tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post8066078073185366847..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: A few words from Archbishop Mark HaverlandFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3239758667721732632009-09-29T17:46:46.368-04:002009-09-29T17:46:46.368-04:00I do not recall the author or the play, but I do r...I do not recall the author or the play, but I do recall the dialogue, in which the Puritan governor of Massachussetts says to Roger Williams, "Williams, I have proved to you that your doctrine is wrong. I have proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt. But you persist in your heresy. You are an arrogant, willful sinner. Therefore you are exiled from this colony."<br /><br />Fr Kirby's notion of "formal heresy" as an act of the will reminds me of this. And if heresy is willful (which is equivalent to voluntary, right?), then we would be justified in punishing it with torture, exile, and stronger measures. Why not? The Inquisition was a good Catholic institution and survived the Council of Trent. It is the logical extension of Fr Kirby's concept of heresy.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69229196778172833172009-09-28T18:52:19.063-04:002009-09-28T18:52:19.063-04:00So if all heresy as such is material rather than f...So if all heresy as such is material rather than formal, what were you talking about? The distinction is simply without point. These highfalutin words sound impressive at first blush, but upon examination turn out to be only window-dressing.<br /><br />I am not sure I agree with you about heresy as a "moral category." It is hard for me to conceive of someone saying "I think I will commit heresy today," in the same manner that he might say, "I think I will commit adultery, rob a bank, or build a golden calf." Even Arius was not guilty of a "willful" transgression. Heresy is, to my way of thinking, evidence of the noetic effects of the Fall, a horrible example of the darkness of the reprobate mind which Paul speaks of.<br /><br />It should be recalled that even the worst heretics, even John Spong and KJS, are acting in good conscience, not in "willful" disobedience. I agree with Vatican II and CCC that this conscience, even if malformed, must be respected.<br /><br />I forgive you for blurring the distinction between the heresy qua heresy, and the heretic himself. But if that distinction has been observed, it would have saved us all a lot of time.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56898566868766192152009-09-26T13:50:04.522-04:002009-09-26T13:50:04.522-04:00When fellow scholars and priests are thrown off by...When fellow scholars and priests are thrown off by a technical term, I suggest the term is too technical for practical use.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59013021832797121952009-09-24T19:44:59.485-04:002009-09-24T19:44:59.485-04:00Fr Wells,
All heresies, as to content, are only m...Fr Wells,<br /><br />All heresies, as to content, are only material heresies in themselves. They are formally heretical only if they subsist in a certain kind of act of human will. Heresy is a moral category, strictly speaking. The "form" of heresy (which is a sin) is that certain act of will, not the false doctrine itself, which provides the "matter" for the sinful act.<br /><br />Thus all the errors I talked about, whether in Cranmer, Jewel or Aquinas were heretical as errors due to their objective opposition to binding teaching. None of them, as they subsisted in the proposers, were necessarily constitutive of the sin of heresy in the subjects.<br /><br />At least this is the tradtional Western usage, which I have used throughout.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67548780953538243852009-09-24T09:50:03.026-04:002009-09-24T09:50:03.026-04:00Fr Kirby: Having re-read your earlier comments, I...Fr Kirby: Having re-read your earlier comments, I am all the more certain you are applying the "formal/material" to doctrines taught, not the person holding them. So your appeal to a textbook in moral theology does not answer my question.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61302756826331622012009-09-23T10:44:23.852-04:002009-09-23T10:44:23.852-04:00Thanks. I was familiar with this distinction in m...Thanks. I was familiar with this distinction in moral theology, and if heresy is a species of sin (as I agree it is) it would apply. But I continue to point out that this is more an assessment of the heretic personally, rather than of the heresy itself. As you were using these terms with reference to Cranmer, et al., you seemed to be applying them to the doctrines taught, not the man teaching. Can you read a book (written 400 years ago) and say "that is formal or material heresy," when you have not <br />met the theologian in the confessional?<br />Since this becomes a matter of personal judgment, we need to be all the more careful. Your strictures on Cranmer turn out to be a moral judgment on the man himself.