Anglo-Catholicism vs Reformed Anglicanism - Part 2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- We finally return for the long-awaited second part of this moderated discussion between Fr. James (Anglo-Catholic) and Rev. David Ould (Reformed Anglican) on the differences between Reformed Anglicanism and Anglo-Catholicism. We will be covering the rest of the topics that we did not get to in the last discussion.
See Part 1 here: • Anglo-Catholicism vs R...
Fr. James' channel (Barely Protestant): / @barelyprotestant5365
Rev. Ould's blog: davidould.net
~~~
My official website & blog: www.theotherpa...
Follow me on Gab: gab.com/Paulos
Become a financial supporter: www.subscribes...
Join the official Discord server (The Theocrat Lounge): / discord
Listen to streams in Podcast Format: anchor.fm/the-...
Follow my social media & consider supporting my ministry in other ways. All links are here: linktr.ee/The_...
Intro music:
To God Be The Glory, composed by William Howard Doane (1832-1916) with descant arranged by Richard M S Irwin (b. 1955). Melody Public Domain, Descant © 2020 Richard M S Irwin
Performance ℗ 2020 Richard M S Irwin. All rights reserved. ISRC: UKTU21900097
play.hymnswith...
The handsome bald guy definitely won.
Paul wasn't part of the debate, Father.
Dude, Anglo Catholics are still a Protestant denomination.
@@STG-88 and...?
@@barelyprotestant5365
Why is your answer "and"?
@@STG-88 because I don't see why you're pointing this out.
I'm Anglo-Catholic. Listening to Reformed Anglican approach in "reaching the people" saddens me. How Modernism and personal or individual will has infiltrated the Church. In our church during High Mass we are joining into the worship that is continually going on in Heaven. It pulls us UP into experiencing God and the Heavenly realm. How sad to see the reformers "dumbing it down" and making it about the people.
Anglo catholic protestant denomination 😂
I think having an English/Australian accent automatically garners point advantage.
Though I side more with Father James, I respect Rev Ould for precisely articulating his position. It gives good insight into where he is coming from.
As much as I respect Revernd Ould I think back to the first episode where he said that he is "standing in the mainstream of Anglicanism" while anglo Catholics are in a muddy canal connected to the mainstream and both of these episodes kinda prove he is in the very same predicament. When Father James takes the actual Anglican position on things like the Episcopacy and the Apocryphal books, Reverend Ould clearly shows that he is sqirmish on what his formularies teach and would rather reinterpret them in a more refomed way (which is a place the Anglican reformers didn't go to). I would say these two conversations didn't prove which side was more faithful to the Anglican formularies but it did show that the Anglican formularies are built in such a way that the "main stream" can allow both of these positions comfortably.
This is a perfect assessment of the truth here.
Guys like David are no more, if even less faithful to Historic Anglicanism, and have little to no understanding of the Historical faith as it has been transmitted through the United States, which has differences compared to apostate Church of England.
David’s “call no man father” radical reformation type theology is more Reformed Baptist/Presby, yet we choose not to beat David with a stick and tell him to go join the Reformed Baptists, unlike David, River Devereux and the rest like them that constantly tell folks like @BarelyProtestant and @JonahSaller to go to Rome. The hypocrisy is completely lost on them. Even more ironic is the fact that their own Churches in Australia and New Zealand have strayed so from Historic Anglicanism and into, not “muddy canals” but Evangelical Hillsong Oceans.
Instead of removing the entire forest lodged in their eye they would rather go after Fr. James and continuing Anglican Churches in the US.
Just finished the replay. Loved it! Definitely just as great if not better than the 1st dialogue! Me being a Reformed Baptist align more with David (except on baptism and church government of course😂), but still learned a lot from both of these men. Grace and Peace
Love the notepad. What a glorious application!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it 😎
Ex baptist here. If my Anglican parish goes Protestant, I’m leaving. I left the baptist circus to get catholic sacraments and found an AngloCatholic parish where I can.
