tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post5797534370037239192..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Three assumptionsFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47295881698673165332011-07-23T14:58:45.198-04:002011-07-23T14:58:45.198-04:00Fr Hart wrote:
"the Church did not develop d...Fr Hart wrote:<br /><br />"the Church did not develop doctrine at the Councils; it defended established doctrine, the public record of which is Scripture."<br /><br />It may seem ungrateful to tweak such a clear-headed and perfectly correct statement, but I would offer one slight amendment.<br /><br />"the Church did not develop doctrine at the Councils; it defended REVEALED TRUTH, the public record of which is Scripture."<br /><br />Doctrine, even correct doctrine, is man-made; truth comes from God. This is why the boundary between Revealed Truth and "pious opinion" must be so jealously guarded. And much "pious opinon" is only presumptuous speculation.Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60256579772171460702011-07-23T08:11:46.035-04:002011-07-23T08:11:46.035-04:00Fr. Hart states the Christian position against Rom...Fr. Hart states the Christian position against Romanism in these two sentences:<br />"That is because the doctrine is in the Scripture itself, not because we have some "lens" as a helpful aid after the Ecumenical Councils. That lens is helpful; but the Church did not develop doctrine at the Councils; it defended established doctrine, the public record of which is Scripture."<br /><br />Amen, Fr. HartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67768130138035293512011-07-23T08:01:24.253-04:002011-07-23T08:01:24.253-04:00Sirs, My comment was entirely carl's, not min...Sirs, My comment was entirely carl's, not mine. I just thought it illustrated the Anglican/RC positions quite well.<br /><br />His first comment bears repeating: "the difference between a Protestant and an RC is that a Protestant says about the Scripture what a RC says about the RCC."<br /><br />In other words...<br /><br />Roman Catholics are church-oriented or church-centered, church loyal, church evangelizers.<br /><br />Protestant/Reformed and Anglican Catholics are (or should be) Scripture and Christ-centered, Christianity-oriented.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39516255063485895162011-07-23T02:17:47.422-04:002011-07-23T02:17:47.422-04:00Excellent article.Excellent article.curatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2104311672654822342011-07-22T21:46:43.802-04:002011-07-22T21:46:43.802-04:00It is really wonderful to read something so totall...It is really wonderful to read something so totally Anglican and prayer book and which I will find so easy to carry over into prayer. The real problem of 'lex orandi, lex credendi' is the difference between the liturgy as it is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer and the way it is sacramentally incarnated in the life of the parish. The liturgy will express right doctrine if it is done as closely as possible in accordance with the way it was attended by the framers.<br /><br />A very sincere thank you, Father Hart and another for the excellent comments.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37126079778319095122011-07-22T17:42:09.950-04:002011-07-22T17:42:09.950-04:00In order to have an answer to Christians of other ...In order to have an answer to Christians of other venues who will object to this, we need to look at it using <b>the method of St. Thomas Aquinas</b>. So, here is a three sided view.<br /><br />St. Nikao wrote:<br /><br /><i>Doctrine is supposed to be derived from our understanding of Scripture. We are not supposed to derive our understanding of Scripture from doctrine.</i><br /><br /><b>Objection 1 On the contrary</b>, the Church was already taught by the Apostles during the time that the New Testament was being composed (Acts 2:42). Therefore, the Scriptures were written and received within the Church where doctrine was established. The teaching of the Apostles was known to the Church before the completion of the Canon of Holy Scripture. The Church has the mind of Christ and was promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 2:16, John 16:13), and is the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15). <br /><br /><b>Objection 2</b> Doctrine develops within the Church (as Cardinal Newman taught). The teaching we believe is really that of the Church, and we see the Scriptures through that lens. After Nicea I, for example, we read the Scriptures in light of that Council, etc.<br /><br /><b>Reply to Objection 1</b>. What the objection actually shows is that we must accept the judgment of the Church concerning the sacred Scriptures. The Scriptures were received by the Church as the word of God, not as merely the teaching of men. The Old Testament was already established as the word of God from the start. The Church from ancient times has considered the Canon of the New Testament to contain the whole record of Apostolic doctrine. Therefore, the substance of the first objection is, in reality, the reason why "St. Nikao" is correct. This public record of the Church, the Bible, preserves the word of God through the Prophets and Apostles.