Counting Noses In The Pews And The Senate

7 Responses to “Counting Noses In The Pews And The Senate”

1. Papist on October 27th, 2008 10:17 am

   When Parliament allows the Archbishop of Canterbury and York to reunite with Rome and under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, then loyalists to the Anglican Communion can legitimately condemn dissenters to their progressive Church. Try not to forget the adulterous, Erastian and schismatic origins of the united Anglican Communion that has done so much to divide Christendom.

2. Papist on October 27th, 2008 10:17 am

   When Parliament allows the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to reunite with Rome and under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, then loyalists to the Anglican Communion can legitimately condemn dissenters to their progressive Church. Try not to forget the adulterous, Erastian and schismatic origins of the united Anglican Communion that has done so much to divide Christendom.

3. John H. Taylor on October 27th, 2008 10:59 am

   My sister or brother:

   Thank you for that thoughtful post.

   As you suggest, Episcopalians and Anglicans opted out of the Magisterium hundreds of years ago. Though we haven’t come up with a necessarily, consistently better way of mediating God’s will through the church’s fully human authority, I don’t expect that we or many other children of the Reformation are going to opt back in any time soon.

   Henry’s original sin does make it awkward to criticize schism by others. But that’s the nature of the human condition. The Holy Father would render himself mute if he thought he had to be accountable for all the sins of his ancient and medieval predecessors (including the one who put out a hit on Elizabeth the Great). Thank goodness, he doesn’t.

   Besides, I’m not aware of having condemned anyone. I did argue that righteousness doesn’t necessarily reside with greater numbers. If it does, then “Christendom,” united or not, is roughly 300 million behind and unrighteous indeed.

   Blessings to you.

4. Papist on October 27th, 2008 11:43 am

   I’m not talking about human fallibility, I am talking about schism. It wasn’t Henry’s human condition that broke the English Church from the Roman one, it was his incorrigible ambition for the Tudor line to survive along with the equally incorrigible jealousy and ambition of English Bishops and the greed of English nobles and burgesses who wanted to confiscate the Church’s property.

   The Holy Fathers’ human condition was never something that split Church’s, it was always the ambitions of secular authorities and their Erastian bishops. The sin of Popes wasn’t even the reason for the eastern Photian Churchs’ split from Rome, that was the doing of ambitious secular rulers, particularly the Greek Emperors and their court Patriarchs of Constantinople who finally succeeded in their break after years of convincing the other three Greek speaking Patriarchates. Lucky for them, they use ‘Orthodoxy’ as their reason for schism, so they are less likely to fall into error than the Anglicans are; however, they have become subject to the brutal dictatorship of the Caliphates and Communists as a result of their brazen hubris. But that is nothing compared to what Protestantism has brought onto the world: radical capitalism leading to terrible pauperism in 19th century England, revolutions and civil wars, the first being parliamentary coup of the Puritans, but the later ones being the communist and fascist coups which lead to the World Wars and the brutal murder and violent deaths of millions, but before that don’t let us forget, the horrible 30 Years’ War. These are things that the human conditions of the Holy Father’s predecessors could never have devised.

   The fact that righteousness resides only in the few gives more currency to the position that Christian worship should not be dictated by the prerogatives of the many, and that such a condition should be avoided in order to prevent part of that righteous minority to fall in with the unrighteous majority.

5. John H. Taylor on October 27th, 2008 12:08 pm

   You may lay virtually all human evil since the Middle Ages (and certainly the greatest of it, the communist and fascist rapacity of the 20th century) at the foot of the Reformers if you like. Obviously, I don’t agree. That argument aside, Christian worship will never again be dictated by the prerogatives of the few, in Rome or anywhere else. So now what for us follows of Christ?

6. Papist on October 27th, 2008 12:57 pm

   All respect Reverend Father, I do not blame the reformers’ ideologies regarding faith and morals for the rapacity of the communists and fascists, I blame their disregard for authority and their ethical deficiencies in regards to academic practice and mass communications for making these things possible and thus being the source though not the direct cause for these movements–they were the first to re-write history and oppose the established authority.

   I wouldn’t think it wise to caricature those in communion with the Church in Rome as being totally dictated by the few at the Vatican. The Catholic Church recognizes the intuitions of even the most humble of the laity, they even have an ancient term for it, sensus fidelium. St. Thomas was a dominican Friar and stands as the foremost theologian of Western Christianity. St. Francis of Assisi gave up everything he had and became a beggar; he had more of an effect on the Church than most any Pope. When I said minority, I was not implying that it was the Pope and his curia that govern worship, I meant that the righteous few you had mentioned at the top of the thread should protect its orthodoxy. Disrespect for authority and the hubris that says anyone may consider himself equal in authority regarding Christian dogma to the apostolic successors is not only unbecoming of a Christian, but a terrible example to his peers.

7. John H. Taylor on October 27th, 2008 1:31 pm

   Thank you for your learned and perceptive comments; much to think about!

Got something to say?