tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3139231473183014059..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: More Catholic than the PopeFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26004158274759264492008-11-17T12:42:00.000-05:002008-11-17T12:42:00.000-05:00Actually, I used to argue with Fr. Alvin Kimel on ...Actually, I used to argue with Fr. Alvin Kimel on his own "Pontifiacitons" turf all the time. Even so, I was only defending Anglicanism at the time.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27748697616615105342008-11-17T12:30:00.000-05:002008-11-17T12:30:00.000-05:00Father Hart, Your comment about the Anglican churc...Father Hart, <BR/>Your comment about the Anglican church being viewed as a mission field explained something I have been wondering about ever since finding your site. Why do Roman Catholics and some Eastern Orthodox feel they need to come out of the woodwork every time you raise a theological difference between their communion and the continuum? I never once got the feeling that anything on this site was directed to convert them. I thought you were writing to bring people like me to a deeper understanding of our own Catholic and Christian faith. By raising differences, you explain why we are not Roman Catholic--or Baptist for that matter. This is catechism for those of us in the pews. Sometimes, the comments annoy me. It is the same way I would feel if someone barged in and interupted my parishes liturgy, a homily or or Sunday school to tell us we were wrong. <BR/><BR/>I read a few RC and EO sites. I never see where Anglicans surf over to those sites and point out the errors of Rome or Antioch. <BR/><BR/>Richard<BR/><BR/>Mr Cavanaugh, <BR/>You are a welcome exception to the above.The Midland Agrarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17214111067042466363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75638702749637187822008-11-16T23:49:00.000-05:002008-11-16T23:49:00.000-05:00For clarification, of course 1054 is a largely sym...For clarification, of course 1054 is a largely symbolic date; but, it seems that only Anglicans are criticized for using the symbol. On the other hand, it has at least one bit of substance: The event demonstrates that Universal Primacy lacked universal consensus. <BR/><BR/>I agree whole-heartedly with Archbishop Haverland's point. We recognize Roman Catholics (a term that should seem like a badge of honor for real believers in the See of Peter doctrine, as their belief in it is all that the term signifies) as fellow Catholics, members of the same Holy Catholic Church as ourselves, brothers and sisters in Christ, members of the same Body of Christ, partakers of the same Holy Spirit, heirs of eternal life.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, they often treat us as a mission field, infidels and gentiles who know not God, and who need salvation. The message seems to be, in quasi-Baptist terms: "Accept the pope as your Personal Pope-with every head bowed and every eye closed-and you too may be saved." <BR/><BR/>We are not a mission field, and we are not separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86911575379744245282008-11-16T17:10:00.000-05:002008-11-16T17:10:00.000-05:00Ed,of course not. The Internet is all to commonly ...Ed,<BR/><BR/>of course not. The Internet is all to commonly peppered with impolite words. One would hope that any board that is hosted and frequented by Christians would be polite.<BR/><BR/>I'd be happy to have you visit us sometime, and glad to know you'll not get lost...I think too many visitors do, I certainly got lost on my way to St. Theresa's my first time. We're having Lessons & Carols on November 30th at 5 p.m. While Fr. Bradford won't be there (he's on vacation until the middle of that week), we will have the typical Anglican service...though led in this instance by our oft-time helper, Deacon Michael Connolly of the Armenian Catholic Church.Steve Cavanaughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021781365974293126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-42785284000519799862008-11-15T12:48:00.000-05:002008-11-15T12:48:00.000-05:00Steve,If all the conversation here with RCs was as...Steve,<BR/><BR/>If all the conversation here with RCs was as gracious as yours has been, the prospects for ultimate reunion of our traditions would indeed be very bright. Unfortunately that is not the case. I really wish some of the more polemical RC posters would recognize a couple of elementary things.