When you’re Romish and you know it clap your hands

Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by CFLawrence, Jul 15, 2020.

  1. CFLawrence

    CFLawrence Active Member

    Posts:
    122
    Likes Received:
    74
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Evangelical Episcopalian
    So I thought I would place my thoughts here because they’re rather... big “C” Catholic!

    I have found a fantastic source of spiritual reading. Dom Prosper Gueranger The Liturgical Year. It’s a 15 volume work, a commentary on the Mass of St Gregory and the Office of the same rite. Spectacular material to feed my daily mental prayer.

    Also, being in quarantine I have been spending time in Eucharistic Adoration via YouTube, Shrine at Walsingham. It’s the only thing bringing me peace and solace right now.

    back to TEC... I have returned to Mass!!! Church is open!!!! So I have an appointment with the Vicar for confession. We haven’t decided on how exactly! Plain old over the phone of a video app!!!

    This was a day in the life of an Anglo Papalist!
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  2. S. DeVault

    S. DeVault New Member

    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    16
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACC)
    Hopefully our parish will soon be doing Eucharistic Adoration weekly
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  3. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    605
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Um, how exactly would that be done in an Anglican church, in light of the 39 Articles?

    Article 25 says in part, "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them."

    Article 28 says in part, "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

    If a physical object is fashioned and then bowed down to and worshiped as God, and prayed to as God, is this in keeping with our Lord's desire and purpose?
    Exo 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
    Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them...
     
    Dave Kemp likes this.
  4. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    135
    Likes Received:
    157
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2020
  5. S. DeVault

    S. DeVault New Member

    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    16
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACC)
    Simple, you don't rely solely on a list of points that were made in an attempt to appease radical reformists, and to try to avoid a religious war, instead you rely on the Apostle's, Nicean, and Athanasian creeds, the tradition of the Saints and Church Fathers, and Scripture
     
  6. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    605
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, in that case, would you please lay out the support for Eucharistic adoration that you have found in the creeds, the practice of the early church (first 500 years of Christianity), and Scripture?
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  7. S. DeVault

    S. DeVault New Member

    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    16
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACC)
  8. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Saints, Fathers and Scripture are 100% with the Anglican tradition and opposed to Rome on this. There wasn't a single Father who advocated eucharistic adoration, and that practice only came into existence 1000 years after our Lord, in the confused and muddled theology of the middle ages, when they got all their categories crossed and messed up.

    The Scripture is completely against this, and there is not church father or saint, who has ever done it, or said it is healthy. If anything they were concerned that such practices were idolatry. I am thinking of St. Epiphanius in particular who was notable for tearing down such practices among the heretical (non-Nicene) Christians.


    I'd be careful about quoting from trad RCC websites at this point in time. I've been following that blog for a while, and right now they're convinced that the Pope is a heretic, and the forerunner of the antichrist. No problem for me obviously, but what it means for them is that the Papacy is in deep crisis. Meaning that Trad Romanism itself is in incredible existential crisis right now. So the blogger at this website whose old posts triumphantly write about Romanist doctrines is himself wavering into apostacy out of Rome.
     
    Dave Kemp, S. DeVault and Rexlion like this.
  9. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    605
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    I looked at your references.

    The first one offered nothing from Scripture; John 6 was cited, but nothing Jesus said there pertained to reservation or adoration of the Eucharist. Nor does the practice of carrying the Eucharist to people who could not attend indicate a practice of adoration. The document makes supposition that monks 'must have felt' a certain way and therefore a conclusion is reached as to why they might have engaged in the practice, but no evidence is offered. A single mass of St. Basil is mentioned, in which he supposedly placed 1/3 into a dove-shaped object hanging overhead; in an online search for evidence to support the claim, I found page after page stating, "It is said that Basil....","It is said that Basil....","It is said that Basil...." (all identical, as if they all were copying from one source) but none of them offer a citation to back up the hearsay rumor. This page offers no evidence from the Bible, the creeds, or the early church.

    The EWTN page begins at the outset with the patently false claim that "the evangelists and St. Paul.... made it plain to the apostolic Church that the Eucharistic elements were literally Jesus Christ continuing His saving mission among men." Many of us would have given this statement a 'pass' if it had stopped with the statement that those writers made it plain that the elements were "literally Jesus Christ," but this article goes on to claim that the Eucharist is "Christ continuing His saving mission." This is not the purpose of the Eucharist; recipients may receive sanctifying grace in the Eucharist, but no man is saved (receives saving grace) by performing the physical work of ingesting Christ's physical presence. Christ's physical, resurrected body remains in heaven at the Father's right hand, and we on earth receive Christ spiritually, through faith, and only through faith. This RC viewpoint of Christ "continuing His saving mission" via physically swallowing a physically changed Eucharist is the very error which led toward adoration of the Eucharist, because the RC thinks that the host is Christ's entirety (spirit, soul, divinity, and body) with nothing remaining of the bread but its appearance. We Anglicans recognize that the bread physically remains as bread, unchanged in that specific regard, and therefore adoration of the Eucharist would be (I speak here in a specifically physical sense) bowing and praying to bread. We believe that Jesus Christ is Really and Truly Present in the Eucharist, but spiritually and not physically.

    The EWTN article goes on with the same non-evidentiary statements about hermits and monks who are thought to have reserved the Eucharist in their cells or carried it along to other people (no supportive early writings are offered, though, and even if it did offer evidence, these things do not support adoration of the Eucharist). In short, it offers no proof from the Bible, the creeds, or the early church for the practice of gazing upon the Eucharist at length to pray to it, adore it, or worship it.
     
    S. DeVault likes this.
  10. S. DeVault

    S. DeVault New Member

    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    16
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACC)
    Welp, time for me to eat my words. I assumed that since there are many Anglican parishes that practice eucharistic adoration, that it must have been from tradition. I was a fool, but serves me right for pretending to be knowledgeable. I suppose I have a lot more studying to do
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  11. Symphorian

    Symphorian Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    352
    Likes Received:
    487
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    Anglican, CofE
    In the CofE there are some churches within the Anglo-Catholic tradition that have Evensong followed by Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. Such Anglo-Catholic/Ritualist traditions developed from the Tractarian/Oxford Movement in the mid 19th century. The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament which started at this time promoted devotion to the Blessed Sacrament as well as fasting Communion and was open to both clergy and laity, although Reservation at the time was very uncommon. Some Ritualist movements during the latter part of the 19th century were quite secretive out of necessity in face of prosecution under the Public Worship Regulation Act.

    If we look at English and Welsh Churches during the last quarter of the 19th century we can see the impact that Ritualism had. For example, in the early 1880's only 581 churches had lighted candles on the Altar and only 336 used Eucharistic vestments. By the turn of the 20th century 4765 had lighted candles and 2158 used Eucharistic vestments. In my Diocece (the most Ritualistic in the CofE at the turn of the 20th century) this represented about 62% churches using lighted candles and about 25% using Eucharistic vestments. Such practices were once considered extreme.

    Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament and services in connection with the Blessed Sacrament were regarded as very extreme. In the latter part of the 19th century there were only about a dozen CofE churches reserving the Blessed Sacrament. Many English churches began reservation after WW1 although it is by no means a universal practice in the CofE even now. My own parish church which had been quite Ritualistic in terms of lighted candles, vestments, surpliced choir etc. only began reservation (in an Aumbry) in the early 1980's and the Blessed Sacrament is only used for Communion of the sick/housebound.
     
    Shane R, S. DeVault and CFLawrence like this.
  12. S. DeVault

    S. DeVault New Member

    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    16
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACC)
    That makes sense then, considering I'm in the Anglican Catholic Church. The way I understand Anglicanism, what it means to me, is the Catholic faith, as practiced by the English people, without the abuses of the Roman church. I consider myself to be an Anglo-Catholic for that reason. I guess the tough part is, what are the abuses of Rome that we should not follow? Some are obvious, like papal infallibility or required celibacy of clergy. But there are other things that some argue as good, or at the least permissible, that others would label as bad. Even though I'm discerning becoming clergy, I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough now to argue about the less clear issues, so I rightfully got put in my place today.
     
  13. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    1,978
    I try to keep in mind the words of Tract 90 regarding AOR XXII:

    "Now the first remark that occurs on perusing this Article is, that the doctrine objected to is "the Romish doctrine." For instance, no one would suppose that the Calvinistic doctrine containing purgatory, pardons, [worshipping and adoration] and image-worship, is spoken against. Not every doctrine on these matters is a fond thing, but the Romish doctrine. Accordingly, the Primitive doctrine is not condemned in it, unless, indeed, the Primitive Doctrine be the Romish, which must not be supposed. Now there was a primitive doctrine on all these points,--how far Catholic or universal, is a further question but still so widely received and so respectably supported, that it may well be entertained as a matter of opinion by a theologian now; this, then, whatever be its merits, is not condemned by this Article."​

    The "Romish" doctrine regarding Eucharistic Adoration, I would think, is using the devotion to "merit grace" or obtain some sort of indulgence. Or perhaps as a way of pushing the unbiblical belief in transubstantiation. Nevertheless, Christ is spiritually present in the sacrament, and humbling oneself in Our Lord's spiritual presence does Him no dishonor as a personal devotion.
     
