Thread: Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027433
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
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
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
http://www.angelfire.com/nj/malleus/Messenger.html
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
What about it, CL?
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
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?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
In that case I'd better not visit it, otherwise it'll turn blue for me!
Posted by Paul 2012 (# 17402) on
:
“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.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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'.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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!"?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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?
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on
:
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.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity
Answer: Depends on whose doing the validating.
What more is to be said?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Sorry, I meant to write:
Answer: "Depends on who's doing the validating." ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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)
.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
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.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
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.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
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 ]
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on
:
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)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
And indeed the likes of C S Lewis would communicate with some correspondents overseas in their common language - Latin.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
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 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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 ?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
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.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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).
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
As well you should. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on
:
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.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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".
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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?
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
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".
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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?
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
A lifetime ago the notice board at our place was a confection of glittering gilt letters on glossy black. It proclaimed:
ST SOANDSO’S
for the administration of the Rites and Ceremonies of
THE CHURCH
[and then in decidedly smaller lettering]
according to the Use of the Church of England.
Well, since those days the name has changed in Australia, but we remain no –erian, -ism or -ist, but part of Ecclesia Anglicana. What others may think or say of our Orders is their concern, not ours.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
In the Anglican Church I attend, any Christian who is able to do so with a good conscience is welcome to receive the Sacrament. It is the Pope who is not in communion with us.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
Such welcoming is also our custom.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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?
Easy-- if you believe that being in communion with the Pope is not the deciding factor. Even the RCs think so, as they happily recognize the Orthodox and the Old Catholics as such, as well as a few little schismatic groups. The difference here is that Anglican ecclesiology places the Anglican church in the catholic category but the RCs (and many Anglicans, possibly even a majority) do not.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
Open communion is indefensible.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
originally posted by RuthW
How can you be the Catholic Church anywhere if you're not in communion with the pope?
Even if one doesn't think the pope is the deciding factor, to be part of the Catholic church you surely have to teach the Catholic faith. Individual Church of England churches do so but the Church of England as a whole doesn't, and I don't think it ever has.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Open communion is indefensible.
Instead of just throwing out an unsupported assertion, why don't you try making an actual argument? Reasoned arguments can be made on both sides and I'm conversant with the central RC position. To me, however, just making an assertion without providing some rationale just seems trolling. Isn't open v. closed communion a DH on the Ship?
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
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.
YMMV, but not every Anglican that I have met accepts the idea of indelible ontological change. Given that many of us know former priests (and at least one former bishop) who have renounced their orders and who do not consider themselves priests suggests that some Anglicans do believe that you can be 'unpriested'. And the 'priesthood of all believers' is regularly discussed and promoted IME, although of course everyone will understand different things by that phrase.
RC laity will certainly believe there is a difference between their priests and Anglican clergy, not least because most of them will have been taught that there is a difference - at least, Catholics of my age (mid 40s) and older, even if the approach has been more ecumenical since my childhood. Anglicans tend to think it's a pity that RC priests aren't allowed to marry, but that's that in most cases.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Why yes, open vs. closed communion IS a Dead Horse topic. Take the discussion there or drop it now.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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?
Easy-- if you believe that being in communion with the Pope is not the deciding factor. Even the RCs think so, as they happily recognize the Orthodox and the Old Catholics as such, as well as a few little schismatic groups. The difference here is that Anglican ecclesiology places the Anglican church in the catholic category but the RCs (and many Anglicans, possibly even a majority) do not.
OK, so what's the deciding factor then?
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on
:
I have always thought that the Historic Episcopate in Anglicanism was sort of like Confederate currency -- something with no real validity, since neither of the two largest Christian denominations recognizes the currency. Ecumenical relations with Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, have not been dependent on the historic episcopate -- it is only with Old Catholics that it has been an issue, and I doubt that the Catholic and Orthodox churches would still recognize Old Catholic orders, given their ordination of women. I'm having a hard time understanding the need for Episcopalians/Anglicans to hold on to this part of the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
OK, so what's the deciding factor then?
