User:Boston/Ecclesiology

"I was born a snake handler and I'll die a snake handler." -- Moe Szyslak

Maundy Thursday

There is nothing "protestant" about the term "Maundy"; it was the English word well before the Reformation, and there is nothing "Protestant" about the use of the Angelus in Anglican churches. Shocking as it may be, many Anglicans are not Protestants. And nobody is "forcing" any usage on anyone. I found your edit history comments very unhelpful, and I would appreciate discussion rather than an edit war. Tb (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you didn't find my comments helpful. You seem to be regarding other editors' actions harshly despite my best efforts to emphasize we should regards one other's attempts dialogue with a friendly spirit. Well, if you feel this way, I can't control that. Also, I note a tendency for all of us to see ourselves as making improvements while seeing changes by other editors with whom we disagree as being edit war-like. You didn't hesitate to revert User:Lima's edits or mine, and we're discussing these matters just like you are. --Boston (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• PS - If you check out my comments at the discussion, you'll see I'm tuned into the origins of the term "Maundy" as related to the Mandatum and that it was regular RCC usage until recently. ---Boston (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

• I'm not accusing you of an edit war, I'm saying that I would like to avoid an edit war. What I found very unhelpful about your comments was the idea that numerical predominance is relevant; the idea that anyone is being "forced" to say anything; and the idea (especially!) that Anglicans who pray the Angelus are "protestant". Them's fightin' words! :) Tb (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize for poor word choice but am glad that you are looking at my wider commentary on these issues as indication that my intent is not to antagonize. BTW, I do know there's a few folks we might properly call both "Anglican" and "Catholic"; in fact I sought out some Anglican Use Catholics with whom to celebrate Candlemass (there's not many of them worldwide and I felt lucky to find a small congregation in Boston). I also know about the Anglo-Catholicism phenomenon and the matter than some Anglicans and Episcopals consider themselves to be (with Roman Catholics and Eastern Christians) a branch of the universal Catholic church. It's all very interesting stuff. Back to another matter, except for the Anglican Use Catholics I just mentioned, isn't an Anglican a Protestant whether (s)he prays the Angelus or not? I understand it is a little awkward at this point in history to refer to Christians who are neither in communion with the Holy See nor with an Eastern Christian patriarch as "Protestants", but I've seen no indication another term has supplanted it. "Protestantism" is still the title of the relevant Wikipedia article. --Boston (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sometimes the world is just more complicated than simple categorizations make clear. There are all the Old Catholic Churches, for example, which are obviously not Protestant. If by "Protestant" you mean "non-Roman Catholic", then you start adding qualifications (and not Eastern [or Oriental] Orthodox, or Assyrian Church of the East, or Old Catholic, or ...). If you mean those who protested the Diet of Worms (where the name comes from) Anglicans are not such; if you mean those who hold to a certain set of doctrines (probably the best defn.) then some Anglicans are Protestant and some are not. (And your good faith is evident throughout the discussion! So of course I have no worry that you were intending to antagonize.) Anglo-Catholicism is a bigger phenom than you might expect, esp in the US, btw. Tb (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecclesiology

Response to above: I'm particularly interested in the subject you're discussing, so I might have a fuller understanding of the complications of nomenclature than you would expect. Today I was in the mood to write (or rather shamefully not write my paper due at Harvard next week!), so I responded at length to your comments. Further, I've indulged in considerable "WP:POV/WP:OR" in detailing a tripartite Catholic world view which is rigid and perhaps (?) surprising in its application. I've broken my comments down into sections in order to facilitate discussion on ant particular points you find objectionable, but you might find it helpful to first read all of the following as a single text to better grasp what I'm trying to say. NB -- I am not assuming that you'll want to engage in conversation in any of these points! However, feel free to drop commentary here anytime over the upcoming months when the spirit moves you. It's a "safe place" to burn off intellectual steam without having any concrete outcome, such as a decision about how an article should be edited. --Boston (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! You can see I've taken you up on the offer. :) Tb (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anglican Use

Anglo-Catholicism is a indeed a big phenomenon in the United States and Canada. However, I did not make a mistake in indicating the rarity of the Anglican Use group I mentioned. They really are the rarer kind as I indicated; the head of the congregation left the The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America to be in union with the Holy See under the Pastoral Provision issued by Pope John Paul II in 1980. He has a wife, but celebrates mass in a Roman Catholic church and is now an "Anglican Use Roman Catholic". If you look at the Wikipedia article on "Anglican Use" you'll see a small list of congregations at the bottom. This small list is either nearly or actually comprehensive. --Boston (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. The Anglican Use is tiny. I was saying only that Anglo-Catholicism is a big deal in North America. (Indeed, the 1979 BCP is the nearly total triumph of the Anglo-Catholic party in the liturgy of the Episcopal Church, even if the theology lags behind.) Tb (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Anglican Communion

In a related area of discussion about Anglo-Catholicism, I've been following news sources that indicate that the Traditional Anglican Communion might come into union with the Holy See sooner rather than later. According to the analysis I've read it's unlikely the TAC will become an Particular Church sui iuris, thus preserving the current model that of all of the 23 Particular Churches in accord with the Holy See, only one is Western and the other 22 are Eastern. The same sources of analysis indicate that if they do make union with the Holy See, the TAC might instead have the status of a Personal prelature (becoming the second Personal prelature after Opus Dei, or perhaps the third if the Society of St. Pius X re-joins the RCC first). --Boston (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard stories like this too. I wouldn't expect much to come of it. Those folks are dissident Anglicans who have little taste for authority. As a general rule, Roman Catholic bishops do not regard favorably those who have been constantly engaged in dissident and disobedient struggles among Anglicans, especially those who have been outright schismatic Anglicans. So there is a constant pattern where dissident and schismatic Anglicans think they'll get some friendly reception, and find that they generally don't. Still, anything could happen! Tb (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, if there's anything the USCCB does not need it's a big influx of dissident-minded intellectuals. "Be careful what you pray for...you just might get it!" is a maxim Catholics have rarely remembered! --Boston (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Old Catholic Church

As for the Old Catholic Church which you say “are obviously not Protestant”, indeed I know they certainly don't consider themselves Protestant and I intuit that an Anglo-Catholic probably wouldn't consider them Protestant either. May I politely guess that you consider them an autocephelas Western Church analogous to the model we have of various autocephelas Eastern Churches? I think that is a very logical and smart way to look at them, but I can tell you that Roman Catholics who understand the history and circumstances of the Old Catholic Church absolutely do label them “Protestant” , “essential Protestant”, or similar. They might almost never be referred to such in writing as that might sabotage RCC hopes that some or all might come into union with the Holy See again. This may not be a verifiable fact by Wikipedia standards, but it is indeed what discussed around dinner in RCC rectories and seminaries. --Boston (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

They are something like an autocephalous church, certainly. But as for labelling them Protestant, I would submit that that has nothing to do with either their ecclesiology, or their theology, but with their stance has having broken from Rome, and having adopted this or that theological idea which is labelled "Protestant" (for example, the ordination of women), though in fact, which has nothing to do with the historical position of Protestantism. I'm a professional philosopher, who studies history of philosophy, and I get touchy about taking historical terms for specific groups and people, and then applying them to entirely different groups who don't even accept them themselves. I suspect that people calling Old Catholics "Protestant" are pretty much just using the word as a word for "theological idea I think is bad". Tb (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm relieved you understand me so clearly. Indeed it is my point RCC has a sort of "spiritual definition" of Protestantism which does not match the historical position of Protestantism in many instances. Thinking of the Old Catholic Church as Protestant certainly does reject their history, theology, etc. It is indeed taking a term with a specific historical context, "Protestant", and using it for a new purpose which is integral to the RCC agenda. I wouldn't quite say it's a grab bag term for "theological idea I think is bad" as there is a ton of theology within the RCC which is repugnant to other thinkers within the RCC. Rather I think it's a grab bag term for "anyone who doesn't recant their views if and when push comes to shove." Sometimes I don't think people realize how often the RCC makes great efforts to see that push doesn't come to shove in order to avoid the creation of more groups along the lines of Society of St. Pius X. --Boston (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sometimes I don't think people realize how often the RCC makes great efforts to see that push doesn't come to shove. More or less, yes, though doesn't it sometimes depend on whose ox is getting gored? The RCC is much happier not to push against the right wing than the left, at least, during my adulthood that has been the case. So the right gets pushed, but not shoved, while the left seems to get a pretty full-on heave-ho. At the same time, I think there is also an interesting historical observation to make. At the Reformation, the Catholic party insisted on some things now clearly seen to be not-worth-insisting-upon: for example, the withholding of the cup from the laity, the refusal of the vernacular, various abuses concerned with the sale of indulgences, or the ordination of clergy with essentially no education. All of these are points where the Catholic Church has come 'round to see that its insistence was not necessary. Moreover, some of them (abuse of indulgences, education of clergy) were cured very quickly by the counter-reformation. Much stamping and insisting--on both sides--in the 16th century was based not upon whether X was right to do, but whether so-and-so had the right to prohibit or order X. On all sides, a huge failure of humility and servant leadership! So the willingness to make such great efforts sometimes comes and goes (for all groups, not just one!), sometimes where we learn from our errors, and, often as not, where we don't. (If the Vatican has learned it would be good to play nice with LeFebvre, and to figure out an unspoken way of working with the civil government in China, why has it not figured out a way to play nice with the governments of Europe on human rights questions.) Tb (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• You're correct it seems like the RCC is happier to push against the left than the right. There is doubtlessly a feeling that re-integrating folks like the Marcel Lefebvre-ists helps swing the whole church to the right and helps re-make the RC according to the the current pope's vision. But I think you might be shocked at some of the lefty stuff the RCC turns a blind eye to on a local level. (Shocked by the blind eye, not shocked by the stuff itself!) Usually this happens under the auspices of a permissive bishop, but other times it seems to be necessitated by the character of the community itself. Here in Boston, for example, Cardinal O'Malley is extremely conservative but hasn't chosen to publicly challenge religious orders that are not only ministering to the LGBT community, but are indeed quietly condoning same sex marriage. Sometimes I joke with friends (naming two RC churches in Boston just 1.85 miles apart) saying: "Let's pray for the union of the Western and Eastern Churches...certainly that will happen before the priests at the Paulist Center and the priests at the St. Clement's Shrine make peace!" --Boston (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• In Los Angeles, it's St. Monica's in Santa Monica which gets lots of lee-way; it's helped in that case that it's wildly rich. So yeah, at the local level I've seen what you report too. No shock that I always found the Paulists and the Jesuit Urban Center happier when I lived in Boston. Tb (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tripartite Model