<BR/><BR/>This is an Anglican blog, run by Anglicans and intended primarily for communication among Anglicans. We aren't exclusivist. Non-Anglicans, including RCs are welcome here, but we would prefer that they remember that they are, after all, guests. If I post on an RC board, or a Protestant one for that matter, I make a point of remembering whose turf I am on, and, while presenting my views forthrightly, make a real effort to do it in a polite and respectful way. I also make a real effort to keep within the conversation going on, neither subverting it to another subject nor monopolizing the conversation. Am I wrong in expecting this kind of behavior from guests on my blog?<BR/><BR/>While I don't consider AU to be an adequate answer to the problems of disunity, I do respect it, and plan at some future date to visit St. Athanasius' in Boston. (It's only a couple of hours away and meets in a chapel where I prayed more than once as a teen, back in those ancient days when I lived in nearby Roslindale.) I fully expect to enjoy it when I do.<BR/><BR/>However, I share Fr. Hart's offense at the mailing and its choice of terms. There's nothing wrong with a cradle RC speaking of his church as he always has, with the undadorned "Catholic". Though that tends to grate on me a little (since I think it is inaccurate) I'm a big boy. I can handle that. However, such a use by an AU person when addressing Anglicans cannot but be seen as <I>intentionally</I> offensive. The writers are either former Anglicans or friends of former Anglicans and most assuredly know how offewnsive and demeaning that usage sounds to their audience. Common decency would seem to require, in such circumstances, the choice of less offensive terms, which could easily be done at no cost to the clarity of their message.<BR/><BR/>We are not in the business of attacking Rome on these pages. Believe it or not, Fr. Hart has no such intent. He sets about <B>a/</B>to present classic Anglican theology as clearly as possible, <B>b/</B>to clarify just what the differences may be with late medieval and Counterreformation developments in Continental theology, and <B>c/</B> to answer objections brought, sometimes sneeringly, by sometimes unfriendly guests. Is there any of that that should not be done in a determinedly Anglican environment? We field enough harsh and aggressive comments that sometimes the strength in our replies is a bit more than is actually wise. Is anyone surprised under the circumstances?<BR/><BR/>By all means continue to question our assumptions. By all means engage us in debate. We really do welcome that. However (speaking not so much to you, Steve, as to some of your fellow RCs) we respectufully ask that this kind of conversation be seasoned with politeness and respect. Is that too much to ask? <BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67341779680163024202008-11-15T11:31:00.000-05:002008-11-15T11:31:00.000-05:00Ed,I agree that assigning blame is not the best wa...Ed,<BR/><BR/>I agree that assigning blame is not the best way forward in seeking reconciliation among Christian brethren separated one from another. But the need to refrain from sniping needs to come from all sides in a conflict if reconciliation is to be pursued. Some of the RC posters here may come across snarky, but believe me, so do some of the Anglican posters. Our esteemed moderator in far off Cyprus and yourself are certainly always irenic in your comments, and I appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>Those RCs, who like me, visit here, obviously do so because we seem some value in the Continuum. If folks were just fishing there are far bigger ponds; and if it were to correct errors, there are far more egregious ones leveled against the Church than anything we might take umbrage at here. <A HREF="http://www.chick.com/default.asp" REL="nofollow">Jack Chick</A> is still publishing, after all.<BR/><BR/>Despite the reception here of the pamphlet that started this whole discussion thread, the Anglican Use within the Catholic Church is a significant ecumenical advance, and while I understand the reasons that the Continuing Anglicans here feel that it is not for them, consider what it does represent: an initial welcoming for Reformation era Christians that allows for much of what they have come to treasure to come with them. It is a recognition on the part of Rome that there is a legitimate spiritual patrimony among the Christians in the various bodies that separated from Rome in the 16th century.<BR/><BR/>The Anglican Use pastors and people (among whom I am somehow numbered, despite my unremarkable Irish Catholic background) certainly do not think that every aspect of the Pastoral Provision or the <I>Book of Divine Worship</I> is perfect. But it is a living example of a way of being reunited and without being absorbed.