tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post9000708605738198668..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Fending off the school yard bullyFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2004176869265467422010-04-13T12:23:51.596-04:002010-04-13T12:23:51.596-04:00CT wrote:
the "confessions" of the Cont...CT wrote:<br /><br /><i>the "confessions" of the Continental reformers were an entirely new thing with no precedent in historical Christianity</i><br /><br />I would again respectfully disagree. The Creeds are confessions. The Church put them forth as authoritative confessions in order to correct heresy and clarify what is true, according to Scripture, concerning the Trinitarian God and His redemptive purpose and actions in and through Christ and His church. Due to the errors of the medieval church The Reformers, continental and English, followed in that tradition of those earlier councils in order to correct heresy and clarify the true faith.<br /><br /><i>... they have not given the Church doctrinal peace.</i><br /><br />The same could be said for the Bible being translated into the common tongue. The Articles/Confessions (as well as Trent) were not intended to bring peace but to be authoritative confessions based on Scripture of the respective churches.<br /><br /><br />You wrote concerning preaching...<br /><i>And if I do it properly I will have addressed all the issues of the Articles without setting things up for an internecine fight.</i><br /><br />What is it about the Articles that sets "things up for a internecine fight" if they are Biblical? They are in the BCP, ostensibly as true sentences or articles of the Christian faith according to the Anglican Church. As I said earlier, they are not self-sufficient nor self-authoritative. Our final authority is Holy Scripture upon which all true preaching must by based. <br /><br /><i>And of course you are correct that the laity can learn from the Articles, but it helps to have someone of the quality of Fathers Hart, Kirby and Wells to guide you in that learning.</i><br /><br />My point exactly from an earlier post.<br /><br /><i>The Apostles doctrine as Father Hart has pointed out again and again is to be found (according to the Church) in Holy Scripture</i><br /><br />"according to the Church"... And one of the ways Fr. Hart (and we who receive his teaching) tests his preaching is by use of those writings, creeds, confessions, etc. of the Church, of which the Articles are one.<br /><br /><i>But my real question is: do you want to grow spiritually or intellectually? Or both?</i><br /><br />Why would you suppose an answer to that question that is any other than how you would answer?<br /><br />My concern in this entire discussion is with doctrinal shallowness in much of Anglicanism. To avoid the controversies that true doctrine provokes is not good for the church. In fact, doctrinal shallowness is worse that heresy. At least heretics take doctrine seriously enough to distort it. And when heresy raises its ugly head it causes the Church to think through doctrine more deeply, what is true and why. Doctrinal shallowness, on the other hand, is a cancer that is ultimately deadly to the faith. And is at the center of the confusion that leads too many Anglicans to embrace Roman Catholicism and others to bend to the liberal winds of this age.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37263992264729573192010-04-13T10:15:21.626-04:002010-04-13T10:15:21.626-04:00Canon Tallis writes about Jack,
"...but I ge...Canon Tallis writes about Jack,<br /><br />"...but I get an idea, possibly quite false, that intellectual activity is more important to you than worship, than knowing Jesus 'in the breaking of bread.'"<br /><br />This is the second time this "red herring" has been raised in this conversation. While I have the highest regard for you, Canon Tallis, you are wrong to even suggest this about someone you have never met and who has been nothing but respectful of all in this conversation. In my opinion you do owe him an apology.Willhttp://prydain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-76359347558708294722010-04-12T23:28:51.961-04:002010-04-12T23:28:51.961-04:00jack,
I hope that you understand the "confes...jack,<br /><br />I hope that you understand the "confessions" of the Continental reformers were an entirely new thing with no precedent in historical Christianity, in the Catholic past. So in part the Articles were a response to same and, as I said before, a hedge against both their ideas and the teachings of popular Romanism. Historically they have both positives and negatives, but one thing should strike all of us - they have not given the Church doctrinal peace.<br /><br />Part of that may just be the result of the other historical pressures upon the English and later the Anglican Communion and its clergy. Now, I don't know about any other of the clergy, but I think that the most of us would much prefer to preach the whole of Holy Scripture as we find it interpreted (according to the positive directions of the canon of 1571) as interpreted by the ancient bishops and Catholic fathers. In short, I want to get behind the problems of the 16th century and go where they wanted to go and do what they wanted to do. And if I do it properly i will have addressed all the issues of the Articles without setting things up for an internecine fight.<br /><br />Frankly, I am sorry to have elicited such a detailed answer about your own spiritual practice but am very heartened by what you have written. I know how hard it is because I have been doing it since my teens and took a fair amount of friendly abuse in my military days from the Bible and prayer book in my flight bag. But I had had a spiritual director from my seventeenth year when Sister Penelope decided that she had clear reason to boss me about.<br /><br />And of course you are correct that the laity can learn from the Articles, but it helps to have someone of the quality of Fathers Hart, Kirby and Wells to guide you in that learning. But my real question is: do you want to grow spiritually or intellectually? Or both? If spiritually, then regard the "Book of Common Prayer" as a <i>regula</i>, an equivalent of that of St Augustine or of St Benedict and seek a director who can guide your reading in the Fathers, the Creeds and the Councils.<br /><br />The intent of the Church as expressed in Holy Scripture (Acts 2:42) is that we continue "stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in the breaking of bread and prayers." The Apostles doctrine as Father Hart has pointed out again and again is to be found (according to the Church) in Holy Scripture; their fellowship in the keeping the order of the Church as Jesus left it to the apostles including the celebration of Holy Communion and the office before the development of monasticism. <br /><br />I do not know your background or how you came to Anglicanism, how old you are or how long you participated in the worship of the Church, but I get an idea, possibly quite false, that intellectual activity is more important to you than worship, than knowing Jesus "in the breaking of bread." I really hope I am mistaken because it is clear that you are very bright and the Church, i.e., Christ in His mystical body, can make much use of that if you will offer it to Him. <br /><br />Besides, I like your spirit.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-76066672534466878382010-04-12T23:17:53.898-04:002010-04-12T23:17:53.898-04:00Yes, Fr. Hart, I think there is something certainl...Yes, Fr. Hart, I think there is something certainly efficacious to prayer and blessing, so why not these ancient rites? I like how you identify some ceremony as continuations from the OT. Christ himself carried some OT rites forward as did the apostles and early church.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63458784924766101192010-04-12T17:16:12.219-04:002010-04-12T17:16:12.219-04:00I understand the words "objective" and &...I understand the words "objective" and "efficacious" in classic Anglican terms, consistent with the Articles and the Homilies. Again, this calls for what has come to called <i>via media</i> thinking. These words can make the sacraments appear to work like magic, but the opposite error turns them into mere symbols. The correct way to proceed is to remember that the Church of the Apostles is charismatic and that its sacraments are mysterious.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78140434609658080962010-04-12T08:58:52.568-04:002010-04-12T08:58:52.568-04:00Dear Fr. Kirby,
I'd like to retract my last ...Dear Fr. Kirby, <br /><br />I'd like to retract my last couple sentences. I am still hopeful the Affirmation might be understood in light of the articles. <br /><br />What keeps getting me is the language regarding all seven sacraments which not only say "objective" and "effective" but, sure "signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ". This particular phrase along with the sacraments being his 'covenanted means' seem to impinge upon the majesty of the two. I can't help but read it that way, and believe it a unnecessary concession to Anglo-Papism. Rome and the East both teach a promiscuous realism, where the presence may descend upon any inanimate object, making 'everything a sacrement', even nature. So, I have to wonder is his presence found in the marriage ring (or habit robe, annointing oil, salt, or candle) just as it is His Bread? Can the church change the substance of any object it prays for thus making it a 'sacrament', or must the institution of Christ be first declared and limited to what Christ ordained (the Word making the sacrament)? With respect to 'saving activity', there is no effort to distinguish the nature of such, making justification distinct from sanctification as the articles do, leaving us with sacraments that are either instruments of 1) remitting sin, or 2) increasing/stoking faith. <br /><br />I believe the trading of the more precise for ambiguous in this case clarifies little, and when I re-read this portion of the Affirmation, it really endangers what the Settlement considered 'necessary doctrine' (why we left Rome-- not merely jurisdiction, ancient rights, or language, but the doctrine of salvation).charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21057905910889156902010-04-11T22:36:54.522-04:002010-04-11T22:36:54.522-04:00Dear Fr. Kirby, cont'd
Unlike Rome or the Eas...Dear Fr. Kirby, cont'd<br /><br />Unlike Rome or the East, Anglicanism once eloquently explained the remission of sin, both biblically and primitively, and this is why Hooker and Jewel said without hesitation the doctrine of the CofE was safest, surest, and best amongst all catholic and apostolic churches. This certainly was true! But today Rome and the East continue to purposefully confuse these rites through their carnal ecumenical exchanges because they have committed themselves to many 'corrupt followings'-- namely, meritorious and idolatrous views of salvation-- whereas Anglicans discriminate between ceremonies as well as preventing grace. Thus, the nature, quality, and number of sacraments are indeed important because men are justified by the institution of Christ not the myriad ceremonials/sacramentals of religion-- however laudable Paschal Candles, baptismal salts, marriage rings, anointing (confirmation) oils, and palm leaves might be.<br /><br />That said, these symbols are not 'unimportant'. According to Article 34 they do not belong to private judgement but are kept or suspended by judgement of the church the sake of order, edification, wholesomeness, and other such beneficial and good precepts. Even Henrician formulas says this, and in no ways is this a licence to puritanism. <br /><br />The Affirmation, in my opinion, trades what is clear and necessary for what is ambiguous and questionable. If the language of Article 25 were repeated within, the opportunity for some (already demonstrated) Anglo-Catholics to transform Episcopalianism into an English Romanism would have been more than frustrated. The language of "objective" and "effective" is very open-ended and unnecessary. It does not clarify necessary doctrine (either merit or presence), but further distances churchmen from what was laid before by the Articles, already plain and wonderful in their 39 points. It's just sloppy, and I suspect written in astonishing ignorance or incredible duplicity.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12895945147969731242010-04-11T22:35:46.601-04:002010-04-11T22:35:46.601-04:00Dear Fr. Kirby,
You give a strong defense of the ...Dear Fr. Kirby,<br /><br />You give a strong defense of the seven sacraments. But even Bicknell says these 'seven' resulted more from a magic number than systematic thought. Gibson also says the number and opinion varied over time, 'seven' being in accord with the medieval/Thomist mind. <br /><br />The further definition by Reformers was necessary to narrow and distinguish between those ordinances established by Christ vs. those belonging to the Church (even for those rites of apostolic pedigree). When Article 25 says "those five commonly called sacraments...yet have not like nature of the Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper", this partly alludes to the distinction later made or evidenced by Jewel, namely how sin is remitted. This is what's meant by "nature" since Christ instituted two visible signs for the inward remission of sin. Sometimes reformers named 'three' sacraments, and this was because Penance, although it shared a nature with the greater sacraments, lacked the outward sign. However, does confirmation, marriage, or ordination specifically remit sin? Again, they do not share the nature of the great sacraments, as the Jewel's homily and Article 35 expounds. <br /><br />While the sacramentarian controversies surely burnt themselves out within Protestantism (they are likely today a passing interest), the nature of sacraments ought to possess a certain importance for high churchmen. The terms "objective" and "efficacious" have special theological meanings, especially in relation to old debates, typically pertaining to the real presence of Christ and role of faith within the sacrament. The Affirmation provocatively says, "objective and effective signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ"!?!<br /><br />Not unlike the East, the RCC, purposely flattens distinctions between 'sacraments', in kind of a 'pantheistic' way, where Church rites are elevated to Gospel Sacraments, thus, demonstrating how Rome and the East 'divinize' Tradition, erecting it equal and at times independent of Scripture. This is not Anglican, primitive, or biblical.<br /><br />So, when Anglo-Catholics place the Affirmation before Articles, they provide opportunity to illicitly indulge foreign teachings, undermining the very claims Jewel and Hooker made against Rome regarding necessary doctrine. Instead, our arguments boil down to 'jurisdiction' and 'aesthetic', and, in my opinion, these are not only weaker, subjective apologies, but they represent a watering down of classical, historic, and reformed Anglican thought. <br />cont'dcharleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59716880374592581482010-04-11T19:59:59.064-04:002010-04-11T19:59:59.064-04:00Dear Jack and Canon Tallis,
As far as I know, un...Dear Jack and Canon Tallis, <br /><br />As far as I know, until 1958, PEC required clerical assent to both Articles and Prayer Book. Laity has never been asked to give an 'assent'. However, in England the 1604 canons (canon 5) forbid lay people to publicly teach against the Articles. That said, I know no confessional church from the Reformation-- neither Calvinist nor Lutheran-- which required subscription of lay people. Subscription was typically for the clergy and university officials. <br /><br />However, I did not know ex animo was different from "assent". Both Roman Catholics and Puritans disliked the ex animo enforced by both Bancroft and Laud. Laud was perjoratively called a "discplinarian" for his rigorous enforcement of canons (following the neglect of AB Abbot), and for this Laud lost his life. How much has changed, and when will Anglicans realize "Anglicanism" is not a half-way mixture of Romanism plus Puritanism, but is the best expression of the catholic faith. <br /><br />I personally believe we need more saints like Laud in the Church, but today Anglicans fiercely guard their alleged autonomy, and when looking back over the last 150 years, one might indeed wonder the difference between advance-ritualists and black-gown preachers when it pertains to historic Anglican standards?charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39309019434109642582010-04-11T16:20:51.644-04:002010-04-11T16:20:51.644-04:00Over at Prydain blog,
http://tinyurl.com/y3xf6vv
...Over at Prydain blog,<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/y3xf6vv<br /><br />Will has a lengthy quote from Dean Henry Wace (1836-1924) who was Dean of Canterbury Cathedral that I says so much better that which I have been trying to say.<br /><br />A snippet:<br /><br /><i>As the Augsburg Confession is the authoritative declaration of the teaching of the Lutheran Church; as the Westminster Confession is that of the Scottish Church; as the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, supplemented by those of the Vatican Council, are the authorized and characteristic declaration of the teaching of the Roman Church, so the Thirty-nine Articles are the authoritative and characteristic declaration of the teaching of the Church of England... </i><br /><br />This is historically verifiable, even if no longer held to be so in many of the various Anglican churches; especially in the United States, as subscription to the Articles by clergy was never required, as far as I know.<br /><br />Thanks for bearing with me on these many posts. <br /><br />JackJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13625594107098491322010-04-11T04:23:39.888-04:002010-04-11T04:23:39.888-04:00And CT...
