tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post8025582513857492818..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: What we believeFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29563813122027730462009-06-22T02:19:53.175-04:002009-06-22T02:19:53.175-04:00One thing about the St. Louis Affirmation has alwa...One thing about the St. Louis Affirmation has always bothered me.<br /><br />In regards to the three creeds, what is meant by "We receive and believe them in the sense they have had always in the Catholic Church"?<br /><br />Must I believe that the Easten Orthodox (who reject the filoque) go off into literal "everlasing fire" at Christ's second coming (because that was the "sense" in which certain statements in the Athanasian Creed may have been understood in the 9th century)?<br /><br />C.S. Lewis has been called "a well instructed, Orthodox Anglican," and I don't think he believed this (in fact, I doubt he believed in literal fire.)<br /><br />What exactly do we mean when we say that we receive and believe the Athanasian Creed in the sense that it has always had in the Catholic Church?MikeBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04539078691122415343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64664886181069826922009-04-25T22:20:00.000-04:002009-04-25T22:20:00.000-04:00Jack Miller,
This statement follows the Affirmati...Jack Miller,<br /><br />This statement follows the Affirmation of St. Louis, which clearly includes those things; as do other statements of the ACC.<br /><br />I believe that the bishop was deliberately ecumenical in a trans-Catholic way.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58536707960173918152009-04-25T21:55:00.000-04:002009-04-25T21:55:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart... I am curious how there can be a statem...Fr. Hart... I am curious how there can be a statement of Anglican faith and doctrine with no mention of the 39 Articles as our Anglican confession, which for several centuries was subscribe to by all ordained Anglican clergy? Dating back to the very early years of the English reformation, it clearly sets forth and expands on the fundamental tenants of The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds, as well as the statements of confession regarding justification, Scripture, the Lord's Supper, etc.<br /><br />The BCP expresses those very doctrines in the liturgy, prayers, and every part of that book. Not to mention, the articles are in the BCP as a statement of doctrine and faith, as a clear "creedal" anchor for our Anglican catholic faith.<br /><br />I would certainly be interested in your thoughts on this omission.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />JackJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-62841342390058407902009-04-07T14:59:00.000-04:002009-04-07T14:59:00.000-04:00In re the Barking Toad & sheep-stealing : I ha...In re the Barking Toad & sheep-stealing : I have met two clergy and a few parishioners of the Parish of St Mark in Portland (the sheep who, in Toad's mind, were "stolen"). According to them, it was they who approached the APCK, and not the other way around. I'm not sure that you can really claim sheep were stolen if they let themselves out of their enclosure and went elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>Canon Tallis--something about the allusive use of innuendo in many of your posts sticks in my craw. If it is germane to the discussion that such-and-such a priest at such-and-such a church is a pornographer, I can't see how it serves the point to refuse to name him or his work; to me, this comes awfully close to being <I>praeteritio</I>. We understand that you don't quite approve of Roman Catholicism, or of Rome-leaning Anglo-Catholics, and you've made your reasons clear. It really doesn't seem honorable to link the notoriety of a smut-writing priest with the churchmanship of an entire group of people, especially when you're unwilling to provide any facts that can be independently verified; what we're left with is a vague innuendo that leads nowhere.<BR/><BR/>And finally, I have no doubt that you have personally known some Roman & Anglo-Catholic clergymen who should never have been ordained, or who are notorious and unrepentant sinners. So have I. I have also known many Roman and Anglo-Catholic clergymen who were as close to saintly as I have ever met. The bottom line is that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", and your personal knowledge of a few clerical perverts does not condemn the entire class, or invalidate the institutions they serve.palaeologoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083316937862412507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53165782042462720152009-04-04T04:13:00.000-04:002009-04-04T04:13:00.000-04:00Akinola's o.k., but McAkinola would belong down th...Akinola's o.k., but McAkinola would belong down the road among the Prezzies.Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-44157209127977150422009-04-02T00:42:00.000-04:002009-04-02T00:42:00.000-04:00I could have raised him when once a parishioner at...<I>I could have raised him when once a parishioner at a snooty inner-city 'high' church asked what I was doing at an Anglican church with a name like McColl.</I><BR/><BR/>Gee, how about a name like Ibeanu, Akinola, or Kwaza? Most of the people who identify themselves as Anglican are black and live in Africa. A few Mcs here and there are hardly an anomaly or an enigma.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35308213123416739912009-03-30T06:02:00.000-04:002009-03-30T06:02:00.000-04:00Thank you, Canon Tallis. No relation, I fear. My f...Thank you, Canon Tallis. No relation, I fear. My forebears were, so far as I can tell on the McColl side, Glasgow working folk. If only I'd known about 'cousin' Mal, however, I could have raised him when once a parishioner at a snooty inner-city 'high' church asked what I was doing at an Anglican church with a name like McColl. Strange, but the Russians never questioned my right to drop in on their liturgy, even after the catechumens had been shooed away.Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47454757897005741762009-03-29T17:46:00.000-04:002009-03-29T17:46:00.000-04:00Sorry, Diane. I retract 'lumbering' and substitute...Sorry, Diane. I retract 'lumbering' and substitute 'tiptoing daintily'.Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64920134420047524162009-03-29T13:22:00.000-04:002009-03-29T13:22:00.000-04:00Sandra,The Reverend Canon Malcolm McColl was a pri...Sandra,<BR/><BR/>The Reverend Canon Malcolm McColl was a priest of the Church of England in the 19th century and an ally of Prime Minister Gladstone. He is one of the few people who gave good evidence that he had read all of the state papers of the Reformation period and the author of two books on the Reformation Settlement as defined by the Elizabethan prayer book. <BR/><BR/>I rather like him in the fact that he was prone to write that while he had discovered copies of the repeated orders and payments for the copes required by the canons, he was unable to find the copes or any evidence of what happened to them. While I had read him before I was in the Abbey after the discovery of the two cloth of gold (twenty six pounds each of it) copes made for the coronation of Charles II, it made it much easier to realize how ten of the twelve made could disappear while two could be put in a closet not to be opened for a couple of hundred years.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61882158242531677562009-03-29T04:37:00.000-04:002009-03-29T04:37:00.000-04:00No doubt I am coming in too late to the debate on ...No doubt I am coming in too late to the debate on the Canon's formation, but it seems to me an important fact of Church history has not been mentioned by anyone yet. <BR/><BR/>The Seventh Ecumenical Council, once one includes all the other letters of the Fathers, Canons of local Councils, etc, it lists as authoritative by implicitly recognising the Trullan Canons, gives 4 different Canons (of the whole Scripture). Interestingly, those that include all 27 NT books also include at least one of the Deuterocanonicals. None of these lists is identical to each other, and none are identical either to the Tridentine or Protestant Canons. The Canonical list of the Third Council of Carthage comes closest to the Tridentine, but does not specifically mention Baruch. The Athanasian list is closest to the Protestant Canon, but omits Esther (placing it in what we would call the Deuterocanon) and includes Baruch. The latter two lists both include prohibition of inconsistent lists!<BR/><BR/>Additionally, two of the four lists abovementioned were decreed after the Council and papal decree to which Diane refers, but they did not cite it at all, let alone as authoritative. It should also be noted that many scholars believe the Canon ascribed to the Roman Council of 382 under Pope Damasus is actually a much later pseudepigraphical addition.<BR/><BR/>However, most of the disagreement discussed above was over the precise scope of the Old Testament, with a large majority of Churches accepting all 27 books quite early, and treating this as assured by the Church's consensual recognition, not as assured by any particular conciliar or papal decree. Indeed, where the lists are given authoritatively they are given as a kind of "report" on the existing practice and belief considered as binding in itself. The discussions of the issue by both St Augustine and St Athanasius make this quite clear.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26740415809858154532009-03-29T01:51:00.000-04:002009-03-29T01:51:00.000-04:00I am exercising editorial privilege by posting Dia...I am exercising editorial privilege by posting Diane's latest comment in its entirety, but with my responses included in the body.<BR/><BR/><I> Diane said, Fr. Hart,1.You know I didn't mean to type 'Stephen'...I meant James.</I><BR/><BR/>Which does not change the fact that James gave the κρίνω. James presided, not “Pope” Peter (Peter himself would have been amazed and troubled at the thought of what RCs have made of him).<BR/><BR/><I>2. The seriousness with which the Clementine letters were considered as part of the canon is shown by the fact that some coptic-arabic churches have them as part of their canon.