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25543611347763521432009-09-23T00:41:53.489-04:002009-09-23T00:41:53.489-04:00Can you educate me further with the name of an Ang...<i>Can you educate me further with the name of an Anglican theologian who employs this distinction? I'm sure there is one, so my question is not facetious.</i><br /><br />The Rt Revd R.C. Mortimer (d. 1976), <br />Bp of Exeter,<br />Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, Oxford University<br /><br />See his <i>The Elements of Moral Theology</i> for an excellent discussion. This was the first Anglican work I took off the shelf and checked last night. No doubt there are others.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-4380287708404685232009-09-21T18:15:44.006-04:002009-09-21T18:15:44.006-04:00No rational person would claim that any individual...No rational person would claim that any individual is infallible; and to attribute infallibility to Anglican Reformers and Divines would itself contradict their teaching. I have merely broadened the context of the examples sent my way in these comments, because I have not found them to be heretical in and of themselves. <br /><br />It does not surprise me that the sources were not Anglo-Catholic or High Church, inasmuch as there exists a pseudo-Reformed (pseudo-Calvinist) school of modern Anglicans who are very much like the Reasserters. They make strange bedfellows with Roman Catholic apologists who seize isolated statements by Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, etc. to try to prove that they lacked Sacramental Intention. For the RC polemicists the motive is clear; for the pseudo-Reformed it is also clear, and quite the opposite: They want to prove that Anglicanism differed in no way from the Continental Reformation[s]. Both schools are selecting the evidence in such a way as to get everything wrong.<br /><br />That is the monster you really do not want to feed.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32683649072740366502009-09-21T13:12:15.207-04:002009-09-21T13:12:15.207-04:00Fr Kirby: Although I am coming to like you and to...Fr Kirby: Although I am coming to like you and to enjoy you as a partner in dialogue, I think we have some signficant differences (which do not have to be personal or acrimonious). <br /><br />Let me confess my complete ignorance, up til now, of the distinction between material and formal heresy. Although I have read more than one theological books, many by Roman Catholics, that distinction has so far eluded my studies.<br /><br />I found it only in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. The "Oxford Distionary of the Christian Church" (perhaps significantly) does not even have an entry for the word heresy. Can you educate me further with the name of an Anglican theologian who employs this distinction? I'm sure there is one, so my question is not facetious.<br /><br />As I gather from you and from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, formal heresy (the really bad sort) is willful. If an unlettered peasant imagines that Christ was a high-ranking Archangel named Michael, that would be material heresy, right? But if a man trained in historical theology decides that Arius was right after all, then he is guilty of formal heresy. Did I get that right?<br /><br />So the distinction between material and formal turns out to be a judgment not of the heresy itself but of the heretic. The advantage of the distinction here is that it places a premium on ignorance. Better not to know than to know!<br /><br />I have a problem with the concept of someone "willfully" deciding to be a heretic. Personally, I hold to a number of beliefs, all centering around the Ecumenical Creeds, all based on my faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. But I cannot think of a single belief which I willfully chose.<br />Between l956 and l964, I was dragged, kicking and screaming, very much against my will and my common sense, into the faith and fellowship of the Anglican tradition. I have paid a huge price for it. So I did not "willfully" become an Anglican. I doubt that Servetus "willfully" denied the Trinity. No one gets out of bed in the morning and says, "I think I will subscribe to a heresy today."<br /><br />Roman Catholic moral theologians have opined that the official definition of mortal sin is so constricted that it is almost impossible to commit one. I agree. And if the "willful" rubric in this definition of heresy is applied seriously, then "formal heresy" is almost impossible. Unless I have grievously misunderstood it, the distinction is (like most RC manualistic theology)meaningless and of no real value<br /><br />Enough for today.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79850302255442458432009-09-21T10:37:23.677-04:002009-09-21T10:37:23.677-04:00(cont'd) ...
