Why I left ECUSA, Addendum: Roma è chiamata

Final thoughts to finish my series outlining why my family and I believe it is time for us to leave the Episcopal Church (read Part 1: A brief history, Part 2: A crack appears, Part 3: The deluge, Part 4: The end, and Part 5: A new beginning. . .)

I thought about writing a long post on how my family made the decision of which church to join, but Martial Artist beat me to it, so I thought I would post his comment, which is much better written than anything I could do.

The only difference between us is that while MA will start RCIA in November, I have already begun the classes at my local RC parish and am slowly working my way through the Catechism. (I have reformatted MA’s comment here for easier reading and have boldfaced some sentences.)

If, after going through RCIA (which I will likely enter in early November after I have returned from my present vacation and my last sea deployment of this year) I continue to hold the conclusion that my understanding of the Gospel is in full accord, or where it is not that I am prepared to assent to the teachings of the magisterium without reservation, then I will, at the Paschal Vigil (I prefer not to refer to it by a name that references a Celtic fertility goddess) I will seek acceptance into the Roman Catholic Church. This will not be as a reaction to TEC or Anglicanism, which is a separate, but not wholly unrelated, issue, but because I will have concluded that the Roman Catholic Church embodies the fullest understanding of Christ and the Gospels on earth. That is, in my mind, both a necessary and a sufficient condition to do so.

I am on vacation visiting my mother. She was raised as a Roman Catholic, but left the Roman Church for the LCMS when she married my father in 1942 at the age of 18. She is now 84, suffering from macular degeneration, and rarely gets to church unless driven. My wife and I, therefore, insisted on being fully available to see to it that she got to her regular congregation (about 20-25 minutes drive from her house) on the Sunday we were visiting.

The minister who preached the sermon made a very interesting statement about the LCMS church and the doctrine of sola scriptura. He said that all that is needed is scripture, not interpretation and not tradition. The clear implication (indeed, the several sentences he devoted to expanding on the doctrine made it almost explicit) is that each believer needs only the bible and the Holy Spirit.

Even based solely on my experiences with TEC over the past 38 years, I see this as an obstacle to joining any sola scriptura denomination. My reasoning is as follows: The Bible is composed of words. Words have meanings, both denotational, and connotational. It is not uncommon that a word or phrase has multiple meanings, whether denotational or connotational. If I am to be confident that I understand the application of scripture to any particular question, and to deal with the multiple meanings and the fact that some scripture is literal and historical, and some is allegorical and allusional, I (and every other individual in the denomination) will have to give up most of our other activities, including those that provide our sustenance, to have the time to ensure we fully and understand precisely how to apply scripture correctly to any given question or issue.

Clearly, some proposed responses will be obviously contradictory to scripture, but the current unpleasantness teaches us nothing if not that different readers will tend to apply it differently. The foregoing does not even begin to address the question of finding the time to master Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin as those languages were used in the relevant time periods. My conclusion is that I shall ultimately have to rely on someone else to carry most of freight in getting to that unambiguous understanding that I need to live my life in accordance with the Gospel and God’s will.

Stated another way, I have to trust someone to have the correct interpretation of the scriptures that applies to at least some of the questions to which I am going to need the answer. I either do the interpretation myself, working to hear the Holy Spirit, and hope I don’t mishear, or I will have to trust it to someone more knowledgeable than I am, whose judgments I have tested enough to trust. So Pastor Mueller is demonstrably wrong in his statement, assuming, as I did and do, that he meant it literally. And while tradition does not trump scripture, it is an invaluable aid, along with the ecumenical councils, in understanding how those earlier, and therefore closer in time to the divinely inspired human authors of scripture, understood them, not that they anticipated the current issue/question, but that I can extrapolate, or interpolate, from their reasoning from the relevant scriptures as they applied them to their similar issues, in order to help discern the correct answer to my issue.

If I finish reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and have found no issue on which I cannot submit myself to her teachings, then why would I persist in maintaining a schism the causes of which have been appropriately addressed? To do so on the basis that Catholicism had not successfully “proven” their understanding would require me to assume that I know more than they do, perhaps as much as God himself—a highly unlikely, and in the latter case, demonstrably false, assumption.

Finally, this individualistic assertion, that each believer is his own interpreter of scripture, appears to me to be a major contributing factor in the disintegration of TEC. If a Christian denomination has no magisterium, in the sense of an authoritative teaching authority, then it will always be more open to apostasy and heresy than a denomination that does have such an authority. I think it is also a major contributor to the always increasing number of Christian denominations, particularly within protestantism.

This absence in TEC is, I think, its (possibly) fatal flaw, and, to the extent that it is present in other parts of the AC, their (possibly) fatal flaw, as well.

Like Keith, I also wrote a letter to my rector outlining our reasons for leaving. And I am approaching the RCIA classes with no deadline in mind. If it works out, I would love to enter the Roman Catholic Church at the Paschal Vigil, but as I've learned one thing in RCIA, there is absolutely no pressure - at least at my parish, they want you to be sure, not just present.

Because I am no longer with an Anglican parish, while I will continue to keep up with Anglican events and hopefully do some more interviews for AnglicanTV, I will end this blog soon. My focus is turning elsewhere - I can't yet see where, but I feel the time belongs to God.

Uncommon Knowledge: Interview with Archbishop Chaput

Check out Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson to see his 5-part interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, author of Render Unto Caesar (a book well worth reading)!

