Originally posted by Spike:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has any of this got to do with worship practice?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote: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.
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?
quote: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?
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.
quote:A simple Google search will confirm that the majority of those non-TEC Anglican churches do use the term "continuing" to describe themselves.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote: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?
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.
Does the term "continuing" have a different meaning somewhere else?
quote:You clearly haven't been talking to many Episcopalians.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
That's what I thought. I don't hear anyone calling them the "spin-off" or "schismatic" Anglican churches.
quote:or
spin-off
quote:are particularly helpful words to use for purposes of this conversation, nor do they shed any light on the question in the OP.
schismatic
quote: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.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:You clearly haven't been talking to many Episcopalians.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
That's what I thought. I don't hear anyone calling them the "spin-off" or "schismatic" Anglican churches.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:I refuse to be ruled by your semantic preferences, sir.
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.
*
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:It is perhaps useful to keep in mind, Who is doing the naming?
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote: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?
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
In North America the term "continuing" is not used. ...
quote: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.)
- 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
quote: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?
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
quote:Yes--that would have been Mark Pae, I think, from S. Korea.
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote: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?
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
quote: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.
Originally posted by Spike:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has any of this got to do with worship practice?
quote: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?
Originally posted by Spike:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has any of this got to do with worship practice?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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’?
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
quote: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.
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
quote:That seems to be an incredibly one-sided interview, not least with the accusation (from the interviewer!) that the recognised Anglican Church of Southern Africa has been "bought" by the PECUSA. There is far more than just the name of CESA that associates it with apartheid.
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/
quote: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!
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/
quote: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).
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.
quote: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.
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]
quote:Utrecht, of course, but the Anglican line is solidly documented at least back to Simon Langham (+1376)-- the problem with pre-Rebiba is that the nature of record-keeping changed at that period and for succession before then the researcher must wade through calendars of warrants and capitular and episcopal records. Detailled registers, such as delight us all (I speak as a retired bureaucrat!!) were not maintained in a way which passes our muster. But mediaeval chronologies (and pre-mediaeval, for those of us who spent today's breakfast looking at the life of S Julian of Toledo) show us the great trouble taken to ensure proper procedures at episcopal consecrations -- there is some good Irish church stuff there for the idle reader. In any case, as the Supreme Court tells us with respect to land claims, oral traditions, critically examined, can be authoritative and conclusive.
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.
quote:AFAIK only once, by Marco de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalato. I have heard one or two urban legends, but I don't think that they're worth mentioning-- one of them places Cardinal Ghinucci, who was Bishop of Worcester 1522-1535, in the wrong century.
Originally posted by Zach82:
If I recall correctly, the only bishop to jump from Mary to Elizabeth was Matthew Parker. Was the Anglican line ever "reinforced" before the appeal to the Old Catholics?
quote:In consecrations for the Church of England under Elizabeth, that is...
Originally posted by Zach82:
None of Mary's bishops, besides Matthew Parker, participated in any consecrations. None of them would affirm her supremacy over the Church.
quote:Wikipedia is not unimpeachable but reports that Msgr de Dominis participated:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I meant to add that + Marcantonio Spoleto was not a bishop in England, and AFAIK, did not participate as one in any consecration. There may have been one or perhaps 2 others whose episcopate straddled Mary Tudor and Elizabeth for long enough to have participated, but my copy of Elton is somewhere at home, and I'm not there to verify.
quote:I think that there were Irish and Welsh bishops who straddled the reigns of the two queens, but do not have names at hand.
in the consecration of George Montaigne as Bishop of Lincoln, and Nicolas Felton as Bishop of Bristol on 14 December 1617
quote:I think that the idea was to foreclose on one of the objections of RC theologians in the wake of Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae who suggested that the 1552 ordinal was too weak, even if that of 1662 was not. The Dutch touch injection addressed that objection as well as that of a break in tactile succession in 1561. A third nail in the Leonine coffin was the Latin declaration of intent by the OC consecrators, which addressed the objection of a lack of catholic intent on the part of consecrators.
Originally posted by Godric:
Do consecrations last forever in their descendents or do consecrations fade over time?
By that I mean : Do Anglicans need a constant 'top-up' of Old Catholic orders to prevent any hint of a lack of validity? Would an Orthodox participant at a consecration offer more to Anglicans than an Old Catholic from Utrecht?
quote:Dr William Tighe wrote the following on a blog a few years ago on the matter of the 'Dutch Touch':
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I think that the idea was to foreclose on one of the objections of RC theologians in the wake of Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae who suggested that the 1552 ordinal was too weak, even if that of 1662 was not. The Dutch touch injection addressed that objection as well as that of a break in tactile succession in 1561. A third nail in the Leonine coffin was the Latin declaration of intent by the OC consecrators, which addressed the objection of a lack of catholic intent on the part of consecrators.
Originally posted by Godric:
Do consecrations last forever in their descendents or do consecrations fade over time?
By that I mean : Do Anglicans need a constant 'top-up' of Old Catholic orders to prevent any hint of a lack of validity? Would an Orthodox participant at a consecration offer more to Anglicans than an Old Catholic from Utrecht?
An Orthodox bishop's help would have addressed most of the objections just as well, but Orthodox ecclesiology would not have permitted participation, as much as Anglicans of the era might have liked. Either way, there is no need for a renewed injection. Once it's there, it's there.
quote:
If Francis Clark is right in his *Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention* (1956) — the best book I have read on the subject — the so-called “Dutch Touch” may make no difference, if (1) the ordination rite being used is the same as Cranmer’s Anglican Ordinal of 1552, or substantially the same (as with the 1662 Prayer Book’s revision of those rites) and (2) if the non-Anglican “touchers” participated by using the Anglican rite only, or by laying-on their hands in silence.
This last is what happened in those cases in which bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church participated in various Anglican episcopal consecration ceremonies in America and Canada between 1946 and 1971: they either enunciated the words of the Anglican rite or simply laid-on their hands in silence (as the last surviving PNCC bishop who participated in such consecrations himself told me 12 years ago). In England the “Dutch touchers” always between 1932 and 1959 and on occasion as late as 1974, enunciated the “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum …” etc. from the Roman Pontifical, at he same time as the Anglican consecrating archbishop and bishops were enunciated “Receive the Holy Ghost …” etc. from the 1662 Prayer Book rite (after the early 1970s the Dutch Old Catholics discontinued their use of the Roman Pontifical in favor of their own new ordination rites). Many 19th-Century scholars, Catholic as well as otherwise, thought that “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum …” etc. had been the “form” of the sacrament before the 1442 Decretum pro Armenis declared it to be the porrectio instrumentorum; although by the time that Pius XII promulgated the Apostolic Constitution on the Matter and Form of Holy Orders it had been generally realized that both the porrectio instrumentorum and the injunction “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum …” etc. had alike entered Catholic ordination rites in the High Middle Ages.
