Richard Hooker on church orders, and lay presidency

Dear canadian Cousin,
I appear to have offended you, in which case, I apologise!


the councils did not assemble our rule & tenet of faith.?

Then who did? Both Athansius and S.Cyril were great players in that area! Athanasius at Nice and S. Cyril at Ephesus?

 

Yes please.

 

You did not offend me in the least. Even if you had, it is nothing at all. Forgiveness is more important than argument.

The Holy Spirit inspired the rule & tenet of our Faith (the Holy Scriptures). As Gregory of Nyssa said:

~ On the Holy Trinity.

All questions of lay presidency & church order should thus ultimately be directed to this most glorious measure of faith, this holy word. Now, let's get on with it!

 

I'm just reading a life of Hooker put together by Bishop Paget and I don't think he would agree with you and I certainly don't, indeed, I'm surprised that a chap of your erudition should even dream of it!

 

Yes they should. Your 1st century compilation was about half the size of what we now hold, omitting the Gospel of John, The Apocalypse, and numerous others. Even the Peshita manuscript a century later was less than what we now hold. So do we now add the Ecumenical Councils to the list of things you currently reject?

Jeff

 

What do the Articles say Celtic , on this subject.~? Please enlighten us?

 

I noticed that Peter Toon used that phrase quite a bit -- he seemed to be more Reformed than Anglo-Catholic to me... but I'm probably wrong...

 

I must apologize since I de-railed this train of thought, but the authority of Hooker was called into question when compared against scripture, and I felt it necessary to point out that we have that very scripture to compare to, due to the Holy spirit working through the church fathers to determine our canon. I will step down from my soapbox/pulpit!

 

My dear friend, surely you jest. All of the NT books were written before the end of the first century.

 

I found this site which looks pretty scholarly. Might help shed some light on the subject:

http://anglicaneucharistictheology.com/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Welcome.html

 

Very nice link. What I don't understand is how anyone can deny that the church adheres to the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements. For what reason are they consecrated. If, as Cranmer's later position teaches, Christ is not in the elements, but in the believer, then why not consecrate the believer instead of the elements? What else can it mean than what is actually prayed by the priest: " Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace; and at the last day bring us with all your saints into the joy of your eternal kingdom." For that matter, what else can be understood by Christ than that he is pouring himself into the bread and wine when he takes the bread and says, "this is my body" and the same with the cup?

 

Where the scriptures ate silent, we follow the 39 articles, and keep silent ourselves allowing christians to think and let think where the holy spirit has thought it right to allow diversity on the given issue.

 

Let's continue this discussion on my thread of manuscript support for various translations. My reply will be there

Jeff

 

Where is the contradiction?

 

Speaking of Scripture and it's place in Anglican instruction, Hooker goes on,
"There must be therefore some former knowledge presupposed which doeth herein assure the hearts of all believers, scripture teaches us that saving truth which God hath discovered un to the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is divine and sacred.
The question being by what means we are taught this; some answer that to learn it we have no other way than only tradition;as namely that we so believe because both we from our predecessors and they from theirs have so received.....That which all men's experience teacheth them may not in any way be denied!' Bk 3.Ch.8 /13& 14. He then explains , "We mean by Traditions , ordinances made in the prime of Christian religion, established with that authority which Christ has left to His Churchfor matters indifferent and in that consideration requisite to be observed , till authority see just reasonable cause to alter them. So that traditions ecclesiastical are not to be rudely and in gross to be shaken off, because the inventors of them were men."