|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I'm enough of a heretical Roman Catholic to think that Anglican Orders, even those that don't have the "fixing" influence of Old Catholic lines, are likely enough to be valid that if I were Anglican I wouldn't sleep over it. Apparently RC's (according to Ad Tuendam Fidem) have to believe (ie, it's infallible in one of those backdoor ways) that when Apostolicae Curae was issued back in the 1800s, Anglican orders were null and void. The Orthodox have had a variety of opinions, some yes, some no, some in between.
So for those of you who think Apostolic Succession matters at all, how do you define it? Is it all about lineage back to the apostles and the correct form, matter, and intent of the ordinations? Is just laying on of hands enough or does there have to be anointing as well for episcopal consecration to be valid? What about the texts of the ordination prayers?
The main issue in Apostolicae Curae (and that was aruged against in Saepus Officio) was the Ordinal issued under Edward VI. What was the big problem there: the lack of anointing or the deficiency of the prayers? How would you compare this with other churches - ie, the Scandinavian Lutherans?
So far, I have only been talking about the Augustinian view of apostolic succession - which is all about the lines. But the Orthodox tend to value more a Ptolemaic view that says that a perfect lineage is meaningless if ordinations take place in schism with the One True Church, or at least outside of communion with a historical diocese of it. That would make any splinter group like "Independent Catholics" and "Continuing Anglicans" invalid in their orders. It doesn't help much in clarifying Anglican Orders, though. Thoughts?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Apostolic succession and validity of orders aren't Dead Horse subjects. If in doubt, please read the guidelines. I'm moving this to Purgatory.
thanks,
L
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
As an Anglican, I don't lose any sleep over it. In any case, my father was an Anglican priest and I do not accept that he was not a priest just because the RCC issued a papal bull more than a century ago.
From the layman's point of view, as Christians we all worship God as revealed in Jesus Christ and a lot of these arguments over which church is the "true church" is no more than theological hair splitting. I suspect that the theological differences between Archbishop Justin and Pope Francis are considerably less than between a lot of the people I worship with on Sundays.
Pope Francis was reported as saying not so long ago that when Christians are being persecuted, the persecutors couldn't care less whether their victim is Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Methodist or any other denomination. It rather puts the question of the validity of Anglican orders into perspective, doesn't it?
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What about it, CL?
Well, the link is a very pretty colour. Maybe, CL is sharing his love of red with us?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
In that case I'd better not visit it, otherwise it'll turn blue for me!
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul 2012
Apprentice
# 17402
|
Posted
“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!” (Ps 133:1)
and
“What were you arguing about on the way?” (Mk 9:33)
Pope Francis in his address to Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby during their meeting in Rome, 16 June.
Asking any Pope to go against his predecessors is not the way to resolve this or any other obstacle to full communion. Surely with the obvious intellectually ability of those involved and a réal will to succeed, other solutions CAN be found. A helping hand from the Holy Spirit wouldn't go amiss.
--------------------
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
Posts: 6 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Gwalchmai - you are right not to lose sleep over your father's calling to be an Anglican priest.You note that he was an Anglican priest.
I assume that he was,however, not in full communion with the Catholic church and that that was his wish. From a Catholic point of view, he may well have been called by God to minister to the children of God,specifically within the Anglican community.Since,presumably, no Catholic bishop,had a 'hand' in his ordination,they can make no judgement on the validity of his ordination.Catholic bishops can only ordain those who are in full communion and who have been vouched for by the Catholic community.
They have no jurisdiction over and can make no judgements upon those who are not in full communion with them and the rest of the wider Catholic church.
