G
GKC
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## I know he is- and none the worse for that ##
One of the range of Anglican possibilities. And a scholar, to boot.
GKC
- Status
One of the range of Anglican possibilities. And a scholar, to boot.
GKC
J
Joseph_Romero
Guest
Participants,
If you wnat a member to participate, use the PM system, not this thread. Otherwise, keep it on topic.
God Bless,
If you wnat a member to participate, use the PM system, not this thread. Otherwise, keep it on topic.
God Bless,
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
F
frmkirby
Guest
Dear fellow-members,
Hello. I am new to the forum, though I have been following these threads for a while. I have some information relavant to the claim which began this series of threads.
In a discussion with Abp Hepworth last year, the Primate of the TAC, I was told, in answer to a direct question on the three post-Tridentine dogmas, that “The TAC has no problem with them”. When I pressed him on the matter of Vatican I, he indicated that when this Council’s definition was understood in the light of the encyclical Ut Unum Sint, it was not problematic in their view. It is therefore highly unlikely that Pope John Paull II (May he rest in peace and rise in glory!) has made an offer such as Trad Ang suggests, since, quite apart from the theological issues, it would be unnecessary!
Regarding A.C., it is worth noting that like any authoritative Church decree dealing with a theological interpretation of particular persons, words or actions in post-Apostolic history, it relies on a major premise which is doctrinal and capable of being irreformable and infallible, and a minor premise which involves both reporting and interpretation of non-Revealed historic circumstances and documents. The latter are outside the purview of infallibility. So, the conclusion reached by any such document can be wrong even if its teaching is sacrosanct.
That is why excommunications, even by Ecumenical Councils, have not traditionally been considered intrinsically infallible. For example, Origen was anathematised (very much post-mortem!) with ecumenical authority because of a long list of heresies attributed to him. However, it turns out that some of the teachings were not his but those of later “followers”, whereas the rest were held by him as explicitly tentative speculations, not as Church doctrines. Or so many modern Catholic and Orthodox scholars in good standing with their respective Churches say.
There is far more to say about this issue, but such a forum seems inappropriate for the length of consideration required.
I would only note further that some of the statements quoted by Matt16_18 from the “This Rock” article were serious oversimplifications of Anglican history and betray a complete ignorance of the liturgical practices and teaching of the highly influential Caroline Divines of the 17th century, Non-Jurors of the 18th century, a long line of Scottish Episcopalian bishops and theologians, etc.
M.K.+
Hello. I am new to the forum, though I have been following these threads for a while. I have some information relavant to the claim which began this series of threads.
In a discussion with Abp Hepworth last year, the Primate of the TAC, I was told, in answer to a direct question on the three post-Tridentine dogmas, that “The TAC has no problem with them”. When I pressed him on the matter of Vatican I, he indicated that when this Council’s definition was understood in the light of the encyclical Ut Unum Sint, it was not problematic in their view. It is therefore highly unlikely that Pope John Paull II (May he rest in peace and rise in glory!) has made an offer such as Trad Ang suggests, since, quite apart from the theological issues, it would be unnecessary!
Regarding A.C., it is worth noting that like any authoritative Church decree dealing with a theological interpretation of particular persons, words or actions in post-Apostolic history, it relies on a major premise which is doctrinal and capable of being irreformable and infallible, and a minor premise which involves both reporting and interpretation of non-Revealed historic circumstances and documents. The latter are outside the purview of infallibility. So, the conclusion reached by any such document can be wrong even if its teaching is sacrosanct.
That is why excommunications, even by Ecumenical Councils, have not traditionally been considered intrinsically infallible. For example, Origen was anathematised (very much post-mortem!) with ecumenical authority because of a long list of heresies attributed to him. However, it turns out that some of the teachings were not his but those of later “followers”, whereas the rest were held by him as explicitly tentative speculations, not as Church doctrines. Or so many modern Catholic and Orthodox scholars in good standing with their respective Churches say.
There is far more to say about this issue, but such a forum seems inappropriate for the length of consideration required.
I would only note further that some of the statements quoted by Matt16_18 from the “This Rock” article were serious oversimplifications of Anglican history and betray a complete ignorance of the liturgical practices and teaching of the highly influential Caroline Divines of the 17th century, Non-Jurors of the 18th century, a long line of Scottish Episcopalian bishops and theologians, etc.
M.K.+
- Status