Anglican Archbishop condemns unification plan
Update on the unification plan: Obviously it was a media beat up on a slow news day, but the response from Sydney Anglicans have been measured and informative - note the following short interview of Peter Jensen on the 7:30 Report - and the excerpts I have taken deal with the "doctrinal" issues rather than the bureaucratic / institutional ones:
On the Nature of the Church
KERRY O'BRIEN: Archbishop Jensen, can you imagine a day when Anglicans and Roman Catholics are united as one church?
PETER JENSEN, ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOP OF SYDNEY: No, Kerry, not this side of Heaven. In Heaven, we'll all be one church.
....
KERRY O'BRIEN: Why?
PETER JENSEN: Because there's no need for it. The churches are really big institutions, denominations. They have grand histories, that's fine, but they're not the real Church. There's one real Church that all Christians now belong to and although there is some use in, perhaps, denominational mergers from time to time, I don't really see any need for the churches to unite in that way.
(alluding to the Church invisible vs visible, and the conflation of the Roman Church with the former as Augustine's City of God on earth)
....
On Papal Authority
KERRY O'BRIEN: How hard would it be for the Anglican church to accept one central authority, that is, the Pope?
PETER JENSEN: If I said impossible, that's what's on my mind. It is impossible. There may be some Anglicans who would, Anglicanism is a very big body of people, but not the Anglican Church that I know, because we deliberately made the decision, hundreds of years ago, that there was one head of the church, Jesus Christ, and not the Pope and that's why we are not part of the Roman Catholic church
Later...
"...But the sort of rethink which says that somehow the Pope of Rome is going to be in charge of all Christians, never."
(Perhaps Kerry (and Anglicans!) should consult the 39 Articles to see the approach to the authority of the Bishop of Rome)
Later...
"It's not a matter of being biased against Roman Catholics, but it is a matter of deep principle with us. We'd prefer to say, you become Anglicans."
and so on..
On Objective Truth
"Christians are a little bit odd in today's world. We actually believe in objective truth, which makes us awkward. It makes us awkward with each other, too, but I think that's a testimony worth fighting for."
(Something Kerry should be pleased to hear considering as a journalist he should be interested in matters of truth - unless the ABC is going the same way as Channel 7, for example.)
....
On Protestantism and Biblical Authority
PETER JENSEN: We do have one central authority, that's the Bible. What we have is a lot of people who interpret the Bible, which is perfectly right. Each of us is accountable for interpreting the Bible. That's our central authority. Now, that is the way that God rules his Church. That leads to all sorts of differences of opinion. It is called Protestantism, and I'm actually in favour of it. I think it's a good thing in the modern world.
(One the one hand Kerry devil's advocates in favour of a merger, but is trumped by this postmodernist-flavoured appeal to diversity.
On the nature of the Bible
KERRY O'BRIEN: Isn't the Bible itself an imperfect document?
PETER JENSEN: I would say it isn't, but that would be a very interesting discussion that you and I could have.
....
All in all a very adroitly handled and neat little summary of most of the major issues here. Worth watching further.
Labels: Catholic, Media, Sydney Anglicans
posted by S @ 7:48 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Hi, Stephen, just popped in to see what you were doing. Thanks for visiting "Sentire Cum Ecclesia", by the way.
Peter Jensen is the very model of a modern evangelical, and unfortunately one of thingst that he has down pat is the misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith.
For instance, suggesting that we have the Pope as the Head of the Church instead of Christ is not only misleading, its wrong. We give the title "Head of the Church" to Christ alone. Non-Catholics may call the Pope the "Head of the Catholic Church", but we don't. We call him the "Vicar of Christ"--which I guess is what Christian, Catholic or Protestant, would regard their pastor as (note St Paul: "We would have you receive us as ambassadors of Christ").
As for the statement:
"We do have one central authority, that's the Bible. What we have is a lot of people who interpret the Bible, which is perfectly right. Each of us is accountable for interpreting the Bible. That's our central authority. Now, that is the way that God rules his Church. That leads to all sorts of differences of opinion. It is called Protestantism, and I'm actually in favour of it. I think it's a good thing in the modern world."
Is he really "in favour" of every one having their own interpretation of the Scriptures? This seems a strange thing to be coming from the man who has an argument with those Anglicans who interpret the Scriptures as allowing homosexual and female priests.
Fr Mitch Pachwa on EWTN said the other day that the day the devil invented "personal interpretation" was the best days work he had put in since he did the snake impersonation thing. I must say that I agree.
We'll all be one Church in heaven? Jesus established only one Church in the beginning, and we say in the Creed that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church here and now, so how is it that there will only be one Church in heaven?
Yes, nice and succinct--but a little to "off pat" for me. Dr Jensen should think about what he is saying when he says it and not just mouth the words that would be expected of the "very model of modern evangelical."
Yes thanks for your comment.
I think the issues are really the age-old ones that still divide Catholics and Protestants today.
I do agree that I seldom hear "Vicar of Christ" mentioned in evangelical circles, and much more a representation of the Pope as "Head of the (Roman Catholic) Church". This may come down to the infiltration of a 20th century business-speak, which sees the person in charge as the "CEO". But then to call the Pope the "Vicar of Christ" would be in some way to acknowledge papal authority, and we wouldn't want that to slip in now, would we ;-).
The question of biblical interpretation also seems to split between the Catholic magesterium / dual source of revelation, and the Protestant "Scripture is self-authenticating / confirmed by the Holy Spirit". Which can lead to all kinds of abuses as you would agree. But to tighten the circle to those in authority is not necessarily an iron-clad guarantee against abuse, as at heart the same rationale applies, but to a limited number in positions of authority, be they popes, cardinals, or priests.
I also think there is a divergence of views here between the traditional catholic and protestant views of "one holy catholic and apostolic church", which if I may speak for my incommunicant Proddo brethren, is taken to mean much more of the church universal and indefectable, rather than the specific physical historical manifestation of the church administered through the Holy See. There's a parable about wheat and tares in there somewhere, too.
In any case, thanks for your comments and the time you have put in to write them.
A blogger I have found very illuminating on the Catholic / Protestant issues is Mark Shea, a US-based blogger
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/ and the inspiration for me starting my own blog - not to oppose his views, but his blog gave me the confidence to start demonstrating ownership of my own religious issues, instead of constantly referring to the ideas and opinions of others in a second-hand and derivate way.
Cheers
Stephen
Post a Comment
<< Home