|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Apostolic Succesion
|
Godric
Apprentice
# 17135
|
Posted
I've been looking on the net for the succession of 'continuing' Anglican Churches although they sometimes seem less than transparent on that subject. Do continuing Anglican Churches have any Anglican succession or has their succession been arrived at from another source?
I know about the origins of the REC and the Bishop of Kentucky; are there other examples similar to this one?
I write on funerals and burials at http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/
--------------------
I write on funerals and burials http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/
Posts: 28 | From: England and Malta | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Most of them got a bishop or two in the deal, or were given one by a conservative province.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Most continuing Anglican churches are very open about apostolic lineage on their websites. It provides some interesting reading.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
I've been looking on the net for the succession of 'continuing' Anglican Churches although they sometimes seem less than transparent on that subject. Do continuing Anglican Churches have any Anglican succession or has their succession been arrived at from another source?
I know about the origins of the REC and the Bishop of Kentucky; are there other examples similar to this one?
It was Bishop George Cummins (1822-76), a former Methodist minister, who became an Episcopal priest in 1845, and was elected assistant bishop of Kentucky in 1866.
Go to Anglicans Online and look at what is considered to be a definitive listing of the many Anglican/Episcopal churches listed as 'not in communion with Canterbury'. Many of them proudly display their lists of episcopal lineage by tactile succession. For some, that list is their only claim to fame. There is a deal of play with the words Anglican and Episcopal, despite the fact that they are not recognized by the See of Canterbury or the Instruments of Communion.
Anglicans Online Churches not in the Communion
In North America the term "continuing" is not used. The term "spin-offs" or "schismatic" is much more accurate and appropriate because these churches are the result of splits or schisms from The Episcopal Church USA or the Anglican Church of Canada, which are, in fact, the continuing bodies.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
In North America the term "continuing" is not used. The term "spin-offs" or "schismatic" is much more accurate and appropriate because these churches are the result of splits or schisms from The Episcopal Church USA or the Anglican Church of Canada, which are, in fact, the continuing bodies.
I may be confused, but aren't there plenty of parishes that identify as "continuing Anglican". Is the Continuing Anglican Movement not what the OP is referring to?
Does the term "continuing" have a different meaning somewhere else?
[ 14. October 2012, 20:47: Message edited by: Ruudy ]
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
In North America the term "continuing" is not used. The term "spin-offs" or "schismatic" is much more accurate and appropriate because these churches are the result of splits or schisms from The Episcopal Church USA or the Anglican Church of Canada, which are, in fact, the continuing bodies.
I may be confused, but aren't there plenty of parishes that identify as "continuing Anglican". Is the Continuing Anglican Movement not what the OP is referring to?
Does the term "continuing" have a different meaning somewhere else?
A simple Google search will confirm that the majority of those non-TEC Anglican churches do use the term "continuing" to describe themselves.
Their connection with the Anglican Communion is perhaps dubious. They may claim connection through the oversight of a province elsewhere in the world. Then again, they may not.
Whether one chooses to acknowledge that the term "continuing" is appropriate or not, the fact is that they choose to describe themselves thus.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
That's what I thought. I don't hear anyone calling them the "spin-off" or "schismatic" Anglican churches.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
That's what I thought. I don't hear anyone calling them the "spin-off" or "schismatic" Anglican churches.
