Via Media

I'd say that the Scottish Episcopal Church is high because it is "surrounded by Presbyterians". Of course, in the north of Ireland, Anglicans are also surrounded by Presbyterians, but in Ireland as a whole, Roman Catholics are of course far more numerous.

I've only attended three really high services (and, incidentally, enjoyed them). One was in Philadelphia, one in Edinburgh and the third in Chesterfield, England, of Spire fame.

 

I have a deep affection for Anglicanism, yet I see how it is affected with the Augustinianism that is rampant in Lutheranism and Calvinism. Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, and extreme views on predestination are not a part of the Catholic heritage of either the western or the eastern churches. As a young man I had always heard that the Reformation simply reformed the errors in Roman Catholicism, such as Purgatory, Indulgences, etc. I learned much later that they actually recreated the faith in ways that were never the majority view of the fathers. For the early reformers, especially Luther and Calvin, Augustine's flawed theology is the be-all and end-all, and unfortunately such views affected Anglicanism as well. Of course there have been many in Anglican history who have attempted to correct this, but their efforts have not been highly successful.

 

Of course, that assumes Augustine, and the entire Western tradition after him (and, to some extent, before him), is wrong. The reason their efforts have not been all that successful is because the Augustinian tradition stands up to Biblical scrutiny. However, Calvinism gained enough influence in the East to force the Synod of Jerusalem to condemn it. Calvin also drew heavily on the Greek Fathers for his doctrine of Union with Christ, something I think has been lost in modern evangelicalism to great extent and ought to be corrected.

 

Regarding Augustine, there are dozens of fathers, both east and west, who have written on theological issues from the earliest days of the Church. Augustine came up with a theology that has little in common with the vast majority of them. The Protestant position hinges on the premise that the Church, and this includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian, all somehow went off course for 1500 years until Luther and Calvin rediscovered real Christianity. It isn't logical.

 

That's just not true, unless you are talking about more radical forms of Protestantism like the Anabaptists, Baptists, and separatist Congregationalism. There are plenty of even Medieval Catholic theologians and philosophers that prefigure the Reformation and provide its seeds, and I'm not talking about Wycliffe and Hus. If one goes back to the Early Church, there are plenty of Fathers that sound an awful lot like Lutheran and Calvinistic reformers.

 

Augustinianism was the predominant Western theology in the middle ages. Aquinas explicitly avowed his augustinian credentials, and a basic analysis of the schoolmen's theology shows that they all swam within the Augustinian stream of thought.

As Augustine is acknowledged to be one of THE four foundational Fathers of the Christian church (akin to Basil and St. John Chrysostom on the greek end), you have to acknowledge him as your own founding father, even if the modern orthodox choose to slander him.

 

Dear Elizabethan Churchman. If that were the case, then why is Augustinian theology and absent from the teachings of all the ancient churches? Of course in looking at the fathers it is possible in some of their writings to see some Augustinian concepts, but the preponderance of the father's works simply don't agree with him. Luther stated (I don't have the citation handy) that minus Augustine the other fathers are not worth much, and Calvin quotes him overwhelmingly more than any other father. Of course from an Orthodox perspective, the Medieval Catholic Church was already in error; something which Protestants would agree with. Anselm's Satisfaction theory of the Atonement is a case in point. It is actually interesting to see how most Protestant denominations are unaware of how much they are indebted to Medieval Catholic teaching for much of their beliefs.

 

Dear Spherelink,

He is not acknowledged as one of the four foundational fathers in any of the ancient churches except the Roman Catholic Church. There are no churches named after him anywhere in the east that I know of, and his influence on Eastern theology has been nonexistent. Augustine wasn't even entered into the Orthodox list of saints (at least the Greek) until the 19th century if I remember correctly. Yes, there are many modern Orthodox who are strongly anti-Augustinian, and there are those in the Orthodox Church (such as the deceased Fr. Seraphim Rose) who defend him as a pious and godly father, but no one in the Orthodox Church accepts his theological positions. More than anything else, it is Augustinian theology that has shaped the Christian west and serves to separate the east from the west, which was not influenced by his thought.

 

Luther was known for his rhetorical flourish and hot-hotheadedness, at least from our modern perspective (16th Century rhetoric on both sides is full of overstated melodrama). That, and I have to disagree with you that Augustine's theology was unprecedented. Original Sin, very much an "Augustinian" doctrine (I'd say it's more Pauline than Augustinian), was affirmed repeatedly by the Western Church, and it is an eminently Biblical doctrine regardless of what the later Eastern Fathers think about it. Just because someone wrote in the first few centuries, or in any particular tradition or geographical region, does not make their theology infallible. I have plenty of disagreements with Augustine myself, and so do plenty of Western Christians. For instance, I'm a Postmillenialist in my eschatology, which puts me closer to the Easter Father Eusebius than Augustine on that issue (though I do think Eusebius was a bit too exuberant about Constantine).

You keep making unwarranted assertions about Early Church theology. I empathize with the Easterners struggle with the Papacy (obviously, I'm a Protestant), but that doesn't mean the East is some kind of fortress of pure theology. The Eastern Orthodox do not have a monopoly on good theology.

 

I agree that the Orthodox do not have a monopoly on good theology Elizabethan Churchman. What I try to look for is a consensus of the fathers-both east and west-in determining what is the truth. The Vincentian Canon regarding what was believed at all times and in all places by the Church is very important to me as a Christian, and I do not believe the evidence exists to show that much of what Augustine taught meets that standard.

I was brought up to believe in a wrathful God who demanded His son die to allow Him to forgive my sins (because justice demanded it). As a young man I fell away from my Christian upbringing in large part because of such teachings, which were reminiscent of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Until I began to read eastern theology I had no idea these concepts were not universal Christian teachings. The same with Freewill and predestination, or the idea that man is born totally depraved. I have the greatest admiration for those Anglicans who throughout the history of the Church have attempted to reclaim the truly Catholic teachings of the Church, which in my estimation, do meet the Vincentian canon's standards.

 

Article IX clearly teaches the doctrine of Original Sin, so any Anglican that opposes that are not in line with the teaching our Church. The Scriptures clearly teach it is as well (Ps. 51:5, Rom. 5:12, Eccl. 9:3, Eph. 2:1-3, etc.). Many Calvinists (and even non-Calvinists) go too far in this teaching. My old Campus Pastor posted this Onion article on Facebook in a way that made it seem like he thought it was illustrative of total depravity. The kind of total depravity common among Evangelicals that somehow sinfulness causes incompetence in your career, or anything you happen do, is quite frankly ridiculous and patently absurd, making it seem in order to be a good self-conscious Christian one must have imposter syndrome. Clearly, there are very evil people who excel in many of life's pursuits. One Calvinist pastor I've heard calls this sort of thinking "Islamo-Calvinism" because it tends to sound an awful lot like Fundamental Islamic doctrine and it tends to go with borderline Occasionalism.

However, Total Depravity does not teach such nonsense. All it teaches is what Paul and the Scriptures: That all are born contaminated with sin, that it prohibits us from seeing God and His Truth without God's Gracious intervention. That we cannot work our way into fellowship with God. In other words, any form of Christianity that actually gives hope to sinners while still retaining the doctrine that sinners are, in actual fact, sinners.

 

Catholics teach what we teach on original sin. See Anselm. I am not sure what you mean by catholic teachings.

 

I am sorry that this has become a debate, and I take full responsibility for that. The Orthodox position is readily available to those who are interested, and I should have not pushed the theology of my Church on this forum. I will just respond to the last two postings by Elizabethan Churchman and Spherelink.

@ Elizabethan Churchman: We agree that man suffers from sin, which has marred the image of God in him, but we do not subscribe to the belief that man cannot do anything good until God's irresistible grace intervenes. There are numerous examples of righteous gentiles in the scriptures, and we believe that man instinctively knows right from wrong (the Law of God is written on men's hearts, and even the stones cry out there is a God for example). Man, while inclined towards evil, can choose to seek the good without divine intervention, yet such intervention is at some point necessary to save man-a synergy between man and God. God tosses men a lifeline yet men can choose to reject it or let go later on.

@ Spherelink: When I mentioned Catholic teachings I meant it in the broadest sense, not strictly Roman Catholic. The fathers wrote on the meaning of Christ's death for 1000 years before Anselm came up with his theory. The Anslemian Satisfaction Theory led to such things as indulgences and purgatory, or provided support for them. The RCC even has a doctrine of reparations for insulting the Virgin Mary. We believe that if a man truly repents then God will forgive him, and we see this in the scriptures on many occasions. How often did the Lord say, "Go, your sins are forgiven," and even the disciples where allowed to forgive sins, all before the crucifixion.

The Satisfaction Theory produced the Roman teaching that even after God forgives sin a debt/reparation has to be paid, like saying ten Hail Mary's, pilgrimages, indulgences and the like. It is like God saying, "I forgive you, but you still have to be punished." This is not the Orthodox teaching. Ergo, purgatory, where sins that have been forgiven already still need to be punished. The RCC has moved away from this idea in recent years (in the same way they now play down the idea that unbaptized children go to limbo), but it is what they taught for centuries. Now they say purgatory is simply a place of purification, but we all know they taught for centuries it was a place of suffering and people were punished there for sins that penance had not been done for. I have a number of RCC books from the early 20th century and they have really watered-down a lot of what they used to teach.

One of the weaknesses of western theology is that in spite of the fact that hundreds of fathers wrote on theological subjects for centuries, most of western theology is based on the writings of three men; Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. The writings of others, especially the eastern fathers, hardly come into play. In the east, it is much more common to seek a consensus, and there has never been a papacy to "lay down the law" dogmatically.

God forgave men throughout the Old Testament. Christ's death on the cross was not so that God could forgive men, but to reclaim/restore human nature and defeat the hold that sin and death had on the human race. By taking on the flesh and becoming truly man, Christ's death and resurrection redeemed fallen human nature. By being joined to Christ through Baptism and the Eucharist we share in his triumph over death and sin.

 

If 'Anglicans could be considered Protestants' they've been taught badly by their instructor. Or they've not listened too well.
What is Protestant about Anglicanism ?. It is simply Traditional Catholicism. It isn't what an individual admits to , it is what the Church holds to & teaches for the Faith.

It has been in Britain since the early Church and has taught what passed in the early days in 1530/ 1649 as the Holy Faith. The Anglican Church became enmeshed in a local reformation, we saw the papacy off, we insisted on the Real Presence in the Holy Liturgy , took the traditional view regarding our behaviour towards the Lady Mary. We kept to the Councils of the Early Church and insisted on Holy Orders.
As I understand the ,'via media,' as taught by many Anglican Clergy it is a middle position between the excesses of Trent and the Lutherans and Reformed. We have to be definite
We're not in the Centre Ground, we're holding the original Revelation. We've kept the Faith. Individuals might fall, but Christ and His Revelations is where we stand. We're on the High Ground or should be!

 

I have various leaflets* about the Church of Ireland, which refers to itself as "both Protestant and Catholic".

"The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on the Scriptures and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry.

"The Church of Ireland is Protestant, or Reformed, because it affirms its 'constant witness against all those innovations in doctrine and worship, whereby the Primitive Faith hath been from time to time defaced or overlaid.' "

* A pack is available from Church of Ireland House, Dublin 6.

 

When you think that the Irish Church has such a marvellous history with such luminaries as The Archbishop of Armagh * ( in the reign of Charles II, the then & Bishop of Derry, Jeremey Taylor, who would express less?

However twenty years ago during the troubles regarding W.O., I attended and spoke at a meeting in London regarding Ecclesiastical Oversight. and Alternative Oversight.There were several Irish priests attended & spoke.They wouldn't wear stoles or vestments at the Mass and wouldn't make the sign of the cross before or after their contribution. They were grim and unencouraging, besides being unwelcoming.

I found them hostile and ,'they looked,'liked someone's idea of a ,'black protestant,'. I gave up on the C. of I. at that meeting and joined the A.C.C.

I don't criticise them usually, they have their problems, but Anglicans have their own troubles and we must be clear and straight; as far as I have been taught Protestants are classically Lutherans and we've never been favourable to them. Reformed were and are Calvinist and Anglicans have been Catholics for two thousand years.

Our Church was called Anglican in about 725 AD, by S.Baeda. In 1215 ,by the Bishops during the Magna Carta and during the Middle Ages by the Church. I don't think we should allow hostages to fortune. Look at the comments from ,'ourside,' of the blog on this subject last year!

* can't remember his name.*

 

I lived in Ireland for four years and was a member of the CofI. Although the Church covers the whole of the island, there is a degree of north-south divide and I can only speak for the south, where I lived. The priests wear stoles and vestments and make the sign of the cross. They work closely with their RC colleagues. This is a deliberate policy on both sides, to show their harder line brethren in the north that "we can and do work together".

Neither in the south or the north would the CofI refer to the eucharist as "mass".

Ireland has had many troubles, but "W.O." comes a long way down the list of them.

What is the ACC?

When you say "you don't criticise them", are you referring to the Church of Ireland? Since it is an Anglican Church, that statement doesn't seem to gel with the second part of your sentence.