As far as the 1662 Prayer Book’s alteration of the Anglican episcopal ordination prayer, I leave it for readers to consider whether it in any way altered the sense of the rite. The 1552 prayer ran” “Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.” That of 1662 runs “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.”
The Anglican rite for the ordination of priests was likewise altered to include the phrase “for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands” which had likewise been absent from that rite (although in that for the diaconate Cranmer’s rite had run “Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God committed unto thee; in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen,” which remained unchanged in 1662). These seem to me to be changes more of a cosmetic nature than of a substantial one, although thay may have been a response to one (among many) Catholic arguments asserting the inadequacy and invalidity of the Anglican rites, that they did not specify the Order being conferred by them.
quote:I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
quote:As do I. If we believed the pope had a right to declare Anglican orders invalid (based, it would seem, on his ability to read the minds of Reformation era bishops), wouldn't we be Roman Catholics? I was just stating what I thought to be a fairly obvious fact.
Originally posted by seasick:
I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
quote:I think this is as much hocus pocus as homeopathy (where the more dilution, the more power).
Originally posted by Godric:
Do consecrations last forever in their descendents or do consecrations fade over time?
By that I mean : Do Anglicans need a constant 'top-up' of Old Catholic orders to prevent any hint of a lack of validity?
quote:Actually, they don't, and this is a critical fact when it comes to looking at how the Porvoo agreement and the US and Canadian concordats with the Lutherans are working out. Mind you, there's a great deal of incoherence and inconsistency over this (it can be argued that the RCs go entirely overboard in the other direction). As well, Anglicans participation in South Asian church union, as well as in the now-expired COCU and ACoC/UCC plans, make it pretty clear that Anglicans have been quite open on the issue--- certainly far too much for good ecclesiology, but that's another tangent.
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote: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’?
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
quote:Which suggests that the Anglican Communion (those churches in communion with +Canterbury) 'owns' the label 'Anglican.' Which is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church 'owns' the label 'Catholic,' or that the historic Lutheran churches in Europe, and their sister churches, 'own' the label 'Lutheran.'
Originally posted by Zach82:
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.
quote:Uh, no it doesn't? "Anglican" and "Part of the Anglican Communion" are not the same things.
Which suggests that the Anglican Communion (those churches in communion with +Canterbury) 'owns' the label 'Anglican.' Which is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church 'owns' the label 'Catholic,' or that the historic Lutheran churches in Europe, and their sister churches, 'own' the label 'Lutheran.'
quote:Correct. Above I mentioned the list maintained by Anglicans Online of Churches in the Communion. That AO list actually duplicates the
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]
Uh, no it doesn't? "Anglican" and "Part of the Anglican Communion" are not the same things.
quote:That is certainly true. The position of the ghastly Msgr Talbot, and his influence in the papal household lasting into Leo XIII's pontificate with regard to Anglican orders, is well known.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:Actually, they don't, and this is a critical fact when it comes to looking at how the Porvoo agreement and the US and Canadian concordats with the Lutherans are working out. Mind you, there's a great deal of incoherence and inconsistency over this (it can be argued that the RCs go entirely overboard in the other direction). As well, Anglicans participation in South Asian church union, as well as in the now-expired COCU and ACoC/UCC plans, make it pretty clear that Anglicans have been quite open on the issue--- certainly far too much for good ecclesiology, but that's another tangent.
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
Lietuvos does have a point, in that Apostolicae Curae passes over a centuries of theory and practice in ordination matters; the idle may notice that much of the Anglican Archbishops' reply (Saepius Officio) is occupied in laying that out with buckets of examples uncomfortable to Leo XIII's logic. I find that, whenever these examples are brought up in discussions, one is briskly informed that The Discussion Has Moved On.
Having read far too much on the topic, I think it reasonable to ask to what degree ecclesiastical politics (by this, I do not mean petty politics, but rather working out major policy issues) has to do with the formal theological positions taken.
quote:I think this underscores the point that the old approach - in the West, at least - of analyzing a characteristic called "validity" in terms of old categories of matter, form, minister, and intent, most of these brimming over with a priori assumptions, isn't any longer helpful. I find it more useful to explore issues of what constitutes a properly ordered ecclesial community in which the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments truly and duly administered; likewise, how the polity of an ecclesial community is organised to express a ministry of oversight in which the unity of that part of the Church is manifested, and how various local ministry proceeds from this superordinate ministry of ecclesial oversight, so that ministries are properly ordered, called, ordained, commissioned and legitimised within an overall ecclesial unity.
Originally posted by sebby:
However the real issue is of course the nature of the Church. Holy Orders do not stand alone. As Newman once remarked: 'Anglicans believe their orders are valid, therefore they have a valid church; we believe we have a valid Church, sed on answering AC point by point - which ittherefore our orders are valid.' [/QB]
quote:I have always regarded the nub of the Roman denial of the validity of Anglican Orders as a manifestation of the 'not-made-here' attitude.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
quote:It's funny how no one ever seems to remember that there was responded to Saepius Officio by, among others, Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of the Province of Westminster: A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae' (London, 1898)
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:That is certainly true. The position of the ghastly Msgr Talbot, and his influence in the papal household lasting into Leo XIII's pontificate with regard to Anglican orders, is well known.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:Actually, they don't, and this is a critical fact when it comes to looking at how the Porvoo agreement and the US and Canadian concordats with the Lutherans are working out. Mind you, there's a great deal of incoherence and inconsistency over this (it can be argued that the RCs go entirely overboard in the other direction). As well, Anglicans participation in South Asian church union, as well as in the now-expired COCU and ACoC/UCC plans, make it pretty clear that Anglicans have been quite open on the issue--- certainly far too much for good ecclesiology, but that's another tangent.
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
Lietuvos does have a point, in that Apostolicae Curae passes over a centuries of theory and practice in ordination matters; the idle may notice that much of the Anglican Archbishops' reply (Saepius Officio) is occupied in laying that out with buckets of examples uncomfortable to Leo XIII's logic. I find that, whenever these examples are brought up in discussions, one is briskly informed that The Discussion Has Moved On.
