That's Roman Catholic!

This evening I was reading John Wesley's Plain Account of the Methodists in Volume 9 of The Works of John Wesley.  He was writing about those who complained about the "bands" of people who gathered together, confessed their sins to each other, and prayed and encouraged each other in their spiritual growth.  -  THIS WAS A GREAT PARAGRAPH!  -  I have a feeling that several people who read this blog will be able to relate to this paragraph:

"An objection much more boldly and frequently urged, is that 'all these bands are mere popery'. I hope I need not pass a harder censure on those (most of them at least) who affirm this, than that they talk of they know not what, that they betray in themselves the most gross and shameful ignorance. Do not they yet know that the only popish confession is the confession made by a single person to a priest? (And this itself is in no wise condemned by our Church; nay, she recommends it in some cases.)  Whereas that we practice is the confession of several persons conjointly, not to a priest, but to each other. Consequently, it has no analogy at all to popish confession. But the truth is, this is a stale objection, which many people make against anything they do not like. It is all popery out of hand."

When I read that, I said to myself, "Ain't it the truth! Things never change!  'That's Roman Catholic!'"

Of course, John Wesley was accused, on the one hand, of being an enthusiast (i.e., a fanatic), and, on the other hand, he was accused of being a Roman Catholic Jesuit.  -  Neither accusation were correct, but it is nice to know that I'm in good company!

A Methodist Cardinal?

With the meeting of the Cardinals to elect a new Pope, I thought this would be a good time to mention a (probably) little known tidbit.  Namely, that, yes, indeed, it seems that there has been a Methodist Cardinal!

If one travels to the World Methodist Museum at Lake Junaluska, North Carolina (at the headquarters of the World Methodist Council), or if one picks up the book, Treasures of the World Methodist Museum, one will discover a ring given to Methodist Bishop, Fred P. Corson, by Pope Paul VI.  At the time that the Pope gave the ring to the Methodist Bishop, he said, "I have made you a Cardinal In Pectore."

A Cardinal In Pectore literally means, a Cardinal in my breast or heart.  It is a way that a Pope makes a "secret Cardinal."  Now, as a secret cardinal, they cannot function as a Cardinal unless and until the Pope makes such appointment public.  Indeed, in some cases, the person in question may not even be aware of their elevation to the position of Cardinal!  However, once it is made public, the Cardinal gains rank among the Cardinals from the time of his In Pectore appointment.  -  If the appointment is never made public, then the Cardinalship ceases at the time of the Pope's death.

It does not appear that Bishop Corson's appointment was ever made public by the Pope.  However, made public or not, whether one is able to function as Cardinal or not, whether one is aware that the Pope has given you that rank or not, a Cardinal In Pectore is, nevertheless, a real, true Cardinal (so long as the Pope is alive)!

Why would a Pope make a secret Cardinal?  In general, Popes may do so when it seems that such a person's life would be endangered by giving them such a position.  An example of this would be Cardinals named in the People's Republic of China or prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. . . . Perhaps another reason for making a "secret Cardinal" might be that the person in quesiton is a PROTESTANT, METHODIST BISHOP!

It really does raise the question, though, can the Pope really name as Cardinal a non-Roman Catholic, whose orders are not recognized by the Church of Rome?

Well, Bishop Corson was elected a Methodist Bishop in 1944.  He also served as the President of the World Methodist Council in 1961.  He was an observer at the Second Vatican Council.  He also held a number of private audiences Popes, and was considered to be close friends with Pope Paul VI.  -  And apparently the Bishop of Rome esteemed him so highly he made him a Cardinal In Pectore!

Pope Paul VI and Bishop Fred P. Corson
(picture found on eBay)

Bishop Corson died in 1985.  Pope Paul VI died in 1978.

Theotokos; Mary, Mother of God?

Perhaps it is the fact that I recently heard a discussion (really an argument) on Catholic Radio between a Roman Catholic and a (fundamentalist sounding) Protestant. Maybe, it is due to the recent Lectionary passages focusing on Mary. I don't know, but the place of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been on my mind a bit lately.

It is unfortunate that so many Protestant Christians seem to be quite fearful of Mary (if not of her, at least of spending much time talking about her). As I have recently said in a sermon, Mary is a fantastic example for us of holiness of heart and life. She certainly is (or ought to be) a role model for Christians.

Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly the Protestant prejudice over against our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers (yes, our sisters and brothers in Christ), along with their seemingly inordinate attention to Mary, not to mention the popular notions of Mary-worship, that has left many protestants reluctant to spend much time talking about the mother of our Lord.

There are, of course, some real doctrinal issues concerning Mary, on which Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians do, indeed, differ significantly. Those issues only add to the Protestant "fear" of Mary.

However, it would likely come as a real shock to most contemporary Wesleyans to discover that the perpetual virginity of Mary was NOT one of those doctrinal differences for our spiritual forefather. The fact is John Wesley affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. (Check out his Letter to a Roman Catholic.) Still, that issue is not the particular focus of this article.

Rather, the focus of this article is the use of the term Theotokos. Ought Mary be referred to as the "Mother of God?" - Admittedly, I've not done much research, and in many ways, most of this is off the top of my head, but here it goes . . .

Rome and Constantinople, of course, affirm this terminology for Mary. Protestantism, almost universally, denies it. The question is, why? You see, the doctrines surrounding the natures and divinity of Christ as expressed in the Chalcedonian statement are accepted as orthodox among Protestants, as well as Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, Protestants have uniformly rejected the use of the term as being objectionable an misleading (cf. Christian Theology, Vol. II, p. 167. Wiley, H. Orton. Beacon Hill. 1952).

Of course, at least one of the objections has to do with the implications that Mary is somehow the mother of God in eternity. God, of course, has always been. God is not created. Mary has not always been. Mary was created. Thus, Mary ought not be call "Mother of God."

Another objection is that "Mother of God" talk could easily lead to Mary-worship, as, indeed, it has done among many Roman Catholics. (The question of whether such is truly the teachings of Rome is moot, in this regard. The reality of popular practice cannot be denied.)

A further objection is that such a title has brought about the lifting of Mary to doctrinal heights which are not found in Scripture.

Again, since I have not spent much time in any real research, I could be missing the truly significant objections. I would be happy for others to fill in the blanks!

Protestants have affirmed that Mary is the Mother of our Lord, but have objected to calling her Mother of God. However, when one looks at the term, itself, not the abuses nor the unnecessary, objectionable implications, I find little reason to object to the term, itself.

First, the title is not a new invention. It was widespread in the ancient Church, long before the Protestant Reformation. Second, even Rome defines the term in such a way as to fit the Chalcedonian statement. They make clear that the intent of the term is to affirm the full divinity of Jesus. The rest of the objectionable implications of the term, itself, they deny.

Third, the concept, though not the term, is found, even in popular Protestantism. An example of this is the popular Christmas song, Mary, Did You Know?. In that song, the question is asked, "Mary, did you know . . . when you kiss your little baby, you kiss the face of God?" - Any Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian who understands the concept would quickly declare that the song is expressing exactly what is affirmed by the title, "Mother of God."

Finally, we Wesleyan Christians are happy to affirm the same concept in our own hymnody. After all, don't we (thanks to Charles Wesley!) enthusiastically sing, "Amazing love! how can it be That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" That "God" who died for us (viz., Jesus the Christ), we also confess to be "born of the Virgin Mary."

So, what is the point of all of this? Do I intend to start using the title, or am I advocating the use of it by others? - Not really. There are still far too many confusions and possible, unintended implications.

However, I think the point is, this is not really something Protestants ought to get worked up about. This ought not be something that divides Protestant Christians from their Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sisters and brothers. We ought to allow them the liberty to use the terminology when we, while refraining from the terminology, nevertheless affirm its intended meaning through our own doctrine, as well as hymnody and popular expressions.

. . . Of course, as I have said, if I'm missing something, feel free to jump in with your comments!

Big News for Anglicans & Roman Catholics

Anglican Mainstream is reporting that the Bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope) is preparing to offer the Traditional Anglican Communion a personal prelature. (The full article can be read here.) What that apparently means is that the TAC would be a kind of semi-autonomous, global diocese without boundaries. It would retain its own clergy and laity and be headed by its own bishops, but it would be in full-communion with Rome.

The report indicates that this would be the most significant ecumenical event in Anglican-Roman Catholic relations since the English Reformation when King Henry VIII brought about the Church of England's split with Rome.

There are a couple of points that need to be clarified in this report in order to understand more fully what is going.

