The Anglican/Roman Catholic Juxtaposition
A few weeks ago, our good friend Jacob Copper, the Vatican Watcher, linked a couple of articles to me. Well, articles is probably the wrong word; short essays, long blog posts.
The first piece is written by the Common Anglican, a young man who has recently joined the Anglican Communion via the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. I can't say that I completely agree with his reasoning; I decided to leave the Episcopal Church when I felt that it was beginning to openly embrace apostasy in 2003. There were other things that I disagreed with the Episcopals, and continue to disagree with the Anglicans, about; the Common Anglican mentions one of the big ones, which is infant baptism, but there are others. Overall, though, of the churches I explored, I found that the Anglican tradition, in its role as an intermediary between the heritage and authority of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and the accountability and scriptural orthodoxy of the Protestant Reformation, is the denomination that fits my own faith the closest.
As the Common Anglican points out, one of the greatest benefits of the Anglican perspective is the retention of true orthodoxy, and simultaneous dialogue and disagreement on the numerous issues that the Bible leaves open to interpretation. The Bible is very clear about those issues that are crucial to salvation and orthodoxy. Other issues are discussed or ignored, but left largely open to interpretation. Personally, I believe this to have been deliberate, as many of these issues are somewhat trivial, and differences in conduct among different Christians allow for God to do His work through our diversity of mind. These are the kinds of decisions that are individual in nature, and should not be dictated by a single, fallible individual.
Basically, I consider the Episcopal Church to be openly apostate, though there are still faithful and orthodox parishioners, and probably faithful and orthodox clergy, within the organization. The Worldwide Anglican Communion, based in England and growing in places like Asia and Africa, is stronger, and more orthodox, than the ailing and degenerating American and Canadian branches. And since I identify strongly with its personality, I hope to one day have the opportunity to support one of the orthodox, accountable American Anglican splinter groups with my time, money, and passion. Although I didn't make the same decision as the Common Anglican did, I can understand his decision, and I can support it; being a Navy man myself, I never liked the idea of leaving a sinking ship, and my decision had as much to do with issues within my own parish as it did with my disagreements with the denomination itself.
The second piece, written by Al Kimel, is a direct response to the Common Anglican's essay from a Roman Catholic; I think Jacob told me that the author is a former priest, but I'm not sure; maybe he was a former Anglican, or something. At any rate, the basic point that's made by Kimel and his major citation can be paraphrased as follows:
Now, I don't have beefs with most of Roman Catholicism. I've got four regulars here (Jacob Copper, Billy D, Poosh, and ENV) who are Roman Catholic. What I do have a beef with is elitist Roman Catholics, including much of the RC Church's heirarchy, who think that they've got a corner on all things doctrinal, theological, historical, et cetera. That is what I find extremely offensive, and this Kimel character is just another example of it. Kimel points to several difficulties within the Anglican Communion. Here are a few difficulties I have with Roman Catholicism.
Until Martin Luther grew a pair and challenged the Holy See, the Roman Catholic Church ran a scam bigger than Oil-for-Food, Social Security, or Mary Kay: they sold indulgences. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this, some churches believe in a place called Purgatory, where one's sins are purged before entry into Heaven. The Roman Catholic Church accepted money from unwitting Christians, claiming that payment could speed their loved ones' transit through Purgatory.
The Holy See was so corrupt during the Renaissance that pontiffs like Boniface VIII (Benedetto Caetani) and Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) were able to come to power. Roman Catholics can claim succession from Peter all they want, but when that "succession" is through someone who declared himself superior to a political monarch, and someone who prostituted and may have even nailed his own daughter, I've gotta call shenanigans.
The First Crusade was basically declared by Pope Urban II. Now, I'm not going to condemn the Crusades; they were imperfect military campaigns waged by imperfect leaders and imperfect soldiers, but the fact remains that at the time of their declaration, Islam was encroaching on Europe from the east and west, and Spain and the Holy Land were already under Islamic domination. However, it's not the authority of the Bishop of Rome to incite war.
Roman Catholicism claims that a fallible man can become infallible and completely authoritative upon ascension to the papacy. I don't buy it.
And, to tie it all to today, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the whole priests molesting altar boys, church covering it up and shuffling them around thing.
The Bible, I can trust. Church tradition isn't quite so trustworthy. For Roman Catholics to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate, final expression of Christianity for no better reason than "It's the Roman Catholic Church, yo!" is beyond arrogant. Here's a news flash for you: I don't need a priest to be reconciled with God, I don't need ordained clergy to find salvation, and I don't need a fallible, unaccountable church to get me to Heaven.
Kimel makes the following statement:
In case Mr. Kimel hasn't figured it out, I'm going to offer a revelation to all of you: all religion is paper religion. If religion, and dogma, and works, and knowledge could do jack, then we could rely on ourselves and our fellow men to save us. The very fact that Jesus came and sacrificed Himself for us proves that. No self-proclaimed "Church of the saints and martyrs" can provide what man really needs. Only faith in Christ can accomplish the regeneration we need; religion is nothing more than a crutch to help us implement faith into our lives.
