In Oxford on October 15, 1555, Anglican Bishops Hugh 
Latimer and Nicholas Ridley were burned as Protestant heretics under the reign of Queen Mary. Shortly before they were murdered, Ridley said to Latimer, “Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.” And although this candle has indeed burned for over 450 years, many believe that this week’s Papal decision to allow for disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with the Roman church, may reduce it to, at best, a smoldering wick.
“Under the plan,” writes Ruth Gledhill of the TimesUK, “the Pope will issue an apostolic constitution, a form of papal decree, that will lead to the creation of “personal ordinariates” for Anglicans who convert to Rome. These will provide a legal framework to allow Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving distinctive elements of their Anglican identity, such as liturgy. Clergy will have to be retrained and re-ordained, since Rome regards Anglican orders as “absolutely null and utterly void”, but they will be granted their own seminaries to train future priests for the new ordinariate.”
How magnanimous:)
Although there have always been Anglican clergy who were sympathetic to Roman Catholic theology, it is only since the mid 19th century with the appearance of the Oxford Movement, that there has been a recognized stream within Anglicanism that has self-consciously considered itself more Roman than Protestant. And even though the patron saint of this movement, John Henry Newman, found it impossible to remain an Anglican and uphold his oath to the 39 Articles after trying to interpret them through the lens of Roman Catholic theology, many Anglicans from his day on have nevertheless opted for an uneasy Anglo-Catholic limbo; ironically, the Pope’s decreee allows for suspension of this limbo. Anglo-Catholics, it would seem, can now have their transubstantiation and eat it too:) 
Now of course, we’ll quickly see objections made and reasons why comfortable Anglo-Catholics won’t “swim the Tiber,” as they say, issues like church governance, dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the nature of Holy Orders, but as important as these issues are, no reformer would have considered them church-dividing issues. None. Sure, what you think about Mary is important, and who among us likes to think that their ordination is invalid, but the historic fact remains that had the fundamental issue of the nature of Justification–the way God and humanity are related–been agreed upon, then these issues could have been resolved without splitting the church. The initial break and the continued reason for the divided church can be seen in the clear and unapologetic disagreement over what Luther called the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae–the article upon which the church stands or falls–the doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone.
For many years, my standard response to the (oft posed) question, “Why aren’t you a Catholic?” was always that I wasn’t comfortable with the “fact” that the Pope had a solid gold bathroom. The sophistication and thoughtfulness of this response belied my genuine ignorance about Catholic doctrine and practice, because all I knew is that, really, they thought that the Pope could fly. Essentially, I viewed Catholicism—not unlike my own faith at the time—more as a social phenomenon than a theological category. I basked in this ignorance until the summer of 2001 when I was given a copy of First Things, and my life was turned upside down. In April 2002, I’ll never forget reading How I Became the Catholic I Was, by the late (great) Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and being genuinely struck by the fact that many of my objections to Catholicism were, at best, misunderstandings and, at worst, completely wrong.
My introduction to First Things coincided with the rise of the movement called “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” and slowly, my objections to Roman Catholicism began to come down. Due, in addition, in no small part to having met during that time one of the most winsome and articulate defenders of Catholicism I had known, I was on my way to either swallowing the whole loaf and going Roman, or at least coming as close as possible by joining the more-socially-acceptable but consigned to limbo Anglo-Catholic fold. Then, one glorious and life-changing day, I heard the doctrine of Justification explained in historic law/gospel form, my heart was strangely warmed and well, now I know why I can never be the Catholic I almost was.
This understanding–that the very heart of the Gospel is protected by a clear articulation of the doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone–was the catalyst for both the Continental and English Reformations, fidelity to it is why the early Anglican Protestants were martyred and it remains, IMNSHO, the only reason to not go to Rome.