<BR/><BR/>Would any Anglican, no matter how strong their convictions, look at the first thirty years following 1535 and think that the leaders of the Church of Engand, both royal and episcopal, had got everything right up to that point?<BR/><BR/>England was an important part of what you would call the Roman Catholic and I would call simply the Catholic Church up to the mid-16th century. Pope Benedict XVI has noted this himself in recalling the evangelization of Germany by English missionaries. Being part of an Anglican Use parish has allowed me to enjoy some of the gifts that God bestowed on the English Christian nation while remaining in communion with the successor of Peter. The Roman Church was deprived of many valuable spiritual goods because of the various schisms; the Anglican Use repatriates, in a small way for now, some of those goods. It is certainly my hope that future generations will see more substantive instances of this in reunion of now separated brethren.Steve Cavanaughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021781365974293126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29946090610664771432008-11-14T19:17:00.000-05:002008-11-14T19:17:00.000-05:00Thank you, Steve, for a gracious response. I'm do...Thank you, Steve, for a gracious response. I'm doing comments this weekend as Fr. Hart is away. On an issue like this one, there is plenty of blame to go around. Christians, both East and West erred greatly both before and after 1054 to produce a schism which, however one wants to attribute its origin, still persists, and to my view (and I am certain Fr. Hart's, persists because of the continuing errors of both sides. We would regard the schism originating in Tudor times and still persisting between Anglicans and the papacy to be similar in both origin and constitution. To my mind the ascription of blame is a total irrelevancy. The reality is that differences do exist, that this situation is not ultimately acceptable, and that we need to be approaching one another in true brotherhood with a sincere attempt to find solutions for the differences.<BR/><BR/>In this board we have been discovering an approach by RC "apologists" or better "polemicists" that is anything but reconciling and have tended to lose patience. It's time to stop snuipoing and to reach out instead.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59333953161229591302008-11-14T17:19:00.000-05:002008-11-14T17:19:00.000-05:00Dear Poet Reader,Sorry about the "pharmacotherapy"...Dear Poet Reader,<BR/><BR/>Sorry about the "pharmacotherapy" moniker. I did catch it for my second post.<BR/><BR/>True, 1054 can and likely is used as shorthand for, as you put it "The whole long chain of events that led, at last, to the definitive separation of East and West."<BR/><BR/>But your shorthand does not assign blame. Fr. Hart was certainly assigning blame when he says the Pope "committed schism." And even if the mutual excommunications of 1054 were an instance of schism (which they were not perceived as at the time), that would have ended with the mutual lifting of those bulls of excommunication by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. Sometimes our shorthand terms can confuse the issue more than shine a light on it. It seems to me that this use falls in that category.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I certainly do know that Fr. Hart is far too well-read in history not to know it. That's why I always find it so jarring. But as a guest, I should likely not be so blunt...it was not polite, and I apologize for the manner of my expression.Steve Cavanaughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021781365974293126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12613075313721489142008-11-14T13:21:00.000-05:002008-11-14T13:21:00.000-05:00Pharmacotherapy (I forgot who you really are - you...Pharmacotherapy (I forgot who you really are - you accidentally used this moniker again),<BR/><BR/>You're getting a bit picky in this comment:<BR/><BR/><I>Fr. Hart writes (wearingly, for the umpteenth time...)<BR/>"Otherwise, it takes the arrogant attitude that the pope had in 1054 when he committed schism from the Catholic Church."<BR/><BR/>Fr. Hart, if you have not yet learned this (and I can't belive Bill Tighe hasn't corrected you), the Pope did NOTHING in 1054....</I><BR/><BR/>Do you imagine that Fr. Hart is so ignorant of history? Haven't you noticed that 1054 has been shorthand used by Anglicans, RCs, and Orthodox for generations? Such a use is much shorter and easier than saying each time, "The whole long chain of events that led, at last, to the definitive separation of East and West." I use it that way, in full knowledge that it is imprecise, but that it does convey what I want to express.