliant—but also totally and utterly wrong. If only Luther had had Newman's humility . . .
10.5.2010 | 7:31am
Philip Endean sj says:
This is a beautifully argued piece, and surely right when it comes to Scripture. But when we are dealing with hierarchical directives of lesser authority, surely this approach has to be nuanced. Loyal dissent has to be at least a logical possibility in such cases. You can't write it off, at least not a priori, as 'intellectualism pickling itself in its own ego'.
10.5.2010 | 8:01am
And so again, a man's over-earnestness in argument may arise from zeal or charity; his impatience from loyalty to the truth; his extravagance from want of taste, from enthusiasm, or from youthful ardour; and his restless recurrence to argument, not from personal disquiet, but from a vivid appreciation of the controversial talent of an opponent, or of his own, or of the mere philosophical difficulties of the subject in dispute. These are points for the consideration of those who are concerned in registering and explaining what may be called the meteorological phenomena of the human mind, and do not interfere with the broad principle which I would lay down, that to fear argument is to doubt the conclusion, and to be certain of a truth is to be careless of objections to it;—nor with the practical rule, that mere assent is not certitude, and must not be confused with it.
10.5.2010 | 2:37pm
patricksarsfield says:
What I particularly appreciate about the Catholic Religion is its Founder. Given the choice of going off on my own and trying to work out this stuff on my own or listening to the Worldwide 2000 year-old institution founded by Jesus Christ, I have to admit my own limitations and be thankful for His promise to remain with His church until the End of the Age.
And the best proof of His promise is the History of the Church. Have there been bad priests, bishops and popes? Sure, just as there have been bad rabbis, ministers, imams and bonze. Restricting myself to Western Christianity, though, no Protestant Church has made the kind of difference that Catholicism has. Let's look at the church that Newman fled: the Anglicans, founded as the "King's Church," fell apart during the English Civil War. Even after being restored in 1660 as a result of the desire of the English People to have a king back, the Anglican Church then actually betrayed its King in the Glorious Revolution.
What is the difference (beside the identity of their real founders) between Catholicism and the Protestant Churches that claim also somehow to have been founded by Christ? Probably the biggest difference is clerical celibacy. Thank God for clerical celibacy. It is the strength of the Church that has enabled the Church to remain free from outside control, as shown below:
Protestant churches fit into two categories: the denominations comprised exclusively of individual congregations, and those with some institutional existence beyond the individual congregations (Lutheranism and Anglicanism in Europe and some of the Mainline US Churches). The individual congregations are almost exclusively single generation sole proprietorships that disappear once the founding minister dies (unless his kids keep up the family business the way the Graham kids are trying to do).
The more denominational churches may have some continuing existence (although US Anglicanism and Presbyterianism both seem to be in irreversible decline), but they are normally controlled either by cliques of non-celibate entrepreneurs of individual congregations who politically control the denominational headquarters or by an outside political power that often has goals inconsistent with the spread of Christianity. Thus, in Europe, the Lutheran and Anglican churches have always been cat's paws for the ruling power of their respective countries (historically the kings and now the politicians running the governing Parliaments).
By contrast, the Catholic Church has lhistorically been controlled by people who are required not to have families to whom they might pass on their church positions. Now, of course, that requirement was ignored during a couple of periods in the life of the Church (e.g., Cesare Borgia and Scipione Borghese), but for the bulk of its History, the Church has been run by people who did not inherit their positions and instead had to leave their families and follow Him in precisely the way Christ called us to do. That is the kind of Church to which I choose to belong.
And the best proof of His promise is the History of the Church. Have there been bad priests, bishops and popes? Sure, just as there have been bad rabbis, ministers, imams and bonze. Restricting myself to Western Christianity, though, no Protestant Church has made the kind of difference that Catholicism has. Let's look at the church that Newman fled: the Anglicans, founded as the "King's Church," fell apart during the English Civil War. Even after being restored in 1660 as a result of the desire of the English People to have a king back, the Anglican Church then actually betrayed its King in the Glorious Revolution.
What is the difference (beside the identity of their real founders) between Catholicism and the Protestant Churches that claim also somehow to have been founded by Christ? Probably the biggest difference is clerical celibacy. Thank God for clerical celibacy. It is the strength of the Church that has enabled the Church to remain free from outside control, as shown below:
Protestant churches fit into two categories: the denominations comprised exclusively of individual congregations, and those with some institutional existence beyond the individual congregations (Lutheranism and Anglicanism in Europe and some of the Mainline US Churches). The individual congregations are almost exclusively single generation sole proprietorships that disappear once the founding minister dies (unless his kids keep up the family business the way the Graham kids are trying to do).
