tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post7892305148561199133..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Not that old nonsense again!Fr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8251557982421964872010-01-24T22:20:15.811-05:002010-01-24T22:20:15.811-05:00And you don't even sound surprised? This whole...And you don't even sound surprised? This whole thing has been a reprise of the battles of the nineteenth century. We won them then, but Rome knew that there would come a new generation who either had not bothered to read the literature or whose fathers had failed to require it. Then they start all over again with the aid of those who call themselves Anglicans but who are so impressed with Rome and all things Roman that they are and will remain blind to what is right in front of their eyes.<br /><br />I believe that I was immensely lucky in that the priest who had introduced me to Anglicanism and the Book of Common Prayer required that I read every word of it from one cover to the next and when I had finished made me do it one again. Than answered most of my questions before they had time to present themselves to me and it was something which I carried over to each of the classic prayer books as I discovered their existence. And then I discovered Bicknell, Moss, Frere, Gore, Mortimer and a host of others that made me very much aware of the richness crammed in such an unassuming wrapper.<br /><br />Oh, and then there were the fathers, especially those of the first and second centuries. Imagine my surprise when I discover that the prayer book matched Justin Martyr's description of the Eucharist celebrated at that time while the Roman liturgy didn't. But the big surprise and the continuing one is the number of Anglicans, especially priests, convinced that we are a second rate Catholicism is Catholic at all. And maybe that is why they don't do what they promised when they were ordained. Anyway that is why I do thank you most profusely for your spirited defense of the old faith, the old religion to a younger, but yet unlearned generation. And that I can't say enough.<br /><br />Veriword: ospodi<br />Second: rantoriaCanon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7082855498463904962010-01-24T18:04:16.176-05:002010-01-24T18:04:16.176-05:00Readers take note: I challenged the man to describ...Readers take note: I challenged the man to describe what he means by Eucharistic Sacrifice, and he went on to describe the Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer. Yet, he is blind to that fact.<br /><br />And, that is what they always do.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48155236935381354432010-01-23T23:34:55.706-05:002010-01-23T23:34:55.706-05:00Cherub:
It is very obvious that you were brought ...Cherub:<br /><br />It is very obvious that you were brought up on the Book of Common Prayer; your description of everything that makes the Mass what it is proves that you still think in terms of the Book of Common Prayer, and simply have managed to train your mind not to notice. When did you pluck out your own eyes so that you cannot see anymore?<br /><br />Actually, I tend to think that all your claims to scholarship are a bit hollow. Someone fooled you into thinking along the anti-Anglican polemic lines. You fell for it. Now, if you can look at the text at all, you imagine that it does not mean anything it plainly says. Your case seems to be a perfect example of what happens when a naive soul swims the Tiber, and learns from people who specialize in confusing uncritical minds.<br /><br /><i>I wanted very badly to see things the way you do, but in the end I could't sustain it.</i><br /><br />Really? I would not have the energy to perform all the mental gymnastics it would require to <i>unknow</i> what I know, in order to deceive myself into thinking your way. What did you ingest? Newman and his sophistry? What else could have confused you so badly?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3564860014756797832010-01-23T20:10:04.348-05:002010-01-23T20:10:04.348-05:00Fr Hart says: "He fails to see agreement beca...Fr Hart says: "He fails to see agreement because he wants to miss it."<br /><br />With all respect Father, you do not know that. The truth is the opposite. I wanted very badly to see things the way you do, but in the end I could't sustain it. But we should both rejoice in the fact that we share a common understanding of the Mass even if I think your views are not consistent with the 1662 BCP on which I was brought up.Cherubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10998294374027724557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-62835810031069128112010-01-23T19:51:08.237-05:002010-01-23T19:51:08.237-05:00"The second thing they wanted to teach is tha..."The second thing they wanted to teach is that the people were supposed to receive the sacrament. For this reason they came up with yet another name for this ancient service, one taken directly from St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians: Holy Communion. It was not enough to 'hear the Mass' of a priest. This offering of the whole Church (led by a priest) made the sacrament available so that each Christian could feed on the bread of life. 'Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.'