<BR/><BR/>You've been very good indeed at presenting us with incisive questions that need to be addressed. Please keep that up - we need to be challenged. However, this present comment does not add to what you've done here, and appears to be an attempt at an end run to avoid discussing the point Fr. Hart is making.<BR/><BR/>This kind of detail picking for the umpteenth time is also very wearing.poetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9009539597416698412008-11-14T12:47:00.000-05:002008-11-14T12:47:00.000-05:00I believe that the passage that is the source of s...I believe that the passage that is the source of so much consternation here is being misread.<BR/>"Those of us who have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church have taken with us our Anglican/Episcopal heritage of faith and liturgy, devotion, hymnody and scholarship developed and matured especially as a result of the Oxford Movement and the Anglo-Catholic Movement as represented by figures such as...Dr. Eric L. Mascall...."<BR/><BR/>This is not saying Mascall, or Lewis, or any other members of the Anglo-Catholic movement were anglo-papalists or crypto-Catholics, or any other such thing. It is saying that those Anglicans who have entered the full communion of the Church have not had to abandon the very many fine treasures of sprituality, scholarship and liturgy with which they had grown up. <BR/><BR/>Consider this: a person who walked in off the street into the Chapel of St. Theresa of Avila Church in West Roxbury on any given evening for Evensong or Mass would hear the sonorous words of the Prayer Book, Anglican Chant, and a well-prepared sermon. The hymnody would be from the 1940 hymnal.<BR/><BR/>That same person, taking the train into downtown Boston, might go into the Church of the Advent one night. There he would encounter a very similar service, using the same words and hymnody. He might very well think he was in a parish of the same Church.<BR/><BR/>But one is Roman Catholic (Anglican Use) and one is Episcopalian.<BR/><BR/>If y'all want to keep arguing over the pamphlet sent out in August, that's well and good (this is the second time this has been blogged on here) but I don't think you're doing yourselves much credit arguing against a point that neither the author of the pamphlet nor the leadership of the Anglican Use Society had in mind.<BR/><BR/>Respectfully,<BR/><BR/>Steve Cavanaugh<BR/>editor, <I>Anglican Embers</I>Steve Cavanaughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021781365974293126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38229530016522886792008-11-14T12:32:00.000-05:002008-11-14T12:32:00.000-05:00Fr. Hart writes (wearingly, for the umpteenth time...Fr. Hart writes (wearingly, for the umpteenth time...)<BR/>"Otherwise, it takes the arrogant attitude that the pope had in 1054 when he committed schism from the Catholic Church."<BR/><BR/>Fr. Hart, if you have not yet learned this (and I can't belive Bill Tighe hasn't corrected you), the Pope did NOTHING in 1054. In 1054, legates of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated one another (and history shows it was the Patriarch who was the provocative one). The legates actions carried no weight at all, as the Pope had, unknowingly, died, and so their authority had ended with his earthly life.<BR/><BR/>1054 is a date that became larger than life in later times. Even in the 11th century it was not considered a big deal...it was 1204 that caused a real rupture between the Eastern and Western Churches, and the Pope had nothing to do with that, except to excommunicate the Venetians and crusaders who had ransacked the New Rome.Pharmacotherapyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00994649020479807225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12957447080999872132008-11-14T00:35:00.000-05:002008-11-14T00:35:00.000-05:00Successor to Peter? My old mate Malchus suggested ...Successor to Peter? My old mate Malchus suggested to me that it could be old Luglopper Laud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83316214615477289002008-11-13T23:40:00.000-05:002008-11-13T23:40:00.000-05:00Andrew Preslar said, "As to what makes the Pope di...Andrew Preslar said, "As to what makes the Pope distinct from every other bishop, as being in a unique way the 'organ of the Church's unity,' it is the same thing that makes a sacrament a sacrament in the first place (being more fundamental than they): Divine Institution."