Remember that the Roman Catholic paradigm only has room for three categories of Christians. Those outside the 23 particular churches are never considered Catholic. If Catholics can't consider someone Catholic, only three categories remain: Protestant, Eastern Christian, and non-Christian. (For the purposes of this model only, "Eastern Christian" refers to Easter Orthodox and Oriental Orthodoxy who are not members of the a Particular Church sui iuris in union with the Holy See. Outside this model, Catholics of course consider the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Italo-Greek Catholic Church and the other 22 Eastern Catholic Churches to be both "Catholic" and "Eastern Christian".) --Boston (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So much the worse for the tripartite model. Roman Catholic theologians in the last couple centuries love to give categorizations, and then declare that reality must match their categories. I don't buy it. Along those three categories, you are then stuck with the problem that "Protestant" becomes a giant grab bag, such that there is no common doctrine among the group, no common practices, no common historical properties. Indeed, by that definition, Sede-vacantists are mostly Protestant. Surely there is something wrong with that categorization. The world is simply more complex. Tb (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well said, and indeed you predicted my comments about Sedevacantism in the next section. I also have used a "grab-bag" metaphor in my comments just above. I hope you understand that I am not arguing for acceptance of this "Tripartite Model" as three useful scholarly categories. I'm rather identifying as encompassing existing "spiritual categories" that are rooted in the Magisterium. --Boston (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"De-facto Protetsants"

Thus is comes about that Catholics consider the Old Catholic Church, Traditionalist Catholics not in union with the Holy See, all Canonically irregular traditionalist groups, and even all the myriad groups of Sedevacantists to be “Protestant” when forced to define them according to the Roman Catholic model. Catholics can recognize that certain groups have clear Apostolic Succession, but it doesn't make a difference in assigning groups to this rigid model. I know this is a bold statement I am making! I'll state it again so it's clear I'm not saying this accidentally: Catholics consider the Old Catholic Church, members of, the Society of St. Pius X, and a number of other groups self-identified as Catholics to be Protestant. --Boston (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And, in that case, they are using the word "Protestant" in a way that means nothing and has nothing to do with "Protestant theology" and has nothing to do with historical Protestantism. Surely that's not a helpful usage! I suspect that it's really just unthinking. Most RC's don't even know that sedevacantists exist, or that the old catholics exist, and so forth. They see the local Presbyterian and Lutheran church, and that's Protestant, and there's RC, and that's that, and then they hear now and then about Greeks. It's not only an RC problem; Karl Barth did the same thing, with a giant "us/them" dichotomy ("us" being like him, and "them" being RCC); and then declared that Lutherans and Anglicans were "us". Lutherans were hesitant, and Anglicans blew a gasket. He proceeded to declare what "we" had in common with "them", and many Anglicans simply said, um, no, we simply do not fit your categorization. For Barth it was crucial the there was a giant gulf separating all-things-Reformed from all-things-Catholic, and so he had to say that Lutherans and Anglicans were "really" Reformed. Feh! (Which is not to derogate from Barth's greatness, recognized by all the major confessions even when they disagree with him!) I would suggest that categorizations of this sort do far more to obscure than they do to illuminate. If we mean "not in communion with Rome" it is more useful to say that, then to shoehorn the word "Protestant" into shape in such a way that it loses all contact with either those who protested at Worms, or the theology which those protesters held. Tb (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Us/them is an excellent expression of the essentials of this thinking. The exceptional matter of having nothing to do with historical Protestantism is the reason why I bothered to point out this "unthinking" -- saying that RC's consider Lutherans to be Protestants would be saying nothing new. Indeed, your assessment that contemporary RC's (that know about Old Catholics, Sedevacantists, etc.) are using "Protestant" as a grab bag for anyone not in communion with Rome but yet not Oriental/Orthodox is a bullseye. --Boston (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Syriac Christians

As for the Assyrian Church of the East you mention, here the point of discussion is whether one wants to consider them an Eastern Orthodox Church (I think that is incorrect) or church of Oriental Orthodoxy (which I would say is correct). Either way, they are simply non-Catholic Eastern Christians and their closely-related Chaldean Catholic Church up the road are "Catholic Eastern Christians." --Boston (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

They are neither Eastern Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox, but a distinct third, having left the mainstream after Ephesus. They are certainly Eastern (despite now being headquartered in Chicago, of all places!). Tb (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cool. I did know their early and unique history, but I thought scholars tended to group them with Oriental Orthodoxy none the less. It makes sense not to, so my mistake. I think I might even have been clear on this point at one time, I just haven't thought about them in a while, and therefore I lumped when I should have split! Thanks for clarifying. --Boston (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Western Rite Orthodoxy

With the rigid three-part model I defined, perhaps the greatest challenge to it comes in considering where to place followers of Western Rite Orthodoxy. (Perhaps reluctantly!), Catholics have to consider them indeed non-Catholic Eastern Christians with Western Rites and thus a part of the third group of the rigid model detailed herein. But zooming in closer, just as Catholics might say the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is "Eastern Christian within Catholicism", Catholics might say that Western Rite Orthodox are "Protestant within Orthodoxy." --Boston (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the same problem happened for the Orthodox earlier with the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Suddenly a simple description of the schism as geographic broke down. Tb (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Double Standards

Related to this complicated distinction is a simple fact: The RCC abhors dissent and splitting away is the ultimate expression of dissent in the RCC. Whether or not a particular Eastern Orthodox Church is one of the "big 14" in mutual communion with one another matters in a political arena (who gets an Easter card from the pope and who doesn't), but it doesn't really matter to the RCC three-part model. From the plentiful Old Believers to tiny one-priest Orthodox operations not in communion with others, these are all part of Eastern Christianity not in Union with the Holy See. There are obviously Protestant groups with "Orthodox" in the title, but if a group has clear Apostolic Succession from a "legitimate" Orthodox group, they would have to get really wierd with their theology or practice before the Catholics would stop considering them "non-Catholic Eastern Christians" and start considering them "Protestant (dressed up as Orthodox)". It's a sort of double standard in which it's very easy "stop being considered Catholic" but hard to "stop being considered Orthodox Christian" (or Oriental Christian, for that matter). --Boston (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that the "three-part" model does not really match with Lumen Gentium, though it obviously is an attempt to? Lumen Gentium sees Catholics, Eastern Churches, and "separated brethren", but recognizes that the last category is a large and disparate group, avoids treating them as all the same thing, never says they are not churches (and never says they are), and distinguishes Anglicanism particularly. LG's authors recognized the world was complex, and saw no need to impose a regularizing order upon it. LG did not say that the only real churches outside the Catholic Church were the "Eastern Churches"; it affirmed they were such, but did not limit it there (and did not extend it further either). And, ultimately, the obsessive need to define other people, and to do so in contradistinction to their own self-understanding, is a little, um, well, offensive. If it bugs you--as well it should--when people ask if someone is Catholic or Christian (as if they were exclusive possibilities), can I suggest that you might stop short in declaring that so-and-so is a Protestant when 1) they say they are not, 2) they hold no distinctively Protestant doctrines, 3) their church did not arise from the protestants at Worms? I'm content if you call me Anglican, or Episcopalian, or Anglo-Catholic, or simply Christian, but not Protestant--and if that screws up a tidy categorization, then the world simply has no obligation to conform to tidy categorizations humans think up. Tb (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your mention of Lumen Gentium is on the mark. In some respects, all that I said is that RC's have a tendency to categorize all "separated brethren" as Protestant despite the specific historical context of that term. In another respect, I'm saying that RC's are using "Protestant" as a sort of "sloppy slang" for those who should more correctly and politely be called "separated brethren". In our conversation a day or two ago, I mentioned that some Anglicans -- especially Anglo-Catholics -- don't see themselves as Protestant...and indeed you've kindly revealed that you're exactly such a person. To argue with someone's self-identifier is an unkind and unloving thing to do, and it therefore goes against the Gospels, against 1 Corinthians 13:13, and so on. Based on that, and based on my understanding of how you self-identify, I would consider it a sin to say "Well, Tb, you're a Protestant whether you like it or not!" (c: However, most RC's would be utterly perplexed by your comfort at being called "Episcopalian" and discomfort at being called "Protestant". Please forgive them even before they speak and don't think them ignorant. The English Reformation is widely considered a part of the Protestant Reformation and is taught as such in schools. I'm guessing you already know that most people (RC or otherwise) might not grasp these nuances, and I'm guessing you are in the practice of tolerating good-natured confusion about how you self-identify. --Boston (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Imagine my delight when I, who grew up Presbyterian, discovered the catholic tradition! I did not know such things from my birth either, so I am generally pretty happy to explain. If anything, I tend to assume that editors on Wikipedia already know this stuff when the edit relevant articles, and this is totally an incorrect assumption...many with entire good faith simply don't know about the complexity of this corner of the world, and I am most in need of getting better at patience in wikipedia in general...and you have been a wonderful teacher! Tb (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mundum Catholicum