The papal decree on the non-validity of Anglican orders goes back to times long ago.Anglicans of today cannot be blamed for what happened many hundreds of years ago,nor will the Good Lord have denied them his friendship because they said at that timethat the 'pope has no jurisdiction in the realm of England'.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
No one wants to talk about the Ordinal of Edward VI, about the validity of the form, matter, and intent, of an ordination, or about connexional (Ptolemaic) conceptions of Apostolic Succession?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm an Anglican. I'm a priest. And I've come to believe over the years (thanks, in part, to conversations I've been part of on the Ship) that what the Pope thinks about that is an utter irrelevance. What do we think? - that at the Reformation the Holy Spirit had some colossal hissy fit, turned her back on us and said, "Well! That's it! I'm not going to any of their ordinations any more!"?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm an Anglican. I'm a priest. And I've come to believe over the years (thanks, in part, to conversations I've been part of on the Ship) that what the Pope thinks about that is an utter irrelevance. What do we think? - that at the Reformation the Holy Spirit had some colossal hissy fit, turned her back on us and said, "Well! That's it! I'm not going to any of their ordinations any more!"?
Exactly. and same thing in regard to the Eucharist we celebrate or any of the other sacraments.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul 2012:
Asking any Pope to go against his predecessors is not the way to resolve this or any other obstacle to full communion. Surely with the obvious intellectually ability of those involved and a réal will to succeed, other solutions CAN be found. A helping hand from the Holy Spirit wouldn't go amiss.
Sure, with a combination of intellectual ability, a real will to succeed, and the Holy Spirit's guidance, I expect much progress will be made!
However, if the RCC hierarchy agrees with you that 'asking any Pope to go against his predecessors' isn't the way forward, then how can any progress be made? Aren't you basically saying that for there to be full (or fuller) unity between the RCC and another church, then all the concessions will have to come from that other church?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
I am not an Anglican of any stripe, nor a Roman Catholic or pretty much a believer in anything. However, I spent 10 years as a priest of the Old Roman Catholic Church, which was considered by Rome to have valid, however highly illicit orders. One thing that learned early on as an Old Roman Catholic priest was as long as the orders I received were valid in my particular church, it didn't really matter what any other religious organization considered them. I have done some reading about that particular decision way back when. The funny thing was most of the people on that commission were in favor of accepting Anglican orders as valid, but the bishops of England fought that decision, saying if that position was approved, then it would deter people from become Catholics. Rome listened to them. Kinda like after Vatican II when the papal commission was almost solidly in favor of approving birth control, but Paul IV wouldn't listen to the commission and published Humanae Vitae in spite of their findings.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity
Answer: Depends on whose doing the validating.
What more is to be said?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Sorry, I meant to write:
Answer: "Depends on who's doing the validating." ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
I am not an Anglican of any stripe, nor a Roman Catholic or pretty much a believer in anything. However, I spent 10 years as a priest of the Old Roman Catholic Church, which was considered by Rome to have valid, however highly illicit orders. One thing that learned early on as an Old Roman Catholic priest was as long as the orders I received were valid in my particular church, it didn't really matter what any other religious organization considered them. I have done some reading about that particular decision way back when. The funny thing was most of the people on that commission were in favor of accepting Anglican orders as valid, but the bishops of England fought that decision, saying if that position was approved, then it would deter people from become Catholics. Rome listened to them. Kinda like after Vatican II when the papal commission was almost solidly in favor of approving birth control, but Paul IV wouldn't listen to the commission and published Humanae Vitae in spite of their findings.
From what I've read about infallibility, even with the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is the one usually referenced regarding Anglican Orders, even if a truth of faith and morals is defined for terrible reasons, and regardless of the holiness of the Pope who recognizes a universal constant truth, it is true because the organ of infallibility says it is. Tough. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Now I have my own beliefs about getting around that ![[Biased]](wink.gif) but the current occupiers of high positions in the Vatican do not, I believe.
And with Anglican Orders, I think that the infallible truth about their being null and void at the time of Apostolicae Curae is not said to be part of the deposit of faith as an explicit teaching (I believe), but because it is a logical necessity of other defined truths and therefore just as infallible. Someone can go and check Ad Tuendam Fidem and correct me. Of course one can argue whether that document itself is infallible, and we can get into all kinds of fun discussions about telescoping truths ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
The funny thing was most of the people on that commission were in favor of accepting Anglican orders as valid, but the bishops of England fought that decision, saying if that position was approved, then it would deter people from become Catholics. Rome listened to them.