H/t to Judith L.

Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin while the Vatican plans not to

A tale of two church responses.

On the one side, the Church of England (from Cranmer) [boldface mine]:

Cranmer is sick and tired of this utter nonsense. It makes the Church of England look and sound even more ridiculous that it already does - if that were possible. In the creation of a cohesive society and for the pursuit of the common good, it is conceivable that one might entertain an apology to the descendants of slaves for the role the Church played in that trade, and even to attempt some sort of bridge-building exercise with Muslims by apologising for the Crusades. But who exactly is the target audience for an apology addressed to Charles Darwin? Who is grieving for reconciliation?

Some scientists dismiss the gesture as ‘ludicrous’; Mr Darwin’s descendants describe it as ‘pointless’, and Ann Widdecombe wonders why the Italians aren’t apologising for Pontius Pilate.

The apology is written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown. It raises so many issues of credibility that Cranmer is at a loss to know where to begin.

Apparently, the apology is ‘for misunderstanding his theory of evolution’. Apart from the fact that the Church has historically ‘misunderstood’ far more important things, the Church of England did not actually ‘misunderstand’ Darwin’s theory at all, not least because (as always) it was divided on the issue. The bishops understood completely the significance of the nexus of the theory (and theory it remains) - that man is the progeny of apes. It really is so simple that even a bishop in the Church of England can comprehend it. Looking at the similarity between Mr Darwin and Dr Williams, it may indeed be adduced that they have a common hairy ancestor. But believers were and are divided into those who perceive this theory to be anti-Scripture and profoundly evil, and those for whom it is but another possible explanation of how God created, totally consistent with Scripture.

It is possible to be so preoccupied by atoning vicariously for the sins of one’s predecessors that one ceases to be aware of one’s personal failures and shortcomings. . .

And on the other, the Roman Catholic Church (from Reuters) [boldface mine]:

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago. ...

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”. ...

“Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session,” he said, adding that Darwin’s theories were “never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned”.

Now, which approach seems the most sensible to you?

I know which one I'm voting for! What a great sentence: Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session. I think I'll memorize that - I'm sure it will come in handy at some time.

Archbishop George Niederauer, Nancy Pelosi to talk about communion

From The Hill newspaper [boldface mine]:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has accepted an invitation from San Francisco’s archbishop to discuss whether she should continue to receive communion at the Catholic Church in the wake of comments she made about abortion.

San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer said he had received letters and e-mails from “many Catholics” expressing dismay over Pelosi’s remarks, in which she said the matter of when life begins remained controversial within the church. He said many of them questioned whether she should be able to receive communion from the church. . .

Her comments have been criticized by several Catholic Church officials, and Niederauer described them as being “in serious conflict” with the church in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco.

Niederauer concludes that, based on Catholic Church statements, it is up to him as Pelosi’s pastor to address whether she may continue to receive communion. He then invites the Speaker “into a conversation with me about these matters.”. . .

In a Sept. 5 response hand-delivered to Niederauer on Friday, Pelosi thanks him for the invitation and his gracious remarks about her love for the church and her Catholic faith. . .

Niederauer quoted a section of the catechism of the Catholic Church to underline his point that when life begins is not controversial within the church. “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,” according to the catechism. “Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Niederauer also criticized an Aug. 26 statement from Pelosi’s office about her comments on “Meet the Press.” In the statement, Pelosi’s office said that while the Catholic Church believes life begins at conception, “many Catholics” do not agree with this view.

“Authentic moral teaching is based on objective truth, not polling,” Niederauer wrote. He noted that in 1861, polls in different states showed different views on slavery, but this did not mean that slavery was moral in one state and not in another.". . .

Read it all.

And for another take on the Pelosi story: Kathy Shaidle

From Kathy Shaidle at five feet of fury:

The reason the MSM (and ordinary people) are ignorning the "Bishops smack down Nancy Pelosi on abortion" story is:

a) they are, as you [Hugh Hewitt] said on air, notoriously tone deaf about religious issues,

b) they agree with Pelosi on abortion anyhow; but most importantly:

c) they find it rich -- as I do -- that cardinals and archibishops can manage to shift themselves so rapidly when the issue is abortion, but kept their mouths shut for twenty years when children were being molested by their brethren.

The American Catholic hierarchy has NO moral authority now and may never recover it.

Pelosi is wrong and you and the cardinals are right.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

No one takes the American Catholic hierarchy seriously any longer, given their abdication of authority over the greatest in-house controversy in its history. . .

Check it out.

And now Cardinal Egan joins in. . .

From the Archdiocese of New York:

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York

August 26, 2008

H/t to Jeff via email.

The paradoxes of Christianity

As I read and re-read all the non-Christian or anti-Christian accounts of the faith, from Huxley to Bradlaugh, a slow and awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind -- the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness. In case any reader has not come across the thing I mean, I will give such instances as I remember at random of this self-contradiction in the sceptical attack. I give four or five of them; there are fifty more.

Thus, for instance, I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin. Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere. But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul's Cathedral. But the extraordinary thing is this. They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction) that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II., they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected that Christian optimism, "the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands," hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool's paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it. If it falsified human vision it must falsify it one way or another; it could not wear both green and rose-coloured spectacles. . .

