Protestant or Catholic: Anglicans must decide

Hard words for Anglicans from the head of the Council for Christian Unity in Rome. Cardinal Walter Kasper has told the Catholic Herald that now, with Lambeth approaching, is the time for Anglicans to decide whether they are Catholic or Protestant. 'Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?' he said. 'Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.' The genius of Anglicanism has always been its ability to straddle the divide, but maybe the Cardinal is right and the Communion's present difficulties reflect the impossibility of continuing to do this.

Photos: ACNS Rosenthal

His comments coincided with the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' 'friendly' meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. This is the Pope who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered a strong message of support to an early meeting of a group of conservative Anglicans in Plano.

I wonder how much the Catholics understand, however, that the Anglo-Catholics who might be the ones most naturally tempted towards Catholicism are not really where the present dissent stems from. Most of those who were going to go over have already gone, over women priests.

The 'orthodox' or 'traditionalists' now are from the opposite end of the spectrum, in Anglican terms. They are from Kasper's Protestant wing. The irony is that if the Anglican Communion does what Kasper is asking and decides it is in fact a 'Catholic' Church, it will emerge as a Church in the mould of the liberal Catholic provinces of TEC, Scotland and the Catholic wing in England. This would not fit at all with the present mold of conservative catholicism in Rome.

If on the other hand it decides it is Protestant body, the resultant church would be more like the evangelical independents that the Catholic Church is going head-to-head with for proselytes in Latin America and parts of Africa.

But of course simply to ask the Anglicans to make a decision of this nature is to illustrate a lack of understanding of the nature of Anglicanism. George Bernard Shaw said that England and the US were two countries divided by the same language. Catholics and Anglicans are the same, two denominations divided by the same religion.

More on events in Rome from Thinking Anglicans.

HT to Damian.

Comments

[George Parr]

Unravelling the Smithian knot of ecumenical interpretation is quite impossible, because it is tied in such a manner that all ends lead to Mr Smith.

People are either Christians or they are not. They either believe or they do not. They may choose to believe in whatever manner they like, embracing a church or not. They may consider infant baptism to be an integral part of their worship - or not.

But wondrous precision and perceived notions requiring pinpoint accuracy when discussing such matters allow Special Christians to exercise their not inconsiderable powers of control and superiority. These are expressed through an exercise consisting of mind-numbing literal deconstruction with no academic foundation.

Super Christians are, however, at their most vulnerable when their half-baked questions are answered intelligently, by thinking people who, informed by reality, clearly do not engage in discussions for the purpose of their own self-fashioning. In cases like this Special Christians simply press 'escape' and propose another question.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'The real issue is...the fact that you make it a defining mark of a true church. Even if the CofE really shouldn't baptise children that hardly spoils the appropriate baptism of its adult members or somehow disqualifies the institution from the franchise.'

The Bible does not say that Baptism makes you a Christian. The C of E does. So the C of E doesn't know what a Christian is in Biblical terms and predominantly admits non-Christians to its organisation. In my view this does disqualify it from the Christian 'franchise'.

Furthermore it compounds its error by saying that if you had, in your terms Andrew, a 'meaningless' Infant Baptism it will not Baptise you (again) as an adult. So it actually stands in the way of genuine believers' Baptism. Another reason to question its claim to be a Christian church.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
' ..after all its a relationship, and relationships are not static things.'

OK, Andrew, if it is, then perhaps you would like to explain how a person can first enter into this relationship?

[George Parr]

So Mr Transformer-Smith, how do you account for the spiritual relevance and worth that some Christians afford to infant baptism? Do you merely dismiss it because it does not accord with your own singular rote-learnt interpretation, or are they all simply imposters?

What impolite arrogance to suggest that those with genuine Christian beliefs, however different from yours are participating in forms of worship that you, in your magnificence, judge to be 'criminally misleading' in eternal terms.

So, in your role of the archangel St Michael, weighing up souls and pronouncing upon who of the baptised qualify as Christians and who do not, it is little surprise that others here have identified the bus lane in your Special Armour.

Tell me, is psychostasis through baptism a consideration when deciding who qualifies for divine transformation among the trail of guilty homosexuals arriving at your door? Presumably some of them were baptised as infants? Or does that simply add to the general malaise, signalling that possibly it might take slightly longer than four hours to achieve the required levels of holiness in the rocket-fulled science of Smithian counselling?

[andrew holden]

" "agreeable with the institution of Christ".'

Then please be so kind then as to tell us what you think those words mean."

