> Thank you, Bishop. I have yet to hear any of the APA or REC "unchurch" > any > other jurisdiction or claim that we are the only "true" continuing church, > so please don't think my hasty remarks were directed to anyone in > particular. But most of us have either read or heard those remarks coming > from other quarters. I should have been clear about that. > Frater: Happy Christmas and Hogmanay 2007. Yes some of the earlier 'Continuing' bodies have virtually declared themselves the 'only true Church'. Morse's little conventicle and some of the splinter ACC (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) in years past certainly did. Defacto if not dejure. Maybe those days are possibly past but unless and untill the Continuum comes together (I'm not holding my breath) this sort of thing will be endemic. C'est la vie! Blessings. GDVW+ > > > But your comments raise some questions that seem to be nagging at me, and > perhaps you and/or my brothers on this list can help. Unless I've > misunderstood (which is probable), your comment that it is the > preservation > of the apostolic faith and teaching that is important as opposed to the > unity of the visible institution of the Church, is exactly what I learned > in > seminary. It's the old Reformers' idea that the Church is the "invisible > body of believers" and not any established (visible) institution on earth. > Therefore, the structure of the visible institution is more or less > adiaphera. Thus, things like apostolic succession, institutional > affiliation, geographical/national ecclesial bodies, etc., are simply > secondary at best and one's particular ecclesiastical polity is a matter > of > how one reads the Bible (i.e., a matter of choice). > > > > Now, obviously it is fundamentally true that all those who have been > redeemed by Christ are Christians and sons of God, i.e., a part of the > living Body of Christ (from the salvific standpoint) regardless of where > they are found; but to argue (as our professors did) that the "visible > Church really is something rather adiaphera in the grand scheme of things > seems to fly in the face of everything the Church Fathers said. The > Fathers > understood that to be a part the Church meant to be a part of it in total > - > both invisible and visible. Certainly the two should not be confused > since > the wheat always grows along with the tare, but neither can a definite > division be made between them. Thus, for most of the Fathers, to walk > apart > from the officially recognized institutional Church was to walk apart from > the entire Church itself. There are several examples of this in their > writings, but perhaps the best are the arguments that St Augustine had > with > the Donatists. Both claimed orthodoxy and both claimed apostolic > succession > and Orders, but the Donatists chose to "walk apart" from Rome (the > officially recognized Church). And in doing so, their legitimacy was > impaired - they were simply not considered to be a part of the Church - > and > Augustine's dictum is telling here: "There is no salvation outside the > Church." Read in its context, this dictum is pretty plain: Augustine was > talking about the visible communion of the Roman Catholic Church. > > > > However, according to the Reformed ecclesiology in which I was educated, > the > response would have been "So what?" As a matter of fact, by running the > Reformed ecclesiology back through time, the Donatists would have been > nothing other than another "Protestant" sect from the standpoint of the > visible Church (little different from the Presbyterians, Methodists, > Baptists, etc. today): not in union with any visible Church not as pure > (in > their eyes) as them, but a part of the invisible Church nonetheless. But, > as I said, the Fathers would have disagreed and taken issue with my > professors here. For the Fathers, the Catholic Church was both visible > and > invisible - inseparable; and this idea is still with us today as a mark of > catholicity: it is still the official position of the Roman Church, the > Eastern Orthodox Churches, and those Anglican bodies in direct communion > with Canterbury. As an aside, it is also the reason that ecumenical > relations between the Latin West and Orthodox East have always taken > precedence in Roman thinking: is the oldest and most important split to be > resolved. As another aside, this is also why most of us cannot get > letters > of transfer from an ECUSA parish to our own. I have it memorized: "Canon > Law forbids the transfer of one of our members to another denomination" > (emphasis mine). > > > > And yet, now it seems as if we are content to simply be another > denomination. If what I read in the Fathers that brought me into the > Anglican tradition - impaired as it is - is really not that important, > then > what would be the difference if I went back to the Presbyterian Church? > Or > the Methodist Church in which I was raised? Validity of orders? Validity > of sacraments? All those things that we lay claim to to argue the > legitimacy of our catholicity? Hardly; because if we're saying that > "official" full communion really doesn't matter - if we're saying that the > really important thing is the invisible Church and not so much the visible > Church - then does it really make much sense to continue to slug it out > here > instead of in settling in a place where things are far better established > (whether that place be in one of the plethora of Protestant sects or the > doorstep of Rome herself)? > > > > Now, Bishop, please don't think I'm taking a shot at you because I am not. > But I read myself into Anglicanism by way of her argument to be a > manifestation of the Church Catholic - both invisible and visible - as > defined by the Fathers of the Church. But now, if we're changing our tune > because we're on the outside looking for legitimacy, or if I was wrong > about > what I read or came to the wrong conclusions (meaning that if it's true > that > the only true Church is the invisible one while the unity of the visible > one > really isn't all that necessary), well the Methodists down the street have > a > heck of a coffee hour. > > > > MLW+ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pax20@... [mailto:Pax20@...] > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:55 AM > To: faithandlife@... > Subject: Re: [FaithandLife] The Church In Exile > > > > Fr. Mike, > > > > I have been following your comments and ,forgive me, but to me at this > late > date, the outward or visible Church we speak of is about as necessary as > sancuary slippers at Mass. > > > > I pray that "purple" has not inflated my ego, for in these last years I > have had much assistance in exercising my humility. In my mind I am much > more concerned with the faith once handed down and passed on to our > people, > than I am about what selection of alphabet church I will be affiliated > with. The faith was well established (though abused) with the early > fathers > long before the Reformation. Yes, I use those outdated books like the > "Suma" or a full shelf of "Hall's" . My message is very simple, to tell > our > people how very much God loves them, and that even before the formation of > national churches this was a fact. "For God so loved the world" I am > certain when the apostles went out into the world to tell of the wonderful > things that had taken place and to share the good news for all people, > they > were not trying to build a magnnificent church buildings etc. No, if you > understand the greatest gift, you really have to share it, for it is to > big > to hold inside. > > > > May you and yours have a most blessed Christmas, > > > > +Clark > > > > = > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@associate.= > com > > > > = > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > faithandlife-unsubscribe@... > > ----------------------------------------- Celebrate the Christmas/Advent Season with Catholic Online! http://www.catholic.org/clife/advent/