Thank you & bless you Father. You are 100% right it is a complex history and I feel you can't remove the political forces that drove a lot of the reformation. It is a world reality that most living in 2024 can't comprehend existed where dissent in religious matters was looked at on the same light as sedition or treason.
I have long been an admirer of Richard Baxter who called himself Reformed Catholick which I have always thought was a good term. A knowledge of history teaches us that the Church in the West was very diverse before the Reformation. There was never “one” church prior to the Reformation.
I suppose it depends on what it means by "one". The "multiple orthodoxies" thesis of Walter Bauer seems to have been discredited by the likes of Turner, Völker, Köstenberger and Kruger among others but, as I say, I am skeptical of the modern historical method of discovering the truth outside of modern intellectual fashion. If you mean that the Pre-Reformation Church was not as patient of the Papacy as in recent centuries, then I would agree with you. The actions of Henry VIII are almost typical of other monarchs of the time. I think this reinforces our idea that the Reformations in England were primarily political events before doctrinal.
Very good. May I ask how you understand the word "Catholic" and the word "Anglican" together especially when it comes to being communion with Katherine Jefferts Schori and Gene Robinson which all members of TEC must be?
@@Warwickensis I have to view it in terms of a diocesan level. My bishop is still very Catholic and Orthodox. I am in a very conservative part of the country as well.
@@HolyAdonis that’s interesting. I came into Anglicanism via the ACC about 16-17 years ago (was confirmed by Archbishop Haverland). However about two years later I became part of an ACNA mission parish my home town of which I’ve been a part ever since.
The nuances and complexity of Anglican history are now paralleled by what is occurring in the R Catholic church after VII. Hegelianism, one of those gifts from the German church which keeps on giving, now rules in theological circles and has devastated the traditional expression the the Faith. The whole synodal craze on the part of the church's ruling elite, which opens them up to membership in the WEF, now that the devil has taken them to the top of the temple, is an example of this. As to being called revisionists, I find that curious. I would view most Anglican Catholics, along with conservative RCs as restorationists not revisionists. You are not attempting to deny that "history has occurred". You are merely pointing out that certain historical or theological fads have proven quite wanting and we need to return to our senses. The "christian" progressives head towards the cliff like lemmings, ignoring blatant warning signs like empty churches. Christian restorationists see the cliff and quite reasonably decide to turn back. God did endow us with a certain amount of transcendent reasoning in our understanding of Scripture and discernment sustained by the Paraclete to be used when necessary.
Isn't the worst of the 7 deadly sins Pride (in all its iterations!!!) the progressives pridefully believe they are on the right side of history. Like all revolutionaries body counts matter little to them as long as one progresses towards the goal. Think, the Reign of Terror. They have agendas not beliefs so everything and everyone else is expendable. They will leave the church in ruins, never admit to their errors and go on to something else that they think can fulfill their aspirations for heaven on earth. Hegelian Christianity posits that God is the God of changes, surprises and His, (her, Its..) will can only be found in the forward movent of the "people." In this sense it is Also like Rousseau's belief that democracy resides in the will of the people. The notion that with Christ time ceases and Revelation is fulfilled means nothing to them. For Christians like me time may change the externals of society but it offers no real insight into what is necessary for salvation, because it cannot. A classic example of Hegelian christianity is cardinal Hollerich's blatant statement the the Church must change her teachings on sexuality because of the advances in sociology and psychiatry. Progressives come into the Church smash her furniture and the when nothing is left move on. I as an RC have seen this pattern many times amongst the progressive clergy who leave us with the mess they have made. An interesting study was done some time ago in France about what happens between parents and children when they adopt opposite political opinions. Most Liberal, progressive parents cut off their children completely because they children were on the wrong side of history and were now part of the structural"oppression". Conservative parents did not cut off their children with the same frequency because they only viewed their children as being foolishy in error and conversion, so to speak, and forgiveness of the error was always a hope . For a stunning example of the progressive elements never realizing its errors one only need look over the border the Scotland where the Scottish church is even in worse condition, if that can be imagined than the official Anglican establishment in England. There the church under progressive guidance has destroyed herself with no signs of repentance from those who are responsible. The only silver lining is there are no many churches for sale waiting at a good price for Christians revive the faith and feed the spiritual starvation.
