Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« The Trinity and the Nature of Love | Main | The Four Horsemen of the Ecumenical Apocalypse »

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Comments

nonjuror

Three Bishops leave the Anglican Church!

In one sense who can blame them? But who is responsible for the terrible happenings within that Church? Do we point the finger at The Pope,or the Queen? Maybe it is the Methodist Chairman? In my opinion chief blame is to be laid at the feet of the Bishops who have not taught their flocks the Catholic Faith, who (appear) to have sat idly by, whilst the Revelation once revealed to the Saints was ignored.

Anglo-Catholic Bishops have sat by and allowed all kind of things to evolve, Scripture has become the plaything of anyone who has a mind to delve,Tradition has been dropped, with all due respect to yourselves the eyes of the Anglo's have been centered on Vatican 2 without anytime spent on developing, or even keeping, the Anglican Catholicism that has been left to us by the Holy Fathers of the first thousand yrs or the Anglican Fathers of the Reformation.
I cannot see these weak and to my mind ,foolish men are fit for their purpose!.

Nick Milne

There's an excellent Chesterton essay about this general sort of issue. As I can't find a link to it anywhere online, here is a version of it I once transcribed to send to someone else.

==

"On Flocking"

The elusive, enormous, and nameless thing, with which I have so long wrestled, as with a slippery leviathan, in such places as this, suddenly heaved in sight the other day and took on a sort of formless form. I am always getting these brief glimpses of the monster, though they seldom last long enough for me to make head or tail of it. In this case it appeared in a short letter to the Daily Express, which ran, word for word, as follows:

"In reply to your article, 'What Youth Wants in Church,' I assert that it does not want sadness, ceremony, or humbug. Youth wants to know only about the present and future, not about what happened 2,000 years ago. If the churches forsake these things, young people will flock to them."

The syntax is a little shaky, and the writer does not mean that the young people will flock to the things that happened 2,000 years ago if only the curches will desert them. He does actually mean (which is much more extraordinary) that the young people will flock to the churches merely because the churches have forsaken all the original objects of their existence. Every feature of every church, from a cross on a spire to an old hymn-book left in a pew, refers more or less to certain things that happened about 2,000 years ago. If we do not want to be reminded of those things, the natural inference is that we do not want any of the buildings built to remind us of them. So far from flocking to them, we shall naturally desire to get away from them; or still more to clear them away.

But I cannot understand why something which is unpopular because of what it means whould become frightfully popular because it no longer means anything. A War Memorial is a memorial of a war, and I can imagine that those who merely hate the memory might merely hate the memorial. But what would be the sense of saying that, if only all the names of the dead were scraped off the War Memorials, huge pilgrimages would be made from all the ends of the earth to visit and venerate the absence of names on a memorial of nothing?

Most of us would not devote our short summer holiday to visiting the ruin of what had once been the record of something that we did not want to think about. Nor would most people, indifferent to the Christian origin of Christian churches, waste their time in churches merely because they had ceased to be Christian. There are plenty of other places in which to spend our holidays, and plenty of other resorts to which young people can flock, without flocking to hollow shrines stripped of all traces of their history or their object. He would be a bold spirit who would hope to lure the duchess back from Lido, or the typist from the seaside sun-cure, by offering to show them a chapel of no particular date, with no particular design, in which a total stranger had promised not to mention something that happened 2,000 years ago. Somehow I do not think there would be a flock of duchesses, or even typists, at the doors of that weirdly negative edifice.

And this marks the first of the fallacies which beset this rather fashionable style of protest or proposal. Even supposing it were true that theology is unpopular, it does not follow that the absence of theology is popular. This need no more be true of the absence of theology than of the absence of conchology or bacteriology, or anything else. I may not want to hear a bore talking about bimetallism, but it does not follow that I want to go for a walking tour with the bore when he promises not to mention bimetallism. I may not wish to listen to the lecture on "Genetics and Genesis" at the Co-educational Congress at Gum Springs, Ill., but neither do I want to go to the Co-educational Congress at Gum Springs, or anywhere else, even if there is to be no lecture on "Genetics and Genesis." And surely those who are so innocently confident of the attraction of merely negative religion might realize that a broad-minded parson can be as much of a bore about nothing as anybody can be about anything.