<BR/><BR/>There was a church congregation in Rome well prior to any visit there by any named Apostle -- just pay attention to St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans; he was writing to people neither he nor St. Peter had ever visited but who were already made up a functioning outpost of the Church.<BR/><BR/>Nor is there anything in canonical Scripture that would place Rome, the city on the River Tibur, above any other place on the surface of the earth, at least from an ecclesiastical perspective. In light of that, and in light of the modern Romans' constant chirping about "the See of Peter", we must assume that this claim to divinely-instituted preeminence is rooted in something personal to St. Peter.<BR/><BR/>But if that were true, then it is more reasonable that the divinely-instituted Head of the Church, Successor of St. Peter, would be the Bishop of one of those places Scripture tells us were not only associated with St. Peter but where he actually either founded the local congregation or had a major hand in its early operations. The most obvious among these candidates are, of course, the Bishop of Jerusalem, where Peter first functioned as an Apostle, or the Bishop of Caesarea, where he first exercised an independent Apostolic ministry, or or the Bishop of Antioch, where he was joined with Paul and Barnabas in expanding another pre-existing Christian community, the one that was so important that it was where the name "Christian" was first used.<BR/><BR/>So move over, Benedict; the true heirs have been found.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/><BR/>"nocili" -- I'm struggling against the temptation to use this one in the combox... be good, oh, be strong, resist, resist....John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38674976330223988742008-11-13T20:03:00.000-05:002008-11-13T20:03:00.000-05:00I in particular want to thank Ed for saying much o...I in particular want to thank Ed for saying much of what I would have written and in much the way in which I would have written it. <BR/><BR/>When Queen Mary was dying one of the last requests which she made of her sister, Elizabeth, was that she maintain "the Roman faith." In so doing I do not think that she was asking Elizabeth to maintain believe in Holy Scripture, the Creeds or the dogmatica and doctrinal teaching of the generally accepted General Councils, but in an institution which both we and the Orthodox believe lay outside those items, i.e., the papacy as distinct from both the bishopric of Rome and the Patriarchate of the West. What Rome refuses to accept is the position which the Councils allowed of her and no more.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77883495689663282942008-11-13T17:34:00.000-05:002008-11-13T17:34:00.000-05:00If such people want to receive a hearing for their...<B>If such people want to receive a hearing for their ideas, they would be well advised to make the effort to treat their hearers with respect.</B><BR/><BR/>It is not at all disrespectful to use your own preferred term when referring to yourself.<BR/><BR/>It *is* disrespectful to not use the preferred term of others when referring to those others, which occurs everyday on this blog with one, and only one, group.BillyHWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051053155746071680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-14930238516091495392008-11-13T16:44:00.000-05:002008-11-13T16:44:00.000-05:00It's raining here this morning. I should've put my...It's raining here this morning. I should've put my wellyz on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-30793844865195661442008-11-13T16:23:00.000-05:002008-11-13T16:23:00.000-05:00Andrew Preslar:Obviously, along with the Orthodox,...Andrew Preslar:<BR/><BR/>Obviously, along with the Orthodox, we don't believe that the pope's office is of Divine institution except insofar as he is a bishop. And, of course, that is a sacrament. As for what makes a sacrament a sacrament, I have written a theological piece on that for this blog. <BR/><BR/>http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/07/reposted-grace-of-sacraments.htmlFr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47432708708672125502008-11-13T14:26:00.000-05:002008-11-13T14:26:00.000-05:00Thurs: I know some things, others know other thing...Thurs: I know some things, others know other things, and I have demonstrated my own ignorance of those other things often enough. I'd hate to think that any contribution I make to discussions of knowledge I've been fortunate to gain in the corners of the world I've been privileged at times to occupy would be interpreted as in any way showing the 'ignorance' of those who don't know it. My comment certainly wasn't made for that purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-43095110352349710352008-11-13T13:04:00.000-05:002008-11-13T13:04:00.000-05:00All that is necessary for the Church flows from a ...