Having designated this a safe space to wax philosophical, I'll hope I'm not out of bounds in revealing a personal "belief choice". As a "cradle Catholic" the power and mystery of the RCC holds great weight for me. That being said, I've always been deeply attracted to myriad aspects of Eastern Christianity and am nearly as enthusiastic about various aspects of devotion among RC's "separated brethren." After fulfilling my Sunday Obligation, I'm often at another (non-RC) church an hour later. This has recently led to me venerating an icon of St. Herman alongside Orthodox Church in America followers, being the only White person raising hands to heaven among 200+ African American (and maybe 3 Latino) Southern Baptists, and standing in a prayer circle holding hands with Low church Anglicans. I take the phrase "one God, one baptism" to heart and based on that I've made a "belief choice" in viewing the all of Christendom as one, holy, catholic, and (more or less) apostolic church. This has led to some surprising questions I've posed to fellow RC's:

• Who is a better "catholic?" A confirmed RC who beats her kids and never goes to Church, or a Presbyterian who daily prays she might better live the Gospel?
• Who is a better "catholic?" A mean-hearted Catholic bishop or a selfless Unitarian Universalist who has never received anything resembling a sacrament of baptism, communion, or confirmation?
• Who was a better "catholic?" Pope Sergius III or Mary Baker Eddy?

RC's almost inevitably agree with me and are enthused by the idea that Christ's church on Earth, though politically and theologically fractured, might be regarded as one unified army of the Church militant. A frequent light-hearted comment is "You're right, Protestants are Catholic -- just don't tell them that!" The point of all this isn't to bend my understanding of the world so that everyone belongs to MY church. Rather, it's to bend many people's understanding of the world to provoke an emotional belief that all Christians belong to THE church, universal, and catholic with a lower-case "c". - --Boston (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And the reason I brought this up...

Is to let User:Tb that I considered him Catholic/catholic before we even met! --Boston (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your approach is a good one, and it is one of the things I appreciate much about the "generous space" which my own tradition makes available. If you want Tenebrae, btw, many Episcopal churches do a very mean Tenebrae, normally on Wednesday evening, complete with good music, jillions of psalms, essentially taken wholesale from the old Breviary (tho in English, natch). It is perfectly sensible for me to enjoy the full breadth of Christendom, and my life has been tremendously enriched by reading Barth, venerating icons, enjoying the hospitality of many RC religious houses, and the discipline of the Episcopal Church...none of these would I willingly give up! The details of the choices we make are often different, but we are kindred spirits I suspect... Tb (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Boston had a Tenebrae service last week while I was in New Jersey. I'll cerrtainly keep St. Paul's and other area Episcopal churches in mind if I'm in Boston next year. --Boston (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Even better, the Church of the Advent, Boston! Tb (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. Also, since I already have taken pictures of this place, I'd ought to do something about the red link. --Boston (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)