How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isearch said:
I do concede that Saint Augustine rejected double predestination; but, he did upheld the belief that God had predestined a portion of humanity to salvation prior to considering their future actions and had left the rest to their own perdition. As far as I am aware of, it seems that the doctrine of predestination considering future actions was only revived by the Molinist school after centuries of those espousing Augustinian predestination had become prominent.
Click to expand...
I would just say, IF an ECF (like Augustine or Aquinas etc for example) who are even deemed doctor as well, write something that can be interpreted problematic with Church teaching, Church teaching always prevails.
40.png
Isearch:
And Saint Augustine definitely did not abandon free will.
Click to expand...
True
 
In the quoted part. "… new ordinal broke the chain of apostolic succession in England and made Anglican orders null and void. Not quite an adequate assessment of what Apostolicae curae said was the intertwined reason that Anglican orders were to be considered null and void.

And that is precisely what any and all RCCs should hold and affirm, on the matter (same double entendre, repeated).

Anglicans may certainly hold different viewpoints. I wouldn’t be surprised if varying ones held varying ones.

But enough of that. I’m not as young as I once was.
 
GKMotley said:
In the quoted part. "… new ordinal broke the chain of apostolic succession in England and made Anglican orders null and void. Not quite an adequate assessment of what Apostolicae curae said was the intertwined reason that Anglican orders were to be considered null and void.

And that is precisely what any and all RCCs should hold and affirm, on the matter (same double entendre, repeated).

Anglicans may certainly hold different viewpoints. I wouldn’t be surprised if varying ones held varying ones.

But enough of that. I’m not as young as I once was.
Click to expand...
Jim,

Did you read the full explanation, on the link from canon law?
 
Last edited:
No. Because I’m guessing it goes into the basic intertwined form/intent points. If it doesn’t, I’d be amazed. But if it does, that’s why I said the quoted portion was incomplete, as it stood. What do you think I might learn there, that I didn’t learn long ago, in a land far away.

Remember what my background is, and where I earned my spurs.

Hmmm. Spurs. Another double entendre, sort of.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
No. Because I’m guessing it goes into the basic intertwined form/intent points. If it doesn’t, I’d be amazed. But if it does, that’s why I said the quoted portion was incomplete, as it stood. What do you think I might learn there, that I didn’t learn long ago, in a land far away.
Click to expand...
Jim,

We’ve talked well before 2004.
I’m disappointed my old friend doesn’t want to see the full explanation.
 
What makes you think I haven’t seen the full explanation?

Tell me what I don’t know. I’ll go and learn it.
 
Sigh.

So I went to see.

Not only have I read it more than once, it was already bookmarked in my AC stuff. I used it during the discussions I had post Anglicanorum coetibus, when the whole idea and history weres so new and unknown to the average rC.

My heart is a little sad. You really thought I don’t know that stuff, after starting my interest and reading back around 20 years ago, and growing it, in the places you know of, for so long.

The tale of AC is long, complicated and sad, and involves history, theology, personalities, and politics. And I could amend a point or two in that link, for better exposition. But I won’t.
 
Last edited:
Of course. On another board, a RC priest of my acquaintance, when the subject came up (as it did, as you can imagine), opined that maybe I was a little too fixed on intent.

I dunno about that. And it was years ago, anyway.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
Sigh.

So I went to see.

Not only have I read it more than once, it was already bookmarked in my AC stuff. I used it during the discussions I had post Anglicanorum coetibus, when the whole idea and history weres so new and unknown to the average rC.

My heart is a little sad. You really thought I don’t know that stuff, after starting my interest and reading back around 20 years ago, and growing it, in the places you know of, for so long.

The tale of AC is long, complicated and sad, and involves history, theology, personalities, and politics. And I could amend a point or two in that link, for better exposition. But I won’t.
Click to expand...
Jim, intent is HUGE.
 
Indeed. See my last post.

My point is that you seem to think I was either oblivious to it, when I was posting back where we met, or that I’ve forgotten it now.

Not so.
 
GKMotley said:
Indeed. See my last post.

My point is that you seem to think I was either oblivious to it, when I was posting back where we met, or that I’ve forgotten it now.

Not so.
Click to expand...
I wondered why you didn’t give your response regarding intent. It just seemed to get dismissed as no big deal.

That said, this issue of valid/invalid holy orders, revolves around intent and authority. And Church authority says intent is a big deal along with form etc, particularly in the exercise of holy orders…
 
Last edited:
We
“steve-b said:
On the contrary https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition

Note: the opening statement (emphasis mine)

“Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith , meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it .”
Click to expand...

