You’ve uncovered another genuine show-stopper! At first reading it takes your breath away. Pius IX’s praise of Mary is high, but granting Mary high praise has been part of the fullness of Christian worship from the earliest ages of the church. While we’re slinging long quotations back and forth, allow me one:

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them…If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you…If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God while you hold God in your hands.

This quotation is from St. Athanasius in the fourth century. (Someone I’m sure with whom you would wish to agree on the question of orthodox belief) When it comes to Mary which is closer in feeling and sentiment to Athanasius—the quotation of Pius IX or your own position?

Pius IX thus seems to be in good company, but let me take your complaint seriously. As a former Evangelical I understand how Pius IX’s statement sounds over the top. It sounds that way to me too. I understand what he’s saying, and part of me wishes he hadn’t put it that way. So is Pius IX’s statement just a personal lapse? Yes and no. We have to remember two things. It is not a lapse into heresy, but it is a personal expression. Pius IX is stating his own personal devotion to Mary. He is not making a definitive statement of dogma. Second, this is part of a document about Mary. It is therefore an explication of a detail, not our whole belief system. You have to read it closely and place this within the context of the whole history, teaching and practice of the Catholic Church. I’m not exactly comfortable with the way Pius IX expressed himself, but I think I would feel just as awkward trying to defend the following passage from an evangelical textbook that praises the Bible:

The Bible … has produced the highest results in all walks of life. It has led to the highest type of creations in the fields of art, architecture, literature, and music.… [Y]ou will find everywhere the higher influence of the Bible. … William E. Gladstone said, “If I am asked to name the one comfort in sorrow, the sole rule of conduct, the true guide of life, I must point to what in the words of a popular hymn is called ‘the old, old story,’ told in an old, old Book, which is God’s best and richest gift to mankind.”

Does Mr. Gladstone really believe that not Jesus but the Bible is his “one comfort”, his “true guide”, “God’s best and richest gift to mankind”? I don’t think so, and it would be unfair to use this purple passage as “proof” that Evangelicals really do worship the Bible instead of Jesus. You have to look at the whole picture to understand the parts.

A close reading of any papal statement about Mary must include the Catholic assumption that all devotion to Mary is inextricably linked to devotion to her Son. So, for example, all hope and salvation do come through her, for Jesus comes through her. Her merits are great, but the doctrine Pius is about to define makes clear that those merits are the gift of grace. Nothing has been closer to his heart than devotion to Mary precisely because she has drawn him into ever more intimate union with her Son. The foundation of his confidence is found in Mary—i.e., the one who is “in” Mary is Jesus. Pius’ trust in her may be ”great” but he doesn’t say it surpasses his trust in God.

I’m sympathetic, but I’d like to stand this commonplace moan on it’s head. Oh yes, you come into the Catholic Church and the liturgy is dreary, the music lyrics come from greeting cards and the music from the nursery. The preaching is dire, the youth ministry is downright creepy in its attempt to be ‘cool’ and the fellowship is non existent.

Remember two things: first, the disappointing human reality does not obliterate the eternal Truth. When we marry most people have high expectations of living happily ever after. Unfortunately, most marriages are not rosy all day every day. People fight. In laws arrive. Kids disobey and rebel. Siblings hate each other. Tragedy happens. Ignorance and vanity and selfishness intrude. Complacency and taking each other for granted grows like a cancer. Relationships break down. It’s a mess.

It’s also what we call marriage. When it doesn’t go as we planned we don’t bail out of the marriage (at least we shouldn’t) Neither do we dismiss the institution of marriage as ill conceived. We don’t throw marriage out and look for some different arrangement. We don’t suddenly tell young people not to marry. We stick with it. We hang in there for better or for worse. If we are disappointed the best thing we can do is to examine our expectations. Maybe we are disappointed because we were expecting the wrong thing in the first place.

Protestantism has led us to expect the perfect Church as our promiscuous society as led us to expect the perfect mate. Protestantism has led us to shop around, constantly on the prowl, looking for something that doesn’t exist, just as our society tempts us to prowl around looking for the perfect partner.

The second thing, is that we all (if we have a touch of maturity about us) agree that it is actually in the tough times of marriage that we grow most as people, and we grow closer to the other person. It’s a risk, of course, and it doesn’t always happen that way. The tough times can ruin us, and ruin our marriage, but it is in the test that our love is proven or not. It is in the difficulty that we show our mettle. It is in our submision to our disappointing condition that we learn about the mystery of sacrifice, the mystery of humility and the mystery of love. It is in the disappointments that we learn that we are not actually in charge, we can’t always have it our way, and as soon as we learn that we learn that there is more to life and more to love and more to God’s mercy than we every imagined possible–and we really could not have learned these wondrous truths way down deep in our heart unless things had gone wrong.

When you enter the Catholic Church it’s like marriage. It’s for better and for worse, and like your marriage day–you ought to think that you are the lucky one. Not, “Isn’t she lucky to get me, but aren’t I lucky to get her.”