The more denominational churches may have some continuing existence (although US Anglicanism and Presbyterianism both seem to be in irreversible decline), but they are normally controlled either by cliques of non-celibate entrepreneurs of individual congregations who politically control the denominational headquarters or by an outside political power that often has goals inconsistent with the spread of Christianity. Thus, in Europe, the Lutheran and Anglican churches have always been cat's paws for the ruling power of their respective countries (historically the kings and now the politicians running the governing Parliaments).
By contrast, the Catholic Church has lhistorically been controlled by people who are required not to have families to whom they might pass on their church positions. Now, of course, that requirement was ignored during a couple of periods in the life of the Church (e.g., Cesare Borgia and Scipione Borghese), but for the bulk of its History, the Church has been run by people who did not inherit their positions and instead had to leave their families and follow Him in precisely the way Christ called us to do. That is the kind of Church to which I choose to belong.
10.5.2010 | 3:49pm
Joe the Person says:
From one perspective, Newman was loyal. But from another, he was a traitor. Since he abandoned and betrayed the Protestant religion, Anglicanism, that raised and nurtured him.
Indeed, if being loyal means continuing to follow, loyally, the people and creeds to which you originally swore obedience, then Newman was one of the most prominently disloyal religious traitors of his generation.
Indeed, if being loyal means continuing to follow, loyally, the people and creeds to which you originally swore obedience, then Newman was one of the most prominently disloyal religious traitors of his generation.
10.5.2010 | 4:27pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
Joe the Person, I think you overlook an important point: The Church of England never claimed that it was the only divinely appointed means of salvation. It never claimed that all those outside herself were ipso facto in schism or heresy or infidelity. Given that, even from the Anglican point of view one could cease being a member of the Church of England without being disloyal. For example, someone who left England and took citizenship in, say, America or Russia, would not normally have been expected even by Anglicans to remain a member of the Church of England, which was considered to be a "national Church", i.e. the "church in England". So it was no more traitorous in itself to leave the C of E for some other church body than to emigrate from England and become a citizen of another country. Of course, Newman remained an Englishman and left the C of E, but the point is that even that was not per se a sin in Anglican terms. When Newman decided he was no longer an Anglican in belief, but while still not sure he was a (Roman) Catholic in belief, he did the honorable thing and resigned his position as a clergyman in the C of E and took lay status. As a layman, he was no longer required to subscribe to the 39 Articles of the C of E. So he was perfectly honorable in how he conducted himself.
Before declaring a man a traitor, I suggest you read more about his life.
Before declaring a man a traitor, I suggest you read more about his life.
10.5.2010 | 5:24pm
Donna says:
>Indeed, if being loyal means continuing to follow, loyally, the people and >creeds to which you originally swore obedience, then Newman was one of the >most prominently disloyal religious traitors of his generation.
Ah, yes. By that reckoning St. Paul was one of the great religious traitors of his generation. After all, he went from upholding the Pharisaic Judaism in which he was born and raised to joining the upstart Christians...
Also, by the mid-1800's , Protestant dissenters from Anglicanism were generally not regarded as disloyal to the nation - only 'Romanists" continued to have that sad distinction.
Ah, yes. By that reckoning St. Paul was one of the great religious traitors of his generation. After all, he went from upholding the Pharisaic Judaism in which he was born and raised to joining the upstart Christians...
Also, by the mid-1800's , Protestant dissenters from Anglicanism were generally not regarded as disloyal to the nation - only 'Romanists" continued to have that sad distinction.
10.5.2010 | 6:11pm
kfsoh says:
Elizabeth:
A rich piece &, interestingly enough, at points rather beautiful. Shared a couple passages w/my wife & 12 wk old daughter as we enjoyed dinner at the kitchen island. Thanks for writing it!
A rich piece &, interestingly enough, at points rather beautiful. Shared a couple passages w/my wife & 12 wk old daughter as we enjoyed dinner at the kitchen island. Thanks for writing it!
