Sources: Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, section five. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 2, section 3 Irenaeus, Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, XXXVII St. Augustine sermon 272 St. Augustine, Letter 98, section 9 This is not all of them, but these are the ones from parts 1 and 2 that I could find
It’s worth noting that Justin doesn’t speak about “transmutation” of the Eucharistic elements, but about “transmutation” od ours bodies: “from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished”.
17:22 Might a comparison be made to how non-Trinitarian baptisms are invalid due to lack of intention. Even though the Church had valid baptisms before the term Trinity or before explicit dogmatic definitions. It’s one thing to deny the Trinity, and another to not have a word for something you believe implicitly.
Should the intention of a basic baptist church's baptism count to Anglicans? If their intention is not to engraft you into the church, and they say that there is no change to your status in their local congregation or before God in any way, would that suffice?
Great, great question. I'd say so, though Rome is inconsistent on this point. In this video, I'm just adopting that premise for the sake of argument, though here's a fascinating quote I just read today from a Roman Catholic polemicist during the Reformation: "the Council of Florence25 and that of Trent26 declare that if any one says that at least the intention of doing what the Church does is not required in the ministers when they confer the Sacraments, he is anathema. These are the words of the Council of Trent. The Council does not say that it is necessary to have the particular intention of the Church (for otherwise Calvinists, who have no intention in Baptism of taking away original sin, would not baptize rightly since the Church has that intention) but only the intention of doing in general what the Church does when she baptizes, without particularizing or determining the what or the how." ^^So go figure. But I didn't want to bring this point up just yet because this video is more along the lines of an internal critique. So Anglicans should accept Baptist Baptisms because Baptists do intend to do *generally* what the church does: namely, definitively identify the baptized with the death and resurrection of Jesus, even if we disagree on how the identification is worked.
So, do Anglicans as a whole think their ordination was deficient until 1662?? Or is that more of an Anglo Catholic thing. I may be misunderstanding that.
No, they added clarifications to the 1662 at the time that further emphasized the threefold order (to combat Presbyterians), but the 1550 Edwardine Ordinal is considered sufficient and is still the core of the ordinal today. Even the Orthodox patriarchs in 1922 affirmed the 1550 ordinal as sufficient.
Sources:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, section five.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 2, section 3
Irenaeus, Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, XXXVII
St. Augustine sermon 272
St. Augustine, Letter 98, section 9
This is not all of them, but these are the ones from parts 1 and 2 that I could find
It’s worth noting that Justin doesn’t speak about “transmutation” of the Eucharistic elements, but about “transmutation” od ours bodies: “from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished”.
The mic is good! The content absolutely terrific!
It sounds definitely better 😊
17:22 Might a comparison be made to how non-Trinitarian baptisms are invalid due to lack of intention. Even though the Church had valid baptisms before the term Trinity or before explicit dogmatic definitions. It’s one thing to deny the Trinity, and another to not have a word for something you believe implicitly.
The new mic sounds great
Am I the only one where audio isn’t matching video?
No, the voice is out of sync.
Should the intention of a basic baptist church's baptism count to Anglicans? If their intention is not to engraft you into the church, and they say that there is no change to your status in their local congregation or before God in any way, would that suffice?
Great, great question. I'd say so, though Rome is inconsistent on this point. In this video, I'm just adopting that premise for the sake of argument, though here's a fascinating quote I just read today from a Roman Catholic polemicist during the Reformation:
"the Council of Florence25 and that of Trent26 declare that if any one says that at least the intention of doing what the Church does is not required in the ministers when they confer the Sacraments, he is anathema. These are the words of the Council of Trent. The Council does not say that it is necessary to have the particular intention of the Church (for otherwise Calvinists, who have no intention in Baptism of taking away original sin, would not baptize rightly since the Church has that intention) but only the intention of doing in general what the Church does when she baptizes, without particularizing or determining the what or the how."
^^So go figure. But I didn't want to bring this point up just yet because this video is more along the lines of an internal critique.
So Anglicans should accept Baptist Baptisms because Baptists do intend to do *generally* what the church does: namely, definitively identify the baptized with the death and resurrection of Jesus, even if we disagree on how the identification is worked.
Sounds better!
Where is the document?
So, do Anglicans as a whole think their ordination was deficient until 1662?? Or is that more of an Anglo Catholic thing. I may be misunderstanding that.
No, they added clarifications to the 1662 at the time that further emphasized the threefold order (to combat Presbyterians), but the 1550 Edwardine Ordinal is considered sufficient and is still the core of the ordinal today. Even the Orthodox patriarchs in 1922 affirmed the 1550 ordinal as sufficient.
@@brennendavis3283 lovely, thanks!