tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post9093668012126139517..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: RIGHT REASONFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38817900538179881782008-05-22T21:15:00.000-04:002008-05-22T21:15:00.000-04:00PatrickThe need for a magisterium is a perceived n...Patrick<BR/><BR/>The need for a magisterium is a perceived need that I expect to find in a Roman Catholic. The Orthodox Church does not perceive this any more than Anglicans do. We do not perceive such a need because every necessary dogma was defined in Ecumenical Council long ago, drawn and proved, in every case, from scripture. It makes sense, however, that if you believe in the Petrine office and charism, that you would believe that there is a need for it.<BR/><BR/>The most visible and obvious point of disagreement between Anglicans and Roman Catholics is the Papacy. What need is there for one infallible bishop who defines orthodoxy? We have the scriptures, and are guided by the Church's understanding as it was nailed down in the first millennium. How could anything more be necessary? You look for an address where infallibility lives. We say, there is no <I>one</I> address for that. <BR/><BR/>The difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, as well the difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, is first and foremost the papacy itself. Everything else comes second.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72593333996721567862008-05-22T11:05:00.000-04:002008-05-22T11:05:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart, et al,"Reason is not a source of authori...Fr. Hart, et al,<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Reason is not a source of authority for doctrine, but the receiver that gathers what it learns, orders it, and gives expression to the truth."<BR/><BR/>I'll jump in here starting with this statement by Hooker. First, I am in agreement with virtually everything stated by Hooker and you, Fr. Hart. However, the above statement helps get at what remains unclear to me. In fact, this statement helps make it clear to me why Right Reason is a secondary issue that is assumed in any Rule of faith. IOW, "Right Reason" goes without saying. Don't misunderstand me though. The explanation given is wonderful and useful. However, I think it is secondary. Primarily, this is not 'concrete' enough. IOW, when it is stated that reason is, "the receiver that gathers what it learns, orders it, and gives expression to the truth"; this undoubtedly makes perfect sense, but it does nothing to explain which persons in the Body of Christ- living here and now in AD2008-represent the divinely constituted living voice of the Church. Now, I know that one obvious answer here is Apostolic Succession. I know also that EOC, RC and Anglicans believe as an essential element of the Faith in Episcopal/Conciliar authority. However, my understanding thus far from what I've read here is that this authority has been fractured to the point of sterility/impotence beginning in AD1054 with the Schism between East and West. IOW, it seems as if you are saying that we are now unable to meet in Ecumenical Council to resolve differences. We are left only with those Ecumenical Councils (7) of the first millennium. This sounds like a kind of "dead authority" from the past in which the big "T" Traditions of the present day Catholic Church can only be held onto like a piece of antiquity. There is no living voice in the Church Hierarchy today as in years gone by, so to speak. Seeing things this way does not ring true for me and I don't accept this. What am I missing?<BR/><BR/>Pat(rick)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81982024076847307012008-05-21T16:11:00.000-04:002008-05-21T16:11:00.000-04:00...what the Roman Catholic Church calls a CORRECTL...<I>...what the Roman Catholic Church calls a CORRECTLY FORMED CONSCIENCE...</I><BR/><BR/>The Affirmation of St. Louis says: "The conscience, as the inherent knowledge of right and wrong, cannot stand alone as a sovereign arbiter of morals. Every Christian is obligated to form his conscience by the Divine Moral Law and the Mind of Christ as revealed in Holy Scriptures, and by the teaching and Tradition of the Church."<BR/><BR/>We are on the same page.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91465086182861856322008-05-21T12:48:00.000-04:002008-05-21T12:48:00.000-04:00I suspect that RIGHT REASON would be associated wi...I suspect that RIGHT REASON would be associated with what the Roman Catholic Church calls a CORRECTLY FORMED CONSCIENCE, indicating, as many tnings do these days, that no one can expect to make correct decisions unless he has been allowed to develope a moral foundation based on the Truth.Fr William Bauerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09807139722072520023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39821032540555335522008-05-21T12:11:00.000-04:002008-05-21T12:11:00.000-04:00Thank you, Fr. Hart, for this excellent exposition...Thank you, Fr. Hart, for this excellent exposition of Hooker on the relationship of Reason to Tradition and Scripture. You have shown that there is something called "Right Reason" and it is the Church's responsibility to defend it.<BR/><BR/>I'm emailing this link to some of my Episcopalian friends.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80356465091374803852008-05-21T10:45:00.000-04:002008-05-21T10:45:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart,How are you? Thanks for posting this. I...Fr. Hart,<BR/>How are you? Thanks for posting this. It is helpful. I look forward to following any discussion that may take place.<BR/><BR/>Pat(rick)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com