tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post5505971233443025662..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Soteriology in Anglican LiturgyFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73721809544652111272011-04-20T16:09:05.111-04:002011-04-20T16:09:05.111-04:00Very well done, Father, in all aspects, but especi...Very well done, Father, in all aspects, but especially in regard to the comments.<br /><br />Actually, it is all the old stuff as well it should be, but elegantly and delightly restated for the aide of the saints.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40685538686020192072011-04-16T01:21:30.089-04:002011-04-16T01:21:30.089-04:00If you let Cranmer speak for himself, it all makes...If you let Cranmer speak for himself, it all makes more sense.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69268094239375889452011-04-15T21:06:40.857-04:002011-04-15T21:06:40.857-04:00A fine reflection. I appreciate especially the way...A fine reflection. I appreciate especially the way you explain the relationship between General Confession and private Confession. My only quibble would be with your read of Cranmer as holding a Catholic view of the Eucharist. Perhaps this is true towards the beginning of his ministry, but as Ashley Null has pointed out, he moved from a Lutheran to a quasi-Calvinist position on real presence by the end of his life. Still, the liturgy itself, even with Cranmer's translation and revision, communicates the Catholic position, even if it leaves room for some variation in the way that position is articulated.Conciliar Anglicanhttp://conciliaranglican.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-88233780329450852732011-04-15T14:17:12.271-04:002011-04-15T14:17:12.271-04:00Fr. Hart,
One last comment. The "second ast...Fr. Hart, <br /><br />One last comment. The "second asterisk" idea is not a bad one, and I shouldn't have ridiculed the idea. However, opening any standard up to synodal revision is very dangerous as men normally want to add their pet causes. In the end, you muddy what was otherwise a fairly manageable standard. However, the 'first asterisk'in Section V --found in some copies of the affirmation-- detailing problems with Canterbury, indeed, interponed very little. Therefore, I don't think a second astrisk, if deemed worthy, is an intruding enormity. <br /><br />I finally updated proposal #2. Sorry it took numerous re-editings. I hope readers can appreciate the modesty of it: http://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/st-louis-affirmation/<br /><br />I have to ask, what was the origin of the "first asterisk", and who inserted it? It wasn't done by synod, was it? <br /><br />sincerely, Charlescharleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-31356472503883043892011-04-15T12:41:29.929-04:002011-04-15T12:41:29.929-04:00Hello Fr. Hart,
Just altered my page substantial...Hello Fr. Hart, <br /><br />Just altered my page substantially to take account of the high grace view with minimal intrusion. I know it's not going to happen. Changing concords are never wise. Separate clarifications are always better. But I think the asterisk approach is more feasible, given the precedent of section v. However, who wants asterisks dotted all over any document?charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48502714321645373062011-04-15T12:05:05.363-04:002011-04-15T12:05:05.363-04:00Hi Fr. Hart,
Yes. At the link above, I experimen...Hi Fr. Hart, <br /><br />Yes. At the link above, I experimented with two ideas regarding that "specific place" in the Affirmation's treatment of seven sacraments. The least intrusive would be a simple sentence (or asterisk) added at the very end of the part on 7 that ends, "and the Eucharist as the sacrifice which unites us to the all-sufficient Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the Sacrament in which He feeds us with His Body and Blood"(*)<br /><br />At the bottom could be added the related footnote: "Amongst these seven sacraments only Baptism and the Eucharist have the nature to remit sin.“ The idea of a footnote is not disruptive to the Affirmation, imo, since this was done in Section V w/ canterbury. A footnote on sacraments dealing with this later point would then give the 'high grace' view of seven without raising doubts on the 25th article.<br /><br /> The current problem with the Affirmation is by strengthening the seven sacraments with the language of "objective" and "effective", plus other terms, (language normally reserved to discuss the supper and baptism in Anglican Settlement theology), this creates more questions than answers. The footnote reigns those questions without restoring to a Tract 90 (which is unconvincing) while still affirming the other five beyond what the 39 articles immediately provide, adding the Henrician exposition that is within Article norms per 1536-1543. <br /><br />That's important since the Henrician is fully Settlement while simultaneously being an early and critical link to Protestanism as well as Catholicism. Unfortunately, Henry has been so beat up by Puritans and RC, that his personal reputation makes tarnishes the brilliance of his brilliant patronage of the Church. But that's something I hope we can reclaim in time.