You clearly haven't been talking to many Episcopalians.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
One or two of Continuing groups have Old Catholic Orders, which can be a problem if they are detived through some of the more fringe groups within the Mathew Succession. The Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Province of Christ the King and United Episcopal Church share a common succession which derived from Canterbury via the Protestant Episcopal Church. For convenience I will use Henry Knox Sherrill as the jumping off point
Henry Knox Sherrill Presiding Bishop of the PECUSA consecrated (1950)
Albert Lichtenberger, Bishop of Missouri, who as presiding Bishop consecrated (1962)
Albert Chambers, Bishop of Springfield, who on 28/1/1978 consecrated
C.D.Dale Doren, Bishop of the Diocese of the Midwest; Peter Watterson, Bishop of the Diocese of the Southeast; James Orin Mote, Bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity (Rockies and Plains States) ; and Robert Sherwood Morse, Bishop of the Diocese of Christ the King (Left Coast). At the time all four sees belonged to the Anglican Church of North America (Episcopal). Subsequently the original bishops of the ACNA(E) has some pretty strong disagreements and at least two of them did not ratify the Constitution and Canons as drawn up 1978-81 because they represented too great a departure from Anglican/Episcopalian tradition. Of the original Sees Midwest and Holy Trinity became part of the Anglican Catholic Church; Southeast and Christ the King became part of APCK to simlify greatly. The UECNA's original diocese started in 1981 and was named the 'Diocese of the Ohio Valley' but being a Central to Low Church jurisdiction the centre of gravity in the UECNA has tended to move southwards.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
I don't think quote:
spin-off
or quote:
schismatic
are particularly helpful words to use for purposes of this conversation, nor do they shed any light on the question in the OP.
PD, thanks for the family tree!
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
That's what I thought. I don't hear anyone calling them the "spin-off" or "schismatic" Anglican churches.
You clearly haven't been talking to many Episcopalians.
Bingo! I have engaged more with with continuing Anglicans from The Anglican Mission in America (AMIA) who are starting to think that falling under the omophorion of Uganda one week and then Rwanda the next, may not be the most sustainable of structures for a US church. I have primarily interacted with folks who are now considering Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
IME the continuing Anglicans I have met have been rather low church - but with enough knowledge of church history that they would like to check the Apostolic succession box. I find the description of the AMIA's episcopal leadership structure confusing.
And if, for the sake of this discussion, we can all agree not to call them spin-offs and schismatics, then I won't call Rome and Canterbury spin-offs and schismatics. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 15. October 2012, 12:26: Message edited by: Ruudy ]
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
In North America the term "continuing" is not used. The term "spin-offs" or "schismatic" is much more accurate and appropriate because these churches are the result of splits or schisms from The Episcopal Church USA or the Anglican Church of Canada, which are, in fact, the continuing bodies.
*
I refuse to be ruled by your semantic preferences, sir.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I didn't realise until I saw the list how many of these there are? But of them, which ones are of significant size and doing significant work for the advancement of the Kingdom? I've only heard of two in this country, and by all reports, they are are both tiny - one by the way is I think about 150 years old, and is still tiny.
I'm not aware that either of them has achieved more towards the reconversion of the hosts of the ungodly than what they presumably regard as the erastian and Laodicean ecclesial community presided over by ++ Rowan and John.
Also, why are there so many? Why don't people who fall out with the current ECUSA or get thrown out of it, simply join an existing freelance ecclesial community rather than form yet another new one?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Enoch : Mt 18:20 & Lk 15:7.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
In North America the term "continuing" is not used. ...
I may be confused, but aren't there plenty of parishes that identify as "continuing Anglican". Is the Continuing Anglican Movement not what the OP is referring to?
It is perhaps useful to keep in mind, Who is doing the naming?
I'm guessing that, in the initial flush of separation, the term Continuing Anglican seemed a convenient collective moniker by those who could not in good conscience remain within the Episcopal Church, by virtue of the fact that there were more than a few groups who found themselves in that situation. Especially as this separation has, in the current wave, been going on since 1977, or so.
The following poking around for search terms is not definitive of usage, but certainly seems suggestive to me. So, to Mr. Rob's point, then, these google searches, to pick only three of the more prominent groups:
quote:
- site:http://anglicanchurch.net/ continuing
- site:http://www.theamia.org/ continuing
- site:http://www.anglicanpck.org/ continuing
...and... - site:http://anglicanchurch.net/ continuum
- site:http://www.theamia.org/ continuum
- site:http://www.anglicanpck.org/ continuum
turn up essentially nothing that suggests these churches' publicity arms refer to their churches as Continuing or part of a Continuum. (There were only three such uses of Continuing and none for Continuum.)
