tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post4600663834618125223..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Anglican identityFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18062771345036789662009-10-05T07:34:27.585-04:002009-10-05T07:34:27.585-04:00"I still do not know your answers to the ques..."I still do not know your answers to the questions I asked earlier, Father."<br /><br />Did you have "questions"? I got lost in <br />your ocean of words and gave up reading. But I am still wondering about a question I earlier addressed to you: If your reading of Trent is correct, then why have so many people been so terribly wrong for so long a time? If you had been around in the 16th century, could your explanation have helped them mend their differences?<br /><br />You are, however, insightfully correct in your comparison of the Zinzendorf hymn with the Dies irae. The Dies irae asks the question and offers the answer which the Reformation itself dealt with.<br />I have made the same pount in conversations with RC's, many of whom did not know of the Dies irae.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50127850613969621932009-10-05T05:59:30.532-04:002009-10-05T05:59:30.532-04:00One more thing, Dies irae is no. 70 in the same Bo...One more thing, Dies irae is no. 70 in the same Book of Common Praise. Who wouldn't be Anglican Catholic? :-)Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81412455377482688632009-10-05T05:56:23.550-04:002009-10-05T05:56:23.550-04:00I also agree with Fr Hart's comment regarding ...I also agree with Fr Hart's comment regarding Aquinas and the Articles and what is in fact "the duty" of every Christian. His comment seems a perfectly Anglican and Catholic way of viewing assurance.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32313796081692955472009-10-05T05:43:19.906-04:002009-10-05T05:43:19.906-04:00By the way, the Hymn of von Zinzendorf is no. 523 ...By the way, the Hymn of von Zinzendorf is no. 523 of the (Canadian) Book of Common Praise, a primary authorised hymnal of the ACC from its beginning.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17416914656356046622009-10-05T05:29:21.199-04:002009-10-05T05:29:21.199-04:00Fr Wells,
There is little difference in the final...Fr Wells,<br /><br />There is little difference in the final analysis between this hymn and that great Sequence of All Souls Day, <i>Dies Irae</i>. The verses below are the key to the latter.<br /><br />"What shall I, frail man, be pleading?<br />Who for me be interceding,<br />when the just are mercy needing?<br /><br />King of Majesty tremendous,<br />who dost free salvation send us,<br />Fount of pity, then befriend us!<br /><br />Think, good Jesus, my salvation<br />cost thy wondrous Incarnation;<br />leave me not to reprobation!<br /><br />Faint and weary, thou hast sought me,<br />on the cross of suffering bought me.<br />shall such grace be vainly brought me?<br /><br />Righteous Judge! for sin's pollution<br />grant thy gift of absolution,<br />ere the day of retribution."<br /><br />Similar words may be found in the Western tradition of Catholic mystics.<br /><br />There is a difference of tone, with the Wesleyan hymn coming from the attitude of boldness of Romans 8:31f and Hebrews 10:19, the Missal's hymn from the attitude of "fear and trembling" of 2 Corinthans 5:10-11 and Philippians 2:12. Both have their place in healthy spirituality.<br /><br />The only thing I might object to in the hymn is not actually in the hymn itself. But there is the possibility that people might be encouraged to sing it who know nothing of the other aspect of the truth, who do not understand the need, implicitly assumed in the hymn, for the living faith that includes true contrition. In other words, if this was the only soteriology they knew, it might encourage presumption among the shallow. It might also encourage the misconception, if used in isolation, that the judgement of Christians is not affected at all by the principles of Mark 9:49, the Corinthian citation above, and 1 Corinthians 3:12-15.<br /><br />I still do not know your answers to the questions I asked earlier, Father.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br /><br />MK+Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77438482814903781982009-10-04T22:39:49.564-04:002009-10-04T22:39:49.564-04:00Ed writes:
"I suspect that this hymn can be f...Ed writes:<br />"I suspect that this hymn can be fervently affirmed by all the contributors to this thread, whatever their theological camp."<br /><br />If words have meaning, and if we are theologically serious in what we have said, I do not see how this could be the case. Why do we not allow the various paticipants to speak for themelves, Ed, rather than just proclaiming a unity which may not be there?<br /><br />Ed calls this hymn "familiar." But it is not to be found in the American Church Hymnals of 1916, 1940, or 1982, nor in the English Hymnal (either original or "new") nor in Hymns Ancient and Modern. It is, however, found in Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist, set to "Gardiner," No. 498 in Hymnal 1940. This gap in our hymnody I believe reflects a spiritual emptiness in certain quarters.