<EM>All that is necessary for the Church flows from a sacrament; the unity of the Church is necessary: therefore the organ of the Church’s unity must be the episcopate, not the papacy.</EM><BR/><BR/>As to what makes the Pope distinct from every other bishop, as being in a unique way the "organ of the Church's unity," it is the same thing that makes a sacrament a sacrament in the first place (being more fundamental than they): Divine Institution.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that EM's argument could be used with equal force against the necessity of Sacred Scripture, since it does not "flow from a sacrament" any more than does the papacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16202791634731042152008-11-13T12:03:00.000-05:002008-11-13T12:03:00.000-05:00"Oh, and the C of E as an entity independent of Ro..."Oh, and the C of E as an entity independent of Rome wasn't founded by Henry VIII, but by Pius V. Get your history straight."<BR/><BR/>As my young son would say in the contemporary argot, "Ms. McColl rules!"<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+<BR/><BR/>The veriword is "wellyz", which also seems to cry for some appropriate use.John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10438223553848085892008-11-13T11:44:00.000-05:002008-11-13T11:44:00.000-05:00Thursday:Dr. Mascall came to the conclusion that t...Thursday:<BR/><BR/><I>Dr. Mascall came to the conclusion that the Anglican Communion (or Continuing Movement) cannot work as it is founded on the same unsteady foundation of the Elizabeathan Settlement.</I><BR/><BR/>That is very typical of Anglo-Catholics, and reflects an in-house debate that is less significant than you may realize. Archbishop Robert Morse (retired Archbishop, APCK)says it all the time: "The Elizabethan Settlement has failed." For him that is the major reason for leaving Canterbury. In the context of Anglican thought, it is about the High and Low Church under one roof.<BR/><BR/>I disagree unless and until we come to the problem of Anglicans who so poorly misunderstand their own patrimony that they become Calvinists, or modern Evangelicals. At that point they cease to have a Catholic mind. They think they see their brand of Protestantism in our formularies, and that is due to the worst kind of ignorance: A very partial understanding.<BR/><BR/>Fr. Kirby points to possible reinterpretations by Rome, something that may happen some day. Such has been signaled, but has not become a firm reality, and so one cannot stand on it at present.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46399354998294252312008-11-13T11:09:00.000-05:002008-11-13T11:09:00.000-05:00"Perhaps, from the RC view, the terminology is acc..."<EM>Perhaps, from the RC view, the terminology is accurate, but is it polite, considerate, or wise?</EM>"<BR/><BR/>Would you tell Bp Duncan that his priestesses are, in fact, priests? I understand the issue of sensitivity, but let's not get caught up in petty "offenses."Was Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15572279745460839091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7331521991589284752008-11-13T11:02:00.000-05:002008-11-13T11:02:00.000-05:00Ms. McColl,Your note about titles is correct and y...Ms. McColl,<BR/><BR/>Your note about titles is correct and yet another evidence of the ignorance of some American Continuing Anglicans. Thank you for that.<BR/><BR/>Fr Hart,<BR/><BR/>I believe that your friend Fr Kirby is making the point I was trying to make. Furthermore, in Mascall's last unpublished book, "The Overarching Question: Divine Revelation or Human Invention" (found in the library of Pusey House), Dr. Mascall came to the conclusion that the Anglican Communion (or Continuing Movement) cannot work as it is founded on the same unsteady foundation of the Elizabeathan Settlement. He came to the conclusion that Gergory Dix and Aidan Nichols (particularly in his "Panther and the Hind") came to, which is that any true and lasting form of Anglicanism must exist in communion with the Holy See.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>Thurs.Was Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15572279745460839091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28764392316514615302008-11-13T09:22:00.000-05:002008-11-13T09:22:00.000-05:00Fr. Hart references the use of "Catholic" as synon...Fr. Hart references the use of "Catholic" as synonomous with "Roman Catholic" in that "Anglican Use" mailing, and comments that it appears offensive. Billyhw takes umbrage at Fr. Hart's comment.