Is the Episcopal Church a truly catholic Church? I ask this question in response to a series of blog articles and comments written by the Rev. Dr. Daniel K. Dunlap. I reference in particular the following: GAFCON---Initial Thoughts, Personal Reflections for Remaining in TEC, The Problem with Confessionalism, Why Anglican Confessionalism will Undermine the Anglican Catholic Position, Restating a Third Mill Catholic Prophecy, Response to Al Kimel, and "Anglicans and Orthodoxy" from the Land of Unlikeness Blog. Also see Dr Dunlap's article "Why I 'Migrated' to the Episcopal Church."
Fr Dunlap is a former minister in the Reformed Episcopal Church. He was confirmed in the Episcopal Church in 2004. Six months ago he was ordained in the Episcopal Diocese of Texas to the sacred order of priests. He is presently Vice President and Dean of the Faculty at the Houston Graduate School of Theology. He has also been blogging at Catholic in the Third Millenium since March 2006.
Fr Dunlap considers himself a catholic Anglican and is distressed by the emergence of GAFCON, which he sees, quite probably rightly, as an attempt to impose a Reformed confessionalism upon the Anglican Communion. He himself is content to remain within the Episcopal Church. While he acknowledges that preaching and teaching contrary to the Church's credo is now occurring in parts of the Episcopal Church, this does not mean that the denomination as a whole has become heterodox:
In essence, I don't believe that the simple "two gospels" dichotomy is an accurate working description of the way things really are in TEC or the Anglican Communion. Truth be told, people are all over the map. Only the most tenacious folks on the extreme wings are living into the reality of "two gospels" and believe it to be their divine calling to impose one or the other "gospel" on everyone else. That's why the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is the Church's credo, not our individual "credos," and endeavoring to live into it.As a new convert to the Episcopal Church, Dunlap can perhaps be excused for his benign assessment of the state of the Episcopal Church. Clearly his acquaintance with the denomination, and particularly with its seminaries, diocesan bureaucracies, and political and theological struggles of the past thirty years, is limited. Perhaps his direct experience of the Episcopal Church has been restricted to a few conservative southern dioceses. Perhaps he has never come face to face with a roomful of honest-to-God revisionist Episcopal clerics. Perhaps he really does not know that despite the presence of the Nicene Creed in the eucharistic liturgy, Nicene orthodoxy is truly optional in the Episcopal Church. It may well be true that Episcopalians are theologically "all over the map," but this diversity conceals the depth of hostility that exists among both clergy and laity to the exclusive claims of traditional Christianity. Yes, Episcopalians still employ the vocabulary of the inherited faith, but the words are reinterpreted through the hermeneutics of personal experience. In the categories of George Lindbeck, Episcopalians are "experiential-expressivists" to the core. The essential identity of the Episcopal Church is well expressed in the oft-recited mantra: "There will be no outcasts in this church." The Episcopal Church comprehends great diversity, but this diversity is both determined and limited by the dogma of radical inclusivity: to be "catholic" is to be inclusive, and to be inclusive is to be committed to the ultimate exclusion of the exclusive claims of the catholic faith. Philip Turner has accurately identified radical inclusivity as the working theology of the Episcopal Church.
In the early 70s the large majority of catholic Episcopalians firmly opposed the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate, believing that it was contrary to the will of Christ and the ecumenical tradition of the Church. When the 1976 General Convention decided to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood, most Anglo-Catholics decided to remain within the Episcopal Church and to fight for a reversal of church policy. What happened? The older generation retired or died. The younger generation, including the present writer, eventually got with the national church program. Seminaries and bishops carefully weeded out the opponents of women’s ordination from the prospective ordinand pool. Thirty-five years later we find that a new orthodoxy has been successfully imposed and the opponents of women’s ordination marginalized. Twenty years ago one might have been forgiven for thinking that it was still possible to reverse this situation, but surely no one can persuasively argue this any longer. Something very similar is now happening on the question of the moral legitimacy of same-sex unions. The goodness of same-sex unions is now widely affirmed in the Episcopal Church. New ordinands are expected to support this policy and the doctrine underlying it. Perhaps freedom to oppose this policy is still allowed in some dioceses (presumably Texas); but the number of such dioceses declines each year. Within a decade or two Episcopal priests will no longer be permitted to teach the catholic understanding of Holy Matrimony nor to declare the immorality of same-sex unions. In the inclusive Church, even tolerance has its limits. The recent history of the Episcopal Church demonstrates the harsh truth of Neuhaus’s Law: “Wherever orthodoxy is optional, it sooner or later will be proscribed.”