<br /><br />The words are indeed "profound," but reflect a theology of grace which seems to be terra incognita to one or two participants here. But I all participants could join in affirming this or similar hymns as statements of correct theology and sound doctrine, I would REJOICE in being proved wrong.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70888340886956739712009-10-04T22:13:36.495-04:002009-10-04T22:13:36.495-04:00Thank you, Fr. Wells, for bringing forward these f...Thank you, Fr. Wells, for bringing forward these familiar and profound words. <br /><br />I suspect that this hymn can be fervently affirmed by all the contributors to this thread, whatever their theological camp (it certainly should be), and if this be so, the shadings of our view of how this all works become rather insignificant. <br /><br />We can wrangle endlessly over the way in which we express these truths, and over the details of belief that we derive from them, but ultimately it all rests upon His work, given in grace and received by faith, by which we attempt to live.<br /><br />ed<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-948124790972325612009-10-04T20:21:23.680-04:002009-10-04T20:21:23.680-04:00Jesus, thy blood and righteousness
my beauty are, ...Jesus, thy blood and righteousness<br />my beauty are, my glorious dress;<br />midst flaming worlds, in these arrrayed,<br />with joy shall I lift up my head.<br /><br />Bold shall I stand in thy great day;<br />for who aught to my charge shall lay?<br />Fully absolved through these I am<br />from sin and fear, from guilt and shame.<br /><br />When from the dust of death I rise<br />to claim my mansion in the skies, <br />even then this shall be all my plea,<br />Jesus hath lived and died for me.<br /><br />Jesus, be endless praise to thee,<br />whose boundless mercy hath for me--<br />for me! a full atonement made,<br />an everlasting ransom paid.<br /><br />O let the dead now hear thy voice;<br />now bid thy banished ones rejoice;<br />their beauty this, their glorious dress,<br />Jesus thy blood and righteousness.<br />(Count Von Zinzendorf, 1739, translated by John Wesley,1740)<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75287374213065033462009-10-04T00:51:19.743-04:002009-10-04T00:51:19.743-04:00Furthermore, it is precisely because the term sola...<i>Furthermore, it is precisely because the term sola fide has become for many a caricature of itself, or a slogan, that it is worth spending the time to define what it actually meant. This is necessary inasmuch as we have the words "justified by faith only" in Article XI. </i><br /><br />Very fair statement, Father. My objections were not so much to the essay itself as to some of the post-essay comments. The essay itself was worth the read and it is worth re-reading as you suggested.RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-88640294438772508072009-10-03T16:36:42.728-04:002009-10-03T16:36:42.728-04:00What Aquinas wrote in that portion of his giant co...What Aquinas wrote in that portion of his giant corpus, is really very much the same as what we have in Article XVII. Of Predestination and Election.<br /><br />"As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation."<br /><br />These things state what ought to be obvious: If we have faith and are certain that we are not engaging in willful sin, knowing also all known past sins to have been confessed, repented of and forgiven, we may take great comfort in the will of God, revealed by Christ and in Christ, that we are saved. <br /><br />It is the duty of every Christian, because we are commanded to love God, and because we know that His will is our salvation in Christ, to be certain at all times that we are in a state of grace. It is possible, and it is required.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41070467024546308332009-10-03T04:05:00.257-04:002009-10-03T04:05:00.257-04:00Compare this to what Aquinas taught (P(2a)-Q(112)-...Compare this to what Aquinas taught (P(2a)-Q(112)-A(5)): 'by revelation ... anyone may know that he has grace, for<br /> God by a special privilege reveals this at times to some<br /> ... anyone may<br /> know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in God, and of<br /> despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of any<br /> mortal sin. And thus it is written (Revelation 2:17): “To him that<br /> overcometh I will give the hidden manna . . . which no man knoweth, but<br /> he that receiveth it,” because whoever receives it knows, by experiencing a<br /> certain sweetness, which he who does not receive it, does not experience.<br /> Yet this knowledge is imperfect; hence the Apostle says (Corinthians<br /> 14:4): “I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby<br /> justified,”<br /> '<br /><br />Personally, I wonder whether Aquinas may have overstated the difference between knowledge by revelation and knowledge by inward and outward signs of grace, and thus underestimated the commonality of the former.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br /><br />MK+Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-71924251478515060512009-10-03T04:02:46.400-04:002009-10-03T04:02:46.400-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11806105048079567382009-10-03T04:01:27.987-04:002009-10-03T04:01:27.987-04:00(cont'd) ...