It's a question of fact. Assuming that priesthood is an ontological change and so on (or the entire discussion just makes no sense at all), there are two possibilities. Either C of E priests are priests, or they are not priests.
We don't have an ontological priesthood detector, so collections of humans can certainly come to opinions ranging from "I am certain that he is a priest" through "He might be a priest but we can't be certain" to "We're pretty certain he's not a priest".
These three conditions would correspond to being received into the RC church, being conditionally ordained, and being unconditionally ordained, for a priest who wished to join the RC church.
It is clear that the (current) view of the RC church is the latter, but unless you think that the RC church has the power to make such an infallible determination, the fact that this is the opinion of the RC church doesn't necessarily make it true.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
....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".
What about those of us who believe that we're all ordained?
[code]
[ 30. June 2014, 08:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
....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".
What about those of us who believe that we're all ordained?
Well yes, sorry: that's what he meant of course. I think this is the majority position among evangelicals. Hence the word "priest" is rarely used to denote a minister.
[code]
[ 30. June 2014, 08:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
A problem here is that there are a few at each end of the CofE's catholic-evangelical spectrum (mostly, I think, at the evangelical end) who have no real loyalty to the Anglican way and who merely regard the CofE as a convenient structure within which to pursue their wayward ministries while they receive a paycheck every month. I believe at one end of the spectrum the usual phrase to describe this is that the CofE is merely "the best boat to fish from". (Goodness knows how these people got through the ministerial selection process, but that's a whole 'nother thread.) These people may believe that there's no such thing as ordained ministerial priesthood, or that Anglican orders are contingent on the opinion of the Pope, but they're a small minority even in these dark days.
The fact is, the CofE maintains the apostolic faith and ministry. We simply don't need anyone else to declare that "valid" or not - which is why I said upthread that the Pope's opinion of my orders is irrelevant. Whether I like it or not (and as is well known, mostly "not"), I am a priest, ordained by the Holy Spirit at the intercession of my bishop. Whether I exercise that ministry or not, I'm a priest for life and then, as a wise old bishop once said to me, "either a priest in heaven or a priest in hell".
What's rather sad is that talk of "validity" betrays a lack of confidence in the Anglican way. It's like we go begging to our neighbour churches, whining, "Please like me! - pleeeeease!" In my opinion, any Anglican who questions the "validity" of our orders has essentially already taken a step out of the door.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
It was put to me some years ago now that every Christian is called to be a minister of God in some capacity or other; not all are called to be priests. And as long as we serve God honestly according to our lights, I'm not sure he cares very much what we call ourselves (or how we dress ourselves up to do it, he added in an undertone.)
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
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.
Just to pick up a few points for accuracy, from this and preceding posts. The Methodist Church in Britain does have confirmation (laying on of hands and "Confirm, Lord, your servant N by your Holy Spirit that she/he may continue yours for ever." It is administered by presbyters (ministers). For someone who has not been previously confirmed, they would be received into membership and confirmed at the same time. We do not reconfirm people who have been confirmed elsewhere (for example in the Church of England) - they would just be received by transfer.
Membership rolls are held at local level; there is no central roll, although we are required to report numbers of members annually.
All of that said I'm pleased people are picking up the irony that Anglicans often display to Methodists and others the same position (mutatis mutandis) that they complain about Catholics taking.
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
The fact that the RC Church does not recognize the validity of male Anglican holy orders is mildly annoying to me. This is because whatever our historical differences it seems to me that after the Ritualist Movement on our part and Vatican II on their part an Episcopal Eucharist and a Roman Catholic mass are essentially the same thing. In my understanding (i)Apostolicae Curae(/i) rests on the lack of explicit references to a Eucharistic sacrifice in the Ordinals of 1550 and 1662. Many of the 20th century Anglican rites put them back in, and we now have the "Dutch Touch" from bishops whose orders were accepted without question as valid. Much more importantly, the novus ordo ordinal of the RCC took such references out! But this does not affect me in any way.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The fact that the RC Church does not recognize the validity of male Anglican holy orders is mildly annoying to me. This is because whatever our historical differences it seems to me that after the Ritualist Movement on our part and Vatican II on their part an Episcopal Eucharist and a Roman Catholic mass are essentially the same thing. In my understanding (i)Apostolicae Curae(/i) rests on the lack of explicit references to a Eucharistic sacrifice in the Ordinals of 1550 and 1662. Many of the 20th century Anglican rites put them back in, and we now have the "Dutch Touch" from bishops whose orders were accepted without question as valid. Much more importantly, the novus ordo ordinal of the RCC took such references out! But this does not affect me in any way.
The "Dutch Touch" is irrelevant today (due to WO if nothing else) and for the most part always has been as it still doesn't sort out who among CofE clergy have valid orders and who does not due to the total incoherence of Anglicanism as whole as to what Holy Orders actually are, i.e. how can one intend to do as the Church does when you can't agree among yourselves what the Church is actually doing?
This is the difference with regards to the changes made to Catholic ordinals from 1947. The doctrine of the Church regarding the nature of Holy Orders cannot change and has not changed, i.e. a sacrificial priesthood. Context is everything.
Just to return to the Dutch Touch for another moment I would also point out that it's applicability would only have been in the context of CofE ordinations, not other parts of the Anglican Communion such as ECUSA in which it was purported to have occurred. If I may quote Dr William Tighe from several years ago:
quote:
Some years ago I had several conversations with the Rt. Rev'd Anthony Rysz (b. 1924), Bishop of the Central Diocese of the Polish National Catholic Church from 1968 to 1999. He is (and was then) the last living PNCC bishop who participated in consecrations of Episcopal Church bishops during the period of intercommunion between those two bodies from 1946 to 1978. He told me that at such events the PNCC bishop present either laid on his hands in silence or said aloud the words prescribed in the Anglican rite. He told me clearly and specifically that as far as he knew during the whole 1946 to 1978 period no PNCC bishop ever followed, or was asked to follow, the practice of European Old Catholic bishops in the period from 1932 to either 1959 or 1974 (consecration of Eric Kemp as Bishop of Chichester) in reciting "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" etc., from the Pontifical.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
CL posts, inter alia, quote:
how can one intend to do as the Church does when you can't agree among yourselves what the Church is actually doing?
Red Herring alert. What is relevant in terms of judging the sacramental intent of Anglicanism can be found in the ordinals of Anglican churches. Contemporary ordinals are fairly comparable (there's a few comparison tables wandering around the web for the interested) and most of them address many of Apostolicae Curae's specific objections.
Surveys of popular sentiment, or clerical opinion, or a review of blogs on the topic, are all quite irrelevant to this. If there be incoherence in the ordinals, that's what matters.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The fact that the RC Church does not recognize the validity of male Anglican holy orders is mildly annoying to me.
Try getting into a frame of mind where you couldn't care less. It's great for winding up Catholics who are bothered by it.
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
All of that said I'm pleased people are picking up the irony that Anglicans often display to Methodists and others the same position (mutatis mutandis) that they complain about Catholics taking.
To be honest, I'm utterly mystified by this line of thinking. It seems a rather theological way of saying, 'You don't like it when people are mean, so don't be mean to other people.' But it's not about being mean - it's about truth and and the three fold order.
Is it that unusual to think that Methodists and Anglicans are not quite doing the same thing at the time of ordination? Surely this is not controversial?
I have always found it reasonable to think that Anglican and Methodist orders are different - maybe even apples and oranges. Both are fruit, but are not the same.
Confirmation is (at present) an episcopal 'thing' in the CoE. As is ordination - and non-episcopal ordination is very much a historical anomaly in Western Christendom. I'm sure it's happened in the CoE at times, but it's certainly not the norm.