Having read far too much on the topic, I think it reasonable to ask to what degree ecclesiastical politics (by this, I do not mean petty politics, but rather working out major policy issues) has to do with the formal theological positions taken.
Saepe Officio was a masterly document (not least the splendor of its Latin), but based on answering AC point by point - which it did most successfully.
Following the rather tautuous logic of both documents (to a later generation), one might well point to the absurdity of Pope Alexander VI allowing his early teenage 'nephews' to ordain on his behalf. The lack of clear intention and the frivolity of his action might well shake Anglican confidence in the validity of Italian orders.
However the real issue is of course the nature of the Church. Holy Orders do not stand alone. As Newman once remarked: 'Anglicans believe their orders are valid, therefore they have a valid church; we believe we have a valid Church, therefore our orders are valid.'
quote:What gave you the impression that we had forgotten? I have seen a half dozen replies to it at least.
It's funny how no one ever seems to remember that there was responded to Saepius Officio by, among others, Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of the Province of Westminster: A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae' (London, 1898)
quote:And this is meant to be a moderately serious discussion. The so-called 'Vindication' is memorable for the weakness of its arguments, and the flaccidity of its scholarship, but this is hardly surprising given its authorship.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:What gave you the impression that we had forgotten? I have seen a half dozen replies to it at least.
It's funny how no one ever seems to remember that there was responded to Saepius Officio by, among others, Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of the Province of Westminster: A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae' (London, 1898)
quote:Back up that assertion please.
Originally posted by sebby:
The so-called 'Vindication' is memorable for the weakness of its arguments, and the flaccidity of its scholarship, but this is hardly surprising given its authorship.
quote:My initial post dealt with Mr. Rob's suggestion that using 'Episcopal' and 'Anglican' is wrong for churches not in communion with ++Canterbury. I assumed that you agreed with him. If I read you wrong, I'm sorry about that.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Uh, no it doesn't? "Anglican" and "Part of the Anglican Communion" are not the same things.
Which suggests that the Anglican Communion (those churches in communion with +Canterbury) 'owns' the label 'Anglican.' Which is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church 'owns' the label 'Catholic,' or that the historic Lutheran churches in Europe, and their sister churches, 'own' the label 'Lutheran.'
quote:So you've got nothing. Thanks for that.
Originally posted by sebby:
Simply read it.
quote:I reviewed the posts of this thread to find out where I said that. As far as I can see, I said ...
Originally posted by k-mann:
My initial post dealt with Mr. Rob's suggestion that using 'Episcopal' and 'Anglican' is wrong for churches not in communion with ++Canterbury.
quote:... but that is not the same thing as saying their use of Anglican/Episcopal is wrong per se.
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.
quote:Ah yes, this is all fairly familiar territory. Luther justified presbyters ordaining bishops on the basis of the dormancy theory. Late mediaeval ruminations about the nature of Holy Orders often seem to regard three major orders as subdeacon, deacon, priest with the last divided between Bishops who exercise the fullness of the priesthood, and priests who were seen as modern versions of the chorepiscope of the early Church. Odd as that theory sounds to modern ears, it may not be that far from the truth given how difficult it is to prove that the Episcopate and the Presbyterate are completely separate and distinct orders in the Early Church.
Originally posted by sebby:
I love hocus pocus and regret that there isn't enough of it in the church these days.
Whilst I have posted elsewhere that it is a question of the nature of the Church, one might expand the touch theory a little further.
It has been said - and I can cite no authorites whatsoever bar one - that when Albania was suffering under perfidious and vile Communism, the RCC sanctioned RC priests to ordain priests due to the impossiblity bishops being allowed to enter the country. This would be an interesting precendent for the apostolic succession being passed through the presbyteral line, and why one might not have any problem with Methodist ordinations.
The 'authority' was a former professor at Tubingen and the Gregorian (Michael Winter) who stated in a lecture that the power to ordain was present in priests but dormant - and reserved to the episcopate.
Slightly digressionally, it has also been suggested that Mary, Queen of Scots possessed a tiny chalice and paten and was authorised by the pope to say Mass for herself when in confinement and unable to receive the ministrations of a priest.
quote:Whether this derives from a late mediaeval understanding of orders or not, I'd agree with the consequences. It's a bit difficult to talk about the collegiality of the bishops, if one of them has authority to take decisions and make pronouncements that pip all the others.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yet, there seem to be vestiges of the mediaeval view hanging on in the Roman Catholic Church, in which the unique Petrine office diminishes the episcopal ministry (in my reading at any rate)to something that is less than the patristic, big-O Orthodox, and modern/high Anglican view of the episcopate.
quote:I think I would need to see authorities for this. The RCs went to great lengths (generally unsuccesful) in the USSR under Stalin, sending in quickly-imprisoned bishops with wide-ranging faculties to ordain priests and consecrate bishops. Further efforts in postward Czechoslovakia included consecrating several clandestine worker bishops (at least one of whom was married) to ensure the ordination of priests for the underground church. There are a few books on the resolution of the canonical untidiness, which seems to have been bluntly done by the Vatican-- the one I saw had texts of the authorities given by Paul VI for the clandestine bishops.
It has been said - and I can cite no authorites whatsoever bar one - that when Albania was suffering under perfidious and vile Communism, the RCC sanctioned RC priests to ordain priests due to the impossiblity bishops being allowed to enter the country. This would be an interesting precendent for the apostolic succession being passed through the presbyteral line, and why one might not have any problem with Methodist ordinations.
quote:According to the late great Archimandite Serge Keleher (whose 1st anniversary is on Sunday now that I think about of it) an Orthodox bishop in Siberia ordained at least two RC men to the priesthood for the local RC population in the 60s or 70s (can't remember which) when Soviet restrictions meant it was impossible to get a Catholic bishop to do so.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Sebby writes:quote:I think I would need to see authorities for this. The RCs went to great lengths (generally unsuccesful) in the USSR under Stalin, sending in quickly-imprisoned bishops with wide-ranging faculties to ordain priests and consecrate bishops. Further efforts in postward Czechoslovakia included consecrating several clandestine worker bishops (at least one of whom was married) to ensure the ordination of priests for the underground church. There are a few books on the resolution of the canonical untidiness, which seems to have been bluntly done by the Vatican-- the one I saw had texts of the authorities given by Paul VI for the clandestine bishops.