It's pretty simple English. Agreable means 'consistent with' or 'appropriate to' and the institution of Christ is the sacrament of baptism.

If you want to know why Paedo-baptist churches think this I think Kate's already done a pretty reasonable job, considering this post has suffered significant 'drift' off-topic. Beyond that I can't imagine you don't know what the arguments are even if you don't agree with them.

The real issue is not that we might be able to agree about IB (which I seriously doubt) but the fact that you make it a defining mark of a true church. Even if the CofE really shouldn't baptise children that hardly spoils the appropriate baptism of its adult members or somehow disqualifies the institution from the franchise. There isn't a perfect church - unless you run it yourself.......

[andrew holden]

"Would you also like to define faith?"

Not definitely - I'll leave that to you and to God. More generally I agree with Kate that faith is much more a process than a fixed state - after all its a relationship, and relationships are not static things.

The object of our faith (trust) is God in Christ, but it is something we grow into rather than something we simply possess once and for all.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'David, I think I'm the Anglican here not you...Article 27 does not claim that Christ instituted infant baptism only that the practice is "agreeable with the institution of Christ".'

Then please be so kind then as to tell us what you think those words mean.

'Baptism is only meaningless when there is NO faith of any sort. A child brought up in a Christian home and in a Christian community can exhibit a faith appropriate for its age.'

Would you also like to define faith?

[Kate]

Andrew: I fear David Smith has earned his reputation on this site by self-aggrandisement, dissembling literalism and misrepresentation.

His record is one of anti-intellectual arrogance. Clearly untutored in any form of philosophical thought, all biblical exegesis not conforming to his narrow and personal interpretation is dismissed.

I am reminded of the Gnostics when reading DS - all matter is bad, only the 'spiritual' (as interpreted by DS) is relevant.

In my understanding, the sacrament of baptism ('an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace') in Anglicanism is symbolic. A visible affirmation of parental faith, it welcomes the child into the community; it offers future protection and guidance in the persons of godparents.

Therefore, the promises made by parents, godparents and de facto the church community have both practical and spiritual relevance.

It is to be hoped, and seven of mine went through the process without discernible 'harm'(!), that the community into which they are baptised will act as a moral and intellectual compass and 'shield'.

At its best, an intelligent safeguard against unlearned fundamentalism and claims of Divine 'connection', or subliminal 'knowledge'.

I do realise that for DS and many Romans, historical Anglicanism is a 'difficult' concept. Belief or 'salvation', unlike the 'magical' experience repetitively proclaimed by DS, is NOT that in Anglicanism. Rather, it is a thoughtful experiential PROCESS with past, present, and future components. Essentially, it is a choice and all the better for it. We, at least those in the pews, are generally unimpressed by 'barking' Transformers.

[andrew holden]

David, you certainly have a knack for partial misquoting - not only of my posts but also of scripture and of the 39 Articles.

IB is not a maningless ritual if there is faith - church, parents and child.

The faith a small child 'has' at 6 months, at 6 years or at 16 may not match your wonderfully sophisticated and intelligent adult faith but who are you to say that it isn't faith and therefore doesn't qualify them for baptism?

Baptism is only meaningless when there is NO faith of any sort. A child brought up in a Christian home and in a Christian community can exhibit a faith appropriate for its age.

You may feel this has no warrant in scripture - other traditions disagree finding support in the practice of proslyte Jewish batptism, in the baptism of 'households' and in the practice of the early church. However, to make this the touchstone of genuine Christianty is certainly unbiblical.

[andrew holden]

David, I think I'm the Anglican here not you. So I reckon you are not qualified to tell me what the Anglican Church believes.

Nor, apparently, are you qualified to tell me what the Bible says. 1 Peter 3:21 (I left the reference out by accident) says "baptism now saves you".

Furthermore Article 27 does not claim that Christ instituted infant baptism only that the practice is "agreeable with the institution of Christ".

Clearly the practice of IB is a bone of contention amongst Christians. Hardly surprising that you make this minor matter an litmus test of true Christianity (does anyone really qualify as a true Christian but yourself and does you church have a membership of just one?). Jesus called this sort of behaviour "straining at gnats" when the Pahrisees did it!

[J Pearce]

Dave, get over yourself mate.

You have amply demonstrated that you don't have half as much knowledge about Christianity that you claim to.

And neither have you managed to string together a cogent argument in support of your permanently opaque opinions.

I'm beginning to suspect I know more about the subject than you do. Which is pretty ironic.

[George Parr]

Mr Smith,

You appear to possess an arrogance not usually seen in caring people - and certainly not demonstrated by those claiming to be counsellors.

