tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post8862045192535025153..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Basic Anglican PolityFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83069273537941487242009-12-23T02:17:19.001-05:002009-12-23T02:17:19.001-05:00Nevertheless, they maintain a certain status withi...<i>Nevertheless, they maintain a certain status within the Anglican Catholic tradition due to their appending to the BCP, albeit one qualified by adhesion to Scritpure as understood by Holy Tradition.</i><br /><br />That's a bit circular, insn't it? Adhesion to Scripture and holy Tradition is what the Articles teach and defend.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52802002851845716472009-12-20T04:49:41.509-05:002009-12-20T04:49:41.509-05:00Joe,
As it happens, I probably agree with you on ...Joe,<br /><br />As it happens, I probably agree with you on Abp Cranmer more than I agree with Fr Hart, as has been seen on this blog not that long ago. This is an area where Anglo-Catholics have held and continue to hold different opinions. However, it is of little account for a number of reasons. First, the precise nature of Cranmer's opinions are irrelevant unless any proposed heterodox distinctives within them are unambiguously and inescapably imposed on the Church through its formularies. They are not. Second, Cranmer publicly stated his willingness to submit his opinions to the wider Church's judgement, as long as the Council determining the issue was genuinely free and representative. This manifests a formal adherence to the Catholic consensus, whatever material error we may discover. Third, Cranmer it seems was often loathe to attempt to dogmatise his more adventurous opinions. E.g., his heterodox suggestions about the sacrament of orders are made less threatening when we consider he later signed onto a document with other bishops affirming the orthodox position, if my memory serves me correctly. Given his eventual strong attraction to radical views on the Eucharist even by 1549, the very Catholic nature of a number of statements in the 1549 Mass (which pleased Gardiner so much) is interesting and suggestive. Cranmer was a wiser liturgist and (sometimes) Primate than he was a theologian.<br /><br />By the way, it should be noted that the Articles are in fact not mentioned at all in the Constitution and Canons of the ACC, nor in the Affirmation of St Louis. They are, therefore, not binding or considered infallible by the ACC. Nevertheless, they maintain a certain status within the Anglican Catholic tradition due to their appending to the BCP, albeit one qualified by adhesion to Scritpure as understood by Holy Tradition.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6857452788550416532009-12-18T15:18:22.700-05:002009-12-18T15:18:22.700-05:00Dr. Tarsitano said, "Anglican polity is only ...Dr. Tarsitano said, "Anglican polity is only a subset of the general Christian polity, and it must conform to the terms of the general polity."<br /><br />If we define ourselves with respect to the greater polity while neglecting the lesser, then isn't this a waterdown of polity or patrimony? I am preaching to the choir, given no one on this board rejects the Anglican settlement of formularies. Nonetheless, our roots and understanding of catholicity is through these same, lesser formulas.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28303004842841694692009-12-17T23:43:03.061-05:002009-12-17T23:43:03.061-05:00I stand with Keble, Cirlot, Hrauda, and other Angl...<i>I stand with Keble, Cirlot, Hrauda, and other Anglo-Catholic writers on this point.</i><br /><br />The tendency of some Anglo-Catholics to shun Cranmer, even then, indicates that some of them had already chosen the easy route of not examining the English Reformers in the context of their own times; and that some were willing to forgo debate in the early days of the overly optimistic Ecumenical Movement.<br /><br />As for Dix, though he was a brilliant man in many ways, his scholarship was sometimes rushed, and therefore flawed (facing west is the most well-known error). His use of the Tridentine Mass rather than the Book of Common Prayer, even when he was at Nashota House and could have used the American 1928 BCP, merely depresses me. It does not <i>im</i>press me.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84742514773254503312009-12-17T14:36:14.004-05:002009-12-17T14:36:14.004-05:00...why hang onto the Articles as if Anglicanism wa...