The Protestant Mentality

Last updated on: June 8, 2009 at 9:30 pm by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The Protestant Mentality 2009-06-08T21:30:00-05:00 Fr. Dwight Longenecker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In the last post I wondered aloud why more Anglicans had not taken up the Vatican’s offer of the Anglican Use Liturgy, married clergy and full communion with Rome. An Anglican priest took the time to comment, and I post his comment below in full. The comments are articulate and express pretty clearly the point of view that I believe most Anglicans would take. (Although because the Anglican communion is very diffuse and varied there are also many Anglicans who would not agree with the commenter.

I encourage Catholics readers to take time to read the comment and my Fr.Z style fisk on the text in order to understand the reason why thoughtful Protestants do not see the reason to convert to the Catholic Church. I want to make it clear that I do not comment on the Anglican priest’s views in any judgmental way.

It’s clear that I don’t agree with them, but my point is not to debate, but to show readers how Anglicans (and most other Protestants) think about this matter, so they can see just how far most Anglicans are from taking any step towards re-union with Rome at all.

The Comments:

As an Anglican priest and not a ‘gooey liberal vicar’ type (I do enjoy the satire in those posts by the way…), my initial reaction to your query as to why more Anglican priests have not made use of the “Anglican Use” option in the RCC is threefold.

One, loyalty is in question of such priests in some quarters.I know for a fact there are quite a few Roman bishops in this country that are, while maybe not hostile, are none to thrilled at allowing discernment for would-be Anglican priests from converting. I think they fear the ultimate loyalty of converted Anglican priests. In my experience he is correct, however, I don’t think loyalty is the Catholic bishop’s main concern. I have found that the Catholic bishops who are wary of Anglican converts are often worried that those who are coming across are either ‘dangerous conservatives’ or that they are converting for the wrong reasons.

I had one RCC bishop tell me point blanc one time, “If they convert once, what is to stop them from converting again when the going gets tough and liberal tide in the Catholic church starts ascending again (as in the excesses of Vatican II.)” Basically, though the Bishop I was talking to didn’t outrightly say this, he was insinuating to me that if they are disgruntled Anglican priests, what makes anything think they won’t end up being disgruntled Catholic priests? This is a view I heard as well. It shows a sad misunderstanding among Catholics themselves (including not a small number of priests and bishops) that Anglican priests are converting simply because they “don’t like women priests.” It is understandable that lay Catholics may have their understanding of the issue determined by yesterday’s headlines, but it is astounding that Catholic bishops do not understand the real reasons for conversion. Despite numerous books and articles in which the converts explain very clearly their reasons for converting i.e. the question of authority in the Church; still some bishops think the only reason is women’s ordination.

They are right in one point. If a man does convert simply because he ‘doesn’t like women priests’ or ‘doesn’t like women’ the bishop is right to be wary of him. In my work with the St Barnabas Society we found the few who did fall into this category either didn’t convert at all, or they soon scuttled back to the Anglican Church when they found the Catholic Church not to their liking.

Secondly, to sum up a long pontification by shorter means, ‘all that glitters is not gold.’ The Anglican use rite really strips core Anglican sacramental theology out of the liturgy. They did a good job of turning the Roman mass into “Anglican sounding” liturgy, but if you really start comparing and contrasting substantive sacramental theology, it’s still Roman, despite however much it is gussied up to look Anglican.

I hope my commenter will not be offended, but this shows an astounding lack of understanding of Catholicism. The whole reason the Catholic Church disapproves of the Anglican liturgy (and by extension Anglican orders) is because we regard Anglican sacramental theology and ecclesiology to be faulty. Of course the Anglican Use liturgy is Roman and not Anglican. Does the commenter really believe that the Catholic Church would want to enshrine the doctrine of receptionism (or any other Anglican sacramental understanding) within the accepted liturgy?

Blaming the Catholic Church for making sure the Anglican Use liturgy is ‘still Roman’ despite being ‘gussied up’ to look Anglican is like blaming the American government for insisting that one of their citizens dressed up like an Austrian yodeler still carries an American passport.

The Catholic Church is trying to make the point in the Anglican Use that certain other venerable liturgies can be used to confect a valid Mass, but for that to be the case the language used still needs to conform to the order and theology of the Catholic Church.

I also think that most Anglican priests understand that no church is perfect, and that Catholics/Orthodox/whathaveyou all have their issues. Just trading one church with issues for another church with other issues is in the long run not all that attractive, given the work involved for completely redoing the entire formation process, as would be required, and a drastic cut in pay and benefits (not that that in itself is a valid excuse when standing before the Almighty.)

