By Robin G. Jordan
A phrase I keep running into lately on the Internet especially on Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic web sites and in relation to the Personal Ordinariates is “Anglican patrimony.” Patrimony is property one inherits from one’s father or ancestors. Synonyms for patrimony are heritage, inheritance and legacy. Where I have encountered this phrase, I have also encountered differing views of what constitutes the Anglican patrimony.
One Roman Catholic website took the position that it is the legacy of pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church in England. This legacy is what that the Personal Ordinates would be preserving. It would not be the heritage that Anglo-Catholics would be bringing into the Roman Catholic Church with them. Rather it would the liturgical, pastoral and spiritual traditions that those who had remained fully faithful to Roman Catholicism have kept from desuetude and loss.
I found only a single reference to “Anglican patrimony” in the two official documents the Vatican issued on November 4, 2010. This reference made no attempt to define what is meant by this term in the document in which it is found.
Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics are not the only ones who have differing views of the patrimony of the Anglican Church. So do Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals. From the perspective of a conservative evangelical like myself the notion of the Roman Catholic Church’s saving from oblivion what I understand to be the Anglican patrimony does more than beg disbelief. It is utterly ludicrous.
The Anglican patrimony is not a rite. It is not a corpus of traditions and usages. It is the “Protestant Reformed religion” of the Coronation Oath Act of 1688. It upholds beliefs that Council of Trent declared anathema in the sixteenth century. It is embodied in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion that are a repudiation of the dogmas of the same Council. It is expounded more fully in the two Books of Homilies and is given liturgical expression in The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the Ordinal of 1661. It is a rejection of the papal system with its claims of papal infallibility and papal supremacy.
What concerns me and what, I believe, should concern all Anglicans committed to maintaining and preserving authentic historic Anglicanism is that in establishing a Personal Ordinariate for Anglo-Catholics the Roman Catholic Church may now lay claim to representing the true Anglican patrimony. In the Apostolic Constitution for the Personal Ordinariate and the Complementary Norms the Vatican recognizes Anglo-Catholics as the true Anglicans and their liturgical, spiritual, and pastoral traditions as the true Anglican patrimony.
We live in a world where conflicting systems of belief struggle to define themselves and each other and to interpret themselves and each other to the world. In this sense Anglicanorum Coetibus is a major coup for the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism in redefining and reinterpreting Anglicanism for its own purposes.
While it may seem uncharitable to some to view the papal offer in this light, it clearly has such ramifications. If the papal offer attracts a substantial number of Anglo-Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church erects a number of Ordinariates, we should not be surprised if the Roman Catholic Church in the not too distant future makes the claim that true Anglicanism is found in the Roman Catholic Church. This may not be Pope Benedict’s intention. However, Benedict has opened the way for his successor to make this claim.
The Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic movements of the nineteenth century deliberately sought to change the identity of the Church of England and Anglicanism. The Ancient-Future or Convergence movement of the last 30 years has also contributed to the erosion of the Protestant and Reformed character of Anglicanism in the minds of North American Anglicans. This makes North American Anglicans particularly susceptible to such a claim.
It would be a great shame to see North American Anglicans rejecting their true patrimony for a false Anglican patrimony of Rome. It is bad enough that the Tractarian, Anglo-Catholic, and Ancient-Future/Convergence movements have so obscured the true Anglican patrimony in the minds of Anglicans in North America that they fail to recognize it for what it is, and embrace in its stead beliefs and practices of other faith traditions.
15 comments:
Robin,
Having read what you sent me this A.M., I was wondering exactly what these Ordinarians were going to hang onto that was Anglican. I think that you've figured it out. The whole shebang, they will lay claim to being "The" Anglicans.
Richard:
Anyone notice that the Tiber-swimmers "will be re-ordained" to deacon and priest? To wit, the marred-invalid-inadeqate-flawed Anglican orders?