<i>...why hang onto the Articles as if Anglicanism was confessional, like Lutheranism? </i><br /><br />At this point what really matters as a practical step, is to correct the misinformation by Anglo-Papalists about the meaning of the 39 Articles. Anglicans need to see why they have been seriously misunderstood by people who simply do not understand old English, and who do not know the history of theology. Discussing them theologically with the RCC and the EOC in the hope of "political" unity would require many miraculous things to happen first. The context of such discussions is, quite possibly, beyond our imagination.<br /><br /><i>Must the 39 Articles endure then in perpetuity? I guess that is the real question.</i><br /><br />Right now they are trashed by the ignorant, and it is a symptom of having swallowed misinformation and propaganda.<br /><br />(To be continued)Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22387208812874125042009-12-17T13:44:17.236-05:002009-12-17T13:44:17.236-05:00Fathers Hart and Kirby: As always, I am grateful f...Fathers Hart and Kirby: As always, I am grateful for the responses. <br /><br />I should have stressed that by <i>dogmas</i> here I meant pseudo-dogmas or unchallenged dogmatic facts ("as it were"). It certainly does seem that only until recently, one's interpretation of the Articles was more or less a theologoumenon unbinding on anyone else. Only of late (as far as I can tell) is the argument made that the Articles are absolutely a <i>Catholic document</i> -- which should mean, in theory, that they would be acceptable to the wider Church. That doesn't seem very realistic, though. <br /><br />Personally, I see the 39 Articles as an historical document which, removed from its context, is only an obstacle to reunion. Granted that they may serve to protect Anglican identity; but if reestablishing full communion with the Orthodox or even Rome is an eventual goal, and if many of the underlying controversies have already been addressed, why hang onto the Articles as if Anglicanism was confessional, like Lutheranism? <br /><br />I have mentioned before an ACA parish that actually removes the Articles from their BCPs, and the reaction here was quite negative. Must the 39 Articles endure then in perpetuity? I guess that is the real question.<br /><br />Fr. Kirby wrote: <i>The argument is that other elements of the Anglican Formularies and Elizabethan Settlement (which were mentioned above) make the Catholic interpretation objectively correct and mandatory.</i><br /><br />I think I follow you. Cirlot argued along these same lines, of course (and just as convincingly -- which is to say, very). <br /><br />As for Cranmer's Orthodoxy... <i>pace</i> Fr. Hart and others here, but I imagine it is quite impossible that any Roman Catholic or Orthodox will ever adopt your view. I stand with Keble, Cirlot, Hrauda, and other Anglo-Catholic writers on this point. Even Dom Gregory Dix had wrote: "The old 'High Church' apologetic for Anglicanism was sincere and consistent but also a little deficient not only in plausability but in candour, in its treatment of the Reformation in the time of Edward VI. It was always tempted to represent Archbishop Cranmer and his colleagues as premature Tractarians, or at all events as forerunners of the Carolines. But the written works of these men remain, in which they represent themselves as genuine Protestants, sincerely desirous of introducing Protestantism of the Swiss or 'extreme left-wing' variety into the Reformed Church of England" (<i>The Question of Anglican Orders</i>, p. 28), and "Cranmer personally was probably seriously heretical about the meaning of Ordination (cf. <i>e.g.</i>, his <i>Works</i>, ed. Parker Society, ii, 1846, p. 116)" (<i>ibid.</i>, pp. 30-31).Joe Oliverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50050772711689931112009-12-17T07:18:18.078-05:002009-12-17T07:18:18.078-05:00Joe,
Fr Hart has correctly noted that the Article...Joe,<br /><br />Fr Hart has correctly noted that the Article you cite does not in fact argue for your supposed Anglican dogma. It says where error has occurred in the past in the Church, not where it hasn't. That would be like saying that because it didn't mention Constantinople, it was denying the heretical status of Nestorius (despite clear Anglican adherence to the 3rd Ecumenical Council). If I say Sam and Bill have added up incorrectly in a Maths class, this is not equivalent to saying John has added up perfectly.