Some of the things you have said...(cont'd) ...<br /><br />Some of the things you have said above would lead one to think that you do believe Y follws from X, so to speak. But then you also described the Tridentine depiction of protestent soteriology here as a “cartoonish summary”. This would imply that you do not accept as true what Trent (mistakenly) perceives as protestant teaching and rejects. In other words, you would reject such an extreme position as much as the Tridentine Council. This leaves me confused. Allow me to ask these non-rhetorical questions. Do you believe each Christian can or must normally have as an object of faith, with infallible certainty, the fact that he or she is in grace, or of the Elect, and thus believe that this is the teaching of Scripture as interpreted by the patristic consensus? If so, what is the catena of patristic quotations upon which you base this belief? If not, which precise statement of the Tridentine teaching under discussion can you be rejecting as false?<br /><br />And now for another attempt at an olive branch. While I reject the same statements Trent rejects, I affirm a Christian doctrine of assurance in the following way. One's own salvation, or more precisely the absolute certainty of it, is never in itself the (propositional or factual) <b>object</b> of Christian faith. However, a practically or morally certain knowledge of salvation, of being in grace, is an accessible and natural <b>fruit</b> of living faith. This knowledge is gained through the inner inspiration and the experience of communion with God that is of the essence of living faith, but is gained in conjunction with reflection on other fruit of faith in one's life (<i>cf.</i> 2 Corinthians 13:5, James 1:22f). <b>So, there is a legitimate sense in which saving faith is self-authenticating as to its saving nature.</b> On the other hand, it is not true that it “rests on that alone” (to quote Trent) for its assurance, but that it “feeds on” the covenanted effectuality of the Sacraments and the confirmation of outward good works.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-66301786009310555182009-10-03T04:00:01.109-04:002009-10-03T04:00:01.109-04:00Regarding the difference between concession and as...<i>Regarding the difference between concession and assertions, consider the following example:<br /><br />"Although XYZ is a well-read and highly learned man, he argues in the manner of an idiot savant."<br /><br />Anyone who reads the statement in its entirety will grasp its thrust and import.</i><br /><br />Fr Wells,<br /><br />Your purportedly analogous example is quite different to the Tridentine case. Yours amounts to “Although this person is A, he is also B [where A would, otherwise, naturally and normally to the reader or listener imply he was not B]”. The Tridentine statement, on the other hand, amounts to “Athough X is true, Y is not [where Y does not naturally follow from X, despite the completely abnormal and unjustifiable inference of some]”. Therefore this is argument by false analogy.<br /><br />I think this is clear from the first entence of the chapter: “But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ's sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church.” This perceived “boast” (=Y in my abbreviated analysis), amounting to an assertion that absolute certainty regarding one's own forgiveness is the norm and in fact the guarantee of forgiveness (as the rest of the chapter spells out to be the purported heretical attitude), is not seen as a natural or plausible inference from the gratuitousness of remission of sins (=X in my abbreviated analysis). Far from it. This is shown by the use of the words “boasts”, “vain confidence” and “seeing that it [the boast] may exist, yea does in our day exist”. The last quotation seems to say, “while Y does not follow from X, yes, there really are some who leap from one to the other”. So, the clause teaching that acceptance of the unmerited gratuitousness of forgiveness is <i>de fide</i> is not undermined or contradicted by what follows, as what follows is not a surprising qualification (as it was in the purported analogy you gave), and so X is a dogmatic statement in its own right.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-68776198238746072622009-10-02T21:56:09.042-04:002009-10-02T21:56:09.042-04:00Sorry, I thought I was identified as nlahey on thi...Sorry, I thought I was identified as nlahey on this comment board. I was refering to the surname that the Bishop of Antigonish and I share.<br /><br />NLahey<br />(copylega)Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11296779647932655590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47939000776948134862009-10-02T13:39:27.749-04:002009-10-02T13:39:27.749-04:00TUAD,
No relation.