How would you say Puritanism fared in the Historical Laboratory of Theology? My Catholic Church--in Trent and through various Jesuit politics--condemned certain formulations of Calvinism, but as any good Jesuit would tell you, If you ask and are refused, ask again later in more favorable circumstances with more clever wording. Regarding the initial circumstances of the rejection, I suspect the concerns may have been "religious upheaval" or pastoral (the Church has always had this vague idea that preaching predestination would discourage the laity), more than theological, per se. I've come to have a very favorable opinion of them. They (specifically in colonial USA) almost strike me as a type of monastic order, only with families instead of fellow monks. Most interestingly, I believe their emphasis on predestination, with nothing they could do "meriting" salvation, probably led to the pursuit of holiness as an end in and of itself, rather than as a means to Heaven. Very admirable, IMO. On the other hand, human nature being what it is, I'd guess many focused on their works as tokens of assurance to the point they were fundamentally back in the same ol' works-righteousness perennial problem of the Church. Ultimately, it seems the movement waned, and the traditional liturgical/sacramental Christianity is what persisted. Still, though, it seems there may have been tons of potential there
This is something that I need to look into more when I have time. Calvin himself was a man with an admirable brain and one senses in his writing a great debt to St Thomas Aquinas. I think there is a great agreement between the two on predestination. I suppose that's the influence of St Augustine on both. I rather think this is why both Calvin and Thomists are difficult to refute given the systematic and rigourous manners in which they construct their theology. My concern is that Calvin makes salvation a purely legal issue (not surprising given his profession) whereas the legal analogy in the Early Church is one of many. In the UK, Cranmer was very much a moderate Calvinist but the CofE was prevented from following the Puritan line on account of the Catholic and Lutheran parties in the Church. The Elizabethan Settlement, in seeking to maintain peace and order effectively ostracized both the Church Papists and the Puritans. One side fled to the continent, the other to the Colonies.
@@Warwickensis yes, it seems that the legal motif is emphasized to the exclusion of Christ conquering sin & death to extend participation in his life to us. I would say a better way of looking at "forensic justification" would be to consider God as a prime mover who speaks things into existence, so that if the predestined elect are declared justified in an eternal decree, they are actually made just in time, rather than as a cosmic courtroom judge who sent his Son to work out a limited stack of pardons
@WayneDrake-uk1gg indeed. I've argued in my book on moral theology that, for God, imputation and impartation are the same thing given that the words He speaks are part of His act of creation. Of course, the main difference between Aquinas and Calvin is that Calvin was a nominalist after Ockham.
Is what to do with divorce? I don't understand the question. If you're talking about Henry VIII, he didn't believe in divorce. He sought annulment based on the fact that he had married his brother's wife and was, as per biblical precedent, childless (i.e. had no son) as a result. There are lots of factors here, which are more political than doctrinal. It is not the simple issue as some might make it to be.
But he didn't "found a new church". That's an important point. He sought to continue the same faith as did the continental reformers. Indeed, his idea was Catholicism "without the Pope" something we Anglican Catholics have sought hard to preserve. The divisions that exist do indeed have important doctrinal differences but the faith of all was still expressed in the three creeds. It's the same Jesus Christ being worshipped and therefore the same faith. Anglican Catholic believe firmly that they are *part" of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Thank you & bless you Father. You are 100% right it is a complex history and I feel you can't remove the political forces that drove a lot of the reformation. It is a world reality that most living in 2024 can't comprehend existed where dissent in religious matters was looked at on the same light as sedition or treason.