(John 6:54, 55)"<br /><br />The tragedy is that Cherub demands the right to tell us that our fathers did not mean what they said, and that the RCC has a right to twist their meaning into something radically different. For example, the mention of "a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" has been blown out of proportion already in his earlier comments, as if those words should be considered the summary ofthe whole service, as if the Words of Institution in an obviously sacrificial context had not been written. He insists on interpreting Cranmer as if there was no emphsis on "once for all" versus the double plural "sacrifices of masses" in the well-known historical context, and in Cranmer's words. He fails to see agreement because he wants to miss it.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20500408958738652922010-01-23T19:47:31.506-05:002010-01-23T19:47:31.506-05:00Except for the need to insist that we define the w...Except for the need to insist that we define the word "transubstantiation" in a manner consistent with the current <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/07/pope-benedicts-anglican-mind.html" rel="nofollow">Pope's description,</a> there is no difference between Cherub's point of view and Classic Anglicanism. There is not point of disagreement between his words and the Book of Common Prayer, the writing of the English Reformers and Diivines, the Articles and the HOMILY ON THE WORTHY RECEIVING OF THE SACRAMENT. <br /><br />As I have written <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharistic-sacrifice-in-anglicanism.html" rel="nofollow">before:</a><br />"Writing in 1624, speaking for the Anglican position, a Church of England priest named William Bedell wrote about Eucharistic Sacrifice:<br /><br />'[If by it you mean] a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy immolation made on the altar of the cross...we do offer the sacrifice for the quick and the dead, by which all their sins are meritoriously expiated, and desiring that by the same, we and all the Church may obtain remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christ's Passion.'"<br /><br />"The Eucharistic sacrifice is the complete sacrifice. It takes us to Calvary. It is our bounden duty and service, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and of ourselves as living sacrifices (following Romans 12:1,2); as the English Mass also says: 'And here wee offre and present unto thee (O Lorde) oure selfe, oure soules, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee...' Nothing is omitted, nothing neglected, in this highest act of Christian worship.<br /><br />(cont.)Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13309746958735843562010-01-23T18:29:10.451-05:002010-01-23T18:29:10.451-05:00Here follows a short extract from my new book whic...Here follows a short extract from my new book which will be published in March of this year and in which I deal with this subject:<br />What we need to recognise is that the Lamb of Sacrifice offered on Calvary is no ordinary animal; it is Christ Himself, the Victim, the only true Lamb of Sacrifice. And it is no ordinary meal since the bread and wine have been changed into His True Body and Blood. And since the things offered, bread and wine, have been modified, changed, transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Mass truly is a sacrifice.<br />As I remarked at the beginning of this chapter, the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is made clear and is manifested in the words Christ used to institute the Eucharist: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist, Christ gives us the same body which he surrendered for us on the cross, the same blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." <br />I also referred earlier to the Old Testament idea that there has to be a change in the gift before it becomes a sacrifice, the removal of the blood from the animal. But the Sacrifice of the Mass is different. It is referred to as an ‘unbloody sacrifice’ because His blood once shed does not need to be shed again. But a change has nevertheless occurred, a far more profound change than that which characterised Old Testament sacrifices. There is not another death, not another shedding of blood, but the transformation, Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true Body and blood of Christ.<br />But there is still more. Since the Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, it is also in that sense too, a sacrifice. The Blessed Eucharist was given to us during the Feast of the Passover, so that ‘do this in remembrance of me’ is to be understood as a participation in the sacrifice about to happen . The offering of Jesus, ie his life, only becomes a sacrifice with the real change effected in Him through his death and resurrection. ‘In remembrance’ (Greek άνάμνησις) means making present a past event, but now not just in the virtual sense of the OT sacrifices but in a real and actual sense. <br />As the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, the Eucharist is a making present (re-presentation) of the sacrifice of the cross because not only is it a memorial but also because the fruits of that sacrifice continue to be applied to all those who participate in that offering.<br />[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit. <br />Consequently, since we are baptised into Christ we are part of Him. Therefore through our Baptism and in the offering of the Mass we can continue to offer ourselves, our souls and bodies, as a living sacrifice though Him, with Him and in Him. We enter into the Heavenly Sanctuary through a new and living way, Jesus Christ who is both Priest and Victim, because we have been baptised into him (Hebrews 10:19ff and cf Hebrews 12:22-24). Therefore, associating ourselves with Him we can offer ourselves in union with Him because we belong to Him. As the priestly people of God (1 Peter 2:9) we join with the ministerial priest (the one ordained) who has a particular share in the priesthood of Christ, so that we can participate in the offering of all peoples, all Angels, all saints and Saints from all time and eternity. <br />Enough said for the moment to answer Father Hart’s challenge.Cherubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10998294374027724557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48318650620481890132010-01-23T18:28:58.865-05:002010-01-23T18:28:58.865-05:00Father Hart challenges me to describe the Catholic...Father Hart challenges me to describe the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. I will do so subject to the following caveats: 1) whole books have been written on this subject and a few paragraphs from me cannot therefore do the subject justice or deal with the complexities of the doctrine; 2) I will do so in dialectical relationship with the errors of the Anglican Reformation, especially Cranmer.<br />The Reformers bitterly opposed the idea that the Mass is not only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but also of impetration and atonement, and moreover, the fruits of this sacrifice benefit others (the living and the dead) and not just the one who receives the sacrament. The Council of Trent anathematised anyone who taught a) that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, b) that it profits only the recipient of the sacrament, and c) that the Mass cannot be offered for the living and the dead for their sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities. (cf Denznger, n. 950)To be continued ...Cherubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10998294374027724557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52121000181670943652010-01-23T14:06:08.109-05:002010-01-23T14:06:08.109-05:00Cherub wrote:
1. "That the Church subsists ...Cherub wrote:<br /><br />1. "That the Church subsists in all those Churches in communion with the Holy Father is not a new doctrine. It was universally accepted before the Reformation."<br /><br />This assertion would astonish the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, who never accepted this "doctrine" and who, to this day, still do not. Are they not part of the "universal Church"? Well, in Roman eyes, perhaps not, but in our eyes they certainly are.<br /><br />2. "Cranmer's rejection of the normative teaching of the Catholic Church, and his acceptance of the scripture only and faith only doctrines, led him into further error including his rejection of Catholic priesthood, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence."<br /><br />This one is really going to require some hard evidence. But even if such should be forthcoming, any private opinions entertained by Thomas Cranmer could not alter the indisputable fact that, prior to 1992, the Church of England itself never departed from the traditional doctrines of the Catholic priesthood, Christ's one Sacrifice which at each Mass is once again presented before the Father, and the Real Presence. <br /><br />John A. Hollister+<br />"faild"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55369615072662071772010-01-23T11:06:02.630-05:002010-01-23T11:06:02.630-05:00Cherub wrote:
"That because of historical re...Cherub wrote:<br /><br />"That because of historical reasons the English Christians (in the North) were not in Communion with Rome until 666AD is not really relevant unless you think Christianity is to be identified with the opinions of some English before 666AD, and some after the Reformation."<br /><br />This statement is so absurd it doesn't really need to be refuted.<br /><br />Please allow me to explain the historical situation using your own words.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />"There was a consensus on the meaning of Matthew 16:18. But no amount of reading that in Church on St Peter's day can alter the fact that Anglicanism rejected the previously received account of the Papacy."<br /><br />Now try this:<br />There was a consensus on the meaning of Matthew 16:18. But no amount of reading that in Church on St Peter's day can alter the fact that the papacy rejected the previously received agreement brokered in 662 at Whitby with the native Celtic Christian Church. <br /><br />The Pope gave his permission for the Duke of Normandy to raise a vast armament, launch an invasion, and depose all of the native bishops save one, replacing them with men who agreed with the Pope's theories on the extent of papal power and authority. This type of situation is what Robert E. Lee called, "A union by the force of bayonets."<br /><br />The English Church did not "receive" this interpretation of papal power, it was forced on them by military conquest.<br /><br />If you acquiesce in this manner of bringing Catholic Churches under the authority of Rome, then you are in agreement with Mao-Tse-Tung, who wrote:<br />"All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun."<br /><br />Accept the historical fact that Rome had a deal with the Church in England and reneged on it, and what's more made England a vassal state of the pope. This placed England at a great political disadvantage to other nation states in Europe. For this reason Henry declared that "this realm is an empire." <br /><br />As head of the English State, Henry could not allow the Pope give the Holy Roman Emperor a veto over English international diplomacy. This is what I mean when I say that the Pope was acting in the capacity a secular prince.<br /><br />"Fog" cut off Christians in the north from the pope? Right, blame it on the weather, rather than inept papal attempts to conduct high politics.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91927527907915489332010-01-23T09:51:17.534-05:002010-01-23T09:51:17.534-05:00Cherub is simply quite wrong about a universal acc...Cherub is simply quite wrong about a universal acceptance of the meaning of Matthew 16:18. Such did not exist and if he were better read in the Fathers he would know that. Most of the fathers of the first five centuries rejected such a view and the earliest General Council accorded Rome a primacy of honour based upon its being the Church of the imperial city and not upon the myth of his being the successor of Peter.<br /><br />The ancient festival of St Peter's chair places such at Antioch. The feast of St Peter's chair at Rome is quite modern by contrast and was only instituted when some Roman prelate realized the implication of the far more ancient feast.<br /><br />We really should not blame Cherub. He is only repeating what he was taught, what all Romanists were taught when the Roman hierarchy felt secure that nothing they said would ever be challenged by the laity and they could hide behind the Pian missal and Latin as a sign of a 'universal' church. They likewise did not expect the laity to read the fathers and to discover that the very format of the Roman service is not that of the early Church but one invented and revised between Gelasius and Gregory I. Even 1552 far more reflects what is said in the earliest Fathers about how the Church celebrated the Eucharist than you would find in any sacramentary from Gelasius onward.<br /><br />But what i appreciated most was your defense of the central core of the Anglican Eucharistic canon. The theological statement. Nothing in the Roman canon equals it or even comes close. Even in its most truncated form it exceeds the Roman canon as a theological statement and an act of praise and thanksgiving. And when you return the paragraphs of the Roman canon to what Roman authorities believe was its original order, it is very like our American canon but without the glory.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13522666068797939252010-01-23T03:04:17.884-05:002010-01-23T03:04:17.884-05:00...unless you think Christianity is to be identifi...<i>...unless you think Christianity is to be identified with the opinions of some English before 666AD...</i><br /><br />By the way, you mean British, or Britons, not English. They were not yet one people.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65161553732994233782010-01-23T03:02:57.797-05:002010-01-23T03:02:57.797-05:00Cherub writes:
...the fact is that the meaning of...Cherub writes:<br /><br /><i>...the fact is that the meaning of Matthew 16: 18 was universally accepted until the Reformation.<br />That the Church subsists in all those Churches in communion with the Holy Father is not a new doctrine. It was universally accepted before the Reformation. </i><br /><br />"Universally accepted" my left hind leg. Only by your narrow definition of "universal," by which you ignore the entire Eastern Orthodox Church with the other Patriarchates in 1054, which was forced to allow Rome to separate <i>from the Church</i> as they see it to this day. They did not accept Rome's absurd isogesis (isogesis is never a valid method of interpretation). So, have you alone never heard of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch (the real See of Peter) and Alexandria? Of course, by your pathetic defintion they do not qualify as part of the Universal Church. The "Universal Church" was exclusively western according to your prejudices.<br /><br /><i>,...ie sola scriptura, sola fides. Cranmer's rejection of the normative teaching of the Catholic Church, and his acceptance of the scripture only and faith only doctrines, led him into further error including his rejection of Catholic priesthood, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence.</i><br /><br />Your bigotry is understandable, inasmuch as you demonstrate the accompanying symptoms: A little bit of knowledge and a whole lot of ignorance. Obviously, you do not know the correct definition of the two solas. Sadly, many Anglo-Catholics share your ignorance and resulting prejudice. But, FYI, they were Catholic teaching, at the very least an acceptable view that came from St. Thomas Aquinas.<br /><br />And, you are quite wrong about both the Sacrifice of the Mass (or. Eucharistic Sacrifice to use a better theological term), and Real Presence. In the archives of the blog I have already explained this. Before you can make such a blundering statement about Cranmer's theology, you must first tell me what exactly you think the word "sacrifice" means in connection with the Eucharist; for, by a proper understanding, the Anglican Holy Communion is superior to all Latin Masses in stating the true meaning of Eucharistic Sacrifice, and The Prayer of Humble Access especially gives the best statement ever of Real Presence, and does so in terms of the sacrament as generally necessary to salvation.