Utter rot, as the link I provided shows. As for the irrelevant aside about HV; orthodoxy is not determined by what is popular otherwise we'd all be Arians.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
No one wants to talk about the Ordinal of Edward VI, about the validity of the form, matter, and intent, of an ordination, or about connexional (Ptolemaic) conceptions of Apostolic Succession?
OK I'll bite. It has always struck me as bizarre that some Anglicans strongly protest that Anglican orders should be considered valid, whereas by contrast there are a good number of ordained Anglican ministers who don't even believe that there is any such thing as ordination. I am reminded of a conservative evangelical Wycliffe ordinand who described ordination (on the eve of his own ordination) as "a bit dodgy".
But I guess a similar situation prevails as regards Holy Communion. The celebrant may have a purely memorialist position, yet the communicant may believe in transubstaniation.
[ 27. June 2014, 10:59: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Kwesi actually has it right: who is doing the validating?
The question about the "validity" of Anglican Orders, from a Catholic perspective, is whether those Orders can be regarded as the equivalent of the Orders in the Catholic Church. For the Catholic Church, the answer is no.
A massive chunk - I would venture to guess the majority chunk - of Anglicanism would surely agree with that (see post by TurquoiseTastic). Paging daronmeday for comment.
When read from another perspective, the declaration is that Christ is absent from the Orders and sacraments of the Anglican Church. I think that's how many Anglicans hear the judgement of Apostolicae Curae . However, that most certainly has never been declared by the Catholic Church. But people are deaf to this point.
I don't think Methodists or URC or Baptists etc care two hoots about such a declaration because they are not particularly interested in asserting that they have priests and bishops in the sense that the RCC has them. But some Anglicans are. Before the Oxford Movement would that have been true? Was it not a matter of pride for Anglicans to be differentiated from "Massing priests" before then?
The logical incoherence within Anglicanism regarding Orders is the question that needs to be addressed first, it seems to me. But since comprehensiveness is the current badge of honour of Anglicanism, I am not certain that could ever happen. How can the Catholic Church assert that Anglicans have Orders in the equivalent way that she does when most Anglicans would disagree with that?
Meanwhile, I get on very happily with my evangelical Anglican colleague locally. We both celebrate and proclaim Christ. But I would not dream of suggesting to him he is a priest in the manner that I am, for he would likely be insulted!
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm an Anglican. I'm a priest. And I've come to believe over the years (thanks, in part, to conversations I've been part of on the Ship) that what the Pope thinks about that is an utter irrelevance. What do we think? - that at the Reformation the Holy Spirit had some colossal hissy fit, turned her back on us and said, "Well! That's it! I'm not going to any of their ordinations any more!"?
I agree. It seems to me that the loss of apostolic succession is a Bad Thing because it can only come about as a consequence of a breach. But the question is then what we are going to do about the breach. Worrying about orders is addressing the symptoms rather than the disease.
Also, AIUI the Catholic Church doesn't deny that Anglican sacraments can be a vehicle of grace. It merely states that they aren't being performed in the way God intended them. But no church is acting precisely as God intended, so I don't understand why invalid orders are an absolute deal-breaker but most other deviations from God's will aren't.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Kwesi actually has it right: who is doing the validating?
The question about the "validity" of Anglican Orders, from a Catholic perspective, is whether those Orders can be regarded as the equivalent of the Orders in the Catholic Church. For the Catholic Church, the answer is no.
A massive chunk - I would venture to guess the majority chunk - of Anglicanism would surely agree with that (see post by TurquoiseTastic). Paging daronmeday for comment.
When read from another perspective, the declaration is that Christ is absent from the Orders and sacraments of the Anglican Church. I think that's how many Anglicans hear the judgement of Apostolicae Curae . However, that most certainly has never been declared by the Catholic Church. But people are deaf to this point.