I would not suggest that the Tri...(cont'd) ...<br /><br /><i>I would not suggest that the Trinity and the Incarnation are the ONLY necessary doctrines. But just as moralists distinguish between mortal and venial sins, can you not be merciful, and allow a distinction between heresy and mere error?</i><br /><br />Of course. As I have said, the only errors that count as material heresy are those manifestly opposed to a (contemporaneously) settled teaching of the Church, whether the teaching has been settled by general, consistent consensus or official, conciliar proclamation. Both are binding. (On the other hand, I also accept the concept of a "hierarchy of truths", and that some heresies are much worse than others.) <br /><br />E.g., The doctrine that the Eucharistic elements become the Body and Blood of Christ in a real though mysterious and ineffable sense, despite the fact that all the natural physical properties of the bread and wine are unchanged, is the clear consensus of East and West. (Cf. the relevant statement in the Bucharest Agreements between Anglicans and Orthodox, which would also be accepted by the RCC, and is reflective of the ancient, patristic consensus: "In the Eucharist the bread and wine become by consecration [metabole] the Body and Blood of our Lord. How? This is a mystery.") Any denial of this would be material heresy, and a fairly important one, even in the 16th Century. <br /><br />(As an aside, I am surprised that my use of the preposition "in", with regard to the Real Presence, has been interpreted in this thread as an assertion by me of a physically localised mode of Christ's presence, or presence by way of simple addition or impanation, when such words as "under" and "in" have been common in orthodox theology of the Real Presence, and always understood as analogical as a matter of course. Nevertheless, if I had meant to use that preposition literally, it could fairly be argued that such a position was materially heretical.)<br /><br />No image or cross is ever allowed to be given the veneration of <i>latreia</i>, other wise idolatry is performed. This teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is and was binding. Contradiction of it is materially heretical.<br /><br />However, in each case, stating a heretical position does not make one a heretic as such unless one knows the position is opposed to the Catholic Church's position.<br /><br />The definitions I am using of these words are not my own. That is why I am mystified by the reaction to these statements, a reaction that presents me as introducing some extremist, marginal idiosyncrasy of my own in the use of the word "heresy". This is despite the fact that both as to general principles and specific application, my statements have hardly been out of step with what most RC, EO and Anglo-Catholic theologians have said, using the same terminology when discussing the same points.<br /><br />Fr Wells, if I understand you correctly, you wish to restrict the word "heresy" to only those errors offending against the Creeds themselves. This is not the normal practice, but I freely acknowledge you probably have Abp Laud on your side here, and some of the other Caroline Divines as well. I think a plausible argument could even be made that there is something of this kind of differentiation in a letter of St Basil (Ep. 188) regarding the degrees of separation from the Church. There he limits the word heresy to the more fundamental errors regarding God. However, the word has generally been used more broadly than that.<br /><br />I have no great objection to either the broader or narrower definition of the necessary subject matter for heresy, mainly because I take the distinction between material and formal heresy so seriously instead. Apart from terminology, are our positions really so different?Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39847561060569298302009-09-21T10:36:43.878-04:002009-09-21T10:36:43.878-04:00Fr Wells,
I was happy enough to allow you and Fr ...Fr Wells,<br /><br />I was happy enough to allow you and Fr Hart to finish the conversation, but you have asked questions that appear not to be rhetorical. That is, you seem to want my answer to them. To wit:<br /><br /><i>Is there any theologian in all history whom you consider to be exempt from the label of heresy?</i><br /><br />You do not seem to have carefully read what I said. Cranmer and Aquinas both taught material heresies. This is not the same as saying they are heretics, <i>simpliciter</i>. I made the necessary distinctions fairly clearly. At the risk of repeating myself, let me put the same point again in a slightly different way: a person has not automatically become a heretic properly speaking, that is, become guilty of the sin of heresy, merely by holding one or more opinions that are in fact opposed to the settled teaching of the Church as to what is of the Faith, and therefore materially heretical. They have to hold these opinions fully aware that they are so opposed, otherwise they are not "formally" or genuinely heretics. None of the Fathers or Doctors were formal heretics. Many probably never wrote any material heresy. Especially since whatever errors may have crept into their works were more often than not in areas where there was no manifestly binding or consensual teaching yet or, indeed, where there may still be no such certainty in the Church. Such errors, even in important matters, cannot be even material heresy.