<br /><br />Since the Reformers were clear what it was they rejected (i.e., Christ being offered afresh in each Mass), and since the Council of Trent agreed 9though in their own terms), what but truculence, bigotry and arrogance moves your brand of Roman catholic to throw expressions of rage at our every defense of our own validity?<br /><br />Define Eucharistic Sacrifice as you understand it-I dare you to try.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52162944442409738262010-01-23T00:25:31.925-05:002010-01-23T00:25:31.925-05:00Fr John says of me: "Well, if your an academi...Fr John says of me: "Well, if your an academic, your degree must be in Medieval Saxon Poetry, because you certainly could not have written the above words if you knew the History of England and the Church in England."<br /><br />Well, you see Father, English myopia notwithstanding ("fog in the English Channel, Europe cut off"), the fact is that the meaning of Matthew 16: 18 was universally accepted until the Reformation. That because of historical reasons the English Christians (in the North) were not in Communion with Rome until 666AD is not really relevant unless you think Christianity is to be identified with the opinions of some English before 666AD, and some after the Reformation.<br /><br />Some of my posts do not see the light of day on this blog because of Fr Hart. This one may not either, but I will take the risk it does appear and say to you and your colleagues that your account of Church history is extraordinarily narrow. That the Church subsists in all those Churches in communion with the Holy Father is not a new doctrine. It was universally accepted before the Reformation. Second, the problem with the whole of Reformation theology (including that of Cranmer) is justification by faith alone, ie sola scriptura, sola fides. Cranmer's rejection of the normative teaching of the Catholic Church, and his acceptance of the scripture only and faith only doctrines, led him into further error including his rejection of Catholic priesthood, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence.Cherubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10998294374027724557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24050246094292186092010-01-22T17:16:53.960-05:002010-01-22T17:16:53.960-05:00Fr. John wrote:
WE (that is to say me and my fell...Fr. John wrote:<br /><br /><i>WE (that is to say me and my fellow Anglican Catholic clerics) know from secular history as well as ecclesiastical history that William the Conqueror imposed, by force of arms, the concept of the papacy you claim we accepted then rejected.</i><br /><br />I always knew my black sheep ancestor (or, to be in character, should I use the pompous royal "our"?), William the Conqueror, also was called William the Bastard for two very good reasons; it seems there was a third I had not considered.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86369125791217567182010-01-21T22:42:51.472-05:002010-01-21T22:42:51.472-05:00RC Cola remarked on, and therefore apparently obje...RC Cola remarked on, and therefore apparently objected to, my correction of the fashion in which he addressed the Revd Dr. Jones.<br /><br />I'm sorry if he did not like what I said, or the fact that I said it, but it was not meant to be unfriendly or snarky. It was, however, meant to be blunt and clear.<br /><br />I know Fr. Jones and am quite sure that he is insufficiently impressed with himself to have made that correction. I, however, am sufficiently impressed with the sacred Office he holds to desire that a holder of it be addressed correctly, as a matter of respect for that very Office.<br /><br />So I made my observation, as gently as the combox medium seemed to permit -- I did say it was purely as a matter of enculturation -- and make no apologies for having done so.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25545688765374403182010-01-21T12:26:16.266-05:002010-01-21T12:26:16.266-05:00Cherub wrote:
"There was a consensus on the ...Cherub wrote:<br /><br />"There was a consensus on the meaning of Matthew 16:18. But no amount of reading that in Church on St Peter's day can alter the fact that Anglicanism rejected the previously received account of the Papacy."<br /><br />Well, if your an academic, your degree must be in Medieval Saxon Poetry, because you certainly could not have written the above words if you knew the History of England and the Church in England. WE (that is to say me and my fellow Anglican Catholic clerics) know from secular history as well as ecclesiastical history that William the Conqueror imposed, by force of arms, the concept of the papacy you claim we accepted then rejected. Henry merely restored the old agreement England had with Rome prior to the coming of the Conqueror.<br /><br />You can read about for yourself if you care to do the research. You can start with my Patroness, St. Hilda of Whitby. If you had called her a Roman Catholic, she would have rebuked you, yet she was persuaded to be in communion with Rome. Try boning up on the Synod of Whitby held in 662.<br /><br />I apologize for the snarky attitude, but your magisterial certainty in making historical statements set me off.