I'll Let Cardinal Newman explain:In truth, she not only teaches in spite of those differences, but she has ever taught by means of them. Those very differences of Catholics on further points have themselves implied and brought out their absolute faith in the doctrines which are previous to them. The doctrines of faith are the common basis of the combatants, the ground on which they contend, their ultimate authority, and their arbitrating rule. They are assumed, and introduced, and commented on, and enforced, in every stage of the alternate disputation; and I will venture to say, that, if you wish to get a good view of the unity, consistency, solidity, and reality of Catholic teaching, your best way is to get up the controversy on grace, or on the Immaculate Conception. No one can do so without acquiring a mass of theological knowledge, and sinking in his intellect a foundation of dogmatic truth, which is simply antecedent and common to the rival schools, and which they do but exhibit and elucidate. To suppose that they perplex an inquirer or a convert, is to fancy that litigation destroys the principles and the science of law, or that spelling out words of five syllables makes a child forget his alphabet. On the other hand, place your unfortunate {313} inquirer between Luther and Calvin, if the Holy Eucharist is his subject; or, if he is determining the rule of faith, between Bramhall and Chillingworth, Bull and Hoadley, and what residuum will be left, when you have eliminated their contrarieties?
6.
It is imprudent in opponents of the Catholic Religion to choose for their attack the very point in which it is strong. As truth is tried by error, virtue by temptation, courage by opposition, so is individuality and life tried by disturbance and disorder; and its trial is its evidence. The long history of Catholicism is but a coordinate proof of its essential unity. I suppose, then, that Protestants must be considered as turning to bay upon their pursuers, when they would retort upon us the argument available against themselves from their religious variations. "The Romanist must admit," it has been urged, "that the state, whether of the Church Catholic or of the Roman Church, at periods before or during the Middle Ages, was such as to bear a very strong resemblance to the picture he draws of our own. I do not speak of corruptions in life and morals merely, or of errors of individuals, however highly exalted, but of the general disorganized and schismatical state of the Church, her practical abandonment of her spiritual pretensions, the tyranny exercised over her by the civil power, and the intimate adherence of the worst passions {314} and of circumstantial irregularities to those acts which are vital portions of her system." [Note 2] Such is the imputation; but yet, to tell the truth, I do not know any passages in her history which supply so awful an evidence of her unity and self-dependence, or so luminous a contrast to Anglicanism or other Protestantism, as these very anomalies in the rule and tenor of her course as I have already observed, and shall presently show by examples.
9 comments:
The anxst continues but I think it's becoming increasingly clear that rather few FiF priests will take up this offer and fewer still congregations. If there is no continuing provision for married clergy, it is hard to see how the thing itself will survive much, or at all, beyond the lifetimes of the initial converts. There is often a disjunction between the thinking of FiF priests and their congregations, or large parts of them. If physical churches are not released as part of the dowry (and they may or may not be - at present, it seems very unlikely), that is a further disincentive for congregations to transfer. And given Vatican non-recognition of Anglican orders, there will be an unfortunate time gap between decision and implementation or the importation of a new and alien priest.
The whole situation is tragic. Rowan Williams has been publicly humiliated. Official ecumenism has been damaged. The C of E has suffered. And FiF (whether the entire body or the large majority who will not take up the offer) are highly unlikely to secure from Synod assent to the Revision Committee's proposal, whereas they might have, had the Pope not intervened at this juncture.
And it comes forward that as it has been said
Anglicans are nit Catholic
because they DON'T WANT TO BE.
For years they have been saying, I need an Anglican liturgy, songs ...
PBXVI just gave it to them and
they still quibble
Truth is They JUST DON'T WANT TO bind themselves to someone, anyone, anything else.
They like being their OWN god.
Mary Louise
I think I understand the point you are trying to make but I am certain not ALL AC's are like that. There are a number of priests who have resigned this year and a number may very well take advantage of this opportunity. I think grace is the calll of us all at this time and prayer for them though I think critique should be offered where it is due. In the end, if they do not take this offer or go it alone if need be then any talk of unity and true catholicity will have no meaning at all.
The Tablet states quite definitively - no leass than twice - that a certain Geoffrey Kirk (who he?) has said he's going to make the most of the offer and come over. He says he'll bring his people with him.. I think he may be in for a shock. They'll all, almost certainly, stay put.
And Pray, we all need to continue to pray, may we all open our hearts and minds to the grace of God and ask for the Holy Spirit's Assistance.
Saint Thomas More, pray for us!
Saint John Fisher, pray for us!
"The whole situation is tragic. Rowan Williams has been publicly humiliated."
There is no tragedy here. Faithful members of the Church of England will be quietly grateful that the Pope has shown himself in his true colours.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has not been publicly humiliated. He has behaved with dignity and nobility, and is in receipt of many prayers.
Anonymous,
I am glad we agree on the concept of 'faithful members of the Church of England'. There is far too little such 'faith' manifest nowadays. As for the Pope's 'true colours', they have always been apparent, even transparent, have they not? As for humiliation, I disagree. Of course, there can be situations where the 'humilated' person is not humiliated (the Passion, Diogenes the Cynic: 'they are laughing at you, Diogenes'; 'but I am not laughed at'). But here (a) Rowan was only told very late; (b) he signed up to a highly disingenuous document; (c) he did so in public; (d) his body language indicated acute discomfort (not my view only - that of people who know him well). Of course, he is - and has always been - in a very difficult situation, and I do not doubt his essential virtue.
Compare (and contrast) Tom Wright (latest posting). I would be interested to know your views on THAT. If not here, to: j.l.moles@ncl.ac.uk.
There is no Archbishop of Canterbury in recent times who has had a more difficult period of office than the saintly Rowan Williams. He is too good for the job. From the moment of his enthronement he has been caught up in the turmoil of the Anglican Communion and has hardly been given an opportunity of presenting himself in a context that is uncontroversial. Dr Williams is a good theologian and as holy as Archbishop Michael Ramsay. I once hoped he would fill a spiritual vacuum left by Cardinal Hume, who, in turn, filled a vacuum left by Archbishop Ramsay. But perhaps those days are over and Dr Williams has become the victim of events that he neither desired nor can control. History will, I think, see him in a favourable light when it comes to describe the appalling mess of Anglican disintegration. I cannot believe that a theologian like Benedict XVI can look on him with other than sympathetic eyes.
Post a Comment