    S. DeVault likes this.
  14. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    That is actually 100% how Anglicans understand themselves, the world over. Both in the specific sense of that we descend from the English Christians who were formed before, during, and after the domination from the Bishop of Rome; and in the general sense, that every Anglican in the world recites the Creed, and professes to believe the Catholic Church.

    If you put the question as, what abuses should or shouldn't be followed, that puts you in the 'private judgment' camp that we would all reject. Ultimately there are no guidelines within the Anglo-Catholic world of what that choosing looks like, which is why you have some people clinging to the Sarum Rite of some fantasy English countryside; some clinging to Leo XVIII high era of victorian Roman supremacy (eg. Newman and Ward); some are more like Eastern Catholics; others are full-on Latin-Rite fiddleback chasuble followers of Pius V who yearn for the days of Douai-Rheims. In some ways, especially the chasuble or Sarum types, it looks like so much fantasy roleplay; cosplaying as the kids today call it. In short, by having a 'pick your adventure' type of worldview, they're a lot closer to the radical protestant camp than they'd like to believe, and which is why I see Anglo-Catholicism as having ultimately proven itself unstable and unreliable as a movement.

    However their quest is an accurate one, namely, how do we know what to believe, where to put our anchor so that we don't have to be tossed and turned on the waves of postmodernity. And I think that the traditional Anglican answer is the correct one. Namely, you've got the radical protestants who believe in 'me and my bible', and you've got the Church of Rome which is highly progressive and stamps the mark of infallibility on the most recent thing it pronounces. (I can go into that if you want, but basically all attempts throughout history to turn it back have failed.)

    So the classical Anglican answer is, look, we need a hermeneutic of interpretation, a Christian culture, and a set of ways of looking at life, piety; but it can't be anyone alive because they'll muck it up. Therefore, what we need is a permanently historicized Christian culture, from some time in the last 1500 years whose ideas are fixed, and will never change. Also we need one that is closest in every manner to the special revelation which came from the Ancient of Days, and his Son, and to the worldviews and even language idioms of the apostles. Classical Latin disappeared, as any student of medieval Latin will tell you. And that's how you get to the formulation that we take up the Church Fathers, and the first 5 centuries to be that beacon for us.

    Finally, then, if we look at the doctrines in the early Church, it will be shocking the extent to which they resembled the doctrines that we’re later preached at the Reformation. You have St. Jerome with the 66 books of the Bible; St. Epiphanius tearing down paintings of Jesus; St. Augustine with his strong doctrine of sovereign grace; St. Cyprian (and most Fathers) with his lukewarm skepticism of the Bishop of Rome. You have the great majority of the Fathers teaching 'spiritual real presence' as opposed to Transubstantiation; you have Cyril's Catechetical Lectures rejecting the ex opere operato formulation of Baptism (codified at Trent). You don't have anyone adoring the Sacrament, and there is even reception on the hand. Finally, there is an incredibly and overwhelmingly strong emphasis on the Scriptures, to the utter exclusion of everything else. St. Athanasius is a huge example of this, but all fathers speak of the Scriptures in a way that would embarrass a Baptist today, it almost seems idolatrous (but isn't). And so that's the Christian culture we have tethered our wagons to, and said, let us be more like that.
     
    Dave Kemp, Rexlion and S. DeVault like this.
  15. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    605
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    "The protestant camp" I can understand, but to lump all the protestants together and name the entire group "radical" seems a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?
    Actually, many protestants feel much the same as Athanasius. And they would probably argue that if emphasizing the Scriptures "to the utter exclusion of everything else" was good enough for early fathers such as Athanasius, it should be good enough for the Christian today. Aren't you trying to 'have your cake and also eat it' when you cut down their sola scriptura concept in one paragraph and then cite early church support for it in the next? :hmm:
     
  16. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I didn't. Where do you see me doing that? "Radical protestants" is a well known historical category about a subset of the people who participated in the Reformation, but were strongly excluded and rejected by other Reformers.


    Where did I attribute sola scriptura to the radical protestants? Far from it. They're not adherents of it, but rather adherents of the 'me and my bible' doctrine. Don't tell me that you equate sola scriptura with 'me and my bible' (which literally was rejected by all of the Reformers).
     