<br /><br />More importantly, the judgement that the C of E did not in fact err in her binding formularies could never be a dogma in the strict sense, that is a doctrine divinely revealed and <i>de fide</i>. At most, such a claim would amount to a so-called "dogmatic fact". However, it should be noted that the fully binding Anglican formularies refer back to the universally accepted Catholic standards as the primary overarching rule: Scripture, the catholic Creeds, the patristic and ongoing ecclesial consensus and the Ecumenical Councils. In this it is obviously impossible for heresy to be found, as would be accepted by the RCC and EOC.<br /><br />Apart from the Book of Common Prayer, which few have ever claimed contains any heretical affirmations, whatever omissions may be criticised in it, the only other purportedly fully binding statements are the 39 Articles. And these in fact were never put forward as a doctrinal test for any but the clergy, and with the understanding that even then there was no claim of absolute infallibility for them. They certainly make no such claim for themselves, but pointedly do make such a claim for the Scriptures and Creeds. So, the affirmation that the Anglican reform did not involve definitive heresy is equivalent to a firm judgement that the BCP and Articles are capable of the Catholic interpretation. There is in fact no claim that the said reform "was incapable of error" in the broad sense, as if no mistakes were made. Nor is there any claim that the BCP and Articles themselves are perfect or unable to be improved upon.<br /><br />As for your second purported Anglican dogma, it ignores what Tractarian and previous High Church theologians actually wrote. The argument is <b>not</b> that the 39 Articles can only be understood in a Catholic way or even that the Catholic interpretation was the uniform private opinion of the Elizabethan divines. The argument is that other elements of the Anglican Formularies and Elizabethan Settlement (which were mentioned above) make the Catholic interpretation objectively correct and mandatory. This is the very argument I have reiterated here in my Apologetics section in detail. See particularly essays C.2 and C.10.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br /><br />MK+Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6456226542972656722009-12-16T18:20:48.111-05:002009-12-16T18:20:48.111-05:00Father Hart, First I must thank you for disposing ...Father Hart, First I must thank you for disposing of Joe Oliveri's assertions who ultimate aim was an equally false assertion that neither Rome nor the popes had ever done so. I am especially pleased with the charity with which you managed to do so as I doubt that I would have been capable of the same.<br /><br />On the other hand, given a choice between the Chicago - Lambreth Quadrilateral and the canons of St. Vincent of Lerins and Bishop Andrewes, I would choose the latter. I also believe that much of what Doctor Tarsitano wrote ignored the fact that both parties had grown far too used to ignoring or disobeying the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and major portions of its teaching. In the Continuum we have gradually seem to have grown beyond that. My hope is that we will gradually grow an appreciation for knowing and obeying the fullness of the prayer book tradition is the same spirit that is shown in this blog and the high quality of the discussion that take place here.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46145953989184254912009-12-16T15:11:05.397-05:002009-12-16T15:11:05.397-05:00Joe Oliveri:
Friend, I really must disagree in my...Joe Oliveri:<br /><br />Friend, I really must disagree in my usual blunt and direct style. <br /><br />Your first objection, that Anglicanism teaches or ever taught the Infallibility of the Church of England, might serve you well as an emotional release. But, why should we bother to refute something that is manifestly silly? However, regrading Article XIX, to say that each Patriarchate has, at some point its own history, erred, is not only a historical fact; it serves the people of the Church in directing them to look for Antiquity and Universal Consensus (<i>Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est</i>) for the truth that unfolds and opens the meaning of Scripture and that identifies the genuine Catholic Tradition, rather than looking to any one particular See to be infallible. Therefore, as the Church of England was never a Patriarchate, it does not belong on the list of Article XIX. (Perhaps Moscow should be added, inasmuch as they erred, in a sense, when their Patriarch was in collusion with the Atheist government of the Soviet Union But, that is a bit of a stretch, as it was not expressed in doctrine).