Based on my current understanding of development of doctrine, how could you even reach Nicea 1 with it? I thought development of doctrine consisted of clarification of the consensus such as using words such as Trinity. It was pointed out in the opening chapter of the book that consensus of language never existed until a council would develop it. What would be your response to this or am I miss understanding the the book?
@@thesacramentalists In the video it says that the it is common for the contiuum to reject development of doctrine. Without Development of Doctrine how would you square what seems to be disagreements in the language relating to the Trinity and other early doctrines before Nicaea 1? The Book claims that development is necessary to describe it as an evolutionary process since universal consensus with language did not exist. It claims the Vincentian Canon would be pointless since you could always point to a group that disagrees like the Coptics or Assyrians or Pre Nicaean Heresies
@@spaceman001e7 That's helpful! Thank you! None of us on the show would be against the idea that doctrine develops. The question is how it develops. Newman has one hypothesis on that, but it's a uniquely, and somewhat ad hoc, Roman view.
Is there a video, article or book that describes how you would view doctrinal development, I understand you accept everything up to the great schism but how would that account for the Coptic schism?
@@spaceman001e7 David Bentley Hart's Tradition and Apocalypse includes both a solid critique of Newman's hypothesis and a counter-proposal. It's worth checking out.
The intention of Anglican clerics at their priestly ordination, varies from one to another; this alone means that there can be no assured Apostolic continuity, as some think they are ordained sacrificing priests, and others think they are merely sanctified as preachers and ministers of religion.
Apostolic transmission of priestly orders can not be reinstated once ruptured by intentional repudiation, as happened in Anglican history; only the enduring Catholic Church, and not an act of will, can restore authentic priesthood to those ordained in an invalid succession.
Based on my current understanding of development of doctrine, how could you even reach Nicea 1 with it? I thought development of doctrine consisted of clarification of the consensus such as using words such as Trinity. It was pointed out in the opening chapter of the book that consensus of language never existed until a council would develop it. What would be your response to this or am I miss understanding the the book?
Could you perhaps elaborate on your question a little?
@@thesacramentalists In the video it says that the it is common for the contiuum to reject development of doctrine. Without Development of Doctrine how would you square what seems to be disagreements in the language relating to the Trinity and other early doctrines before Nicaea 1? The Book claims that development is necessary to describe it as an evolutionary process since universal consensus with language did not exist. It claims the Vincentian Canon would be pointless since you could always point to a group that disagrees like the Coptics or Assyrians or Pre Nicaean Heresies
@@spaceman001e7 That's helpful! Thank you! None of us on the show would be against the idea that doctrine develops. The question is how it develops. Newman has one hypothesis on that, but it's a uniquely, and somewhat ad hoc, Roman view.
Is there a video, article or book that describes how you would view doctrinal development, I understand you accept everything up to the great schism but how would that account for the Coptic schism?
@@spaceman001e7 David Bentley Hart's Tradition and Apocalypse includes both a solid critique of Newman's hypothesis and a counter-proposal. It's worth checking out.
Leo XIII's opinion was just a continuation of the Donatist heresy. Pax.
The intention of Anglican clerics at their priestly ordination, varies from one to another; this alone means that there can be no assured Apostolic continuity, as some think they are ordained sacrificing priests, and others think they are merely sanctified as preachers and ministers of religion.
Intention is determined by the rite, not the individual performing it (an atheist priest still confects the Eucharist).
But can an atheist ordinand be ordained a valid priest?
@@johnlarkin-i3z that’s not exactly what we’re talking about, but yes, he *could be* if he was baptized and confirmed.
Rome would have revised it's stance decades ago if women had never been ordained.
Indeed
Apostolic transmission of priestly orders can not be reinstated once ruptured by intentional repudiation, as happened in Anglican history; only the enduring Catholic Church, and not an act of will, can restore authentic priesthood to those ordained in an invalid succession.