Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[The Archregimancy]

I'm Greek.

Bully for you?

Quite a few Orthodox Greeks worship the icons themselves whether they want to admit it or not. For someone who wants to become an Orthodox, it's important to know how some Orthodox Christians treat icons and other "holy" items.

What you, as an admitted atheist, think about the veneration of icons and relics is not the same as what a member of the Orthodox Church thinks about icon veneration.

It's not without value as the perspective as an outsider, but it's not an accurate reflection of how actual Orthodox Christians view the issue.

[Neanderthaland]

As other believers have touched upon, Mormonism literally teaches things that directly contradict the scripture in the Bible, which it justifies with abundant 'errata' and its own additional holy text.

Actually, I believe it's three additional holy texts.

The Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are:

1) The Holy Bible
2) The Book of Mormon
3) The Doctrine and Covenants
4) The Pearl of Great Price

The Book of Mormon is widely known outside Mormonism, the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price less so. However, all four form part of the LDS scriptural canon.

As to why I know this sort of thing, I think you'll find that any archaeologist who's worked in both North American and Egyptian archaeology has some incentive to familiarise themselves with some of the more ... unusual ... historical views set forth in the Mormon canon. It's not just the better-known bits about the history of the Americas in the Book of Mormon; the Pearl of Great Price contains what, if I'm forcing myself to be polite, we might call - from the archaeologist's perspective - some 'deeply weird shit'.

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't heard of any of that.

[The New California Republic]

Actually, I believe it's three additional holy texts.

The Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are:

1) The Holy Bible
2) The Book of Mormon
3) The Doctrine and Covenants
4) The Pearl of Great Price

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't heard of any of that.

The pairs of Mormons tend to only push the Book. Mind you if they tried to push high-value pearls at me gratis then I wouldn't argue.

[Lower Nubia]

The ambiguity is because I am using Catholic as interchangeable with Roman. Catholic is merely a term. We are, naturally, catholic, whenever we recited the Nicene Creed we prove so, yet we still closer in origin to the Reformation—or ought be—than Rome: even via media was between Lutheranism and the Calvinism. The articles are very clear on matters of theology; but then neither transubstantiation or the mariology of Rome were known to the council of Nicaea.

I've grown so very disenchanted with the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholicism. It is a rotting from within (& a gateway to Rome) and in so doing loses the national character of the English church by adopting Roman ritual—the Book of Common Prayer and Authorized version are a scriptural heritage in opposition.

You're not telling me anything that I did not already know. You sound a lot like me six months ago. I don't have any time for Anglo-Catholics who pretend that they're not Protestant or borrow excessively from post-Tridentine Roman Catholic liturgy or theology, but I think getting overly worked up about the fact that modern Anglicanism is not as theologically or liturgically uniform as it was in the 18th century is unhealthy and unproductive. I think there is room within the "broad church" for Prayer Book Catholics as there is for old fashioned Reformed Anglicans.

Yes. Anglicanism is certainly Protestant. The Anglo-Catholic can either be revisionist or see the use of ritual as consistent with Church practice that needn’t be inherently Roman, but are because of the western tradition.

The 1662 BCP can easily include ritual Catholic practice until you get to the 39 Articles. As far as I’m concerned the liturgical practice in the 1662 is easily accommodated into Anglo-Catholic worship. While the Articles being the official confession of the Church of England at the time have no bearing today in any practical sense and are thus a historical footnote of the 1662.

There was good and bad in the Tractarian movement. The good as I see it includes the revival of Gothic church architecture and restoration of vestments, the emphasis on outreach to the working class, and the emphasis on the church fathers and the catholicity of the post-Reformation church.

Not the centrality of the Eucharist as it was in the ancient Church? You know, the sacrament that is dying in reformed worship.

The bad includes the opposition to establishment, the eventual abandonment by many Anglo-Catholics of the BCP in favour of continental Roman Catholic liturgy

The 1662 and 1928 are very easily accommodated into Anglo-Catholic worship. I also find that final statement odd, because it was the Roman’s themselves who adopted the BCP for the Anglican Ordinariate, not the other way around. Without the Anglo-Catholic’s, the BCP wouldn’t be used by the Catholic’s. It was us who shunted our liturgy onto the Catholic’s, not as you say, Anglo-Catholics who abandoned the BCP for Continental liturgy - seeing as the Catholic Liturgy For the English is now... the BCP. That has often been the point of hilarity, when Anglicans convert for different Catholic practice, they tend to find the BCP back as their normal liturgy.

a "branch theory that implied there was no meaningful reason to chose to be Anglican rather than Roman Catholic.

Branch theory is better than the reformed, which holds anyone of any denomination can be saved because there is no necessity in certain practices (like the Eucharist), ordination is not a meaningful thing, and catholicity can mean anyone who subscribes to bare bones Christian tenets. Branch theory at least has some exclusivity. Reformed Practice and ecclesiology has logically none.

and the distortion of the church's history to downplay its Protestant and Reformed heritage.

When you say Church history, you mean Anglican Church history. Current Anglo-Catholicism is less concerned by that 500 year period, than by ancient Church history (as it should be). If Churches can reform doctrine then so too the Anglican Church can be reformed again back to ancient practice and thus disregard the reformed history as a sideline, an interesting but faulted epoch, or to some, even a waste. Just as you do with the period of Church history when you use “Church history” to refer to the 500 year period rather than the 1500 year period.

I think that both Anglo-Catholics and their critics ought to be reminded that in the view of the Tractarians themselves, the Church of England of the late 16th through to the 18th century was fully catholic in the most important sense, and the 1662 Prayer Book was fully compatible with catholic worship.

Yes. This isn’t some slam dunk for reformed Anglicanism. Like I said, if the Church of England could be reformed it could be un-formed or Re-Reformed including what the tractarians believed were errors of the Reformed era. Catholicity as you must agree could be transferred between 1100 and 1500 when you no doubt consider the Catholic Church in error. The same logic applies for the tractarian position on the reformed era of the Church of England.

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't really have time for a lengthy post at the moment, so I just want to say that Ocelot's summary of what various Christian groups believe is very inaccurate. I would recommend not to 100% trust anything anyone tells you about a denomination that they don't actually belong to, to be honest.

Ah, okay. For a layman like myself, it would be nice to read some straightforward notes about each denomination, but it doesn't seem easy to get those. May I at least hear about your denomination? What is your denomination?

Unfortunately there are many, many denominations of Christianity and it would be more or less impossible to summarise the differences between all of them in one post. My recommendation would be to start by visiting some churches in your area and finding one where you feel comfortable, whilst expanding your knowledge of general Christianity by reading. I would recommend "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis as a good place to start, as well as the Holy Bible, of course. I don't think there's much point worrying at this stage about which church is the one true church; you're clearly not in much of a position to be forming opinions on major theological issues as a new inquirer into the faith. Focus on finding a church community in which you feel comfortable and further down the line you might be better equipped to make such decisions- you're not bound to the first church that you join.