It has been said - and I can cite no authorites whatsoever bar one - that when Albania was suffering under perfidious and vile Communism, the RCC sanctioned RC priests to ordain priests due to the impossiblity bishops being allowed to enter the country. This would be an interesting precendent for the apostolic succession being passed through the presbyteral line, and why one might not have any problem with Methodist ordinations.
My only Albanian contacts knew nothing of any clergy at all when they lived there in Enver Hoxha's day, although one had heard of lay baptisms and had once been present at absolution prayers at a relative's deathbed. She herself was conditionally baptized at a Latin RC parish in Ottawa before her marriage.
I have heard that there were Anglican presbyteral ordinations in Maoist China but these clerics seem to now be in connexional evangelical groups. However the RCs in China had (and still have) both schismatic Patriotic bishops as well as above-ground and underground papal bishops, and both sorts appear to focus on correct and careful ritual practice.
quote:Have YOu read it? Has the authorship even registered with you? The bishops of the Westminister archdiocese. Haha they could barely read then.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:So you've got nothing. Thanks for that.
Originally posted by sebby:
Simply read it.
quote:Arrah sure I'm a just a poor illiterate mackerel snapper like their Lordships. *tugs forelock*
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:Have YOu read it? Has the authorship even registered with you? The bishops of the Westminister archdiocese. Haha they could barely read then.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:So you've got nothing. Thanks for that.
Originally posted by sebby:
Simply read it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:You're at that game again I see. You have made this assertion before, revealing nothing whatsoever about the English RC clergy but a great deal about your own ignorance and prejudice. It's stupid and does you no credit.
Originally posted by sebby:
Have YOu read it? Has the authorship even registered with you? The bishops of the Westminister archdiocese. Haha they could barely read then.
quote:Unless I'm missing something, that is the wrong question. There are only three orders. He is Bishop of Durham. He already is a deacon, a priest and a bishop. He does not require re-ordination to become an Archbishop.
Originally posted by Godric:
I wonder what the evidenced and demonstrable succession is for Archbishop Elect Welby and what strictly Anglican pedigree he has compared to that he derives from the Old Catholic tradition. What is it that the present Bishop of Durham has on offer in the area of Apostolic Succession? Will he need/be offered further consecrations when enthroned?
quote:Newman was wrong then. Protestants in general, including most Anglicans, believe that churches are able to call out members to various ministries, including eldership. The church makes the ministers, the ministers do not make the church. Mumbo-jumbo about "validity" is irrelevant. For most of our history as Protestants Anglicans have been much more likely to worry about legality than validity - not the same thing at all.
Originally posted by sebby:
However the real issue is of course the nature of the Church. Holy Orders do not stand alone. As Newman once remarked: 'Anglicans believe their orders are valid, therefore they have a valid church; we believe we have a valid Church, therefore our orders are valid.'
quote:Whot we calls "licit vs. valid" in canon law-land.
Mumbo-jumbo about "validity" is irrelevant. For most of our history as Protestants Anglicans have been much more likely to worry about legality than validity - not the same thing at all.
quote:Archbishops get no further ordination or consecration when appointed. They are merely installed or "enthroned" in a church service of public recognition. Though technically their powers don't begin then but after election by their cathedral chapter at legal ceremony of confirmation when they take the oaths and sign the documents that bestow the powers of jurisdiction. However, next March 21, it will very much look like things begin for Justin Welby when he is enthroned in the chair of St. Augustine of Canterbury in a gala celebration broadcast around the world from Canterbury Cathedral.
Originally posted by Godric:
The problems arising from irregular ancient consecration seem to have been erased with the passing of time and everything is now seen as 'Pukka' before Rebiba. The golden thread may be a bit patchy in reality and I observe that there is a lack of forensic evidence for early consecrations.
I wonder what the evidenced and demonstrable succession is for Archbishop Elect Welby and what strictly Anglican pedigree he has compared to that he derives from the Old Catholic tradition. What is it that the present Bishop of Durham has on offer in the area of Apostolic Succession? Will he need/be offered further consecrations when enthroned?
quote:Huh? How do you reckon that then? Rebiba was only consecrated a bishop in 1541, after the Church of England broke away from Rome. Where does the CofE lineage intersect with Rebiba's?
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
His place in the documented English succession traces back to the early 16th cen. and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba.
*
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Dr William Tighe wrote the following on a blog a few years ago on the matter of the 'Dutch Touch':
quote:The documented English succession goes back to the 1380s, at least, and if you bring in the Irish which intersects from time to time, to the 12c. Like Triple T, I wonder what Cdl Rebiba has to do with it other than that he is the channel for the Utrechtian succession.
His place in the documented English succession traces back to the early 16th cen. and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba.
quote:Not that open, Augustine.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:Actually, they don't, and this is a critical fact when it comes to looking at how the Porvoo agreement and the US and Canadian concordats with the Lutherans are working out. Mind you, there's a great deal of incoherence and inconsistency over this (it can be argued that the RCs go entirely overboard in the other direction). As well, Anglicans participation in South Asian church union, as well as in the now-expired COCU and ACoC/UCC plans, make it pretty clear that Anglicans have been quite open on the issue--- certainly far too much for good ecclesiology, but that's another tangent.
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
Lietuvos does have a point, in that Apostolicae Curae passes over a centuries of theory and practice in ordination matters; the idle may notice that much of the Anglican Archbishops' reply (Saepius Officio) is occupied in laying that out with buckets of examples uncomfortable to Leo XIII's logic. I find that, whenever these examples are brought up in discussions, one is briskly informed that The Discussion Has Moved On.
Having read far too much on the topic, I think it reasonable to ask to what degree ecclesiastical politics (by this, I do not mean petty politics, but rather working out major policy issues) has to do with the formal theological positions taken.
quote:What SPK believes is not open is what, in Anglican ecclesiology, was blazingly so. The CSI approach was based on economia, of breaking or bending rules for a greater pastoral good, and ran into the wall of those who felt that the rules actually meant something. The two-list approach facilitated congregations' keeping their integrities for a transitional period which, as SPK notes, lasted until the 1960s-- pretty fast for these things, but YMMV.
Not that open, Augustine.
