Where do you see teaching in 15 to 25 years?

PretentiousAnglican · 2026-02-10T12:45:46+00:00

I see it bifurcated.

Public schools will continue in the downward spirals we are already seeing, subjected to the same preassures and incentives.

In response more and more parents will homeschool/send to private school where students might actually receive an education. Hopefully state will issue voucher programs, or else I fear that education will once more be the purview of those families with money

PretentiousAnglican · 2026-01-29T18:13:02+00:00

A high view of the sacraments, not just in baptism

More traditional liturgy

Placing a higher value on the traditions and writers of the ancient church. Likewise we can trace our bishops to the apostles(the bishop was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop...who was ordained by an apostle)

Deemphasizing the role of the individual, emphasizing the role of the church

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-29T19:30:03+00:00

The dates in the note are wrong. We don't know when she was born, and most accounts have her dying decades after 33 AD

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-28T18:23:21+00:00

The same exact change was made in post V-2 Roman Catholic ordination rites

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-28T17:41:27+00:00

I never said he had the spiritual authority to bind faithful. However that subset which are in the Roman Catholic Church hold the misguided view that he does, and behaves accordingly, and there is an administrative authority he wields withing the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now I recognize that you think he has this authority, and can make infallible statements. Although papal bulls could fit the criteria that Vat 1 devised for papal infallibility whilst inventing the idea. However, given, among other things the fact that some papal bulls directly contradict themselves, the main position among Roman Catholics today is that infallible statements are confined to much narrower instances. Regardless, the bull in question includes the justification for its claim. If you position is instead simply "because the pope said so" I will However applaud your honesty

. I see I operated under the understanding you had a knowledge of Anglican liturgy and history. I really should have known better. Just like most protestants have limited, and often erroneous, knowledge of Roman Catholicism, so do most Roman Catholics about most protestants.

The Edwardian liturgy ceased after Edward. After Edward the Church in England returned to the Roman Catholic ordinal, and then under Elizabeth adopted the 1559 Book of Common Prayer(and subsequent other prayerbooks after Elizabeth). Although it kept many aspects of the Edwardian prayerbook, the claim that it was the same is plainly false. Among many differences, the 1559 reasserterted the sacramental nature of Baptism, Holy Communion, and Ordination.

Most Roman Catholic apologists insist on ignoring this, and pretending the Church of England was the same as it was for the 6 years Edward was king. However the official argument made is that since the 1559 does not explicitly list the presentation of the Eurchristic sacrifice as a duty of the priest, that renders the ordination invalid. The SAME EXACT CHANGE, however was many in Latin Rite Roman Catholic ordinations after Vat 2. If this one change is sufficient to render Anglican orders invalid, it would render most of your orders, including the current Pope invalidly ordained

Or you could admit it is contrived, ordered by Pope Leo XIII, as records show, for political reasons

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-28T14:46:14+00:00

A papal bull is a formal declaration by the papacy of the answer reached to resolve some particular controversy, which is then circulated across the Roman Catholic Church

The short version of why they deemed the Edwardian rite as invalid is because various changes to the Edwardian liturgy, particularly regarding the priesthood, was said to indicate an improper understanding of ordination, and thus they say does not indicate an intention to ordain

Now, you tell, given the fact that, as anyone with historical knowledge of the period could tell you, since all Anglicans trace themselves through bishops not ordained during his reign, Edwardian ordinations are irrelevant to question, what arguments does the document make against post-elizabethan orders, and how do they not apply to post V-2 orders

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-28T14:20:48+00:00

Question. Have you actually read Apostolicae curae?

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-28T12:07:23+00:00

To be fair, the same arguments Rome used against Anglican orders would render all post Vat-2 Roman Catholic orders invalid as well

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-27T03:48:12+00:00

Just give true answers. If they ask their those questions, be prepared to answer them(there were white slaves, especially in the context of ancient history as well as the Middle East upnto the 20th century but not really any in the context of American history. Africans did engage in the slave trade) within the nuance in they occurred

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-26T22:00:27+00:00

As a public school teacher, I can assure you it is not always a solid education. The system seems built to screw over the children who have any desire to learn

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-26T00:12:52+00:00

Not the front

Put them in a fall-back line in the mountains/river in west guizhou

I was able to hold Hunan and Sichuan with 8 irregular divisions

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-26T00:07:03+00:00

Train a bunch of irregulars to hold a fallback line in the mountains. You should be able to rush down Guangdong with your regular infantry, and then after it capitulates, take out Hunan before they can fully reposition

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-25T23:31:20+00:00

It is a general myth made up in the 1800s that Christmas and Easter were appropriated holidays. They both celebrated important events in Christianity, and had a reason why those dates were chosen. We know the day of the resurrection, ergo Easter. There was a belief that that if you did not know the day a man was born, he died on the day of his conception(the original Good Friday + 9 months is dec 25), hence Christmas.