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72013697827231813532009-09-20T23:23:34.388-04:002009-09-20T23:23:34.388-04:00Fr Kirby, my dear brother priest and gnesion tekno...Fr Kirby, my dear brother priest and gnesion teknon en pistei, writes,<br /><br />"While I agree with you that the Trinity and Incarnation must always remain "central" to considerations of orthodoxy vs heresy, I do not believe that only these two central doctrines of the Creeds are mandatory for Catholics."<br /><br />The Reformers were accused by the Romanists of teaching a parity of sins--that all sins are equally heinous. The Westminister Larger Catechism (Questions 150 and 151) went out of its way to declare that some sins are more heinous than others and give general rules to determining the relative seriousness of particular transgressions or omissions.<br /><br />I bring this up because you seem to be asserting a parity of errors, in which all errors of doctrine or morals are labelled "HERESY!" In response to my strenuous objection to your labelling Thomas Cranmer a heretic, you offer as a sort of olive branch the soothing assurance that you have labelled St Thomas Aquinas a heretic as well. (How did he make it past the Devil's Advocate in the canonization process?) I wonder where your painting with the broad brush will lead. "If thou, O Father Kirby, wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, O Father Kirby, who may abide it?" When the term heresy is flung around so freely, it becomes trivial. Is there any theologian in all history whom you consider to be exempt from the label of heresy?<br /><br />I would not suggest that the Trinity and the Incarnation are the ONLY necessary doctrines. But just as moralists distinguish between mortal and venial sins, can you not be merciful, and allow a distinction between heresy and mere error?<br /><br />If every theological faux pas, every unguarded statement, every sally in thinking aloud, is to be treated with an outcry of HERESY! then we would be better not to do theology at all.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26291554948620211122009-09-20T20:34:57.222-04:002009-09-20T20:34:57.222-04:00And what about the fact that some historians have ...<i>And what about the fact that some historians have inferred that Cranmer probably encouraged the asking of the questions in the first place?</i><br /><br />Considering the fact that to Henry VIII, this was a bone of contention, part of his struggle against the papacy, it is unlikely that any encouragement was needed. Also, please consider what I said. Cranmer dodged the question (no doubt to keep his head). Am I alone in noticing those extra words "consecration by Scripture"? He turned it, by his answer, into a question of Form. He turned it into a question about the specific part of the Ordinal that begins with "Accipe Spritum Sanctum." This was very clever. He did not deny the need for consecration, but only the need for a specific Form.<br /><br />That subtle shifting of the question to one of Form ought to have been a major consideration of everybody all along; especially in its historical context with that bloody and dangerous King.<br /><br />Let the above serve as an example: I am very likely to notice when the standard interpretation by historians comes up short. Many have simply failed to dig deep enough; or they have ignored words, and sometimes whole sentences.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77270697070051453712009-09-20T20:29:29.565-04:002009-09-20T20:29:29.565-04:00Fr. Kirby:
The first version of the "Black R...Fr. Kirby:<br /><br />The first version of the "Black Rubric" was sneaked in under the radar and against orders, as was the second. And Queen Elizabeth herself forbade it during her reign. It was never authorized, even though the second version was "grandfathered in" by precedent.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>Yes, it was the real presence of Christ's "natural flesh and blood" denied, but such a denial is still erroneous since the Body and Blood present in the Eucharist are the very same Body and Blood crucified and arisen.</i><br /><br />Avoid Impanation then. Hooker went out of his way to make it clear that the body of Jesus is glorified and in heaven. Therefore, whatever we mean by Real Presence cannot be natural, because the contrast between natural and spiritual is one of those obvious points, or between natural and supernatural. What they denied, as I think is clear, was Transubstantiation, as understood in England to be wholly carnal and material. <br /><br /><i>Darwell Stone, the acknowledged Anglican authority, had no trouble admitting that effective denials of the Real Presence were common among the early Anglican churchmen...</i><br /><br />So, how do you define Real Presence? For any definition, what is the Biblical source, and when exactly did the Church declare its Universal consensus? Did any Ecumenical Council explain this to us?