Yet Fr Dunlap is committed to remaining within the Episcopal Church. I know many faithful believers who are likewise committed to remaining in the Episcopal Church. I certainly do not criticize Fr Dunlap for doing so, though I find his assessment of the state of the Episcopal Church to be deeply flawed. The Episcopal Church, Dunlap insists, remains a catholic Church, despite false teaching and practice. Hence he does not need "a reason or strategy" to stay in the Episcopal Church. Really? Is the catholicity of the Episcopal Church so apparent, so manifest, so self-evident, so primordial that it needs neither defense nor apology? What would the Episcopal Church need to do to move itself over into the category of heretical or schismatic Church? In Dunlap's judgment, the decision to ordain women to the presbyterate and episcopate does not represent a church-dividing departure from catholic order, despite the contrary judgments of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. He notes that he made his peace with the innovation some time ago. But what about the popular embrace of the pan-sexual morality? What about the ritual blessing of same-sex unions? What about the Episcopal Church's consistent refusal to assert the evil of abortion? What about denials by many Episcopal preachers that the salvation of humanity is accomplished through Christ and Christ alone? What about the refusal to discipline bishops and priests who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and his bodily resurrection? Are the historic episcopate, communion with the see of Canterbury, and liturgical use of the Nicene Creed really sufficient to secure the catholic identity of the Episcopal Church?
And so I ask Fr Dunlap: What is your breaking point? Where does the confessional rubber hit the road? At what point would conscience forbid you from summoning sinners into the communion of the Episcopal Church?
And to all others I ask: Is the Episcopal Church truly a catholic Church? What does it mean for the Episcopal Church to claim to be a branch of the Church catholic when it has departed so significantly from catholic norms in faith, morals, and order?
(To be continued)
UPDATED LINKS FOR CONTEXT
Per Caritatem
3rd Mil Catholic
52 comments:
Is the Episcopal Church truly a catholic Church?
No.
What does it mean for the Episcopal Church to claim to be a branch of the Church catholic when it has departed so significantly from catholic norms in faith, morals, and order?
It means that they are either lying or deluding themselves.
Look, one can debate WO, SSB and all the other points of doctrine and discipline all day long and nothing will be settled. No matter how heterodox things get those who will remain in TEC will remain. That the breaking point has not already been reached for them means that it never will. Those who remain in TEC have signaled by their own choice that they can and will stomach any and all innovation that comes down the Pike.
Five years ago I started following what’s going on with TEC and the Anglican Communion. I did so for one reason, to find out what it is that Anglicans believe. After five years I still have no idea. The diversity of belief that’s considered “orthodox” amongst Anglicans is greater than the difference between the conservatives and liberals. This is a church and communion where anything goes. Apparently Dr. Dunbar is okay with that and that makes him a true Episcopalian.
Yet Fr Dunlap is committed to remaining within the Episcopal Church. I know many faithful believers who are likewise committed to remaining in the Episcopal Church. I certainly do not criticize [them] for doing so...
Well I do. The reason is simple and straightforward. It has nothing to do with WO, SSB or the many other heterodox beliefs of TEC. It has nothing to do with stomaching heterodox beliefs. Fr. Kimel briefly mentioned it though his comment didn’t go far enough: What about the Episcopal Church's consistent refusal to assert the evil of abortion?
Let’s be honest, TEC officially condones the evil of abortion. When your church officially encourages the killing of innocent babies then that’s a bridge too far. TEC is a voluntary organization; no one can force you to stay in it. If you chose to remain associated with TEC you are complicit in the evil that they officially promote. That is beyond the pale of decency. To voluntarily belong to is to become contemptible.
James G
Without even talking about the concerns raised in either the post or the above comment, I would simply want to say that an ecclesial community that does not engage in serious ecumenism with either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is fundamentally flawed. It is working contrary to Christ's command, not request, that all may be one.
Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the Presiding Bishop's decision to avoid meeting Pope Benedict on his recent visit to the US. Can you imagine +Rowan doing that?
We should be ashamed of our divided state, not relish it.