That’s how I felt the night twelve years ago when I was received into the Catholic Church. I felt very lucky indeed that I had been given the grace to take that step.

I still feel that way.

Marriage and the Church. It’s a mystery….but I’m not the first person to compare the two am I?
Where have I heard it before?

The Telegraph of London gives space to secularist A.C.Grayling, who argues that religious believers are dangerous kooks.

Grayling dishes out the weary old argument that all religion is dangerous because of the atrocities committed in it’s name. What I can never quite grasp is that these arguments come from guys who, on paper, seem to be quite intelligent.

OK, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but you have to set against the atrocities all the good things done in the name of religion. What do these guys do with all the schools, hospitals, clinics, hospices and orphanages set up by religious people? What do they do with all the advances in medicine, health, welfare, human rights and the liberal arts motivated by religion? What do they do with all the great art, music, architecture and culture inspired by religion?

On the other side of the equation, why are they so ominously silent about the atrocities committed by atheist regimes? The Gulag wasn’t run by the Russian Orthodox Church. Auschwitz wasn’t a Lutheran detention center, Mussolini wasn’t a Catholic cardinal. The French revolution wasn’t set up by a Catholic social agency. The Chinese cultural revolution wasn’t a Buddhist outfit, the killing fields of Cambodia were not run by Buddhist monks, the Japanese dictatorship wasn’t run by Shinto priests.

These guys are getting tough against religious believers because they say we’re aggressive. It feels to me like it is Dawkins and Grayling and Philip Pullman and the rest of the British atheistic intelligentsia who are getting stroppy.

There is a telling comment by Anglican theologian Ephraim Radner. He finally admits that those who wish to follow the historic Christian faith are not welcome in ECUSA. So that’s news?

Anyway, Fr.Al Kimmel has a good post in reply with a good stream of comments about the future for orthodox Anglicans.

I know many individual Anglicans, both clergy and laity, are looking at their options. There are really only four: A. Stay within the Anglican Church and try to be faithful B. create or join some other Anglican ecclesial structure C. Come over to the Catholic Chuch D. become Eastern Orthodox.

As someone who was an Anglican for fifteen years, I think I understand the objections Anglicans have to coming over the the Catholic Church. I would like to outline them, and then answer them. I hope this may spark discussion. Tell me if I left something out.

1.The Catholic Church is authoritarian and monolithic and demands ‘blind obedience.’

ECUSA is not authoritarian? The more I hear of the Schori regime or Bishop Lee’s behavior it seems that Catholics do not have the monopoly on authoritarianism. The present authority of the Catholic Church is benign in comparison. You either have the dictatorship of relativism or the historic authority of the Catholic Church. Some Catholics may follow blindly, but this is not what the Church expects. Instead the Church calls for voluntary, informed and inspired obedience to the proper authority God has established.

2. Catholics are liberal too.

Its true we have radicals in the Catholic Church, but the difference is that they do not have the ultimate control, and cannot because the Church is hierarchical and not democratic. Furthermore, if the radicals are in teaching positions, or in leadership positions, if they go too far they will be disciplined as much as is possible. Liberals you will have with you always, and they have their contribution to make (even if we passionately disagree with them) in the Catholic Church both extremes are included, but both extremes are restrained from predominance.

3. Catholic worship is awful

That’s true. We don’t have the same wonderful buildings, music and liturgy as the Anglicans. If you have eyes to see it, this is actually part of our strength. The Catholic Church is not a sect of educated, tasteful, middle class white people. We have peasants. We have folk religion. We have charismatics. We have radicals. We have conservatives. It’s a universal church remember? And yes, we all quarrel like a big family. But we stay together. Learning to like (or at least endure) a liturgy or a priest you don’t like might just be good for you–like learning to get on with a brother or sister you don’t like.

If you’re an Anglican priest, musician, artist or architect, think of the contribution you could make by becoming a Catholic. We need you to help in the reform of the reform, and the sooner you come across and help us the better. Staying on one side tut-tutting about how awful we are won’t help. Starting your own church isn’t going to help us. Are you going to stay in the Anglican Church just for stained glass windows and fine music, incense and the best parties? Come come, it won’t do. You’re better than that, and you know the church is bigger than that.

4. Catholics don’t evangelize

We do, but we evangelize in different ways than Evangelicals do. Evangelicals rightly proclaim the gospel, but are often weak on what they perceive as ‘social gospel’. Catholicism is more incarnational. We not only want to share the doctrines of the faith, and call people to an encounter with Christ, but we also want to show the compassion of Christ by building schools, hospitals, ministering to the dying etc. Catholic evangelization is holistic in this way.

But again, we need you. We admit that we could do evanglization better. If more Evangelicals took the step into the Catholic faith, think how much more effective our evangelization would be.

5. There are Catholic doctrines I don’t agree with.

First of all, have you studied what Catholics really believe, rather than relying on what you think we believe? If so, great, if not, get on with it. Decide if you disagree with what we really believe before you dismiss us.