I take a third case; the strangest of all, because it involves the one real objection to the faith. The one real objection to the Christian religion is simply that it is one religion. The world is a big place, full of very different kinds of people. Christianity (it may reasonably be said) is one thing confined to one kind of people; it began in Palestine, it has practically stopped with Europe. I was duly impressed with this argument in my youth, and I was much drawn towards the doctrine often preached in Ethical Societies -- I mean the doctrine that there is one great unconscious church of all humanity rounded on the omnipresence of the human conscience. Creeds, it was said, divided men; but at least morals united them. The soul might seek the strangest and most remote lands and ages and still find essential ethical common sense. It might find Confucius under Eastern trees, and he would be writing "Thou shalt not steal." It might decipher the darkest hieroglyphic on the most primeval desert, and the meaning when deciphered would be "Little boys should tell the truth." I believed this doctrine of the brotherhood of all men in the possession of a moral sense, and I believe it still -- with other things. And I was thoroughly annoyed with Christianity for suggesting (as I supposed) that whole ages and empires of men had utterly escaped this light of justice and reason. But then I found an astonishing thing. I found that the very people who said that mankind was one church from Plato to Emerson were the very people who said that morality had changed altogether, and that what was right in one age was wrong in another. If I asked, say, for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideals. But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstitions of savages. I found it was their daily taunt against Christianity that it was the light of one people and had left all others to die in the dark. But I also found that it was their special boast for themselves that science and progress were the discovery of one people, and that all other peoples had died in the dark. Their chief insult to Christianity was actually their chief compliment to themselves, and there seemed to be a strange unfairness about all their relative insistence on the two things. When considering some pagan or agnostic, we were to remember that all men had one religion; when considering some mystic or spiritualist, we were only to consider what absurd religions some men had. We could trust the ethics of Epictetus, because ethics had never changed. We must not trust the ethics of Bossuet, because ethics had changed. They changed in two hundred years, but not in two thousand.

This began to be alarming. It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves? I saw the same thing on every side. . .

I wished to be quite fair then, and I wish to be quite fair now; and I did not conclude that the attack on Christianity was all wrong. I only concluded that if Christianity was wrong, it was very wrong indeed. Such hostile horrors might be combined in one thing, but that thing must be very strange and solitary. There are men who are misers, and also spendthrifts; but they are rare. There are men sensual and also ascetic; but they are rare. But if this mass of mad contradictions really existed, quakerish and bloodthirsty, too gorgeous and too thread-bare, austere, yet pandering preposterously to the lust of the eye, the enemy of women and their foolish refuge, a solemn pessimist and a silly optimist, if this evil existed, then there was in this evil something quite supreme and unique. For I found in my rationalist teachers no explanation of such exceptional corruption. Christianity (theoretically speaking) was in their eyes only one of the ordinary myths and errors of mortals. They gave me no key to this twisted and unnatural badness. Such a paradox of evil rose to the stature of the supernatural. It was, indeed, almost as supernatural as the infallibility of the Pope. An historic institution, which never went right, is really quite as much of a miracle as an institution that cannot go wrong. The only explanation which immediately occurred to my mind was that Christianity did not come from heaven, but from hell. Really, if Jesus of Nazareth was not Christ, He must have been Antichrist.

And then in a quiet hour a strange thought struck me like a still thunderbolt. There had suddenly come into my mind another explanation. Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has been already admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape. Outrageously tall men might feel him to be short. Very short men might feel him to be tall. Old bucks who are growing stout might consider him insufficiently filled out; old beaux who were growing thin might feel that he expanded beyond the narrow lines of elegance. Perhaps Swedes (who have pale hair like tow) called him a dark man, while negroes considered him distinctly blonde. Perhaps (in short) this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing; at least the normal thing, the centre. Perhaps, after all, it is Christianity that is sane and all its critics that are mad -- in various ways.

G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy, Chapter VI, The Paradoxes of Christianity

California parents: Information for those with children in public schools

From the California Catholic Conference, a handy-dandy synopsis of what parents of public schoolers need to know about their rights. Read the entire info here (also available in Spanish).

An excerpt from the two-page brochure [boldface mine]:

. . . By law, at the beginning of each school year, public schools send home many documents. In one of these documents, the school district will be giving notification that the school assumes approval of all of the school’s curriculum and activities.

In other words, if a parent or guardian does not approve of any of the topics mentioned above he or she must notify the school. If the parent or guardian does nothing the school officials can and will assume approval or an “opt-in” to the school’s entire program.

However, the language explaining the school’s policy regarding “opt-in” and “opt-out” is written in “legalese” and can easily be overlooked or misunderstood by families.

In plain words:

• Parents or guardians who object to certain education offered to their children must specifically request that they be excused, i.e., they must “opt-out,” or the school assumes that permission for the students to participate has been granted.


• In order to make that “specific request” a parent or guardian must complete an “opt-out” form. A standard “opt-out” form can be obtained from the school office.


• A signed “opt-out” form must be submitted for each student and for each type of objectionable activity from which that student is to be excused.


• An “opt-out” form for each student is only considered valid for the current school year—and must be resubmitted annually.


• All parents or guardians have the right to be informed of the content and approximate date of presentation of all materials and subjects.


• In addition, all parents or guardians have the right to examine copies of all tests, questionnaires, or surveys that inquire about students’ or their parents’ personal beliefs, family life, religion or sex practices.