As to the daily routine of the Morning/...And CT...<br /><br />As to the daily routine of the Morning/Evening and Sabbath/Holy Days Communion... I find that question a red herring, and suggestive of the idea that if I am lacking in some area of practice that that undermines my argument. I hope none of us will be judged on that basis. As you yourself qualify, one's daily schedule (let alone personal failures) may not allow for all practices. But since you asked I will answer. My wife and I regularly, on a daily basis, read Scripture according to the Lexicon. We pray in either the Morning Family Prayer or the Morning Prayer and sometimes Evening... or variations thereof. We worship every Sunday at our church receiving the Eucharist, as well as on any Holy Days that our little church hold services... and I can't believe I'm explaining all this...<br /><br />As regards "all this fuss"... The fuss, if that is what you want to call it, is about the often abysmal quality of Biblical preaching and teaching in Anglican churches which should be drawing out and reinforcing the incredible richness of our faith as expressed in the BCP orders of worship. I don't think the Articles are the end all, nor a comprehensive expression of the true and catholic faith. Yet it is a Scriptural confession of the many doctrines of the Christian faith that was given to the Anglican Church by the 16th century English reformers for the edification and guidance of the clergy and thus the church. Why ignore them? We say they are important, yet how is that so in practice? Or are they important only as a piece of Anglican history?<br /><br />again - submitted with respect,<br />JackJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12693777382738136672010-04-11T03:54:54.645-04:002010-04-11T03:54:54.645-04:00CT wrote:
Jack Miller is, I think, incorrect in b...CT wrote:<br /><br /><i>Jack Miller is, I think, incorrect in believing that "any confessional subscription (be it reformed or Lutheran) has ever been required of laity, rather only of ordained clergy to ensure Biblical preaching, teaching, administration of the sacraments, and discipline that is consistent with the respective churches." If he would check the office of baptism as it has been known since the beginning, he would find that subscription to the articles of what amounts to the Apostles' Creed are and have been required of all. The Nicene Creed has its place in Eucharist as a confession by all and not merely the clergy.</i><br /><br />I think we are talking about two different things. When speaking of subscription of a confession I am referring to the practice of requiring the subscription to a confession like the Westminster, the Belgic, the Heidelberg. These are confessions of faith that are comprehensive and have only been required of clergy. The Articles are a similar, though less comprehensive, confession that was required in the Church of England only by clergy. Certainly laity are expected to confess and believe the Apostles Creed. As to confessing the Nicene Creed in the Eucharist service, this too is expected to be done as well as believed but it is not a rite of subscription. Nor are the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed comprehensive confessions of doctrinal faith (they do not speak to justification, sanctification, nor explain baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc.<br /><br /><i>But there is no place in the Church's ordinary life in which the laity were intended by the English Church and the historic prayer books with their services in a language understood of the people do we find a place for the Articles. The laity have never been publicly or privately, so far as I know, asked to assent to them.</i><br /><br />Exactly! That was my point. Laity has never been required to subscribe to confessions... only clergy have been required, in order to guide and ensure Biblical teaching by the clergy in order to ensure that the church receives and digests true doctrine... i.e what is Scriptural. But that doesn't mean laity cannot nor should not benefit from the study of those Articles.<br /><br /><i>... but you not think that the Church's ordered worship rather more important than this fuss about the Articles.</i><br /><br />Fuss?<br /><br />To answer, No. They go together. The ordered worship is just that, an ordered worship into which the doctrines of our faith are interwoven through and through. But that ordered worship serves a different purpose than the Articles and therefore it is not an either/or, nor one more than important than the other. The Articles explicitly address the substance of the doctrines of our faith. The orders of worship direct us into a right worship that is based on that confession (which is based on Scripture) as well as Scripture, the other creeds, councils, teachings of the catholic faith. They all derive their authority from the special revelation of Scripture through the Church.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26434340772648131572010-04-11T00:08:25.459-04:002010-04-11T00:08:25.459-04:00Jack Miller is, I think, incorrect in believing th...Jack Miller is, I think, incorrect in believing that "any confessional subscription (be it reformed or Lutheran) has ever been required of laity, rather only of ordained clergy to ensure Biblical preaching, teaching, administration of the sacraments, and discipline that is consistent with the respective churches." If he would check the office of baptism as it has been known since the beginning, he would find that subscription to the articles of what amounts to the Apostles' Creed are and have been required of all. The Nicene Creed has its place in Eucharist as a confession by all and not merely the clergy.<br /><br />In fact, we we follow the admonitions and practice of the Church which clearly gives Scripture priority of place as in the collect for the Second Sunday in Advent, we as churchmen are intended to "hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest," and that primarily in the ordered worship of the Church. It is in that same ordered worship that we meet and recite the Creeds which are a positive affirmation of the faith. But there is no place in the Church's ordinary life in which the laity were intended by the English Church and the historic prayer books with their services in a language understood of the people do we find a place for the Articles. The laity have never been publicly or privately, so far as I know, asked to assent to them. It would be wonderful if they had a better and more excellent understanding of same in their historic context, but is it not strange that the very folk who seeming place such high importance upon them, can rarely as clergy understand the clear directions of the Book of Common Prayer to the point of giving it an active obedience in their ministry?<br /><br />Jack, I would ask if you say the office morning and evening and do you attend Holy Communion on every Sunday or Holy Day for which the prayer book provides propers or which by rubric it indicates that such a celebration is appropriate? I realize that may not be possible in the course of your daily work, but you not think that the Church's ordered worship rather more important than this fuss about the Articles. It is clear to me that those who drafted and imposed the Articles on the clergy clearly so believed and expressed it in the Articles as well as in the prayer book.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65011048784975673552010-04-10T06:17:02.249-04:002010-04-10T06:17:02.249-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63028156782925191252010-04-10T06:15:24.344-04:002010-04-10T06:15:24.344-04:00Charles,
You also said: "The Affirmation, in...Charles,<br /><br />You also said: "The Affirmation, in contrast, introduces sloppy and unnecessary language, giving opportunity to late antique if not medieval innovations, which endanger the bracketing of Tradition by scripture. Those who wish to take it, may use the Affirmation as a lever to "divinize" Tradition independently of scripture".<br /><br />There is no question of divinising anything. Even Scripture is divinely inspired, rather than divine. There are traditions and there is Tradition. The former can and must be "bracketed" or subject to criticism and revision by Scripture. But Tradition means the consentient teaching of the Church as a whole through the ages, the Church's interpretation of Scripture. To say this can be "bracketed" by Scripture is to reserve the right to interpret Scripture contrary to this consensus, which is the ordinary Catholic definition of heresy. <br /><br />Either the visible Catholic Church has enjoyed the benefit of the promises of Scripture, including those of our Lord, that it would never fail to be fundamentally guided into the Truth and protected from the deceptions of Hell, thus remaining perpetually the pillar and ground of the truth by its very graced nature, or it has not. If it has not, then you are certainly free and indeed obliged to reject Catholicism, Anglican or otherwise. But be very clear as to how much you are jettisoning, and do not allow yourself to consider this position consistent with classic Anglican theology, which does not allow for individuals or even local churches to defect from the Catholic consensus in understanding the Scripture and the Faith it reveals. Firm statements to this effect can be found even among the Anglican Reformers, Henrician or Elizabethan, and this position was expressed even more clearly and authoritatively by the Caroline Divines and the revisers of the 1662 BCP, including in the Preface they wrote. Therein we find that rejection of whatever is inconsistent with the "established Doctrine" of the "whole Catholic Church" is considered right and necessary.<br /><br />The ACC has made this commitment to Scripture as understood by the Tradition quite explicit in the Affirmation of St Louis and its Constitution and Canons. Those who wish to reject parts of Holy Tradition in the name of Scripture are free to start their own church or join one that already meets their individual doctrinal approval. But they do not, I contend, have the right to do this and claim to be properly (much less more truly) Anglican Catholic. It just would not make sense.<br /><br />However, I appeal to you to consider the Scriptural teaching on the Church as well as the patristic teaching, and ask yourself whether, based on these, the whole Church could really become heretical (or be genuinely reduced to an almost invisible remnant for long ages) at any point. If you consider the evidence fairly, I believe you will agree this cannot happen. Therefore, if we find that certain doctrines were virtually universally and explicitly taught for centuries, including the teaching of the 7th Ecumenical Council and the belief in the objective efficacy of all 7 sacraments, we are obliged to submit with docility to the Church. May God grant us all the grace to do so in humble trust.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15821901131450646552010-04-10T06:02:30.117-04:002010-04-10T06:02:30.117-04:00Charles,
You said: "When the Affirmation cal...Charles,<br /><br />You said: "When the Affirmation calls each of the seven sacraments "effective" and "objective", this opens a can of worms. Efficacy and objectivity are theologically compact and loaded terms. Applying them to all seven sacraments is unprecedented to reformed Anglicanism and highly questionable. The language, to say the least, was unnecessary."<br /><br />I admit to being mystified as to what you object to here. Do you really want to say that the 5 "other" sacraments are not objective or effective, or only sometimes so? The Catholic tradition already has well established principles acknowledging that certain deficiencies can render a purported sacrament invalid or ineffective, but you seem to want to go beyond this. <br /><br />Are you claiming that we have no guarantee that Ordination really happens (even assuming the right disposition in the recipient), so that we have no <b>objective</b> reason to say ordination was <b>effective</b>? Do you want to edit the Ordinal and the words of our Lord to say "whose sins thou dost forgive, they are quite possibly forgiven, but don't consider your absolution objective or definitely effective, that would be going too far"? <br /><br />Although the Eucharist, Orders, Penance, and all the 7 sacraments require the proper dispositions in the sacramental recipient, assuming the sacrament is valid in all other ways, grace is objectively offered and intrinsically effectual. This is the Catholic faith. To deny this is to bring uncertainty precisely where it cannot exist. The Church's members need to know that their priests are real priests, their absolutions are real absolutions, that Confirmation and Unction are effectual in objectively offering the grace of the Holy Spirit, so that the right subjective dispositions allow us to receive these great blessings, which genuinely associated with the Apostolic actions by the word of God, but do not create them.<br /><br />What would you prefer in place of this certainty?Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90207673699114534702010-04-09T14:45:39.199-04:002010-04-09T14:45:39.199-04:00Canon Tallis wrote:
"... I don't think t...Canon Tallis wrote:<br /><br />"... I don't think that I can quite go so far as Jack Miller in suggestion that they are "true (though not complete) profession or confession of Biblical doctrine?" in that they have never been required of the laity at any time."<br /><br />By 'true' I simply mean 'reliable or 'trustworthy'. Only Scripture is truly true. And I don't think any confessional subscription (be it reformed or Lutheran) has ever been required of laity, rather only of ordained clergy to ensure Biblical preaching, teaching, administration of the sacraments, and discipline that is consistent with the respective churches. So I don't see this as as a negative.<br /><br />And the Articles were intended for more than a hedge. As I wrote, they were intended and implemented as a clergy subscribed confession along with other documents.<br /><br />"Personally I think them best left in the hands of competent professionals such as..."<br /><br />Would you recommend the same for Scripture? I see no unique problem with The Articles being a source of learning and understanding of the faith for anyone. As has been stated by many in the past and present, Scripture should be read and interpreted in the Church. Nowhere is there a place for anyone to go off and find his own doctrines. <br /><br />As one reformer put it, "Individual interpretation of the Bible allows each man to carve his own path to hell." I would say the same applies to the Articles.<br /><br />respectfully,<br />JackJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32685515911542068172010-04-09T00:32:15.196-04:002010-04-09T00:32:15.196-04:00As one who believes the Articles to be important, ...As one who believes the Articles to be important, I don't think that I can quite go so far as Jack Miller in suggestion that they are "true (though not complete) profession or confession of Biblical doctrine?" in that they have never been required of the laity at any time. Logically and historically it would seem that they were intended to hedge the Church against the excesses of certain continental thought of the sort that believed that any retentions of the faith and practice of the pre-reformation church bordered on papalism. They were not originally popular with folks of that sort as we should know from the little blow-up in Whitgift's time and the drawing up of the Westminster Confession which the Church rejected.<br /><br />Personally I think them best left in the hands of competent professionals such as Fathers Hart and Wells as changes in our understanding of English and failure to keep up our Latin seem to have made them very dangerous in the hands of amateurs. The fact of their misuse by modern low churchmen which has made them repugnant to those who believe themselves much more Catholic than the rest of us should make all of us grateful for the work of Browne and Bicknell, both solid high churchmen. We need to face that they look easy but are actually dependent upon a tight understanding of key theological terms with the result that those with inadequate backgound and theological reading are apt to find themselves burned. <br /><br />One of the problems for moderns, all of us included, is that the very grace and learning of the Anglican greats as well as their ability to define the limits with a perilous simplicity is that we frequently forget the depth and wideness of their learning including their mastery of languages which too many simply no longer have. Nor, given the too many constraints on our time, are we likely to make up.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23340216286053801392010-04-08T22:34:27.468-04:002010-04-08T22:34:27.468-04:00Hello Fr. Hart,