I don't think Methodists or URC or Baptists etc care two hoots about such a declaration because they are not particularly interested in asserting that they have priests and bishops in the sense that the RCC has them. But some Anglicans are. Before the Oxford Movement would that have been true? Was it not a matter of pride for Anglicans to be differentiated from "Massing priests" before then?
The logical incoherence within Anglicanism regarding Orders is the question that needs to be addressed first, it seems to me. But since comprehensiveness is the current badge of honour of Anglicanism, I am not certain that could ever happen. How can the Catholic Church assert that Anglicans have Orders in the equivalent way that she does when most Anglicans would disagree with that?
Meanwhile, I get on very happily with my evangelical Anglican colleague locally. We both celebrate and proclaim Christ. But I would not dream of suggesting to him he is a priest in the manner that I am, for he would likely be insulted!
Apostolicae Curae was celebrated by many members of the C of E at the time as a validation of their Protestantness. The C of E still has a decent number of members who are happy about this. I think this is less true in the US Episcopal Church, which is higher up the candle on average. People don't define themselves based on how Rome views them, but they do feel a need to defend themselves against accusations of not having having real ordinations or a real Eucharist.
By the way, it's not as if Anglicans don't also have their own opinions about what ordinations are valid and what aren't. In the US we have the added complication of being in full communion and clergy-sharing agreements with denominations that make no claim to apostolic succession and openly reject Roman Catholic views on holy orders, but this is less of an issue in the C of E, where Evangelicalism is stronger, but there is a reason why the Porvoo communion includes Scandinavian Lutheran Churches but not German ones.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The last paragraph of TT's post echoes what a TEC priest who had gone over to the Anglican Use of the Special Pastoral Provision for North America under JP-II told me, i.e. the Catholic hierarchy and clergy of his experience had easier relations with the low church Anglican clergy than with Anglo-Catholics. In his words, "they don't quite know what to do with Anglo-Catholics". He was by this time, of course, a priest of the RCC, but still very in touch with the dynamics of TEC-RCC relations. It also seems noteworthy that in his account, the RC representatives who received the TEC clergy-in-transition into the RCC and prepared them for ordination under the Special Pastoral Provision apparently communicated a more gracious attitude than was later the case in respect to the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, where there seems to have been a great emphasis on repudiating Anglican orders. However, as my priest informant told me, when the Special Pastoral Provision was first effected in the mid-1980s, TEC priests being received and prepared for ordination in the RCC were told that unconditional ordination was simply a matter of complying with RC canon law, and no emphasis was put on the validity or invalidity of the Episcopal clergy being taken in. It seems likely to me that in the case of the Ordinariate, much of the difference in tone may be accounted for by the Ordinary himself, a former TEC bishop who left TEC a number of years before the Ordinariate ever came about and who was then appointed to head up the Ordinariate. The overall tone in the Ordinariate in America seems to be more authoritarian than in the Anglican Use Special Pastoral Provision.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The thing I actually find upsetting about all this is not what the RCC thinks of Anglican Orders and other sacraments, but rather what the extreme low church-evangelical wing makes of them. Having spent my entire life in the high church and Anglo-Catholic wing of TEC and the CofE, I know I'm pretty naive about theology outside that part of the Church in which I reside. Too, TEC almost entirely lacks the evo-low church extremes that exist in some other Anglican provinces. There are other problems in TEC, but evangelical protestantism doesn't tend to be one of them. I can't recognize the extreme protestant wing in the Anglican Communion as holding the same faith that I do; outside of a belief in the Trinity and the centrality of OL&SJC in the economy of salvation, I don't think we have anything in common.
[ 27. June 2014, 12:15: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
IIRC the key issue in declaring Anglican orders invalid was "defective intent". However, it seems to me that since 1539 Roman Catholic orders were invalid on the same grounds. After all, we Anglicans started ordaining people in the vernacular, which could be understood, while Rome continued using Latin which was less and less understood. Therefore by the 19th Century all Roman orders were invalid due to defective intent, given that few if any of the ordinands really understood their ordination promises. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
So the solution is really simply. Rome, come back to the one true church, the Ecclesia Anglicana of ancient and true lineage: we can validate your orders with a simple laying on of hands.