That having been said, you asked me about my own denomination, so I'll try to enlighten you a little. I am myself an Anglican. Anglicanism is a form of Protestant Christianity, which means that it was influenced by the ideas of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants are so-called because they began as a "protest" movement against the Roman Catholic Church, which was regarded as having become corrupted and teaching false doctrines. Protestants are united by this common heritage and by the belief that no particular churches has preserved the teachings of Christ perfectly from the time of the apostles. We consider the Bible to be the highest authority on matters of doctrine.

Anglicanism is probably best described as the form of Christianity practiced by the Church of England and various other churches around the world that branched off from it; the word "Anglicanism" comes from the Latin phrase "Ecclesia anglicana," meaning "the English Church." We consider ourselves part of the true church founded by Jesus Christ, but unlike, say, the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, we don't consider ourselves to represent the whole of the church; this is reflected in our full communion agreements with other Christian churches such as the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia and the Baltics or the "Old Catholic Churches" in continental Europe, which mean that we recognise those churches as having no fundamental differences in core beliefs from us and being fully part of the true church. Anglicans can therefore take communion in those churches if there isn't an Anglican church around, and vice versa. We are generally a very diverse denomination, as a consequence of our history. You can see this going through the last few pages of the thread- myself, Lower Nubia and Mostrov are all Anglicans, but we have rather different beliefs on a number of things.

The fundamentals of the Anglican faith are summarised by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which was originally written as a sort of set of minimal requirements other churches had to meet before we could enter communion with them. The four points of the Quadrilateral are:

1) The Holy Scriptures (that is, the Bible), as "containing everything necessary to salvation"- so if something isn't in the Bible, it isn't necessary to be saved.
2) The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, which you can read here and which are the oldest formal summaries of the Christian faith.
3) The dominical sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion, which we are commanded to perform by our Lord in the Gospel.
4) The historic episcopate, "locally adapted," meaning the church should be led by bishops who can trace their authority back to Christ's apostles.

It's worth noting that the Quadrilateral doesn't necessarily represent a complete summary of what makes an Anglican an Anglican, nor is it meant to be an authoritative statement on who is or is not a Christian or what makes a true church. But it gives a good overview of what all Anglicans are supposed to hold in common. Also very important to Anglican identity is the Book of Common Prayer, which contains our official liturgy or, in other words, the guide to how we worship in public. We believe in the adage lex orandi, lex credendi, which means, roughly, "the law of how we pray is the law of what we believe;" as such the Prayer Book reflects our beliefs and doctrine. At the time of the Reformation, the 39 articles of religion were also produced as a summary of the Church of England's position on various issues of the time and disagreements with Roman Catholicism, but modern Anglicans differ in the degree to which they agree or disagree with the articles (Lower Nubia is not a fan, it would appear. I imagine Mostrov is more or less wholly in agreement with them. I don't agree with them in their entirety but consider them most correct and in no way contrary to the essentials of the Christian faith). I don't want to write out a whole essay on the history of the Anglican church to explain why these differences exist, but they do, and probably the inconsistency and occasional factionalism you get within Anglicanism is the most aggravating thing about being an Anglican in my opinion. On the flip side, for many the ability of the Anglican church to embrace a wide range of beliefs and worship styles is one of its main attractions. We also have a very beautiful liturgy and a strong intellectual tradition, with many Anglican theologians having influence even beyond their own communion.

I know I haven't really provided the "straightforward notes" you asked for, but sadly, there's nothing particularly straightforward about Anglicanism. If you find it interesting, though, try popping down to your nearest Anglican church (or Episcopalian if you're in the US or Scotland) and attending a service or two. I'm sure you'll be welcome and there's no better way to learn about our tradition than experiencing it first hand.

[Luminesa]

So, what does the CDT have planned for Todos los Santos? Given that tomorrow is the Solemnity of All Saints, which to us here in the Philippines is traditionally held to be a day for us to commemorate our dearly departed--that All Souls' Day on November 2nd is a thing notwithstanding--how do y'all commemorate the loved ones you've lost over the years?

Generally we offer Masses for them, as their names have been written in our parish Book of Remembrance. There’s also blessings of the graves, in the week leading to All Saints’ Day.

[Luminesa]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

Before I give my...er...sales pitch? I want to say that the most important part of discernment is prayer. I'm glad you're open, so no matter where you start looking, it is always good to find a nearby church and to sit and pray. Nobody is going to stop you from sitting alone in a church in prayer for about 30 minutes to an hour a day, resting and contemplating where God wants you to go. God's voice is a voice of peace and of decisiveness. You will know it is Him when you hear Him, just be sure to listen close.

I am a Catholic, born and raised. I love my faith and I think it contains the fullness of the Gospel and of the life of Christ. The Catholic Church was founded on Pentecost by Jesus Christ on 33 AD. Our bible (generally the NASB or the Douay-Rheims is what we use, if you'd like to get a Catholic bible) contains 73 books, which is quite different from the King James Bible. We believe that the Bible tells us the story of salvation history, beginning with Creation and culminating in the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We follow the Nicene and Apostles' Creed to outline our core teachings, and we also have seven Sacraments, which we believe are God's physical signs of His grace (His life) on Earth. They are: Baptism, Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick.

We do not, however, have a literalist view of the Bible. While we believe that many of the events of the Bible are true (the life of Jesus, the life of the Patriarchs, the Fall, the events of Maccabees, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, etc.), we also believe that the Bible gives us the whole life of the Church, and thus is also a book of poetry, prayer, wise teachings (in books such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) and visions (Revelations). This is an important distinction, as fundamentalism at times takes away from the entire beauty of our heritage.

Speaking of heritage, the Catholic Church relies on three sources for its teachings:
1.) The Bible, which has been previously demonstrated.
2.) Church Tradition - The Deposit of Faith. What has been handed down by Church Fathers and teachers who have interpreted God's teachings in the Bible, and who have helped to build and carry the Catholic Church.
3.) The Magisterium - The Living, Teaching Office of the Church. This is our anointed leadership. Our priests, deacons, bishops, and our Pope. Their job is to interpret and protect the Traditions of the Church and the teachings of the Bible.

We have generally a conservative social view, which is outlined well in the Catechism. However, we do not fit into the pretty lines of Democrat or Republican. First and foremost, however, I would advise that if you are looking into the Faith, you do not look based on which political box it fits in, but rather into how it calls you to a higher standard of being, above political ideology. We teach that acts of mercy are important, both corporeal and spiritual. If you become a Catholic, you are expected to take care of those not only within the Body of Christ (our Church, and other Christians), but also those who are not Christians. We believe that all people are God's children, without exceptions, and we are called to love, compassion, and respect.