"As a new convert to the Episcopal Church, Dunlap can perhaps be excused for his benign assessment of the state of the Episcopal Church."
Apparently, Fr. Kimel knows little of my background apart from a woefully brief and inadequate bio that he may have read somewhere or the other. Sigh... Still, looking forward to Part 2.
Why are comments accepted here, rather than at Pontifications?
Clare,
Not sure. Fr. Al has been a regular guest author here at de cura animarum and sometimes he places articles at both places but does not open comments there. He will have to answer that for you. But, I am happy to have him back writing periodically. One is usually not lacking colour in his writings! He brings excitment to the blogging world! Let's see what he says!
Thank you -- I look forward to his writings, too.
Jeff, given that TEC's stance on abortion is virtually identical to the CoE's, I'd be curious as to your thoughts on Fr. Al's statements in this post.
Hi Dan! Actually, the C of E believes that abortion should not happen unless it is absolutely necessary. Whenever that is?? The C of E is also against assisted suicide and or euthanasia. We are nowhere near TEC's place on these issues.
As I implied earlier, I'm not certain that there is much difference at all, Jeff, at least in how you characterize the CoE's position above. Here's what the 1994 GC Resolution states:
"While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations. We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience" (1994 GC Resolution on Abortion).
In July 1983, the Church of England's General Synod (the key church decision-maker) concluded that "all human life developing in the womb, is created by God in His own image and is, therefore, to be nurtured, supported and protected."
The same resolution I quoted above begins:
"All human life is sacred from its inception until death. The Church takes seriously its obligation to help form the consciences of its members concerning this sacredness."
Incidentally, I'm not at all suggesting that TEC's official statements are anywhere near what they should be in ensuring the protection of human life, or that there aren't rabid pro-abortionists in TEC, or that said pro-abortion proponets aren't in the ascendent at the moment. All I'm saying is that TEC's official pronouncements and the CoE's official pronouncements are very similar on this issue. Apparently, Fr. Kimel is prepared to give you a "pass" on this one, or at least to ignore it, because of his hatred towards TEC.
Dan
I think the real difference is that the ABC has publicly spoken against these killings with strong opposition and there is NO money from the C of E that goes to support such wickedness nor are there ever comments made from our General Synod or other bodies that would fight for women to have "rights" in regards to their own bodies to destroy the human life within her. That is the BIG difference I assume.
Seems to me that if Fr. Kimmel is going to publically "call out" Fr. Dunlap in so direct a manner, that he should at least have the decency to enable the comments option on his blog..
Bad manners are the chiefest of heresys in Anglican circles, after all. We even have an extra ring in purgatory for such bad behavior. :)
Brett
<><
Yes, I was wondering that myself, Brett. And why did he feel the need to post this on Jeff's blog? I wonder if he knows that Jeff is a former student of mine.
Back to abortion, Jeff, I'd venture to say that TEC has many more vocal and active pro-lifers per capita than the CoE, despite the present archbishop's strong statements. My experience of things in England, and particularly at the evangelical Anglican college that I attended, was that abortion in England was pretty much a non-issue. The indifference of most folks was palpable. In fact, my fellow students were shocked at how strongly pro-life I was. Things may have changed since my time over there, I grant you.
Brett, why should comments be enabled at Fr. Kimmel's site if they are open here, for exactly the same piece of content, available to all, on which you have already made a comment? Surely this can't be to his discredit. But perhaps I am missing the sardonic edge to your post here. If that's the case, please ignore me.
I think Fr. Kimel is waiting for the issues to be addressed and answered and intelligently discussed rather than the red herrings about why the comments are here etc. Who cares? Just discuss the issues.
For the record, I would have posted Fr. Kimel's post to my own blog if he had asked. (I still will if he takes me up on the offer...maybe I'll do it anyway.) Incidentally, I didn't see a hyperlink ANYWHERE in his post to my response to him on my blog. Is there one?
I'm not quite sure why he dislikes me so much. Sure, we have different views on things. But, hey, I don't bite, and I have always enjoyed and profited from his writings in the past. Ponticator was once linked to my blog. I only removed it because I thought it was defunct.
When I do respond I'm going to post to my blog. But as a favor, Jeff, I request that you link my response to your blog. Seems I'm at a disadvantage in that I only have one outlet available to me to post my articles. And since I don't have time these days to maintain my blog as I'd like, the traffic there lately has been but a trickle.
Oops, that should be Pontificator.
Dan
I am very happy to link it or even post it here if you like. I try to be a generous bloke! Send me the link.
I only asked regarding the comments, not to challenge Father Kimel, but because I wondered what the discussion might have been like from a Catholic, as opposed to an Anglican perspective.
Please excuse the digression.
Clare, it has to do with Anglicans and Catholics and both in large quantity read and comment here so I believe you will find that a Catholic perspective will be clearly articulated from those involved. Let's see!
Here are the links to Fr. Al's original comments over at Per Caritatem and my response.
Per Caritatem
3rd Mill Catholic
Thank you, Fr. Jeffrey Steel.
Hasn't the question been "asked and answered"?
"[W]e pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void."
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders:
"Apostolicae Curae"
Promulgated September 18, 1896, by Pope Leo XIII
and
"[T]the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense..."
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:
DECLARATION "DOMINUS IESUS"
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH
Yes, Clare, for Romans the question has been asked and answered, which begs the question as to why Fr. Kimel should even care.
'In essence, I don't believe that the simple "two gospels" dichotomy is an accurate working description of the way things really are in TEC or the Anglican Communion. Truth be told, people are all over the map. Only the most tenacious folks on the extreme wings are living into the reality of "two gospels" and believe it to be their divine calling to impose one or the other "gospel" on everyone else. That's why the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is the Church's credo, not our individual "credos," and endeavoring to live into it.'
This seems to me absolutely true. It dissolves all those old, lazy, dichotomies between 'liberal' and 'traditional'/'orthodox'.
Al Kimel illustrates a very standard phenomenon: the convert who becomes more Catholic than the Catholics, more Irish than the Irish, etc. etc. Good luck to him on his own personal journey, but it becomes tedious and uncharitable when he attempts - as he so relentlessly does - to inflict his own personal journey on everybody else.
A few weeks ago, we had Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares. Pretty well everybody agrees that it is Jesus talking about the church community, about the inevitability of the good and bad coexisting within it, about the difficulty of distinguishing between the two, about God's doing so at the end of time, and about the sinfulness and destructiveness of humans attempting to do so before then. Intelligent chap, that Jesus. No more powerful or authoriative endorsement of Anglicanism - and attack on Roman Catholicism - could be conceived.
Well, I think it is willing to be discussed on some in the C of E and their orders. See the above comments from Cardinal Kasper's talk today.
Clare, is that an acknowledgment of my orders or just your being polite? ;-)
Fr. Jeffrey Steel,
I must admit -- I was just being polite, as that is your professional title.
As a Catholic, I am bound to assent to the teaching of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII.
Third Mill Catholic,
As much as I would love to live in Rome -- or any place in Italy, for that matter -- I actually live in New England.
I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite.
Touche, Clare.
As Dr Dunlap knows I believe this all hangs on belief in an infallible church: Catholics say yes, Protestants no.
Church infallibility actually limits what the bishops can do. Liberal Protestants object to those limits.
The current controversial issues are only symptoms of this big difference.
Even when it's sacramental, liturgical, episcopal, holds many of the same doctrines and likes much of the same liturgics as I do, Protestantism is not Catholicism.
The trouble with being orthodox in the Episcopal Church is it's only an option, a set of opinions, you're allowed to keep as long as you don't go against modern received opinion (their magisterium? ... been so since the 'Enlightenment').
Again that's not Catholic.
An article in First Things I just read and added to my blog sidebar under religion, on the fall of the American mainline churches, added to my realisation that Anglo-Catholicism made some sense when mainline religious culture was at its height; ACism was trying to reach out to those people, take the best of that culture and bring it home to the Catholic world.
That opportunity's gone.
In America besides a few odd parishes there are two remaining Anglo-Catholic dioceses but for how much longer and what Catholics are they in communion with?
Anglo-Catholicism is finished there and soon will be in England. I hope it becomes a lively subculture in the RC Church.
While I shouldn't speak for Fr. Kimmel, I will anyway. He used to accept comments, which usually elicited long and complex threads. IIRC, he nearly quit the whole enterprise due to the time demands. His solution was to continue blogging, but not accept comments.
In that last respect he has certainly found his true home in the RC church!