South India created a two-part clergy list in 1948 at its union. The A-list were Anglican clergy and new ordinands ordained by a bishop with Anglican-approved liturgy. These clergy could go anywhere and do anything. B-list clergy, that is everyone else from the South India United Church, the Methodists, the Baptists, etc. could not be placed into a former Anglican parish without that parish's approval. The B-list was intended to become extinct, and it is now.
South India got expelled from the Anglican Communion for its trouble and wasn't let back in until the 1960's due to the presence of the B-list.
I have no idea what fudge the UCCan and the ACCan came up with in the 1974 Proposed Basis of Union, but even that fudge gave your lot cold feet.
quote:Quite correct about Rebiba, but in a qualified way. Thank you and Triple T for catching me out on an error made off the top of my head. My related proviso is of course the inclusion Utrecht Old Catholic and Church of Sweden bishops, together with that of the often overlooked Marco Antonio DeDominus of Spoletto, then dean of Windsor. Of course another proviso to balance all that is that pesky issue of the Edwardine ordinal that can still pop up like some unwelcome guest at a Church of England party.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Mr Rob writes:
quote:The documented English succession goes back to the 1380s, at least, and if you bring in the Irish which intersects from time to time, to the 12c. Like Triple T, I wonder what Cdl Rebiba has to do with it other than that he is the channel for the Utrechtian succession ...
His place in the documented English succession traces back to the early 16th cen. and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba.
quote:Someday somebody will visit a small church in a very remote part of the Fens where there is a notice in the porch saying 'Women Bishops not admitted for Communion here'.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Somebody told me that in the 1960s he visited a small church in a very remote part of the Fens where there was a notice in the porch saying 'Members of the Church of South India are not admitted to Communion here'.
quote:Thanks for pointing out my original error, Triple T. See my 11-12-2012 post to Augustine the Aleut commenting on the very same thing re: the English succession & Rebiba.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:Huh? How do you reckon that then? Rebiba was only consecrated a bishop in 1541, after the Church of England broke away from Rome. Where does the CofE lineage intersect with Rebiba's?
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
His place in the documented English succession traces back to the early 16th cen. and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba.
*
quote:Oh yes, I'd heard that too. Prickwillow, I think.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Somebody told me that in the 1960s he visited a small church in a very remote part of the Fens where there was a notice in the porch saying 'Members of the Church of South India are not admitted to Communion here'.
quote:You seem to be under the impression that I don't know who Bill Tighe is. I do and rarely, if ever, find myself disagreeing with him.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Dr William Tighe wrote the following on a blog a few years ago on the matter of the 'Dutch Touch':
If Francis Clark is right in his *Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention* (1956) — the best book I have read on the subject — the so-called “Dutch Touch” may make no difference, if (1) the ordination rite being used is the same as Cranmer’s Anglican Ordinal of 1552, or substantially the same (as with the 1662 Prayer Book’s revision of those rites) and (2) if the non-Anglican “touchers” participated by using the Anglican rite only, or by laying-on their hands in silence ...
... Etc, etc, etc.
To put this quote in proper context, William Tighe, author and compiler, has a notorious traditionalist Roman Catholic bias against Anglicans or progressively minded Roman Catholics in general. Don't count on Tighe to give a balanced view of any religious issue. He has been on the web a long time with his one sided, wordy arguments intended to convince the unwary that the Church of England and the Church of Sweden are mere Protestant sects.
*
quote:So did we, I might point out. We agreed to bishops, which goes against our parentage. Blazingly so, for the Presbyterian and Congregationalist streams.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
SPK writes:quote:What SPK believes is not open is what, in Anglican ecclesiology, was blazingly so. The CSI approach was based on economia, of breaking or bending rules for a greater pastoral good, and ran into the wall of those who felt that the rules actually meant something. The two-list approach facilitated congregations' keeping their integrities for a transitional period which, as SPK notes, lasted until the 1960s-- pretty fast for these things, but YMMV.
Not that open, Augustine.
South India created a two-part clergy list in 1948 at its union. The A-list were Anglican clergy and new ordinands ordained by a bishop with Anglican-approved liturgy. These clergy could go anywhere and do anything. B-list clergy, that is everyone else from the South India United Church, the Methodists, the Baptists, etc. could not be placed into a former Anglican parish without that parish's approval. The B-list was intended to become extinct, and it is now.
South India got expelled from the Anglican Communion for its trouble and wasn't let back in until the 1960's due to the presence of the B-list.
I have no idea what fudge the UCCan and the ACCan came up with in the 1974 Proposed Basis of Union, but even that fudge gave your lot cold feet.
In response to this, the Church of North India approach had a universal ceremony on inauguration, where all the clerics of the joining churches got hands laid on them receiving them into the new church to do the work of a presbyter etc. In the opinion of many commentators, this was a fudge which permitted one to squint and pretend that it was an ordination or a supplying of defect, and for the other lot to squint and pretend that it was not.
It worked very well in India and Pakistan and, on this basis, the UCoC and the ACoC tried to copy it. Opposition at the time was from both sides on a range of grounds. The intellectual dishonesty one caught on among a number of clerics who would likely have agreed to the CSI approach. Faced with the dissenters likely keeping about six dioceses (of 29) out of the union, the House of Bishops decided it was too soon to be put to the vote. Having been around at the time, I think that the bureaucratic nature of the plan killed almost all lay enthusiasm for organizational change at a time when practical inter-church efforts were going well beyond the ACoC/UCoC axis. Between fudge and irrelevance (merinque??), the Plan of Union became a thesis topic/church trivial pursuit question.
When I said "very open," I was trying to point out that the Anglicans were putting an essential aspect of their ecclesiology on the table. That this was not an essential aspect to the other partners does not take away from that.
quote:No, I didn't say that at all. I didn't know if you knew who he was or not, but from the quote alone I assumed the gentleman was this
Originally posted by CL:
... You seem to be under the impression that I don't know who Bill Tighe is. I do and rarely, if ever, find myself disagreeing with him.
P.S. he's not Roman Catholic.
quote:In 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth decided, with a 80% majority, to leave the Episcopal Church. And they decided to keep their name; the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. What is the principled difference between this, and the Archioceses of Canterbury and York leaving the Catholic Church, yet keeping their names?