You certainly will not have cornered the market in Christian thinking although, to me, the resonances in your posts suggest that you might consider yourself to be the apogee of piety. Equally, you have absolutely no idea how well-read anyone is, let alone any way of refining that lack of knowledge in order to identify whether those posting here have read specific texts, like the New Testament. What you might mean is that others' interpretations of the New Testament vary from yours.

Why do you persist in denying what you have been consistently claiming - that God through your specific consultation has been converting Christian homosexuals into grateful heterosexuals? You are saying that you have been instrumental in that, are you not?

Far from others failing to understand the drivel you write Dave, the utter lack of substance from you, combined with your lofty tone suggests loneliness to me on a grand scale. If this is the case you have my sympathy.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
' ..the baptism remains meaningless and ineffective until such time as the individual puts his or her faith in Christ.'

You make my point exactly.

The C of E takes millions of children through a meaningless and ineffective ritual and then says: "this child is regenerate and [part of] Christ's Church".

And, by the way, it is not a real faith and a living relationship with God that the C of E is then interested in for the individual. If you look again at your Prayer Book, you will see that it says this to the parents:

"Ye are to take care that this child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue.. "

So: a meaningless ritual at birth, and later a little bit of rote learning, and the C of E is more than happy to continue the fiction that such a person is a Christian.

In eternal terms, how criminally misleading is that?

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'I was under the impression that everyone gets a pardon upon entry to Heaven, based on this caveat that JC died for our sins.'

Yes, not surprising - since you haven't read the New Testament, and so know hardly anything about the Christianity you offer so many opinions on.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
' ..the language of scripture which affirms that... "baptism now saves you".

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism saves a person. As you have said yourself, it is faith (a gift from God) that saves. This is why what qualifies a person to be a member of the C of E and what qualifies them to be a Christian in Biblical terms are radically different, and why the C of E does not therefore (in terms of what makes you a member) qualify as a Christian church.

'If this faith proves to be lacking then the baptism remains meaningless and ineffective until such time as the individual puts his or her faith in Christ.'

Where in the Bible is the concept of a baptism that 'lies dormant' but is later brought to life set out? Nowhere.

In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS PRECEEDED by repentance and faith, which is then sealed by this symbolic act. This is why Jesus did not ever 'institute' infant baptism, as Article 27 claims.

[David Smith]

George Humane-itas:
' ..it is fair to say that you have claimed to transform homosexuals.'

I haven't and I repeat: Tell me - Hugh, George, or whoever you are - would you waste your time debating with someone who seems incapable of taking in even the most basic things that you write?

[George Parr]

JP, I definitely think he is some sort of con!!

[andrew holden]

"Christianity created war. Read your history books."

Demonstrably it predates Christianity (and indeed the history books) by a along way - several millennia in fact.

Furthermore the fact that many so-called higher primates (from Meercats to Monkeys) make war amnongst themselves suggests that its not even just a human problem - even if we have plumbed the depths on 'efficiency' in war.

Many people assert that religion is the root of most troubles (contra the history books) but can't prove that the world would somehow be spared those troubles if religion somehow disappeared overnight. Evil infects most things, religion included, but is clearly endemic throughout human endeavour.

[J Pearce]

George,

The real question is, what sort of transformer is our Dave?

Me, well I reckon he's a Decepticon.

Arf!

[George Parr]

Mr Transformer-Smith, there is no debating with you. Your posts are self-centred and usually consist of 'challenging' a specific point surrounding what you might or might not have said verbatim. In this you present as ridiculous. You take no account of the reams of implications found within your posts, in which you leave no-one in any doubt over what you claim to represent. You make numerous statements, supplying no arguments for those who question them. Lack of substance appears to be the reason for your wriggling wordplay. You often question the right of others to post here, but on one level your presence appears to consist of making claims of bible-based salvation which you are then unwilling to discuss.

In my last post I asked you five questions and, despite frequent exhortations from you that I must engage, you make no comment. I will presume that you have absolutely nothing to say, possibly because your most unorthodox position is indefensible.

Having reduced any argument in my last post to an attack on my understanding, it is fair to say that you have claimed to transform homosexuals. You apparently do this by consulting with God, who you imply is close enough to be able to assist you. This implies that through God you are instrumental in saving souls from Satan - another perceived dimension that you have written about.

I am beginning to wonder if either your 'counselling' claims have little substance, or if you are now wishing that you had never made them. In short, you are as silent as God is absent.

[andrew holden]

David, I have read (and studied) Article 27 and attended many baptism services as both a parent and a minister.