Well, this is fun. I've been on the road two days (and in fact am still on the road) and haven't been able to check the comments.
A couple of brief points:
First, I have not had open comments on my blog for a very long time. When Fr Jeff invited me me many months ago to contribute to De Cura Animarum, with co-host privileges, I decided also to post these articles on my blog for the principal purpose of keeping an extra copy. Besides, Pontifications is now inactive and rarely visited.
Second, Dan, I do not dislike you. I do not know you. Indeed, I find you to be a thoughtful writer. But I do disagree with you strongly on several points. Also, you have an unfortunate tendency to descend to ad hominem via psychologizing those with whom you are arguing. You did this with me in your comments on Caritatem when you had the nerve to explain away my judgments on the Episcopal Church because of my wounds. And so I decided to give you a modest taste of your own medicine.
Third, I do in fact question your acquaintance with the Episcopal Church. You are a newcomer. You are not a product of the Episcopal seminary system. You have not spent years attending Vestry meetings or diocesan conventions. You have not pastored congregations in different dioceses. Nor have you spent blood and sweat in service of the gospel in the Episcopal Church. You have not fought in its battles over the past thirty years. And so I think it is appropriate to question your judgments on the "catholicity" of the Episcopal Church, which I find to be academic, theoretical, and unreal. You may have watched the Episcopal Church from the outside for many years, but you do not know it from the inside.
Fourth, I do not hate the Episcopal Church. I simply believe it is a heretical body. I left the Episcopal Church for two reasons: First, because I reached a spiritual place where I could not in conscience call sinners into its communion, and second, because I could not in conscience recommend that parents raise their children in the Episcopal Church--quite the contrary.
In my next article I hope to address a bit more substantively your theory about Anglican catholicity.
And if you want to know why I have broken several months of blogging silence, it's because you posted an article on your blog with my name in the title. How could I resist the challenge?
May I suggest that the "issue" before us is not "me." I have asked the simple question, Is the Episcopal Church a catholic Church? I have not asked this question about Anglicanism in general but of the Episcopal Church in particular. Perhaps folks, including Fr Dunlap, would like to address this question, rather than avoiding it through ad hominem argument.
John, I think you’re a little mistaken about the wheat and tares parable. “...about the difficulty of distinguishing between the two...” – There’s where you get it wrong.
Now if you were paying attention to the Gospel reading a few weeks ago you would have remembered that the servants did recognize the weeds that the Enemy had sown; that’s why they went to the Master and asked about them. The weeds can be distinguished from the wheat; they are just allowed to grow together so that greater damage is avoided. And don’t forget about the ending where the Angels will gather the tares into bundles to be burned.
Regarding the abortion issue (since I brought it up), while TEC’s stated policy might be relatively mild in its endorsement of evil there are other official acts that only further compound the crime. Remember, TEC is officially a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; an organization whose sole purpose for being is to try and justify the unjustifiable from a so-called “religious perspective.” Additionally, we all remember the reaction that this article elicited when it came out. Face it, TEC is wedded to abortion in a way that few other “churches” are. TEC is formally complicit in the murder of the innocent and there can be no justification for a Christian to voluntarily associate with such.
James G
Having asked whether the Episcopal Church is a catholic church, and having decided, for the sake of argument, that it is not, the next question, for Anglo-Catholics at least, is that of what one is to do. I would be interested in hearing Fr Kimel's response to this follow-up question. There are some Anglo-Catholics who are interested in making their submission to Rome, but are simply waiting for the most opportune moment to do so. Would Fr Kimel consider this to be acceptable? If not, would he speak to the timing of his own submission?
Paul, I hesitate to address the question "What do I do?" Ultimately that is a matter of prayer and discernment. Some will choose to become Catholics, some Orthodox, some Continuing Anglicans. Good arguments can be offered for each option--and especially, in my judgment, for the first two.
Timing is also a difficult question. Each person's situation is different. Sometimes, especially if one is a clergyman with a family, one does not have the luxury of a quick decision. Patience and prayer may be the order of the day, until a way of moving forward can be seen.
If a person dwells in England, I think it is quite reasonable to wait a while and see what develops between the Vatican and the TAC and FFiF. I am praying that a viable way will be found to allow catholic Anglicans, with their liturgy and tradition, to enter into full communion with the Pope. I believe that the Catholic Church very much needs the Anglican patrimony.