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41072796089709871052010-01-21T11:10:10.095-05:002010-01-21T11:10:10.095-05:00"What a sad image: Bp. Watterson lurking in t..."What a sad image: Bp. Watterson lurking in the lobby at Lambeth,"<br /><br />No sad image at all! To my way of thinking, this was an act of great courage, like Amos at Bethel, Moses in Pharaoh's court. It may have been foolhardy, but he was a fool for Christ.<br />And where were the other three Denver bishops when Bp Watterson was bearing witness before the rulers and powers of this world?<br /><br />Whatever mistakes PFW may have made, "lurking" was not one of his faults.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26028595389533321372010-01-21T09:22:55.639-05:002010-01-21T09:22:55.639-05:00Well, Canon, since I can't hear the tone of vo...Well, Canon, since I can't hear the tone of voice or see the look on your face in your corrective post, I'm going to have to give you the benefit of the doubt and tell myself that you mean no offense.<br /><br />But--and I do mean this in good humor--where I come from, stepping in to correct something that wasn't even addressed to you, would have earned you a black eye and the nickname "Poindexter."<br /><br /><i>You can take da boy outta Noo Yawk, but you can't take the Noo Yawk outta da boy!</i>RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32730664691330000562010-01-20T22:26:58.678-05:002010-01-20T22:26:58.678-05:00RC Cola addressed his last comment "To Rev. J...RC Cola addressed his last comment "To Rev. Jones".<br /><br />Just as a matter of enculturation, it is a bit more consonant with our customs to address a priest as "Father Jones" or, where the priest in question has an earned Ph.D., even "Dr. Jones".<br /><br />As the great Methodist writer Charles Merrill Smith pointed out, we do not directly address a man as "Reverend Jones" because "Reverend" is an adjective and titles are always nouns. So the usual envelope address really assumes the interpolation of that noun, as "The Rev. [Mr., Dr., or whatever] Jones".<br /><br />After all, we would not speak to our Congressman as "Well, hello, Honorable", much as we might be tempted to make fun of him or her, especially these days....<br /><br />Of course, some non-liturgical and/or non-sacramental bodies do tend to address their clergy as "Reverend" but that's their choice to ignore the customary grammar.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+<br />"micidn"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63255795171143263142010-01-20T10:07:09.143-05:002010-01-20T10:07:09.143-05:00To Rev. Jones,
I'm sorry if I caused you offe...To Rev. Jones,<br /><br />I'm sorry if I caused you offense. I was only reporting that people at my former parish debated whether Novus Ordo orders were valid or not, but did not intend to say or imply that I doubted their validity. It was coffee hour "what if" talk, nothing serious. <br /><br />Most of us agreed that it wasn't our place to make and that we did not have the competency to make such statements.RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58853229708422694722010-01-20T02:19:50.572-05:002010-01-20T02:19:50.572-05:00In defence of your position you say, "the sel...<i>In defence of your position you say, "the selected portions of Scripture were known to identify priest and bishop, and therefore so Intended, is a very well known fact." That is a very poor argument.</i><br /><br />It is not even an argument at all, but an obvious statement of fact. How on earth could you possibly expect me to take you seriously if that obvious point goes over your head?<br /><br /><i>So too all the Biblical texts to which you refer were given new interpretations which explicitly rejected the Catholic priesthood as it was universally understood and accepted.</i><br /><br />No, they were seen in light of their true meaning, consistent with the Fathers of the Church and the consensus of Antiquity. There, by he way, you will have a hard time finding your peculiar RC beliefs. And, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the <i>Accipe Spritum Sanctum</i> was translated word for word into English from a 13th century Ordinal (at the latest) used long before the Reformation. Everyone, yourself excepted, always knew that the Scriptures identified the specific offices. It requires biblical illiteracy not to know that.<br /><br />(Is this guy for real?)Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40689817043811326492010-01-20T02:10:25.534-05:002010-01-20T02:10:25.534-05:00Cherub:
Archbishop Cranmer corrected the error of...Cherub:<br /><br />Archbishop Cranmer corrected the error of the times, and so stated the Catholic Faith, properly restoring it. There is only one sacrifice. He was correcting the false notion that Christ is offered again and again, as if we need fresh sacrifices of masses in and of themselves. The whole context, both literary and historical, is clear and obvious, You are the one who is denying the Catholic Faith, for instead of one Sacrifice that is full perfect, and that is once for all, you reject what Cranmer, and the Council of Trent, agreed on. Read it in the context of history and the whole text. What Cranmer was saying ought to be obvious, even to a Roman Catholic all fired up with anti-Anglican propaganda. And, I agree with Cranmer. "Representation" (as in re-presentation) is the word you need to look up.