Confidential Medical Services

From the time students enter the 7th grade in a public school, they are granted complete freedom for purposes of securing confidential medical services, which may include contraceptives, abortions and psychotropic drugs.

That policy is the result of a 1997 court decision (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren) which extended the “right of privacy” to minors. The California Supreme Court ruled that a minor’s right to privacy superseded the minor’s parents’ rights as guardians.

In addition, in 2004 California’s Attorney General Lockyer wrote an opinion supporting that school policy, saying:

“We conclude that a school district may not adopt a policy pursuant to which the school will notify a parent when a student leaves school to receive confidential medical services.”

Confidential medical services may include abortion, birth control, AIDS treatment and/or psychological analysis.

Ordinarily, parents or guardians must grant written permission for their children to participate in off campus activities or to receive over-the-counter medication from school personnel. However, when a student requests confidential medical services, then he or she can actually be released without parental knowledge or permission during school hours to receive those services.

Like the notification regarding “opt-out” for objectionable educational activities, at the beginning of each school year, parents or guardians are notified of this public school policy for students in grades 7-12.

And like the notification about the availability of an “opt-out,” the information about the policy of releasing students for confidential medical services may also be overlooked or misunderstood. . .

A journey. . .

Joy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian. And as I close this chaotic volume I open again the strange small book from which all Christianity came; and I am again haunted by a kind of confirmation. The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.

G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy, Chapter IX

Lambeth Diary: Church suffering 'spiritual Alzheimers' says Rome

Well, this should go over well. From Ruth Gledhill:

Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Evangelisation, has just addressed the Lambeth Conference bishops. This cardinal is understood to be one of those favouring a positive reception for disaffected Anglicans. This is what he told the 650 bishops: 'Much is spoken today of diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. By analogy, their symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's.'. . .

Read it all.

Tom Hanks and Opie Banned From Vatican

From the New York Daily News:

Still smarting over "The Da Vinci Code," the Vatican has banned filming of the controversial follow-up flick "Angels & Demons" in Rome churches.

The Catholic church barred Tom Hanks and producer-director Ron Howard from shooting scenes in two historic cathedrals after branding author Dan Brown's works anti-Catholic blasphemy.

"Normally we read the script, but this time it was not necessary," said Msgr. Marco Fibbi, spokesman for the diocese of Rome. "The name 'Dan Brown' was enough."

The crew wanted to film in the churches of Santa Maria del Popolo and Santa Maria della Vittoria, two architectural jewels in the heart of Rome crammed with Renaissance art and sculpture.

Archbishop Velasio De Paolis called it a no-brainer to ban the film, accusing Brown of turning "the Gospels upside down."

"It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into mendacious films," the archbishop told The Times of London. . .

Read it all.
H/t to The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen.

Ex-Anglican communities to become Catholic, Rome confirms

From Damian Thompson at the Telegraph (U.K.):

The Catholic Church will expand its provision of "Anglican Use" parishes in the United States in order to allow whole communities of traditionalist Anglicans into the Roman fold, a senior Catholic archbishop has announced.

The Most Rev John J Myers, Archbishop of Newark and Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Pastoral Provision, told a conference of ex-Anglicans on Friday that "we are working on expanding the mandate of the Pastoral Provision [of Catholic parishes using Anglican-inspired services] to include those clergy and faithful of 'continuing Anglican communities'.

"We are striving to increase awareness of our apostolate to Anglican Christians who desire to be reconciled with the Holy See. We have experienced the wonder of several Episcopal bishops entering into full communion with the Catholic Church and we continue to receive requests from priests and laity about the Pastoral Provision."

This is big news, and makes nonsense of the claim that Pope Benedict wants to dissuade Anglo-Catholics from converting. The obvious interpretation of the Archbishop's words is that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a "continuing church" which has hundreds of thousands of members worldwide (though few in the UK), will eventually be given its own Catholic parishes which use a Eucharistic Prayer incorporating Cranmerian language.

This possibility has existed since the 1970s, but Archbishop Myers indicates that it is only now - under a sympathetic Pope, and during the break-up of the Anglican Communion - that the Pastoral Provision is entering a new dimension. . .

Read it all. Looks like Dr. Mabuse was right. (But take it all with a grain of salt until complete official approval!)

Pope rides to Rowan's rescue *Updated*

Update below.

Original: From the Independent (U.K.) [boldface mine]:

The Pope is leading an unprecedented drive by the Roman Catholic Church to prevent the fragmentation of the worldwide Anglican Communion ahead of the once-a-decade gathering of its 800 bishops, which begins today, The Independent has learnt.

In his first public comments on the Lambeth Conference, Pope Benedict XVI has warned Anglican leaders that they must find a "mature" and faithful way of avoiding "schism". On top of this the Pope has:

* Sent three cardinals to the conference in Canterbury, including one of his top aides from the Vatican, to act as personal intermediaries between the two churches;

* Let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church;

* Given behind-the-scenes support to the Archbishop of Canterbury's attempts to hold together the conservative and liberal wings of the Anglican Church, including at face-to-face meetings in Rome.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, faces a near-impossible task as he prepares to preside over the conference, at which bishops from around the world are gathering today for prayer and reflection. The Archbishop is hoping to keep the conference focused on substantial issues facing the church and the world, but it is overshadowed by disputes over women bishops and homosexuality. . .

Roman Catholic insiders say there are two motives behind the Pope's concerns. A decision has been taken within the Roman Catholic hierarchy that it is in its interests for the Anglican Church to maintain unity. Despite speculation about a group of conservative bishops breaking away to the Roman church, senior Catholics say such a move would be "premature", and that they are not encouraging defections. The other reason is that the Pope has developed a strong personal relationship with Dr Williams. "They get on, they are both theologians," a source said last night.

The Pope, who arrived in Australia on Sunday for the World Youth Day gathering of young Catholics and others, publicly expressed support for Dr Williams while remaining careful not to "intervene". The Pope added that the Church needed to avoid "further schism and fractures". . .

Read it all.

Update: Thanks to Dr. Mabuse for the heads up on the publication of the pope's interview and Stand Firm for posting a link to this, primary source material:

SYDNEY, Australia, JULY 14, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the Vatican transcription of Benedict XVI's comments to journalists aboard the papal plane en route to Sydney. . .

Q: While you are in Australia, the bishops of the Anglican Communion, which is very widespread also in Australia, are meeting in Lambeth Palace. One of the main arguments will be possible ways to consolidate communion between the provinces and to find a way to ensure that one or more provinces do not take initiatives that others see as contrary to the Gospel and tradition.

Is there the risk of a fragmentation of the Anglican Communion and the possibility that some will ask to be received into the Catholic Church. What is your hope for the Lambeth Conference and for the archbishop of Canterbury?

Benedict XVI: My essential contribution can only be prayer and with my prayer I will be very close to the Anglican bishops meeting in Lambeth Conference.

We cannot and must not intervene immediately in their discussions, we respect their own responsibility and it is our hope that schisms and new breaks can be avoided, and that a responsible solution will be found given our times, but also in fidelity to the Gospel. These two things must go together.

Christianity is always contemporary and lives in this world, in a certain time, but it renders present in this time the message of Jesus Christ and, hence, offers a true contribution for this time only be being faithful -- in a mature and creative way -- but faithful to the message of Christ.

We hope, and I personally pray, that together they will find the way of the Gospel for our day. This is my wish for the archbishop of Canterbury: That the Anglican Communion in communion with the Gospel of Christ and the Word of the Lord will find the answers to the present challenges.

And from Damien Thompson at the Telegraph (U.K.):

More evidence this morning that Catholic liberals are panicking at the prospect of an influx of conservative Anglicans. They want us to believe that Pope Benedict is "shunning defectors" in an attempt to shore up the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not true.

On his way to Australia, the Pope was asked about the Lambeth Conference. He replied that the Catholic Church should not intervene in its deliberations and that he was praying that there would be no more schisms and fractures. Lambeth Palace and its liberal Catholic allies have now spun this into a papal message of support for Rowan Williams in his attempts to persuade Anglicans not to convert to Rome.

Liberals claim that Pope Benedict has "let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church". He has done no such thing.

The Pope is supporting moves by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to construct a model whereby a group of rebel conservative Anglicans, the Traditional Anglican Communion, can be received en masse and occupy their own structures inside the Roman Catholic Church. This model – which is being constructed in secret – could serve as a blueprint for mainstream Anglicans wanting to convert as a group.

To understand what is going on, it is important to grasp that Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's head of ecumenism who is attending Lambeth, is not a close adviser to the Pope. He and the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger have even clashed publicly in the past. Likewise, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who is also attending Lambeth, is not close to the Holy Father.

Always remember: it was Cardinal Ratzinger who sent a personal message of support to conservative Anglicans meeting in Dallas in 2003, thereby horrifying Kasper – who, as a professional ecumenist, probably is unsympathetic to Anglo-Catholics rocking the boat. But he, thank God, is soon to retire. . .

Read it all. And so Lambeth begins. (And I have to remember that not everything printed is true! I don't know how I forgot that here!)

"I'm back from Anglican Use Conference in San Antonio"

From Taylor Marshall, a report on the Anglican Use Conference in San Antonio:

I'm back from the Anglican Use Conference. This is the third Anglican Use Conference that I have attended and by far the best. Father Phillips and Deacon Orr of Our Lady of Atonement Catholic Church did an excellent job planning the event. Everything ran smoothly. The food was great. The speakers were also strong.

Former ECUSA bishop Dr. Jeffrey Steenson gave one of the best "convert stories" that I've ever heard. Extremely compelling from a theological point of view. . .

Read it all.

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson

From Bishop David Anderson at the American Anglican Council, his weekly message via email [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

As we comment from week to week on matters affecting the Anglicans in North America, and in a broader sense, globally, we need to be aware that we are not in a single-issue battle. Issues of theology, and especially Christology, put us in conflict with a good portion of the pseudo-intellectual Western elites, who for all intents and purposes seem to have lost their faith.

Issues of morality and culture, which are normally derivative of an intact faith system, have put us in conflict with major cultural and sociological trends that exalt the individual's rights at the expense of the family, the community, or the church's ability to set boundaries on behavior. It seems that today’s culture has made the individual consumer god. If you have the money, you have a right to do it or buy it or have it done to you. The Christian Church, carrying with it the moral and ethical life of the Old Testament, also carries a new commandment to love one another even as Jesus has loved us. The Christian Church then has and does set moral and ethical boundaries on behavior, and this now puts us in conflict in many civil and secular settings. Our boundaries derive from Holy Scripture, whereas for the secular world, the boundaries (or lack thereof) depend on the situation, derive from the exaltation of the individual, and finally become, "I am entitled to everything I say I am entitled to," and "No one is going to tell me what I can and cannot do." This often revolves around two principal foci, money or sex, things people seem intensely interested in.