Both Article 27 and the Anglican service of baptism reflect the language of scripture which affirms that we are "buried with Christ in baptism" (Col 2:12/Rom 6:4) and that "baptism now saves you". Clearly the effectiveness of baptism requires saving faith (as already stated clearly in Article 11) and this is alluded to in the Article when it talks about "they that receive baptism rightly".

Infant baptism is covered by but a single sentence in the Article. It is a special case but even there faith is essential for baptism to be effective - the faith of the church, the faith of the Christian parents and the faith (assumed but yet to be demonstrated) of the child. If this faith proves to be lacking then the baptism remains meaningless and ineffective until such time as the individual puts his or her faith in Christ.

[andrew holden]

Jim lamented:
"It would help if all Christians and theists could agree on what is right. Atheists could then at least assess just one rather than tens or hundreds of thousands of scattered sets of belief."

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous post:

"Seeking for answers is a human instinct. In my experience religion is about that search, but it's also about the affirmation that none of us has all the answers and the acknowledgement that the ones we do have are provisional. It also means, and this may surprise you, that we need the humility to recognise that there may be many different sets of acceptable answers."

[J Pearce]

"Rick is a teacher of the truth"

Ricks had too many down the pub, more like.

You are factually wrong on a number of points, Rick:

1. Homosexuality exists in humanity and in nature.
2. If God does indeed exist, He by (Christian) definition must have created it - therefore, it cannot be "unGodly".
3. Ergo, you are being "unGodly" yourself, by denying that He created it.

You are in essence, denying God.

I was under the impression that everyone gets a pardon upon entry to Heaven, based on this caveat that JC died for our sins.

For you, Rick, to presume to make judgements upon whole swathes on people about whether they are "sinners" or not, is to usurp the wisdom of God, right?

Not much Spirit of Christ in you then, eh Rick? And denying God? Don't fancy your chances much at the Pearly Gates...

BTW - Christianity created war. Read your history books. And continues to manufacture festering civil disturbance. We certainly won't eliminate greed or lust for power or war or make things better as long as Christianity exists.

Just thought you'd like to know.

[Tom]

"Every Man and Woman God made Has Only two desires regarding sexual matters.
(1) Man wants to have sexual relationships with the opposite sex

(2) They have no real desire for sex and don't participate in it..remain single. The Bible calls these people "Eunichs".
God never made anyone a Homosexual ....."

How do you qualify such a bizarre statement as the above? Can you do it without telling us "God told me so" or something equally fatuous?

With such people leading it no wonder Christianity is almost vanquished in this country, as Cardinal Murphy O'Connor once said. Deservedly so, but I suspect he ministers to the rednecks in some other part of the planet where they are still credulous enough to give Elmer Gantry types a hearing.

[Chris Gillibrand]

To a renegade priest, one has to be full of self-loathing to be a Jansenist. I have examined the Gafcon website and find not a trace of self-loathing- in fact, some might be tempted to say rather the reverse.

[David Smith]

George Humane-itas:
' ..you, the transformer of souls.. '

I have never said that I am this. But I have given ample testimony, my own and that of others, that God is.

Tell me - Hugh, George, or whoever you are - would you waste your time debating with someone who seems incapable of taking in even the most basic things that you write?

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'David, all you have done is illustrate that you don't understand the Anglican position on infant baptism. It does not teach baptismal regeneration but insists that justification comes only through faith in Christ. Baptism is a sign of this saving faith not the instrument of it. Without saving faith any baptism is ultimately meaningless.

Even if you are right about infant baptism, however, it seems rather arrogant to damn a whole church on the strength of a single clause... '

Since you write this, it makes me wonder if you have even read Article 27, Andrew, which states 'the Anglican position' on infant baptism, together with the Publick Baptism of Infants service.

Article 27: ' ..as BY AN INSTRUMENT, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.. '

The Anglican Church DOES teach baptismal regeneration of infants. Look at the Prayer Book service. After the baptism, the priest says: ' ..this child IS regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church.. '. He then says: 'We yield Thee hearty thanks...that it has pleased Thee TO REGENERATE THIS INFANT.. '

You are absolutely right when you say that 'without saving faith any baptism is ultimately meaningless'. It is this and not the ritual of Baptism that makes a person a Christian. But this is not what the C of E's doctrine teaches.

Therefore, since it has misunderstood and so misled millions as to what makes a person a Christian and so saved, and continues to do so, it does not qualify as a church in the Biblical sense. A true Church saves. A false one accumulates unsaved members.

