Five bishops, four in the Church of England and one in the Anglican Church of Australia, have announced that they are abandoning the communion of the Anglican Church and making their individual successions to the Church of Rome. A number of priests in the Anglican Diocese of Fort Worth have also given notice to Bishop Jack Iker that they intend to do likewise. Are these defections noble and praiseworthy as some people would have us believe that they are?
One of the lessons in the Form for the Ordering of Priests in the 1661 Ordinal is from the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John. It includes these words:
But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep… (John 10:12-13 NKJV)
In the Church of England priests and bishops take a vow at their ordination to exercise all faithful diligence in banishing and driving away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s word. In the charge to candidates for ordination to the priesthood, they are admonished:
…beware, that neither you yourself offend, nor be occasion that others offend….
In the charge to the newly consecrated bishop there is this admonition:
…Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf; feed them, devour them not.
The 1928 Ordinal contains the same reading and admonitions. The 1979 Ordinal contains only the reading.
Yet we have five bishops and an undetermined number of priests, all of whom are supposedly pastors to Christ’s flock, leaving the sheep and fleeing.
And to where are they fleeing—to the Church of Rome. This is what the Homily for Whit-Sunday has to say about that church.
It is needful to teach you, first what the true Church of Christ is, & then to confer the Church of Rome therewith, to discern how well they agree together. The true Church is a universal congregation or fellowship of GOD’s faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone (Ephesians 2.20). And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known. Pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ’s holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith.
Now if ye will compare this with the Church of Rome, not as it was in the beginning, but as it is presently, and hath been for the space of nine hundred years and odd: you shall well perceive the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the true Church, that nothing can bee more. For neither are they built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, retaining the sound and pure doctrine of Christ Jesu, neither yet doe they order the Sacraments, or else the Ecclesiastical keys, in such sort as he did first institute and ordain them: But have so intermingled their own traditions and inventions, by chopping and changing, by adding and plucking away, that now they may seem to be converted into a new guise.
Christ commended to his Church a Sacrament of his Body and Blood: They have changed it into a Sacrifice for the quick and the dead. Christ did minister to his Apostles, and the Apostles to other men indifferently under both kinds: They have robbed the lay people of the cup, saying, that for them one kind is sufficient.
Christ ordained no other element to bee used in Baptism, but only Water, whereunto when the word is joined, it is made (as S. Augustine saith) a full and perfect Sacrament. They being wiser in their own conceit then Christ, think it is not well nor orderly done, unless they use conjuration, unless they hallow the water, unless there be oil, salt, spittle, tapers, and such other dumb Ceremonies, serving to no use, contrary to the plain rule of Saint Paul, who willeth all things to be done in the Church unto edification (1 Corinthians 14.5).
Christ ordained the authority of the keys to excommunicate notorious sinners, and to absolve them which are truly penitent: They abuse this power at their own pleasure, as well in cursing the godly, with bell, book and candles, as also in absolving the reprobate, which are known to be unworthy of any Christian society:
Whereof they that lust to see examples, let them search their lives. To be short, look what our Saviour Christ pronounced of the Scribes and Pharisees, in the Gospel, the same may be boldly and with safe conscience pronounced of the Bishops of Rome, namely that they have forsaken, and daily do forsake the Commandments of GOD, to erect and set up their own constitutions. Which thing being true, as all they which have any light of GOD’s word must needs confess, we may well conclude according to the rule of Augustine: That the Bishops of Rome and their adherents, are not the true Church of Christ, much less then to be taken as chief Heads and Rulers of the same. Whosoeuer (saith he) do dissent from the Scriptures concerning the head, although they be found in all places where the Church is appointed, yet are they not in the Church: a plain place, concluding directly against the Church of Rome (Augustine, Contra Petiliani Donatist Epi., Chap. 4).
Where is now the holy Ghost which they so stoutly do claim to themselves? Where is now the spirit of truth, that will not suffer them in any wise to err? If it be possible to be there, where the true Church is not, then is it at Rome: otherwise it is but a vain brag, and nothing else. Saint Paul (as ye have heard before) saith: If any man have not the spirit of Christ, the same is not his. And by turning the words, it may be truly said: If any man be not of Christ, the same hath not the spirit.