I have long been an admirer of Richard Baxter who called himself Reformed Catholick which I have always thought was a good term. A knowledge of history teaches us that the Church in the West was very diverse before the Reformation. There was never “one” church prior to the Reformation.
I suppose it depends on what it means by "one". The "multiple orthodoxies" thesis of Walter Bauer seems to have been discredited by the likes of Turner, Völker, Köstenberger and Kruger among others but, as I say, I am skeptical of the modern historical method of discovering the truth outside of modern intellectual fashion.
If you mean that the Pre-Reformation Church was not as patient of the Papacy as in recent centuries, then I would agree with you. The actions of Henry VIII are almost typical of other monarchs of the time. I think this reinforces our idea that the Reformations in England were primarily political events before doctrinal.
Thank you and God bless you
I call myself an Anglican Catholic. I'm a member of TEC.
Very good. May I ask how you understand the word "Catholic" and the word "Anglican" together especially when it comes to being communion with Katherine Jefferts Schori and Gene Robinson which all members of TEC must be?
@@Warwickensis I have to view it in terms of a diocesan level. My bishop is still very Catholic and Orthodox. I am in a very conservative part of the country as well.
@HolyAdonis that's good. God bless your efforts to keep true to Him.
@@Warwickensis Thank you Father. I would love for my church to join ACC or ACNA.
@@HolyAdonis that’s interesting.
I came into Anglicanism via the ACC about 16-17 years ago (was confirmed by Archbishop Haverland). However about two years later I became part of an ACNA mission parish my home town of which I’ve been a part ever since.
The nuances and complexity of Anglican history are now paralleled by what is occurring in the R Catholic church after VII. Hegelianism, one of those gifts from the German church which keeps on giving, now rules in theological circles and has devastated the traditional expression the the Faith. The whole synodal craze on the part of the church's ruling elite, which opens them up to membership in the WEF, now that the devil has taken them to the top of the temple, is an example of this. As to being called revisionists, I find that curious. I would view most Anglican Catholics, along with conservative RCs as restorationists not revisionists. You are not attempting to deny that "history has occurred". You are merely pointing out that certain historical or theological fads have proven quite wanting and we need to return to our senses. The "christian" progressives head towards the cliff like lemmings, ignoring blatant warning signs like empty churches. Christian restorationists see the cliff and quite reasonably decide to turn back. God did endow us with a certain amount of transcendent reasoning in our understanding of Scripture and discernment sustained by the Paraclete to be used when necessary.
I am very appreciative that you see what we are trying to do. I just pray that the progressive element may realise its errors.
Isn't the worst of the 7 deadly sins Pride (in all its iterations!!!) the progressives pridefully believe they are on the right side of history. Like all revolutionaries body counts matter little to them as long as one progresses towards the goal. Think, the Reign of Terror. They have agendas not beliefs so everything and everyone else is expendable. They will leave the church in ruins, never admit to their errors and go on to something else that they think can fulfill their aspirations for heaven on earth. Hegelian Christianity posits that God is the God of changes, surprises and His, (her, Its..) will can only be found in the forward movent of the "people." In this sense it is Also like Rousseau's belief that democracy resides in the will of the people.
The notion that with Christ time ceases and Revelation is fulfilled means nothing to them. For Christians like me time may change the externals of society but it offers no real insight into what is necessary for salvation, because it cannot. A classic example of Hegelian christianity is cardinal Hollerich's blatant statement the the Church must change her teachings on sexuality because of the advances in sociology and psychiatry. Progressives come into the Church smash her furniture and the when nothing is left move on. I as an RC have seen this pattern many times amongst the progressive clergy who leave us with the mess they have made.
