Saturday, 21 November 2009

Father Dwight Longenecker on Obstacles to Unity Between Catholics and Anglicans

This brings me to these two particular doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility. Catholics understand these two doctrines to be central to the fullness of the Christian gospel, and see them clearly set out in the gospel itself. That they were defined later is only evidence that it was only in later days that the doctrines were doubted, and therefore needed to be defended and defined.

The Immaculate Conception is there in the realization that the Blessed Virgin was 'full of grace.' If sin is the lack of God's glory, ("all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God") and grace is the gift of God's glory, then Mary who was full of grace was also empty of sin. It only remains to ask when that sinlessness began and we conclude that it began when her life began. Thus, even if one disagrees with this interpretation, it is at least arguable that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is folded not only into the gospels itself, but into a coherent and complete understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is, if you like, part of the original deposit of the faith.

Can this be said or even argued about the issue of homosexual marriage? No. This is a radical departure from every strain of Christian and Hebrew moral teaching at all times and in all places. It is impossible to argue that homosexual marriage is even a permissible part of universal and primitive Christian teaching.

Similarly, Papal Infallibility is folded neatly into Christ's commission to Peter: "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." It is arguable, and part of ancient and continuous Christian tradition that this verse not only establishes the Petrine Primacy, but also it's implicit infallibility: "The gates of hell will not prevail against it." Again, while one may disagree with this interpretation, it is impossible to disagree with the historical fact that this is an interpretation held by most Christians at most times in most places down through the ages. Therefore, like the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is a stepping stone to a profound unity in the church --not just a handshake with neighbors, but a way in to a deep sharing in the fullness of the faith.

We need to contrast this, like the contrast with homosexual marriage, with women's ordination. This too, is a radical break from the whole Hebrew-Christian tradition. It is not part of the core of the gospel, it is not part of the ancient tradition. It is not part of the continued tradition, and any interpretations of the Scriptures or theological justifications for this innovation are novelties.

Read it all at his site.

9 comments:

shadowlands said...

I think it would be a good idea if all Anglicans who have converted, be they Clergy or lay persons, shared their testimony of conversion, rather than their opinions. The reason I say this, is that anyone can hold an opinion, and anyone else can argue with that opinion. However, your testimony is your experience, and no-one can argue with that, because you are describing something that has actually happened to you. So, for example, how did you overcome any doubts about Our Lady's place in the Catholic Church. You don't have to 'get it right', just tell your story. God will use it to reach someone. Trust your journey so far.

Diego said...

Shadowlands, that's a really great idea. How about sharing the experience of those who came from the Roman Church and became Anglicans? Those should do the same and I am sure people would be inspired by both.

shadowlands said...

Well Diego. I don't really know many Catholic to Anglican converts, apart from former Priests who have got married (one of them to my friend). I would definitely be interested to hear 0f testimonies though, if you know of any? The point I was making was a general one, it is part of the twelve step program. People, by sharing their experiences, allow others to gain identification, rather than feeling coerced(God forbid religious folk would ever use such a method haha!) into accepting some doctrine or other that they disagree with. Also, the mistrust when dealing with people of different faith disappears if someone is just expressing themselves and not trying to 'convert' someone. The Lord is allowed to minister to the person according to His Will for their life, not my layman's agenda, which may, or may not be Holy Spirit led.

PS. Diego, have you ever heard of Smith Wigglesworth's 1947 prophecy for England? He was a Pentecostal, so neutral ground for us to meet on(his prophecy, that is).It's already half fulfilled.

Albert said...

So, for example, how did you overcome any doubts about Our Lady's place in the Catholic Church.

Speaking personally, I would say two things happened to me to clear up difficulties relating to the Immaculate Conception.

Firstly, I had to understand the doctrine properly (or at least, not misunderstand it).

Secondly, I gained a clearer grasp of the Biblical doctrine of God's holiness. The best source for this was Cardinal Newman, not excluding a sermon he preached on the Feast of the Annunciation 1832 - before the Oxford Movement started.

Diego said...

Thank you for you reply Shadowlands. I must look up the book you suggested.
As you can probaly guess I grew up as a Roman Catholic in Italy and I 'lapsed' so to speak when i moved to the UK a few years ago. I know many Roman Catholics who have done the same, mainly lay people but a lot of ordinands too.
I was very involved in the RC. Indeed I wanted to go forward for Ordination, I knew a few bishops and I served for JPII at the Vatican. However, if I could plagiarise Tony Blair, I would say that I now stand in a place where I feel at home.
The best thing was that I thought my vocation would go away and my relationship with God would somehow be watered down, but the opposite happened.

WannabeAnglican said...

"That they were defined later is only evidence that it was only in later days that the doctrines were doubted,. . ."

Rubbish. St. Bernard is among the faithful through the centuries who did not hold to the Immaculate Conception. Its imposition as dogma is sectarian and uncatholic.

shadowlands said...

Albert, thank you for your comment. Why not pop over to Father Dwight Longnecker's blog,it's called 'Standing on my head'. Your testimony may prove of interest to some of the folks visiting there at present.A lot of whom may be struggling with similar issues that you mention. God bless.

Albert said...

More important than St Bernard, St Thomas Aquinas too denies the doctrine. Certainly the expression "That they were defined later is only evidence that it was only in later days that the doctrines were doubted,. . ." would need some very careful defending. Nevertheless, it does not follow that because a dogma is a late development that it is necesarily "sectarian and uncatholic". I wonder how Anglicanism would cope if judged on those grounds.

Antonio said...

St Bernard wouldn't have nothing to oppose if nobody wouldn't have believed it "de fide".
Besides that, while it's certain that the way to explain the Immaculate Conception was not the same in every moment of the Church's history, Mary was always considered the "All Holy". If you understand "original sin" as the Western Tradition has always understood it, then you have "Immaculate Conception" as the logic result.
You may have trouble with the doctrine of "original sin", or a very different way to understand it (I think that's the main trouble with the Orthodox). But if you understand it the way the (Roman) Catholic Church do, then the whole Tradition takes you to the Immaculate Conception.
You may also have trouble with the way it was declared as a dogma. But once again, your trouble won't be with this particular truth, but with a different ecclesiology.

"Its imposition as dogma is sectarian and uncatholic".
It would be, if the (Roman) Catholic Church weren't what it is.