[jim]

There are estimated to be up to more than 38,000 different Christian denominations in the world. So, who is right? Whose views on all matters of religion and faith are truly following what Jesus and God would have wanted or wants now? All theism in a sense exists in a Tower of Babel, but it is a muli-towered edifice, with a massive tower comprising multi-faceted Christianity. Even the major denominations can't agree on many matters of belief, dogma and practise, as articles like this or about Lambeth or Catholic conferences highlight.

It would help if all Christians and theists could agree on what is right. Atheists could then at least assess just one rather than tens or hundreds of thousands of scattered sets of belief.

Are "you" all sure "you" are right and all the rest wrong? Does it all come down to one's personal belief and self?

[jim]

There are estimated to be up to more than 38,000 different Christian denominations in the world. So, who is right? Whose views on all matters of religion and faith are truly following what Jesus and God would have wanted or wants now? All theism in a sense exists in a Tower of Babel, but it is a muli-towered edifice, with a massive tower comprising multi-faceted Christianity. Even the major denominations can't agree on many matters of belief, dogma and practise, as articles like this or about Lambeth or Catholic conferences highlight.

It would help if all Christians and theists could agree on what is right. Atheists could then at least assess just one rather than tens or hundreds of thousands of scattered sets of belief.

Are "you" all sure "you" are right and all the rest wrong? Does it all come down to one's personal belief and self?

[George Parr]

Mr Beekman:

The stigmatisation of homosexuals did not happen by itself and it is nothing to do with gods. It has arisen through consistent and long-term denigration by the rigid thinking and the harmful pronouncements of religious groups, which over time have permeated society culturally. Homosexuals have been marginalised and thoroughly treated as 'other'. This has been justified by selective interpretation of biblical texts, by ultra-pious adherents of the faith who wish to assert themselves within it. Mercifully on a human rights level this has been challenged and somewhat diluted in recent years.

The facts are these. Since the dawn of time the world has been populated by heterosexual, homosexual and asexual human beings. So far, this can be seen to describe genetic normality. But because of societal attitudes encouraged by Christians or other faith groups, homosexuals have measured themselves against perceived notions of a prescribed and corrupted version of 'normality' and wrestled with what they believed to be their consciences, with some suffering unimaginably, even driven to suicide.

In order for this state of affairs not to pertain, it must be accepted that varying degrees and types of sexuality are normal. This allows all people of whatever genetic makeup to be treated equally and to exist within society. This applies especially to young people, allowing them to grow up without suffering the rigid authoritarianism of their deluded forebears.

For too long women, and homosexuals have been utterly persecuted by self-righteous Christians, existing within the confines of their own narrow beliefs and denying the long history of human behaviour.

If you want to exist in a cuckoo world of imaginary devils, demons, gods, possessed souls and utter rigidity, that's fine by me. Equally, if your life is informed or dictated by the strict adherence to dubious texts and hierarchies of human worth, that's your choice.

You are unable to argue meaningfully with me however, because your central premise, consisting of 'rationality' overseen by absent judgmental gods has no equivalence. I'm sorry if this sounds offensive but, for me, your understanding of 'reality' is limited and moronic. If you are actually teaching others this stuff, then for me you are doing far more harm than good and should be prevented from doing so. Few people relate to the concept of Satan which, for itself is a constructed, negative notion that leads absolutely nowhere in real terms.

Before you tell me yet again that you love all homosexuals, wrapping up your unacceptable ideas in a fomentation of shallow human warmth, just know that you are fooling no-one and that foreseeably your prejudiced ideals will be robustly opposed.

[Rick Beekman]

George;

As I have stated before. Every Man and Woman God made Has Only two desires regarding sexual matters.
(1) Man wants to have sexual relationships with the opposite sex

(2) They have no real desire for sex and don't participate in it..remain single. The Bible calls these people "Eunichs".
God never made anyone a Homosexual George. It is No "Freak of Nature" or "They can't help it they were born that way". Since you reject the Belief in a Supreme being; it's easy to realize you would believe what you perceive as the World Explanation of why People are Homosexuals. It's all part of the "Your O.K. I'm O.K.and that's the way it is crowd".
Whether you want to believe it or not..Homosexuality like all sin and Un-Godliness Is Caused by The Unbeleif and trust in The Glorious Savior..So He let's our Adversary The Devil Rule their Spirit.
Romans 8 v 9;
".....A man without the Spirit of Christ Is none of his"
That's You George Right There...UnBeleif. So God let's the Devil rule over you your mind. I can give you Chapter and verses But I won't Bother unless you want to read them.
You really believe this World will ever get better? Think War will end? That everyone will just magically get along with one anothet?
Believe Greed and lust for Power will just go away and the World will live "Happily live ever after" just like in children's fairy tales?