A third area that concerns us as orthodox Anglicans is the invasion of Islam into supposedly solid Christian areas, and the rapidity with which Christians seem to be rolling over and not adequately responding. I used to wonder how Islam conquered North Africa so easily, suppressing such a vital Christian area and pushing the Christian faith into a small corner of the community. Watching the idiocy of many governmental leaders in the Western world today, ready to give away so much to accommodate the demands of Muslim immigrants into their land, and seeing the Christians, with only a few exceptions, fail to rise to the challenge, I think I understand a little better what happened in North Africa. One difference there was that Islam conquered cities and territories by the sword… but who needs a sword if they can accomplish the same result by making demands and through thuggery and intimidation? I am thinking especially of articles about English vicars being beaten and harassed at their churches by Muslim youths.

Now to comment on some of the issues falling into these three categories mentioned above: The Episcopal Church’s Diocese of El Camino Real, in California, has issued official guidelines for blessing homosexual relationships. The State of California's Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual marriage must be permitted under the same conditions as traditional man-woman marriage, based on equal treatment under the law. There is a popular grassroots referendum that is being prepared to change the California Constitution and effectively overturn the Supreme Court's ruling, but that referendum is several months away. Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church is hurrying at breakneck speed to accommodate the homosexual marriage ruling by tacking on a blessing service for the wedding couple. These Episcopal Dioceses will be able to technically say they don't do gay weddings, because a civil authority does the vows and pronouncement part, then the church blends right in with the "spiritual" part. Episcopal bishops who are gay advocates will go to Lambeth swearing that they don't do gay weddings--for those others who find themselves at Lambeth, understand the duplicity that you are hearing.

In the UK, the issue of women bishops has been rammed down the throats of the Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals who don't believe that women Biblically can hold the episcopal order. After fervent (and we believe sincere) pleas by Canterbury, York and Durham, to mention only three, not to rush into this, and certainly not without provision for those who dissent and will need an alternative, the "our way or the highway" majority gave due notice of where the Church of England is headed.

Will this result in mass departures to Rome? Will this result in a GAFCON fellowship or even ecclesial body in England? Might a new Province even be established overlaying England? History is indeed being made.

But over and above all this turmoil, God in His wisdom rules, and His purposes will be carried out. Our job is to be much in prayer, seeking his will for our individual and corporate lives. May we carry out faithfully the tasks He gives us to do.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C.
Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the American Anglican Council

Strong ecumenical presence set for Lambeth Conference

From EpiscopalLife Online [boldface mine]:

A strong ecumenical presence is planned at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, where Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will welcome more than 75 representatives from a wide variety of churches and Christian communities.

Two of the principal speakers at the conference come from the ecumenical world.

Cardinal Ivan Dias, who will address the bishops in plenary July 22, is head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, and deeply involved in the mission work of the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Dias has served not only in his native India, but also in Denmark, Sweden, Indonesia, Madagascar, Poland, and Albania. A frequent speaker at Vatican-sponsored events, the Cardinal continually stresses the need for a "strong witness to the Christian faith, in every situation.". . .

Humm, the work of evangelism for the Catholic Church has begun, I see. Wonder what Cardinal Dias will talk about now?

The Anglican Communion has a longstanding commitment to the ecumenical movement,

Sure it does.

and is presently involved in dialogues at the international level with the Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Old Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches. Recent international bilateral ecumenical agreements include The Church of the Triune God with the Orthodox Church, and Growing Together in Unity and Mission with the Roman Catholic Church. Both documents were issued only last year and will be discussed at the Lambeth Conference. . .

How many of these dialogues is the Anglican Communion still involved in? And is it as equals, or as a mission field for other branches of Christianity?

In addition to these ecumenical relationships, some member churches of the Anglican Communion have established full communion agreements with churches of other traditions, involving a complete mutual recognition of ministry and sacraments. Several representatives of these full communion partners will also participate in the conference: Archbishop Joris Vercammen and Bishop Joachim Vobbe, Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht; Bishop Ernst Baasland, Church of Norway; Metropolitan Mar Basilios, Malabar Independent Syrian Church; the Most Rev. Godfredo David, Iglesia Filipina Independiente; Bishop Mark Hanson, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Bishop Susan Johnson, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; Archbishop Jukka Paarma, Finnish Lutheran Church; Bishop Ragnar Persenius, Church of Sweden; Archbishop Karl Sigurbjornsson, Icelandic Lutheran Church. . .

Wait a minute, they don't list the new church, the Reformed Catholic Church of Venezuela, decribed this way by George Conger:

The Bolivarian Church, which models itself on the nationalist catholic church formed in Nineteenth century Mexico that has since become the Anglican Church of Mexico, uses the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer and has adopted a liberal moral ethos, making clerical celibacy optional, permitting divorce and remarriage, and holding that homosexual conduct is not immoral.

How judgmental and non-inclusive to leave them out!

Read it all.