Father,
Thank you for your response. I, too, am hopeful that the Holy See will develop the kind of structure that you suggest, and sooner rather than later, from my lips to God's ears.
This is a very painful and difficult issue for me, especially because I have three children and, just as Strider has commented above, I cannot really recommend that parents raise their children in episcopalianism. I am in a parish in Province VIII in a diocese that is probably on the verge of allowing the kind of syncretism and pansexualism that is practiced in most of the rest of province. As of this writing, as a diocese, we are officially opposed to those heresies (of course, hardly anyone would ever call them heresies) but the vast majority of the more urban parishes appear to be slowing giving in.
My parish is a stalwart orthodox prayerbook Anglo-Catholic stronghold with clergy who are completely committed to the historic apostolic Faith of the Church catholic, but who have slight differences in their views of where we should go if push comes to shove. However, the resistance to moving to a truly orthodox catholic jurisdiction is more with the old guard and the vestry than it is with the clergy. Among the orthodox faithful of the parish, most of us generally believe that, at this point, we should wait for whatever structure emerges from Lambeth to protect orthodox catholic parishes to be worked out and implemented. If it fails and there is nothing else to fall back on, most of us will begin to look at when and how we depart TEC. But it will be something that we do as an extended family, and not as isolated individuals.
I am very uncomfortable and often discouraged by our current "place", where we are really practicing a kind of congregationalism that deprives the faithful of basic symbolism and relationships that I believe God has designed to train us to truly fulfill our role(s) in the Body of Christ. However, the orthodox leadership of the parish, both lay and ordained, is slowly moving to teach and prepare the parish to make the hard but necessary choices. My wife and I are very involved in this process and work of ministry and see God working constantly to break people out of their comfort zones. Nevertheless, I anticipate that we will have some very difficult days ahead, days where some will resist the Holy Spirit and where many relationships will be strained to the breaking point.
Young Joe, I am off to bed as it is late here in the UK but please be assured of my prayers for you. This is very painful time for many and some very hard decisions will have to be made. Keep the faith and remember that our Lord promised to never leave you or forsake you. God bless!
Joe,
You are indeed in a painful and difficult situation. What you do is a decision you have to make for yourself. I do have some advice, though.
Many of the things you are going through I witnessed firsthand. The wife of my youth was a ‘Piskie and I watched her “orthodox” parish split. As an outside observer it was not traumatic to me but I saw the pain it caused to those I love.
...we will have some very difficult days ahead, days where some will resist the Holy Spirit and where many relationships will be strained to the breaking point.
You ain’t just whistling Dixie. When the parish split relationships were not just strained but shattered. People who had been friends for years who ended up on opposite sides felt hurt and betrayed by the others. Generations of families were separated because the parents stayed but their children left because they had children of their own who they could not in good conscience raise in TEC. Neither side was heterodox (by Anglican standards) but the split destroyed the parish. You may want to move corporately but no matter what you try to do to “break people out of their comfort zones,” (presentations, classes, meetings) you will not succeed in getting all or even most to go with you. Half will be a miracle and even all of those who leave with you will not remain together but will go elsewhere. You are engaged in a fool’s errand.
You wrote that there are “...slight differences in [the] views of where we should go if push comes to shove.” I have to ask, hasn’t push already come to shove? You are right when you say that you “...are really practicing a kind of congregationalism...” Your diocese may still be mostly opposed to the heresies of TEC but it is part of TEC! You cannot delude yourself into thinking that you are somehow separate from what is going on because your parish is orthodox.
You are tainted by your association. Wake up and smell the brimstone, you’re in the Synagogue of Satan! The blood of the innocent stains you as well as long as you remain. The mob’s accountant may not be killing people himself but their crimes are still on him because he is part of it. How much longer will you endanger your soul?
You may think that it’s noble or right to remain in order to convince the others to leave as well but what you are really doing is trying to justify your complacency with evil. It’s not like the evil of TEC is something new. The righting has been on the wall for a very long time now. The time for action has come and gone. You missed the boat now swim for it!
You may think I’m using hyperbole but I’m serious. I’ve seen what the poison of TEC does to even those who are raised in “orthodox” parishes. What irreparable harm has already befallen your children and yourself? You have a duty to your family and your own soul to separate from the evil of TEC. The pretty poison of your Anglo-catholic parish is only blinding you. You may want to take its treasures with you but they may turn out to be anchors drowning you. The destruction of TEC and all within it has already begun. Flee and never look back.