This is plain false. It is the fallacy that one can describe what “Protestantism” teaches. As soon as the article says,
“Protestants claim…” you know it will probably be inaccurate.
 
Yep. And matter and minister, and so forth. As with all sacraments.

I don’t argue against what the RCC holds and teaches on the subject. I often (believe it or not) had to explain it to bewildered RCs with no good grounding in the history or the theology. But I do not argue against it.

I do recommend the best two books I know of, on the subject, and one other, excellent in the opposite direction.

The best two I know of, with a favorable inclination to the idea of Anglican orders being valid, are Fr. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. The first is the best history of the sad affair, the second a look at theological implications. I had supplied a copy of the first to our learned friend and was working on getting the second, when we all sort of lost contact.
Fr. Hughes, as you likely know, was the first known Anglican priest to be ordained as a RC priest, sub conditione, post AC.

The 3rd book, and the best I know of from the RC side, is (then Jesuit priest) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. Recommended.

Beyond that I still might speak to history, if I see it out of shape. But that is about it.
 
JonNC said:
We
“steve-b said:
On the contrary https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition

Note: the opening statement (emphasis mine)

“Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith , meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it .”
Click to expand...
40.png
JonNC:
This is plain false. It is the fallacy that one can describe what “Protestantism” teaches. As soon as the article says,
“Protestants claim…” you know it will probably be inaccurate.
Click to expand...
OK, are you saying, you speak authoritatively for all 10’s of thousands of different independent and even competing sects of Protestants for what they believe?

What is true is, Sola scriptura is NOT found in scripture. In fact scripture contradicts scripture alone As I showed earlier, Scripture supports in writing, Oral Tradition, AND what is written. Both are to be held to, not either one "alone"
Click to expand...
 
GKMotley said:
Yep. And matter and minister, and so forth. As with all sacraments.

I don’t argue against what the RCC holds and teaches on the subject. I often (believe it or not) had to explain it to bewildered RCs with no good grounding in the history or the theology. But I do not argue against it.

I do recommend the best two books I know of, on the subject, and one other, excellent in the opposite direction.

The best two I know of, with a favorable inclination to the idea of Anglican orders being valid, are Fr. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. The first is the best history of the sad affair, the second a look at theological implications. I had supplied a copy of the first to our learned friend and was working on getting the second, when we all sort of lost contact.
Fr. Hughes, as you likely know, was the first known Anglican priest to be ordained as a RC priest, sub conditione, post AC.

The 3rd book, and the best I know of from the RC side, is (then Jesuit priest) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. Recommended.

Beyond that I still might speak to history, if I see it out of shape. But that is about it.
Click to expand...
All I can say, Canon Law included, the Catholic Church position has not changed on Anglican orders. Dialogue continues, a good thing for sure, but that’s it. Just discussions
 
You think maybe I think else-wise?

OTOH, I don’t think the Anglican position on Catholic orders has changed much, either. We still (most of us; you know the motley Anglicans; one can never be sure) consider your orders as valid.
 
Augustine’s view on predstination changed in his later years. He admits this himself. This is one example. The entire work is worth reading.

On the Predestination of the Saints

Book 1
  1. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate….I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe in Him — to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, ‘A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.’
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm

Book 2
  1. …It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, who both comes to the help of such infants as He will, although…since He chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world as those to whom He intended to give His grace freely — that is, with no merits of theirs, either of faith or of works, preceding; and does not come to the help of those who are more mature, although He foresaw that they would believe His miracles if they should be done among them, because He wills not to come to their help, since in His predestination He, secretly indeed, but yet righteously, has otherwise determined concerning them. For there is no unrighteousness with God; but His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways are past finding out; all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth. Therefore the mercy is past finding out by which He has mercy on whom He will, no merits of his own preceding; and the truth is unsearchable by which He hardens whom He will, even although his merits may have preceded, but merits for the most part common to him with the man on whom He has mercy.
  2. Will any man dare to say that God did not foreknow those to whom He would give to believe, or whom He would give to His Son, that of them He should lose none? And certainly, if He foreknew these things, He as certainly foreknew His own kindnesses, wherewith He condescends to deliver us. This is the predestination of the saints — nothing else; to wit, the foreknowledge and the preparation of God’s kindnesses, whereby they are most certainly delivered, whoever they are that are delivered. But where are the rest left by the righteous divine judgment except in the mass of ruin,…? Who, moreover, might have believed if they had seen Christ’s wonderful miracles. But since it was not given to them to believe, the means of believing also were denied them.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15122.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top