The Anglican Church - keeping valid orders alive in the Wild West, since at least 1539! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
Therefore by the 19th Century all Roman orders were invalid due to defective intent, given that few if any of the ordinands really understood their ordination promises.
So they did not understand anything of their seminary training and exams either (given they were taught in latin)? Yikes.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I think that the only thing I can contribute to this discussion other than noting that the incoherence of the opinions of some Anglican clerics is generally irrelevant, is that we cannot fault RC seminarians of another period on account of their instruction and undertakings being in Latin. We easily forget that Latin was a language in full use, albeit by a small small minority of the population. In French Canadian seminaries, (just) within living memory impromptu debates on a wide range of topics were held in Latin, in Poland and Lithuania the language was often used by clergy (partly because they believed that there were no Latinists among the secret police whom they assumed were listening in)-- indeed one of my RC contacts was sometimes trotted out in the 1980s to interpret when eastern European bishops were in town. And who can forget Eric Newby's discussion in Latin with the Appenine village priest? It is almost certain that, when it came to promises and undertakings, they knew what they were doing as much as if it had been in their mamaloshen (yiddish for mother tongue).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
And indeed the likes of C S Lewis would communicate with some correspondents overseas in their common language - Latin.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Reading this thread in conjunction with the thread on Anglican views on the Eucharist leads me to think TT is correct: many Anglicans don't think of themselves as being ordained to the priesthood as this is understood in the RCC. So I don't really see why, for most Anglicans, it's a problem for the RCC to say that their ordinations are not doing what the RCC thinks (rightly or wrongly) its ordinations are doing. For those Anglican who do think of the Eucharist in the same sense that the RCC does (who seem to be a minority, judging from the other thread), I can see why it would be a problem, but not for the rest.
[ 27. June 2014, 14:25: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I think apostolic succession is important but specifically tactile succession probably had many broken links because the early church had different ideas - a congregation might ordain its own minister in one place, for example.
But the idea generally became a touchstone of orthodoxy.
The free churches have different notions of ordination for historical reasons and take their ministry very seriously so I do not believe that their orders and sacraments are 'invalid'.
However, in any unity schemes, I think it is important that they asent to the historic episcopate so that everything, eventually, joins up.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Anglicans who feel themselves somewhat slighted by
Rome over differences in orders are often the Anglicans who will dismiss as defective the orders
of such as Methodists and Presbyterians.The Church of Scotland regards itself,as least in some documents as the holy ,catholic church in Scotland. I know from experience that its clergy,both male and female ,consider themselves to be validly ordained to the ministry of both Word and Sacrament.Surely Anglicans who don't bother about what the pope may say (and the pope may not actually be as rude as some seem to think !)must accept also the orders of Scottish Presbyterians.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
This leads to an interesting question: how many Anglicans believe in something like a ministerial priesthood that is different from the baptismal priesthood and that is necessary for a valid Eucharist (and for valid confession, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and, with bishops, for ordination)? Do most Anglicans believe that presbyters and bishops are just priests like all other baptized people but called to a position of leadership?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Given what Leo has just written,could he not also repair the possibly defective ordination of Anglican clergy,by submitting to Roman Catholic ordination,just so that every would be nicely joined up ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Given what Leo has just written,could he not also repair the possibly defective ordination of Anglican clergy,by submitting to Roman Catholic ordination,just so that every would be nicely joined up ?
In the context of a re-unification of the Anglican communion and Rome, validity of priestly orders is a topic that would have to be considered and resolved, but you're rather putting the cart before the horse.
A rather greater problem is not so much the question of whether a C of E priest is, in fact, a priest, but whether the C of E as a whole can agree (even within itself, let alone with Rome) on what a priest is.
For whilst the A-C wing of the C of E believes more-or-less the same things about the sacraments and the priesthood as Rome, the low-church end doesn't. (See the variety of views presented in the meaning of the Eucharist thread. Going back in time, this is also the reason that Saepius Officio was never an official document of the C of E.)
Once you square that circle, the understanding of what to do with existing priests will more or less emerge naturally.
[ 27. June 2014, 16:08: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
for most Anglicans, it's a problem for the RCC to say that their ordinations are not doing what the RCC thinks
I honestly think most Anglicans would be genuinely surprised to learn that the RCC had a position on the matter at all. I also suspect most Anglicans would regard Catholic priests as not materially different to Methodist pastors or Presbyterian ministers or any other clergy, save for being exclusively male and unmarried.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by FCB
So I don't really see why, for most Anglicans, it's a problem for the RCC to say that their ordinations are not doing what the RCC thinks (rightly or wrongly) its ordinations are doing.
I am probably not typical, but although I can't seem to believe in the idea of a church being guaranteed to avoid doctrinal error, I do think that the Catholic church, having been around from the start and having tried to pass on the faith from age to age, is on average likely to be right about more things than any Protestant church.
So I am very interested in what they teach, including what they teach about other churches. I would like to receive Christ in the sacraments, and would be reassured if the Catholic church thinks that I probably do, and likewise discouraged if it thinks that I probably don't.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Do most Anglicans believe that presbyters and bishops are just priests like all other baptized people but called to a position of leadership?
I think, of the subset of Anglicans that has given it sufficient thought to have an opinion, most would consider there to be something specific about ordination that permits one to celebrate the Eucharist, to pronounce absolution, or to give a blessing. The fact that Anglicans hold that you cannot "unpriest" someone but only remove their licence to exercise their ministry seems to bear this out. The idea that all baptised people are priests is not one that is widely promoted in my experience of Anglicanism.
I imagine that most lay Anglicans, and most lay Roman Catholics, would see no difference between their priests in terms of their duties and their function.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This leads to an interesting question: how many Anglicans believe in something like a ministerial priesthood that is different from the baptismal priesthood and that is necessary for a valid Eucharist (and for valid confession, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and, with bishops, for ordination)? Do most Anglicans believe that presbyters and bishops are just priests like all other baptized people but called to a position of leadership?
To the first question, I would say the great majority, insofar as they think about the question at all. For the second, I do not know of many who think of the baptized as participating in priesthood-- perhaps I can count them on my fingers (although I have run into this position in United Church of Canada circles).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
As well you should. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amir Emrra
Apprentice
# 18100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity
Answer: Depends on who's doing the validating.
What more is to be said?
Agree, even within the RC church. It only really seems to matter to those to whom it matters, the lieutenants, not necessarily the captains. Abbot Giles of Alton Abbey, Anglican, gleefully recollects his story of presiding at Mass inside the very walls of the Vatican, on a visit there. The invitation was extended by the person originally scheduled to preside, a bishop or cardinal if I recall correctly.
Posts: 37 | From: UK | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
What is the "mainstream" Anglican definition of Apostolic Succession? How is this different from RC and Orthodox definitions? Is it closer to the "Augustinian" or the "Ptolemaic" definitions listed in my OP?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What is the "mainstream" Anglican definition of Apostolic Succession? How is this different from RC and Orthodox definitions? Is it closer to the "Augustinian" or the "Ptolemaic" definitions listed in my OP?
I'm not sure it's something Anglicans think about very much, except when it becomes an issue. But I think if you backed a thinking Anglican into a corner, they'd feel a bit embarrassed at the thought that it's all about the "magic touch" at ordination. I mean, I may be giving away a trade secret here, but at the moment of ordination, octarine sparks do not shoot out of the end of the bishop's fingers. (Sorry if that disappoints anyone getting ordained this weekend.)
I think we'd want to talk rather in terms of apostolic faith and apostolic ministry. Apostolic faith would probably include some account of the catholic creeds. Apostolic ministry would probably appeal to the threefold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon (or, if you prefer, overseer, presbyter and servant) which we see beginning to take shape in the later books of the Bible.
And yes, I think we'd want to say something distinctive about the ordained ministries - distinctive from, but in no sense superior to, lay ministries - because in the Anglican tradition, no-one may presume to those ministries who has not been "called and sent".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Given what Leo has just written,could he not also repair the possibly defective ordination of Anglican clergy,by submitting to Roman Catholic ordination,just so that every would be nicely joined up ?
Well,of course, that is what many of my friends have done after joining the ordinariate.
But that is to deny what we have taught and been taught - that the C of E is the catholic church of these two provinces. Its orders are in valid succession.
The situation with the free churches is, however, different and they don't even claim otherwise.
It's complicated - if it wasn't, we'd have had a successful unity scheme decades ago.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Anglicans who feel themselves somewhat slighted by
Rome over differences in orders are often the Anglicans who will dismiss as defective the orders
of such as Methodists and Presbyterians.The Church of Scotland regards itself,as least in some documents as the holy ,catholic church in Scotland. I know from experience that its clergy,both male and female ,consider themselves to be validly ordained to the ministry of both Word and Sacrament.Surely Anglicans who don't bother about what the pope may say (and the pope may not actually be as rude as some seem to think !)must accept also the orders of Scottish Presbyterians.
It was when I learned that the Episcopal Church does not recognize confirmations done in the Methodist Church, but rather confirms Methodists wishing to become Episcopalians rather than receiving them into the church the way we do with Catholics, that I realized that our notion of the apostolic succession is a bunch of hooey. We're in the apostolic succession, but the Methodists aren't? Puh-leeze. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am slightly more surprised that Methodists even have confirmations! Is this a US Methodist thing? UK Methodists don't have bishops, so surely nobody to do the confirming?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Confirmation is just a ceremony that incorporates one into the full entitlements and obligations of church membership. As such Methodists have it par excellence, indeed the Methodist Church of GB can tell you what the standing of every member is and which congregation they belong to. There exists a central roll.
The good old CofE can not do that for confirmed members. This is why Methodist Church confirms former Anglicans! Former URC, Congregationalists and Baptists members often are accepted as we keep local rolls.
What surprised me was not that Methodists needed confirming but that Roman Catholics did not.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am slightly more surprised that Methodists even have confirmations! Is this a US Methodist thing? UK Methodists don't have bishops, so surely nobody to do the confirming?
The Minister, who else? If we may speak of kids on the colonies, in the UCCan the minister confirms with the assent of the Session. It's what makes you an all-important "Member".
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
What surprised me was not that Methodists needed confirming but that Roman Catholics did not.
The Episcopal Church recognizes the validity of the sacrament of confirmation in the Catholic Church, but not in the United Methodist Church, because the Catholic Church is held to be in the apostolic succession and the Methodist Church is not.
Which is just crazy, if you ask me. If Anglicans are in the apostolic succession, it's because we got it from the Catholic Church we broke away from, so I don't see why the Methodists can't have gotten it from the church they broke away from.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
But Anglican don't claim we broke away from the Catholic Church. We claim the CofE IS the Catholic Church in England, with episcopal orders going back to Augustine, from him to Gregory, back to Peter and back to Jesus Christ.
Methodist bishops have never claimed to be in tactile succession to the apostles; their ministry is biblical and historic, but administrative rather than sacramental. Methodist presbyters in leadership positions assumed the title "bishop" but are not and have never been considered to be the literal successors of the apostles.
I suppose we look at Methodists the way Rome does us.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I suppose we look at Methodists the way Rome does us.
Exactly. We get all pissy and moany about the way Rome categorizes at us and then turn right around and do the same thing to the Methodists.
And the CofE's claim to be the Catholic Church in England is ridiculous. How can you be the Catholic Church anywhere if you're not in communion with the pope?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
