Відео

I'm so very glad it was helpful!

I fixed the description to include a link to the Middle Catechism. I don't think the longer catchism has recently been reprinted either. I believe Ven. Brashier meant that it had been republished more recently than the middle, though I'm not sure which edition he's referring to. As for Ven. Brashier's family prayers, you can find it here: a.co/d/aU0KEWV

The book is William Steven Perry's "The History of the American Episcopal Church." The copy I have is a scan from an 1885 edition. As for the North End churches, when I visited to Providence REC in Corpus Christi, TX, they were using North End. This was about 9 years ago. I'm also pretty sure that Christ Church in South Bend, Indiana, and Holy Trinnity in Connersville, Indiana, do North End, though I haven't visited them.

Our pleasure!

My pleasure 😊

This is Fr. Isaac; I’m in Greece now, but will see if I can link it when I get back

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 That would be great! Safe travels.

@@DrGero15 This is his original post facebook.com/peter.robinson.397/posts/pfbid02s4uAN64mTC4C9kvvcvDjtTFegvKpYCyxWEks8WYJJ4h3eYNdkDoUtKdarmadPVZXl

I’ll see if I can track down the original video. It was on the old diocesan channel, but I think that has been revamped.

Sorry about that. I think it was a connection issue or something with Zoom for the day. We didn't realize it was bad until long after we recorded it, and I wasn't going to re-record the interview.

I have no clue as to why the video quality is so bad on this interview; on both of our ends it just turned out pretty bad. Maybe zoom was having a bad day. Our apologies.

I have no clue as to why the video quality is so bad on this interview; on both of our ends it just turned out pretty bad. Maybe zoom was having a bad day. Our apologies.

It’s the KJV/BCP combo from Anglican Parishes Association.

Yes. In Edward VI’s time the initial draft had 45, but he died before they could get ratified. They were obviously not adopted when Mary succeeded him. When Elizabeth came to the throne after Mary’s death, they edited it down to 39, mostly by combining a few Articles rather than omitting some.

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 So 45 to 42 to 39? Where can I read the 42/45?

I’m sorry. It was 42, not 45. It went 42 to 39. As to reading them, I’m sure a search engine of “42 articles” would bring them up. I know I’ve come across a book or two on the Articles that shows the very light editing. But I’ve read so many books on the AoR, I can’t recall which off the top of my head

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 I found this "The first edition of the Articles of Religion was first presented by Cranmer in 1552 as forty-five articles and in 1553 they were tweaked to be forty-two articles, then in 1562 the Articles were edited into the thirty-nine articles which remain today."

@@DrGero15 Interesting. Where'd you find the quote? Do they go into any more details? Like, was that just in Cranmer's draft that he presented or was it published/promulgated in that form originally?

Why would it be staged by the Romans? The Resurrection actively undermined their regime when the Christians believed and taught that Christ is Lord and Caesar is not. In fact the Romans persecuted the early Christians. Staging the Resurrection would have been against the interests of Rome. Rather than taking the opinions of a novelist from 1995, I would recommend looking into accounts from the 1st Century, particularly the Gospels themselves. When they were written, eyewitnesses to the events were still living. Their readers (including Roman officials) would only have had to produce a body to prove the Christian claims wrong. But they didn't and couldn't. And if the Apostles had been lying, it's not likely that they'd be willing to die for a lie when repudiating it would have meant not only life, but prestige. Instead all the Apostles (save John) were martyred because they maintained that they had truly seen the Risen Christ. And John was exiled for it. I.e., he was willing to be a martyr, but was exiled instead. Years ago, a journalist named Lee Strobel (who was an atheist at the time) decided to use his training as an investigative journalist to look into the claims of the Resurrection. He came away convinced, and wrote down his experiences in a book called "The Case for Christ." I'd recommend that also.

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 But the Romans already tolerated the local religion (they had no other choice), in fact the procurator voted for the high priest! And it was in their interest to support a movement in it which preached peaceful submission, see e.g. 1 Peter 2:13-18 or John 11:47-48. They did not expect it would spread outside, and they persecuted those, but not the locals, in fact when the local leader, James, was k!lled, the procurator was furious! This work takes into account the testimonies, to convince somebody is the whole point of a successful stagin! This work was praised in "Nature", skeptical biblical scholar Carlos Colombetti called it "a worthy addition to the set of naturalistic hypotheses that have been proposed", and apologist Lydia McGrew grudgingly acknowledged that it is "consistent with the evidence". I've seen the movie, Lee Strobel didn't even remotely consider this explanation.

@@valinorean4816 A few thoughts: Yes, Rome tolerated local religions, provided they would incorporate the cult of the Emperor into their local religion. For polytheism or "mystery cults," that's no big deal. After all the pantheon can change at any time, and those gods don't really have much of a call on their followers beyond sacrifices here and there. I.e., ancient polytheism and mystery cults weren't ethical religions; that was the domain of the philosophers, not priests. Judaism is, of course, an exception to Rome's policy, but it was generally tolerated despite its monotheism because of its antiquity (the Romans loved to champion antiquity). At the time of Christ and the Resurrection, Christianity wasn't on Rome's radar beyond being a messianic movement within Judaism. As long as peace was kept, Rome didn't care. In fact, Pilate condemned Christ, not because of any actual infraction or even because his Messianic claims were a threat, but because a riot was forming and he didn't want to be responsible for that. Pax Romana meant "thou shalt not riot." That's also why the Governor was so upset when James was killed; that was mob rule that resulted in a riot, not an official Roman execution. Another thing Pax Romana meant is that Rome does executions, not local religious leaders. But by the time 1 Peter and John are being written things had changed. Christianity was increasingly separate from Judaism and had indeed spread to the rest of the empire. And along with the peaceful/submissive message of those passages is an exclusivity of allegiance that undermines the Emperor and the Empire. Rome was fine with local or even new religions so long as they would burn a "pinch of incense" to the Emperor. The Christians refused to do that. "Jesus is Lord" means that Caesar is not, even if Christians won't join rebellions. And that's why Rome executed Paul, Peter, and so many of the other leaders of that first generation. The other problem with Rome facilitating the Resurrection as a hoax is that Roman religion, like all polytheism of that era, had no concept of a physical, bodily resurrection of the dead. That was a uniquely Jewish belief at the time, and one that was expected to be a general resurrection in the far future, not the resurrection of a particular individual or religious leader. Besides, if Rome had Jesus killed to prevent an rioting between competing sects of Jews, what good would bringing back that controversial figure do to their cause? That's not going to bring peace; it'll just create the riots they were trying to avoid in the first place! All that to say, the hypothesis doesn't pass the smell test from the perspective of history. It's a hypothesis that can only occur among modern skeptics and naturalists (a point of view that no one had until the last couple of centuries). Part of the problem with naturalistic points of view is that they have already rejected the supernatural a priori. If the supernatural is assumed to be impossible, then they begin with the conclusion that the Resurrection must be false before they've done any actual investigation. As far as the movie "The Case for Christ" goes, don't judge Strobel's investigative journalism based on a movie. A movie by its very nature cannot be detailed in the way that a book is. To seriously consider Strobel's argument requires reading the book, not just watching a movie based on it. Again, I'd recommend reading primary sources, not tertiary ones removed from the events by 19 or 20 centuries. That's what we have in the New Testament and in the earliest writings of the Church (i.e. late 1st and early 2nd century), as well as folks like Josephus. These are folks who were there or were taught by folks who were there. I brought up Strobel because his book is an account of digging into such sources.

​@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 "At the time of Christ and the Resurrection, Christianity wasn't on Rome's radar beyond being a messianic movement within Judaism." - Exactly, that's my point too, that's why they were benevolent to it locally despite being hostile to converts outside (whose appearance they didn't expect). "because a riot was forming and he didn't want to be responsible for that." - that's one thing, but more importantly, even if he pardoned him, he would be st0ned as a blasphemer anyway, but on top of that direct Roman favor would be exposed (which is the reason priests pushed him to Pilate in the first place, to get two boons for the price of one), so the lesser evil was to do it himself "That's also why the Governor was so upset when James was killed". There was a little more to it than that. (Origen and not only even says that this was the immediate trigger for the start of the War.) Regardless, this happened at the exact same time, plus minus a couple years, as Nero was doing persecutions in Rome! That's a stark contrast, isn't it? "The other problem with Rome facilitating the Resurrection as a hoax" - wait wait wait, and what was the first one, come again? "had no concept of resurrection" - well J did, he predicted it like fifty million times, even the Sanhedrin heard this and put a guard at the tomb, remember, moreover, he already DID it (Lazarus) as witnessed by John, so yeah, the concept was definitely there in this specific case! "what good would bringing back that controversial figure do to their cause" - to reinvigorate and strengthen the movement in the wake of his death, otherwise what Gamaliel said in Acts 5 about other such movements would happen to them, too! "All that to say, the hypothesis doesn't pass the smell test from the perspective of history." - ... how exactly, again? "rejected the supernatural a priori" - nope, the argument is actually agnostic and much more subtle than that, but we're not remotely there yet - I haven't yet persuaded you that this view is even consistent with the received historical data, and only if/when that happens will I start arguing that it is not just consistent but actually true (as consistency is necessary but not sufficient for truth).

@@valinorean4816 Well, it sounds like you've got your mind made up. I'll stick with the Apostolic witness rather than relatively new naturalistic theories. Cheers!

Oh, I won’t go into details on that. But I’ve certainly run into plenty of Anglicans who take issue with election/predestination. There’s a reason only bishops were allowed to preach on it in the 17th century

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 Only Bishops were allowed to preach on it?

Yep. In 1622, King James issued “Instructions to Preachers” which included this clause: “3. That no preacher of what title soever under the degree of a bishop, or dean at the least, do from henceforth presume to preach in any popular auditory the deep points of predestination, election, reprobation or of the universality, efficacity, resistibility or irresistibility of God's grace; but leave those themes to be handled by learned men, and that moderately and modestly by way of use and application, rather than by way of positive doctrine, as being fitter for the schools and universities, than for simple auditories.”

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 I bet that angered Puritans.

Indeed. In part, the King was trying to keep the controversies between the Puritans and Conformists from boiling over into the rest of the Kingdom. Those same Instructions forbid railing against either Puritans or “Papists” from the pulpit.

I don’t. But, what exactly are your difficulties? My own experience was that singing with others and practice usually solves them over time

I know almost nothing about singing and have no one to sing with

​@@spaceman001e7 listen to recordings of tones you can find and just try to emulate it. If you learn to do it privately, when you chant with others you will begin to sync up with them

The podcast I was referring to is "Issues, Etc," something of a semi-official podcast of the LCMS. Most week's they'll have two sequences later in the week on the lectionary. Both are titled "Looking Forward to Sunday Morning." One goes through the traditional 1-year lectionary, and the other goes through the 3-year. As for the other, I believe Steven was talking about EEBO, "Early English Books Online," a database of scans of books from prior centuries. I think there are a couple different online portals to access it these days. Not to be confused with Igbo or Ibo, the West African language spoken by our bishop!

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 Ah! thanks, I did find a neat item that lets me make double bass sounds on my bass guitar looking for "Ebow" but I think EEBO will be better for my long term reading! Why did so many churches follow Rome to the 3 year lectionary?

Hah! I forgot about the guitar Ebow! The short answer for the Lectionary is that it really develops mid-20th century as an attempt at providing more Scripture and more variety in readings at Communion. Everyone very quickly jumped on the bandwagon as part of the mid-20th century optimism with regards to ecumenism. Rome had Vatican II and everyone thought that the reunion of the Church's institutional divisions was right around the corner. That "optimistic ecuminism" was very much a part of the Liturgical Movement's advocacy in those days.

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 I would say that instead of trying to stuff more scripture into the Communion service, the solution was to push the Daily Office, since a disuse of the Office would be the root of the problem of a lack of scripture knowledge, It makes sense that Rome didn't use it because it was, and still is to my knowledge, an unwieldy thing with 8 Hours of Prayer a day, but why did we abandon our Office for Rome's Communion? Is this why I don't see many Anglican Churches offering Morning and Evening Prayer? It just looks to me like Rome tried to solve a problem Anglicans solved ~400 years ago, but forgotten in the last few decades, and we joined them in their solution rather than our own. Does that make sense and what do you think of it? Was it worth it to break so many hundreds of years of tradition, continuity, and resources?

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 Also, the Ebow sounds pretty good on Bass Guitar. With it I can make Pipe Organ sounds, kinda.

That's true, though our diocese doesn't use that convention.

Much appreciated!

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 Thanks. We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing

Thank you for the feedback! It's a pleasure to be of service to the Church.

Y'know, I'll see what I can do about that. It occurred to me that I might be able to use the Spotlight feature to keep the camera from changing. Thanks for the feed back.

It's been our parish BCP for 47 years, and my own love for my entire ministry. Thanks!

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 Great to know. Pax Christi.

I sure do! Thanks for the kind words and we hope to see y’all again soon!

Our pleasure!

I’d add to that, that most folks sing better they think; very few people are truly “tone-deaf.” Most folks just need some practice and some tips! Regular psalms singing has certainly been what honed my own singing voice!

I'm glad they were edifying and glad you cold catch up!

And which coverdale psalter?

@@King-uj1lh It's the American 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. We use it pretty much straight-up for the prayers themselves, though we do use the 30-day psalm cycle rather than the one attached to the lectionary. Next year we'll be switching to the original 1662 lectionary for the Offices also, so as to beef up our Scripture reading, as per Abp. Cranmer's original designs. As for the pointed Psalter, this is the St. Dunstan's Plainsong Psalter by Lancelot Andrewes Press. It's *mostly* what is in the 1928. I use their chant tones for the Offices as well.

@@allsaintsanglicanchurchofs3915 does the 1662 edition have longer readings? I didn’t know that.

@@King-uj1lh For the Daily Office Lectionary it does. At least in its original format (most of the current ones are a later revised lectionary). It's mostly a whole chapter for each Lesson, and (generally) in canonical order. It's also tied to the civil calendar rather than church calendar, though there are readings for Sundays and major Holy Days. You can find that really good lectionary in the 1662 International Edition that's been published by InterVarsity Press.

Haha! It's a bit shorter these days, but when that was recorded, I was almost at its longest point! - Fr. Isaac

Thanks, brother! It was a fun one to do!

I can definitely understand that choice. Perhaps I’m a bit cynical, but I’ve never run across *any* candidate from *any* party where I didn’t see at least some “lesser evil” choice at play. Our Roman Catholic friends would probably talk about this in terms of exercising the virtue of prudence. That said, I have found Book 1 of Hooker’s Lawes to be very helpful in working out a way to approach civil duties from a Natural Law perspective. And, of course, the Prayer Book’s civil prayers put things in perspective as well.