Though Continuing and Continuum were essentially a grab for a terminological legitimacy ("we're not like that other lot who've changed beyond recognition"), it's a definition by exclusion. Nought wrong with that; but, it seems that ACNA and AMiA, at least, are just getting on with "being church," to use that unsettling Episcopalianism, rather than remaining locked in struggle with what-they-are-not.
This may be the view from the inside.
For those outside these groups, since they are relatively small (perhaps, only for the moment) and their constitution is in flux, it may be convenient, as in the Wikipedia articles, to clump them together under this convenient term, Continuing Anglicans. Note our opening poster's decoration of his first use of the word Continuing with single quote marks.
As far as lumping and splitting go, since splitting is one of the unarguable Notes of the Fissiparous West (wherever this may be), the word Schismatic retains a certain utility, for what is happening is certainly schism; though perhaps, we can employ the word, when necessary, with charity. Can I suggest we leave Spin-off for deadline-pressed journalists?
[ 15. October 2012, 19:31: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
… Albert Chambers, Bishop of Springfield, who on 28/1/1978 consecrated
C.D.Dale Doren, Bishop of the Diocese of the Midwest; Peter Watterson, Bishop of the Diocese of the Southeast; James Orin Mote, Bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity (Rockies and Plains States) ; and Robert Sherwood Morse, Bishop of the Diocese of Christ the King (Left Coast). …
PD
It's been a long time ago, but was this not the famous/infamous 'consecration by cable-gram,' in which a scheduled-to-coconsecrate' bishop from Asia (IIRC) couldn't get there to lay on hands, but sent his agreement by cable?
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
… Albert Chambers, Bishop of Springfield, who on 28/1/1978 consecrated
C.D.Dale Doren, Bishop of the Diocese of the Midwest; Peter Watterson, Bishop of the Diocese of the Southeast; James Orin Mote, Bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity (Rockies and Plains States) ; and Robert Sherwood Morse, Bishop of the Diocese of Christ the King (Left Coast). …
PD
It's been a long time ago, but was this not the famous/infamous 'consecration by cable-gram,' in which a scheduled-to-coconsecrate' bishop from Asia (IIRC) couldn't get there to lay on hands, but sent his agreement by cable?
Yes--that would have been Mark Pae, I think, from S. Korea.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Wait, wait, he did the bishop equivalent of "phoning it in?" Assuming I'm reading the above post correctly, can that possibly be a valid consecration? And to tie this back (loosely perhaps) to the OP, wouldn't the laying-on of hands be a necessary part of Apostolic Succession?*
*I get that the "unbroken line" notion is disputed in some quarters, but shouldn't we give it our best shot nowadays? [/aside]
[ 16. October 2012, 20:54: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Technically, it only takes one bishop. The others are insurance.
Of course, that is tradition. This probably depends on the canons of the church in question. If the canons demand three, then perhaps it is valid but illicit, or simply invalid.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Insurance, perhaps--but more importantly, I think, a symbol of collegiality, that it isn't just one rogue bishop acting on his own.
Valid, but illicit? Probably, at least from ECUSA's point of view. It was certainly an irregular consecration, but if its canonical regularity invalidates it then the validity of post-Roman Catholic consecrations in England becomes questionable as well.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has any of this got to do with worship practice? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I'm suddenly wondering if a telegram assenting to the consecration of a bishop is valid if it's not on paper that's the liturgical color of the day.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Valid but illicit.
Canons of the Episcopal Church, 150.7.2a (Singing telegrams in the Tonus Peregrinus need not meet color requirements.) Passed by resolution at General Convention, 1976.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has any of this got to do with worship practice?
Probably more than my disquisition on the nomenclature of folk separated from the Episcopal Church, the Anglican church in the Americas below the 49th parallel.
It is partially the touchy-feely portion of the liturgy that is in question, the laying on of (which!) episcopal hands.
Besides, I'm guessing the Purgatory hosts are earnestly wishing for discussion of licit, valid, illicit, invalid, and episcopi vagantes in general to bleed onto their board. I could be wrong, though.
