Over in the blog English-Speaking Christianity in the com box of the entry “The Point of the English Reformation” The following was offered:
“I am always puzzled that Orthodoxy and Rome always seem to be judged by their defined dogmas and canons, not by their all too often rotten fruit (e.g., Orthodoxy has been a hotbed of “phyletism” — euphemism for racism — for several centuries now, both in the New and Old Worlds, and Rome has recently and finally been inescapably exposed as the largest sex-crime syndicate ever), but that Anglicanism is always judged by the views of one or more disloyal, internal movements and never by its own, equally-clear, constitutive formularies.”
What think ye, few but faithful followers?
- Is Anglicanism always judged by the views of one or more disloyal, internal movements? (and…)
- Never by its own, equally-clear, constitutive formularies?
- Are those formularies equally clear?
- By accident (or perhaps Providence?) the Catholic Church in the US has become the largest single body of faithful in the US. If the largest church has even the smallest percentage of those so much as even accused, (less than 1.8%, lower still if deacons - true clergy also - are included) does that make it the largest sex-crime syndicate ever?
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
December 29, 2007 at 11:34 pm
If my experience of Anglicanism was any indication, I didn’t know more than five people who could even tell you where to look for their formularies. I’m assuming this commenter is referring to the 39 Articles. If s/he is, I never visited or attended an Episcopal Church that ever even discussed them. When I was baptized and confirmed (as an adult) they were never brought up. I would argue that although a definition of what it is to be Anglican exists, it’s rarely, if ever, discussed. What the commenter says about the Catholic Church is patently and demonstrably untrue. Sounds like another Anglican bigot to me. Too scared to do the research.
December 30, 2007 at 2:09 am
Anglicanism is always judged by the views of one or more disloyal, internal movements and never by its own, equally-clear, constitutive formularies.
Clear formularies? Someone please tell me what formularies Anglicans are required to accept, and which are optional? If the Calvinists, Anglo-Papalists, Spongians, and others can co-exist in the same church, I have to wonder about “clear formularies.” Even the continuing Anglicans can’t really decide what true Anglicanism is, as they are all over the map too.
Actually I tend to think the opposite of what this blogger says is true. I think the Catholic Church is often judged by the mistakes of its members, while many tend to view Anglicanism idealistically (and often nostalgically) based on the theology of certain Anglicans (for example, ignoring the Calvinist origins of the Church of England, or the fact the the majority of Anglicans in the world these days are Calvinist evangelicals).
December 30, 2007 at 2:17 am
Simple,
I am having trouble finding the comment in its original context. Has it been deleted or am I just missing something?
December 30, 2007 at 2:21 am
Apparently they don’t like Truth pover there. I posted some research showing that the abuse problem was widespread in protestant churches and suddenly even the original comment was erased.
David b,
Death Bredon made the comment. There were up to 11 comments until a little while ago. Last time I checked there were only six.
December 30, 2007 at 2:23 am
I hope my previous comment wasn’t taken as too uncharitable.
I just don’t believe that there are any clear “Anglican” formularies. I think one can speak of formularies of particular parties within Anglicans, or perhaps even of provinces (e.g. many African Provinces that seem to like the fairly Calvinistic 39 Articles). I suppose you could even look at different Continuing Anglican bodies and see what their formularies might be, based on their particular outlook (whether evangelical like the REC or others that are more Anglo-Catholic). However, speaking of “Anglicanism” having clear formularies…I just don’t think it is true, because of the great diversity that exists among those who are in the Anglican Communion.
December 30, 2007 at 2:51 am
“I am having trouble finding the comment in its original context. Has it been deleted or am I just missing something?”
It was in the combox, checking just now, it seems to have been deleted.
Rob’s comment was deleted, but as I had subscribed to the follow up comments via e-mail, it was in my inbox. Good man yourself, Rob!
It is worthy or repeating here:
——————-
-the vast majority of priests are thought never to have abused any children (99.8%)-
Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (Oxford University Press, 2001). ISBN 0-19-514597-6
-the term “pedophile priests” widely used in the media, implies a distinctly higher rate of child molesters within the Roman Catholic priesthood when in reality the incidence is lower than most other segments of society”-
Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (Oxford University Press, 2001). ISBN 0-19-514597-6
-Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
-In a 1983 doctoral thesis by Richard Blackmon, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner and 38% admitted to other sexualized contact with a parishioner.-
http://www.advocateweb.org/cease/csa.htm
-The three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in America say they typically receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members.-
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm
Leave the heavy-hitting research to me, Lee, and you can stick to the Chick tracts.
December 30, 2007 at 4:19 am
Wow, thanks for the quote. So rarely does one find such a dense nugget of incomprehensibility.
December 30, 2007 at 4:54 am
1&2: Given the room that Anglicans/Episcopalians allow themselves for gratuitous wiggling, there is a reason that this commenter felt that the CoE is defined by her dissenters. Charles, Prince of Wales, future head of the CoE said in 1994, that he saw himself as the ‘Defender of Faith’ rather than ‘the Faith.’ This is a far cry from the theologian, King James I. Then of course there is the resurrection of 1970’s ‘realist’ theology, by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams: that the belief in the Virgin-Birth is neither necessary nor central to the Christian faith. And while the CoE in Africa is very faithful, they are an even further cry from the tiny Anglo-Catholic movement fighting for its life here in the US. Either way, these are not sideline players, but the leaders of that Communion.
3. As to the clarity of the formularies: evidently it doesn’t matter.
4. Frankly, it is rough all over, but Catholic Church has suffered the most for the fewest (yet terribly egregious)cases. It has brought to light the need for Authority. If what I read is true, it has also brought about a renewed faithfulness here in the US and a renaissance of sorts. I pray that we will continue to grow in love and faithfulness to the Great Commission.