Like I said, I'm not anti-Roman Catholic. I respect Benedict XVI, I grew to respect John Paul II the more I grew to know of him, and I think that the Roman Catholic Church has done a great deal to benefit Western and global civilization. I consider many Roman Catholics, maybe even most Roman Catholics, to be my co-inheritors of the legacy and salvation afforded through Christ's work. However, as a historian and as a faithful Christian, dedicated to truth, orthodoxy, and faith, I have seen no evidence that Roman Catholicism is the single greatest expression of the Christian faith; nor have I seen any evidence that the Holy See has some sort of mandate from the Almighty. Believe me, if I thought there was a church that could make such a claim legitimately, I'd join it in a heartbeat. I find the arrogant, condescending attitude of Kimel and those of his ilk to be highly offensive, and not in keeping with the spirit Christ wishes us to maintain based on the teachings of the Apostles retained in the pages of the New Testament.
Dig?
The first piece is written by the Common Anglican, a young man who has recently joined the Anglican Communion via the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. I can't say that I completely agree with his reasoning; I decided to leave the Episcopal Church when I felt that it was beginning to openly embrace apostasy in 2003. There were other things that I disagreed with the Episcopals, and continue to disagree with the Anglicans, about; the Common Anglican mentions one of the big ones, which is infant baptism, but there are others. Overall, though, of the churches I explored, I found that the Anglican tradition, in its role as an intermediary between the heritage and authority of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and the accountability and scriptural orthodoxy of the Protestant Reformation, is the denomination that fits my own faith the closest.
As the Common Anglican points out, one of the greatest benefits of the Anglican perspective is the retention of true orthodoxy, and simultaneous dialogue and disagreement on the numerous issues that the Bible leaves open to interpretation. The Bible is very clear about those issues that are crucial to salvation and orthodoxy. Other issues are discussed or ignored, but left largely open to interpretation. Personally, I believe this to have been deliberate, as many of these issues are somewhat trivial, and differences in conduct among different Christians allow for God to do His work through our diversity of mind. These are the kinds of decisions that are individual in nature, and should not be dictated by a single, fallible individual.
Basically, I consider the Episcopal Church to be openly apostate, though there are still faithful and orthodox parishioners, and probably faithful and orthodox clergy, within the organization. The Worldwide Anglican Communion, based in England and growing in places like Asia and Africa, is stronger, and more orthodox, than the ailing and degenerating American and Canadian branches. And since I identify strongly with its personality, I hope to one day have the opportunity to support one of the orthodox, accountable American Anglican splinter groups with my time, money, and passion. Although I didn't make the same decision as the Common Anglican did, I can understand his decision, and I can support it; being a Navy man myself, I never liked the idea of leaving a sinking ship, and my decision had as much to do with issues within my own parish as it did with my disagreements with the denomination itself.
The second piece, written by Al Kimel, is a direct response to the Common Anglican's essay from a Roman Catholic; I think Jacob told me that the author is a former priest, but I'm not sure; maybe he was a former Anglican, or something. At any rate, the basic point that's made by Kimel and his major citation can be paraphrased as follows:
"Anglicanism is not Roman Catholic, and even if it's friendly, moderate apostasy, it's still apostasy. The Common Anglican is sincere, but if he joins the Episcopal Church, or any other chuch that's not Roman Catholicism, he's an ignorant fool."
Now, I don't have beefs with most of Roman Catholicism. I've got four regulars here (Jacob Copper, Billy D, Poosh, and ENV) who are Roman Catholic. What I do have a beef with is elitist Roman Catholics, including much of the RC Church's heirarchy, who think that they've got a corner on all things doctrinal, theological, historical, et cetera. That is what I find extremely offensive, and this Kimel character is just another example of it. Kimel points to several difficulties within the Anglican Communion. Here are a few difficulties I have with Roman Catholicism.
The Bible, I can trust. Church tradition isn't quite so trustworthy. For Roman Catholics to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate, final expression of Christianity for no better reason than "It's the Roman Catholic Church, yo!" is beyond arrogant. Here's a news flash for you: I don't need a priest to be reconciled with God, I don't need ordained clergy to find salvation, and I don't need a fallible, unaccountable church to get me to Heaven.
Kimel makes the following statement:
Our Common Anglican has fallen in love with a paper religion, as has so many before him, including this lowly Pontificator. But paper religion is not real religion. It does not feed the deepest hungers of the soul, and it leaves one trapped within the prison of the self. Nor does it strengthen one against the onslaught of the principalities and powers. Only the Church of the saints and martyrs can provide what is truly needed.
In case Mr. Kimel hasn't figured it out, I'm going to offer a revelation to all of you: all religion is paper religion. If religion, and dogma, and works, and knowledge could do jack, then we could rely on ourselves and our fellow men to save us. The very fact that Jesus came and sacrificed Himself for us proves that. No self-proclaimed "Church of the saints and martyrs" can provide what man really needs. Only faith in Christ can accomplish the regeneration we need; religion is nothing more than a crutch to help us implement faith into our lives.
Like I said, I'm not anti-Roman Catholic. I respect Benedict XVI, I grew to respect John Paul II the more I grew to know of him, and I think that the Roman Catholic Church has done a great deal to benefit Western and global civilization. I consider many Roman Catholics, maybe even most Roman Catholics, to be my co-inheritors of the legacy and salvation afforded through Christ's work. However, as a historian and as a faithful Christian, dedicated to truth, orthodoxy, and faith, I have seen no evidence that Roman Catholicism is the single greatest expression of the Christian faith; nor have I seen any evidence that the Holy See has some sort of mandate from the Almighty. Believe me, if I thought there was a church that could make such a claim legitimately, I'd join it in a heartbeat. I find the arrogant, condescending attitude of Kimel and those of his ilk to be highly offensive, and not in keeping with the spirit Christ wishes us to maintain based on the teachings of the Apostles retained in the pages of the New Testament.
Dig?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home