<br /><br />About divisions in Anglican circles, so what? I heard today from someone claiming to be a Traditionalist Roman Catholic who was not associated with (in his own offensive words) "Ratzinger and his cronies." I rejected the comment because it was nothing but anti-RC ranting. But, there too, if I wanted to go on about divisions in RC circles I could. We are the Continuing Anglicans and we have made our stand clear (and, that is not "royal we." I never thought I was in the Continuing Church all by myself, you silly man. You can't even understand my modern English; should I believe you can understand Cranmer's 16th century English?).Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83672613503105289952010-01-20T01:29:00.397-05:002010-01-20T01:29:00.397-05:00In defence of your position you say, "the sel...In defence of your position you say, "the selected portions of Scripture were known to identify priest and bishop, and therefore so Intended, is a very well known fact." That is a very poor argument. There was a consensus on the meaning of Matthew 16:18. But no amount of reading that in Church on St Peter's day can alter the fact that Anglicanism rejected the previously received account of the Papacy. So too all the Biblical texts to which you refer were given new interpretations which explicitly rejected the Catholic priesthood as it was universally understood and accepted. Thank God for the Oxford Movement which attempted to bring the Anglican Church back to its historical roots and in greater conformity. And good luck to the Continuum for following that Movement, at least to some degree.Cherubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10998294374027724557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84444709918587359482010-01-20T01:28:45.956-05:002010-01-20T01:28:45.956-05:00Father Hart: "The "sacrifices of Masses&...Father Hart: "The "sacrifices of Masses" (double plural) was a natural context for criticizing both abuses at once, since history ties them together in a fairly obvious way. No, that is not rejection of Eucharistic Sacrifice. If you were as well read as you say, you ought to know that."<br />I cannot reproduce for you everything that Cranmer said about the Sacrifice of the Mass but in the same essay, indeed at the end of that essay, he says: "[Every man] spiritually may feed of the very flesh and blood of Jesu Christ his Saviour and Redeemer, remembering his death, thanking him for his benefits, and looking for none other sacrifice at no priest's hands for remission of his sins, but only trusting to his sacrifice ..." Cranmer did not correctly understood the real Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass and nor does he accept a sacrificing priesthood. I read very well Father Hart. The 1662 Prayer Book reflects this doctrine. Anglo-Catholics attempted to overturn this erroneous Cranmerian doctrine by adding the prayer of oblation to the consecration prayer, much to the chagrin of Evangelical Anglicans as everyone knows.<br /><br />You say: "About diversity of views within Anglicanism, I ask, opposed to what? The absolute uniformity of thought in Roman Catholicism, where no one anywhere ever disagrees about anything?" I have not referred to opinions in any general sense but official teaching. Rome, whether one likes it or not , has official teaching against which one can dissent if one wants to, and within which there is plenty of room for intellectual discussion. Anglicanism in England, and elsewhere in the Anglican world, formalised the different teachings into schools, all of which claimed to be the legitimate Anglicanism. So there were institutionalised parishes and even dioceses on the basis of churchmanship. So Anglicans, at the same service, receive the same communion even when believe mutually exclusive things about that communion and its ministers. The Continuum represents only one of the possible Anglican approaches. It is a well argued approach within its obvious limitations, but still is only one 'official' account of Anglicanism.<br />Father Hart goes on to say: "But when you react to debate by accusing your opponent (in this case me) of "magisterial certainty," you indicate to me that you could not really be a professional academic. What did you expect? That I would roll over and let you trample on our scholarship without reply? That I would pretend not to believe anything I have said? That I would let myself appear to be confounded? Frankly, I am not sure I believe you about your status in the world of published scholarship, not if you confuse facts with opinions and cannot accept refutation without emotional appeals to non-sense." Well this is illogical, unfair, and emotional. Yes I have said that you speak with magisterial certainty. And you do, even employing the royal 'we'. It simply does not follow from that observation (with which you are well entitled to disagree)that I could not possibly be an academic. There is no link between premiss and conclusion, an elementary logical blunder. No, I do not expect you to "roll over", but I do expect you to understand the facts as they are: Cranmer did not believe in the sacrifice of the Mass or sacrificing priests. The "sacrifices of masses" referred to in the 39 Articles, and to which Newman later made reference in Tract 90, certainly does reject the idea that priests offer other sacrifices discrete from the One Sacrifice of Christ. But I am talking about the Prayer Book of 162 in which there is no doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass present.Cherubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10998294374027724557noreply@blogger.com