George is a Dreamer
Rick is a Teacher of the Truth...

[George Parr]

Hello Dave.

If 'Article 27' is deemed by you to be inappropriate, what age would you, the transformer of souls, adjudge to be the 'right' age for induction into the Christian church - 5, 10, 15, adulthood - when alternatives can be considered and minds can be fully made up? If so perhaps your Christian colleagues will speedily scrap the concept of church schools, godly-play, Sunday school and all the other institutions that assume middle-class parental values and define children by beliefs they are unable to evaluate?

Where in the bible does it say that there are those among us who have the ability to consult God in order to receive instructions on how precisely to change the sexuality of others?

How does your 'proven' ability to transform others, through consultation with the divine, relate to the human beings or institutions you apparently deplore for making grandiose statements they cannot possibly substantiate, for example over who will receive eternal life?

How can we all avoid thinking that the abstruse apparatus for eliciting meaning and being awarded eternal life is just another attempt at controlling others through exploiting a human fear of death?

[andrew holden]

David, all you have done is illustrate that you don't understand the Anglican position on infant baptism. It does not teach baptismal regeneration but insists that justification comes only through faith in Christ. Baptism is a sign of this saving faith not the instrument of it. Without saving faith any baptism is ultimately meaningless.

Even if you are right about infant baptism, however, it seems rather arrogant to damn a whole church on the strength of a single clause.....

[George Parr]

So now you know what 'to know him' means Kate... er..in the biblical sense presumably, not the homoerotic...

[David Smith]

Kate:
' ..ONLY "the Transformer", the Chosen One, our 'Dave', can actually "KNOW Him".'

I haven't said this anywhere Kate, have I? You sound to me increasingly like one of those baptised unbelievers that I refer to in my previous post!

All I have done is to quote Jesus Himself. It was He and not the Church of England that founded Christianity. He said: "And this is eternal life: it means TO KNOW You, the one only true and real God, and TO KNOW Him, Jesus Christ, Whom You have sent."

It is precisely the claim made by any human being or institution (like the Roman Catholic and Anglican 'churches') to be able to decide who does or doesn't come to possess eternal life that I so deplore.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
' ..the only teaching the CofE holds to officially is a thoroughly Biblical gospel...it's there in black and white in the 39 Articles.. '

ARTICLE 27
'Baptism is...a sign of Regeneration or New Birth...they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.'

Where in the Bible does it say that to be baptised is automatically to be born again and so to qualify as a member of Christ's church?

ARTICLE 27
'The Baptism of young Children is...most agreeable with the institution of Christ.'

Where did Christ tell us to Baptise young children (let alone babies)?

As Article 27 rightly says, Baptism is a sign of profession of faith, hence it is not appropriate for babies, who are too young to understand and to make the choices that God requires before a person can be reconciled to Him and come into born-again relationship with Him.

The Bible gives no authority for any human organisation to claim that it can put a person through a ritual and thereby automatically cause them to be born again.

Hence William Cunningham rightly writes:
'We believe that the notion of sacramental justification and regeneration...has always been, and still is, one of the most successful delusions which Satan employs for ruining men's souls...sacraments are intended for believers...they can lawfully and beneficially be received only when faith has already been produced.'

Baby Baptism opens wide the door to countless thousands who come to be regarded as part of the 'church', and the result is that these baptised unbelievers bring the Gospel into great disrepute in the eyes of the world. There is plenty of evidence of this on this blog alone.

By 'retaining' this practise (as Article 27 puts it) from its predecessor Roman Catholicism, the Church of England has not only done untold damage, it has also - since Baptising infants down the ages has been its main means of admitting people to membership - forfeited its right to be called a church at all in the Biblical sense of the word.

[Kate]

"Jesus was talking about all those that actually know Him."

Yep! And in the egotistical perceptions of this self-declared 'representative' of the Divinity, self-promoted over endless threads, ONLY "the Transformer", the Chosen One, our 'Dave', can actually "KNOW Him".

More self-aggrandising twaddle.