Now to discern who are truly his, and who not, we have this rule given us, that his sheep do always hear his voice (John 10.3). And Saint John saith, He that is of GOD, heareth GOD’s word (John 8.47). Whereof it followeth, that the Popes in not hearing Christ’s voice, as they ought to do, but preferring their own decrees before the express word of GOD, do plainly argue to the world, that they are not of Christ, nor yet possessed with his spirit. But here they will allege for themselves, that there are divers necessary points not expressed in holy Scripture, which were left to the revelation of the holy Ghost. Who being given to the Church, according to Christ’s promise, hath taught many things from time to time, which the Apostles could not then bear (John 16.7). To this we may easily answer by the plain words of Christ, teaching us that the proper office of the holy Ghost is, not to institute and bring in new ordinances, contrary to his doctrine before taught: but shall come and declare those things which he had before taught: so that it might be well and truly understood.
When the holy Ghost (saith he) shall come, he shall lead you into all truth (John 16.13). What truth doth he mean? Any other then he himself had before expressed in his word? No. For he saith, He shall take of mine, and shew unto you. Again, he shall bring you in remembrance of all things that I have told you (John 16.15). It is not then the duty and part of any Christian, under pretence of the holy Ghost, to bring in his own dreams and fantasies into the Church: but he must diligently provide that his doctrine and decrees bee agreeable to Christ’s holy Testament. Otherwise in making the holy Ghost the author thereof, he doeth blaspheme and belie the holy Ghost, to his own condemnation.
The Church of Rome has not changed greatly from days when the Homily for Whit-Sunday was written. Its beliefs and practices are still much in need of reform.
Jesus laid down his life for his sheep. But these pastors are running away like hirelings. The worse that the five bishops face is a quiet retirement, days of idleness, attending daily Mass at the local Roman Catholic parish church, pottering around the garden, and nodding off in front of the telly. Their desertion of the Anglican Church is not admirable nor is it worthy of our praise.
Any priest who takes up Pope Benedict’s offer will not have it so easy, especially if he is married. He has been offered no guarantee that he will be able to continue to minister as a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. In the meantime, the sheep that he has abandoned will be pastorless. Since the priest plays such a central role in the spiritual life of an Anglo-Catholic parish, an Anglo-Catholic parish without a priest is particularly vulnerable. I have witnessed Anglo-Catholic churches fall apart when their priest retired, died, or left. The parishioners are truly lost without him.
No, there is nothing noble and praiseworthy in what these men are doing. Nothing at all.
12 comments:
Not praiseworthy, but I'd rather have these thieving jackals out in the open where they can be targeted rather than hiding in the shadows. Praise God.
Hah, Amnesiacal, Adjustable, and Alzhemer Anglicans, the lot of them. Tired of the public and wide cover-up of historic, confessional, liturgical, biblical, catholic and reformed Anglicanism. Hudson, the list of these amnesiac-facilitators is long and lugubrious. When one is just fed up with Bob in Pittsburg, Keith in Ft. Worth, Laud Leo of the REC in Philadelphia or Laud Ray in Dallas, and Anglo-charismatic, hip-jiving Murphy of where'er. We are in an Anglican, Babylonian Captivity. A few reminiscences below.
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/augustus-toplady-c-of-e-calvinism.html
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA11&dq=augustus%20toplady%20calvinism%20church%20of%20england&ei=CHbgTILcHIWglAeBiq2YAw&ct=result&id=ybYOAAAAIAAJ&output=text
Toplady's purpose of writing, p.11.
"To vindicate the best of visible Churches, from the false charge of Arminianism, fastened on her by you, and to prove, that the principles commonly (although, perhaps, not so properly) termed Calvinistic, are plainly and repeatedly delivered in the authentic declarations of her belief, were the reasons that chiefly induced me to resolve on the present undertaking. In consequence of which resolution, I took home your pamphlet with me, and have it now before me..."
Toplady on Luther (and quite factually), p.16:
"The plain truth is, Luther himself was an absolute predestinarian...When Luther," says he," began to form his opinions into a body, he clearly saw, that nothing did so plainly destroy the doctrine of merit, and justification by works, as St. Austin's opinions. He found also in his works very express authorities against most of the corruptions of the Roman Church..."
Arminianism and imputation according to Toplady:
"That consummate scholar and historian, Spanhemius the son, treating of Pelagius and his tenets, observes, that this arch-heretic asserted, " Causampredestinatioms ad gratiam & glorium efje pravifionem bono~ rum operum, & per fever antiam in Hits, ex recto liberi arbitrii ufu, exceptatamen gratia apojlolatus. Pradeflinationem ad mortem nullam dari; folam dari prœscienliam peccatorum" [Introd. ad Hist. & Antiq. Sacr. pag. 454.] i.e. that "The cause of predestination to grace and glory was, the foresight of good works, and of preleverance therein, resulting from a right use of our free-will: and that there is no such thing as predestination unto death ; but only a foreknowledge of what sins men would commit *." That these are the doctrines of the Arminians now, as they were of Pelagius then, needs no proof. An Arminian laughs at the imputation of Adam's offence, in order to elude the necessity of the Messiah's imputed righteousness..."
cont'
Toplady on the Arminian disastre called ABC William Laud, p.21.
"But you urge, that the Arminian doctrines `have been maintained by many of the brightest ornaments of our Church : such as Laud, Hammond, Bull, &c.' I except against Laud. I cannot allow him, upon the whole, to have been any ornament to us at all: much less can I put him at the head of our brightest ornaments. If he had any brightness belonging to him, it was the brightness of a fire-brand, which at the long run, set both Church and state in a flame. Learned as he was (or, rather, an encourager of learning in others, so they were not Calvinists,) he was, at best, but a mongrel Protestant; and would have but acted consistently with himself, had he accepted the cardinal's hat, which was offered him from Rome...So declared an enemy was your bright ornament, to all liberty, both civil and religious, that I make no scruple to call him a disgrace to his order, to his country, and to human nature... "
Toplady refers to forgotten names, Calvinistic Anglicans. p.21:
"...and true, consistent sons of it, by believing and maintaining her sundamental doctrines: such as Abbot, Grindal, Usher, Williams, Davenant, Downham, Carlton, Hall, Barlow (of Lincoln), Beveridge, Hopkins, &c. &c. all of whom were bishops, and (for which reason you threw them into shades) Predestinarians. After all, truth does not depend on names. The doctrines of the Church are to be learned from the articles and homilies of the Church herself; not from the private opinions of some individuals who lay hold on the skirt of her garment, call themselves by her name, and live by her revenues..."
*."
Toplady, turns a lovely phrase,p. 26, (if he knew of the current Alzheimers-Manglican-Amnesia-Anglican mess, he'd roll over in his grave),
"I pray God, that the Delilahs, who make it their business to shear the Church of its locks, by robbing it gradually of its doctrines, may not, at the long run, deliver it quite up into the hands of the Philistines."
Toplady chides Burnet's exposition of the 39 Articles and the endeavour to sanitize them of Reformed Theology, unfortunately with a long tradition in post-Reformation England, p 29.
"Dr. South's mind, `who, you know, sir, being asked, soon after its publication, what he thought of it? replied, in his smart way, "Think of it? I think, that, in his Exposition of our 39 Articles, his lordship has given the Church forty stripes save one." That the bishop has given the Church three or four stripes, I think, can hardly be denied: and unhappy is the mother, who receives such usage at the hands of the sons she has nourished and brought up. Thus much is certain: that Burnet plays fast and loose, whenever Calvinism and subscription fall in his way. Hence those two contradictory positions of his; "Subscription does import an assent to the article..."
In a footnote, we read from Toplady the following, but are completely clueless about the meaning, p.30:
" The lower House of Convocation, in 1701, severely censured Burnet's Exposition of the Articles. See Tindal, 15. 319"
Toplady rehearses a Cambridge Prof's remonstration with Burnet's efforts at anti-Calvinism, p.31.
"That learned and able divine, Dr. Edwards, of Cambridge, published, in the life-time of Bshop Burnet, some strictures on that prelate's way of treating the articles. `I am by no means,'lays be, `approve of this learned prelate's extravagant attempt, when he takes a great deal of pains to persuade his readers, that these thirty-nine articles, or most of them, are so dark and ambiguous, that the true sense of them is not to be found out: and therefore that we may make what construction of them we please. Surely, his lordship's memory is none of the best: any man must needs think that...he had forgot what he had asserted and given as his judgment, namely, That these are articles of downright belief, and therefore must not be dallied and played with. It is such a strange perverting of the articles, as cannot but raise admiration in indisferent persons, and such as are not led by prejudice. For, 1st, This new-found exposition fosters dissimulation. It seems to teach our clergymen to equivocate. For, though the learned and reverend author acknowledges, once and again, that the compilers of those articles were Calvinistically disposed, and accordingly formed some of the articles to as they are to be understood in savour of Calvin's opinions; yet he proposes them to the clergy, to be taken in an ambiguous sense. They are taught, in the whole, to trim; to turn about as they please; to dissemble with God and man; to subscribe to that, which, they know, most assuredly, is, in the plain meaning of it, against their persuasion. Therefore I say that this new-coined explication of the articles, is inconsistent with the integrity of our Church, and the sincerity of its ministers who are to subscribe to them. It will be hard to reconcile this with the doing it with a good conscience, as is required in the 5th canon; and ex animo, and avoiding all ambiguities, as the 36th canon enjoins."
her
More from Burnet..the dancer and English equivocator... on the 39 Articles that favours the Calvinists:
"[Burnet] gives us an instance in himself: telling us [in his preface to the Expos, of the Art.] that in the point of predestination, he follows the Greek Church, from which St. Austin departed, and formed a new system: and yet he publicly declares, that our Church's article of predestination may be interpreted and understood in favour of the Calvinists, who follow St. Augustin. I remember this learned writer, in the account he gives us of his travels, makes this reflection on Geneva, that there is want of sincerity there."
Toplady offers further rejoinders to the anti-predestinarians.
"If they be, such writers as Dr. Nowett ought to turn their eyes inward, and recollect, that themselves are the persons, who give the friends of our excellent. Church reason to lament, and open the mouths of her enemies to blaspheme.
But, if the expostulations of the independent. which be repudiated, as coming from a suspected quarter; permit me to remind you, sir, of three very remarkable passages, the same, in substance, with the preceding, though written by persons of your own principles: I mean Dr. Heylin, bishop Burnet, and Dr. Waterland. The introducing them here, is, indeed, an anticipation, which reveries, in some measure, the plan I proposed at first setting out : but as I am on the subject of Arminian subscription, I will dispatch it once for all. Dr. Peter Heylin, who was chaplain to archbishop Laud and king Charles the First, and was both a Laudean and a Carolitn in grain; an author, whom you closely follow, and whose Quinquarticular History seems to have furnished you with a considerable part of that book you lately offered to the public; does, in that very history, Arminian as he was, express himself thus: "The composers of the articles of the Church of England had not so little in them of the dove, or so much of the serpent, as to make the articles of the Church like an upright shoe, which may be worn on either foot ; or like to Theramenes* shoe, as the adage hath it, sit for the foot of every man that was pleased to wear it. And therefore we may say, of our sfrst reformers, in reference to the present book of articles, that those reverend and learned men intended not to deceive any, by ambiguous terms. The first reformers did not so compose the articles, as to leave any liberty to dissenting judgments; but did bind men to the literal and grammatical sense..."
