T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
GKC:
The guy who sent it to me was under the misapprehension that Joe was a Catholic Priest - Obviously, he’s a thoughtful Layperson.
I’m glad you were able to procide him with the revised words and objects From a Bible to a Chalice and Patin) - That’s important. It changes the nature of the office.
GKC:
You see, Pope Leo’s argument was far more nuanced than even his defenders made it out to be.
GKC:
Of course, one of those names attands St. Mary’s. Maybe I should spend some more time with him.
Blessings and Peace, Michael
The guy who sent it to me was under the misapprehension that Joe was a Catholic Priest - Obviously, he’s a thoughtful Layperson.
I’m glad you were able to procide him with the revised words and objects From a Bible to a Chalice and Patin) - That’s important. It changes the nature of the office.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75f52/75f527fcef970f5ed291aa4d0f3f7b8d74cdd96f" alt="40.png"
I must admit that I was trying to find a SCHOLASTIC/THOMISTIC word to describe the underlying reality that produces something that we see (“Substancia” is the usual word, the New Agers use “Ground of Being”) and that’s what I was trying to say regarding the EDWARDINE ORDINAL. Pope Leo understood “FORM” in just that manner, and that’s what your friend is trying to say. Pope Leo’s problems weren’t so much with the actual words as with the underlying attitudes, beliefs and rebellion against Rome that produced them. That all goes into the word “FORM” as far as your friend is concerned.Greetings, Michael,
The Angelfire site you posted is Joe’s. And he is the author of the article ("*Apostolicae Curae * and the ‘Spirit’ of St. Louis") that you quoted from. Who is the RC priest you are referring to? Joe is a (remarkably knowledgeable) RC layman. He does indeed know what he’s talking about. And on much, he and I are in agreement. Some of his research library, and one of the traditional Anglican ordination rites he lists on his site came from me, during our friendly discussions.
You see, Pope Leo’s argument was far more nuanced than even his defenders made it out to be.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75f52/75f527fcef970f5ed291aa4d0f3f7b8d74cdd96f" alt="40.png"
“Zeitgeist”, given what I was trying to say, was actually a poor choice of words. I hope the above clears at least some of it up.And yes, I’m moderately well versed in the details of the *AC * issue; history, persons involved, doctrine (form, substance, matter, intent and subject), political background, discussion. Lots of it comes from arm wrestling with Joe, over several years. And from reading the original documents and some of the major discussions: Clark, Hughes, Dix, Lowndes, Lula, Tavard, Lacey. The “zeitgeist” as you say, is the reason most discussion today centers on the defect of intention, rather than that of form.
GKC
Of course, one of those names attands St. Mary’s. Maybe I should spend some more time with him.
Blessings and Peace, Michael