10.5.2010 | 6:13pm
MacGabhann says:
Joe the Person:
The adult Newman was NEVER Protestant. His Anglicanism was very much Catholic, if not Roman Catholic. His turn to Rome was not a repudiation of his Anglicanism, it was an expansion of it. You should check out Tract 90.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/tract90/index.html
The adult Newman was NEVER Protestant. His Anglicanism was very much Catholic, if not Roman Catholic. His turn to Rome was not a repudiation of his Anglicanism, it was an expansion of it. You should check out Tract 90.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/tract90/index.html
10.5.2010 | 6:28pm
patricksarsfield says:
Stephen Barr mistakenly claims:
" The Church of England never claimed that it was the only divinely appointed means of salvation. It never claimed that all those outside herself were ipso facto in schism or heresy or infidelity."
Maybe it didn't use those words, but it did use the far more potent charge of Treason. Specifically, its Head (Queen Elizabeth I in Parliament) in 1585 declared anyone daring to be a Catholic priest guilty of Treason. Likewise, per a 1581 Act it was treason for anyone to convert to Catholicism. Moreover, the Anglican Church for hundreds of years in England and Ireland tried to compel attendance at its services under penalties of fine and imprisonment (the recusancy laws).
Yet, try as it might, the Church of England couldn't even hold the loyalty of its own supposed heads. Of the next seven successors to Henry VIII, one died while still a child (Edward VI) and only three of the other six remained Protestant until death (Elizabeth, James I and the executed Charles I). The other three (Mary I, Charles II and James II) spurned the truth claim of the church they supposedly headed and died as Catholics in the sweet Bosom of Holy Mother Church. It got to be so embarrassing for the Anglicans, that--once James's wife bore him a male successor who was going to be raised Catholic, they betrayed their own Head and joined in the REAL Treason of James II's faithless daughters, Queen Mary II and Queen Anne, who sought to deprive their brother of the succession. Now, because of the embarrassment of the Anglican Church, no Catholic and no one married to a Catholic is allowed to retain his/her place in the Succession to the Throne.
" The Church of England never claimed that it was the only divinely appointed means of salvation. It never claimed that all those outside herself were ipso facto in schism or heresy or infidelity."
Maybe it didn't use those words, but it did use the far more potent charge of Treason. Specifically, its Head (Queen Elizabeth I in Parliament) in 1585 declared anyone daring to be a Catholic priest guilty of Treason. Likewise, per a 1581 Act it was treason for anyone to convert to Catholicism. Moreover, the Anglican Church for hundreds of years in England and Ireland tried to compel attendance at its services under penalties of fine and imprisonment (the recusancy laws).
Yet, try as it might, the Church of England couldn't even hold the loyalty of its own supposed heads. Of the next seven successors to Henry VIII, one died while still a child (Edward VI) and only three of the other six remained Protestant until death (Elizabeth, James I and the executed Charles I). The other three (Mary I, Charles II and James II) spurned the truth claim of the church they supposedly headed and died as Catholics in the sweet Bosom of Holy Mother Church. It got to be so embarrassing for the Anglicans, that--once James's wife bore him a male successor who was going to be raised Catholic, they betrayed their own Head and joined in the REAL Treason of James II's faithless daughters, Queen Mary II and Queen Anne, who sought to deprive their brother of the succession. Now, because of the embarrassment of the Anglican Church, no Catholic and no one married to a Catholic is allowed to retain his/her place in the Succession to the Throne.
10.5.2010 | 6:55pm
MacGabhann says:
PatrickSarsfield:
I know you’re the man and all, but in what sense is the charge of treason more potent than being denied the appointed means of salvation?
I know you’re the man and all, but in what sense is the charge of treason more potent than being denied the appointed means of salvation?
10.6.2010 | 12:45am
patricksarsfield says:
Macgabhann asks me:
"PatrickSarsfield: I know you’re the man and all, but in what sense is the charge of treason more potent than being denied the appointed means of salvation? "
What does this mean ("I know you’re the man and all, but ....")? As to your question, I am not sure what you meant by "being denied the appointed means of salvation." In all events, it is undeniable that the Anglican Church saw itself as the only acceptable religion in the Empire of Sixteenth Century England. That was clearly a "potent" (even "dread") claim since it was backed up by the English laws on Treason for religious conduct in the late 16th Century.
All of this is worth recalling at this point in history because the English
showed themselves still to be haters of the Catholic Church in the run-up to Pope Benedict's recent visit. As I heard people like Dawkins and Paisley spew the usual hatred and the British Media pine about the Catholic Church being so aggressive toward the Anglicans, I thought about those Treason Laws, the 1649 massacres at Drogheda and Wexford during Cromwell's raparee, the Gordon riots of the 1770s, and the riots that accompanied the restoration of the English Ordinariate in the Mid-19th Century as well as the continuing ban on any heir to the British Throne marrying a Catholic or becoming a Catholic him/herself. The Anglicans would like to forget all of that, of course, but that is the real history of the Ecclesia Anglicana.
"PatrickSarsfield: I know you’re the man and all, but in what sense is the charge of treason more potent than being denied the appointed means of salvation? "
What does this mean ("I know you’re the man and all, but ....")? As to your question, I am not sure what you meant by "being denied the appointed means of salvation." In all events, it is undeniable that the Anglican Church saw itself as the only acceptable religion in the Empire of Sixteenth Century England. That was clearly a "potent" (even "dread") claim since it was backed up by the English laws on Treason for religious conduct in the late 16th Century.
All of this is worth recalling at this point in history because the English
showed themselves still to be haters of the Catholic Church in the run-up to Pope Benedict's recent visit. As I heard people like Dawkins and Paisley spew the usual hatred and the British Media pine about the Catholic Church being so aggressive toward the Anglicans, I thought about those Treason Laws, the 1649 massacres at Drogheda and Wexford during Cromwell's raparee, the Gordon riots of the 1770s, and the riots that accompanied the restoration of the English Ordinariate in the Mid-19th Century as well as the continuing ban on any heir to the British Throne marrying a Catholic or becoming a Catholic him/herself. The Anglicans would like to forget all of that, of course, but that is the real history of the Ecclesia Anglicana.
10.6.2010 | 6:07am
Michael says:
Ironically enough, it was precisely the Tractarians who asserted the claim of the Church of England, through the Apostolic Succession, to be that branch of the One, Holy, Catholic Church, established in England and who accused the "Roman Mission" of phyletism, by intruding on the territory of (Anglican) bishops.
Low Church (Evangelical) and Broad Church (Liberal) Anglicans dismissed such claims as "Clericalism." They were right, insofar as Tractarians stressed the spiritual authority of bishops and priests and taught a "High" doctrine of the sacraments. Hence the quarrels over Baptismal Regeneration (the Gorham case) and the Jerusalem Bishopric
The Tractarians could point to an Anglcan tradition in support of their views, particularly amongst the Anglican Divines, but it was always a minority position.
Newman himself was probably at his wittiest and most incisive in "Anglican Difficulties," exposing precisely those errors that had once misled him.
Low Church (Evangelical) and Broad Church (Liberal) Anglicans dismissed such claims as "Clericalism." They were right, insofar as Tractarians stressed the spiritual authority of bishops and priests and taught a "High" doctrine of the sacraments. Hence the quarrels over Baptismal Regeneration (the Gorham case) and the Jerusalem Bishopric
The Tractarians could point to an Anglcan tradition in support of their views, particularly amongst the Anglican Divines, but it was always a minority position.
Newman himself was probably at his wittiest and most incisive in "Anglican Difficulties," exposing precisely those errors that had once misled him.
10.6.2010 | 9:08am
MascGabhann says:
PatrickSarsfield: “What does this mean ("I know you’re the man and all, but ....")?”
You’re kidding? You never heard of Patrick Sarsfield’s routing of the Williamite camp outside Limerick? On the night the camp’s password was “Sarsfield?” It is a bit like someone being named John F. Kennedy and wondering why everyone called him Mr. President.
Sarsfield now gave his final orders - silence or death, till they were in upon the sentries; then, forward like a lightning flash upon the guards. One of the Williamite sentries fancied he heard the beat of horse-hoofs approaching him; he never dreamt of foes; be thought it must be one of their own patrols. And, truly enough, through the gloom he saw the figure of an officer, evidently at the head of a body of cavalry, whether phantom or reality he could not tell.
The sentry challenged, and, still imagining he had friends, demanded the "word." Suddenly, as if from the spirit land, and with a wild, weird shout that startled all the sleepers, the "phantom troop" shot past like a thunderbolt; the leader crying, as he drew his sword, "Sarsfield is the word, and Sarsfield is the man!" The guards dashed forward, the bugles screamed the alarm, the sleepers rushed to arms, but theirs was scarcely an effort. The broadswords of Sarsfield's 500 wore in their midst; and to the affrighted gaze of the panic-stricken victims that 500 seemed thousands!
You’re kidding? You never heard of Patrick Sarsfield’s routing of the Williamite camp outside Limerick? On the night the camp’s password was “Sarsfield?” It is a bit like someone being named John F. Kennedy and wondering why everyone called him Mr. President.
Sarsfield now gave his final orders - silence or death, till they were in upon the sentries; then, forward like a lightning flash upon the guards. One of the Williamite sentries fancied he heard the beat of horse-hoofs approaching him; he never dreamt of foes; be thought it must be one of their own patrols. And, truly enough, through the gloom he saw the figure of an officer, evidently at the head of a body of cavalry, whether phantom or reality he could not tell.
The sentry challenged, and, still imagining he had friends, demanded the "word." Suddenly, as if from the spirit land, and with a wild, weird shout that startled all the sleepers, the "phantom troop" shot past like a thunderbolt; the leader crying, as he drew his sword, "Sarsfield is the word, and Sarsfield is the man!" The guards dashed forward, the bugles screamed the alarm, the sleepers rushed to arms, but theirs was scarcely an effort. The broadswords of Sarsfield's 500 wore in their midst; and to the affrighted gaze of the panic-stricken victims that 500 seemed thousands!
10.6.2010 | 10:45am
Jacob says:
"From one perspective, Newman was loyal. But from another, he was a traitor. Since he abandoned and betrayed the Protestant religion, Anglicanism, that raised and nurtured him."
If we follow that type of reasoning, a satanist who confesses and returns to the church would also be a traitor. But there is no moral imperative to be loyal to satan. (Not at all comparing Anglicanism to Satanism, just exaggerating what you said to make a point.)
But the very nature of Catholicism does demand loyalty. Once you accept the idea that the Catholic Church is in fact the Church God founded, reason requires you to be loyal to it, as disloyalty would be disloyalty to God.
If we follow that type of reasoning, a satanist who confesses and returns to the church would also be a traitor. But there is no moral imperative to be loyal to satan. (Not at all comparing Anglicanism to Satanism, just exaggerating what you said to make a point.)
But the very nature of Catholicism does demand loyalty. Once you accept the idea that the Catholic Church is in fact the Church God founded, reason requires you to be loyal to it, as disloyalty would be disloyalty to God.
10.6.2010 | 12:17pm
patricksarsfield says:
MascGabhann (sic):
I suppose from your detour into (at best) marginally relevant history and your failure to clarify the meaning of the questioned term "being denied the appointed means of salvation" that you realize your original question to me made no sense but that you now understand my use of the term "potent" to describe the unsuccessful efforts of the Anglican Church to monopolize the practice of religion in England and Ireland.
I suppose from your detour into (at best) marginally relevant history and your failure to clarify the meaning of the questioned term "being denied the appointed means of salvation" that you realize your original question to me made no sense but that you now understand my use of the term "potent" to describe the unsuccessful efforts of the Anglican Church to monopolize the practice of religion in England and Ireland.
10.6.2010 | 12:39pm
patricksarsfield says:
Jacob writes:
"Once you accept the idea that the Catholic Church is in fact the Church God founded, reason requires you to be loyal to it, as disloyalty would be disloyalty to God. "
I agree. Confronted as we are with the thousands of "christian churches," the answer to the question of which church is the true church to which we need be loyal is necesssarily an historical one. So we need to go to the historical source, the New Testament and particularly the historical book thereof, the Acts of the Apostles, and see what it says about the Church of Christ.
What it says is that Christ's Church was extant upon the Earth within fifty days of His Ascension; that it was run by Peter from the get go (he even preached the Proto-Evangelion of the Church on the day of its inspiration and was led by God to reach out to the Gentiles (Acts 2 and 10)); that he continued to run it on a hands-on basis until he had to go on the lam from Herod's jail (Acts 12); that the Church had a central governance that continued even after Peter went on the lam (Acts 15:1-6), that the Church Council deferred to Peter's direction when he returned to Jerusalem to give it express direction on the important question of the incorporation of gentiles (Acts 15:7 et seq.) and that the local churches were required to observe the central church's governance once it made its ruling (Acts 16:3-5).
So, the True Church of Christ has been present on this Earth since the Day of Pentecost. Any church that cannot show its presence since then can be eliminated as Christ's True Church.
"Once you accept the idea that the Catholic Church is in fact the Church God founded, reason requires you to be loyal to it, as disloyalty would be disloyalty to God. "
I agree. Confronted as we are with the thousands of "christian churches," the answer to the question of which church is the true church to which we need be loyal is necesssarily an historical one. So we need to go to the historical source, the New Testament and particularly the historical book thereof, the Acts of the Apostles, and see what it says about the Church of Christ.
What it says is that Christ's Church was extant upon the Earth within fifty days of His Ascension; that it was run by Peter from the get go (he even preached the Proto-Evangelion of the Church on the day of its inspiration and was led by God to reach out to the Gentiles (Acts 2 and 10)); that he continued to run it on a hands-on basis until he had to go on the lam from Herod's jail (Acts 12); that the Church had a central governance that continued even after Peter went on the lam (Acts 15:1-6), that the Church Council deferred to Peter's direction when he returned to Jerusalem to give it express direction on the important question of the incorporation of gentiles (Acts 15:7 et seq.) and that the local churches were required to observe the central church's governance once it made its ruling (Acts 16:3-5).
So, the True Church of Christ has been present on this Earth since the Day of Pentecost. Any church that cannot show its presence since then can be eliminated as Christ's True Church.
10.6.2010 | 1:32pm
MacGabhann says:
PatrickSarsfield:
The Roman Catholic Church, being the Sacrament of Salvation, holds to itself the “appointed means of salvation.” In other words, it is through the Church that one may be saved; outside the Church there is no salvation, because there one is deprived of the appointed means.
In his post, Stephen M. Barr pointed out that the Anglican Church, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, never claimed that it alone held the “appointed means of salvation,” and so if one were expelled from the Anglican Church, from that Church’s point of view it would not automatically follow that one would not be saved.
When you took it upon yourself to judge Mr. Barr mistaken in this, you said that the Anglican Church, while not in so many words declaring those outside her schismatic, heretical and faithless, used the “far more potent charge” of “Treason,” by which I took you to mean that being declared a traitor was worse than being declared outside of the Church and deprived of the “appointed means of alvation.”
My question to you was: in what sense is being “charged a traitor” more “potent” than being deprived of the means of Salvation? For it seems to me that in the former case one may lose one’s life, but in the latter case one certainly loses one’s soul.
The Roman Catholic Church, being the Sacrament of Salvation, holds to itself the “appointed means of salvation.” In other words, it is through the Church that one may be saved; outside the Church there is no salvation, because there one is deprived of the appointed means.
In his post, Stephen M. Barr pointed out that the Anglican Church, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, never claimed that it alone held the “appointed means of salvation,” and so if one were expelled from the Anglican Church, from that Church’s point of view it would not automatically follow that one would not be saved.
When you took it upon yourself to judge Mr. Barr mistaken in this, you said that the Anglican Church, while not in so many words declaring those outside her schismatic, heretical and faithless, used the “far more potent charge” of “Treason,” by which I took you to mean that being declared a traitor was worse than being declared outside of the Church and deprived of the “appointed means of alvation.”
My question to you was: in what sense is being “charged a traitor” more “potent” than being deprived of the means of Salvation? For it seems to me that in the former case one may lose one’s life, but in the latter case one certainly loses one’s soul.
10.6.2010 | 8:11pm
patricksarsfield says:
Macgabhann,
Let's get rid of a red herring at the outset: the Anglican Church, of course, had no power to deprive any Catholics of their salvation. And if the Anglican Church had wished to expel Catholics from its ranks, I am sure the Catholics would not have had a problem with that at all. NO, Anglicanism's problem has always been just the opposite: how does it keep anybody within the walls of the churches its founder stole from the Catholic Church?
In all events, on to your rephrased question. The Anglican Church needed to use the more potent charge of Treason against Catholics instead of the Charge of Heresy for a simple reason: the Anglican Church would have looked stupid accusing Catholics of heresy. After all, the founder of Anglicanism wrote (or perhaps just sponsored) the book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum precisely to defend the Catholic Church's Doctrines agaisnt the uncouth attacks of Herr Luther.
And once Elizabeth I led the Anglican Church back into schism in 1559 (after Mary I and her Parliament had begged the Pope's forgiveness for the initial break from Rome and resumed the Roman obedience in 1554), she was confronted with the consequences of her tactical decision to devise a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism: Anglicanism was unable to be very clear about what right doctrine was or wasn't. So, instead of enforcing obedience based on right doctrine, she just declared all Catholic priests traitors. Nice to be a tyrant.
Let's get rid of a red herring at the outset: the Anglican Church, of course, had no power to deprive any Catholics of their salvation. And if the Anglican Church had wished to expel Catholics from its ranks, I am sure the Catholics would not have had a problem with that at all. NO, Anglicanism's problem has always been just the opposite: how does it keep anybody within the walls of the churches its founder stole from the Catholic Church?
In all events, on to your rephrased question. The Anglican Church needed to use the more potent charge of Treason against Catholics instead of the Charge of Heresy for a simple reason: the Anglican Church would have looked stupid accusing Catholics of heresy. After all, the founder of Anglicanism wrote (or perhaps just sponsored) the book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum precisely to defend the Catholic Church's Doctrines agaisnt the uncouth attacks of Herr Luther.