Fr. James emerges victorious IMO. This reformed gentleman is grasping at straws. “You’re using philosophical principles but I’m exegeting honestly.” No, you’re both exegeting using different philosophical principles. The reverend is exemplifying the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
Tho Id agree it's imprecise to simply say philosophical principles, I believe Rev. Ould certainly gets that we all operate on such, but moreso that Fr. James is working on biblically unwarranted principles (hence his reference to Aristotelianism at one or two points). That's a valid point to make, so the question is whether he's right.
another think, Rev Ould, his convictions about the effectiveness of "low church", and his willingness to discard the liturgy form as long as the conviction remains, belies his bias and lack of conviction concerning "reformed worship", its amazing that he'd even call himself "reformed Anglican", when his form of worship is distinctly not reformed. he isn't following the rubrics of the CoE,
They don’t actually discard the liturgy in Worship. It’s just might seem that way compared to other Anglicans.
I hear what you're saying. but since I attend one of these churches, given that I know the BoCP liturgy well, and given that I had to study it in depth as part of my training. I can pick up only the faintest traces here and there. It's often absent, and unless you're intimately familiar with the prayer book; when it is there, it does not look much different to that which can be found in most Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian churches etc. and it often resembles the "liturgy" of Pentecostal megachurches.
I didn't say these churches have NO liturgy AT ALL. but these churches discard OUR HISTORIC LITURGY. they've replaced it with a generic Pentecostal/big-church-evangelical-reach-as-many-as-possible-liturgy (as if liturgy and tradition are keeping people away). In fact, it's the message more than any other that keeps people away and that includes community relationships.
I know because I've also attended big Pentecostal churches, and my evangelical "Anglican" church has increasingly begun to resemble these churches in liturgical form
@@Psalm144.1
@@HenryLeslieGraham
I listen to the St. Andrews Cathedral (Sydney Cathedral) regularly, I’m American. I think it’s very liturgical.
Have you tried to find an Anglo-Catholic parish that’s more to your liking? Or just only attend the more traditional services when the priests wear a dog collar? Sounded like to me they have a lot of services at the cathedral.
@@Psalm144.1 It's so liturgical that the clergy are dressed lower than the choir.
@@Psalm144.1 st andrews is not what i would call typical for the sydney diocese.
the church has traditional choirs, wearing choir dress. with the ministers at the 10.30 service wearing full suit and tie. quite unusual. 5pm service could be different.
not sure about the 8.30 service. but I suspect its got a prayer book component.
however many "low church" Anglican churches have NO prayer book services at all. with contemporary worship "bands". and similarly to st andrews 10.30 service, lack most of the liturgy that precedes the sermon, and holy eucharist.
but st andrews is far more traditional than most. "traditional" being quite relative
Martin Luther mentioned
There is a differencx between pre millinialism, which alot of church fathers held to, and dispensatiolism.
just listened to the first episode and then this came.
its very hard for me to believe that any minister who preaches and leads worship in a shirt and jeans, rather than robes is doing so because he is being "reverent". being reverent means recognising that you are a priest in the CoE, and that you are administering the sacred mysteries of God
the fact that Rev Ould thinks the liberals are putting on a show, belies his mistrust and distaste towards tradition. the liberals arent putting on a show, they just never got rid of tradition.
the low church anglicans (hint not actually low church), got rid of tradition PRECISELY BECAUSE they didn't want to be ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIBERALS.
Most Anglo-Catholics are in fact the liberals.
Honestly, a lot of arguments against ritual seem like the kind of dynamic you have in marriage, or even that of a parent disciplining a child: "do this, but not because I said so". In a relationship, women love when you do things that make them happy, but they hate it when you do things because you "had to do it", likewise, a parent tells you to be good for "goodness' sake", not because you'll get a reward. The wife whose husband does things just because she tells him to do it suspects that his heart isn't in the right place, and the parent wants their child to learn right from wrong and not merely to follow their instructions.
Reformed people are right when they sense that a lot of people engaging in the liturgy are merely going through the motions. They want worship to be heartfelt, and they think the liturgy is a distraction from that. They believe people are merely following steps.
The problem is that they don't understand the meaning behind the liturgy, and that's why they see it as a series of checklists to check off. They believe that their hearts are in the wrong place, and their cure is to change the routine altogether, instead of asking them to actually put their heart into the routine that we were given.