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
However their use of the names can be misleading or duplicitous, as in the case of the so-called "Episcopal" Diocese of Fort Worth, which has in fact separated from The Episcopal Church. I their case, the continued use of the name Episcopal is blatantly misleading, especially as they are now part of the separatist Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), a group of churches that hoped (hopes?) to be but isn't part of the Anglican Communion.
quote:It's part of their attempt to convince the courts that they are the rightful claimants to all Episcopal Church properties in the former diocese of Fort Worth, even though they no longer want to be part of the The Episcopal Church. They actually are now part of the Anglican church of North America. Of course when the split took place some years ago, the national Episcopal Church quickly gathered the remaining, loyal parishes into a continuing diocese of Fort Worth, and appointed a provisional bishop for them. That's why we wind up with two dioceses with exactly the same name. Properly, one diocese is an ACNA diocese and the other a TEC diocese, both covering the same area.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Interesting to ask why the EDof FW chose to keep the 'Episcopal' bit of their title ...
quote:The last individual claiming to be a Roman Catholic archbishop of Canterbury was Cardinal Reginald Pole. When he died in 1558 (on the very same day and close to the same hour) as Queen Mary I, Tudor, no further Roman Catholic appointments were made to Canterbury or York. The were no Roman Catholics bishops in England, except a couple of fairly hidden, traveling, apostolic administrators, for nearly three hundred years.
Originally posted by k-mann:
In 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth decided, with a 80% majority, to leave the Episcopal Church. And they decided to keep their name; the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. What is the principled difference between this, and the Archioceses of Canterbury and York leaving the Catholic Church, yet keeping their names?
quote:You might have misunderstood me. The dioceses of Canterbury and York were most certainly part of the Catholic Church. When they left, they didn't have to give up their names because they simply were the dioceses of Canterbury and York. It therefore seems hypocritical to criticize diocese for leaving the Episcopal Church, and keeping its name, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. That diocese just simply is the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Just like the dioceses of York and Canterbury just is the dioceses of York and Canterbury, both before and after the English Reformation.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:The last individual claiming to be a Roman Catholic archbishop of Canterbury was Cardinal Reginald Pole. When he died in 1558 (on the very same day and close to the same hour) as Queen Mary I, Tudor, no further Roman Catholic appointments were made to Canterbury or York. The were no Roman Catholics bishops in England, except a couple of fairly hidden, traveling, apostolic administrators, for nearly three hundred years.
Originally posted by k-mann:
In 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth decided, with a 80% majority, to leave the Episcopal Church. And they decided to keep their name; the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. What is the principled difference between this, and the Archioceses of Canterbury and York leaving the Catholic Church, yet keeping their names?
Catholic emancipation enabled re-establishment of a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in 1850, by Pope Pius IX, with the bull Universalis Ecclesiae, which made no mention of Canterbury, York or the other ancient sees then in the hands of the Church of England. Instead, new, Catholic sees were erected by other titles or in other places. Effectively, an entirely new Catholic hierarchy was established along side of, but not in place of, that of the Church of England. That ended Roman Catholic moral and legal claims to continuity and any inheritance connected to the ancient titles, sites and patrimony of the Church of England.
Now the "principled difference," between Fort Worth and Canterbury & York, is that Anglicans make no claim to be the Roman Catholic church of England. And, sensibly, neither does the Roman Catholic church any longer lay claim to be the Church of England. In other words, the they are realistic. The principle involved here is "be realistic."
BTW ... and not to put too fine a point on it, but Canterbury & York are not, in Church of England usage, called "archdioceses," but each are simply called a diocese, each with a metropolitan archbishop, and each with a metropolitan cathedral church.
*
quote:The Catholic Church was legally prohibited from having dioceses with the same names as CofE dioceses at the time of the restoration (and still is as far as I'm aware).
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:The last individual claiming to be a Roman Catholic archbishop of Canterbury was Cardinal Reginald Pole. When he died in 1558 (on the very same day and close to the same hour) as Queen Mary I, Tudor, no further Roman Catholic appointments were made to Canterbury or York. The were no Roman Catholics bishops in England, except a couple of fairly hidden, traveling, apostolic administrators, for nearly three hundred years.
Originally posted by k-mann:
In 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth decided, with a 80% majority, to leave the Episcopal Church. And they decided to keep their name; the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. What is the principled difference between this, and the Archioceses of Canterbury and York leaving the Catholic Church, yet keeping their names?
Catholic emancipation enabled re-establishment of a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in 1850, by Pope Pius IX, with the bull Universalis Ecclesiae, which made no mention of Canterbury, York or the other ancient sees then in the hands of the Church of England. Instead, new, Catholic sees were erected by other titles or in other places. Effectively, an entirely new Catholic hierarchy was established along side of, but not in place of, that of the Church of England. That ended Roman Catholic moral and legal claims to continuity and any inheritance connected to the ancient titles, sites and patrimony of the Church of England.
Now the "principled difference," between Fort Worth and Canterbury & York, is that Anglicans make no claim to be the Roman Catholic church of England. And, sensibly, neither does the Roman Catholic church any longer lay claim to be the Church of England. In other words, the they are realistic. The principle involved here is "be realistic."
BTW ... and not to put too fine a point on it, but Canterbury & York are not, in Church of England usage, called "archdioceses," but each are simply called a diocese, each with a metropolitan archbishop, and each with a metropolitan cathedral church.
*
quote:Just to be accurate, the name of Thomas Cranmer does in fact appear on the board you mention - followed by the words "Deposed for heresy".
Originally posted by CL:
Also the primacy was transferred to Westminster upon the restoration. Go into Westminster Cathedral and you will see a list of Archbishops of Canterbury from Augustine down to Reginald Cardinal Pole (excluding Cranmer) followed by vicars apostolic and Archbishops of Westminster.
quote:I wasn't sure about that one to be honest, second hand reporting and all that.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:Just to be accurate, the name of Thomas Cranmer does in fact appear on the board you mention - followed by the words "Deposed for heresy".
Originally posted by CL:
Also the primacy was transferred to Westminster upon the restoration. Go into Westminster Cathedral and you will see a list of Archbishops of Canterbury from Augustine down to Reginald Cardinal Pole (excluding Cranmer) followed by vicars apostolic and Archbishops of Westminster.
quote:Deposed is an unusual euphemism for being burnt.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
ust to be accurate, the name of Thomas Cranmer does in fact appear on the board you mention - followed by the words "Deposed for heresy".
quote:This reads strangely to me so can I just check - the Roman Catholic Church doesn't what? Believe the Cof E is the legitimate continuation? Or believe itself to be the legitimate continuation?