[ 17. October 2012, 03:25: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Ok. Let's go to Purgatory...
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has any of this got to do with worship practice?
You are missing something - it all depends on one's view of what "The Church" is. We all want to be part of the Church which Christ founded don't we?
So some will say that to be part of that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, your local church and it's bishop need to be succeeded from the founders of the Church - the Apostles. That way, it is not only Holy Scripture which is passed on to succeeding generations, but also Apostolic Tradition, for example in the form of liturgy for Holy Communion.
But others take the view of an "invisible" church, where to be a part of it, the local church needs to be faithful to the teaching of the Apostles found in the Bible - that means that anyone can stroll into WH Smith, buy a Bible and study it, then set up their own "true" church. That is why there are 20 000 or more different protestant denominations - each one claiming to have a correct and biblical understanding of Apostolic teaching.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Sorry for double post, but I forgot to mention the issue of Authority - for it is this Authority which Christ gave to his Apostles when he charged them with their mission. It is this Authority, particularly with the Sacraments, which is handed down in Apostolic Succession, by the laying on of hands.
Within this is Holy Tradition, which contains the interpretation of Holy Scripture, which the Church is bound by.
The alternative, Sola Scripture, will insist that, as we are all part of a Priesthood, therefore we all have the authority to interpret Scripture - but it leaves the problem of us all interpreting it differently.
I'm just talking off the top of my head, so I probably haven't explained it all very well, but I'm sure others will fill in the gaps - or give a better rendition of things from the Protestant side.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
@Spike:
Ooops! I only just noticed that you were Admin - forgive me if I have stepped out of line!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The alternative, Sola Scripture, will insist that, as we are all part of a Priesthood, therefore we all have the authority to interpret Scripture - but it leaves the problem of us all interpreting it differently.
I have no truck with sola scriptura, but to correct this it means that only what is found in scripture is a valid basis for doctrine, morality, worship practice etc. I.e. no role for tradition. It doesn't imply anything to do with the Priesthood of all believers or each christian's interpretation of his bible, even if that has been an accretion in some circles.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Well, close.
Sola scriptura is the belief that Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation. It doesn't mean the automatic exclusion of whatever is not found in Scripture; both Luther and Hooker* express that very clearly. (Hyper-Calvinists espouse the Regulative Principle of Worship, but that's something a bit different)
It means that any other authority has to be subordinate to God's Word, and where it contradicts that Word it must be discarded. It doesn't mean that tradition is of no value--Luther wasn't against church decorations, vestments, or ceremony--just that tradition is not to be given primacy or equality with Scripture.
*The so-called "three-legged stool" is actually a misquotation of Hooker's hierarchy of authority (first Scripture, then Reason, then Tradition).
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Go to Anglicans Online and look at what is considered to be a definitive listing of the many Anglican/Episcopal churches listed as 'not in communion with Canterbury'. Many of them proudly display their lists of episcopal lineage by tactile succession. For some, that list is their only claim to fame. There is a deal of play with the words Anglican and Episcopal, despite the fact that they are not recognized by the See of Canterbury or the Instruments of Communion.
Anglicans Online Churches not in the Communion
Neither the Church of England nor the Episcopal Church are recognized by the Holy See, yet they still retain the use of ‘catholic.’ Why is it OK for someone do so so, bu not OK for someone who has broken off from the Church of England or the Episcopal Church to retain the use of ‘anglican’ or ‘episcopal’? Are those terms any more ‘sacred’? Do the Anglican communion ‘own’ these terms? Should I, who am part of the Lutheran Church of Norway, demand that Lutheran free churches should stop to define themselves as ‘Lutheran’?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I don't mind if they call themselves Episcopalians or Anglicans, but they probably ought to come around to the fact that the Anglican Communion in the United States is The Episcopal Church.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
At least until, and if, they get their own invitations to Lambeth.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Maybe I'm biased, but barring a true blue conservative in Canterbury I can't really see that happening.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Go to Anglicans Online and look at what is considered to be a definitive listing of the many Anglican/Episcopal churches listed as 'not in communion with Canterbury'...