"It is why after three deca...Hello Fr. Hart, <br /><br />"It is why after three decades the Continuing Church has produced more Roman Catholics than it has Continuing Anglicans, having a built-in strategy for self-defeat. However, my arguments and teaching have been set forth to correct the problem by prescribing medicine to be taken internally."<br /><br />Yes, I believe you are doing a good job at this, and your analysis of ACA concord with Rome is excellent. I just disagree with your interpretation of ACC Canon, and I believe you are more true (constitutionally speaking) to the ACC if you base it on church documents. This is why I mentioned the 1979 ACC resolution which recognized the de facto status of Anglican-Protestant teaching and practice within the (ACC) Old Catholic church. <br /><br />I believe when speaking of the ACC, you have two 'churches'. First, the one established by old catholic bishops who took opportunity of parishioner dissent back in 1977. Having acquired success, they proceeded to engrave their anti-protestant brand of churchmanship into the ACC's C&C, etc.. They are privileged as a de jure force. Second, there is an ACC which has struggled and existed ever since the founding of the St. Louis Congress which more or less holds to Settlement standards. The later is found on the parish level, mostly low clergy and laity, but unfortunately they have no real episcopal or canonical voice in the church. Yet they have and do remain a de facto power, constraining the ACC's old catholic wing in significant, albeit informal ways. <br /><br />While I believe, Fr. Hart, you are sincerely with the Reformer camp, I think you also work to reconcile the two, which is probably for the best, "a house divided soon falls". Nonetheless, I think it's also important to be fair and straight forward with the canons, and so recommend justifying the Anglican Protestant polemic upon early ACC resolutions rather than what I believe is a questionable bending C&C.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83691921892353120912010-04-08T18:32:53.183-04:002010-04-08T18:32:53.183-04:00Fr. Hart wrote:
"... elevating the Articles ...Fr. Hart wrote:<br /><br />"... elevating the Articles to second in authority only to Scripture, despite the fact that Anglican tradition has never defined them as such."<br /><br />I think the question of what position in the order of authority to put the Articles can divert away from an important question. <br /><br />Are the Articles a true (though not complete) profession or confession of Biblical doctrine? Historically it would seem so.<br /><br />Adherence to the Articles was made a legal requirement by the English Parliament in 1571, printed in the Book of Common Prayer and other Anglican prayer books. <br /><br />In 1604 clerical subscription become a necessity under Canon law. Here clergy were required to assent to three articles, the first to do with the sovereign, the second with the Prayer Book and Church order, the third with the Thirty-nine articles. <br /><br /> In 1689 the general practice became to use the wording of 1604 together with the words:<br /><br />I ___ do willingly and from my heart subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the United Church of England and Ireland, and to the three Articles of the Thirty-Sixth Canon, and to all things therein contained.<br /><br />Gradually this was weakened over the centuries from "subscribe" to "assent" and so on.<br /><br />If The Articles are a true confession of Biblical doctrine, then it seems they need to be not minimized but emphasized because where they speak they speak with Scriptural authority, unless one rejects them as such. Some articles are indeed less clear than others to the modern reader, but nonetheless they do stand unique in Anglican Church as the only document approaching a doctrinal confession of faith.<br /><br />So I, for one, wish that the Articles were employed more often as a dependable Biblical source for teaching the Christian faith.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72785774296438796472010-04-08T15:36:16.790-04:002010-04-08T15:36:16.790-04:00Charles wrote about the Gregorian Canon and the BC...Charles wrote about the Gregorian Canon and the BCP Holy Communion: <br /><br /><i>What I mean by this is the Mass following the 'institution' as Christ established, i.e., "Take, eat". Also, the eucharist prayer being one that 'feeds', interceding upon the faith and communion of the people, not exclusively the consecrated bread's sacrifice or 'change'.</i><br /><br />This is not, however, a contradiction. It became clear in the 16th century that the Anglican emphasis was needed to correct popular misunderstanding-and, frankly, it still is needed.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84180981321622058772010-04-08T15:31:37.722-04:002010-04-08T15:31:37.722-04:00No. More precisely, it makes the Articles subordin...<i>No. More precisely, it makes the Articles subordinate to seven sacraments as "objective" and "effective" signs that convey grace. It also positively affirms the seventh council on icons.</i><br /><br />Charles:<br /><br />The Articles teach seven sacraments, clearly taught in Article XXV and obvious to all but the most theologically and Biblically illiterate. <br /><br /><i>Perhaps this can be dismissed as merely 'academic', but theology has impact upon how we worship and catechize. Using the loaded terms "effective" and "objective" does not make us more 'Orthodox'. They are unnecessary terms which take us one step away further from the reformation of the Settlement-- hence our own lack of self-confidence.</i><br /><br />I appreciate the diagnosis, and regard the illness as the key weakness in modern Anglo-Catholic psychology. It is why after three decades the Continuing Church has produced more Roman Catholics than it has Continuing Anglicans, having a built-in strategy for self-defeat. However, my arguments and teaching have been set forth to correct the problem by prescribing medicine to be taken internally. I prefer to show why Henrican and Elizabethan, and more largely, classic Anglican and Patristic/Biblical/Ancient/Universal, are in accord on the essentials.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21736711903060589922010-04-08T15:22:32.264-04:002010-04-08T15:22:32.264-04:00Charles wrote:
When [Archbishop] Haverland says t...Charles wrote:<br /><br /><i>When [Archbishop] Haverland says the Henrician formulas are authoritative while the Elizabethan ones are not, he means just that.</i><br /><br />Those are your own words at this point. <br /><br /><i>The Henrician take priority ...</i><br /><br />That is better, more in accord with the actual essay. <br /><br />Nonetheless, the fact remains that 1967 is the cut off year in canon 2.2, making the earlier dates a beginning. As I have said, that prevents a version of Protestant thinking in which innovations are too easily justified, and was decided in light of the pressing issue: Women's ordination.<br /><br /><i>Where Anglo-Catholic bishops disagree is the extent the ACC might tolerate a Protestant-Anglican party within.</i><br /><br />Too late. <br /><br />Frankly, if you go up and down the east coast, especially the further you go South, the more "Protestant" the ACC clergy and parishes tend to be. That is, assuming you mean the word "Protestant" in the classic Anglican sense.<br /><br /><i>Nonetheless, it vain to justify the Reformed Anglican thought by ACC canons. Andrew Stahl made certain the Settlement was written out of C&C...</i><br /><br />Then he failed, because the Affirmation of St. Louis makes that goal utterly impossible.<br /><br /><i>That being said, Henrician doctrine is very close to the Elizabethan, and where the two diverge (over sacrament, since Henry was reluctant to reform the Mass)...</i><br /><br />Does not this reasoning overlook the key man who worked to establish and restore sacramental theology and practice? I do mean Abp. Cranmer. See the dates of his Archbishopric.<br /><br /><i>the Henrician is at least implicit in its relationship to 39 Articles, etc..</i><br /><br />The 39 Articles merely revised work that began under Henry VIII. That makes acceptance implicit, not rejection.<br /><br /><i>Thus, I implore you, Fr. Hart, to access early ACC synod records. At the Indianapolis Synod (2nd synod of ACC), "the delegates also passed a resolution stating that the ACC accepted several historical documents and concordats tha thad been agreed to by the pre-1977 episcopal church" (Bees, p. 142)...<br /><br />Also, just before Bp. Doren left, in 1980, the ACC college of bishops, reassured central and low churchmen, by saying, "we are thankful for those various modes and traditions, and especially of liturgical expression in worship, which are part of our unique Anglican character and heritage. And, lest anyone be concerned, we are all of one mind on this matter, and absolutely determined that none shall be put to the test in this regard"</i><br /><br />Which is why I do not understand your refusal to see the cut off date in 2.2.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9991573031351661532010-04-08T15:07:43.310-04:002010-04-08T15:07:43.310-04:00The real Anglo-Catholics are moving on with the Ap...<i>The real Anglo-Catholics are moving on with the Apostolic Constitution...</i><br /><br />If that is true, then I am not an Anglo-Catholic at all in any way. However, the "Anglo-Catholics" going to Rome have expressed nothing, publicly, but utter ignorance about what the term means. <br /><br />Nonetheless, I am glad for the anonymous (courage?) comment, because it demonstrates the mind of those on the other side. They have rejected Anglicanism, and still want to be called "Anglo." And, without Anglicanism, to be "Anglo" is really silly outside of England or English heritage. At least be Anglo by something English: Shakespeare, The Avengers, the Beatles-something to make you Roman catholic wannabes "Anglo."Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86187016611655372522010-04-08T12:03:26.045-04:002010-04-08T12:03:26.045-04:00Dear Fr. Hart,
You asked, "would you say th...Dear Fr. Hart, <br /><br />You asked, "would you say that the Gregorian Canon somehow denies Justification?"<br /><br />What I mean by this is the Mass following the 'institution' as Christ established, i.e., "Take, eat". Also, the eucharist prayer being one that 'feeds', interceding upon the faith and communion of the people, not exclusively the consecrated bread's sacrifice or 'change'. <br /><br />The 'justification' controversy, more broadly speaking, clarified how Christ forgives sin. In the context of the Reformation, did pilgrimages, rosaries, papal indulgences, tonsures, etc. remove sin or justify? Instead, Reformers said sin was forgiven by what Christ instituted-- the hearing of his Word and participation in his (two) Sacraments. Other 'sacraments' were kept because they were laudable-- necessary for order, antiquity, and edification-- but they did not have the nature or power of Christ's two sacraments. That's what Jewel is saying in the quote used by Newman in Tract 90. It's incredible that Newman brushes over these mentioning by Jewel, but that's because Romanism intentionally collapses the "objectivity" and "efficacy" in Christ's two sacraments with those sacraments belonging to the Church.charleshttp://www.anglicanrose.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com