[Peter Bishop]

Hans Kung wrote that if one were to look for a church in which the historical definition of catholicity as "quod semper, quod ubique, quod ad omnibus creditum est" - that which has always, everywhere, been believed by every body - one would look in vain. Of course Hans Kung was given short shrift for speaking such an obvious truth! If asked whether Cardinal Caspar or Dr Kung most closely reflects the love and understanding demonstrated by Jesus, I would have to answer that it is the one who seeks to explain and understand not the one who threatens. Bullies claiming the theological high ground do not operate in the spirit of the Gospel - whatever their position in the hierarchy of the Church.

[andrew holden]

"The Gospel that the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England preach and practise is a different Gospel to that of the Bible,"

I wouldn't wish to comment on the RC church but the only teaching the CofE holds to officially is a thoroughly Biblical gospel. Not everyone holds to it or preaches it, admittedly, but it's there in black and white in the 39 Articles for all to see - and it's never been rescinded or changed.

[David Smith]

Ronald Windham:
'I think that the thrust toward ecumenism needs to extend beyond those engaged in "official dialogue," to the faithful (of all traditions) to pray as Jesus did: "...that they may be one..." '

Nice idea, but there are some things that are more eternally important than unity.

Jesus was talking about all those that actually know Him.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon wrote:
"You cannot have unity without forsaking truth, and to forsake truth for the sake of unity is to betray Jesus Christ."

The Gospel that the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England preach and practise is a different Gospel to that of the Bible, and as far as Rome in its 'ecumenism' is concerned it is 'semper eadem' - always the same. So to have unity with Rome a true believer would have to accept a false Gospel.

Let those in church hierachies who want to protect their status and power and clout get together if they want. But those who are more concerned with the individual's eternal salvation and reward should, in my view, avoid this kind of alliance at all costs.

[Ronald Windham]

I am no theologian, but I think that the thrust toward ecumenism needs to extend beyond those engaged in "official dialogue," to the faithful (of all traditions) to pray as Jesus did: "...that they may be one..." Roger Schutte, the founder of the Taize community in France, was amazed that Christians - who nevertheless live from a God of love – use so much energy to justify their separations. The bottom line, as Brother Roger alluded to, is this: The disunity that we see among the various Christian groups is contrary to the will of God. At the opening at the 9th Inter-Christian Symposium, Pope Benedict said that Christians everywhere should "intensify prayer, study, and dialogue with the aim of resolving the differences" that separate them. I think that all of us, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, need to lift up our Anglican brothers and sisters in prayer that the Holy Spirit may guide those involved in planning for the upcoming Lambeth Conference, and that unity (maybe in ways that we cannot forsee) become a reality.

[A Renegade Priest]

There seems to be a lot of antipathy from the commentators towards H.E. Cardinal Kasper's gracious overtures, for that is surely what they are. Many of us fear that Rome has already written us off as protestant, and the fact that they still hold out even a faint sort of hope of eventually being able to see us as more like them and the orthodox, than like reformed churches, is nothing short of amazing, given the current climate.

Now Ruth, as I've said before, I am a simple soul, and like all Anglicans, riven with contradictions; I am straight, but I despise the homophobia of some of the Gafconites, I'm unhappy with women priests, but would be fine with it if Rome did it. I am orthodox in faith, but led by pastoral compassion into realms that the Jensenist Gafconocracy would see as heresy. I just do not know about any of this 'stuff' But I know Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

If our Holy Mother Church, the rock from whence we were hewn, is asking us in any way to search within ourselves for the family likeness, then I think Christian humility behoves us to humbly do so. Your Eminence, thankyou so much for the ray of hope you give us. Come on, all you fellow Anglicans, give this guy a hearing, he really deserves it.

[andrew holden]

"I'm pleased that you agree that it is not, repeat not, necessary to believe in a deity who then dictates (from above, so to speak) what is moral and what is not."

Well of course not. God does not arbitrarily decide what is moral and then impose his dictatorial decrees on us all. Do I find it an intolerrable thing to be required by God to be loving and just? Of course not because being loving and just is the right way to live. Not at all - though it's not always easy to live up to that standard. Yet God (to me) helps make those principles clear and gives me encouragement and moral strength to live by them - but he doesn't just make them up.

My point is obvious. If what is right and wrong is so in and of itself then rational argument may be used to help us decide. As a Christian I do believe that God is in himself the standard - he IS Love and he IS Justice. It is his very nature that gives value to the currency. Neverthless believing in God is not necessary for doing ethics - we've all got a (God-given) conscience and a rational mind for that task.

[Peter Richardson]

There is one God, one Christ and only one way for a Christian life. There is a lot of unnecessary,cloudy confusion.
So many cooks, but only one simple recipe to follow. No matter how many divisions there might be, and there are very many, it still comes down to the individual to make their own personal commitment.