We have many devotions once you've entered the Church. We have many saints whose stories are inspiring (more on this below), we have devotions to Jesus through Mary, His mother, we have many kinds of prayers which are very accessible through apps (the Laudate app for your phone is wonderful). I can TG you more specifically on devotions which you have questions about.

If you have questions, there are a few things you can do:
1.) Email your nearest priest and ask him about RCIA, about your interest in the Faith, and about any questions you may have. I can guarantee you that while he might be busy, he will eventually be happy to answer.
2.) Get yourself some books! The NASB or Douay-Rheims (the differences are mostly dependent on how flowery or dense you prefer your reading; the DR is the older and denser version, so I prefer the NASB, but both are beautiful.) bible should be your start. Get a good bible with some study elements and footnotes, and to help, here is a guide from people who are much smarter than me. I can give you more book recommendations via TG if you are interested.
3.) Sit in church and pray, and ask God about where He wants you to be. Furthermore, ask Him to give you a heart that is open to His existence and Will. He will answer in time, I can guarantee it.
4.) Buy a book on the lives of the saints! This is what caused me to dive deeper into my faith. The lives of saints such as St. Therese of Liseux, St. Francis de Sales, St. Mother Theresa, and St. John Paul II are what caused me to become more intense in my spiritual life. It always helps to have heroes who can guide us.

I hope this helps! God bless you, and have a wonderful day!

[The Marlborough]

I don't really have time for a lengthy post at the moment, so I just want to say that Ocelot's summary of what various Christian groups believe is very inaccurate. I would recommend not to 100% trust anything anyone tells you about a denomination that they don't actually belong to, to be honest.

Which part is inaccurate?

The "Orthodox worship icons and dead bones" bit for starters.

[Salus Maior]

Which part is inaccurate?

The "Orthodox worship icons and dead bones" bit for starters.

Indeed. Also, Icons aren't exclusive to Orthodox.

I'm on my way to a bit of a collection myself.

[Lord Dominator]

If our agnostic fellow is in the US, "Handbook of Christian Denominations in the United States" should at least cover the generalities of your options so to speak (I have the 14th edition, which I believe is the most recent or second most recent).

[Sundiata]

If our agnostic fellow is in the US, "Handbook of Christian Denominations in the United States" should at least cover the generalities of your options so to speak (I have the 14th edition, which I believe is the most recent or second most recent).

I might have to buy this myself.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

The Roman Catholic Church. Look into the Catechism and RCIA.

Okay, will do. To whom can I ask questions if I'm puzzled about something, though?

Don't begin with the Catechism. It's too long and boring. (RCIA is how one becomes a Catholic as an adult, by the way.)

As a convert myself, I very much enjoyed the work that The Most Rev. Robert Barron, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, has on matters of Catholic faith. He runs the Word on Fire Institute and hosted the PBS-series Catholicism. He is active on social media and has plenty of YouTube videos on all sorts of questions you may have.

Similarly, Catholic Answers has a lot of articles answering questions and objections you may encounter.

When it comes to reading the Holy Bible, I personally preferred beginning with the Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Bishop Barron's Word on Fire Institute has recently published the first of two volumes of the Word on Fire Bible (which, in addition to the text of the Gospel, has commentary from both contemporary and historical scholars and beautiful illustrations), which you may be interested in.

[Sundiata]

Bishop Robert Barron is destined to be a Saint.

[Luminesa]

Okay, will do. To whom can I ask questions if I'm puzzled about something, though?

Don't begin with the Catechism. It's too long and boring. (RCIA is how one becomes a Catholic as an adult, by the way.)

As a convert myself, I very much enjoyed the work that The Most Rev. Robert Barron, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, has on matters of Catholic faith. He runs the Word on Fire Institute and hosted the PBS-series Catholicism. He is active on social media and has plenty of YouTube videos on all sorts of questions you may have.

Similarly, Catholic Answers has a lot of articles answering questions and objections you may encounter.

When it comes to reading the Holy Bible, I personally preferred beginning with the Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Bishop Barron's Word on Fire Institute has recently published the first of two volumes of the Word on Fire Bible (which, in addition to the text of the Gospel, has commentary from both contemporary and historical scholars and beautiful illustrations), which you may be interested in.

The Youcat-the Teen Version, also edited by Pope Benedict-does make the Catechism more accessible. It’s helped me a lot.

Bishop Robert Barron is pretty awesome, yes. He will answer questions far better than me.

[The Marlborough]

So, I'm an agnostic and I've been hoping to gain more knowledge in Chrisianity because I think God may be the crux of the purpose of life for me. What would be the most suitable denomination, based on your holy opinions?

To add to Arch's post I would also recommend the Eastern Orthodox Bible, which is an English translation done by some Greek Orthodox Christians as well as the updated Orthodox Study Bible.

[Lower Nubia]

At the time of the Reformation, the 39 articles of religion were also produced as a summary of the Church of England's position on various issues of the time and disagreements with Roman Catholicism, but modern Anglicans differ in the degree to which they agree or disagree with the articles (Lower Nubia is not a fan, it would appear.

I thought the summary was very good.

I don’t agree with the 39 Articles and the basis for that disagreement is that, if one is wrong, the confession itself as an entity is worthless. I think there is clear examples of Reformed zeal, not critical Christian evaluation in the 39 Articles.

The first being Article 6:

“Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”

It’s basically pointless. The Scripture has as many interpretations as stars in the sky and if that is case it will always present interpretations contrary to the other Articles (which it does - shocker), of course, if it only needs to be “read therein” for a position to be valid, it can thus contradict the Articles with this documents own consent and because the Articles are “[read therein to be] believed as an Article of Faith”, if an Interpetation can be proven, beyond all doubt, as per the Eucharist’s “body and blood of Christ as real things” then the Articles themselves contravene Article 6 and thus the documents faulty articles call into question the rest of the articles as “what else may be a poor or zealous interpretation rather than a Christian one?”

Which brings me onto:

Article 20:

“The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.”

Concerning Article 6, this is pretty damning, as it’s pretty easy to show certain Articles as blatantly false and thus the Church was unlawful to produce these Article and therefore are logically, defunct.

Article 22

“ The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

This is the utter failure. One, this Article covers so many topics which should be independently dealt with that it obviously exists because of a reformist zeal and not some critical exposition.

Especially seeing as relics and images are pretty consistent with Scripture; “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them.”

That’s a relic. I’m sorry, it just is. Even if it’s one time use, it’s a blatant relic or trinket (and not a pretty one) through which grace was given. Even if these relics were a one time use, it a) confirms relics have existed in the Church. b) the Article calls into questions Gods right how to work through any means he chooses to disseminate grace which would logically include relics, as they have precedent. If the Article said “Relics are a component of the Church, but it is given to the Church to determine authenticity and fraud, from which no certainty can be given in them, only one by which those who touched the relics of Paul in Ephesus.” then fine, but, “vainly invented”. Gosh how fucking stupid.