<br /><br />Your second point just does not work here, that is, on this blog. Of course the Articles are capable of a heretical reading; just look at how Mizz Jefferts-Schori <i>uses</i> their content on occasion. Even the Bible itself is not "<i>only</i> capable of a Catholic reading (II Pet. 3:15,16)." Neither are the Prayer Book, or even the Ecumenical Councils, that is, once we add the word "only." The human imagination, especially with demonic influence, is always capable of making anything mean something that fits a sinful agenda.<br /><br />So, we do not say they are capable <i>only</i> of a Catholic reading. We say, rather, that the Thirty-Nine Articles are a Catholic document. We recommend the scholarship of E.J. Bicknell on that subject, not the desperate efforts of Newman (before or after his plunge). That they are capable of an erroneous reading is obvious not only by the various shades of Protestantism<b>s</b> inserted into them or overlaid on them, but also by the pathetic ignorance about them constantly on display among modern Anglo-Papalists, foolish enough to let the Roman Catholic Church teach them everything they think they know about Anglicanism.<br /><br />And, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was certainly not a heretic-not at all. His teaching may have been unacceptable to the RCC, but it was acceptable by Patristic and Biblical standards-even by the standards of Thomas Aquinas a few centuries earlier. In isolation his teaching would be limited; but, that is why we never base anything on only one man and his teaching.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1520378866608398362009-12-16T13:27:25.664-05:002009-12-16T13:27:25.664-05:00We have no special dogmas, notes, or distinctives,...<i>We have no special dogmas, notes, or distinctives, other than the character that God has given us in history</i><br /><br />Much hay is made of Rome's invented doctrines, but I count at least two dogmas peculiar to the Church of England (and its many provinces and daughters). The one dogma is very old indeed, and is in fact an unwritten corollary of Art. XIX; and the other is a much later invention, being slightly more than a century old and a sort of residual effect of the Oxford Movement.<br /><br />The first Anglican dogma, as it were, is this: <b>In reforming itself, the Church of England was incapable of error.</b> Art. XIX states clearly enough that the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome hath erred -- and the latter "not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith." But the Church of England, in its singular and aggressive campaign of reform, made no error and its Formularies are subject to no reproof whatsoever touching "matters of Faith." English Calvinists found the Articles and Communion service uncomfortably latitudinarian, of course; but that was a question (in their eyes) of making a good beginning but not going quite far enough. The basic dogma remains: The Church of England hath not erred (or at least, it did not err until 1992). Any Anglican with the impudence to challenge this dogma is cast into the outer darkness and told to go to the papists.<br /><br />A second Anglican dogma is this: <b>The 39 Articles of Religion, in their "literal and <br />grammatical sense" (as Laud would say), are only capable of a Catholic reading.</b> That the Articles were patient of a Reformed/Protestant interpretation <i>or</i> a Catholic one was virtually unquestioned until the mid-nineteenth century; but as the Anglo-Catholic party slowly grew in influence, so did their revisionist take on the Articles. Understandably anxious to distance the Church of England from Protestantism, 19th c. Anglo-Catholics would argue that the English reformers had only reacted against Roman <i>abuses</i> (not against actual doctrine), and that Cranmer <i>et al.</i> were really Catholics in all essentials*. This view was vigorously opposed at first, as one could easily imagine; but in time it has become dogmatized, and it enjoys particular currency among the spiritual descendants of the Oxford Movement -- notably, Forward in Faith and the Anglo-Catholic (or Anglican Catholic) Continuing Anglican jurisdictions.<br /> <br />* While men like Froude and even Keble plainly considered Abp. Cranmer a "heretic," this view was too extreme for most Anglo-Catholics. Instead, the English reformers would eventually be reinvented as Catholics at heart.Joe Oliverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1103050037084389862009-12-16T03:51:56.049-05:002009-12-16T03:51:56.049-05:00Excellent piece; we are real fans of Dr. Tarsitano...Excellent piece; we are real fans of Dr. Tarsitano's, may he rest in peace and my his works have a long life.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01363528529730599758noreply@blogger.com