Nathan
(borthi)TUAD,<br /><br />No relation.<br /><br />Nathan<br />(borthi)Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11296779647932655590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64631204548930754232009-10-02T10:26:04.079-04:002009-10-02T10:26:04.079-04:00Hello all,
Thank you for your answers. Meanwhile...Hello all, <br /><br />Thank you for your answers. Meanwhile, you all might enjoy this blog link on the development of purgatory and medieval error: <br />http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/richard-field-on-the-development-of-purgatory/<br /><br />Steven Wedgeworth is a great blogger, and you will enjoy many of his posts. <br /><br />sincerely,<br />charlescharleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-36870706283631225572009-10-02T00:40:13.242-04:002009-10-02T00:40:13.242-04:00Speaking of purgatory, this Archbishop from Nova S...Speaking of purgatory, this Archbishop from Nova Scotia should hope there is one.<br /><br />Read <a href="http://www.getreligion.org/?p=18944" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3569357980810884112009-10-01T22:16:52.684-04:002009-10-01T22:16:52.684-04:00Fr Hart's statement is right on the money. Th...Fr Hart's statement is right on the money. The popular view of purgatory as a temporary hell where we pay "temFr Hart's statement is right on the money. The popular view of purgatory as a temporary hell where we pay "temporal penalties" for our sins cannot be reconciled to the opening words of our Prayer of Consecration, and in fact overthrows the very Gospel itself. This shows the folly of speculation in the absence of revelation.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23473323572238950392009-10-01T22:11:22.966-04:002009-10-01T22:11:22.966-04:00In comparing various conflicting views of the inte...In comparing various conflicting views of the intermediate state between our earthly death and the Parousia, we need to recall that the Biblical data is exceedingly meager, and some folks here are running a serious risk of speaking aloud where God has remained silent. Theological speculation where there has been no revelation is a dangerous undertaking. We have no clear word from God on any "punishment" or "purification" in the Intermediate State. Parrotting the Penny Catechism is hardly a sound appeal to Scripture or authentic tradition; it is only a rehearsal of one's personal opinions. The CCC is mercifully brief on this topic and says about all that needs to be said.<br />LKW<br /><br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10563430306052517852009-10-01T21:37:04.021-04:002009-10-01T21:37:04.021-04:00I have no argument against a purifying fire that i...I have no argument against a purifying fire that is meant to transform rather than punish. Even those saints who, on the Last Day, will be among those who are alive and remain (I Ths. 4:17) may find the transformation of their being, involving first the shedding of the mortal and fallen nature, to be a terrifying and painful first step into glory. My argument is against the classic sentence of so many years and days in some secondary Hell to pay off a debt already paid in full. The cross is the means whereby God is both just and the justifier of believers in Jesus (Rom. 3:26); and so a punitive purgatory, a debtor's prison, could no longer be just, unless the sacrifice of the cross is of less than absolute value.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6327595905762402642009-10-01T15:26:54.497-04:002009-10-01T15:26:54.497-04:00Fr Kirby:
Regarding the difference between conces...Fr Kirby:<br /><br />Regarding the difference between concession and assertions, consider the following example:<br /><br />"Although XYZ is a well-read and highly learned man, he argues in the manner of an idiot savant."<br /><br />Anyone who reads the statement in its entirety will grasp its thrust and import. And if someone snatches the subordinate clause "XYZ is a highly learned man," claims this is the major point and conceals the context from unwary readers, he is plainly guilty of serious intellectual honesty.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75141258337861093542009-10-01T13:40:45.589-04:002009-10-01T13:40:45.589-04:00...purgatorial punishments or disciplines seems in...