<br /><br /><b>Reply to Objection 2</b>. If we believe Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development, we have no period in history when the Church actually had, or can have, the mind of Christ. Everything is subject to constant change, including dogmatic formulations which may be "developed" with subtle redefinition. This plays into the hands of the most radical revisionists, so that while the followers of Newman think their Magisterium keeps them safe from certain errors (i.e. women's ordination), it is really his theory that justifies the most radical departures from truth, as well as new and strange doctrines. <br /><br />Furthermore, Newman's theory is not what history reveals. The example of the first Council of Nicea (which I have seen used this way) proves how foolish the theory is. The council was called (at the request of the Archbishop of Alexandria) because the teaching of Arius created a crisis. Also, the doctrine that was defended at Nicea in 325, (where the name of St. Athanasius figures prominently), was defended entirely by Scripture. Scripture was the data used to defend orthodoxy. <br /><br />That is because the doctrine is in the Scripture itself, not because we have some "lens" as a helpful aid after the Ecumenical Councils. That lens is helpful; but the Church did not develop doctrine at the Councils; it defended established doctrine, the public record of which is Scripture.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-82862094891242214332011-07-22T14:40:28.941-04:002011-07-22T14:40:28.941-04:00St. Nikao wrote:
Doctrine is supposed to be derive...St. Nikao wrote:<br /><i>Doctrine is supposed to be derived from our understanding of Scripture. We are not supposed to derive our understanding of Scripture from doctrine.</i><br /><br />Well said.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53634802120888553842011-07-22T13:14:16.943-04:002011-07-22T13:14:16.943-04:00A commenter known as 'carl' wrote at the C...A commenter known as 'carl' wrote at the Cranmer blog yesterday, something I think applies here: "the difference between a Protestant and a RC is that a Protestant says about the Scripture what a RC says about the RCC." Another of his comments illustrates quite well the folly of the claim if infallibility. Here's a partial quote and link:<br />"Also, you should refrain from blaming Scripture for its misuse. Consider. A man buys a new printer for his computer. He might:<br /><br />1. Cast the printer manual aside in favor of his own experience.<br /><br />2. Read the printer manual but decide to do things the way he learned when he bought his last printer.<br /><br />3. Re-write the manual because he decides he doesn't like what he is reading.<br /><br />4. Fetch himself a printer's manual from his favorite printer even though he doesn't own it.<br /><br />When he accidentally erases his hard drive while trying to install his printer, he can't logically blame the printer's manual for his failure. <br /><br />And before you say "Who interprets?", I will again demand that you start producing infallible interpretations as a consequence of your argument. RC doctrine is indeed quite explicit, but the question on the table is the source for that doctrine. It doesn't count if the RCC creates doctrine out of [whole cloth/thin air/smoke and mirrors] and then back-fills said doctrine into Scripture. Which is what it does. Doctrine is supposed to be derived from our understanding of Scripture. We are not supposed to derive our understanding of Scripture from doctrine. Hence my concern about the missing infallible interpretations of the infallible interpreter. What are all these RC doctrines based upon - because it sure isn't the Bible."<br /><br />carl <br />http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/07/enda-kenny-proclaims-irish-act-of.html#6678196230682061977Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64240317864142034102011-07-22T11:08:19.667-04:002011-07-22T11:08:19.667-04:001967 was when they got all squirrelly on abortion...1967 was when they got all squirrelly on abortion and contraception, if I'm not mistaken.<br /><br />The Gen. Con. that year passed:<br /><br />1. That the beginning of new human life, because it is a gift of the power of God's love for his people, and thereby sacred, should not and must not be undertaken unadvisedly or lightly but in full accordance of the understanding for which this power to conceive and give birth is bestowed by God.<br />2. Such understanding includes the responsibility for Christians to limit the size of their families and to practice responsible birth control. Such means for moral limitations do not include abortions for convenience.<br />3. That the position of this Church, stated at the 62nd General Convention of the Church in Seattle in 1967 which declared support for the "termination of pregnancy" particularly in those cases where "the physical or mental health of the mother is threatened seriously, or where there is substantial reason to believe that the child would be born badly deformed in mind or body, or where the pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest" is reaffirmed. Termination of pregnancy for these reasons is permissible.