</I><BR/><BR/>So, now separatists who have been distant from the rest of the Church for 1600 years are your witness. The issue is not that some books were considered equal to the books that are in the Canon; but rather the degree to which your evaluation exaggerates that beyond what historians have always acknowledged.<BR/><BR/><I>3.I've got no problem with 'recieves' or 'compiled'.</I><BR/><BR/>“Compiled” is not nearly as accurate as “received.”<BR/><BR/><I>4. Yes Scripture is from God...(never stated otherwise), as is the Church... Also, let me know what paragraph in the CCC states that Scripture has authority higher than that of the Church.</I><BR/><BR/>Read the entire section on Holy Scripture, and ask yourself what it says. <BR/><BR/>The problem here is recognizing who is the Lord, and who is his obedient bride. The problem is that either the Church “dominates its interpretation,” as you said, or submits to her Lord by faithfully teaching and obeying what it hears as his voice. The difference is very real. A group of young RC priests were discussing theology with my brother, an old geezer RC priest sent by the bishop to guide their understanding. When discussing the Lord as having no sin, one of the young priests said that if Jesus was on earth today, he would “obey the Church.” My brother laughed out loud, and asked “Do you have any idea what the word ‘Lord’ means?”<BR/><BR/><I>5. Yes, I know that the Council of Rome was a local one, but it was significant in that it was the first council to name the NT canon as we have it today.</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. Nicea I <B>recognized</B> the N.T. Canon. Furthermore, they recognized it as an established fact.<BR/><BR/><I>6. If only Scripture was needed to conclude the Arian heresy, no council (of the Church!) would have been needed...."just get out the NT, read it, and then we are all of one mind"....not.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, the bishops were of one mind except for Arius’ lone episcopal supporter (condemned with him, one Eusebius-no, not that Eusebius), and actually, they did rely on Scripture, with Athanasius (a deacon then) being the most eloquent spokesman for the orthodox position. Of course any use of Scripture required the Tradition of which it was a part to guide understanding (<I>Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est</I>)-as we have always maintained. <BR/><BR/><I>7. Yes, the Pope frequently speaks using 'we'. He is sure of his authority and doesn't need to rub our noses in it with dictatorial language or anything....he likes to soft-shoe his authoritative role....sits better with people who bristle at the very thought of it.</I><BR/><BR/>I acknowledge his authority too-as Bishop of Rome. I don’t live in his diocese.<BR/><BR/><I>8. Yes binding and loosing was given to all apostles, but not the keys...I already know what you will say about the keys and in advance of your statement, I disagree!</I><BR/><BR/>Binding and loosing means what the keys do. Matt. 18 gives this to all the Aposltes.<BR/><BR/><I>9. The Elaine Pagels comment was simply your swipe at me...you and I both know that she backs as manuscripts 'in the running' those that would have given Christianity a totally different complexion....I was not doing what she was doing. I was giving real examples of who backed texts other than the Shepard to show you that manuscripts other than those you mentioned were very much 'in the running'.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that is simply not the standard take of Church historians about the importance of those books relative to the N.T. Canon. You seemed to be trying to minimize the importance of the N.T. itself, as if it somehow is weighed against the authority of the Church. You seem unable to see these, Scripture and Tradition, as interdependent and inseparable.<BR/><BR/><I>We don't have to go on and on from here....heading down to our disagreement over papal universal jurisdiction and authority, as always.<BR/><BR/>Others: I've seen this angle before...I disagree with her views and the triumphalism in her tone, so let's knock her down a notch for not speaking like an academic...I can handle it.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem is, your history appears to come from bad apologetic sources, not from real historians.<BR/><BR/><I>Ms. McColl: as for 'lumbering', speak for yourself and exersize restraint before firing direct and personal putdowns toward others. </I><BR/><BR/>Oh, I don’t mind being called ugly. But, thanks anyway.<BR/><BR/><I>As for Dr. Tighe, I've seen ya'll gang up on him before when he has asserted the primacy of his Church.</I><BR/><BR/>Bill is a pro, a heavy weight, and can handle the criticism that Fr.Kirby wrote of comments he had made.<BR/><BR/><I>All: Take care and have a productive Lent!