James G
Fr. Kimel,
I see you added something by way of a bio and a few links to provide context to your original article, which, btw, I very much appreciate.
What the bio doesn't say is that my wife and family have been members of the Episcopal Church since our return from England 10 years ago, and that I have been worshiping alongside them, my REC bishop granting me permission. Professional realities kept me from making the switch until quite recently. In fact, as early as 1994, while a research student at Wycliffe Hall, I began discussions in the Diocese of Oxford about entering the ordination process in the CoE. In 1997 I actually began the discernment process in the Diocese of Exeter in England, but then made the foolhearty move of accepting a position at Cranmer Theological House in Shreveport, LA and later CTH Houston (where Fr. Jeff was a student). So this "recent conversion" (a rather odd term to use btw) of which you speak was about a fourteen year process from start to finish. Just thought you should know, in case you were interested.
Again, thanks for updating your article to bring this discussion into better context. I posted a couple of items related to what I'm now calling the "Kimel Kontroversy" or "Kerfuffle" over at my blog Third Mill Catholic.
I'll get to posting a response myself, hopefully sooner than later. Busy time gearing up for the new semester for me.
All the best.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention one correction you need to make. I have been blogging at Third Mill Catholic since March 2006.
Gee, I hate to be comment-hog, but there is just one more slight error in your introduction, Fr. Kimel. The comments you reference over at Per Caritatem are not mine. That's another "Dan," I believe the same one who wrote the article at the Land of Unlikeness blog that I linked to mine. Easy mistake to make, and no harm done.
Is the Episcopal Church truly a catholic Church?
No.
I am surprised there's anyone left in it who wants to even try to make some kind of argument that it is.
Thank you, Fr Dunlap, for the additional biographical information. BTW, the hyper link in my article to your biography was part of the original article. Easy to miss, though, in the midst of all the other links present in that paragraph.
Thanks, also, for clarifying that you are not the Dan of the comments at Per Caritatem. My mistake.
FWIW the parable of the wheat and the tares is about the world. If the kingdom really is breaking in with Jesus, how to explain the unexpected continuing presence of evil. (In other words its a parable about how the inbreaking of the kingdom does not look as one might expect).
Nevertheless Jesus does:
1. Teach that the church will be mixed - not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom
2. What matters is obedience to God's will ("doing the will of the Father")
3. The church has a responsibility to help its members in their struggle against sin. Rather than enter the cycle of revenge (as Lamech in Genesis 4) the church is to forgive 77 times - that is attempt to be reconciled to the simmer by recalling them from their sin. If that fails - rather than retribution - the sinner should simply leave the community. (Matthew 18)
Father Kimel,
I would be interested in hearing more about what comprises the Anglican patrimony that is not in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and related art, particularly music.
Hi, everyone.
THanks, Fr. Kimel for your trenchant critique of Fr. Dunlop's assessment of "TEC" (what an arrogant title!). Could I just sideline us a bit from the important question of catholicity, and comment on the suggestion that GAFCON is an attempt from low-church evangelicals to hijack the realigning faithful in the Anglican communion.
Certainly, there is a strong presence of Reform types in the GAFCON community. However, I was present at GAFCON, and assure you that the Anglo-Catholic presence was also strong, and formative. The Jerusalem Declaration came about because the three streams listened carefully to each other, practices forbearance, and prayed. Several of the actual phrases in the Declaration are there because of the work of an informal A-C working committee: our recommendations were not dismissed. Yes, it is not all it should be, and there are substantive issues that we must discuss about ecclesiology, sacramentalism, w/o and so on. We would like the declaration not to have numbered the councils, and would like to have seen it tackle the misnaming of the Trinity that is so popular in TEC today. However, there was true communion in that conference, and a sense that this is only a beginning. We are covenanting to work towards unity on those other things that concern all Realigners.
Blessings to you all!
Edith M. Humphrey
Pittsburgh
Dear Edith,
Consider a hypothetical exchange between you and a troubled young woman at the altar prayer ministry a few years into realignment:
Sarah: Dr. H, I am really confused and would like prayer. When celebrating communion Bishop Bob holds the host up and gazes upon it. He also says "Christ our passover IS sacrificed for us..." But the 39 articles that now define doctrine in Gafcon tell us not to lift up or gaze upon the host. Also, our rector says "Christ our passover HAS BEEN sacrificed for us" and he doesn't gaze upon the host. I know it may be a small thing, but it confuses me.