Now, the arguments concerning the division between the Roman Catholics and the various Protestant groups over the doctrine of Justification are many, long and well-documented; nevertheless, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed, Baptists, 7th Day Adventists, and 1st through 6th Day Adventists have always been defined in some way against the condemnations of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and its condemnations of the “Protestant heresies.” This council, according to the encyclopedia Brittanica, “clarified virtually every doctrine contested by the Protestants.” With the clarifications came the requisite anathamas—or curses—from the Roman Church, among which are the following:
Canon 12: “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be anathema”
Canon 4: “If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification. . . let him be anathema”
Canon 5: “If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed. . . let him be anathema.” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, tr. H.J Schroeder)
And before anyone is tempted to think that the aforementioned “anyone(s)” referred only to the more hot-headed Calvinists or Lutherans, or that Anglicans were somehow the reasonable (well dressed) via media between Rome and Geneva–the “catholic lite” idea–let us compare these canons to the 39 Articles, which are a collection of theological statements based on the theology of Thomas Cranmer that all Anglican clergy (at least in the Church of England, including yours truly) since 1571 must affirm as part of their ordination vows. (for a good summary of Cranmer’s thoughts on Justification, see this interview with our hero, Canon Dr. Ashley Null)
Article XI: Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
The last paragraph of the aforementioned homily is : 
Hitherto have we heard what we are of our selves: very sinful, wretched, and damnable. Again, wee have heard how that of our selves, and by our selves, wee are not able either to think a good thought, or work a good deed, so that wee can find in our selves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever maketh unto our destruction. Again, we have heard the tender kindness and great mercy of GOD the Father towards us, and how beneficial he is to us for Christ’s sake, without our merits or deserts, even of his own sheer mercy & tender goodness. . .
Article X: Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
Clearly, the anathema’s of the Council of Trent were intended to cover the “protestant heresies” of the Anglican church and it is only by the most dubious logic and almost complete devaluing of language itself that people have been able to reconcile the two (for instance, see Cardinal Newman’s (in)famous “Track 90” on Justification).
As for me, I’m glad that the Pope has made this decree, because now, perhaps, people will have to really examine the reasons that they are either Anglican or Catholic, and, in turn, they will hopefully be brought back face to face with what we here believe to be this “most wholesome doctrine” of Justification by Faith. And while it is my hope, and my life’s work for that matter, that Ridley and Latimer’s candle of the Anglican Church and its proclamation of the Gospel continues to shine, I am nevertheless comforted by God’s promise in Christ that, “a smoldering wick he will not extinguish,” and will remain steadfast and secure–despite the anathemas–resting wholly and completely with “confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake.” Thanks be to God.
COMMENTS
40 responses to “All The Romery People”
Leave a Reply
This is a great post – thanks so much for your thoughtfulness and conviction.
Love this, Jady. It positively sparkles with humor and depth.
thanks guys.
Very well put, brother.
Here we stand, we can do no other. Drumcree.
Very apt, especially as we approach Reformation (All Saints) day:
"Thou wast their rock, their fortress and their might, thous, Lord, their captain, in the well-fought fight,
thou, in their darkness, dreared their one true light"
(For All the Saints).
Tremendous.
Great post. I would tweak one thing however. I think you're right that the Marian beliefs (among other things) are not church-dividing in and of themselves, but they are, I believe, representative of something that is fundamentally church-dividing. Article VI says it this way: Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. The fact of the matter is that the RCC has made that which should be adiaphora into dogmatic truths required to be believed by all the faithful.
The fact of the matter is that the RCC has made that which should be adiaphora into dogmatic truths required to be believed by all the faithful.
greatpoint, Jody, thanks!
good post from an Anglo-Catholic perspective can be found here: http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/thanks-but-no-thanks.html
I still think that only a disagreement over Justification can fully justify (just a pun) a divided church. . .
is the title to your post a Team America reference? If it is…AWESOME. Wonderful post, though, JDK. Great.
Oh my gosh…my mind is blowing…I just realized…Team America AND The Beatles. Jady, you are the best. As an Episcopal priest, I did not have to sign off on the 39 Articles. Just one more way we've decided to walk, not away mind you, but FORWARD.
Nick, it WAS a combination of Team America and the Beatles–you know me so well:)
also, for anyone interested, upon further review, I've taken out the adiaphron section because it was not really what I meant—and I've had some helpful comments that have shown some light. .
