tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post7349788745998330537..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: A couple of odds and endsFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83882166872872030482010-02-17T22:10:53.549-05:002010-02-17T22:10:53.549-05:00The key statement from Dr. Mascall's 'Corp...The key statement from Dr. Mascall's 'Corpus Christi' has to be that dealing with the statement 'I believe in one church' and his exposition of the general misuse and misunderstanding of the meanihng of the simple word 'one': he cites St. Thomas Aquinas (p.2): 'we must distinguish between 'one, which is the principle of number' and 'one, which is convertible with being', that is, between numerical and ontological unity. He continues a little later (p.3): 'When hovwever, Catholic Christians profess their belief in one Church, they mean much more than that the church is one numerically. They mean that the Church is one organically, an organism, a coherent whole and not a mere aggregate of items.' Thus, we can be in unity with those whose worship may take different form, but who are still an organic unit of the Body of Christ: they may have some similarity, but the essential likeness is in the acceptance of Holy Scripture and the gifts of the Sacraments and the Holy Ghost as guide and mentor in the trials and tribulations of this earthly pilgrimage. And thereby, although we may have different gifts and talents, we are still one in Christ, members of the body, faithful: not of Appolos, not of Paul, not of Peter - but of Christ.Fr. David Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72703624976249414402010-02-17T21:59:48.298-05:002010-02-17T21:59:48.298-05:00Sean W. Reed wrote;
''Keenan's opinio...Sean W. Reed wrote;<br /><br />''Keenan's opinion was prior to the First Vatican Council when the doctrine was "received by the teaching body - that is by the Bishops of the Church."''<br /><br />Precisely the point Sean, this is a new doctrine, not an ancient one, and one certainly never held by the undivided Church.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13838948904939210142010-02-17T17:11:11.605-05:002010-02-17T17:11:11.605-05:00SWR
Well, then, how would you explain the rest, t...SWR<br /><br />Well, then, how would you explain the rest, that says that papal infallibility is, "a protestant invention, and it is no article of the Catholic Faith"?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41743789422204801142010-02-17T16:07:28.381-05:002010-02-17T16:07:28.381-05:00Fr. John wrote:
"...“In a pastoral issued by...Fr. John wrote:<br /><br />"...“In a pastoral issued by the Roman hierarchy of Ireland, 1826, the words occur, ‘it is not an article of the Catholic faith, nor are we thereby required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.’ Keenan’s well-known catechism, prior to its revision after the Vatican Council, declared the doctrine of papal infallibility to be `a protestant invention, and it is no article of the Catholic Faith. No decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received by the teaching body—that is by the Bishops of the Church.’”..."<br /><br />This would seem a bit of a red herring. This very quotation qualifies itself with the phrase: "unless it be received by the teaching body - that is by the Bishops of the Church."<br /><br /> Keenan's opinion was prior to the First Vatican Council when the doctrine was "received by the teaching body - that is by the Bishops of the Church." <br /><br /> Perhaps not the definition of "the Church" accepted by a majority of those on this blog, but nevertheless it was "the Church" in terms of the position of the Roman Catholic Church.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />SWRSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782194974794706695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23898730067114817672010-02-16T21:48:51.911-05:002010-02-16T21:48:51.911-05:00The Keenan Catechism
“In a pastoral issued by th...The Keenan Catechism <br /><br />“In a pastoral issued by the Roman hierarchy of Ireland, 1826, the words occur, ‘it is not an article of the Catholic faith, nor are we thereby required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.’ Keenan’s well-known catechism, prior to its revision after the Vatican Council, declared the doctrine of papal infallibility to be `a protestant invention, and it is no article of the Catholic Faith. No decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received by the teaching body—that is by the Bishops of the Church.’”<br /><br />Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, AUTHORITY Ecclesiastical and Biblical by Francis J. Hall pg 159, foot note 1, section 4Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9575276864390713042010-02-16T19:18:58.525-05:002010-02-16T19:18:58.525-05:00Robert:
The copy of Hall's Dogmatic Theology ...Robert:<br /><br />The copy of Hall's Dogmatic Theology I always used is currently two states away in Maryland. I have to replace it with my own copy of all ten. Did it have a name? We can trace the use of the official catechism used in Ireland in 1850.<br /><br />Mark VA<br /><br />One that question we agree. The State run church in China is not legitimate. But, that is because in the Roman Catholic Church the reality of Apostolic Succession is present with the full sacramental power of the episcopacy, and the state church has no such thing as far as we know. Mascall was saying that there is no sacramental "Petrine Charism."Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-43702401035910091792010-02-16T16:37:07.472-05:002010-02-16T16:37:07.472-05:00From the Roman perspective:
"...but by its v...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />"...but by its very constitution the Papacy does not, so far as I can see, possess the nature which is required in the organ of the Church’s unity."<br /><br />In view of this statement, should the Continuing Anglicans subscribing to such notions see any distinction between the "Patriotic" and the underground Catholic Church in China?Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61556555060125917702010-02-16T10:06:03.456-05:002010-02-16T10:06:03.456-05:00As someone who also knew Father Mascall and had lo...As someone who also knew Father Mascall and had loved his writings from my teen years, I fear that I would be much angered by any attack upon him or his work. He may have realized that the Church of England had been captured by those who not only did not share the faith of its formularies, but who probably had no real faith at all. But he did not leave. And a good argument that he did not do so for the same reason that he would not cross the Tiber. <br /><br />Consequently, I am just as glad that you did not post a link to that "new essary" since I would like to have a fairly decent Lent.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84439423950188561972010-02-16T06:28:28.394-05:002010-02-16T06:28:28.394-05:00"Included in the evidence for his position, H..."Included in the evidence for his position, Hall mentioned an 1850 Roman Catholic catechism in which the question was asked, is the pope infallible? The answer was "no." The Church, it taught, is infallible, but not the pope. After 1870, when the pope became infallible retroactively, those old catechisms were rounded up and destroyed. Hall's copy escaped."<br /><br />What is the name of the catechism? <br /><br />RobertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com