Second, what is it that you don’t believe. If you honestly don’t believe it, fine. But perhaps what you perceive as ‘not believing’ is not doubt or lack of faith, but simply and inablility (or unwillingness) to submit your own beliefs to the faith of the Church. If you disagree with Catholic teaching could it be that you are wrong? If you can entertain that idea, could you take the step of re-considering Catholic teaching?

Third, perhaps you are imposing Evangelical or Protestant types of ‘believing’ onto Catholicism. Evangelicals demand real understanding and real ‘heart belief’ for total assent to be there. Catholics are not quite so demanding. We simply expect assent. If there is a sticking point and a person is ready to accept every other part of Catholic teaching–especially the Church’s authority, then it is okay to say, “Well, if the Church teaches it, I accept it.” We believe that a simple act of the will in this respect is sufficient, and that the true seeker, the truly spiritual person will grow into a deeper love and appreciation of the particular doctrine that they have had trouble with. Have you not experienced this in your marriage? You said, ‘I do’ unreservedly, and then over the years you learned the depth and power and beauty and difficulty of that act of the will.

6. I will have to give up my ministry.

Perhaps so. You may go through a time in the wilderness. You may have to give up your home, your position, our income and your friends. Did you think obedience was going to be easy? Where’s your faith? God will provide. Do you want to minister for all the right reasons? If so, God will give you a new ministry in the Catholic faith that is far richer and fuller than you can now imagine. Go for it!

7. I will lose my family and friends

That’s part of the deal isn’t it? ‘Unless a man hate his father and mother’ and all that…

The other half of that promise is that you will make new friends and familly at a depth that you do not now know is possible.

Furthermore, you don’t know what your example of obedience and faith will do for other people. In my experience one person’s honest conversion brings many of their friends and family into the church as well. Do what is right and the rest will follow.

8. In the end it doesn’t really matter does it?

If you don’t think it matters why did you ask that question? Of course it matters. It matters very much because God wants you to come further up and further in. Perhaps the crisis in the Anglican Church is just what you needed to open your eyes and enable you to take the next step.

9. Surely all that matters is how much we love Jesus?

Of course but how do you know that it is actually Jesus that you are loving? Where does one find Jesus and how do you know? Where does one find the fullness of the Body of Christ? Once you are a Catholic you will see that the other Christian groups may follow Jesus, but they may be following the pipe dreams of their particular prophet, or they may be following the invention of a group of political activists or they may be following a figment of the imagination of some theologian with way out ideas about the end times, or they may simply be following a tasteful religion or an emotional religion or an intellectual religioin that makes them feel fine, feel happy or feel smart. All of these are pale imitations of the real, resurrected Body of Christ, and the fullness of that Body–in all its reality is found in the Catholic Church.

10. I really think Anglicanism is the answer. It’s the best we can do for now.

Really really?

Fr Newman has a new website and blog. Under the link Divine worship you can go through a cool slide show of High Mass at St Mary’s. How blessed we are to have been brought to such a vibrant parish! For Ash Wednesday the place was packed, the liturgy was splendid and the spirit truly penitential. Last evening the church was crowded for Stations of the Cross, Benediction and Confessions. I was in the confessional for an hour and a half solid. Praise God!

Fr. Newman comments here on Catholic liturgy in England as contrasted with Anglican liturgy. While visiting England a while back he went to a dreary modern Catholic mass with the ‘game show’ style of liturgy, then went to Canterbury Cathedral where everything was splendid.

I agree with Fr Newman’s sentiments, but there are a few problems with his analysis. He was comparing cathedral liturgy to parish church liturgy. To be fair, he should have compared the liturgy at the Catholic Westminster Cathedral to Canterbury Cathedral. The comparisons wouldn’t have been so extreme. Likewise, he should have compared the ‘walk in’ experience of his local Catholic parish to the ‘walk in’ experience of the local Anglican parish. I can assure you the horrors he would have found in the typical Anglican parish church would have been just as alarming, and more so.

As a general rule though, Anglicans are better at liturgy than most Catholics. When you walk in from Catholicism it can make you yearn for something better. The problem comes when you have a steady diet of beautiful Anglicanism. I was chaplain at Kings College, Cambridge for two years. There are few places in the world where the architecture, music and history combine in such sublime fusion. I loved it. The only problem is that it was all form and no content. The actual religion that was presented was a watered down form of secular humanism with no backbone. In the end it was like being married to an extremely beautiful, but witless woman.

I’m reminded of those words by the other Newman (I paraphrase) that he was under no doubt that should Augustine or Athanasius or Irenaeus walk the streets of England looking for Mass on a Sunday Morning he would find himself in a back street, kneeling in a tin hut with Italian and Irish peasants, and not in the fine churches of Anglicanism.

This is not to excuse game show liturgy, only to make the point, with which Fr Newman would agree, that “the habit does not make the monk.” Or, when a snooty Anglican says to me, “Ohhh, we are so Caaatholic here at St Hilda’s…We’re far more Catholic than Fr. McGee down at St Patrick’s…” My reply is to put on my best American drawl and say, “Shucks ma’am, wearing a ten gallon hat don’t make you a Texan.”