Skip to main content

A Pope Gone Astray

The world was shocked, though many conservative Christians were unsurprised, by Pope Francis's latest foray into Progressivism.  His proclamation, which allows Roman Catholic priests to bless LGBTQ couples, met with equal parts rejoicing and decrying.  Regardless of your persuasion, this seems like a significant historical moment, one which is sure to have rippling effects for years to come.

Now, before we go any further, let me clarify one thing: there is a difference between offering a blessing upon a gay couple and solemnizing a gay marriage.  This difference is theologically significant, though it ends up being practically less significant than many Roman Catholics would claim.  Any time that spiritual leaders allow people to feel comfortable in their sin, they are derelict of their duty and are putting souls in risk of eternal judgement.  Whatever a blessing might mean, this feels like the first step towards the inevitable goal of allowing priests to marry gay couples.  It should serve as a reminder that culture is everchanging, especially in our modern, technological era, and that those who are afraid to be seen as antiquated have no other choice but to compromise.

In the past I have written in defense of an ecumenical spirit, especially regarding the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).  My view of the RCC remains unchanged--I consider it a valid Christian tradition that has fallen into significant theological error.  Their continued compromise on social issues serves to strengthen that conviction and to remind the rest of the Christian world, whether Orthodox or Protestant, exactly why we don't have a pope.

I am currently a member of a church in the ACNA, which is, in turn, part of the worldwide Anglican Communion.  For centuries the Archbishop of Canterbury served as one of the Instruments of Communion that unite disparate Anglican groups throughout the world, but recently traditional Anglicans across the world have been forced to distance themselves formally from Archbishop Welby due to his failure to stand for truth in the face of social pressure.  Anglicans value unity, but we value the truth even more.  When betrayed by poor leaders, we are forced to choose the truth over unity, or rather, unity in the truth.

This is exactly what Roman Catholics, and others who are in communion with Rome, cannot do.  Their theology and ecclesiology won't allow it.  Faced with a pope gone astray, they are forced to follow begrudgingly or do rhetorical gymnastics to explain why their Pope's teaching isn't binding.  They have come up with some real doozies over the years, none greater than the Ex Cathedra argument.  When other Christians are met with obvious error from their spiritual authorities, they choose new leaders and/or create new institutions.  As Roman Catholics are forced to watch their Pope slowly lead the RCC towards unorthodoxy, all they can do is multiply excuses, qualifications, and rationalizations in an effort to explain why so many of them disagree with their infallible Pope.

It is no surprise that many Roman Catholics, privately and publicly, are calling for reformation.  Despite the authority they have ascribed to the Petrine chair, these dissenters recognize that the RCC is trending away from the historical, Biblical Faith.  However, it is difficult for this Anglican to understand how one can call for change while simultaneously maintaining the infallibility of the person they believe is causing many of the issues.

I do respect the desire to maintain institutional unity and to work for change within the existing ecclesiastical structures.  Unity is important.  I wholeheartedly believe it is incumbent upon all Christians to be part of the one holy catholic ChurchOur unity, however, is not based on any one bishop, regardless of how influential he might have historically been, but in Christ, the one true Head of the Church.  We must never follow those who would lead us away from Christ, regardless of what office they hold.   

I imagine there are many Roman Catholics for whom this will be the last straw.  If you are a Roman Catholic who is disenchanted with Rome, but still desires to be a part of a tradition with ancient roots, consider visiting an ACNA church in your area.  If you're in NE Ohio, we'd be happy to have you visit St. John's Anglican Church in Canton, OH.  Our goal is to proclaim the ancient Faith and worship God in unity with the catholic Church, both universal and historical, but, as Article 37 states, the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction over us.  As all churches and denominations do, we have our problems, but a pope gone astray is not one we'll ever have to face.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...