Anglicans Online Churches not in the Communion
Sorry but I think you have misrepresented this list. This is not a list of churches not in communion with Canterbury. This is a list of Anglican churches without formal relations with Canterbury.
It is a list of churches not in the Anglican Communion. Which this site notes "To be part of it, a church must have a formal relation with the See of Canterbury." The site goes onto explain that "It is entirely possible for a church to be in full communion with the Anglican Church without being in the Anglican Communion."
Does it matter whether your organizational body is large enough and formal enough to have formal relations with Canterbury or have its leader invited to Lambeth - just so long as the faithful are still in communion with Canterbury?
Am I missing something? Maybe I am approaching things from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. I think we'd treat communion as the test, not formal relations. We are used to multiple jurisdictions (not quite as many as are on this list) with overlapping geography here in North America. It's far from ideal and we are working to change it, but it's a matter of fact at this time.
And how do you know which of these churches are in communion with Canterbury and which are not? Is there a list?
[ 19. October 2012, 01:55: Message edited by: Ruudy ]
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Perhaps someone has more knowledge of this than I, but is not the Church of England in South Africa in communion with Canterbury, but without formal relations?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Speaking as a fairly ordinary English member of the CofE, and looking out from these islands, I suspect most of us would puzzle how a person can call themselves an Anglican, or why they should want to, unless they belong to a church which is in Communion with ++ Canterbury. We would also puzzle how one could legitimately have two Anglican ecclesial communities both claiming to be covering the same area.
Looking out from here, the two areas where there are problems that we are most conscious of are Zimbabwe and the USA. In Zimbabwe, an excommunicated bishop with government support has tried to usurp the legitimate church. Most of us take it for granted that the one we are really in communion with is that led by Bishop Chandiya.
Despite all the talk of this on the Ship, I know less about the USA and find it harder to understand. It looks as though the one ++ Canterbury is formally in communion is the ECUSA, but it is obvious that since the last Lambeth Conference, intercommunion has become a bit tentative and rocky.
This may be very unfair. As I say, I don't know enough about it. But from here, it also does not look as though some of the key people at the top of the ECUSA seem to care much about this, or to be prepared to stretch themselves to repair bridges or to fit in with other churches in the Communion. From here also - and again, I may be being grossly unfair - it also looks as though that leadership is aggressive and litigious towards clergy and laity further down the tree who do not agree with them totally and completely in all things.
Nevertheless, for so long as the ECUSA is the church in communion for the USA, I don't see that any other ecclesial community there can properly be Anglican.
There are only three orders. Notionally, all bishops are equal. So, where possibly things could be more complex would be if a jurisdiction evicted an entire diocese and tried to replace it with their own tame nominees, or if, following the Zimbabwe example, if a jurisdiction excommunicated key members of its own hierarchy, who then refused to go.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Most informative for me, from that interview, is that they seem to think TEC is a vastly wealthy, world wide conspiracy to co-opt the True Faith. I wonder how they would react if they found out that there's less than 2 million of us, and that we can hardly afford a full time priest at nigh 75% of our parishes.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I fear that, having read through the interview, I'm not much further ahead although some details on their co-operation commission with the CPSA (now the ACSA?) might be helpful. I agree with other shipmates in that he had some odd preoccupations.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
This interview with CESA's Presiding Bishop might clarify its situation vis a vis the Anglican Communion to you, Augustine.
http://frstephensmuts.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/interview-with-church-of-england-in-south-africa-presiding-bishop-desmond-ingl esby/
The kindest description of the interview would be that it was very, very soft. Fancy an interviewer stating as an accepted fact that TEC had bought the mainstream Anglican church!