<br /><br />It is fairly obvious that they taught, clearly, that by eating and drinking the sacrament with faith, the supernatural saving grace of the sacrament is imparted. That this was, for them, the true meaning of what we now call Real Presence, is more than evident in the Homliy: "AN HOMILIE OF THE worthy receiuing and reuerend esteeming of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ." I quote:<br /><br />"But thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord, there is no vaine Ceremonie, no bare signe, no vntrue figure of a thing absent ...When thou goest vp to the reuerend Communion, to be satisfied with spirituall meates, thou looke vp with fayth vpon the holy body and blood of thy GOD, thou maruayle with reuerence"<br /><br />This is interpreted further by Article XXVIII, which says, “the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.” What we call the Real Presence was, for them, a practical doctrine that helped them urge the people to come forward and receive in a worthy manner. <br /><br />They expressed belief in the supernatural power of it, whether to salvation or to judgment. Beyond their emphasis, what is the revelation and where is the Universal Consensus of the Church? They denied that it is a bare sign of a thing absent; they taught to look up and behold our God in it.<br /><br /><i>But only Cranmer denied the normative necessity of episcopal consecration ab initio in the Church.</i><br /><br />As I already demonstrated, what Cranmer did was to repeat <i>the teaching of Rome itself.</i> Until then, this was the doctrine everyone had grown up with. But, he did not deny the "normative necessity of episcopal consecration" at all. He meant nothing more than what had been said a generation earlier by Archbishop Warham: (once again) "A man is not made Bishop by consecration, but is pronounced so at Rome in Consistory ; and he has no jurisdiction given him by<br />consecration, but only the rights of his Order, namely, consecrating of children, et caetera."<br /><br /><i>What forced him to go even beyond what the King might have wanted to hear, when all others were far more careful and theologically honest?</i><br /><br />To go beyond what that King wanted to hear was probably impossible. But, that he had to be more careful than others was due to his Archbishopric. Others could get away with a lot more. Henry rarely killed people outside his close circle. <br /><br />(cont. below)Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70470332826918413452009-09-20T07:03:52.179-04:002009-09-20T07:03:52.179-04:00A quick note:
If heresy be an overemphasis on a tr...A quick note:<br />If heresy be an overemphasis on a truth to the extent that other truth is contradicted, as was the case with Arius, with Nestorius, with the Monophysites, and with the Iconoclasts, then all sides in the Reformation period, in their overreaction to each other, were materially expressing heresy, and none of them were entirely orthodox. As at every time in history, one needs to listen to all the voices, and to weight them against each other in order to find where truth actually resides.<br /><br />If I do not recognize the infallibility of the Pope, of Aquinas, of Trent, and of the Counterreformation theologians, I also fail to see how our Anglican divines, though they deserve our high respect and our attentive ears, can be deemed to be infallible, nor how disagreement with even the best of them makes me less than Anglican or less than Catholic. <br /><br />I am far more likely to to be in agreement with Frs. Hart and Wells on any point of doctrine than otherwise, but I'm as disturbed by the oversensitivity to suggestions that it is proper to point out errors in these cherished authorities. I do believe they did err, sometimes seriously, but also that they did not veer as far from the historic Catholic consensus as the Roman majority had done and continued to do.<br /><br />What marks Anglicanism is not the full extent of reaction to errors, but the seeking of balance in theology,<br /><br />Thus I would far rather see a discussion of the issues themselves than an attempt to either justify or condemn any individuals, however authoritative they may be on the whole.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-14667165027014764832009-09-20T05:49:04.359-04:002009-09-20T05:49:04.359-04:00Correction: strike the word "similar" in...Correction: strike the word "similar" in the second paragraph above.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11157115136702709252009-09-20T05:43:37.675-04:002009-09-20T05:43:37.675-04:00Fr Wells,
You ask: "what is the value of bri...Fr Wells,<br /><br />You ask: "what is the value of bringing up these alleged heresies now?" Partly in order to maintain strict accuracy in our apologetics, so that those who oppose our existence cannot get their own "gotcha" moment by citing such serious errors when we have claimed too much. Partly in order to emphasise the fact that fault was not all on one side, for the sake of honest and constructive ecumenical progress.<br /><br />You seem shocked that I show such disrespect to some of the Reformers by citing their errors, as if this would undermine Anglican ecclesial identity. But I have also noted in the past similar material heresies among Roman Catholic writers of that age and before. Although I have Thomist tendencies myself, like C.B. Moss I cannot help but think the Angelic Doctor's recommendation and defence of adoration of the cross and crucifix was materially heretical and a "vindication" of idolatry. (Moss thinks he was probably not aware of what the Seventh Council taught, so he cannot be charged with formal heresy.) Aquinas is, I think we all agree, a pretty important figure for understanding mediaeval Western Catholicism, and the Council of Trent for that matter. Do I unchurch the RCC by pointing out these things? If others point out material heresies in the words of Popes, even in quite authoritative contexts, as has been legitimately done on this weblog, would this unchurch the RCC? If not, why are you so sensitive about shining the same searching light on some of our own divines?