I don’t think we should discuss this further in the intereste of amity and common purpose, as we have a common objective, which is to drive the liberals out of the Episcopal Church and also I daresay stop conservative Anglicans from making the dreadful mistake of joining the Roman Catholics. I also take a Latitudinarian approwcj and don’t care if some Anglicans take a Calvinist interpretation of what happens on the altar, provided they believe he is truly present in some objective form, and this could be a pneumatic form, and provided Anglo Catholic clergy are permitted to join monasteries and wear chasubles. Rather, I was asked questions by my friend @Stalwart, and out of personal respect and love for him I have supplied an answer, partially via PM, on some points that could have become stumbling blocks.
The small overlap area in the Venn diagram, methinks. The case against physical presence is an argument against Roman theology, in case you hadn't noticed.
From my perepective its throwing the baby out with the bathwater and Calvin was in error, and Sts. Addai and Mari, and whoever composed the Alexandrian anaphora type, and St. Severus and St. Gregory Diologos, and St. John of Damascus, had it right. Roman theology is not inherently bad. The city of Rome produced few noteworthy theologians, St. Hippolytus being one, but the Roman church gave us St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who was the first heresiologist and systematic theologist, as opposed to an apologist, and St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Benedict of Nursia, and St. Ambrose of Milan, and St. Vincent of Lerins, and St. John Cassian, and St. Gregory Diologos, also known as Pope Gregory the Great, all of who should be on everyone’s reading list, as well as St. Augustine, who is overrated and takes an erroneous approach to Pelagius and Donatus, but whose work The City of God and certain other works are rather good. However, after the year 1,000, the quality falls to pieces. The last few Roman saints I admire are St. Bruno the founder of the Carthusians, St. Bernard the founder of the Cistercians, and St. Dominic Guzman; I am not sure how I feel about St. Francis of Assisi; I think I would be inclined to call him Blessed; but all of these saints I admire for their ascetic labours of prayer. Also St. Clare. People who devote themselves to a life of prayer and holy celibacy I admire, although the Roman custom, which dates from antiquity, of not having married Presbyters, I think is overbearing. But Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin I view with some degree of moral equivalence in that the Summa and the Institutes are both systematic treatises evocative of St. John Damascene’s Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, except they profile religious systems I fundamentally disagree with. So I love Anglicanism but am an Arminian and inclined towards an upper high church / Anglo Catholic theology personally, but with a latitudinarian accomodation of persons of lower churchmanship.
You’ve been reading OrthodoxInfo I take it? It offers an opinion on St. Francis vs. St. Seraphim of Sarov, but it is just an opinion; I think they might have a weak of a point but not enough for me to say St. Francis was a heretic or impious. Also, as an amusing aside, the traditional Episcopalian church I attended until the vicar retired was dedicated to St. Francis of Assisi. The Orthodox Church has never doctrinally taken a view one way or the other regarding St. Francis or Therese of Liseaux (whereas the Eastern Orthodox did as a matter of fact declare John Calvin a heresiarch at the Synod of Dositheus in Bethlehem in 1672). That said EO, OO and RC churches were all formally anathematizing each other into the mid 20th century, when they stopped. The last saint that all Christian churches venerated was St. Isaac the Syrian, a member of the Assyrian Church of the East (although there are Hyperdox fanatics, mostly conwertsy, who like to attack the character of Sebastian Brock and claim he was conflated with a monk, which is ridiculous considering that at the time the Assyrians and Eastern Orthodox had a close relationship).
We’ve had our PM conversation cordially and I don’t believe I need to say much more going forward. I also did say that I wasn’t going to press @Liturgyworks since this isn’t my thread to hijack. That being said, the last point I’ll make publicly here is concerning this: It is true, the doctrine of Spiritual Real Presence has fallen on hard times of late. Only the Anglicans are left to support it. Which is why I love these opening lines from Jewel’s Apology: It has been a Complaint through all Ages, from the Patriarchs and Prophets, down to us, and confirmed by the Histories of all Times and Places, That Truth has been a Stranger upon Earth, ... We who have been conversant in the Holy Scriptures, and had read and seen what happened to all Good Men, in almost all Times, what befell the Prophets, the Apostles, the Holy Martyrs, and Christ himself, with what Disgraces, Reproaches, and Indignities they were persecuted in their Life-time, only for Truth’s sake ; see, that it is not only no New or Incredible Thing, but that it is, and has been universally Received and Practiced.
The sixth ecumenical council is often cited as saying the See of Rome would never defect and that it was agreed on by the council. Is this true? This is the one regarding the two wills of Christ that anathematized Honorius. What did they really mean by the Roman see never being found to defect if they later had them anathematize Honorius? Someone claimed the council did not accept every claim in Rome's proposal as true, only their agreement that condemned monotheletism.
Nothing about papal indefectibility made its way into the canons and anathemas. It was a popular hypothesis before Rome defected, though. But nothing from the Church Fathers will absolutely prove or disprove the papal dogmas. Instead, look at the claims made at Vatican I and see if they hold up to the reality.
I accept there are some reasonable arguments to defend certain criticisms regarding the papacy and this doctrine specifically, though I will refrain from bringing them up here, due to the fact that they are intentionally resisted and ignored. I am unique in that I believe there is credibility both to the calvinist doctrine in scripture alone and also scripture + tradition as interpreted by the Roman magisterium. Mod: personal info removed per author's request.
I'm not sure if this is what is meant by scripture + tradition as interpreted by the Roman Magisterium, but belief in both Sola Scriptura and the necessity of tradition has been the norm for Christians throughout history. Sola Scriptura, as the term was originally used in Aquinas, meant that - in accord with how the ancient Fathers understood things - Scripture is our source of divine revelation. Later revelations made to other people, if such a thing actually exists, isn't a source of doctrine. But scripture is not always easily understood by everyone who picks it up, and it's necessary to make sure we're not misunderstanding things by checking to see how it's been understood from the beginning. Both the rejection of tradition, and the idea that tradition constitutes additional revelation, are a bit more modern.