</I>Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72586763780472799232009-03-29T01:31:00.000-04:002009-03-29T01:31:00.000-04:00St Worm,Let me be the first to applaud your post. ...St Worm,<BR/><BR/>Let me be the first to applaud your post. Doing this sort of thing on the internet is so difficult because there is so much which has already been written on each of the issues and they are so difficult for some to come to any sort of grips with. Most of us have to rely on those who have read all the original documents extant, hopefully in the original language = that is until we can also achieve that elevated status ourselves.<BR/><BR/>Worse, even then our efforts to maintain charity are frequently affected by our own personal history, what we have seen and experienced in our own lives. And for many of us the majority of that can not be helpfully repeated in public or mixed company. so we simply have to let it go and love the folks for whom nothing which we can say or do is ever going to make any difference, not even any sense.<BR/><BR/>For me it is all wrapped up in an old Southern proverb: 'Hate the sin and love the sinner and see the gentlemen get their dinner." As the argument is never going to be resolved, the best we can do is be the best Christian possible, the best and most authentic Anglicans possible while never pretending to be anything else. If we fix our eyes and heart upon our Lord and his saving passion, knowing that he is the eternal Word, we shall be safe. St. Augustine said, 'Love God and do what you will' knowing that someone who truly loves God must follow his commandments. <BR/><BR/>As Anglicans, we must remember that Elizabeth I in her settlement of the faith of the English Church did not cut off communion with the Church of Rome. The canons even left room for an appeal to the Roman See under limited circumstances. It was Rome that found Elizabeth and the Church of England a threat and excommunicated them. We still recognize Roman orders because we define ours in the same way.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-43145319096877073992009-03-28T23:16:00.000-04:002009-03-28T23:16:00.000-04:00Who's Malcolm McColl?Who's Malcolm McColl?Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6159450146761037062009-03-28T12:22:00.000-04:002009-03-28T12:22:00.000-04:00Oops! In the interest of accuracy, my "boast" of ...Oops! In the interest of accuracy, my "boast" of reading 20,000 consecutive pages should read "2,000", and then various minor articles, journals, and smaller books.<BR/><BR/>I'll have read "20,000" when I digest the 38 volume Early Church Fathers.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sorry!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48816343482610159342009-03-28T11:24:00.000-04:002009-03-28T11:24:00.000-04:00I don't pretend to know for sure Diane's education...I don't pretend to know for sure Diane's educational pedigree when it comes to Church History, and my relatively surface readings on the topic (maybe 20,000 consecutive pages worth of Church History over the years) gives me only enough for impressions and outlines, so I'm only saying this as an observation and not as an expert:<BR/><BR/>When I hear Romanist, EO, or Protestant brethren mention specific facts from Church History (take our current discussion on the canon), and then dogmatically infer their communion's position without an ounce of epistemological humility that *MAYBE* their handle on the topic is after all superficial and subject to error, it sort of makes me cringe. <BR/><BR/>I'm all for "party" loyalty -- after all, it would be dishonest to be a Roman Catholic and *NOT* support Her claims -- but isn't there a way for a layman, who has just a modicum more of knowledge than other laymen (as you'll find in blogs like these -- not detracting from the education of real scholars in our midst, you know who you are), to express themselves with a measure of restraint relative to their knowledge? <BR/><BR/>Take the recent discussion. As an Anglican layman (I'm a shade tree amateur student of Scripture, Church History, and Theology), wouldn't it strike anyone here as odd if I spent lots of energy carrying out an Anglican jihad against Romanism proper with facts and figures I'm only acquainted with on the surface? If I said against my Romanist friends, "The papacy is a corruption because of the following four facts I read in a couple of history books" (I'm reading through Schaff's 8 volumes right now), am I *REALLY* representing my facts well and learnedly? Now as an Anglican I am quite firm in my rejection of the Roman Catholic paradigm (BASED ON MY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING), but is it reasonable for me to spout off Church History, in such a manner during a debate, as *if* I've got a real handle on the topic? <BR/><BR/>People would say, "That St. Worm is all smoke and mirrors. He's got a few phrases, facts, and figures down in his defense, but he's acting too big for his britches: can he really make so much noise with knowing relatively little?"