And of course, Rome still believes herself the universal patriarch and universal Bishop of their one, true, Petrine Church. They can forgive these descendents of--descendents of so-called Anglicans--of their untidy, little rebellion since the English Reformation. Rome has also correctly assessed the Western departure, e.g. Ch of Eng, from her heritage. Benedict XVI understands Protestant liberalism well--as an academic (with a mind a mile wide and deep). Easy pickins' without doctrinal boundaries or correct--yes, correct--pedigree.
For centuries in the Christian world, all were united in one faith, the Catholic Church.
Then came along the "reformation" and splits in the Body of Christ. With it came many changes in teaching by the various Christian sects. Some of these teachings, especially in the 20th century, seem to be poll driven, just like our very own civil government.
Their "teachings" are based on public opinion, not on truth. The "teaching" of the day among some of these non-Catholic sects seems to be based on the policy. I must remind you that private opinions do not change the truth one iota.
However, the "Pillar and Foundation of Truth", the Catholic Church (1Timothy 3:15), is unmoving in this respect. She and she alone stands up against the world in teaching the truth, as commanded by Jesus Christ Himself.
In so doing, she comes under great criticism by many who have found worldly things to be their real god. How then, can the "Pillar of Truth" teach nothing but the truth?
"Have I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Galatians 4:16)
Michael,
"As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith." (Art. XIX)
Let's read 1 Timothy 3:14 in context.
"I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth."
Paul is referring to the local church, the Body of Christ, not the Church of Rome. You are reading your own meaning into the text, a meaning that the text itself will not bear. The kind of Scripture twisting that you are employing Norman Sire and others identify with the cults.
Your own misinterpretation of Scripture is just further proof of the Church of Rome's fallibility, its long-standing liability not just to error but to gross error. It cannot even teach its members how to rightly divide the word of God.
The Holy Scriptures tell us that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6) They do not teach that the Church of Rome is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" as you falsely claim and would mislead others into believing. You are building your faith on a lie. Rather build it on a firm foundation, a foundation that will not perish in the last day. Build your faith on Jesus Christ. Trust in Him and not the Church of Rome for your salvation. The Bishop of Rome cannot save you. Christ and Christ alone can save you. Trust in Him and not a mortal man like yourself, who must die and turn to dust. Flee to Christ this very moment.Beg Him for His forgiveness. Throw yourself on His mercy. He will not turn you away.
“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age.
The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (John 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
“And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should…
With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me…
No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion…
For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
- St. Augustine (AD 354-430 )
Against the Epistle of Manichaeus AD 397
[Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti]
Phil,
I think that you meant ordained, rather than re-ordained, since Rome does not recognize any Anglican orders. As a side note, when I was in the Russian Orthodox Church, Roman Catholics were received by triple-immersion baptism followed by chrismation.
Michael,
To my earlier post I am adding this preface.
"Please do not insult our intelligence with those tired, worn-out arguments. Christianity even in New Testament times did not enjoy a monolithic unity. It certainly was not unified in post-apostolic times. The Patristic writers disagreed on numerous matters. The history of Christianity from New Testament times on has been marked by all kinds of disputes and divisions. The contemporary Roman Catholic Church is divided over a number of issues. On primary matters the Protestant churches are far less divided than their Roman Catholic detractors claim.
Uniformity is not unity albeit it may give the false appearance of such coherence. It is a comforting illusion but that is what it is—an illusion. How has the Church of Rome in the past enforced uniformity but through the Inquisition, through torture, through forced confessions and recantations, and through the stake.
In the sixteenth century the English Reformers recognized the Church of Rome for what it is--a Church that is corrupted by error and untrustworthy in its teaching, a Church that makes void the word of God for the sake of its own tradition. The Church of England’s Articles of Religion put it succinctly...."
As for citing Augustine, to what “Catholic Church” is he referring? The visible church or the invisible church? To the supposedly undivided church of the fourth century or to the latter day claimant to being the universal church—the Church of Rome?
In your earlier post you appear to be inferring that the Catholic Church and the Church of Rome are one and the same, a claim that Anglicans have disputed since the Reformation. Roman Catholic apologists historically have resorted to citing the Patristic authors when their seriously-flawed interpretation of the Scriptures has failed to convince. They have in their interpretation of the Patristic writers ignored historical context, textual context, authorial intent, and other important considerations as they have in their interpretation of Scripture. So their interpretation of the Patristic writings is as flawed as their interpretation of Scripture. When this too has failed to convince, they have fallen back upon the claim that the Church of Rome is infallible in her teaching. This claim of infallibility is naturally self-serving.
Augustine taught a distinction between the "church visible" and "church invisible.” The Church of Rome has historically confused the two in its teaching.
I will allow that you are not deliberately trying to mislead people, making claims that you know are false. You believe what you have been taught.
Once more I must point to your attention: no church can save you. No bishop can save you. Only Christ can save you. If you have not trusted in Christ for your salvation, accepted God’s merciful offer of salvation, your name is not written in the Book of Life. Membership in the Church of Rome and submission to her bishop will avail you nothing.
Richard:
Correction noted, to wit, "ordained" rather than "re-ordained" since the previous efforts by Anglican invokers were null, void, ineffectual, invalid, marred and--above all else--non-Roman. Still, nothing but silence on this dimension.
As to Michael, wearisome arguments for the false church of Rome--semper eadem, sed non semper eadem. Ever changing Rome! She just wasn't what she used to be! She ain't what she was! We just had to change her. We have a long, long list of questions for the reformation of her manners, doctrines, worship and piety!
In the words of one English Reformer, she's a "lusty strumpet."
Dear Reformation & Robin G. Jordan,
"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10].
But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).
"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (ibid., 141:5).
Michael,
Since I do not agree with you and the unscriptural teachings of your church, you would now accuse me of being factious and heretical.
Remember what Christ himself said:
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)
He also said:
"...out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:34-37)
The Church of Rome has fallen into great error. Like the scribes and the Pharisees it has made void the word of God for the sake of its own tradition (Matthew 15:6). Did not Christ himself rebuke them for giving more authority to the teaching of men than the word of God? (Matthew 15:8-9) Yet you would accuse of following false doctrine those who draw her error to your attention. Would you likewise accuse Christ?
Dear Robin G. Jordan,
Have you ever read 1Corinthians 12:1-31 before?
Have you understood the message written therein?
1. There is but one Body of Christ (vs 12).
2. The Body of Christ is the Church which He founded, Ephesians 1:22-23
3. Therefore the Church which Jesus Christ founded IS Christ.
4. Therefore those who reject His Church, reject Him. Matthew 12:30
5. Since there is but one
Christ with one Body, so there must be but one Church. Psalms 127:1, Matthew 16:18
6. The Body (Church) consists of not one member, but many (vs 14).
7. The many members of the one
(Church) Body are all part of the same Body but each with his own function (vs's 15-20).
8. The Body of Christ cannot be separated from His Head.
9. Since the Body consis
ts of members, individual members of the Body can be separated from the Head.
10. GOD has said that there must be no discord within the Body (vs 25).
11. However, there was great discord within the one Body, and it was a clear violation of verse 25.
12. It is called the Protestant Revolt .
13. Leaders and members of the Protest ant Revolt Amputated themselves from the one Body(Church) (vs 21).
14. Each member of the Body has his own function, by analogy, an eye, ear, hand, foot (vs's 15-18).
15. Can a hand live by itself, disconnected (Amputated) from the Body, or can an eye, an ear, or a foot?
16. What happens to a member which is Amputated from the Body?
17. The soul does not go with the Amputated member, and thus the member dies.
Michael,
You confuse the Christ's Church and the Body of Christ with the Church of Rome. They are not the same thing. Christians are united to Christ by faith and the Holy Spirit, not by membership in the Church of Rome. If you do not have faith or the Holy Spirit, you are not united to Christ and you are not a part of the Christ's Church or the Body of Christ. This is what the New Testament teaches.
The New Testament recognizes the Church in only three forms--the local church such as the church at Corinth, the churches of a particular region, and what Augustine refered to as "the church invisible," which is the invisible body of the elect, made up of genuine believers from all ages, and who are known only to God.
When Paul in his epistles refers to the Body of Christ, he is referring to the local church, the church in a particular community or locality, not to a para-church organization like a diocese, archdiocese, or province.
You have been taught that the Church of Rome and Christ's Church and the Body and Christ are one and the same. But that is not what the holy Scriptures teach and the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God.
The teaching of the Church of Rome is not the Word of God. It is the teaching of men. Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for setting aside the Word of God for the sake of their own tradition, for the teaching of men.
If you have faith in Christ, trust in him for your salvation, and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, you are a member of Christ's Church and the Body of Christ. This is what the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God, teaches.
You may be baptized, confirmed, attend Mass every day, and do all kinds of good works but unless you have believed in Christ, trusted in him for your salvation, and received the gift of the Holy Spirit, you are not saved. You are not a part of Christ's Church or a member of his Body. The way to salvation is not through membership in a para-church organization but through faith in God's own Son, his incarnate Word. Only when we have faith in Christ are our good works pleasing to God and even then they are but "dirty rags" and we do only what a servant is expected to do for his master.
Dear Robin G. Jordan,
"For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." Romans 12:4-5
These verses clearly do not leave room for Amputated members.
"Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." 1Corinthians 10:17
Show me where Amputated members partake of the "one bread"?
Here is a very interesting observation from Saint Augustine (354-430)...
"What the soul is to man's body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of one body.
But see what you must beware of, see what you must take note of, see what you must fear. It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away.
And if a member be cut off, does the soul go with it? When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too, a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member." (Sermons, 267, 4, 391-430 A.D).
Elucidation:
1. The Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Body of Christ which is the one Church.
2. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of the one Body.
3. When a member of the Body is Amputated, the soul does not go with it*, and thus the member dies.
4. The Amputated member, when cut off from the Body of Christ, is made a heretic.
5. The Holy Spirit does not follow an Amputated member (heretic).
6. Therefore the Holy Spirit , not following an Amputated member, is only guiding the one Church which Jesus Christ founded.
*Unlike the body which has many parts and can be divided, the soul has no parts and thus cannot be divided.
The Holy Spirit is not confined to the Church of Rome. Nowhere in the Holy Scriptures will you find such a teaching. The Holy Spirit indwells all who believe in Jesus Christ is what the Scriptures teach.
The Holy Spirit is not confined to the Church of Rome
Dear Robin G. Jordan,
How to Find the True Church...
Use this guideline as a measure...
*It was founded by Jesus Christ Himself in Mt 16:18.
*It would be built on Simon Peter, Mt 16:18.
*It would be defended by GOD Himself, Mt 16:18-19.
*It would have authority given by Jesus Christ, Mt 16:19,18:17-18.
*It would be guided by the Holy Spirit who will dwell within it, Jn 14:15-17, Act 15:28,16:6.
*It would be one and undivided, Mk 3:24-25.
*It would have one fold and one shepherd, Jn 10:16.
*It would have Priests, Bishops, and Deacons, 1Tim 3:1-13.
*It must have the Holy Eucharist celebration, Jn 6:42-70, Act 2:42.
*It must be found in all nations, Mt 28:19.
*It must be found in all centuries, Mt 28:20.
*Jesus Christ said He would be with His Church every day, in every year, until the end of the world, Mt 28:20. This means no gaps in time.
Examine your Church to see if it meets ALL of these requirements.
It must NOT have a human person founder.
It must have a continuous history going back over 1950 years.
Post a Comment