The basic premise was that everything flows out of soteriology–in this case, the idea that there is either a mediator (the church and her dogmas) or faith alone, and your conception of this will necessarily affect everything else—
I think that had the RCC affirmed Luther and the rest, then the Marian dogmas and soforth would have changed accordingly, the same way that they did in our own churches. .
anyway, thanks for the help hashing this all out!
What gets me is the assumption by the media that 'conservative' Anglicans will come flocking to Rome. They still see Christianity as primarily about morality, and issues of theology as secondary (a far distant second).
This view is not limited to the church. An Anglican clergyman said to me a couple months ago, 'Well, look at how far the Roman Catholic Church has come since the Reformation….' Clearly, he hasn't read Trent and, like the media, has reduced Christianity and the Church to morality. It's enough to make me cry.
It just goes to show you that all that we (USA) have to offer hails from Austria. (See Jady as a mall extra from 'Commando.')
This is one of the finest pieces to appear on M.B. for along time. It is so true most evangelicals are nothing more than fuctioning Roman Catholics, with Pastor Billy acting as Pope. If Rome had more folk masses, made vestments out of Hawaiian Shirts, called the daily mass "quite time" tons of Evangelicals would eventually swim the Tiber.
The Doctrine of Justification is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls
This is a great, GREAT post that I intend to plagiarize frequently and with deep conviction! 🙂
Am I the only one to notice that even the jpegs surrounding this post are inspired…
Thanks, Jady. Just excellent in every way. Keep preaching!
This is fantastic. Echoing Andrew's comment, I can't tell you how many people have said to me that "Anglicanism is just Catholicism without the Pope, right?" when they find out that I am an Anglican Minister.
This is a really informative and encouraging post! I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks!
I couldn't agree more, Cliff—I wish I could make it for the conference!
It is well, I suppose, to continue rationalizing why "justification by faith alone" is cause enough for remaining separated from the Church of Peter and Paul, but what so few appear to grasp is that it has never been a question of right doctrine, it has always been a question of authority. The Church of Rome has the authority Christ granted it…and HIS Word doesn't ring hollow. To be separated from Rome is to be outside of Christ's will for His body. It's really that simple…notwithstanding centuries of theological high-browing.
Hester (this is JDK)
. . . thanks for the comment. I think that your insight is completely right: the question is about authority; however, the argument (which continues, as we've seen) is about where that authority is located. When the Reformers broke with Rome, they argued that she had lost the authority to proclaim the authentic Gospel. While we may disagree, 450 years of debate would argue that the solution may not be as simple as we would like!
At any rate, thanks for reading and I hope you continue to help us flesh out our positions here!
mfG
JDK
Hester,
I think the current Pope put it best when touching on the issue of the Reformation itself:
“For nearly half a century, the church was split into two or three obediences that ex-communicated one another, so that every catholic lived under ex-communication by one pope or another and in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which one had right on his side. The church no longer offered certainty of salvation. She had become questionable in her whole objective form. The true church, the true pledge of salvation HAD TO BE SOUGHT OUTSIDE the institution.
It is against this back-drop of a profoundly shaken ecclesiastical consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the church ultimately came to experience the church not as the guarantor but as the adversary of salvation”.
'Historical assessment of the reason for the Reformation by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
(now Pope Benedict XVI).
I'd also suggest a reading of the very useful work, 'Vicars of Christ' by Catholic priest Peter De Rosa to examine the issue as to why so many, even within Roman Catholicism today, question the authority of Rome on many theological issues.
JDK– You devil! Just read this and noticed the statue of Artemis aka Diana of Ephesus beside your discussion of the Virgin Mary. Of course that is exactly the source for the RCs view of Mary. The "queen of heaven" designation, and the perpetual virginity idea, all come straight to us from Artemis worship centered at Ephesus, where the "queen of heaven" designation was originally adopted for Mary. And the poor Prods are always accused of being overwhelmed by surrounding cultural influences, while the RCs are held up as some firewall against cultural accomodation! If you want to completely buy into this World, circa 3rd century version, swim the Tiber.
Michael—bingo:)
Great post! As a lifelong Lutheran who is extremely disheartened at the direction the ELCA is taking, I enjoyed re-reading Fr. John Neuhaus' article from First Things on his conversion from Lutheranism to Catholicism in 1990. He is greatly missed.
I would also recommend an article in the current issue of First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life
which is a discussion of how Evangelicals and Catholics view the Blessed Virgin Mary.
A dear friend of mine who has left the Lutheran Church and become Catholic highly recommends a book by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. entitled "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." It has very good reviews and is next on my reading list. My friend is convinced that the only hope for the continuation of Christianity in the world lies with the Roman Church.
And finally, I would recommend the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," often overlooked by non-Catholics. I find it to be one of my "go to" books, a handbook on Christianity. Part Three, Section One, Chapter Three, Article 2 discusses grace and justification. Useful as it relates to your blog.
Again, thank you for a great article.
@Howard,
There's more context to that quote than perhaps you realize.
For anyone interested, there is a Roman Catholic response (by a guy who converted from the Reformed church, so he knows his stuff:) here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/a-reply-from-a-romery-person/
My post wasn't really intended to be a full academic treatment of the issue, as I'm sure you could tell, but his response was a fair and clear look at what we talk about here all the time: love (or agape ) doesn't justify; faith does.
At any rate, if you're interested in slogging through some of the intricacies, I would recommend the 90+ pages "Opinion of the Condemnation of the Reformation Era" by the faculty of Göttingen (which included some now famous luminaries–Wendebourg, Bäur, etc) that was published in the 1991 Lutheran Quarterly—you can find it online, I think.
-Jady
I was aware of the 'context' debate,
but also attended an actual debate in America in the early 90's where this was thrashed out in a brilliant conference between Catholic and Protestant theologians entitled "What Still Divides US?". The paper on Justification by Michael Horton used the quote as given and explained why it stood in the light of history and christian doctrine.
Jehovah's Witnesses are very vehement that the Trinity is not taught clearly and explicitly in the Bible. I would agree. However, I believe in the Trinity anyways. The Bible doesn't explicitly teach the Trinity, but neither does it contradict the Trinity. Therefore, I am not convinced that Marian doctrines can not be true simply because they aren't explicit in the Bible. I'm not sure what's wrong about the idea that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth. It doesn't seem to take away from Jesus, in fact it seems to exalt Him as someone very special (which He is). John Calvin even wrote that anyone who believed that Jesus had brothers and sisters were "pig-headed." I also don't understand what's wrong with the idea that Mary was born without original sin, I can't imagine how that takes away from Jesus, it seems to do just the opposite. As I think about it, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the second Adam. As the first Adam was formed from a ground that was pure and uncursed (before the fall and sin came into the world), then why couldn't the second Adam also be born from material that was pure and "uncursed?"
From this Protestant turned Catholic, here are two cents: When you (Michael Cooper, JDK, etc. smear the early Church for its syncretism (Artemis, etc.), you impugn the very source from which we derive our most sacred doctrines concerning Christ HImself. So many of the early Reformers affirmed Her Perpetual Virginity, etc.
I'm sorry that the idea(s) in my previous post are so poorly presented. I hope you can at least see what I'm getting at… I had a crying baby in my arms and I'm afraid I hit "send" prematurely. My problem is this, though. For the individual looking in from outside of Christianity, as if the problem created by the fact that Christians can't agree upon the very meaning of the Gospel doesn't pose enough of a problem, even more of a philosophical problem is created as certain Christians attack the common roots of Catholicism and Protestantism in suggesting that Mary's identity in the mind of the Church is a result of pagan influence over the early Church…
-herbert
Dear Herbert,
I'm not so sure this was a "smear." That the early church wrestled with its understanding of Mary, in part, from a syncretism with pagan "Mother Goddess" worship, namely Artemis of the Ephesians, is pretty much uncontested.