A Roman Catholic priest's thoughts on Bishop Burnham's move

From Fr. Dwight Longenecker, thoughts from a Roman Catholic perspective [boldface mine]:

Damian Thompson reports today that one of the traditionalist Anglican bishops, Andrew Burnham, is preparing to lead Anglo Catholics to Rome en masse. He is already in discussions with the Vatican about the ways forward. They seem to want to come in with their Anglican churches and congregations. Whether or not this means an expansion of the Anglican Use liturgy to England is uncertain. Most of these Anglo Catholics already use the Roman Rite, and for them to revert to the old Anglican prayer book is not something they are asking for.

It all sounds wonderful, but I fear there are far too many problems for it to work. First of all, it seems very unlikely that the Anglican Church would give up their buildings without a fight of some sort, and it also seems unlikely that the English Catholic hierarchy would c-rountenance some sort of Anglo-Catholic church within a church. Furthermore, the Anglo-Catholics are not spread neatly and evenly around England. There are some in every diocese, but there are large concentrations of them in the Dioceses of Blackburn, Chichester and London. The Catholic Dioceses in those areas could not suddenly take on a huge number of churches and clergy without radical re-ordering. In my experience of the English Catholic Church, they don't really have the imagination and drive to make the changes necessary.

There are other problems. Not all English Catholics want a large influx of Anglo Catholics. This antipathy is from both the conservatives and liberals. Conservatives aren't keen on a load of people they perceive as intrinsically Protestant suddenly coming into the Catholic Church. Liberal Catholics don't want them because they think they are all 'dangerous misogynistic conservatives.'

Added to that is the fact that the Anglican clergy cannot be ordained as Catholic priests suddenly. They will need to do some re-training. The married ones will have to apply for a dispensation from the vow of celibacy. The English Catholic church already has more married former Anglican priests than anywhere else in the world. . .

It's far more likely that Bishop Burnham's move is another political gambit--trying to force the Anglicans to grant their wishes anyway. In the end, I fear the good bishop will have to convince all his followers--clergy and laity alike-- to simply bite the bullet and take the difficult step of being reconciled to the Catholic church on an individual basis.

But we are living in exciting times. It is possible that the rumors are true, and following the overtures from the Traditional Anglican Communion that Rome has already devised a plan to reconcile as many Anglicans as possibless as easily as possible. The rumor was that this plan is in place, and the Vatican is waiting until after the Lambeth Conference to announce it. . .

Read it all.

Conservative Anglicans in southern Ohio. . . almost 5 years later

From Per Christum, a blog started in 2006 by a group of Catholic converts. This post is by David Bennett, who in July of 2003 was preparing to enter Episcopal seminary and by August of 2004 had become a Roman Catholic:

. . . Why did I write this post? The other day I was thinking back to those times, and how much I was struggling with my place in the Episcopal church, and within the Church in general. I didn't struggle alone, but with friends and companions in the fight for orthodoxy. Nonetheless, I realized that over the last (soon-to-be) 5 years, most of us have left the Episcopal church, and many of us have left Anglicanism. It is kind of depressing in a way, but I know for a fact that many of our little group that have left are happy with the decision, and those who have stayed are joyful in their calling as well. It also shows just how many self-described orthodox in Southern Ohio have left the Episcopal church; If this is happening all over the country, TEC is most certainly moving even more leftward by default. . .

Read it all.
H/t to TitusOneNine.

Why I left ECUSA, Part 5: A new beginning . . .

The fifth (and final) in a series outlining why my family and I believe it is time for us to leave the Episcopal Church (read Part 1: A brief history, Part 2: A crack appears, Part 3: The deluge, and Part 4: The end). UPDATE: And don't forget the Addendum: Roma è chiamata.

So, we decided we needed to leave the Episcopal Church sooner than I had thought we might. The problem with leaving a church is that you are not just leaving a building and a service style, you are leaving people and a culture, an ethos if you will, that, if you have been brought up in ECUSA like I have, is very grounded in your soul—a certain way of doing “church.”

And now it is gone.

There are a few things I do know, however, that have become the parameters and priorities for my family (every person and family making this move or deciding to stay in ECUSA will have their own priorities, so please don’t think I’m criticizing anyone’s decision—I know how difficult this can be):

• To be biblically sound


• To have a discipline structure in place


• To offer youth programs that emphasize Christ


• To be part of a greater Christian community


• To be fairly close by

I am not interested in joining another mainline Protestant denomination. If the idea of an Anglican Communion (which has had some groups leave, but no official splitting) is important to me—to feel part of a larger global Christian presence—then joining the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Methodists, etc. would be a step backwards. Fragmentation is not a gift of the Holy Spirit, and the breaking apart of these denominations over various reasons seems to me to show that they are not a full expression of God’s Spirit in this world. I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the long-term efficiacy of the Protestant Reformation.

Also, all of these denominations seem to be just a few years short of finding themselves where ECUSA is now on the issues of biblical authority and church discipline.

I also, for better or for worse, am not interested in joining one of the continuing Episcopal churches (APA, REC, etc.), even though it seems as though there has been great movement to start bringing those together with Common Cause and the Anglican Communion Network. For a family with children, these churches seem awfully isolated and small, and they are not technically part of a greater global Christian family.

So, with those parameters, that leaves us with several options:

• Try a community church


• Find an Anglican church under a Primate in communion with Canterbury


• Swim the Bosphorus


• Swim the Tiber

We started our exploration at our local community church, which has great youth programs and a lot of outreach (and is very close by). We knew there might be a problem when we walked into the “church” (really an auditorium) and our son said, “Where’s the altar?” I will say, it was a great Bible study, but not a church service as we recognized it. The service consisted of about 30 minutes of praise music from the band on stage, a few prayers, a great “sermon” (talk) from the pastor (very committed and Bible focused), then another song, another prayer, and we were done.