<br /><br /><i>I respectfully submit than when less important things take the place of the Trinity and the Incarnation, we have moved from heresy right into idolatry, the worship of orthodoxy as such. "This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."</i><br /><br />I can't help but feel that, given the context, this was aimed at me. However, given our past history and my mistakes in controversy with you, it may be that you are only giving me what I deserve. So, I will "pass" on the umbrage and move on to the substance of our disagreement, if disagreement it really is, since I am not sure what you fundamentally want to affirm of the Reformers I really want to deny, or vice-versa.<br /><br />While I agree with you that the Trinity and Incarnation must always remain "central" to considerations of orthodoxy vs heresy, I do not believe that only these two central doctrines of the Creeds are mandatory for Catholics. And if there are other things that, while less important and needing to be put into context by the great central core of evangelical and creedal Truth, are mandatory beliefs, then denial of them does constitute heresy in objective terms. For example, although not central Creedal truths, the moral teachings of the Church against extra-marital sex and abortion I believe to be <i>de fide</i> and heresy to deny. And I cannot believe that you would really disagree with this.<br /><br />Anyway, I think I will let you and Fr Hart have the last word. I have read the attempts to acquit Cranmer and Jewel of doctrinal error, and read what they wrote, and remain unpersuaded that the attempted vindications of their orthodoxy in all important areas succeed. I also remain persuaded that such an admission does not destroy our ecclesial identity, for exactly the reasons I have given repeatedly before.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br /><br />MK+Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12704698315851469732009-09-20T05:42:24.551-04:002009-09-20T05:42:24.551-04:00Fr Hart,
Are you referring to the original or th...Fr Hart, <br /><br />Are you referring to the original or the modified Black Rubric? The original denied adoration of a "real and essential presence" rather than a "corporal presence". Do we really need to attempt any justification of this, since it is manifestly unCatholic and never had authority. Yes, it was the real presence of Christ's "natural flesh and blood" denied, but such a denial is still erroneous since the Body and Blood present in the Eucharist are the very same Body and Blood crucified and arisen. Denial of a natural presence would have been orthodox, but that is not what the original Rubric said. It is the mode of the Presence that is not natural. Although Christ's humanity is now glorified, he still retains a body "native" to Him and natural in that technical sense relevant here.<br /><br />As for the relative absence of quotations, given the vast amount of material available, the fact that isolated sentences can almost always be explained away till you see the whole passage from which they come, and the fact that I cited the best Anglican compendium available, I must leave people to read the copious sources for themselves. Darwell Stone, the acknowledged Anglican authority, had no trouble admitting that effective denials of the Real Presence were common among the early Anglican churchmen, and he was hardly an Anglo-papist or ignorant of the historical context to which you refer.<br /><br />Regarding your defence of Cranmer, you seem to forget that it was not just Cranmer that was asked or that answered. Some other divines accepted a King might make bishops in extreme emergency, others solidly denied this. But only Cranmer denied the normative necessity of episcopal consecration <i>ab initio</i> in the Church. What forced him to go even beyond what the King might have wanted to hear, when all others were far more careful and theologically honest? And what about the fact that some historians have inferred that Cranmer probably encouraged the asking of the questions in the first place?<br /><br />Your memory of what the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry says is rather different to my own. And rather different to C.B. Moss' explanation of the same in his essay on the Seventh General Council, which can also be found online. Is anybody going to try to make him out to be an Anglo-Papist or ignorant of English Reformational history? I doubt it.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20489870155567552112009-09-20T00:09:54.031-04:002009-09-20T00:09:54.031-04:00Fr.Kirby:
I have had little time to pay attention...Fr.Kirby:<br /><br />I have had little time to pay attention to this blog for a couple of days (reading a paper all the way up in Delaware and then driving back here to N.C.) and have not said all I have to say. I cannot nod in agreement with you on these matters, because I find your dismissive attitude toward the English Reformers all too typical of <i>the kind of</i> Anglo-Catholicism that I long ago repented of. It is a partisan version of the Oxford Movement, and it lacks authority.<br /><br />You mentioned the "Black Rubric." I am the man who defended the actual meaning of the Black Rubric (having only its words to go on), even though I acknowledge that it was printed against the stated orders of the Bishops, Parliament and the Crown, that is, not only without authority, but against explicit orders. And, I do not <i>like</i> it. <b>But it is not heresy;</b> it is simply too subtle for most people, insulting to the intelligence of those who are educated, and a distraction from devotions. But, to call it heresy is quite wrong. I gave my reasons, including reasons why the current Pope has said, in his own words, the same thing. Here is the link:<br />http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/11/transubstantiation-and-black-rubric.html<br /><br />I wrote that essay, knowing it would generate cries of anguish among Anglo-Catholics; not cries of anguish because I cleared up confuision and misunderstanding; but cries of anguish because I removed a pet peeve that justified their cherished sense of inferiority and their psychotic desire to be members of a dysfunctional family, a desire that real Anglicanism simply cannot fulfill. But, I wrote it anyway, because it provided a perfect example of how knee-jerk reaction has no place in serious discussion of theology, inasmuch as it reduces everything to a level of simplistic thought and discussion. The result is that "heresy" means anything we do not like.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>No, Fr Hart, this is simply untrue. Cranmer wrote, in answer to the King's questions of 1540, "In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a priest needs no consecration by the Scripture, for election or appointing thereto is sufficient". He even claimed there were historical precedents in Church history.</i><br /><br />King Henry demanded to know why his word, as king was not enough. Cranmer, a fast thinker, knew how to keep his head, literally. His answer dealt with form, subtly changing the subject (i.e. the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum followed, of each Order, by words of Scripture that identify the Order). He evaded the question altogether. <br /><br />But the authority of the king was the basis of the question. Do you know why? because it was about the King vs.the Pope. This was <b>the position of Rome at that time:<br /><br />"A man is not made Bishop by consecration,</b> but is pronounced so at Rome in Consistory ; and he has no jurisdiction given him by <br />consecration, but only the rights of his Order, namely, consecrating of children, et caetera." It was stated by William Warham (c. 1450 – 22 August 1532), Archbishop of Canterbury, a loyal Papist. <br /><br />In this argument between Rome and the King, Archbishop Cranmer had to give answer. In no way was either position a denial that the sacrament of Orders (i.e. the consecration of a bishop) was necessary for the charismatic nature of the ministry itself,and for the continuation of Apostolic Succession. The end of this story is that Cranmer pulled up his courage, and finally told the King that only a Bishop, not a King, could make a priest. He managed to keep his head by saying it very softly, almost appearing to compromise. But, he won.<br /><br />Which means that, when the Ordinal was composed, and later the Preface, the Church of England restored true Catholic doctrine, that Orders with all their charismatic power are conferred in the sacrament, not by decree later on. Here too, Rome followed, a story you should find familiar.<br /><br />And, we could go on and on with these details.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75959214626617489812009-09-19T20:34:58.673-04:002009-09-19T20:34:58.673-04:00Another thought on how Fr Kirby can continue as an...Another thought on how Fr Kirby can continue as an Anglican when he believes certain key figures Anglican history were guilty of "material heresy." If I understand his answer, it is that in spite of the alleged heresies of Cranmer, et al., the English Church, her liturgy and other key documents were somehow saved from that heresy.<br /><br />That being the case, what is the value of bringing up these alleged heresies now? This is somewhat like the scandal-monger who brings up the fact that St Augustine of Hippo sired an illegitimate son (St Adeodatus). If the heresies of Cranmer et al. had no lasting effect, what is your point, Fr Kirby?<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29362269277564750312009-09-19T16:24:34.044-04:002009-09-19T16:24:34.044-04:00This statement, as quoted in isolation by Fr Kirby...<i>This statement, as quoted in isolation by Fr Kirby, seems indefensible. But there is a larger context to this "gotcha."</i><br /><br />To take this sentence on its face value would contradict other things Cranmer is known to have said. Besides, it is not Scripture that consecrates a man.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37018409838894589432009-09-19T16:20:21.077-04:002009-09-19T16:20:21.077-04:00I think Alice Linsley meant for this comment to go...