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, <I>from the RC view</I>, the terminology is accurate, but is it polite, considerate, or wise? Is it, indeed, intended to be anything other than offensive? Remember that the authors are either former Anglicans or closely associated with former Anglicans. Assuming that they are also intelligent, can one imagine that they had no idea how such locutions would be perceived? That would be ridiculous. Of course they knew that, and yet insisted on doing so. I know I'm not alone in seeing an insulting and smug triumphalism in that, as in the pronouncements of the various RC polemicists (I'd like to say "trolls") that we see here.<BR/><BR/>I also know I'm not alone in ceasing to listen to arguments presented with rudeness and lack of consideration. If such people want to receive a hearing for their ideas, they would be well advised to make the effort to treat their hearers with respect. If they will not do so, the only conclusion I can come to is that their concern is only to build up their own ego, and not truly to win converts. I will treat such discourse accordingly.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41655621638145568012008-11-13T08:32:00.000-05:002008-11-13T08:32:00.000-05:00If I may be permitted to demur from one aspect of ...If I may be permitted to demur from one aspect of my Metropolitan's article, I would not say that Mascall's theological principles necessarily "contradict the theory of the papal office required of Roman Catholics since Vatican I". I would prefer to say "contradict the theory of the papal office commonly accepted as the normative interpretation of Vatican I, especially as applied in Roman Canon Law". <BR/><BR/>I would say this because I believe Mascall's principles are basically sound but are not incompatible with every plausible interpretation of Vatican I and because I believe Mascall appeared himself to qualify his difficulties with Vatican I in just this nuanced way. For example, note the way he puts the key element of papalism to which he objects in <I>The Recovery of Unity</I>: "the absolute supremacy ... which is <B>commonly claimed</B> by popes and <B>expounded by Roman Catholic theologians</B> at the present day" (emphasis added). He calls attention to past Roman qualifications of papalism and shows how they have become progressively rarer or taken less seriously since Vatican I, but does not claim that they have disappeared or that they are absolutely intrinsically incompatible with Vatican I, especially since the "qualifying" quotation he gives (see p.205, 1958 edition) are post-Vatican I anyway. Mascall draws special attention to absolute-sounding parts of the Canon Law on page 204.<BR/><BR/>There are in fact a number of apparent papalist claims which are not properly necessitated by Vatican I but either commonly derived from it, or are implied by the way Vatican I has been put into practice historically and canonically, and so are worthy of criticism. I would number among these the following statements about papalism from Archbishop Haverland's wonderful book, <I>Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice</I>: <BR/><BR/>1. "[The Pope] claims authority and jurisdiction in every diocese of the world just as if he were the bishop ordinary of that diocese."<BR/><BR/>2. "The Roman claim is ... that divine inspiration will prevent him ... formally teaching ... doctrinal error to the whole Church."<BR/><BR/>3. "[T]he Pope can act entirely alone, even apart from the [other] bishops".<BR/><BR/>However, it is only fair to note that each of these positions has also been denied by Roman Catholic theologians and even Popes to be the right way to interpret the papal office. E.g., <I>Ut Unum Sint</I> section 95 undermines 3 above. A letter written by the German RC bishops in the 19th Century with the approval of the Pope undermines 1 and ARCIC denied the word "ordinary" in the context of Vatican I meant the same as "ordinary" as an adjective for the episcopal position of the bishop of a diocese. And 2 does not describe the more careful explanations of how <I>ex cathedra</I> statements are protected from error. <BR/><BR/>These facts do not mean the criticisms outlined are irrelevant, but that they do not necessarily constitute insuperable obstacles, in my hope-full opinion. :-)Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.com