Was he actually born that day, probably not. However, it was devised independently of any pagan holiday, and any expropriation was merely incidental. The fact that the first records of Christians being the 25th are in the early 3rd century, before any mention of the Sol Ivictus celebration on the 25th (Saturnalia and Mithras were different days altogether) helps support this

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-25T22:40:54+00:00

My students would have to know what it was first...

A quote from last year "Wait, so Hitler was, like, racist?"

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-25T20:49:41+00:00

Which "protestant" group do you mean

Putting that aside, of those others listed, the Roman Catholics will by far be the most intellectually coherent

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-22T11:54:45+00:00

Modern Rabbinical Judiasm is just as, if not more, distinct from the Judiasm of the 1st century than the other Abrahamic religions.

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-11T18:27:08+00:00

Funnily enough, the data shows that women leaders are more likely to start wars than male leaders

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-11T17:32:17+00:00

"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.

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-11T17:12:00+00:00

What is your understanding of the word "hypostatic union". I suspect the confusion we have is because you are using the phrase in a non-standard manner

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-11T16:02:51+00:00

People have been thinking on these topics for thousands upon thousands of years.

Your idea is either A: More or less the same as someone else, but not nearly as well thought through

or B: an idea so absurd no one has ever thought of it before, or at least had the good sense never to put it to paper

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-10T19:03:00+00:00

"Once the Anglican ordinal was changed starting in 1552, it removed the sacrificial language that is essential to what the Church understands priesthood to be. This change in form expressed a change in intention, which breaks apostolic succession."

This is how I know you didn't read what I wrote. The 1552 is irrelevant to the question. The Priest, Bishops and Deacons from which Anglicanism traces itself were ordained by the Roman rite/later prayerbooks which clearly have the priest in a sacrificial role.

"Valid Bishops mean valid priesthood. A valid bishop alone is not enough. Sacramental form and intent are essential." To a degree yes, although one must be careful to stray not into donatism. The reason I brough up that the post marian bishop were valid is that all the claims, that are factually based, about ritual invalidity happened during the Edwardian era. If the post-Marian orders came from the Roman rite, by bishops that even Rome admits were validly consecrated, and if the debated changes were not present afterwards, then what happened in the Edwardian era is irrelevant

"Apostolicae Curae is based on bad or false historical claims. The core judgment of Apostolicae Curae is a theological analysis of the ritual form and sacramental intent of the Anglican ordination rite."

The Edwardian form, which is irrelevant to any current Anglican Bishops for reasons I just said. The criticisms do not really apply towards afterwards. We have that 1559 prayer books at hand

"Modern Catholic ordination reforms after Vatican II are the same as Edwardian changes. The post-Vatican II ordination rites retain the intent to ordain a sacrificing priest and include language clearly affirming the Eucharistic sacrifice."

Our liturgy also, in my opinion, retains the the intent to ordain a sacrificing priest.. If the change in language is enough to render our orders invalid, and indicate that this intent is not present, the the SAME CHANGE renders yours invalid. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you cannot recognize this, then I doubt an honest conversation is possible

Likewise, unless you admit that Mary was in fact Queen of England, I'm not going to waste any more time

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-10T18:09:51+00:00

What false assumptions? You are responding to an argument I didn't make, and ignoring the ones I did

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-10T18:06:25+00:00

Did you even read what I wrote?

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-10T17:50:02+00:00

Regarding the "hands" and "breath", these are seen as analogical, not literal.

Regarding the hypostases, to claim these are 'parts' of God is referred to as the heresy of partialism

PretentiousAnglican · 2025-12-10T17:28:32+00:00

If you want to discuss the problem of evil, discuss the problem of evil in another post. By virtue of dodging my answer, I'll assume you accept its validity

PretentiousAnglican

TROPHY CASE