<BR/><BR/>Now this is the case with our dear guest Diane. I don't know her history, education, or experience, but I get the *feeling* (could be wrong so I'm open to correction) that her zeal exceeds the knowledge base, and the litany of facts she has at her disposal lack a nuanced and careful presentation required for such bold and unmeasured dialogues. On the other hand, whenever we have learned Roman Catholic brethren like William Tighe show up (he's always a delight and very informative), I take something away because of the sheer depth of his knowledge base. He might at the end of the day be wrong on some of his views, wrongly inferred from certain historical facts we all can agree upon, but he has WARRANT for a certain kind of boldness and dogmaticism because of the real time and research he's invested into his art and science.<BR/><BR/>I guess all I'm asking for in these exchanges is for Roman Catholic laity to season their arguments with a bit more humility that matches what they actually know, as they would expect from their Anglican friends. I *MIGHT* be wrong (I don't believe I am) for being an Anglican, but I certainly don't feel the need to mow over my RC friends as if my Anglican narrative is simply a matter of presenting an air-tight case based on the right list of facts without nuance or proper understanding of the other side's case. The whole thing comes off as a laughable exchange from the vantage point of those who REALLY immerse their minds and hearts into understanding these matters -- and usually such people express much more humility than their e-pologist counterparts.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps more phrases like, "doesn't it seem...?" and "from what I understand," and "wouldn't it follow that...?" sprinkled throughout our dialogue would create a more humble environment without engendering a hopeless epistemology. As it stands, most RC/Protestant dialogue from a bunch of laymen is cluttered in abundance with phrases like, "you've conveniently neglected this fact," or "what you just don't get is," and "it's obvious to me, but you're not wanting to see it," etc.<BR/><BR/>Usually such exchanges (in my experience) are indicative of a sophomoric understanding of theology and church history most anyone with a high school education can gain by simply reading a couple of books. <BR/><BR/>My good friend Tim Enloe (tgenloe.com) has long made this his platform, decrying phony internet debates as a substitute for real and careful interaction. I think such a message needs to be more broadly published.<BR/><BR/>Blessings.<BR/><BR/>St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47775090090131563112009-03-28T00:10:00.000-04:002009-03-28T00:10:00.000-04:00Now, Fr Hart is big and ugly enough...I see that S...<I>Now, Fr Hart is big and ugly enough...</I><BR/><BR/>I see that Sandra has looked at my picture.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27845742394953392212009-03-27T23:42:00.000-04:002009-03-27T23:42:00.000-04:00Diane, you come lumbering into this Continuing Ang...Diane, you come lumbering into this Continuing Anglican discussion room (which is, indeed, free to all) spouting your shrill Peter-was-the-only-apostle RC 'apologetics' and treating us as if we are fundamentalist Baptists who behave as if Christianity was invented when the Bible fell fully-formed from Heaven some time in the 16th century, and then you have the gall to say that a comment made in defence of his position by Fr Hart (who is one of the owners of this blog and is therefore 'at home' in this space) is 'low'. Now, Fr Hart is big and ugly enough to look after himself, and seems to be doing so pretty well, so I'm not saying this to defend him, just to give an indication that, as a frequent guest in this space, I'm finding your comments and your attitude extremely tiresome. Oh, and if you really agreed with Fr Kirby, you'd agree with Fr Hart, too.Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19443760835118456912009-03-27T14:18:00.000-04:002009-03-27T14:18:00.000-04:00One gets the feeling if Pope Benedict were interac...One gets the feeling if Pope Benedict were interacting with us he wouldn't be so squeamish about the priority of Scripture... but popular RC apologetics gets all bent out of shape. Why the gap between academic catholicism and internet catholicism? I can only surmise, but it's obvious and glaring to us "outsiders".<BR/><BR/>Also, where in Church history do we find the Fathers making little of the sufficiency of Scripture? I see many places where tradition secures apostolic teaching, but nowhere such language as, "watch out for folks who put Scripture first." <BR/><BR/>St. Worm<BR/>www.augustineacademy.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24170868705385805802009-03-27T13:26:00.000-04:002009-03-27T13:26:00.000-04:00Diane:The canon was the result of a process.The Ch...Diane:<BR/><BR/><I>The canon was the result of a process.</I><BR/><BR/>The Church was like the dalmatian on the old RCA label, who recognized his master's voice. The process was one of subordination to the Holy Spirit. It was vox populi, the Church saying where it recognized the Master's voice. No one ever said it was immediate.<BR/><BR/>The questions which a significant number of churches were asking mostly were about II Peter, to a lesser degree Revelation; Jude and Hebrews took more time than others also, but eventually Hebrews was recognized even though it bears no attribution of a writer. Obviously, it was not St.Paul, and obviously, it was someone in his band who allowed Timothy to take the lead (which Paul would not have done). Mainly, however, it boiled down, as I said, to questions about II Peter and Revelation. As for books not included, the one with any real significant "support" was The Shepherd of Hermas. But, the Church did not hear the Master's voice in it (and I can't figure out why anyone ever thought he did).<BR/><BR/>Earlier you wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>By your own admission, someone or something had to decide.</I><BR/><BR/>The things I wrote are never an admission, but a clear statement. Also, I would not have used the word "decide" about <I>reception</I> of the Canon.<BR/><BR/><I>My guess is that you want to negate the Church's authority in defining the canon (Rome 382 presided over by Damusus) after which the Africans shored up their canon to match Rome's (Hippo, Carthage) as did Gaul.</I><BR/><BR/>The Council of Rome in 382 is not an Ecumenical Council, and if it had been it would have been unique among them because it was presided over by the Bishop of Rome, unlike all Seven of the Ecumenical Councils. The New Testament Canon, however, had the universal consent of the Council of Nicea (325), without any statement to the effect of how it came to be recognized, inasmuch as such a statement was not necessary. The later defense of that well established Canon in 382 was not a "decision."<BR/><BR/><I>Also, Stephen didn't preside over the Council of Jerusalem..</I><BR/><BR/>True. He was martyred back in chapter seven of the same book (Acts). Clearly, James, by stating his "sentence" (κρίνω) in Acts 15:19, is shown to have been the one presiding. Nonetheless, he merely stated what all of them had agreed on, and there is no indication that he was ruling over the Council, but rather that the apostles were there with the presbyters, in unity of mind against the new doctrine of the Judaizers. Look at vs. 24, 25: "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul." Notice the plural wording..."we...us." Notice "...being assembled with one accord..."<BR/><BR/><I>I guess I can see how you would attempt to deny Peter's authority here, but after hearing how your group says that the authority of the keys was meant for all apostles...</I><BR/><BR/>Peter's authority to do what? To act as an Apostle, to restate what he had said ever since the day he went to the house of Cornelius? To state so perfectly the doctrine that has come to be called "Pauline"? At the Council he did all these things in a few words.<BR/><BR/>But, as for the equal authority of the Apostles, it is not us, but the Lord Jesus Christ who made this statement. Perhaps your New Testament has Matt. 16, and deletes Matt. 18. Our does not delete either. <BR/><BR/>"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. 18:17 <BR/><BR/>This was not said not only to Peter, but to all of them. In context, it is clearly speaking to all of their successors (bishops) throughout all ages of the Church that would follow.<BR/><BR/><I>The Elaine Pagels comment was low...</I><BR/><BR/>In this day and age, on an open blog, I found it necessary to say something to counter any concept that there were "many" books "in the running." The times in which we live required clarification since anyone anywhere may read this.<BR/><BR/><I>I know ya'll claim ties to tradition but you still put Scripture a cut above...</I><BR/><BR/>So does your <I>Catechism of the Catholic Church</I>. Have you read it?<BR/><BR/><I>the ancient church didn't and neither should the continuing anglicans.</I><BR/><BR/>Then, if they did not, what exactly did they use to disprove Arianism at the Council of Nicea? What did they use to document Apostolic teaching of the revelation God had given the Church? Following that example, how should we document it now? <BR/><BR/>The answer is obvious: The Scriptures come from above; as the Papal Document <I>Dominus Iesus</I> says, "These books have God as their Author."Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80269088096268118132009-03-27T09:15:00.000-04:002009-03-27T09:15:00.000-04:00Fr.Kirby...i agree with you. There has to be a bod...Fr.Kirby...i agree with you. <BR/><BR/>There has to be a body to authoritatively interpret it...same body that defined the canon when the canon couldn't define itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53710089052698326162009-03-27T07:35:00.000-04:002009-03-27T07:35:00.000-04:00Diane,We would have no objection to saying that th...Diane,<BR/><BR/>We would have no objection to saying that the Church has authority in the interpretation of Scripture, and priority over private interpretation. In fact we say that kind of thing all the time, and Anglican statements to this effect can be found all the way back to the Reformation.<BR/><BR/>However, to say the Church has "dominion" over Scriptural interpretation has a worrying connotation, it seems to me. Dominion sounds too much like domineering power and too little like trustworthy but derived authority. "Power over Scripture" would imply an unlimited and perhaps arbitrary and willful freedom of interpretation, treating Scripture like it really is intrinsically a "wax nose" that we can and must "inform" with whatever presuppositions we deem appropriate. Dominion-language makes it sound like the relationship is one-way, in that the Church has no responsibility of obedience to Scripture. <BR/><BR/>The Church does not dominate Scripture. It is informed by it, receiving and certifying it as Divine Revelation, at the same time as it interprets it authoritatively by God's grace.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15451264080417664472009-03-26T23:19:00.000-04:002009-03-26T23:19:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart,The canon was the result of a process. Ir...Fr. Hart,<BR/><BR/>The canon was the result of a process. <BR/><BR/>Iraneus left out Philemon, and Polycarp sites only 8 of Paul's epistles..even at the end of the 2nd century, Rev, Hebrews, James, Jude were still contested.<BR/>Clement was most certainly in the running, as was Barnabas and Apoc of Peter and others. It was Origen who supported the Didache as part of the canon.<BR/>Some didn't see the shepard as a contender (Eusebius).<BR/><BR/>I guess my bottom line is that while the Gospels and Paul's Epistles were accepted readily...there was much question about the rest. You want to make it seem as if these early Christians had the NT all locked up early...history just doesn't support what you say. My guess is that you want to negate the Church's authority in defining the canon (Rome 382 presided over by Damusus) after which the Africans shored up their canon to match Rome's (Hippo, Carthage) as did Gaul.<BR/><BR/>Also, Stephen didn't preside over the Counc of Jerusalem..he offered his input to round out what Peter had already made clear. <BR/><BR/>I guess I can see how you would attempt to deny Peter's authority here, but after hearing how your group says that the authority of the keys was meant for all apostles, I'm not surprised at anything from ya'll....all of it does come down to authority and your desire to make out the Bishop of Rome as merely important and not authoritative. <BR/><BR/>The Elaine Pagels comment was low...you should know that although you and I disagree on some issues, we are pretty close overall considering what's passing for 'christianity' these days. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, it is Scripture that says the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth. When you say that the canon is the highest place of authority, in a way, that's like those protestants that ship Bibles over to China and consider that 'building christianity'...Acts shows us that it takes specific, visible churches with presbyters, deacons and bishops to spread the faith in the way that our Lord wanted.<BR/><BR/>I know ya'll claim ties to tradition but you still put Scripture a cut above...the ancient church didn't and neither should the continuing anglicans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-44317157218219527652009-03-26T18:43:00.000-04:002009-03-26T18:43:00.000-04:00Diane,The writings of the apostolic fathers are su...Diane,<BR/><BR/>The writings of the apostolic fathers are such a blessing to read, and they have a genuine ring of truth to them. But surely you can see the stark difference between the Gospel of Matthew and the Shepherd of Hermas, no? The church receives and declares authoritatively the canon, but she doesn't create it as such, any more than the Jews could make the books of Genesis or Exodus canonical. <BR/><BR/>Apart from the doubted texts of II, III John, II Peter, Jude, Revelation, Hebrews, & James (antilegoumena), there is a distinct impression one gets about the character of, say, the book of Romans over against the book of I Clement. Both are apostolic in flavor, but the former breathes authority while the latter echoes it. <BR/><BR/>I think collectively the Church saw this and had no choice but to say, "The Word of the Lord!" <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>St. Worm<BR/>(www.augustineacademy.com)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80100148969202548142009-03-26T11:38:00.000-04:002009-03-26T11:38:00.000-04:00Clement was read in Corinth, to which it was sent....Clement was read in Corinth, to which it was sent. It had no serious "support" as equal to the N.T. books. I meant "compiled," and it seems very much to be the wrong word to use for something received, recognized and acknowledged. <BR/><BR/>Others, like the Didache, are not among books that were quoted as having the weight that scripture has. Onl;y the Shepherd of Hermas was thought by some to be scripture, and only God knows why. The voice of God simply cannot be heard in that book.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-4933370444477788932009-03-26T08:15:00.000-04:002009-03-26T08:15:00.000-04:00Clement and others were most certainly in the runn...Clement and others were most certainly in the running...esp. Clement, which was read in local churches for years and years.<BR/><BR/>I said compiled...not complied, which is what you said I said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com