<i>...purgatorial punishments or disciplines</i> seems in my view to be the conflating of two quite different concepts, which, indeed, have tended to be conflated in RC discussions of the issue, with unfortunate results of the sort that required the Article in question. <br /><br />"Punishment" is administered as a direct answer to a transgression. That, however, was done once and for all on Calvary. Forgiveness removes the need for punishment. The Medieval (and later) concept of Purgatory as a temporary Hell in which punishments not remitted by the Cross are administered, falls short of the reality of Christ's Sacrifice.<br /><br />However, sins do have consequences, simply the logical result of actions that have been taken, both in the world around us (a murder victim stays dead) and within our souls and minds. The old word "Purgatory" (which I don't like or use, but don't absolutely reject either) includes no necessary aspect of punishment, but rather of purgation, that is, cleansing, the healing and correction of those warped and bent aspects of our personality, begun in this "intermediate state" and brought to completion at the resurrection and before the Throne. Whate4ver this unknown process may involve, "discipline" seems a proper word.<br /><br />Such a concept as this seems better to express the views of the better contemporary RC theologians than the old and dreadful theories (not dogmas) that mostly prevailed from the Middle Ages to the 1960s. I don't remember the source, but it was indeed from an RC source that I read an explanation sufficient to lead me to the above paragraph.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24032904332517368242009-10-01T11:55:12.982-04:002009-10-01T11:55:12.982-04:00Fr Hart,
Your rejection of purgatorial punishment...Fr Hart,<br /><br />Your rejection of purgatorial punishments or disciplines on the basis of their necessarily unfinished character whenever the Parousia is to occur does not prove their non-existence in the context of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Whatever “fiery” purging needs completing, will be completed at the Final Judgement, it would seem, if it has not already been dealt with in the period between Particular and Final Judgement.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32477161763003186852009-10-01T11:54:38.582-04:002009-10-01T11:54:38.582-04:00After reading your lengthy response three times to...<i>After reading your lengthy response three times to make sure I did not miss your point, you seem to be saying, "The problem is resolved because I have said so."</i><br /><br />I'm afraid I firmly believe this is an inadequate summary of and response to the arguments I gave. Would it not be better to actually cite specifics or quote them and attempt to show their purported errors, rather than imply I argued no case but baldly asserted compatibility and nothing more? Given that protestant theologians in discussing Trent have identified its assertion of sanctifying grace as the formal cause of justification to be key soteriological error, isn't my discussion of this worth addressing in detail, even if to disagree?<br /><br /><i>I find nothing in your writing that was not already put forth by Hans Kung and the RC/Lutheran conversations. These did not secure official Vatican approval nor have they won universal acceptance on the Reformed side.</i><br /><br />But have all such attempted harmonisations been definitively rejected as erroneous or heretical by Rome? No. Reservations and criticisms of details are not the same as rejection, so an unfinished ecumenical work or an unfinished “reception” of it do not prove that an insuperable barrier remains or that the harmonisations have been shown to be false.<br /><br />Finally, with reference to indulgences, what I wrote was deliberately hypothetical, working on the assumption of a situation where reunion was achieved and indulgences were part of that. However, there is no dogmatic barrier in the RCC to bishops other than the Pope issuing indulgences, as I understand it, but a disciplinary one. And they were in fact issued by EO bishops for some time in some jurisdictions in the second millenium.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br /><br />MK+Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.com