[David Smith]

Bruno (Rome) to Rick Beekman:
'Rick Beekman you sir are an ignorant fool. All you speak is trash.'

And then:
'All YOU do is talk hate.'

It seems to me, Bruno, that all the personal and hateful comments are coming from you and not Rick.

I have never seen him say anything personally hateful about any individual Roman Catholic. He just believes Roman Catholicism to be a false belief system that neither saves nor sanctifies. He has had personal experience of this.

You also ask Rick:
'Why do you worry about us Catholics?'

If you believe that you have saving truth, and love others who you think have been misled, you are bound to be concerned, as is Rick. Love cares.

Did you know that many of the most respected of the founding fathers of the Roman Catholic church themselves preached hatred of individuals?

Take early church father Bishop Chrysostom (347-407 AD), whose influence on church teachings is interwoven throughout the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (revised 1992) and which cites him in eighteen sections, for example.

Of the Jews he wrote:
"When it is clear God hates them, it is the duty of Christians to hate them too." (Homiliae Adversus Iudaeos)

Don't you think it might be worth questionning whether Roman Catholicism, with its 'saints' who laid foundations like this, is really God's own belief system and chosen agent on earth?

[Rick Beekman]

Bruno;
Thank you for your prayers and I also will pray for you as well.

This may be hard for you to fathom..I love ALL Catholic People. I Have 43 Members in my Family who are devout Catholics. I Don't Like The Religious System the Faithful Catholics Believe in. Bruno I Used To Be In Your Church Bro. I Know What They believe and teach. I Had some Great Nuns Teach me In Catholic School O.K.?

You need to know the RCC is not just a Church..It's up to it's neck in Political Schemes Worldwide And They In Fact Have Control Over Catholic Politicians In Third World Countries Where The RCC Has Majority Belivers. 'nuff said for now. Tell me about Italy I Love You Folks And The Culture!

[alan]

Andrew - although we have different standpoints, I think we agree on most questions of morality and seeking the truth.
I agree with you that one's conscience and one's common sense can dictate what is right or wrong, good or bad.
I'm pleased that you agree that it is not, repeat not, necessary to believe in a deity who then dictates (from above, so to speak) what is moral and what is not.
Many religious people insist that only they know what is moral (because their god tells them so), whereas atheists like me must exist in some kind of moral vacuum.
As you point out, if I've understood you correctly, you reject this rather arrogant position.

[andrew holden]

"I say truth can only be "followed" if one is free (freed) from religious or ideological blinkers."

Well you would say that wouldn't you! To the contrary, whilst I admit that religious people can be blinkered (just as much as non-religious people can!) I believe that being aware of a religious dimension in life opens one's mind to all sorts of potentialities and possibilities often denied (without evidence) by the non-religious. Reductionism and materialism, to my mind, may furnish spectacles which are just as limiting when it comes to viewing the world.

[George Parr]

Andrew, your post does give examples of the freedom of thought you claim exist within religion and they are the same freedoms that I am talking about.

I wholly agree with your assertion that conscience and tradition inform us that murder is wrong, but that also implies that other forms of moral behaviour are informed in the same way. I would say that this also incorporates a desire for a mutual and civilized balance, arrived at through experience. Within 'tradition' exist the ideals of Christianity, which undoubtedly are in the mix, but they do not describe the absolute reality.

For me, the claims that a religious framework of morals underpins contemporary ethics is only half of the story. However, your 'principled approach to ethical thinking' over, for example, the human rights of homosexuals, which to my mind is relevant, applicable and essential, clashes head on with a large percentage of Christians. But as a demonstration of your own open-mindedness, informed by reality, it is a fine example.

[andrew holden]

Mike, ultimately we are the ones who distinguish truth. There is no definitive textbook or guru - it's down to you and your conscience. That shouldn't mean, of course, (unless one is a completely arrogant person) that previous guides and traditions are worthless. Rather they have to be tested and sifted by the conscience of each individual who is ultimately responsible to God alone.

I happen to believe, unlike you, that this can be done at least just as easily within a religious tradition as outside it - but it is something that all of us, catholic, protestant, Jewish or muslim, believer or atheist, can do and indeed need to do. Seeking for answers is a human instinct. In my experience religion is about that search, but it's also about the affirmation that none of us has all the answers and the acknowledgement that the ones we do have are provisional. It also means, and this may surprise you, that we need the humility to recognise that there may be many different sets of acceptable answers.

I fail to see how that is a blinkered ideology nor do I think there is much mind control involved - although I can see both those things in much bad religion.