Toplady on turn-coat Anglican Churchmen, p.41:
"But though these great men, whenever the Calvinistic doctrines of the Church came in their way, turned themselves back, like Ephraim, and were as frightened at Calvins's positions (though subscribed to by themselves) as they could have been at his apparition ; thus, Penelope like, unraveling the very web they had taken such pains to weave; yet their remarks themselves are not the less true. The plain case was this : when these persons had to deal with an antagonist who happened to espouse any particular opinion that did not tally with their own, they presently knocked him down with the authority of the Church Articles : but when this same authority was, in other particulars, urged against themselves; they paid no more regard to articles and subscriptions, than other people. Like some tyrants, of whom it is recorded, that they would allow none but themselves to trample on the laws with impunity ; or like the man who could, upon occasion, drub his wife soundly, but would
suffer nobody else to list a singer against
Out of curiosity, does John Henry Newman's swim across the Tiber qualify him as a hireling rather than a shepherd?
Newman was a swimmer across the Tiber, a man of honour and a man unlike parasitic Anglicans leeching off the Anglican branch. Newman, in this respect, was honourable, unlike the geneaological parasites like Jack of Texas, Keith of Quincy, Bob of Pittsburg, Ray of Dallas (REC), and other Mish-Manglican parasites.
Newman was an anti-Reformed man like Iker, Ackerman, and Virtue.
These questions may be helpful in drawing one's own conclusions in response to the question, "Was John Henry Newman a shepherd or a hireling?"
What ordination service was used Newman's ordination? What vows did he take?
At the time Newman made his succession to the Church of Rome was he a bishop? Was he in charge of a cure of souls in the Church of England?
Or did he simply have a benefice, or church living?
How often did he preach in the parish church associated with this benefice? Often did he administer the sacraments? Was he engaged in pastoral work--visiting the sick,etc?
What was he actually doing at the time of his conversion?
What dangers were besetting the Church of England at that time? From whose perspective?
What else could he have done beside convert to Roman Catholicism?
If he was a bishop or a curate, that is someone who was actually in charge of a cure of souls, what were the consequences of his resignation to his diocese or cure?
For those unfamiliar with Newman's life and ministry, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman
Truth Unites... and Divides said...
"Out of curiosity, does John Henry Newman's swim across the Tiber qualify him as a hireling rather than a shepherd?"
NO, MUCH WORSE, HE WAS A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING.
Duly noted: There are a range of responses and opinions with regards to ex-Anglican priest John Henry Newman's conversion to Catholicism.
I should also suspect that there are a range of responses and opinions to the Anglican bishops converting to Catholicism.
Pax.
Pusey did attempt to dissuade Newman from converting to Roman Catholicism, believing his defection would greatly weaken the cause of the Oxford movement. This is not to say that Pusey was unsympathetic to Rome. However, he thought that Newman's timing was bad. Pusey had hoped that the Pope would accept a "Catholicized" Church of England lock, stock, and barrel. Pope Benedict's offer of "a personal ordinariate" for former Anglicans signals that the dream of the Romeward movement for reunion without individual sucession to Rome was just that--a dream--like a form seen in the mist that vanishes with the rising sun. It raises questions about the need for a new Oxford movement for which Keith Ackerman has called. The only motivation now certainly cannot be the hope of future reunion with Rome. It can be only to shape the Anglican Church in North America more to the liking of anglo-Catholics who chose not to avail themselves of the Pope's offer.
Robin, great set of questions on history re: the self-loathing, anti-Anglican called JHN. It's been awhile since any heavy reading on him, but this much...his Romanism was there in 1825, but hidden and slowly emerging by the 1830's. Alas, but the details need revisitation.
Joe, yes, a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
Notice there are no public statements by Duncan, Iker, Ackerman, Sutton (Duncan's ecumenical officer) or others about the ferry service across the Tiber. Virtue's news service is more distinctive for stories NOT covered. It's actually a non-news service. The arena is crying for journalistic inquiries.
I know one fact for sure. Bp. Laud Leo will NOT give interviews. What kind of leadership is that? But, I perambulate and digress.
Thank God for the books.
Post a Comment