jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (06/27/90)
Cindy Smith was replying to one of my postings: > Well... There has been a certain amount of development in Roman > Catholic doctrine, but there haven't been any outright reversals in > defined dogmas. I have a well-known 13th century theological work (5 > volumes in English) that expounds the same Roman Catholic theology that > exists today. A similar Anglican work does not exist. At that point, the Anglican Church and the Roman Church were one. The Venerable Bede is a Doctor of the Church. Does that mean that his works are considered Roman Catholic and *not* Anglican? Certainly not. I beg to disagree; the Anglican denomination is in basic disagreement with its roots. Let me quote a few things from Venerable Bede's "A History of the English Church and People", which you can pick up in most bookstores in the Penguin Classics series: Here is part of the letter of Pope Boniface V to Justus, who succeeded to the Archbishopric of Canterbury in 624 AD: Moved by your devotion, my brother, we are sending you by the bearer of this letter the pallium, which we grant you the privilege of wearing only when you celebrate the Holy Mysteries. We also grant you authority, under the abiding mercy of our Lord, to consecrate bishops as occasion may require... We are confident that you will maintain with whole-hearted sincerity this dignity granted you by the favour of the Apostolic See... This is a relation of the cure of a little boy by King St. Oswald: [one of the monks in a monastery says to a boy who is sick]: 'My boy, shall I tell you how you may be cured of this complaint? Get up and go to Oswald's tomb in the church. Remain there quietly and mind you don't stir from it until the time that your fever is due to leave you...' The boy did as the brother advised, and while he sat by the saint's tomb the fever dared not touch him: further, it was so completely scared that it never recurred, either on the second or the third day, or ever after... But it need cause no surprise that the prayers of this king, who now reigns with God, should be acceptable to him.... The contents of just this one book by Bede are quite interesting. There is quite a eulogy on Pope St. Gregory the Great. There is an interesting account of a visit by the arch-cantor of Rome, who came to teach ecclesiastical chant, and check to see if the heresy of Eutyches had infected Britain. The authority of the Roman See over Canterbury is evident in numerous places; accounts of miracles are frequent. There is an interesting episode where a man is captured in wartime and put in chains. His brother, a priest, presumed him dead and started offering Masses for the repose of his soul. Consequently, the chains kept falling off the prisoner. (!!!) When asked by his captors why this was, the man replied that his brother was probably offering Masses for him, and that, "were I now in another life, my soul would be freed from its pains by his prayers." There are miracles by means of relics, such as those of St. Cuthbert. Etc. [parts of the BCP related to Saints omitted] The most notable thing about this part of the BCP is that never once is a Saint invoked. This is due to Reformation influence; the traditional Christian liturgies (East and West) invoke the Saints. BCP Page 364 (The Breaking of the Bread): [Alleluia.] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast. [Alleluia.] [other passages from the BCP omitted] There is nothing here not in keeping with Reformation theology. A comparison of the BCP and the Roman Mass which it replaced would make it evident that the references to the Mass as a true and proper sacrifice have been taken out. [Prayers for the dead omitted.] These imply a belief in Purgatory! Yet on p. 872 (1977 edition), we find in the historical documents section Article 22, the condemnation of same (and the invocation of Saints, by the way). Why pray for the dead, then? I'd also like to note that the Book of Common Prayer honors the Blessed Virgin Mary with no less than four special feast days, to which is added several others in many places. Great! petition. Page 859 describes why the Eucharist is called a sacrifice, because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself. Pages 860-861 describe the Sacraments of But you do not seem to realize: This is Protestant doctrine! The precise reason that the Anglican Reformers changed the liturgy was that it did not express the Protestant faith. Here are some words from some of the first Anglicans: But all such priests as pretend to be Christ's successors in making a sacrifice of him, they be his most heinous and horrible adversaries... all popish priests that presume to make every day a sacrifice of Christ, either must they needs make Christ's sacrifice vain, unperfect, and unsufficient, or else is their sacrifice in vain which is added t the sacrifice which is already of itself sufficient and perfect. (Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury) I believe that the holy supper of the Lord is not a sacrifice, but only a remembrance and commemoration of this holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ. ...Likewise I believe and confess that the popish Mass is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of Antichrist... (John Hooper, Bishop of Glouchester) I do not think that there's even an argument whether the Anglican Reformers broke with the traditions of their predecessors or not. It's mainly a matter of becoming informed from the historical sources. Joe Buehler