<br />4. That in those cases where it is firmly and deeply believed by the person or persons concerned that pregnancy should be terminated for causes other than the above, members of this Church are urged to seek the advice and counsel of a Priest of this Church, and, where appropriate, Penance.<br />5. That whenever members of this Church are consulted with regard to proposed termination of pregnancy, they are to explore with the person or persons seeking advice and counsel other preferable courses of action.<br />6. That the Episcopal Church express its unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter and to act upon them.<br /><br /><br />In other words, that was when PECUSA became pro-choice.RSC+https://www.blogger.com/profile/00639369749327986414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11619909060252309822011-07-22T08:33:39.510-04:002011-07-22T08:33:39.510-04:00I think you will want to edit this line:
By settin...I think you will want to edit this line:<br /><i>By setting the cut off at 1967 </i>. Surely you mean 1976?Священник селаhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182325210748920363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56051750891074064842011-07-22T08:21:57.100-04:002011-07-22T08:21:57.100-04:00We usually fail to notice the tension between the ...We usually fail to notice the tension between the slogans "Lex orandi, lex credendi" and the slightly more popular <br />Vincentian canon, "ubique, semper, et ab omnibus." Vincent of Lerins seems to have been a semi-Pelagian and invented his slogan (an exercise in circular thinking) in criticism of St. Augustine's doctrine of grace. He reasoned that if he could show some sort of consensus against Augustine, he would refute him.<br />Prosper of Aquitaine (Vincent's contemporary in the first half of the fifth century) was a staunch Augustinian. He reasoned that if you wish to know what a man or a Church truly believes, just listen to how he prays or how that Church worships. If the Prayer Book is any indication, we are all Augustinians on our knees (no matter how much moral advice we dispense from the pulpit). "We have no power of ourselves to help ourselves ... there is no health in us."<br /><br />The liturgical revisionists of 30 years ago were very clever in hi-jacking the "lex orandi" principle. By changing the liturgy, they transformed for the worse the Church's faith. The Decalogue was out, moral libertinism was in. As the priest starting giving a cooking demonstration behind the Altar, transcendence was out, cozy Gemeinschaft was in. <br /> <br />But a proper application of the principle ought to mean that worship, because of its intimate relationship with doctrine, absolutely must be deeply conservative in resisting innovations. <br /><br />The lex orandi principle should be applied to the worship and prayer which actually take place, not to some book which is available for optional use, is used only here and there, and then only in a selective manner. Imagine the enormities which could be proved from any hymnal, and then shudder to think of how our "hymns" have had impact on what people believe!Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59532731772258842412011-07-22T07:44:11.475-04:002011-07-22T07:44:11.475-04:00If I'm not mistaken, St. Anselm of Canterbury ...If I'm not mistaken, St. Anselm of Canterbury wrote that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46792353558006102502011-07-22T02:19:25.186-04:002011-07-22T02:19:25.186-04:00Fr. John:
Is that not Augustine?Fr. John:<br /><br />Is that not Augustine?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86190839363046249532011-07-21T23:04:23.281-04:002011-07-21T23:04:23.281-04:00Your comments on scripture, tradition, and reason ...Your comments on scripture, tradition, and reason made me think of this quote; <br />"For I seek not to understand in order that I may believe; but I believe in order that I may understand, for I believe for this reason: that unless I believe, I cannot understand."<br /><br />What saint wrote that?Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59590452716001343652011-07-21T20:28:48.144-04:002011-07-21T20:28:48.144-04:00It's as if one wishes to add themselves to a C...It's as if one wishes to add themselves to a Catholic-Orthodox spectrum without proper history and institution.Mr. Mcgranorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851136550476241757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69258448824521764832011-07-21T17:42:52.323-04:002011-07-21T17:42:52.323-04:00Fr. Hart,
Excellent... A timely word from the pre...Fr. Hart,<br /><br />Excellent... <i><b>A timely word from the present!</b></i><br /><br />JackJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26020624291753228842011-07-21T17:36:28.542-04:002011-07-21T17:36:28.542-04:00The plain grammatical sense of the quotation from ...The plain grammatical sense of the quotation from Hooker's <i>Lawes</i> always sounded a bit more like a step-ladder than a stool to me, anyway. <br /><br />Step 1:<br />When in doubt, go with the plain meaning of scripture.<br /><br />Step 2:<br />When the meaning is not plain, resort to Right Reason.<br /><br />Step 3:<br />When Right Reason is not clear, consult the Fathers.RSC+https://www.blogger.com/profile/00639369749327986414noreply@blogger.com