If one crosses themselves because that is the moment in the liturgy where everybody crosses themselves, then their heart is in the wrong place, but if they cross themselves while thinking about the blessings of the one true triune God who sacrificed himself on the cross for the redemption of all mankind, then their heart is in the right place and their action is most pleasing to God.
The reformed people also develop their own rote legalism. They are so often against things merely because "we don't do things that way", regardless of how genuine the expression itself is. This attitude is just as susceptible to rote insincerity. I never think about whether the liturgical acts I do are necessary or unnecessary, I just do them because it is right and honorable to do them. But they are only concerned with whether it is necessary or not, and they err on the side of doing the bare minimum.
Another secular metaphor: stopping at a stop sign even when there is no incoming traffic and it's 2 AM in the morning with almost no likelihood of another car coming. You should stop because it is the right thing to do. And it is the right thing to do not because a cop would pull you over if you didn't, it would remain the right thing to do even if all cops vanished overnight, it would be wrong even if you got away with it. Yet, it's also wrong to do it just because "that's the law". You do it because you UNDERSTAND and RESPECT the law, not because that's what the law says, just as the example with the parent and child, or the husband and wife.
It all comes down to submission/obediene through sincerity vs insincerity. This dynamic plays all throughout our life, just as worship itself shapes our life.
Classically Reformed Middle-churchmanship for the win
Good discussion. Go Calvinsim.
Just started watching and already loving it 😂 will this be going on Spotify? It'd be good to be able to download it alongside the first discussion. Cheers. - The Other William
Glad you enjoyed it boss! Since you asked and another guy did in my last video, I may speed up finding an automation process for podcast uploads
I, too, have transcended the sub-categories within Anglicanism, Paul. I think that that is a very Anglican thing to do. I find myself really resonating with what both men are saying in this video. On some things I lean Fr. James' way, and on others I lean Rev. Ould's way.
P.S.
I don't think anybody noticed your comment about engaging with hypotheticals ("But I did have breakfast this morning"), when Ould asked James the question--what if your BCP isn't catholic, or something like that--and he responded with something like, well, I think that it is catholic. I was dying. Lol!
The Athanasian Creed includes the Flioque. But the EO would confess the Chalcedonian Formula, covering the same ground. It’s an East/West difference.
This is just a debate between the Scottish-American Episcopalian prayer book tradition exemplified by the 1928BCP and the English-Commonwealth 'Church of England' tradition exemplified by the 1662BCP.
David wins the first two sections about the reformational changes to the eucharistic liturgy and the lack of progressive sanctification in the intermediate state but James has a better case about the canon.
The EO does not subscribe or hold the athanasius creed to be legitimate
If Rev Ould is whom he appears to be... then his "reformed anglicanism" is not so much the anglicanism prior to the laudian controversy, so much as it is modern evangelical anglicanism which aligns with largely reformed theology.
when people use reformed anglicanism they can mean "the Anglican theology of the CoE at the time of the English reformation and that which was established by Henry, Edward and Elizabeth".
or they mean anglicanism in the "low church" tradition specifically as its evolved in 20th century with its very strong evangelical bias (and emphasis) and tendency towards stripping as much anglicanism away from it as can be gotten away with. to the extent that most "reformed Anglican" churches do not resemble even the "low church" of jc ryle. but is simply the opposite of whatever the high church is considered to be. "reformed anglicanism" today seems to have more in common with evangelical mega-churches in the states, than anything resembling historic anglicanism.
also the Rev Ould played his hand when he mentioned the regulative principle of worship without blinking. even though the Anglican position is the "normative principle of worship".
Sure, but this could say for both of the individuals here. Anglo-Catholics certainly don't resemble the far more austere Old High Church either, who tended to dislike a lot of the ritualist aspects Anglo-Catholics now like, but nevertheless Anglo-Catholicism emerged out of the Old High Church. Likewise Evangelical Anglicanism emerged out of the Old Low Church or the Reformed Conformists, but it is also now it's own distinct movement. This video should really be called Anglo-Catholic with their usual eclectic beliefs vs. an Evangelical Anglican.
> also the Rev Ould played his hand when he mentioned the regulative principle of worship without blinking. even though the Anglican position is the "normative principle of worship".
Anglicans did accept something like the regulative principle, the difference is that the Continental Reformed and the Scottish Presbyterians and Non-conformists understood it differently. The distinction here is that the continental Reformed were using a more narrow definition of worship, they didn't think worship was necessarily the same as the outward ceremonies and customs, Ursinus goes into this in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. That's the sense in which the Reformed Conformists also understood it. The Continentals still don't hold to such a strict view of the RPW as the English Puritans did, consider that they always celebrated the Evangelicals Feast Days, whereas the Scottish Presbyterians and English Non-conformists were alone in the Reformed world for completely rejecting them. Despite their influences from Calvin and Geneva, Calvin's understanding of the RPW wasn't quite the same, he allowed more latitude, hence why Calvin would tell Hooper during the vestment controversy to conform to the Church of England, because Calvin wasn't as concerned about specific commands.
but the high church still exists to some degree. they are just a rung or two lower than anglo-catholics as the concilar post explains
but I must object to your idea that these "low church" anglicans, are "evangelical anglicans", for evangelical anglicans comprise a wide group, not all of which can be described as mega-ultra-low-church evangelicals.
I'd be more pedantic and call Rev Ould's group of Sydney "Anglicans": "Broad American-influenced Evangelicals who descend from the Anglican tradition".
I am a part of such a church. and I find few if any Anglican distinctives remaining, but many broad American evangelical distinctives.
@@ActivityOfTheSoul
@@HenryLeslieGraham The Old High Church exists in the same way old style Low Church does, insofar as there are perhaps some parishes that resemble something like them, but they're few and far between.
I also did not say that Evangelicals are the same as the older Low Church, I specifically said that they came out of that movement but are now their own distinct thing, in the same way Anglo-Catholics are distinct from the Old High Church despite originating in that movement. The old Reformed Conformists and Old High Church, despite their differences and disagreements, would likely have far more in common with one another than an Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic today do, who are on complete opposite sides of one another, yet the latter two are far more prevalent within Anglicanism today. The conversation between Rev. Ould and Fr. James, I think, is a rather good example of this.
i think youve misread something here.
you said: "his video should really be called Anglo-Catholic with their usual eclectic beliefs vs. an Evangelical Anglican.".
to the extent that both of these men represent quote un-quote "evangelical anglicanism", I say your suggestion of a new video title is misleading.
Thus what I'm saying is your suggestion for the video title is still as misleading as the original. its not low vs high. or anglo-catholic vs evangelical. For, both are evangelical. but neither fits either high or low church designations. Unless you understand Evangelical differently.
I did not suggest that you said the "Evangelicals are the same as the older Low Church", I said you couldn't reasonably call Rev Ould an "evangelical Anglican", when Fr James is ostensibly the same. as an alternative to the video title of "high vs low church debate".
that's why I suggested the pedantic title for Rev Ould and his/my group to be 'Broad American-influenced Evangelicals who descend from the Anglican tradition'
and I think American is warranted for a variety of reasons including the lax dress code. though this might have emerged simultaneously.
i would also suggest that while the high church does as you've explained - still exist in some sense. very few if any low-church [adjacent] churches exist anymore. And I don't think any these 'Broad American-influenced Evangelicals who descend from the Anglican tradition' churches can reasonably be called low church. Though they are one example of Evangelicalism in Anglicanism. but not the only, but perhaps the most prominent (for now).
but thank you for your comments and engagement so far. no misrepresentation was intended. for that I apologise.
@tyOfTheSoul
@@HenryLeslieGraham Uh-huh, I see what you're saying now and I completely disagree with you. Ould fits the description of an Evangelical Anglican pretty well and Fr. James can also fit the description of an Anglo-Catholic insofar as that label is extremely broad.
Just noticed the Rev Ould has a five o clock shadow in this episodes after last one being ribbed for being clean shaven. Coincidence or no?
I think looking forward to continual growth in love in Christ after death is a beautiful hope. “But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day.” (Pro 4:18)
I have an answer to conservative but anti-liturgical. Liturgies change the fact that you debate on which BCP is your favorite is textbook of this. I also think pietists and baptists in general just see most fathers as dealing with a flawed system.
Is the bishopric the only think that separates Fr. James from Presbyterianism?
No, no, not at all. I reject double predestination. I don't reject the Apocrypha. I reject Limited Atonement. I reject Irresistible Grace. If you watch the first video, you'll see a variety of issues that distinguish me from Presbyterians.
@@barelyprotestant5365 What about your opposition in this video? Isn’t bishopric the only difference between him and Calvinism?
@@cassidyanderson3722 "Calvinism" can incorporate the episcopate...
@@barelyprotestant5365 Is he a Calvinist?
@@cassidyanderson3722 Have you not watched the video? He explicitly says he is.
"reformed anglicanism" never understood the concept. its either incongruous, or just Continental Reformed-ism with bishops and using English rather than Dutch, German or French.
reformed anglicanism is just one point in Anglican history, and by no means was confirmed to be the state of anglicanism for all time.
What is the official Church of England called in the accession service, the “Protestant Reformed Religion established by law…”
yes but what does that mean.
its either incongruous or just Continental Reformed-ism with bishops and using English rather than Dutch, German or French.
what distinguishes reformed anglicanism from reformed dutch-ism or reformed german-ism? or geneva-ism. i don't think the reformed theology of all of these groups is the same.
I say the CoE was generally Reformed in its character during the 16th century. but evolved in multiple different directions thereafter.
And I don't see how its required for the church to hold to ALL OF reformed theology (whichever version that is) for ALL TIME.
@@Psalm144.1
@@HenryLeslieGraham For me it’s not complicated. Quite simple for me.
There are three terms of Protestant Reformational streams. (Four if you include the Anabaptists) The terms are generalities. Now if you don’t know what these terms mean, then you’ll have to read some books.
1. Lutheran
2. Reformed
3. Arminian
Anglican is mostly #2 with a lot of #1.
thanks this is helpful @@Psalm144.1
Pope Leo X is who Luther was talking to
No because Paul specificlaly said to timothy that the deacons and elders shall be men married to one woman, and not be drunkards. So clearly he says women do not hold authoritative roles in the church.
All love to Fr. James, but the regulative principle of worship practically applying to the prayer book but not the Bible itself is kinda funny.
(I don’t hold to the RPW btw)
The Prayer Book requires it of itself; Scripture does not.
Actually we are in the first resurrection. Revelation 20, blessed are those who partake in the cirst resurrection, for the second death shall have no power over them.
Ok but when christ took on flesh, he put aside his glorified being in a sense. Meaning he submitted himself to His earthly parents. He was still fully God, but by submitting himself to His parents, he laid aside his glorified state. That's why he was able to be tempted by Satan in the Garden. Because God in His glorified state could not even be tempted by His creation. So that is not a theological argument for the dead saints growing in stature because they are now in a glorified state of conscienceness.
I don't see how your argument works.
P r o m o S M
In the book of Acts, both the Thessalonian Jews and the Bereans searched the Scriptures when St Paul went to them. But the Bereans were different because they then accepted the Oral teaching of the Church through Paul IN ADDITION to their OT Bible, got baptised, and submitted to the Church as their Final Authority. The Bereans were the Catholics. It is the same precise Catholic paradigm down through the history of the Church: Scripture, Oral Tradition, and Church as Final Authority. The Thessalonians were the Protestants, the Sola Scriptura adherents who stuck to their OT Bible... So the Bereans cannot be "noble-minded" for just searching the scriptures, because the Thessalonians did too. Why were the Bereans "noble-minded"? A perusal of grammatarian scrutinisations shows they were noble-minded because they were civil to Paul and open-minded (unlike the Thessalonians). Even if one cannot tolerate the grammatical realities, one cannot get away from the fact that the Thessalonians were the Sola Scriptura people, just like todays Protestants.
Yeah we do know the debates around mark. But we also know Pual was bitten by a venomous snake and lived.
and...?
And there is neither man nor women, Jew or greek, slave or master in Christ Jesus. So therefore all those in christ partake of the supper because we are all one body. You have no argument for praying for the dead. For its actually spoken against in the old testament.
Where does the Old Testament teach prayers FOR (not "to") the dead are bad?