And once Elizabeth I led the Anglican Church back into schism in 1559 (after Mary I and her Parliament had begged the Pope's forgiveness for the initial break from Rome and resumed the Roman obedience in 1554), she was confronted with the consequences of her tactical decision to devise a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism: Anglicanism was unable to be very clear about what right doctrine was or wasn't. So, instead of enforcing obedience based on right doctrine, she just declared all Catholic priests traitors. Nice to be a tyrant.
10.7.2010 | 3:48am
Michael says:
The Act of Uniformity of 1559, the fisrt act of Elizabeth I's reign, limited prosecutions for heresy tot hose who contradicted the first four general councils (which Catholics consider infallible), so no Catholic was, or could be, prosecuted for heresy thereafter. In fact, Catholics were never defined in legislation in reference to their beliefs at all - They were those who "held communion with the see or church of Rome" ("see" and "church" are synonymous here)
However, many Anglican divines considered Catholics scismatical - Hooker, Laud, Taylor and other Caroline divines, in particular. This was based on the Anglican bishops' claim to be in the apostolic succession. Most Anglicans, who held protestant views, rejected this claim.
However, many Anglican divines considered Catholics scismatical - Hooker, Laud, Taylor and other Caroline divines, in particular. This was based on the Anglican bishops' claim to be in the apostolic succession. Most Anglicans, who held protestant views, rejected this claim.
10.7.2010 | 12:26pm
MacGabhann says:
PatrickSarsfield:
Thanks for the clarification.
Michael:
I fully recognize my lack of historical knowledge here, but still I am surprised that someone like Hooker would have thought Roman Catholics schismatical. Is that the same as being heretical? I always had the impression that Hooker was one who bent over backwards to be inclusive.
Thanks for the clarification.
Michael:
I fully recognize my lack of historical knowledge here, but still I am surprised that someone like Hooker would have thought Roman Catholics schismatical. Is that the same as being heretical? I always had the impression that Hooker was one who bent over backwards to be inclusive.
10.11.2010 | 4:23pm
Donna says:
MacGabhann:
I don't know about Hooker, but later some High Church Anglicans claimed to regard Roman Catholics in England as 'schismatics', since the "Romanists' would not acknowledge the successors to the ancient English sees as legitimate. The RC's, of course, held such 'successors' to be invalid inasmuch as they were both heretical and not in communion with the Holy See.
I believe that Keble, when he realized that Newman's going "Romanist" was inevitable, urged him to go abroad to take the step, so that he would not be supporting 'schism'. (Bl. Newman rejected this advice, as he thought it would be indicating that he still countenanced this Anglican view when he did not.)
I don't know about Hooker, but later some High Church Anglicans claimed to regard Roman Catholics in England as 'schismatics', since the "Romanists' would not acknowledge the successors to the ancient English sees as legitimate. The RC's, of course, held such 'successors' to be invalid inasmuch as they were both heretical and not in communion with the Holy See.
I believe that Keble, when he realized that Newman's going "Romanist" was inevitable, urged him to go abroad to take the step, so that he would not be supporting 'schism'. (Bl. Newman rejected this advice, as he thought it would be indicating that he still countenanced this Anglican view when he did not.)
10.15.2010 | 3:15pm
donald todd says:
Thank you. I read Newman and he answered a lot of questions for me.
I had become sure that evangelicalism was not correct. Scripture did not support evangelicalism or Protestantism unless it was by cutting out a huge portion of scripture whenever it offended against a particular form of Protestantism.
My reading of both theology and history cast both Luther and Calvin in a distressingly bad light. One was at least in part responsible for the Peasants War (and supported both sides at different times), and the other ran a police state. The great lights of Protestantism were also antagonists vis-a-vis each other.
I was finally forced to read the Fathers and the Councils and I learned that Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail was true. When Jesus' word is seen as true, it undercuts the ideas that the Church needed to be reformed (from the outside, ala Protestantism) or re-instituted (Mormonism). I now recognize Trent as the reformation of the Church, however I recognize it from the inside, not the outside.
I have given up my old predilection for trying to ensure that I understand scripture and dogma correctly. I was never very good at it anyway, and now that I understand scripture, I realize that it is not my job. I am to conform myself to the will of Christ by agreeing with and obeying the Church.