<i>I think <b>Alice Linsley</b> meant for this comment to go to this thread rather than to my sermon for Trinity XIV-Fr. Hart She wrote:</i><br /><br />Father Kirby, I never suggested that the the Articles "rendered Anglicanism heterodox." I simply said that there are significant differences between their historical context and that of most Orthodox. Further, I made little of the difference on Justification because there isn't a big difference. It should also be obvious from what I wrote that I'm not attacking the Articles, since I lifted up some of the tidbits that I regard as treasures to be embraced by all Christians.<br /><br />Charles, I hope that I provided an adequate response to your question.<br /><br />Death Bredon (Lord Peter is one of my favorite characters, BTW) - You said, "The Articles, in their literal sense, are more vague than you guess." Anglicans are too comfortable with ambiguity, I think. This can be an excuse for theological laziness or grounds for heterodoxy. Are you suggesting that the Articles are more Anglican fudge?<br /><br />You offer as examples Article II, which you suggest could be taken to refer to our original guilt or to Adam's. So which is it? Or is this a matter of such small importance that Anglicans don't care? I've posted on this topic recently here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/09/original-sin-or-ancestral-sin.html<br /><br />You also give as an example Article V "because the word 'proceed' has no clear patristic meaning -- understood in the sense of 'manifested by,' the filioque is fully Orthodox." The word procession has a clear meaning in classical Greek philosophy which the early Fathers knew and which is made clear in St. John's Gospel. Were the filioque the universal position of the Church, there would be no argument over it.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1884973753307536342009-09-19T15:08:46.018-04:002009-09-19T15:08:46.018-04:00Alice, I concur in your over-all point, but as I r...Alice, I concur in your over-all point, but as I read the Symbol of St Athanasius (which as we all know originated in the West, was written in Latin not Greek by somebody other than Athanasius), it seems to support the Filioque. I am away from my library and cannot supply the quote, but I will surely do so,<br /><br />The question before us is whether "orthodoxy" is truly centered in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, or has the center been moved to less central things like prayers for the dead, veneration of icons, eucharistic devotions, etc.<br /><br />I respectfully submit than when less important things take the place of the Trinity and the Incarnation, we have moved from heresy right into idolatry, the worship of orthodoxy as such. "This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46655898875397116532009-09-19T14:45:43.746-04:002009-09-19T14:45:43.746-04:00"Cranmer wrote, in answer to the King's q..."Cranmer wrote, in answer to the King's questions of 1540, "In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a priest needs no consecration by the Scripture, for election or appointing thereto is sufficient".<br /><br />This statement, as quoted in isolation by Fr Kirby, seems indefensible. But there is a larger context to this "gotcha."<br /><br />In the first place, there has not been a theologian in all Christian history who has not at some point or other made rash or ill-considered statements. It is unfair and unscholarly to grab such things and use them to make a case against the man. (How many Church Fathers defended the persecution of Jews and heretics?)<br /><br />In the second place, Fr Kirby needs to consider the real condition of the episcopate in Thomas Cranmer's time. It is easy to believe in apostolic succession as de esse in the Church when we have bishops who are godly, learned, devout and competent. But in Cranmer's time, many, if not most, if not nearly all episcopates were obtained through simony by horribly ungodly men. The office of bishop as sold for cash and boys as young as 10 were "consecrated" as bishops.<br />The debauchery of the Church, from the papacy right on down to the parish clergy, is well documented. It is sad to find anyone defending such disorder as representative of "orthodoxy." So bringing up this statement of Cranmer's strikes me as revealing a rather superficial concept of orthodoxy and heresy.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22396305214409431262009-09-19T11:50:46.158-04:002009-09-19T11:50:46.158-04:00I'd like to make one more comment and then I w...I'd like to make one more comment and then I will be silent.<br /><br />Theological precision on fundamentals of the catholic Faith is essential. There is a place for ambiguity when painting with the broadest strokes, as we find in the so-called Athanasian Creed here: “The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.” This statement does not support the filioque and since the Church is as yet divided on this matter, and this “creed” articulates the catholic Faith, the ambiguity serves a greater purpose than theological laxity.<br /><br />C.S. Lewis in his Introduction to St. Athanasius’ treatise On the Incarnation writes, “St. Athanasius has suffered in popular estimation from a certain sentence… ‘Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly’… the author is not talking about unbelievers, but about deserters.” That being the case, none may say about those who uphold the filioque that they are deserters.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com