The second are images, Nothing in Exodus contradicts it without contradicting itself, assuming a reformed interpretation, (Exodus 26:1 would contradict Exodus 20:4 unless something else is going on). If heavenly objects can be drawn, then there’s nothing against images of the saints and Christ existing to portray the gospel. While images play the important theological role of reminding people that Christ was a man and God. While also providing a focus on Christ and the saint who Christians imitate anyway, as we do with Paul, Bartholomew, Stephen, etc..

Article 28

“The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.”

Ancient Christians never thought of it in such a manner which means the interpretation is wrong, it is the actual Body and Blood of Christ and not something in just a heavenly or spiritual manner, or eaten as Faith.

——

That’s not to talk of ‘on Free Will’ (Article 10), ‘Predestination’ (Article 17), ‘nature of Christ’s death in the Eucharist’ (Article 31).

[Mostrov]

You're not telling me anything that I did not already know. You sound a lot like me six months ago.
[...]
I am most at home with a "high and dry" style of worship utilising the BCP, which by the sounds of it would suit you as well. But I must confess that given the choice between attending a nosebleed-high Anglo-Catholic Mass or a HTB-style Evangelical service I'd probably side with the Puseyites.

In fairness I haven't been here for much of the last six months (and I was arguing also for the benefit of the original question), which I have been stuck in quarantine—not something I anticipated on what would have been a short stay. I'm in quite the same boat, I attend an Anglo-Catholic 'schismatic' parish (although an actual Anglo-Catholic Parish in England), who aren't in communion due to the ordination of women: which here in Victoria, Australia there was no provision made for a democratic preference, as there was in England—even if this was a rearguard action.

"High and dry" parishes are extinct to my knowledge, the Anglo-Catholic traditionalists who haven't joined Rome are merely endangered. All this notion of the church falling apart at the seems has made me think of the fundaments of the CoE and the reformers. I have found Calvin quite persuasive (although I realize I am neglecting my Anglican divines) and perhaps I might go to see a Presbyterian service (ironically, they are even more split than we are); I am only held back by a sense of patriotic loyalty. Where does the church you attend sit?

The bad includes the opposition to establishment, the eventual abandonment by many Anglo-Catholics of the BCP in favour of continental Roman Catholic liturgy

The 1662 and 1928 are very easily accommodated into Anglo-Catholic worship. I also find that final statement odd, because it was the Roman’s themselves who adopted the BCP for the Anglican Ordinariate, not the other way around. Without the Anglo-Catholic’s, the BCP wouldn’t be used by the Catholic’s. It was us who shunted our liturgy onto the Catholic’s, not as you say, Anglo-Catholics who abandoned the BCP for Continental liturgy - seeing as the Catholic Liturgy For the English is now... the BCP. That has often been the point of hilarity, when Anglicans convert for different Catholic practice, they tend to find the BCP back as their normal liturgy.

a "branch theory that implied there was no meaningful reason to chose to be Anglican rather than Roman Catholic.

Branch theory is better than the reformed, which holds anyone of any denomination can be saved because there is no necessity in certain practices (like the Eucharist), ordination is not a meaningful thing, and catholicity can mean anyone who subscribes to bare bones Christian tenets. Branch theory at least has some exclusivity. Reformed Practice and ecclesiology has logically none.

and the distortion of the church's history to downplay its Protestant and Reformed heritage.

When you say Church history, you mean Anglican Church history. Current Anglo-Catholicism is less concerned by that 500 year period, than by ancient Church history (as it should be). If Churches can reform doctrine then so too the Anglican Church can be reformed again back to ancient practice and thus disregard the reformed history as a sideline, an interesting but faulted epoch, or to some, even a waste. Just as you do with the period of Church history when you use “Church history” to refer to the 500 year period rather than the 1500 year period.

I think that both Anglo-Catholics and their critics ought to be reminded that in the view of the Tractarians themselves, the Church of England of the late 16th through to the 18th century was fully catholic in the most important sense, and the 1662 Prayer Book was fully compatible with catholic worship.

Yes. This isn’t some slam dunk for reformed Anglicanism. Like I said, if the Church of England could be reformed it could be un-formed or Re-Reformed including what the tractarians believed were errors of the Reformed era. Catholicity as you must agree could be transferred between 1100 and 1500 when you no doubt consider the Catholic Church in error. The same logic applies for the tractarian position on the reformed era of the Church of England.

The Anglican Ordinariate almost exclusively follows anything Tridentine: they are more Roman than the Romans. I can say this from personal experience with some of the first priests to cross the Tiber. Perhaps you preserve the hymnals and Evensong, but that is about it—the vestments, the bells, incense &c. are all fundamentally alien to what was considered Anglican, and shouldn't be considered Anglican.

Reformed theology is far harsher and demanding in consequence than anything the Roman church believes in, which has far greater provision for sin—in part because the Roman church was full of larger numbers of sinners and greater corruption. I don't see how Reformed beliefs, such as the denial of transubstantiation—which was most definitely not an ancient belief—, the belief in membership in the visible church and so on are any less exclusive: the elect is a smaller body than the infinity of Catholics circling around in purgatory. The 39 Articles, which are reformed, certainly allowed for an exclusive priesthood!

Regarding your two final points: the Reformation was concerned with re-establishing the practices of the early church, as you well know, such a reformation came at a period when the re-examination of the earliest documents became possible on a far larger scale. What point is there in reforming and then annulling such a reformation? I am personally persuaded by the arguments regarding the early church's corruption, and I allow that you may not be: but why nail a flag to a reformed Church in the aim of it becoming Orthodox or Catholic?

Article 22

“ The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

This is the utter failure. One, this Article covers so many topics which should be independently dealt with that it obviously exists because of a reformist zeal and not some critical exposition.

Especially seeing as relics and images are pretty consistent with Scripture; “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them.”

That’s a relic. I’m sorry, it just is. Even if it’s one time use, it’s a blatant relic or trinket (and not a pretty one) through which grace was given. Even if these relics were a one time use, it a) confirms relics have existed in the Church. b) the Article calls into questions Gods right how to work through any means he chooses to disseminate grace which would logically include relics, as they have precedent. If the Article said “Relics are a component of the Church, but it is given to the Church to determine authenticity and fraud, from which no certainty can be given in them, only one by which those who touched the relics of Paul in Ephesus.” then fine, but, “vainly invented”. Gosh how fucking stupid.