When Jesus noted that His burden is light, I had not realized how I would be unburdened by no longer being the Authority on all things of God. He was right (again), it is a burden I no longer have to carry.
Thanks be to God and thank you to John Henry, his servant.
Above, the idea of loyalty was brought into play. One is loyal to the Lord Jesus or, based on my previous position, the Lord is subject to whatever interpretation I am putting on scripture. When I was a Protestant, God was in the box of my devising and He had better not stick His head out in any way of which I disapproved. Nor was I the only one with a box and a readiness to disapprove.
Now I am a Catholic. God not only became a Man borne of a Virgin, He is also present to me under the guize of bread, wine, the water of baptism, the oil of some of the other sacraments, and quite possibly in ways I haven't the wit to fathom.
When I surrendered, the box disappeared and God was/is able to do a lot more with me than He was previously permitted to do. Go Lord. And thank You for Newman.
I had become sure that evangelicalism was not correct. Scripture did not support evangelicalism or Protestantism unless it was by cutting out a huge portion of scripture whenever it offended against a particular form of Protestantism.
My reading of both theology and history cast both Luther and Calvin in a distressingly bad light. One was at least in part responsible for the Peasants War (and supported both sides at different times), and the other ran a police state. The great lights of Protestantism were also antagonists vis-a-vis each other.
I was finally forced to read the Fathers and the Councils and I learned that Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail was true. When Jesus' word is seen as true, it undercuts the ideas that the Church needed to be reformed (from the outside, ala Protestantism) or re-instituted (Mormonism). I now recognize Trent as the reformation of the Church, however I recognize it from the inside, not the outside.
I have given up my old predilection for trying to ensure that I understand scripture and dogma correctly. I was never very good at it anyway, and now that I understand scripture, I realize that it is not my job. I am to conform myself to the will of Christ by agreeing with and obeying the Church.
When Jesus noted that His burden is light, I had not realized how I would be unburdened by no longer being the Authority on all things of God. He was right (again), it is a burden I no longer have to carry.
Thanks be to God and thank you to John Henry, his servant.
Above, the idea of loyalty was brought into play. One is loyal to the Lord Jesus or, based on my previous position, the Lord is subject to whatever interpretation I am putting on scripture. When I was a Protestant, God was in the box of my devising and He had better not stick His head out in any way of which I disapproved. Nor was I the only one with a box and a readiness to disapprove.
Now I am a Catholic. God not only became a Man borne of a Virgin, He is also present to me under the guize of bread, wine, the water of baptism, the oil of some of the other sacraments, and quite possibly in ways I haven't the wit to fathom.
When I surrendered, the box disappeared and God was/is able to do a lot more with me than He was previously permitted to do. Go Lord. And thank You for Newman.
2.24.2011 | 6:26pm
Jure Laure says:
What it says is that Christ's Church was extant upon the Earth within fifty days of His Ascension; that it was run by Peter from the get go (he even preached the Proto-Evangelion of the Church on the day of its inspiration and was led by God to reach out to the Gentiles (Acts 2 and 10)); that he continued to run it on a hands-on basis until he had to go on the lam from Herod's jail (Acts 12); that the Church had a central governance that continued even after Peter went on the lam (Acts 15:1-6), that the Church Council deferred to Peter's direction when he returned to Jerusalem to give it express direction on the important question of the incorporation of gentiles (Acts 15:7 et seq.) and that the local churches were required to observe the central church's governance once it made its ruling (Acts 16:3-5). By contrast, the Catholic Church has lhistorically been controlled by people who are required not to have families to whom they might pass on their church positions. Now, of course, that requirement was ignored during a couple of periods in the life of the Church (e.g., Cesare Borgia and Scipione Borghese), but for the bulk of its History, the Church has been run by people who did not inherit their positions and instead had to leave their families and follow Him in precisely the way Christ called us to do. That is the kind of Church to which I choose to belong.
5.23.2011 | 1:51am
Gothard Christie says:
The more denominational churches may have some continuing existence, but they are normally controlled either by cliques of non-celibate entrepreneurs of individual congregations who politically control the denominational headquarters or by an outside political power that often has goals inconsistent with the spread of Christianity. Thus, in Europe, the Lutheran and Anglican churches have always been cat's paws for the ruling power of their respective countries (historically the kings and now the politicians running the governing Parliaments). If we follow that type of reasoning, a satanist who confesses and returns to the church would also be a traitor. But there is no moral imperative to be loyal to satan. (Not at all comparing Anglicanism to Satanism, just exaggerating what you said to make a point.)