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Church of England sees itself as the legitimate continuation of the Church before the Reformation, and the Roman Catholic Church doesn't.
quote:Apologies for the glaring errors in this post - the dates should be 13 November 1555 and 4 December 1555.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Cranmer was condemned to death for treason on 13 November 1535. He was deposed as Archbishop for heresy by Rome on 4 December 1535. He was degraded from Holy Orders on 14 February 1556. The Church deposed him for heresy, the state executed him for treason.
quote:Not quite. The Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects (10 GeoIV c7) received Royal Assent on 13th April 1829. It contains the following:
Originally posted by CL:
The Catholic Church was legally prohibited from having dioceses with the same names as CofE dioceses at the time of the restoration (and still is as far as I'm aware).
quote:Even this wasn't enough, however, following Bl. Pope Pius IX's Bull Universalis ecclesiae of 29th September 1850 and the following year, 1851, Lord John Russell responded to Protestant outcry pushed through the Ecclesiastical Titles Act (14&15 Vict c.60 - actually called "An Act to prevent the assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom"). The act extended the 1829 prohibitions to make it a criminal offence to adopt any pre-existing Anglican Titles and to make forfeit to the Crown any property acquired under that title. This act was never imposed and was repealed by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1871 and all the other disabling sections of the 1829 Act, save those relating to the succession to the throne and regency went in the Statute Law Revision Act of 1873 and in several twentieth century Acts.
And whereas the right and title of Archbishops to their respective provinces, of Bishops to their sees, and of Deans to their deaneries, as well in England as in Ireland, have been settled and established by law; Be it therefore Enacted, That if any person after the commencement of this Act, other than the person thereunto authorized by law, shall assume or use the name, style or title of Archbishop of any province, Bishop of any bishoprick, or Dean of any deanery, in England or Ireland; he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of One hundred pounds.
quote:That may be. But the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is till the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. To make it give up its name, and its assists would be to undermine the whole history of Anglicanism.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Church of England sees itself as the legitimate continuation of the Church before the Reformation, and the Roman Catholic Church doesn't. That part is so old hat I would be shocked if it wasn't a dead horse.
The part the K-mann seems to be consciously refusing to understand is that ACNA and certain others are claiming to be something they aren't- part of the Anglican Communion.
quote:You can make an argument for Acts 13.3, I believe. I'm personally not sure you can define it in such a clear cut manner, but the argument seems possible.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I present an obvious flaw in all of this lineage business?
The Apostle Paul got a direct communication from God. He didn't get his role in the church from someone else handing it to him.
Why on earth, then, does it actually matter whether you can identify who 'passed on' your role to you? Not only can I not see any evidence that this is the way things have to work, I can see Biblical evidence to the contrary.
quote:I really don't see how a claimed title by For Worth "undermines the whole history of Anglicanism" or not, as you put it. The whole history of Anglicanism amounts to much more than that.
Originally posted by k-mann:
... That may be. But the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is till the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. To make it give up its name, and its assists would be to undermine the whole history of Anglicanism.
quote:Thank you! All sorts of detail on this thread -- and it's been very interesting! -- but I have much more basic questions. I feel kind of stupid raising them, but please just put it down to being raised Baptist.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I present an obvious flaw in all of this lineage business?
The Apostle Paul got a direct communication from God. He didn't get his role in the church from someone else handing it to him.
quote:Well that's a lot to answer. Perhaps you should do some reading related to these matters, even research your questions online with Google, your friend.
Originally posted by RuthW:
... But Paul's vocation makes it hard for me to see the Apostolic Succession as a needful thing. I'm sure there's an explanation, but I can't for the life of me see what it is ...
... Another thing that has always bothered me about the insistence upon the importance of the Apostolic Succession is that it's very hard for me to believe that the church really did, one way or another, hand the faith down in an unbroken line of duly consecrated bishops, especially during some of the murkier periods of history. Really? No slip-ups along the way? And we know for sure that it was really apostles or their duly consecrated successors who founded all the early churches? No laypeople from one church ever found themselves displaced by war or famine and decided to evangelize their neighbors in the new place and start a new church?
And a third thing that has always bothered me about it is that I really don't at all see how the churches in the Anglican Communion can claim to be in the Apostolic Succession and then turn around and say that the Methodists aren't, given the Anglican break with Rome, through which the Anglican claim lies. We broke with Rome but somehow stayed in the Apostolic Succession, but the Methodists broke with us and somehow got lost?
quote:They don’t undermine the history themselves. But if the Episcopal Church forced them into doing so, and forced (or tried to force) them into giving up their assets, they (the Episcopal Church) would be undermining the history of Anglicanism. Anglicanism started out by two dioceses, together forming the Church of England, separating themselves from the communion of which they were a part. And neither gave up their name nor their assets.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:I really don't see how a claimed title by For Worth "undermines the whole history of Anglicanism" or not, as you put it. The whole history of Anglicanism amounts to much more than that. … Now perhaps all of them are undermining "the whole history of Anglicanism," but I doubt it. They have, unlike Fort Worth, taken the sensible and realistic step of being honest. Unfortunately, not one of them is a member diocese of the Anglican Communion because ACNA is not a member province of the Anglican Communion. Nor are they any longer part of the Episcopal Church, the sole recognized provincial member of the Anglican Communion in the USA.
Originally posted by k-mann:
... That may be. But the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is till the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. To make it give up its name, and its assists would be to undermine the whole history of Anglicanism.
quote:"This shred of catholicism ... "
Originally posted by sebby:
Just found this on FaceBook with regard to the CofE:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Well they certainly gave up their name. The greedy king kept a lot of the assets.
Originally posted by k-mann:
They don’t undermine the history themselves. But if the Episcopal Church forced them into doing so, and forced (or tried to force) them into giving up their assets, they (the Episcopal Church) would be undermining the history of Anglicanism. Anglicanism started out by two dioceses, together forming the Church of England, separating themselves from the communion of which they were a part. And neither gave up their name nor their assets.
You keep saying that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is no longer part of the Anglican Communion. So what? The Dioceses of Canterbury and York are no longer part of the Catholic Church (‘the Catholic communion’). Did they give up their name, or their assets? No, and they even saw themselves as the continuation of the Church of England from Augustine of Canterbury. Can you give me a principled reason why the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth should give up its name that doesn’t at the same time undermine the Anglican history of Canterbury and York?
quote:I think the argument is that although Paul claimed his authority came from God, it was important to him and thereafter that it was recognised by the church in Jerusalem. I don't think anyone before the very recent period has ever thought it was credible for someone to claim divine authority solely on their own claim to having it.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Thank you! All sorts of detail on this thread -- and it's been very interesting! -- but I have much more basic questions. I feel kind of stupid raising them, but please just put it down to being raised Baptist.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I present an obvious flaw in all of this lineage business?