Dr. H: Well Sarah, I understand your confusion and it is no small thing. Bishop Bob and our rector disagree on the nature of the Eucharist. Bishop Bob believes strongly in the real presence, maybe even transubstantiation. Our rector believes its more like a memorial and symbol. He comes pretty close to being a memorialst.
Sarah: Don't we have clear doctrine in Gafcon now? I thought the days of big disageements back in TEC were over and we now know what we believe?
Dr. H: Well Sarah, good Christians in the same branch of the Catholic Church can disagree on important doctrines. I am with Bishop Bob and believe strongly in the Real Presence. I know the 39 articles condem lifting up and gazing on the host, but, well we have not worked this out in the Gafcon branch of the Catholic Church yet. Reasonable Christians in the same branch of the Catholic Church can and do disagree on these things and yes your concern is not trivial. Its an important theological question that impacts our practices and world-view.
Sarah: Okay, Edith, honestly I really came for prayer because I am really struggling with sexual desire for my female roomate and she has desire for me. Should we build a relationship toward "marriage" some day or is our desire wrong?
Dr. H: Sarah God loves you and wants to walk you through this to healing. However, your sexual desire for your roomate is objectively disordered and you will find God's good life for you in resisting those desires.
Sarah: But Edith, thats what you and the Roman Catholic Church say (you know the biggest branch of the Catholic Church), but other good Christians like Dr. Campolo believe that its okay for me to fall in love with and marry my roomate so long as we are faithful to each other. Dr. Campolo knows a lot about the Bible too.
Dr. H: Sarah, for 2,000 years all branches of the Church have taught same sex attraction is objectively disordered.
Sarah: But Edith, did I not hear you once lecture that for the first 1500 years that all branches of the Church believed in the Real Presence but now you say priests in good standing in Gafcon disagree? So if good Christians in authority in Gafcon can contradict tradition and disagree about the Eucharist, can't good Christians also disagree about same sex desire? Also, if you and Bishop Bob can disagree with those 39 articles, can't I disagree with Gafcon on same sex desire?
James, if you're going to make such strong comments--and I say this as someone on the verge of leaving TEC myself--you really should make a suggestion about where people should go TO, not just where they should leave FROM. Are with Fr. Al and recommend Rome, or somewhere else? I find your comments at this point incomplete! Dave
When I read the initial question posed by Fr. Kimel, "Is the Episcopal Church truly a catholic Church," I thought it rhetorical (at least for him). After all, Fr. Kimel, in his earlier and much-missed blog, Pontifications examined this question in gut-wrenching detail as he made his journey from the Episcopal Church to the Catholic Church. As a long-time fan of his blog and correspondent with him, I was surprised that anybody would think otherwise, but then, the Internet's memory is just a little bit shorter than that of a dyslexic gnat, and I have to keep reminding myself of that fact.
One of Fr. Kimel's more trenchant observations on his now-lost blog included a quotation of John Henry Cardinal Newman, who with more accuracy than charity observed that the closer Anglo-Catholics got to the ceremonial of the Catholic Church, the further they strayed from her truths.
Fr. Kimel ultimately concluded that the truths of the Catholic Church lay in her authority, central to which was her claim that she alone could mediate the will of the Holy Spirit through her Magisterium.
Notwithstanding all that, inasmuch as the Orthodox, whom John Paul II referred to as the "other lung" of the Church, deny the magisterial authority of Rome, then for Anglicans to do so and be called "protestant" or "Protestant" seems a bit uncharitable.
But then, of course, when we're talking about ecclesial quarrels, the last thing that can enter into the equation is charity and gentleness, isn't it?
As an Episcopalian who presents himself at Holy Communion Sunday morning, then sings Vespers that night according to the Roman rite, and who has been responsible for pointing the Psalms and antiphons (from that nasty Breviary translation) to Gregorian tones for over three years now, I have many times enjoyed a joyful sense of unity with brothers and sisters who don't agree with me on minor--or even important--matters of faith.
I think our brokenness is a good center to rally around when we pray or present ourselves before the Lord.
Post a Comment