steve@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Steve Mitchell) (07/02/90)
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >But leave the mission part of the definition. The doctrinal part of >apostolic succession is easier to discuss. It seems that whenever this >is brought up, there are Anglicans/Episcopalians claiming doctrinal >continuity with their predecessors. I am, as always, quite puzzled as >to why. >A primary part of my puzzlement is Anglican liturgy. Well, to be fair, >I shouldn't say Anglican, I should say Episcopalian. The Episcopalians >do not use the pre-Reformation liturgy. The BCP studiously avoids >prayers for the dead and the invocation of saints, and sacrifical >language. The old liturgies cannot be used, for that very reason. >I have a copy of the Sarum proper for the late 1400's; it is almost >identical to the Roman proper of the 1960's. The differences in the >canon have the appearance of typographical errors, nothing more. An "in >primis" vs. an "imprimis", a sentence split vs. a sentence whole, etc. >Daniel, are you really claiming solidarity with the British hierarchy of >the Middle Ages? >Joe Buehler Questions of Episcopal conformation with the old Sarum proper, or for that matter with traditional catholic doctrine, were mightily confused by decisions taken by the provincial synod of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America (PECUSA) back around 1977. At that time the synod adopted a lot of new cannons, a new prayerbook (the one you cite), and a _very_ liberal theology. So liberal, in fact, that those Episcopalians who wanted to remain faithful to the Anglican catholic tradition found it necessary to separate themselves from PECUSA and reconstitute themselves as the Anglican Catholic Church (in America and Canada). The ACC _does_ claim solidarity with the British hierarchy of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. It uses a prayerbook (the 1929 edition of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer) which is based on the 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, which was based directly on the 1549 BCP written by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury under King Edward VI of England. The ACC is basically in agreement with most of the doctrines of the RCC, except some of the recent additions like papal infailability and the very recent elevation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary to dogma. -- - Steve Mitchell steve@cps.altadena.ca.us grian!steve@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!grian!steve "God is licht, an in him there is nae mirkness ava." -- 1 John 1:5
blosser@lrc.uucp (12/19/90)
What are the best available treatments of the question of apostolic succession? Anyone know some titles?
cms@gatech.edu (12/24/90)
In article <Dec.19.04.26.45.1990.28063@athos.rutgers.edu>, blosser@lrc.uucp writes: > What are the best available treatments of the question of apostolic > succession? Anyone know some titles? There is an excellent article on the Apostolic Succession, including Protestant objections and Catholic Scriptural responses to those objections, in the context of Scriptural justification for the Apostolic Succession as well as Traditional justification, in the "Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi" edited by Karl Rahner. For a shorter description, see Rahner's "Dictionary of Theology." There are also several discussions of the origins of the Apostolic Succession in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. It's also discussed briefly in "Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents" general editor Austin Flannery, O.P. For the Anglican understanding, read Stanley's "The Catholic Religion." Good sources are Saint Thomas, Augustine, Irenaeus (not a saint in my book), Tertullian, Hippolytus's "The Apostolic Tradition." Another origin book you might to look at is the Didache "The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles." A book that describes the origins and meanings pretty well is "Early Christian Doctrines" by J.N.D. Kelly. The criteria of Apostolic continuity is discussed in some detail in "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)", Volume I in a series entitled "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." Eusebius's "History of the Church" contains many source documents no longer extant _describing_ the apostolic succession with names. There's one book "A History of Heresy" by David Christie-Murray which discusses how the apostolic succession developed as part of the apostolic tradition to safeguard the Church against heresy. There's "Early Christian Writings" and "Documents of the Christian Church" which have original works by some of the Church Fathers listed above. For the Anglican understanding, you might want to look at Marion J. Hatchett's "Commentary on the American Prayer Book." You have to hunt for references but it's an _excellent_ book if you want to understand Christian theology in general expressed in terms of the Book of Common Prayer and why we pray, preach, teach, and do things the way we do. As an Anglican, as I mentioned above, I stand by Vernon Stanley's teachings, although not everyone agrees with him in the Episcopal Church. Nonetheless, as Stanley remarks in his "The Catholic Religion," pages 16-17, "A Church stands or falls by the apostolic succession." -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia Although not a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court, I am: A Real Live Southern Catholic in the Anglican Communion.