The Apostle Paul got a direct communication from God. He didn't get his role in the church from someone else handing it to him.
The question orfeo raises has always bothered me. If the apostles had all first been disciples of Jesus while he was alive, it would make more sense to me that the faith has to be handed down in a traceable lineage. But Paul's vocation makes it hard for me to see the Apostolic Succession as a needful thing. I'm sure there's an explanation, but I can't for the life of me see what it is.
Another thing that has always bothered me about the insistence upon the importance of the Apostolic Succession is that it's very hard for me to believe that the church really did, one way or another, hand the faith down in an unbroken line of duly consecrated bishops, especially during some of the murkier periods of history. Really? No slip-ups along the way? And we know for sure that it was really apostles or their duly consecrated successors who founded all the early churches? No laypeople from one church ever found themselves displaced by war or famine and decided to evangelize their neighbors in the new place and start a new church?
And a third thing that has always bothered me about it is that I really don't at all see how the churches in the Anglican Communion can claim to be in the Apostolic Succession and then turn around and say that the Methodists aren't, given the Anglican break with Rome, through which the Anglican claim lies. We broke with Rome but somehow stayed in the Apostolic Succession, but the Methodists broke with us and somehow got lost?
quote:It is a related issue. It seems that the TEC ignores its own history. Or is the Church of England about to give its medieval churches back to Rome? Or give up its diocesian titles?
Originally posted by Zach82:
K-mann, do tell us what your point is. How on EARTH did we get on to TEC property disputes?
quote:Not really. I had thought the issues was that these schismatics are pretending to be part of the Anglican Communion. It's not about them calling themselves Anglican or Episcopal, and it's not about keeping Church property.
It is a related issue...
quote:Ah, Norway. Well that explains a lot.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:It is a related issue. It seems that the TEC ignores its own history. Or is the Church of England about to give its medieval churches back to Rome? Or give up its diocesian titles?
Originally posted by Zach82:
K-mann, do tell us what your point is. How on EARTH did we get on to TEC property disputes?
I am myself part of the Church of Norway ...
quote:It's a small point but this isn't correct. Most of those property claims were settled by the Act of Parliament of April 1554 and the rest effectively waived when the Holy See recognised the Hannoverian Succession in 1766.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
[QBIn 1850, the Church of Rome, as I have explained elsewhere, established an entirely new organization in the UK, with its own, dioceses, cathedrals and titles all different than those held by the Church of England At that point Rome gave up all legal claims that might contest the rights and holdings of the Church of England. It's finished, done, over with for Roman Catholic claims of property of the medieval church in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.[/QB]
quote:That's not suffice to say. That's completely avoiding the question by pretending it doesn't exist. That's saying, "actually it DOESN'T matter whether you were in the original group, we'll just deem you to be in the group".
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Suffice to say that Paul, though not of the twelve apostles, has always been counted (and by his own estimation) among the twelve.
quote:Surveying the websiste of the Fort Worth, and the websistes of the dioceses which Mr. Rob referenced — the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, the Diocese of Quincy, ACNA and the the Diocese of South Carolina — I see now that Fort Worth and the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh claims to be part of the Angican communion, and that the Diocese of South Carolina claims to be “a historic diocese remaining faithful to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ and recognized as such by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion in spite of recent attempts to assume our identity by the new TEC Steering Committee.” The former two is of course wrong, and the latter probably wrong, though the statement could be read simply as a statement to the fact that the Diocese of South Carolina is “a historic diocese,” and that they are recognised as such, and as a diocese who remains “faithful to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ” by parts of the Anglican communion, though not recognized as part of the Anglican communion as such.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Not really. I had thought the issues was that these schismatics are pretending to be part of the Anglican Communion. It's not about them calling themselves Anglican or Episcopal, and it's not about keeping Church property.
It is a related issue...
As has already been explained to you, the Anglican Communion is not a tradition. It's a formal organization with rules and meetings and everything.
quote:Yes, on the death of the Old Pretender, James Francis Edward Stuart, in 1766, Rome came to recognize George I as the lawful king of England. However that recognition did nothing of itself to change the position of Roman Catholics in Great Britain. The first Catholic relief act of 1778, created a huge storm of protest resulting in the famous Gordon Riots.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It's a small point but this isn't correct. Most of those property claims were settled by the Act of Parliament of April 1554 and the rest effectively waived when the Holy See recognised the Hannoverian Succession in 1766.
quote:Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I did that very thing, to no avail. Thanks for the explanation about the Methodists.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Perhaps you should do some reading related to these matters, even research your questions online with Google, your friend.
quote:With respect, Mr Rob, I didn't say it did do anything for Catholics and that wasn't the point in play. The question was the status of Catholic claims to Pre-reformation church properties. You had claimed that those claims fell away with the restoration of the hierarchy in 1850. As I said, it was a small point but you were incorrect. Those claims had been formally waived in 1766.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
However that recognition did nothing of itself to change the position of Roman Catholics in Great Britain.
quote:Must have overlooked that. My fault. It is of course wrong to claim to be part of the Anglican Communion when one is not.
Originally posted by Zach82:
ACNA does pretend to be part of the Anglican Communion right here.
quote:And why should we not allow such freedom to a diocese. What is it with a province (or an archdiocese*) that makes it so different from other dioceses that they can break from their commion, while a particular dioceses can’t? It cannot be because of ties with government, as these are non-existant in the US.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Since the Anglican Reformation was predicated on the rights of national English Church, not on the rights of individual dioceses to do whatever the hell they want, your argument about Episcopalians invalidating their history by getting their property back just doesn't have legs. We ain't claiming anything more for our national Church than the English Church claimed during the Reformation. Not that it was terribly relevant in the first place.
quote:Thank you for pointing out the errors in my previous comments. I am quite fortunate to have you take such interest in my obvious misinformation about these events of English political and church history.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
... You had claimed that those claims fell away with the restoration of the hierarchy in 1850 As I said, it was a small point but you were incorrect ...
... Of course, it is also incorrect to say that the recognition of the Hanoverian Succession did "nothing of itself to change the position of Roman Catholics ... "