It is true that the first council of Ephesus referred to Mary as theotokos as opposed to christotokos as a part of clarifying its Christology, it nevertheless retained many of the marks of pre-Christian pagan worship in its piety towards Mary–a piety which when wrapped up with the idea of the Church as necessary mediator between God and man went virtually uncontested until Luther laid an axe to the root of that idea. . etc.
I would commend to you the recent First Things article on the Evangelical and Catholic understandings of Mary–here:http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life —as I thought that it showed very clearly how "consensus" (if it can be called that) on adiaphron like Mary's perpetual virginity, will always be a penultimate concern for those interested in what is the message of the Gospel—so if someone on the outside of Chrstianity is surprised that there would be disagreement on Marian doctrines, I would simply say that these disagreements are symptoms of a deeper and more fundamental conflict.
Thank you for your comments and the time to register a concern—
Sincerely,
Jady
JDK, Thank you kindly for the reply. I will certainly read the 1st things piece. The heart of what I'm getting at is principle, as I see it. When early christians wrestled with pagan syncretism concerning their understanding of Mary, it stands to reason that similar issues would have arisen as they faced mithraism, for example. Take the Egyptian figure of Osiris, also. If we have a church that seriously screwed up when it came to its understanding of Mary, what's to say it didn't fail miserably when it came to its Christology? And I guess I don't see how directly associating a pagan goddess with the Mother of Christ through imagery is anything but a smear of the faith practice of millions. Don't get me wrong, I don't personally resent you for it. Maybe smear is the wrong word. Maybe I should have said denigration. I once had a Unitarian friend who constantly referred to "the Christian Myth." With no regard for an authoritative Church, she took the reasoning which you've applied to Our Lady's identity within Catholicism and simply applied it to Christ. Stands to reason, doesn't it? peace be with you.
Dear Herbert,
Sigh, I see where you are coming from, but the picture of Artemis was never meant to be a "denigration of the faith practice of millions", rather, it was meant to be a thinly-veiled visual allusion to the standing post-Reformation charge that Roman Marian dogmas are, mostly, a remainder from pagan Mother Goddess worship. . . It is to the detriment of the "faith practice of millions" that Mary has been allowed to assume such a place of prominence within the RC theological system, but that argument is for some others to pick up.
For me, the church that has misguided views on Mary will have equally misguided views on Christ—that was the point of my post, in fact. If we disagree on why Jesus came and how the Gospel is mediated, then of course we'll disagree on Mary—not vice versa, however. It is root and branch.
Ok, thanks for "listening" and reading—I'll be more careful in the future to make sure that potentially contentious allusions are more clearly articulated as to what they are not–in this case, it is not that Mary has assumed the position of Artemis, but that in the context of the original post (when I was discussing the continued disagreement over Marian dogmas) the picture of Artemis was intended to refer to what those disagreements centered around, not to Mary herself.
JDK, I re read your response to me and wished to make a final acknowledgement concerning what you said here:
"I'm not so sure this was a "smear." That the early church wrestled with its understanding of Mary, in part, from a syncretism with pagan "Mother Goddess" worship, namely Artemis of the Ephesians, is pretty much uncontested."
I didn't mean to suggest that such challenges weren't present within the early Church. That is certainly an uncontested notion. But it SEEMS to me that you are suggesting that such wrestling led to certain pagan influences winning out at the end of the day- which has resulted in the promulgation of false doctrines within Catholicism. That insinuation, I would regard as a form of denigration, unless, that is, you consider pagan deities to be worthy of honor! 😉
thanks again! herbert
I just saw your 2nd response. I didn't expect such a quick response. Thanks again for the interaction! You've been VERY considerate to me. I'll be reading that 1st things piece ASAP!
herbert vanderlugt
no problem Herbert! Thanks for your comments. . .
Concerning Calvin's supposed belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, this is a quote from his commentary on Luke, dealing with what the RCC claims to be Mary's vow of "perpetual virginity":
"The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."
Regardless of Calvin's particular views concerning Mary, to substantiate my assertion that "so many of the Reformers affirmed" Mary's Perpetual Virginity, I would ask you to double check the 2nd Helvetic Confession. thanks.