The second are images, Nothing in Exodus contradicts it without contradicting itself, assuming a reformed interpretation, (Exodus 26:1 would contradict Exodus 20:4 unless something else is going on). If heavenly objects can be drawn, then there’s nothing against images of the saints and Christ existing to portray the gospel. While images play the important theological role of reminding people that Christ was a man and God. While also providing a focus on Christ and the saint who Christians imitate anyway, as we do with Paul, Bartholomew, Stephen, etc..

I am astounded that you could possibly find justification in Relics, from the 'miraculous' preservation of the Thorns of the Cross, the True Cross (which happened by discovered because an Empress decided to venture to Jerusalem and ordered it discovered) and so forth. All these were fraudulent, there can be no other word for them, yet they are claimed to have miraculous powers! It is clear that we do not live in an age where miracles are as abundant as they once were, why this is so is a question only for providence, but no halos of fire, speaking in tongues and so forth. That something St. Paul was able to perform miracles is no proof of their lasting efficacy. By chance do any of these handkerchiefs survive?

[Lower Nubia]

The 1662 and 1928 are very easily accommodated into Anglo-Catholic worship. I also find that final statement odd, because it was the Roman’s themselves who adopted the BCP for the Anglican Ordinariate, not the other way around. Without the Anglo-Catholic’s, the BCP wouldn’t be used by the Catholic’s. It was us who shunted our liturgy onto the Catholic’s, not as you say, Anglo-Catholics who abandoned the BCP for Continental liturgy - seeing as the Catholic Liturgy For the English is now... the BCP. That has often been the point of hilarity, when Anglicans convert for different Catholic practice, they tend to find the BCP back as their normal liturgy.



Branch theory is better than the reformed, which holds anyone of any denomination can be saved because there is no necessity in certain practices (like the Eucharist), ordination is not a meaningful thing, and catholicity can mean anyone who subscribes to bare bones Christian tenets. Branch theory at least has some exclusivity. Reformed Practice and ecclesiology has logically none.



When you say Church history, you mean Anglican Church history. Current Anglo-Catholicism is less concerned by that 500 year period, than by ancient Church history (as it should be). If Churches can reform doctrine then so too the Anglican Church can be reformed again back to ancient practice and thus disregard the reformed history as a sideline, an interesting but faulted epoch, or to some, even a waste. Just as you do with the period of Church history when you use “Church history” to refer to the 500 year period rather than the 1500 year period.



Yes. This isn’t some slam dunk for reformed Anglicanism. Like I said, if the Church of England could be reformed it could be un-formed or Re-Reformed including what the tractarians believed were errors of the Reformed era. Catholicity as you must agree could be transferred between 1100 and 1500 when you no doubt consider the Catholic Church in error. The same logic applies for the tractarian position on the reformed era of the Church of England.

The Anglican Ordinariate almost exclusively follows anything Tridentine: they are more Roman than the Romans. I can say this from personal experience with some of the first priests to cross the Tiber. Perhaps you preserve the hymnals and Evensong, but that is about it—the vestments, the bells, incense &c. are all fundamentally alien to what was considered Anglican, and shouldn't be considered Anglican.

That’s not what I’m saying, I said the BCP liturgy was practically copied verbatim and then Romanised, look here starting in page 19. You can quickly see the structure is the 1662 BCP and the prayers are BCP.

Romanisation, introduction of incense, vestments, bells are different but rightfully so because this is still a Roman liturgy and not an Anglican one. Apart from those things the liturgy they speak could be said in an Anglo-Catholic Church no problem.

Reformed theology is far harsher and demanding in consequence than anything the Roman church believes in, which has far greater provision for sin—in part because the Roman church was full of larger numbers of sinners and greater corruption.

This is just wrong. Nothing in Reformed theology has any consequence to the layman, it doesn’t demand in any Church setting repentance to take the sacraments, has no confession to seek forgiveness, it has nothing of any consequence - being Reformed is easy. Why is it easy, because Salvation is easy in Reformed circles. How are you saved in Reformed Churches? Through faith. How much faith is enough faith? The bare minimum, because in reformed circles the Eucharist doesn’t impart salvation, Baptism does not regenerate, and there is no work which can impart salvation. I’m sorry, Reformed practice isn’t just easy, it’s a joke.

You can say: “well, I take the faith very seriously.” That’s not what I’m saying, I’m talking about the bare minimum necessary to have salvation, and that is super easy to have in Reformed circles, at most you need to pray to God for forgiveness and that’s not difficult to do, repentance is a bit iffy because there’s no structure for dealing with it: i.e. it’s between you and God.

In a proper Church setting, your sin is the Church’s problem and sin should actively be a barrier to receiving the sacraments (That which imparts life) and require confession.

It’s easy, and you can prove it for me:

“How do you ‘acquire’ salvation in a reformed tradition?” (Notice the quotation marks, I don’t want spiel about predestination.)

I don't see how Reformed beliefs, such as the denial of transubstantiation—which was most definitely not an ancient belief—

Transubstantiation is just a dogmatic statement about the Real Presence, Real Presence is that the Bread and Wine are the literal body and blood of Christ - this is what the ancient Christians believed and we know this because the evidence is overwhelming. Transubstantiation is not further expansion or a dogmatic statement on metaphysics concerning how the real presence is and it is, in regards to a dogmatic statement on the real presence, ancient. The belief in the real presence is termed Transubstantiation to Catholic’s, while real presence has been the Christian practice concerning the Eucharist since the first century this would include the term Transubstantion as simply the Catholic term for this change in the bread and wine.

Reformed theology does not believe in the Real Presence, it believes in a Pneumatic presence; a spiritual presence shown in faith, received in faith, and given in faith. This is not an ancient position and is pretty easy to show that it’s a novel idea developed in the Reformatuon, with seedling variations in the most immediate prior centuries (1100-1500).

The belief in membership in the visible church and so on are any less exclusive: the elect is a smaller body than the infinity of Catholics circling around in purgatory. The 39 Articles, which are reformed, certainly allowed for an exclusive priesthood!

The issue isn’t an exclusive priesthood in image, but a meaningful one. As the Reformed admit, the Eucharist does not provide salvific qualities it simply edifies the faith, in that regard, there’s not even a reason to do the Eucharist for the Reformed outside of tradition. Valid Baptism can be done by anyone technically, even in Catholicism. Both sacraments literally do nothing to require a minister. Seeing as ordination represents no ontological change (nothing requires consecrating) all the roles could be filled by a layman - especially seeing as there are no checks to determine a valid ordination, such as apostolic succession. Not to mention that seeing as the Reformed Eucharist have no bearing to the ancient Church I can happily say it’s invalid in all forms (maybe the Holy Spirit uses it - but not because of Reformed theology but because he’s nice) and thus a layman would have the same sufficiency in “consecrating” it.

Regarding your two final points: the Reformation was concerned with re-establishing the practices of the early church, as you well know, such a reformation came at a period when the re-examination of the earliest documents became possible on a far larger scale.