But there is another, more subtle, more sunken and fundamental queerness about this way of looking at things. As I have said before, it is only occasionally that we get a real glimpse of its strange outline, as we get it for a moment in this letter. The minds of these people work backwards, from effect to cause, and not from cause to effect. The cause of the Church, the cause which produced it, the cause for which it stands, is regarded as something bad, something that ought to be abolished. In that case, one would naturally infer that the Church ought to be abolished. But this type of thinker does not begin with the cause; he begins with the result, and then turns on the cause and rends it, as if the cause were a disfigurment that had been added afterwards to the result. He suggests that the result must must destroy its cause, and go off looking for another cause, in the hope of becoming the result of something else. It is as if the Union Jack were wandering around the world trying to mean the dragon standard of the Sacred Emperor of China, or the Blue Peter were bending all its efforts to become a flag of truce with the significance of the White Flag.

One explanation is that such people, who commonly call themselves "progressive," are in the most stodgy sense conservative. They cannot bear to alter any concrete fact, but only the idea behind it. They cannot actually abolish the Union Jack or the White Flag, but only all that they stand for. So they see in front of them a solid block of brick called a church. They accept that; they cannot conceive a real revolt against that; they are even ready to throw themselves into all sorts of schemes for making this mere brick building fashionable, so that people shall "flock" to it. It commands their strange loyalty in its own strange way, merely by being there. It is a solid fact; something must be done with it; and therefore something must be done for it.

In pure reason, it is about as reasonable as saying that since we have a Post Office we had better turn it into a swimming-bath, or that the successful establishment of a tennis court necessitates our using it as a turnip field. But the practical man does not trouble about pure reason; he can confront, with an unsmiling visage, what is in reality pure unreason. For pure reason involves some degree of imagination, and not only creative but also destructive imagination. The thinker must not only be able to think things, but to unthink them; he must be imaginative enough to unimagine anything.

Now this sort of conservative cannot unthink anything that is perceptible to his senses. He can only unthink the theory on which it depends, because it is only a theory. He cannot unimagine the big brick church in front of him, as it actually bulks in the landscape. He cannot imagine the landscape without the church; he can only imagine the church without the religion, or the religion without the reason. In the world of ideas he can alter anything, however fundamental, as if it were something fanciful. But he cannot be fanciful about a fact like a brick building; that is a solid object, and must be made a solid success. People must be induced to "flock" to it, even if it has to be turned into an aquarium or an aerodrome.

In one sense, to do him justice, this melancholy materialist is the most disinterested of men. The mystic is the one who will serve something invisible for his own reasons. The materialist is one who will serve anything viable for no reason. But there are a good many of him, and, even if he has not begun to flock very much into the churches of the present and future, he does already flock a good deal in the correspondence columns of the newspapers.

Teresa Polk

In response to the comment by nonjuror:
Anglo-Catholic bishops have not sat idly by and watched this happen. Several of them left the Episcopal Church and began the "Continuing Church" when the Episcopal Church first began to ordain women, and others remained and have fought to restore orthodoxy for more than 30 years, like shell-shocked soldiers now. In the U.K. too, many have fought as hard as they realistically could have fought, and they are now trying to avoid the Church of England's decision to have female bishops, or else taking the Church of England's votes on that issue as part of their own consideration of the Catholic Church.

This is now the fourth U.S. Episcopal Church bishop to seek to come into the Catholic Church this year, counting the two who previously retired. It is not for lack of effort that they are in this situation. Rather, there are people now coming into the Church who have been somewhat battle-scarred, with a deep love for liturgical beauty, liturgical music, and the history of the Church in England. Their challenge will not be to fight harder, but rather to realize that the battle is over and that they have come home.

Perhaps it is part of the working of God to bring the Church back together as one in our time. Some meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.

Ben Swagerty

Carl--
Thanks for the good post. What bold, stirring news about the Episcopal bishops coming home to Rome, and sad as the Church of England continues it's slow decline. I'll really, really be praying for a good pastoral solution to the Traditional Anglicans seeking to unite with Rome, who are looking for a good, solid home. [I'm hoping for a personal prelature, or something, but Ed Peters would be far, far more knowledgeable about the potential ideas]
I agree, it would be too simplistic to say that 'ordaining women= decline in state of church'. I keep thinking of something from the last Episcopal gen. convention. It was a resolution, [re]emphasizing salvation in/through Christ, and it didn't pass. Many of the voters felt that it was redundant and pointless to reiterate something so basic.
How we need to hold onto faith in Christ and proper liturgy, worship.

Ed Peters

Carl wrote: "...as the number of ordained women increase, the number of Episcopalians/Anglicans ... who are leaving increases..." So, um, does that mean that ordaining women might, after all, be a solution to the vocation crisis? I'm confused. (Not really....)

Ben, my impression is that some folks are looking at that idea, but I am not involved in it. Interesting, of course.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

September 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad