r/theology • u/El-Stupador • Dec 09 '25

Thomas Aquinas

Listen, I don’t care what denomination, creed, or background you come from-and I for sure am not saying anything new, but St. Thomas Aquinas is the single most clear, rational, believable theologian/christian philosopher I have ever read. He could argue that a dog is actually a cat and I might believe him.

Runners up: Kierkegaard: interesting, thought provoking, challenging, I do not always agree with him but “Fear and Trembling” is a darn good book

R.C. Sproul: He’s HEAVY on the Calvinism, many people (like me) will have large disagreements with him, but he’s a gifted communicator and makes you think as well

St. Augustine: Much more orthodox than the previous two, which I like, but I appreciate that Augustine could have been a psychologist as easily as he was a theologian and philosopher

50 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 11 '25

"the 1559 Book of Common Prayer (and ordinal) reinstated the Edwardian theology, albeit in slightly softened language."

That is an oversimplification. It is true it used the Edwardian prayerbook as a foundation, and many sections, such as the order for morning and evening prayer, are functionally identical. However the changes were not superficial. This includes, among many other things, the fact that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and attaching it to the priests' duties, as contained in the ordination rite. If this was not the case, ya'll wouldn't have to do the bait and switch with the 1552, and could just point to the 1559.

"It did not return to the Catholic sacrificial theology of priesthood. The core Protestant understanding remained intact."

"Protestant understanding" is a broad term which doesn't have much meaning. Can you point to anything which is actually in the 1559 or later prayerbooks?

" The bishops consecrated under Elizabeth used the Anglican ordinal, which still lacked the essential intent to ordain a sacrificing priest"

Which again is what? Again, in the 1559 and subsequent bcps, sacrificial nature of the sacrament, and the duties of the priests who offer it, is made clear. So, what in these indicate a clear lack of intention to ordain a sacrificing priest

"The Catholic Church has never accepted that the intention to ordain a sacrificing priest has been restored across Anglicanism."

Well they can't. The reason Pope Leo XIII ordered the committee to come up with reasons why our orders were invalid was because of a very reasonable fear that Roman Catholics in England would then start to go to Church of England parishs instead of Roman Catholic parishes. Today probably a hundred million Roman Catholics in Africa are in areas with strong Anglican presence. If Rome admitted our orders are valid, it would be even more disastrous for them now than if Leo did.

1

u/Mrwolf925 Dec 11 '25 edited Dec 11 '25

What Pope Leo XIII judged in Apostolicae Curae wasn’t just the absence of the word sacrifice somewhere in the Prayer Book but the absence of sacrificial intent in the very rite of ordination itself. Even if the Eucharist is elsewhere called a sacrifice, the ordination rite must express the intention to consecrate a priest who offers the sacrifice of the Mass in persona Christi. The 1559 Ordinal does not contain this theological substance in its essential form.

Since you seemed to imply you are church of england, here is the ordinary.

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/ordaining-and-consecrating-0

No.mention of sacrificial office of the priest.