As a bit of a tangent perhaps, CESA has always had very strong links with Sydney, and in particular the parish of Christ Church St Ives. This was so even in the days when CESA was a supporter of the apartheid regime. Ironic given the presence in St Ives of a substantial population of Jewish refugees from South Africa.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Speaking as a fairly ordinary English member of the CofE, and looking out from these islands, I suspect most of us would puzzle how a person can call themselves an Anglican, or why they should want to, unless they belong to a church which is in Communion with ++ Canterbury.
Some of us might also puzzle how a person--scratch that, entire *parishes* who no longer use the Prayer Book can call themselves Anglican (Common Washup doesn't qualify as the Prayer Book).
Before going so far, though, I'd hope we would realize how fatuous it is to reduce an entire religious tradition to one incidental detail.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Wait, wait, he did the bishop equivalent of "phoning it in?" Assuming I'm reading the above post correctly, can that possibly be a valid consecration? And to tie this back (loosely perhaps) to the OP, wouldn't the laying-on of hands be a necessary part of Apostolic Succession?*
*I get that the "unbroken line" notion is disputed in some quarters, but shouldn't we give it our best shot nowadays? [/aside]
Actually letters of consent of various kinds have been used in the past where there have been considerable difficulties in assembling a groupof bishops to perform a consecration. For example, John Carroll, first (Arch)bishop of Baltimore was consecrated by a single bishop with the Papal Letters of appointment supplying the rest; the same happened a few years later when Carroll consecrated a couple of bishops solo with Papal letters providing the necessary top up.
Old Catholic Orders depend on a whole series of solo consecrations from Villette onwards, and no-one says much about their validity, and the matter of irregularity is glossed over.
In the Anglican context, Bishop Cummins (Asst. KY) consecrated Edward Cheney of the REC in a highly irregular manner - both clergymen were under suspension for basically not towing the High Church line on Baptismal Regeneration and Intercommunion. But no-one seems to employ much energy being venomous about them, and that applied even back in the 1890s.
It should also be noted that the present SSPX bishops are the product of a solo consecration by Lefebre without Papal Mandate, but Rome seems to treat them, like the mainstream of the Duarte-Costa succession as aving valid, if irregularly conferred, orders.
The Denver Consecrations should have had four bishops present - Chambers, Pagtakhan, Eastaugh and Pae - but two were unable to come. Eastaugh was hospitalized with heart problems in January 1978, and Pae had various issues that prevented him from attending. The use of a letter of consent, although unusual and undesireable, does not in and of itself make the consecration invalid. I do not argue with anyone who says that the Denver Consecrations were irregular, but it probably has as much to do with the various methods by which the dioceses were erected, which the bishops elected to fill than with the actual circumstances of the consecration. As it happens the only one of the four whose consecration depended on the Letter of Consent was Bishop Doren. Being between a rock and a hardplace it was decided that he should serve as the second co-consecrator for Watterson, Morse, and Mote. That resulted in another round of squawking from the Traddies in ECUSA, but there you go. Assents from the various dioceses of the original ACNA had been garnered for all four men, so it was about as unirregular as it could have been under the circumstances.
Since then ACC, APCK and UECNA have been keen to avoid irregularities. There is, after all, no need to make the same mistakes twice! At the last ACC consecration, which was of a Missionary Bishop for the Congo, there were seven bishops from two jurisdictions present and participating in the laying-on of hands. The legal formalities concerning writ of election, consents, etc., were followed to the letter. This should be enough to demonstrate that at least at the more responsible end of the Anglican Continuum, procedure is only departed from in cases of genuine neccessity.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Godric
Apprentice
# 17135
|
Posted
From a lay perspective; I wonder whether or not the nature or quality of the consecrations by the laying on of hands, letter or even by email actually matters as attendances at Church decline. After all; the Episcopacy aren't like performers and the laity don't know which apostolic succession is 'better' or 'worse' than another. It's the nature of the ministry that matters, right?
My observation is that the presence of Rwanda and Uganda seems to have 'let the geni' out of the bottle in the same way that Arnold Harris Matthew and Vilatte saw the increase in numbers of 'free' bishops. Perhaps we can speculate that the Episcopalians in North America are heading quickly to some sort of 'Vagentes' existence with the passing of time and the dilution of the Anglican line?