  17. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    605
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    When you set forth three groups of Christians, I guess I assumed you were lumping all Christians into those three groups; Anglicans sandwiched in between the two groupings of, shall we say, 'far less correct Christians,' which you labeled "radical protestants" and RCs. If that was not your meaning, I apologize. Where do the "non-radical" protestants fall on the continuum (with regard to source of authority, as you were discussing), and could you name some of them?

    Could you elaborate further on the distinction between sola scriptura and 'me and my Bible,' as you see it? I'm a bit fuzzy on that.
     
  18. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    1.The radical protestants believed that their minds were the source of authority on interpreting the Scriptures.
    2.The magisterial protestants (Reformers) believed that a hermeneutic primarily, and tradition secondarily, were the source of authority on interpreting the Scriptures (private interpretation was a huge problem). Also, the Scriptures were the only special revelation.
    3.The Roman adherents believed that tradition was an additional source of revelation.

    This is outlined in the "tradition 1" and "tradition 2" concepts, as described by the Dutch historian Heiko Oberman in The Harvest of Medieval Theology. In the middle ages, the Roman church had two competing concepts of tradition:
    -tradition 1: it is accessory to Scripture, and is there to inform Scripture
    -tradition 2: it is equal to Scripture has contents entirely separate from Scripture

    Tradition 1 was the 'traditional' view (no pun intended), inherited from the prior centuries. Tradition 2 emerged in the later middle ages and became more and more calcified. Sort of like how Immaculate Conception was rejected by Thomas Aquinas, then was for the first time proposed by Duns Scotus, and by the 1500s became the mainstream. Anyway, at the Reformation, the Reformers were actually just enunciating Tradition 1, one of two pretty mainstream views of understanding revelation. But Rome hardened in the opposite direction, and codified Tradition 2 as the format they'd adopt from then on.

    By the way, Heiko Oberman goes on to say that Rome has now moved on to "Tradition 3", namely, both scripture and tradition are subservient to the magisterium; revelation is what the magisterium or the Pope says.



    -sola scriptura: simply the long-time mainstream Christian view, until the later middle ages, that the Bible is the only place where God's special revelation can be found. Even Aquinas says something like that. It was contrasted with 'tradition 2' (see above) which attempted to elevate church traditions to the level of Scripture.
    -'me and my bible': a doctrine which emerged among radical protestants which was distrustful of any kind of human knowledge, and dispensed with scholarship in interpreting the Scriptures. What I read in the Bible is what it says. Or put another way, what it means to me, is what it really says.

    The two are sometimes confused by the word 'sola', if it is wrongly taken to mean,
    -only Scripture is what I read (and nothing else).

    As meant by the Reformers, it said:
    -only Scripture [and not Tradition] is special revelation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2020
  19. Edmundia

    Edmundia Member

    Posts:
    54
    Likes Received:
    33
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Roman Catholic (Tradition
    Let me be controversial. I can remember seeing Archbishop Michael Ramsey in the congregation - he was then retired Archbishop of Canterbury - of St Mary's,Bourne Street (Baroque Anglo-Catholic but not strictly Papalist) at Evensong and Benediction. He also officiated at Nashdom Abbey's jubilee celebrations and although they were Anglican, they had Divine Office and Mass in the Roman Rite in Latin (until "The Changes"). I imagine there would have been no-one as "Classically Anglican" in his theology as Archbishop Ramsey........................yet, I don't think he lost his Anglican Badge.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  20. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    605
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Thank you for that explanation, it helps. I underlined key elements of your reply that I want to refer to (see above). It seems as though the line is rather blurry between the "Reformers" (a/k/a/ "magisterial protestants") and the "tradition 1" proponents. If there is a difference, based on your explanation the difference would appear to lie in the Reformers' view that a set of hermeneutic guidelines is the most important thing to look at (and tradition is second-most important) when interpreting Scripture, whereas "Tradition 1" proponents apparently consider tradition to be the most important thing to look at. Is that accurate?

    Does Anglicanism fall into the "Tradition 1" category or the "Reformers" category in this (i.e., where does hermeneutics stand in relation to early church tradition for Anglicans)?

    Now I can see the distinction you're drawing. I can't say that I've ever personally encountered a church that taught its people to interpret the Bible without consideration to hermeneutic principles. I have been in protestant churches that hardly gave any weight at all to tradition, but they all seemed to value solid hermeneutics. If someone can point to a specific (non-cultic) Christian denomination that is known to feature such a teaching, I would like to know and investigate further; but otherwise I am somewhat inclined to think that this is an exaggerated misunderstanding and consequently a nonexistent problem (an unwitting 'straw man').
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2020