An interesting study was done some time ago in France about what happens between parents and children when they adopt opposite political opinions. Most Liberal, progressive parents cut off their children completely because they children were on the wrong side of history and were now part of the structural"oppression". Conservative parents did not cut off their children with the same frequency because they only viewed their children as being foolishy in error and conversion, so to speak, and forgiveness of the error was always a hope
. For a stunning example of the progressive elements never realizing its errors one only need look over the border the Scotland where the Scottish church is even in worse condition, if that can be imagined than the official Anglican establishment in England. There the church under progressive guidance has destroyed herself with no signs of repentance from those who are responsible. The only silver lining is there are no many churches for sale waiting at a good price for Christians revive the faith and feed the spiritual starvation.
How would you say Puritanism fared in the Historical Laboratory of Theology? My Catholic Church--in Trent and through various Jesuit politics--condemned certain formulations of Calvinism, but as any good Jesuit would tell you, If you ask and are refused, ask again later in more favorable circumstances with more clever wording. Regarding the initial circumstances of the rejection, I suspect the concerns may have been "religious upheaval" or pastoral (the Church has always had this vague idea that preaching predestination would discourage the laity), more than theological, per se. I've come to have a very favorable opinion of them. They (specifically in colonial USA) almost strike me as a type of monastic order, only with families instead of fellow monks. Most interestingly, I believe their emphasis on predestination, with nothing they could do "meriting" salvation, probably led to the pursuit of holiness as an end in and of itself, rather than as a means to Heaven. Very admirable, IMO. On the other hand, human nature being what it is, I'd guess many focused on their works as tokens of assurance to the point they were fundamentally back in the same ol' works-righteousness perennial problem of the Church. Ultimately, it seems the movement waned, and the traditional liturgical/sacramental Christianity is what persisted. Still, though, it seems there may have been tons of potential there
This is something that I need to look into more when I have time. Calvin himself was a man with an admirable brain and one senses in his writing a great debt to St Thomas Aquinas. I think there is a great agreement between the two on predestination. I suppose that's the influence of St Augustine on both.
I rather think this is why both Calvin and Thomists are difficult to refute given the systematic and rigourous manners in which they construct their theology.
My concern is that Calvin makes salvation a purely legal issue (not surprising given his profession) whereas the legal analogy in the Early Church is one of many.
In the UK, Cranmer was very much a moderate Calvinist but the CofE was prevented from following the Puritan line on account of the Catholic and Lutheran parties in the Church. The Elizabethan Settlement, in seeking to maintain peace and order effectively ostracized both the Church Papists and the Puritans. One side fled to the continent, the other to the Colonies.
@@Warwickensis yes, it seems that the legal motif is emphasized to the exclusion of Christ conquering sin & death to extend participation in his life to us. I would say a better way of looking at "forensic justification" would be to consider God as a prime mover who speaks things into existence, so that if the predestined elect are declared justified in an eternal decree, they are actually made just in time, rather than as a cosmic courtroom judge who sent his Son to work out a limited stack of pardons
@WayneDrake-uk1gg indeed. I've argued in my book on moral theology that, for God, imputation and impartation are the same thing given that the words He speaks are part of His act of creation.
Of course, the main difference between Aquinas and Calvin is that Calvin was a nominalist after Ockham.
Is it something to do with divorce without getting annulment from the authority ??
Is what to do with divorce? I don't understand the question. If you're talking about Henry VIII, he didn't believe in divorce. He sought annulment based on the fact that he had married his brother's wife and was, as per biblical precedent, childless (i.e. had no son) as a result. There are lots of factors here, which are more political than doctrinal. It is not the simple issue as some might make it to be.
@@Warwickensis Thanks for the clarification.Many people like myself get confused and misunderstood on Henry VIII on the founding of his new church.
But he didn't "found a new church". That's an important point. He sought to continue the same faith as did the continental reformers. Indeed, his idea was Catholicism "without the Pope" something we Anglican Catholics have sought hard to preserve.
The divisions that exist do indeed have important doctrinal differences but the faith of all was still expressed in the three creeds. It's the same Jesus Christ being worshipped and therefore the same faith. Anglican Catholic believe firmly that they are *part" of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.