My remaining thought with the passing of time and contemporary developments in Anglicanism, "Does the historical presence of an Old Catholic in the line of Matthew/Vilatte invalidate the 'spin-off', 'traditional' or 'continuing' Episcopalian bishop?"
--------------------
I write on funerals and burials http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/
Posts: 28 | From: England and Malta | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I'm not sure what you mean by "the dilution of the Anglican line," Godric. Bishops are inducted into the fullness of the episcopacy- there is no partial consecration. It technically only takes one bishop to confer orders.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Godric
Apprentice
# 17135
|
Posted
Hello Zach,
I meant the insertion of more and more 'non-Anglicans' such as Old Catholics into an Anglican organisation although, as you say, that is perhaps the wrong way of thinking about Episcopacy.
--------------------
I write on funerals and burials http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/
Posts: 28 | From: England and Malta | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It must require more than the simple laying on of hands to make a true bishop. It must take place within some sort of ecclesial community that calls and recognises within itself and preferably in a relationship with others. Otherwise, a rogue retired bishop with a disbelief in the ontologically supernatural and a pay per view website could offer consecrations as an extra and we would all be expected to recognise them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I don't know of any Anglican theologians that believe Anglican Orders have their own special charism. So far as High Church Anglicans are concerned, orders are Catholic and come from Christ.
The appeal to Old Catholics was (ostensibly at any rate) grounded in the hope of convincing the pope that we've got valid orders after all, since the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican orders.
Edit: It actually takes the laying on of hands and the intent of the bishop to do as the Church has always done. Wording is a matter of some (rather surprising) debate.
[ 28. October 2012, 13:09: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
Many of these posts, and perhaps the OP itself, seem concerned with the apostolic succession of bishops, a mark of its ecclesial catholicity, as the same thing as the validity in the tactile succession of the ordination of bishops. Tactile succession, meaning bishops after bishops, generation after generation, laying hands in succession with prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit, all the way back to the Apostles (apostolic). A lot of people believe that.
It's all popular church myth, somewhat akin to an urban legend. Tactile succession does exist in a somewhat limited way for the modern historical era, but it cannot be documented with any kind of certainty before the 15th cen. Only scattered documentary evidence of bishops consecrations or mandates for bishops consecrations exist from before that time. These scattered references cannot be pieced together to establish any kind of documented tactile succession of bishops back to the Apostles in the western or eastern churches.
All documented consecrations in the Roman church are traced back to Cardinal Scipione Rebiba (1504-77). The line of properly documented tactile sucsession consecrations of bishops stops there with him.
Rebiba was appointed auxiliary bishop of Chieti in 1541. During the consistory of December 20, 1555, he was created a cardinal and appointed Archbishop of Pisa. It is widely believed that Rebiba was consecrated by Gian Pietro Carafa, the cardinal who became Pope Paul IV, but supporting documentation for that has not been found, and therefore the episcopal genealogies stop at Rebiba.
In the early 18th cen, Pope Benedict XIII, whose holy orders were descended from Rebiba, personally consecrated at least 139 bishops for various important European sees, including German, French, English and New World bishops. These bishops in turn consecrated bishops almost exclusively for their respective countries causing other episcopal lineages to die off.
Today, more than 91% of the New World's and more than 5,000 Catholic bishops alive today, including Pope Benedict XVI, race their episcopal lineage back to Rebiba.
Anglican and Utrecht Old Catholic bishops are connected to this Rebiba line. The Pre-Reformation tactile successions of England, Ireland and Scotland all died out or are undocumented.
Of course all of this begs the question of the worth of the technicalities of tactile succession. Many theologians today think that for practical purposes theories of tactile successions are next to worthless. It was that view of the episcopate that was embodied in the formularies of the Porvoo Communion.
Porvoo Communion Churches
I must say that I can't help but agree.
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic - "Continuing in the Apostles teaching and fellowship."
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