First, this is not a "done deal," as of yet. The main sticking point may be the issue of married bishops. That is to say, while Rome does not ordain married priests, they have accepted married priests who have joined the RCC. However, Rome has never accepted married bishops. On the other hand, the TAC has set no pre-conditions to their being accepted by Rome. They apparently have been willing for their clergy, not only to receive "conditional ordination," but outright re-ordination. They apparently have not set any preconditions concerning the acceptance of their married bishops. All they have wanted is the possibility of having and intact Anglican identity while being in communion with Rome (exactly, it seems, what this personal prelature would provide).

Second, the Traditional Anglican Communion is NOT the same thing as the Canterbury based Anglican Communion (i.e., the "official" Anglican Communion). Rather, they are a group of some 400,000+ traditional Anglicans that broke with Canterbury over issues such as women being ordained as priests and their further consecration as bishops and over issues of homosexual practice. They are, obviously, Anglo-Catholic in orientation. Their United States member is the Anglican Church in America.

This really is a huge event and could have repercussions throughout the Canterbury based Anglican Communion, including repercussions in the Church of England, the newly forming Anglican Church in North America and Anglo-Catholics around the world.

***A further article has been posted by Anglican Mainstream, here.

The Bishop of Rome Travels to America

(For link to the Pope's U.S. visit click here.)

The Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict, arrives in the United States today. His theme for his U.S. visit is "Christ Our Hope." (Perhaps we, Nazarenes should listen in, since our quadrennial theme has been "Jesus . . . The Hope.")

As a Nazarene, I am well aware of some of the anti-Catholic sentiments that fill some Nazarenes and other Protestant Christians. I've heard reports at district assemblies about conversions, and it is often mentioned if the person experiencing the conversion was a former Catholic (as though their conversion is something to really rejoice about!). And, it doesn't help matters when missions materials spout things like, "This country is almost completely non-Christian; it is 90% Roman Catholic." Such attitudes may not possess all Nazarenes or Protestants, but they are expressed by far too many. - Often times these views have been reinforced by unfortunate (and I would argue unsound) interpretations of the Book of the Revelation which have identified the Church of Rome with "the great whore." - How sad! (But it does explain some of the attitudes of many Evangelical Christians.)

Oh, I know there are a number of things with which we and the Roman Church disagree. And I could enumerate them. However, I think far too many spend far too much time doing so. Besides, I just think that there are far more (significant) things that we have in common, including (but not limited to) our claim that Jesus Christ is our one Lord, the creeds (expressing our one faith), our practice of the sacrament of our one baptism, and our profession of our one God and Father of all (cf., Ephesians 4:5).

For my part, I pray that the visit of Pope Benedict will be used by God to draw people to God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ our one Lord. I pray that the good Bishop would be used as an instrument of God to foster a more "catholic" (i.e., universal) spirit throughout Christ's one Church. After all, didn't Christ, Himself, pray that we be one?

For all Wesleyan/Methodist Christians, it might not be a bad idea to take a look at: John Wesley's, "A Letter to a Roman Catholic."

One should also read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This document, originally agreed on by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, was also adopted by the World Methodist Council at their last conference. (It was a unanimous vote, including the delegates from the Church of the Nazarene. We are, of course, a denominational member of the WMC.)

Also of interest might be David M. Chapman's In Search of the Catholic Spirit: Methodists and Roman Catholics in Dialogue. Peterborough, Great Britain: Epworth Press, 2004. (This book was reviewed by John W. Wright in the most recent issue of the Wesleyan Theological Journal.)

For Nazarenes, in addition to the above, I would encourage a reading of Chapter 7 "The Roman Catholic Church" in either What Is a Nazarene? Understanding Our Place in the Religious Communion (Wes Tracy & Stan Ingersol. Beacon Hill Press, NPH.) or Here We Stand: Where Nazarenes Fit in the Religious Market Place (the latter being an expanded book that contains the former book). - The treatment of other Christian traditions in these books seems to be fair and in a spirit of Christlike generosity, identifying commonalities, as well as differences in the way that we understand the Christian faith.

In the meantime, I offer this prayer for the Pope (adapted from Wesley's ritual for "The Ordination of Superintendents"):

Most merciful Father, send down upon your servant, Benedict, your heavenly blessing, and so endue him with your Holy Spirit, the he, preaching your Word, may not only be earnest to reprove, beseech, and rebuke with all patience and sound doctrine, but also may be to believers a wholesome example in word, in conversations, in love, in faith, in charity, and in purity; that faithfully fulfilling his course, at the latter day he may receive the crown of righteousness laid up by the Lord, the righteous Judge, who lives and reigns one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen