But specifically with respect to the Evangelicals, I pointed out that their Sola Scriptura dogma (and yes, it IS a dogma, even if they choose not to use that word) is a sort of logical dead end in many respects.
I stand by it too. But I'll be continuing that theme somewhat today, this time by singling out the Anglican church.
Now, before I even get into this deeper, I must say that I have a tremendous regard for the Anglican church. Had it not been for them, I would never have given liturgical worship a chance. It would've been a bridge too far for me to switch from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Catholic Church. As much as I've always respected the Catholic Church, I would never have made that drastic a change in my faith. I needed the Anglican church to serve as a middle step for me. So, again, don't think of this as me picking on the Anglicans. I'm only trying to make a point here.
The Magisterium for me was initially a big problem for me when I began considering joining the Catholic Church. Partly because of the aforementioned Sola Scriptura doctrine, I was reluctant to place my trust too much in men. For my part, my error was in not correctly interpolating promises made by Christ.
In Matthew 16, Our Lord gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom. That which is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven. That which is loosed on Earth will be loosed in Heaven. The gates of hell and the power of death will not prevail against the Church.
Historically the Catholic Church has interpreted that as Our Lord ordaining Simon as Pope Peter and enacting the Magisterium. Superficially, it's a lot to ask to believe that ANY institution can be supernaturally protected from egregious spiritual and moral error. Why, that's crazy talk and anybody who claims Divine Guidance and Infallibility belongs in a looney bin, right?
But let's check the records, shall we? Let's compare what other traditions have done. It's a little tricky to do because none of them have a 2,000 year history comparable to the Catholic Church. But in the end I suspect that will only strengthen my argument.
Every ten years, the Anglican Communion assembles for the Lambeth Conference. The purpose of the conference is to express "the mind of the communion". There's no authority or obligation for the various territories to abide by opinions expressed at the Conference. Which is another problem all by itself but I'll spare you. Suffice it to say, Lambeth is useful for at least understanding what the Anglican Communion is thinking at any given time.
In 1948 the issue of ordaining women was addressed and "authoritatively" put to bed. It was considered that the ordination of Florence Li Tim-Oi "would be against the tradition and order of the Anglican Communion". The bishops in attendance said that this eliminates any need for further examination of women's ordination.
If you know ANYTHING about the Anglican Communion, odds are you're already laughing your head off. But please bear with me.
Lambeth 1968 recommended that women be ordained the diaconate and then recognized deaconesses appointed to those offices BEFORE official permission was ever even granted.
Think about that for a minute. The Anglican Communion cried foul when Florence Li Tim-Oi was ordained to their priesthood back in 1948. They then opined that the matter had been settled permanently. No need for further consideration. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
But ONLY twenty years later they somewhat reversed that decision that needed no further consideration by not only officially permitting women to be ordained to the diaconate but also decided not to pursue any disciplinary course of action takes by bishops who ordained women as deacons before that was technically permissible. As best I can tell, there wasn't even any sort of official reprimand!
As if that wasn't enough, the bishops also decided that assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (you know, the Church of England entire reason for being) was no longer necessary.
It doesn't get much better from here though. The worst is yet to come.
Lambeth 1978 recognized the autonomy of member churches to make their own decision as to ordaining women to the priesthood. So, again, the issue which was supposedly put to bed once and for all back in 1948 is now completely optional for members of the Communion. Thirty years.
You've come a long way, baby!
At Lambeth 1998, Resolution 1.10 declared that homosexual acts (but not homosexuality itself) are not compatible with the clear teachings of Scripture. This was enough to inspire 182 BISHOPS to apologize to gay and lesbian parishioners the world over for the Communion's "insensitivity". Of course, that statement came in an amendment that was only narrowly passed.
And keep in mind here that all we're talking about for the moment is calling a sin a sin. That's it! This conclusion had never been controversial anywhere in the history of orthodox Christianity. Lambeth 1998 broke new ground for the Communion.
So let's recap everything up to this point. In 1948, the "ordination" of Florence Li Tim-Oi was considered absolutely unacceptable and completely outside the Anglican tradition. The matter was "definitively" settled, never to be revisited.
In 1968, female "deacons" were permitted as a matter of course. Female "priests" were permitted just ten years later in 1978. And just twenty years after that, the Communion can't even coherently condemn homosexuality as a sin without bishops issuing apologies for some of their number communicating simple Scriptural truth.
Lambeth 2008 was controversial before it even started. Rowan Williams, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to permit Resolution 1.10 to be revisited. Things were already tense enough what with four primates boycotting Lambeth because of the Episcopal Church USA's blessing of same-sex unions and more controversial figures like Gene Robinson, ordained bishop of New Hampshire in spite of the fact that he's openly gay.
The best the bishops could manage at Lambeth 2008 was to issue a report that expressed every point of view of the attendees concerning homosexuality and then call for "a season of gracious restraint" and humbly, politely, respectfully request that the Episcopal Church USA not ordain any more gay clergy or preside over any further same-sex union blessings. The report was in no way binding, it had no teeth and no penalties were called for in the event that the Episcopal Church USA continued on their present course.
Think about that! In sixty years, the Anglican Communion had gone from a fairly orthodox brand of traditional Christianity to being theologically and politically unrecognizable by its founders!
The Anglican Communion is the worst but they're by far not the only offenders. In 1968, key figures from the Southern Baptist Convention were quoted by mainstream news magazines not only permitting several forms of contraception but also permitting abortion under many circumstances. These days you'd have to go a long way to find a more faithful fellow traveler of the Catholic Church in the pro-life movement than the SBC. But things weren't always that way.
That's not the only stain on the SBC's name either. They once argued that the Bible permits and endorses the practice of slavery.
To be fair, the SBC no longer holds either position. And in fact, they have repented and apologized for their previous errors.
But all of these things lead to my ultimate point. There are cases when the Catholic Church has had some bad policies in the past. That much is definitely true. But you're hard-pressed to cite one occasion when the Catholic Church has signed her name and staked her credibility on moral and religious issues and then either been shown to be in error or otherwise reversed herself. There are no cases where the Church has had to "revisit" an official pronouncement made in the past and do a mea culpa. It's just never happened.
What are the odds of that? I cited several instances of the Anglican Communion reversing itself on several incredibly important moral issues in less than a century and two instances of the Southern Baptist Convention doing the same in less than fifty years! So how has the Church survived for 2,000 years without so much as one egregious error in faith or morals? And as I've said, there are no similar reversals made by the Catholic Church you can draw comparisons to in spite of the fact that the Church has an incredibly longer history.
The Magisterium and the concept of the Catholic Church being supernaturally guided and protected from error on faith and morals all of a sudden doesn't seem like such a crazy idea, now does it?
No comments:
Post a Comment