Now we come to the crux of the matter. The commenter expresses the essential and basic Protestant ecclesiology: that the visible church is a useful fiction, that all the Christian churches are, for the most part, necessary evils. Some are better than others, but they all have faults. This is because they are all human institutions. Therefore you simply choose the one that works best for you.

If this is the case, then of course, conversion to the Catholic Church is pointless. Conversion to Catholicism is no more necessary than conversion to Methodism. Of course Catholics do not believe this about the church at all.

Most Anglicans do however, and it is important for Catholics to realize this. It is especially important—very very important–because Anglicans (among all Protestants) are the ones who claim not to be Protestant. They really do believe they are the continuing Catholic Church in England. They do not like the term Protestant but their ecclesiology is almost always totally Protestant (otherwise they would see a pressing need to convert to the Catholic Church)

Incidentally, the commenter also reveals another trait of typical Anglicanism. He calls Catholics ‘Romans’ or ‘Roman Catholics’. He may do this out of intentional rudeness to Catholics, but he probably does not. He calls Catholics ‘Roman’ or ‘Roman Catholic’ because he believes that he is Catholic too. He is just English Catholic or ‘Anglican’.

What most Anglicans never stop to consider is how there could possibly be more than one Catholic Church. They like to talk about the ‘branch theory’ in which the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglicans are equal members of the ancient Apostolic church–sadly divided, but working bravely to re union one day. This is a fiction. By definition there can be only one Catholic Church.

Thirdly, though most Episcopal clergy these days don’t want to admit it, there still hovers the Puritan work ethic, especially in the American Episcopal context. There is just enough Scotch-Irish influence (and stubbornness) that looks at fleeing to another Church (even if its the Mother Church) as cowardice. As my grandfather (as Scotch-Irish as they came) used to say, “If you quit, you’ve let the buggers win!” We would just as soon go down in flames than admit defeat.
Again, probably not a good excuse when standing before the Almighty, but that’s just the way some folks are.

This is an argument I hadn’t heard before. If converting is ‘quitting’ then I suppose it can be argued. However, the writer himself accepts that it is a pretty weak excuse, and I think it is really just a smoke screen for what he reveals in the next paragraph.

Again, going back to the spectre of Puritanism that a lot of Episcopal clergy carry against their wills is also the Puritan notion of Providence. God has set me here for a reason, and if I truly believe that God is working to bring all things unto himself in the ages of ages, then one has to believe that, even with its problems, God has a plan for the Anglican church and hopes that one day it will be reunified with its Catholic brothers and sisters. And, as I see it, if Anglo-catholic priests leave, then its never going to happen because we have handed over our church to people who have no desire now or ever to be reunifed with Catholic Christianity.

Again, the writer states a pretty standard Anglican position. There’s a kind of Calvinism within Anglicanism, and this writer is brave to admit it. Deep in the roots of Anglicanism there is a Puritan, and therefore Protestant mind set. It is deeply anti-Catholic not only in a biased way, but also in its how world view and perspective of history, culture and the Christian faith.

This is a profound foundation for the Anglican mind, and not one which is shifted very easily. It is also the reason why most Anglicans find Catholicism so alien. It is not because Catholicism is Irish or Polish or Italian, but because it is, well, Catholic. The Protestant philosophical and theological foundation on which Anglicanism is built, and on which most Anglicans based their religion and their world view is deeply inimical to the Catholic world view. That is why those of us who are converts of over ten of fifteen years still admit that in many ways Catholicism still has not got fully into our bloodstream as much as we would like.

It takes decades to rebuild a vineyard after an earthquake, and how can that occur if the workers called to tend the vineyard all leave?

To extend the analogy, we invite the laborers in the vineyard to come work in the vineyard which still thrives. I could go on about the vine keeper pruning the vines and cutting out the dead branches and putting them on the fire, but I will leave the reader to draw what conclusions he may.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 7, 2009

Anglican Agonies

Next Post

June 9, 2009 The World Will be saved by Beauty

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Matters Apologetics Architecture Blobble Study Book Reviews Brideshead Caitlin O'Rourke Catholic Art Catholic Culture Church Politics Chust for Nice Contemporary Culture Duane Mandible Ed Blanch Film Reviews Fr Harvey Nicolaitan Frank Viola Mantilla the Hon More Christianity Mrs Brady Catholic Old Lady Mystery of the Magi Norman Anderson Queen Hillary Saints and Supernatural Spirituality The Inklings The Vicar Theology Todd Unctuous Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz