The Oxford Movement

[@OrthodoxMeathead]

Thank you so much for these videos Dr Reeves. As a recent convert to Anglicanism (even what is arguably a more Anglo-Catholic context) your videos are always charitable and seem to represent even those with whom you disagree in a positive light.

[@zeefrancis9593]

Thank you so much! I'm a newbie in the Episcopal Church here in the US & I find these clips of our Church history fascinating. A big Thanks. Keep up the good work.

[@nickdalbey]

Great set of lectures! Thanks for posting.

[@HeartfeltJudah]

I do believe you have tried to give the Oxford Movement a fair shake. I also think you did a good job at clarifying the Oxford Movement from what commonly is understood to be Anglo-Catholicism today. There are a number of statements in this video I would like to challenge. 1) Newman's Tract 90 was not the best representation of the Tractarian Movement and Pusey clarifies and defends the Tractarian position in his work "The articles treated on in Tract 90 reconsidered and their interpretation vindicated." Sacraments are not considered a work of man, and works following repentance is an expectation. Calvin understood this as did Wesley. It seems to me that their interpretation of the article in question and the Scriptures are fine, but I think the interpretation of Trent may be what is questionable. Consider Hans Kung and what he said about Trent and Karl Barth's take on Justification being compatible. Barth conceded that Kung grasped his own theology well, what is debated is whether or not Kung accurately represented the Council. 2) The terms Catholic and Protestant are being used ambiguously. We do know that Henry and Cranmer were influenced by all three of the major Continental Reformers, but what do we mean when we say "They were intending to make the Church of England Protestant?" As in against the excommunication and imprisonment of Luther as is what the original term intended? Well then fine, they were sympathetic with Luther. Were they trying to "Stop being Catholic?" Only in the sense of being Roman. Again, these terms are being used ambiguously and are not well enough defined. What is certainly true is that the English Reformation was very intentional about maintaining Patristic and Medieval Continuity, the historic Episcopate, etc. The point I am trying to make is that I do not think a specific set of critera have been given for what would make the Anglican Church "Catholic" vs. "Protestant" or both? The branch theory intends to say that The Orthodox, Roman, and Anglican churches are truly in schism, yet the visible, institutional, sacramental Church fully resides in all three of them and they all lead back to the one trunk that is the Church. I also do not think they were "rewriting" history as much as they were emphasizing particular elements and figures in their history, which is what all Anglicans do. It certainly does not intend to say that any of these "branches" are synonymous sense the Oxford Movement conceded that Rome was in error on some things and rejected the infallibility of the papacy and his jurisdiction over the English Church. 3) The Church of England holds that there are two Sacraments if it is defined as a visible sign which conveys and invisible grace with form and institution being explicitly commanded by Christ. So they are called Sacraments of the Gospel, or "Dominical Sacraments." They are the only sacraments necessary for salvation and required of all believers (despite Confirmation having been a requirement before taking Holy Communion, which sort of made it required as well). If a sacrament is defined by its much earlier use, as an oath and loose translation of the Greek word "mysterion," being a visible sign which conveys and invisible grace, then the IX Homily in the Second Book of Homilies is correct as it states that other rites and rituals may be authorized by the Church and do convey grace. Since the Homilies admit that there are other visible signs that convey grace, by this earlier definition it is a sacrament. Making a big deal out of this is nothing more that semantic warfare. These may be called sacraments and appropriately receive the term of "Lesser Sacraments" later on. This is why Anglicans have retained rites such as Confirmation, Ordination, anointing of the sick, etc. 4) Yes, there is reference to "spiritual eating" though it is distinguishable from Calvin's spiritual presence and is at odds with Luther's Sacramental Union. On this point, Transubstantiation seems to have a dual history. Go back and read the Summa Theologica on this issue and you will see Aquinas say, explicitly, "The body of Christ is not locally present in this sacrament." Peter Lombard was of the same mind, saying"Also because it is not right that Christ should be eaten with the teeth, he gave his flesh and blood to us in a mystery." In other words, when they said they believed in a change of "substance," they did not imply substance to be something material, but used it in the sense of the word "essence." The doctrine seems to have always had articulations between substantial presence, in the later Aristotelian sense, and a physical presence so that Christ was literally pressed with the teeth. The major scholastics, however, agreed upon a mystical presence and eating. Why is what Aquinas *actually* says about the Lord's Supper in principle different from "spiritual eating?" 5) Why did you mention the 42 Articles, but not the earlier (and much more Catholic) 10 Articles and the 6 articles which also preceded the 42 Articles? 6) Roman Catholics were infuriated by the Book of Common Prayer for several reasons; it wasn't in Latin, it removed invocation of saints, it removed mention of the the Eucharist as sacrifice, etc. The Tractarians comment on this extensively of course, but the simple point I wish to make is that the Book of Common Prayer is an authoritative source of theology as can be shown by the vows of Conformity. It was actually listed before the 39 Articles. So when the Tractarians point out that there are still prayers and Canticles which invoke saints and heavenly hosts and even a mild form of prayers for the dead, they are citing it as a source for "Anglo-Catholic" doctrine. 7) The point of the Oxford Movement was not to show that Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism were totally compatible. On the contrary, there were a number of issues the Tractarians persisted in with regard to Roman opposition. There context was not only with regard to politics and modernization, but a Puritanical majority which held views contrary to historical Anglicanism. The Oxford Movement was intended to be an emphasis, a charism even, of Anglican theology and identity. It is erroneous to consider there Movement as a syncretism between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism (though this may not be erroneous with regard to Newman particularly). *Note* I hope this does not come off as curmudgeonly or condescending, it is not intended to be. You clearly have better credentials and pedigree in this area than I. Nonetheless, my questions and objections seem like reasonable responses to your video. I hope you find time to reply to even a few of them, but I imagine you to be a busy man. Warm Greetings,

[@todroulette6381]

I'm so glad to have access to this. Thank you for making it available. This helps me understand the Primates meeting now at Lambeth Palace.

[@jaysubrosa6147]

"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant." Cardinal John Henry Newman, On The Development of Christian Doctrine

[@maccabee7]

"!"

[@ryanprosper88]

What did he know about being a protestant?

[@AbuHajarAlBugatti]

Jay Subrosa the papal puppet is the antichrist. just read the bible

[@raymondchandler7897]

Jay Subrosa And to be deep in the Bible is to be almost anything but Catholic.

[@paulfriend4472]

Thanks for this video, i am from Scotland and studying Church History as part of a theology degree at the moment and have my exam next week and there is a question on the Oxford Movement so this has been helpful in clarifying a few things.

[@aislingmichaelaoneill1028]

There is a form of Penance in the 1662 book, to be found in the Visitation of the Sick. I don’t know about 1552 but it is not to be found in 1549 but then I wouldn’t expect to. The BCP is public, common prayer. Penance is private, an occasional office.

[@ervinsims2062]

How would Wesley and William Wilberforce have viewed the Oxford Movement. I suspect they would not been allies.

[@RyanReevesM]

+Ervin Sims // Great question. (I like historical hypotheticals as a way to think about issues.) I can't speak for Wilberforce, but I suppose he would have bought into the standard Protestant nation pride of his day. Wesley certainly would not have been in favor of anything Catholicising, per se. He was pretty staunch about his adherence to the Protestant views of justification. Some have argued he is in essential agreement with medieval views of sanctificaiton, but this is often based on a misunderstanding of medieval Catholic views of salvation. Also that claim about Wesley is often used to slander him, more than anything.

[@ervinsims2062]

Wilberforce's book "A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians, in the Middle and Higher Classes in this Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity" is a fascinating work. The way is reads it could have been written last year.

[@jamiegordon7413]

Would be interested in seeing something about Cromwell and the English Commonwealth, would be really interesting..

[@RyanReevesM]

Jamie Gordon // Hey Jamie. Do you mean Oliver Cromwell (Civil War era) or Thomas Cromwell (Henry VIII era)?

[@jamiegordon7413]

Oliver Cromwell, the whole "The Protectorate" stuff.

[@neobliviscaris3121]

Why dont you see much of an influence from the eastern orthodox church in the west

[@honestorchard]

+Ne Obliviscaris I'd like to know more about this. My guess is that Protestantism despite its 'separate' nature is a split off of Catholicism and inherits certain concepts and cultural baggage from it which aren't found in Orthodoxy. It is also predominantly a 'latin root' speaking type of Christianity which Orthodoxy isn't (generally). So this could limit the transfer of ideas and influence. I would also say that the Orthodox church until recently was heavily persecuted in its heartlands of North Africa and the Middle East which limited exposure outside of that of the Russian church. I'd also wager that the 'ethnocentricity' of the Patriarchates limited their exposure and penetration to other cultures due to cultural or nationalistic tensions. I'm sure someone who is Orthodox maybe sees it differently but thats my understanding of it as an outsider interested in Orthodoxy.

[@RyanReevesM]

+Ne Obliviscaris // Yes, the points Keith Mason shared are similar to mine. A lot of it is the challenge of the splitting of East and West, which Protestantism inherited. But we have to factor in problems of general awareness--meaning people before modern technology would no very little about the wider world. For western Christians as a whole, the splitting of East and West carried on to the point that they lost touch, you might say. And once that touch was lost, regaining would have been next to impossible.

[@neobliviscaris3121]

Ryan Reeves Also did the orthodox ever have a movement similar to the protestantism movement?

[@anthonyrago554]

Ne Obliviscaris The Orthodox have an Old Believer movement in Russia & an Old Calendarist movement in Greece.

[@nsoper19]

Are these lectures available in an mp3 format or something similar so that they can be downloaded and listened to on a portable device?

[@RyanReevesM]

+Nathan Soper // Not yet, but I will soon be uploading them to iTunes as a podcast. So stay tuned!

[@nathansoper4937]

+Ryan Reeves thanks so much. really appreciate all these lectures brother, and hope that they will be used for the glory of the Lord Jesus.

[@fulkthered]

What determines if you are Catholic or Protestant is how you understand Matthew 16:13-20:13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. If you think Jesus says Peter is the Rock you are Catholic but if you think Jesus says "What Peter just said is the Rock" you are Protestant.

[@erikjager4704]

I went to Gordon College. Gordon College is a conservative Evangelical Protestant Sem. It is not going to give the High Church theology a favorable review. I know from first hand experience that Gordon and Gordon Cromwell have an anti-Catholic + High Church agenda. As an Anglican, we were always stress via media. Low church, Broad Church, and Anglo-Catholic churches have been always been part of the Anglican Communion. Professor Reeves ignores the 39 Articles includes saints, seven sacraments, some Marian theology, and the Apocrypha. Professor Reeves states that Anglicans do not have a central creed or document. So what is the 39 Articles? Cromwell has a beautiful campus and lovely stained glass library. They have a strong bias and an ax to grind.

[@RyanReevesM]

I actually am Anglican and wrote my doctoral research on the formation of Anglicanism. I also have several videos on the formation of Anglicanism elsewhere. You comments are ad hominem and make the strange point of talking about a college which has nothing to do administratively or curricularly with the seminary. If you want to suggest foul play, it's always best to know the people you're describing, know for certain if they are biased, and then make the point more clearly.

[@kayrichardson4315]

Amen! I am a retired scholarly editor who has been researching Anglican Church history for over five years (I write a weekly column for my parish). Besides primary resources, I also research lectures and sermons on Church history available online. Ryan Reeves is the best educated and most ecumenical lecturer I have found Church history is a notoriously contentious field. (The son of a Methodist minister, when learning about my column, quipped: "When you use the term Church history, God has a good belly laugh.") Kudos to Reeves for his fair-minded, well-researched, and accessible talks.

[@lisduffer]

Look up Paul Wattson S.A.

[@Roedygr]

Anglicanism has a rather disreputable start. Henry VIII was one of the most evil kings in all history. So I could see Anglicans wanting disown this genesis. But why not just abandon Anglicanism and rejoin Catholicism?

[@timothyfreeman97]

Different theological views.

[@davidhowell601]

Timothy Freeman Yes- Anglicans are heretics.

[@seawynd99]

The Anglican Church has it's roots all the way back to Celtic Britain...Henry viii simply used it's distinct nature to promote his particular agenda.

[@ryanprosper88]

I'm not an Anglican, but there is a huge difference between the theology of Henry VIII and Anglicanism of the Elizabethan Age.

[@machintelligence]

Or better yet, abandon both; which is pretty much what the British have done.

[@dvangriff1]

jesuit lies

[@billducker7404]

The Catholic Church never died Indy. Bill. UK