When Calvin was alive, the works of Ignatius of Antioch were regarded as arguably inauthentic, yet they were an excellent refutation of everything reformed. Now in the 21st century, we know they’re utterly authentic. In that regard, the Reformed don’t follow anything of the 1st century - Ignatius showed the Christians had Bishops, Priests, deacons, he wanted (and got) Monarchical bishops, emphasised the Eucharist as necessary for salvation, and that it was the real presence.

What point is there in reforming and then annulling such a reformation? I am personally persuaded by the arguments regarding the early church's corruption, and I allow that you may not be: but why nail a flag to a reformed Church in the aim of it becoming Orthodox or Catholic?

Because it’s so easy to show that Reformed praxis is foreign to actual Christianity that it can only be termed a failure in genuine Christian practice, and thus must be Re-reformed back to what are expected practices, it’s not about making it Orthodox or Catholic, but about making it valid.

Article 22

“ The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

This is the utter failure. One, this Article covers so many topics which should be independently dealt with that it obviously exists because of a reformist zeal and not some critical exposition.

Especially seeing as relics and images are pretty consistent with Scripture; “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them.”

That’s a relic. I’m sorry, it just is. Even if it’s one time use, it’s a blatant relic or trinket (and not a pretty one) through which grace was given. Even if these relics were a one time use, it a) confirms relics have existed in the Church. b) the Article calls into questions Gods right how to work through any means he chooses to disseminate grace which would logically include relics, as they have precedent. If the Article said “Relics are a component of the Church, but it is given to the Church to determine authenticity and fraud, from which no certainty can be given in them, only one by which those who touched the relics of Paul in Ephesus.” then fine, but, “vainly invented”. Gosh how fucking stupid.

The second are images, Nothing in Exodus contradicts it without contradicting itself, assuming a reformed interpretation, (Exodus 26:1 would contradict Exodus 20:4 unless something else is going on). If heavenly objects can be drawn, then there’s nothing against images of the saints and Christ existing to portray the gospel. While images play the important theological role of reminding people that Christ was a man and God. While also providing a focus on Christ and the saint who Christians imitate anyway, as we do with Paul, Bartholomew, Stephen, etc..

I am astounded that you could possibly find justification in Relics, from the 'miraculous' preservation of the Thorns of the Cross, the True Cross (which happened by discovered because an Empress decided to venture to Jerusalem and ordered it discovered) and so forth. All these were fraudulent, there can be no other word for them, yet they are claimed to have miraculous powers! It is clear that we do not live in an age where miracles are as abundant as they once were, why this is so is a question only for providence, but no halos of fire, speaking in tongues and so forth. That something St. Paul was able to perform miracles is no proof of their lasting efficacy. By chance do any of these handkerchiefs survive?

I never justified the crown of thorns or the true cross. I outlined a clear example from scripture of a relic and you lump it in with other relics to discredit it. If you read what I said regarding other relics I said: “The Church authenticates relics but could only be sure of their miraculous qualities regarding one relic; those of Paul the Apostle in Ephesus.”

I also said there is no need for it to be a permanent change to the quality of the item for it to count as a relic, however, we know it had many uses during its time as it was passed through Ephesus, no doubt over many months. Though we must ask, is something touched by God changed in a fundamental manner? I would say so; such as Mount Sinai, or the Ark of the Covenant. So how much more so for the things Christ touched when the things Paul touched exhibited God’s power?

I have already outlined that God can still perform miracles through any medium he chooses and we have precedent of household items of saints having “power” in Paul, as well as bones in the OT. I think relics are not just biblical but the shear disregard for their possible existence is again, Reformed zeal.

Note, I do not advocate fraudulent relics, but authentic and identified ones.

[Salus Maior]

No, you’ve confused Transubstantiation with the Real Presence, Real Presence is that the Bread and Wine are the literal body and blood of Christ - this is what the ancient Christians believed and we know this because the evidence is overwhelming. Transubstantiation is a further expansion on what the real presence is and it is not ancient, though not contradictory with that history, the belief in the real presence is not Transubstantiation but the real presence has been the Christian practice concerning the Eucharist since the first century.

I contest that Transubstantiation is not any different from the traditional understanding of the Real Presence. In fact, it's just a dogmatic affirmation of the Real Presence.

[The New California Republic]

Since folk are currently discussing the eucharist, when I was Anglican I never decided on my own position on Anglican eucharistic theology. The only thing I was firm on—likely a result of the Anglican influence—was a rejection of transubstantiation. But since I'm no longer Anglican I suppose it's neither here nor there in the grand scheme.

[Tarsonis]

No, you’ve confused Transubstantiation with the Real Presence, Real Presence is that the Bread and Wine are the literal body and blood of Christ - this is what the ancient Christians believed and we know this because the evidence is overwhelming. Transubstantiation is a further expansion on what the real presence is and it is not ancient, though not contradictory with that history, the belief in the real presence is not Transubstantiation but the real presence has been the Christian practice concerning the Eucharist since the first century.

I contest that Transubstantiation is not any different from the traditional understanding of the Real Presence. In fact, it's just a dogmatic affirmation of the Real Presence.

Should also put out that transubstantiation is indeed from the early church (hell its ripped right out of chalcedonian christology. ) However it was never formally codified as "Transubstantiation" until the 4LC.

[Lower Nubia]

No, you’ve confused Transubstantiation with the Real Presence, Real Presence is that the Bread and Wine are the literal body and blood of Christ - this is what the ancient Christians believed and we know this because the evidence is overwhelming. Transubstantiation is a further expansion on what the real presence is and it is not ancient, though not contradictory with that history, the belief in the real presence is not Transubstantiation but the real presence has been the Christian practice concerning the Eucharist since the first century.

I contest that Transubstantiation is not any different from the traditional understanding of the Real Presence. In fact, it's just a dogmatic affirmation of the Real Presence.

I contest that Transubstantiation is not any different from the traditional understanding of the Real Presence. In fact, it's just a dogmatic affirmation of the Real Presence.

Should also put out that transubstantiation is indeed from the early church (hell its ripped right out of chalcedonian christology. ) However it was never formally codified as "Transubstantiation until the 4LC.

You two are correct, my error. That just makes rejecting Transubstantiation more egregious then.

[Mostrov]

That’s not what I’m saying, I said the BCP liturgy was practically copied verbatim and then Romanised, look here starting in page 19. You can quickly see the structure is the 1662 BCP and the prayers are BCP.

Romanisation, introduction of incense, vestments, bells are different but rightfully so because this is still a Roman liturgy and not an Anglican one. Apart from those things the liturgy they speak could be said in an Anglo-Catholic Church no problem.

This is just wrong. Nothing in Reformed theology has any consequence to the layman, it doesn’t demand in any Church setting repentance to take the sacraments, has no confession to seek forgiveness, it has nothing of any consequence - being Reformed is easy. Why is it easy, because Salvation is easy in Reformed circles. How are you saved in Reformed Churches? Through faith. How much faith is enough faith? The bare minimum, because in reformed circles the Eucharist doesn’t impart salvation, Baptism does not regenerate, and there is no work which can impart salvation. I’m sorry, Reformed practice isn’t just easy, it’s a joke.

You can say: “well, I take the faith very seriously.” That’s not what I’m saying, I’m talking about the bare minimum necessary to have salvation, and that is super easy to have in Reformed circles, at most you need to pray to God for forgiveness and that’s not difficult to do, repentance is a bit iffy because there’s no structure for dealing with it: i.e. it’s between you and God.

In a proper Church setting, your sin is the Church’s problem and sin should actively be a barrier to receiving the sacraments (That which imparts life) and require confession.

It’s easy, and you can prove it for me:

“How do you ‘acquire’ salvation in a reformed tradition?” (Notice the quotation marks, I don’t want spiel about predestination.)

Transubstantiation is just a dogmatic statement about the Real Presence, Real Presence is that the Bread and Wine are the literal body and blood of Christ - this is what the ancient Christians believed and we know this because the evidence is overwhelming. Transubstantiation is not further expansion or a dogmatic statement on metaphysics concerning how the real presence is and it is, in regards to a dogmatic statement on the real presence, ancient. The belief in the real presence is termed Transubstantiation to Catholic’s, while real presence has been the Christian practice concerning the Eucharist since the first century this would include the term Transubstantion as simply the Catholic term for this change in the bread and wine.

Reformed theology does not believe in the Real Presence, it believes in a Pneumatic presence; a spiritual presence shown in faith, received in faith, and given in faith. This is not an ancient position and is pretty easy to show that it’s a novel idea developed in the Reformatuon, with seedling variations in the most immediate prior centuries (1100-1500).

The issue isn’t an exclusive priesthood in image, but a meaningful one. As the Reformed admit, the Eucharist does not provide salvific qualities it simply edifies the faith, in that regard, there’s not even a reason to do the Eucharist for the Reformed outside of tradition. Valid Baptism can be done by anyone technically, even in Catholicism. Both sacraments literally do nothing to require a minister. Seeing as ordination represents no ontological change (nothing requires consecrating) all the roles could be filled by a layman - especially seeing as there are no checks to determine a valid ordination, such as apostolic succession. Not to mention that seeing as the Reformed Eucharist have no bearing to the ancient Church I can happily say it’s invalid in all forms (maybe the Holy Spirit uses it - but not because of Reformed theology but because he’s nice) and thus a layman would have the same sufficiency in “consecrating” it.

When Calvin was alive, the works of Ignatius of Antioch were regarded as arguably inauthentic, yet they were an excellent refutation of everything reformed. Now in the 21st century, we know they’re utterly authentic. In that regard, the Reformed don’t follow anything of the 1st century - Ignatius showed the Christians had Bishops, Priests, deacons, he wanted (and got) Monarchical bishops, emphasised the Eucharist as necessary for salvation, and that it was the real presence.

Because it’s so easy to show that Reformed praxis is foreign to actual Christianity that it can only be termed a failure in genuine Christian practice, and thus must be Re-reformed back to what are expected practices, it’s not about making it Orthodox or Catholic, but about making it valid.

I never justified the crown of thorns or the true cross. I outlined a clear example from scripture of a relic and you lump it in with other relics to discredit it. If you read what I said regarding other relics I said: “The Church authenticates relics but could only be sure of their miraculous qualities regarding one relic; those of Paul the Apostle in Ephesus.”

I also said there is no need for it to be a permanent change to the quality of the item for it to count as a relic, however, we know it had many uses during its time as it was passed through Ephesus, no doubt over many months. Though we must ask, is something touched by God changed in a fundamental manner? I would say so; such as Mount Sinai, or the Ark of the Covenant. So how much more so for the things Christ touched when the things Paul touched exhibited God’s power?

I have already outlined that God can still perform miracles through any medium he chooses and we have precedent of household items of saints having “power” in Paul, as well as bones in the OT. I think relics are not just biblical but the shear disregard for their possible existence is again, Reformed zeal.

Note, I do not advocate fraudulent relics, but authentic and identified ones.

I won't reply to everything as I don't have the time or inclination to address more than general points:

Whether you can summon a liturgy that is from the BCP is irrelevant as most Anglo-Catholic parishes use pseudo-Tridentine or overtly Tridentine orders of service. I went to a Church that used the 1548 Order of Communion (which I gather was used no where else)! The conclusion that Anglo-Catholicism is anything but a romanization seems absurd to deny from an Anglo-Catholic perspective when that was the explicit goal of the Tractarians.

You aren't terribly knowledgable about reformed theology at all—and hence there is no use in an extended discussion. You completely misunderstand the role of faith if you think it the main requirement for salvation, you are wrong on baptism (for instance that babies who are not baptized are sent to hell—proof positive of some sacrament) and miss the mark on the eucharist (regarding its role): trying to discuss salvation in Reformed theology without predestination is impossible—because of the nature of irresistible grace, total depravity &c. It should also be noted that the reformed belief is also in the real presence. You dogmatically refer to Catholic standards of salvation from Calvinism, which you will not find because it is not Catholicism.
Priesthood is scripturally governmental, not a sacerdotal: which begs the question how you can belong to an organization whose apostolic succession which at one point didn't function sacerdotally.

Calvin shows clear heritage back to St. Augustine, a figure Catholicism doesn't reject by any means and Aquinas too; much of the 'novelty' in Calvinism was presaged for centuries.

On St. Ignatius, which is the only thing novel to me: I am a High Church Anglican, so I don't dispute the role of an episcopal government, I do not follow Calvin exclusively. There are divines who write on this such as Richard Hooker.

I conceded St. Paul created relics, as such miracles were common in that age. But they are a very different thing than what are proclaimed as relics today or even a millennia ago: we do not see such miracles today!

Should also put out that transubstantiation is indeed from the early church (hell its ripped right out of chalcedonian christology. ) However it was never formally codified as "Transubstantiation" until the 4LC.

It really isn't. Otherwise there wouldn't have been 400 years of debate. It also owes a great debt to Aristotle, someone I'm surprised the Catholic Church hasn't canonised.

[Tarsonis]

That’s not what I’m saying, I said the BCP liturgy was practically copied verbatim and then Romanised, look here starting in page 19. You can quickly see the structure is the 1662 BCP and the prayers are BCP.

Romanisation, introduction of incense, vestments, bells are different but rightfully so because this is still a Roman liturgy and not an Anglican one. Apart from those things the liturgy they speak could be said in an Anglo-Catholic Church no problem.

This is just wrong. Nothing in Reformed theology has any consequence to the layman, it doesn’t demand in any Church setting repentance to take the sacraments, has no confession to seek forgiveness, it has nothing of any consequence - being Reformed is easy. Why is it easy, because Salvation is easy in Reformed circles. How are you saved in Reformed Churches? Through faith. How much faith is enough faith? The bare minimum, because in reformed circles the Eucharist doesn’t impart salvation, Baptism does not regenerate, and there is no work which can impart salvation. I’m sorry, Reformed practice isn’t just easy, it’s a joke.

You can say: “well, I take the faith very seriously.” That’s not what I’m saying, I’m talking about the bare minimum necessary to have salvation, and that is super easy to have in Reformed circles, at most you need to pray to God for forgiveness and that’s not difficult to do, repentance is a bit iffy because there’s no structure for dealing with it: i.e. it’s between you and God.

In a proper Church setting, your sin is the Church’s problem and sin should actively be a barrier to receiving the sacraments (That which imparts life) and require confession.

It’s easy, and you can prove it for me:

“How do you ‘acquire’ salvation in a reformed tradition?” (Notice the quotation marks, I don’t want spiel about predestination.)

Transubstantiation is just a dogmatic statement about the Real Presence, Real Presence is that the Bread and Wine are the literal body and blood of Christ - this is what the ancient Christians believed and we know this because the evidence is overwhelming. Transubstantiation is not further expansion or a dogmatic statement on metaphysics concerning how the real presence is and it is, in regards to a dogmatic statement on the real presence, ancient. The belief in the real presence is termed Transubstantiation to Catholic’s, while real presence has been the Christian practice concerning the Eucharist since the first century this would include the term Transubstantion as simply the Catholic term for this change in the bread and wine.

Reformed theology does not believe in the Real Presence, it believes in a Pneumatic presence; a spiritual presence shown in faith, received in faith, and given in faith. This is not an ancient position and is pretty easy to show that it’s a novel idea developed in the Reformatuon, with seedling variations in the most immediate prior centuries (1100-1500).

The issue isn’t an exclusive priesthood in image, but a meaningful one. As the Reformed admit, the Eucharist does not provide salvific qualities it simply edifies the faith, in that regard, there’s not even a reason to do the Eucharist for the Reformed outside of tradition. Valid Baptism can be done by anyone technically, even in Catholicism. Both sacraments literally do nothing to require a minister. Seeing as ordination represents no ontological change (nothing requires consecrating) all the roles could be filled by a layman - especially seeing as there are no checks to determine a valid ordination, such as apostolic succession. Not to mention that seeing as the Reformed Eucharist have no bearing to the ancient Church I can happily say it’s invalid in all forms (maybe the Holy Spirit uses it - but not because of Reformed theology but because he’s nice) and thus a layman would have the same sufficiency in “consecrating” it.

When Calvin was alive, the works of Ignatius of Antioch were regarded as arguably inauthentic, yet they were an excellent refutation of everything reformed. Now in the 21st century, we know they’re utterly authentic. In that regard, the Reformed don’t follow anything of the 1st century - Ignatius showed the Christians had Bishops, Priests, deacons, he wanted (and got) Monarchical bishops, emphasised the Eucharist as necessary for salvation, and that it was the real presence.

Because it’s so easy to show that Reformed praxis is foreign to actual Christianity that it can only be termed a failure in genuine Christian practice, and thus must be Re-reformed back to what are expected practices, it’s not about making it Orthodox or Catholic, but about making it valid.

I never justified the crown of thorns or the true cross. I outlined a clear example from scripture of a relic and you lump it in with other relics to discredit it. If you read what I said regarding other relics I said: “The Church authenticates relics but could only be sure of their miraculous qualities regarding one relic; those of Paul the Apostle in Ephesus.”

I also said there is no need for it to be a permanent change to the quality of the item for it to count as a relic, however, we know it had many uses during its time as it was passed through Ephesus, no doubt over many months. Though we must ask, is something touched by God changed in a fundamental manner? I would say so; such as Mount Sinai, or the Ark of the Covenant. So how much more so for the things Christ touched when the things Paul touched exhibited God’s power?

I have already outlined that God can still perform miracles through any medium he chooses and we have precedent of household items of saints having “power” in Paul, as well as bones in the OT. I think relics are not just biblical but the shear disregard for their possible existence is again, Reformed zeal.

Note, I do not advocate fraudulent relics, but authentic and identified ones.

I won't reply to everything as I don't have the time or inclination to address more than general points:

Whether you can summon a liturgy that is from the BCP is irrelevant as most Anglo-Catholic parishes use pseudo-Tridentine or overtly Tridentine orders of service. I went to a Church that used the 1548 Order of Communion (which I gather was used no where else)! The conclusion that Anglo-Catholicism is anything but a romanization seems absurd to deny from an Anglo-Catholic perspective when that was the explicit goal of the Tractarians.

You aren't terribly knowledgable about reformed theology at all—and hence there is no use in an extended discussion. You completely misunderstand the role of faith if you think it the main requirement for salvation, you are wrong on baptism (for instance that babies who are not baptized are sent to hell—proof positive of some sacrament) and miss the mark on the eucharist (regarding its role): trying to discuss salvation in Reformed theology without predestination is impossible—because of the nature of irresistible grace, total depravity &c. It should also be noted that the reformed belief is also in the real presence. You dogmatically refer to Catholic standards of salvation from Calvinism, which you will not find because it is not Catholicism.
Priesthood is scripturally governmental, not a sacerdotal: which begs the question how you can belong to an organization whose apostolic succession which at one point didn't function sacerdotally.

Calvin shows clear heritage back to St. Augustine, a figure Catholicism doesn't reject by any means and Aquinas too; much of the 'novelty' in Calvinism was presaged for centuries.

On St. Ignatius, which is the only thing novel to me: I am a High Church Anglican, so I don't dispute the role of an episcopal government, I do not follow Calvin exclusively. There are divines who write on this such as Richard Hooker.

I conceded St. Paul created relics, as such miracles were common in that age. But they are a very different thing than what are proclaimed as relics today or even a millennia ago: we do not see such miracles today!

Should also put out that transubstantiation is indeed from the early church (hell its ripped right out of chalcedonian christology. ) However it was never formally codified as "Transubstantiation" until the 4LC.

It really isn't. Otherwise there wouldn't have been 400 years of debate. It also owes a great debt to Aristotle, someone I'm surprised the Catholic Church hasn't canonised.

So does Chalcedon. Just because it's not a formal doctrine held in common by the whole church, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Remember the Church has the habit of codified dogma through precedent form, i.e only codified it when it needs to be to reject heresy.

[Vashty]

OK guys, I'm not a Christian. I'm an apatheist.

Anyone ever heard of that? What do you guys think of that?

Not really mentioned it to any religious people.