<br /><br />PS. I did not think of the asterisk idea until know. Need to go back and update the link to include that. I probably explained it better here.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27572896142668950182011-04-15T01:08:54.638-04:002011-04-15T01:08:54.638-04:00If a high grace view of the lesser sacraments is n...<i>If a high grace view of the lesser sacraments is needed, as clarified by the Affirmation...</i><br /><br />You are referring to a specific place in the Affirmation, or so I assume.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23137010577785096092011-04-14T17:41:58.564-04:002011-04-14T17:41:58.564-04:00hello Fr. Hart,
The key word is "nature&quo...hello Fr. Hart, <br /><br />The key word is "nature". Here's Jewel as read in tract 90 (Newman's quotes Jewel from the Homily on sacraments): <br /><br />" And though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign and promise; <b>yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do.</b> Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acception, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to any thing, whereby an holy thing is signified."<br /><br />when you go back and read the Henrician as well as Elizabethan, all the way through the Carolinian, whenever the discussion of the two sacraments comes up apart from the lesser ones, this quality of 'nature' is brought up and is then associated with unique 'remission of sins'. Recall, the major disagreement with Rome was this very "nature", i.e., how sin is remitted. Jewel and the homily are not alone on this. It's repeated throughout classical Anglican theology, and I promise to gather all the quotes, especially the Henrician ones before 1543, thus implicating ACC's C&C.<br /><br />Interestingly, I think this where Newman demonstrates his terrible dishonesty with the 39 in Tract 90. Newman would indeed say the greater sacraments are only unique in their necessity and universality. He would not distinguish them by "nature" as Jewel did in the Homily on Public Worship. <br /><br />If a high grace view of the lesser sacraments is needed, as clarified by the Affirmation, imo, it needs to be balanced by also reaffirming the two greater. As is, the Affirmation basically repeats the same excuse as Tract 90, and this is a great weakness, making it a document compatible with RCC as much as 39. http://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/st-louis-affirmation/charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20166845808092264762011-04-14T13:43:44.442-04:002011-04-14T13:43:44.442-04:00Charles:
Somewhat reluctantly, I have to disagree...Charles:<br /><br />Somewhat reluctantly, I have to disagree with a point you made. You said, "However, one reason the lesser sacraments weren't counted as 'gospel sacraments' is because they did not have the 'promise' attached, namely, forgiveness of sins." The reason I see for this being one of the five minor sacraments (and you did touch on this) is stated in Article XXV: "Those five commonly called Sacraments...are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel...but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." That is, Christ gave us the Form for Holy Communion (the Words of Institution and giving of thanks) and for Baptism ("in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.")<br /><br />Among the five minor sacraments is Confirmation. I am sure that the Church of England believed that a promise was attached, namely the giving of the Holy Spirit.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52763891209792214082011-04-14T11:27:09.858-04:002011-04-14T11:27:09.858-04:00hello Fr. Hart,
There was an early point in Prot...hello Fr. Hart, <br /><br />There was an early point in Protestant theology that was very close to the older faith where absolution was indeed treated as a sacrament. However, one reason the lesser sacraments weren't counted as 'gospel sacraments' is because they did not have the 'promise' attached, namely, forgiveness of sins. Obviously, both baptism and communion have the nature to forgive sins, but absolution sort of sat in a gray area. Nonetheless, the earliest confessions usually included it as such though doubts laid over what constituted the outward sign of absolution, otherwise considered the laying on hands. <br /><br />Fortunately, the 39 articles belong to that early phase of Protestantism, retaining a close relation to catholicism unlike some of the continental articles that hardened after 1560 or so. Anyway, what 'ceremonies' forgave sins was once a critical question for the proper reformation of the church. This was the reason for making a distinction with lesser sacraments, and that can be found in Newman's tract 90, though Newman conveniently opts to gloss over it.<br /><br /><br />sincerely, Charlescharleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com