We decided it would make a great Wednesday night Bible study, but left something lacking for a church service. I also feel community Christian churches are sometimes too personality driven. A particular pastor develops a following that starts a church. What happens when he retires? Or deviates from the Christian path? There is nothing behind a community church to keep it focused on anything other than what the pastor wants.

In San Diego, we have quite a few Anglican churches up and running, under the Southern Cone and Uganda, thanks to Bishop Mathes’s pastoral skills. The churches have worked hard together to create an Anglican presence here. One of the churches, St. Timothy & St. Titus, has taken the lead in organizing the youth and has done a great job in putting together retreats and programs that draw all of the Anglican kids in the area, including from Orange County. Unfortunately, St. TnT is quite a ways away and one of our priorities is proximity. My husband commutes every weekday down to San Diego and the last thing he wants to do on a Sunday is have another commute. It also makes it difficult for us to get involved in weekday activities if the drive is too far. There are two Anglican churches somewhat closer to us and we are looking at both.

But my concern with the Anglican churches, which I am still working through, is two-fold.

First, even though these churches have left ECUSA, there is still a lingering miasma of hurt and contention, within the churches and sometimes the clergy. These churches were part of the failed institutional structure of the Episcopal Church. That is not so easy to discard even though they have moved under another Anglican entity. I will say that the service with ++Gregory Venables at St. Anne’s Anglican in Oceanside was a joyous, forward-looking event that all of the local Anglican church participated in. If that feeling of moving on and focusing on God can eventually become the dominant thrust in these churches, that would be wonderful indeed.

My other concern is the overriding one of discipline in the Anglican Communion. Right now, there is none. Will that change? What is to keep what happened with ECUSA from happening again with another group? There is no there there to look to. The Instruments of Communion are broken and ignored. How will that change?

Lambeth seems geared towards keeping anything from happening or any decision from being made definitively. And I don’t believe an Anglican Covenant will fundamentally change anything. We have our Covenant Agreement, it’s called the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. If a covenant does end up being adopted at some point, I think one of two things will happen. Either the covenant will be so anemic as to be pointless or the covenant will be ignored. Neither of these outcomes will bode well for the Anglican Communion.

So that moves us down to the Orthodox Church. I’m the first to admit I don’t know that much about it except that it strives to remain as the closest idea of the early church. Other than that, it seems to be present in this country divided into ethnic groups. We have the Greek Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox, the Armenian Orthodox, etc. With the last name of Coletta, I’m looking for the Italian Orthodox and I don’t see it (well, actually I guess that’s the Roman Catholic Church). There are Antiochian Orthodox churches in the area but they are way down in San Diego and too far away. We do have friends who left ECUSA and now go to the Greek Orthodox Church nearby who have invited us to visit with them (thanks, Jeff and Claudia!) which we will have to do before we make any final decisions.

And now we’re at our last possibility—the Roman Catholic Church. First off, there is one right up the street—less than five minutes by car (so how shallow can I be? Hey, try me!). We have been a few times, and to see the number of children there makes you realize right away that you’re not at an Episcopal Church! My main concern here is that there are areas of doctrine I’m not sure about (although I’m willing to give the church the benefit of the doubt—after years of ECUSA doing its own thing, there is something nice about admitting that I personally don’t have all the answers and that maybe, just maybe, the greater Church does know a thing or two that I don’t, since she has been thinking about them for 2,000 years).

But going to the Roman Catholic Church in a sense closes the door on being Anglican. You don’t just start going to a Catholic church—you join a Catholic church. You become Catholic. You can’t get away with saying, well, we’re just going here for a while. No, you have to commit to becoming a Roman Catholic. That’s a big step and not to be taken lightly.

So here’s my chart:

Priorities	Churches
	Community	Local Anglican	Orthodox	Roman Catholic
To be biblically sound	Y	Y	Y	Y
To have a discipline structure in place	?	?	Y	Y
To offer youth programs that emphasize Christ	Y	Y	?	Y
To be part of a greater Christian community	N	Y	?	Y
To be fairly close by	Y	?	N	Y

(I have no idea why there is such a big gap here-sorry!)

So, we are still in discernment and will be visiting churches over the summer and I will be doing more reading on various doctrinal and theological differences . . .

and we will see where God directs.

Shroud of Turin to go on display

From the BibleBeltBlogger:

Pope Benedict XVI says Shroud of Turin will go on rare public display in 2010

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Shroud of Turin — revered by many Christians as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth — will go on rare public display in 2010, Pope Benedict XVI announced Monday.

The shroud last was shown to the public in 2000, when more than 1 million visitors viewed it in Turin cathedral during a special display for the new millennium Holy Year.

The pope made the announcement at a special audience at the Vatican for 7,000 pilgrims from Turin.

“If the Lord gives me life and health, I, too, hope to attend the display,” said Benedict, who is 81.

The shroud bears an imprint believed by some to be the image of Christ. Kept in Turin’s Roman Catholic cathedral, the strip of linen is about 14 feet long and 3 1/2 yards wide. Believers say the image on the cloth was left by Christ’s body after he was taken off the cross. . .

Read it all.