But then again, as a former Methodist, I'm the sort of person who prays for the Methodist church to return to the bosom of the Church of England.
x
AV
[ 01. July 2014, 10:35: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Is it that unusual to think that Methodists and Anglicans are not quite doing the same thing at the time of ordination? Surely this is not controversial?
No more unusual than to think that Anglicans and Catholics are not quite doing the same thing at the time of ordination. When the Methodist Church ordains, she intends to ordain to the presbyterate and diaconate of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think that Anglicans intend the same?
[ 01. July 2014, 10:52: Message edited by: seasick ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I think that the Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland think the same of their ordinations (and confirmations !).Just because they don't use the word 'bishop' and they don't really talk about 'apostolic succession' at least not in the same way,it doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of being part of the one,holy,catholic and apostolic church.
Ultimately if you want certainty about what Catholics call 'apostolic succession' you need to be ordained by a bishop in communion with the successor of St Peter.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Do you mean to exclude the Orthodox, then, or am I misreading your last sentence? (Or do the Orthodox have a different view of 'apostolic succession'?)
[ 01. July 2014, 15:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
No,I don't mean to exclude the Orthodox,in fact I personally don't exclude anyone.
However for those who call themselves Catholics,if they want certainty,then they can have that, without any doubt ,from those in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ah, I see, it's the 'those who call themselves Catholics' bit I didn't think of.
Don't agree wth you, mind: I'm an Anglican, I call myself a Catholic, and I have no doubt at all about the validity of Anglican orders.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I am more than happy for you to have no doubt about the validity of your orders,just as I am happy for Presbyterians to have no doubt about the validity of their orders.
Obviously some Anglicans are aware that (Roman)Catholics have doubts about the validity of Anglican orders as (Roman) Catholics understand them.
We are where we are just now.In Heaven,if we get there, everything will be clearer.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Albertus I notice you say, 'I am an Anglican,I call myself a Catholic.'
Why not just say,as I do , 'I am a Catholic' ?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that the Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland think the same of their ordinations (and confirmations !).Just because they don't use the word 'bishop' and they don't really talk about 'apostolic succession' at least not in the same way,it doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of being part of the one,holy,catholic and apostolic church.
There is a fair amount of Presbyterian writing that specifically speaks of the pastor/minister as "bishop." For most of its history, the governing documents of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (or its predecessor bodies) explicitly identified the office of "bishop" with the ministry of Word and Sacrament, effectively locating the three-fold order of ministry—the minister or pastor (bishop) with the elders (presbyters) exercising spiritual oversight, assisted by deacons—in each congregation.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Albertus I notice you say, 'I am an Anglican,I call myself a Catholic.'
Why not just say,as I do , 'I am a Catholic' ?
Because lots of people will assume that one means specifically Roman Catholic?
I make do with "I'm an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto" and then if people want to ask, they can.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Albertus I notice you say, 'I am an Anglican,I call myself a Catholic.'
Why not just say,as I do , 'I am a Catholic' ?
Because lots of people will assume that one means specifically Roman Catholic?
I think you slightly missed Forthview's point there.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that the Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland think the same of their ordinations (and confirmations !).Just because they don't use the word 'bishop' and they don't really talk about 'apostolic succession' at least not in the same way,it doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of being part of the one,holy,catholic and apostolic church.
I would tentatively suggest that there is a difference between Anglican views of Rome as a particular church in another part of the world and traditional CofS views of Catholics as borderline satanic (Westminster Confession article XXV). Heck, even 30 years ago around here folk attending Episcopalian services were denounced from the pulpit at the CofS.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Albertus I notice you say, 'I am an Anglican,I call myself a Catholic.'
Why not just say,as I do , 'I am a Catholic' ?
Fairy nuff. 'I am an Anglican and a Catholic, and I have no doubt whatsoever about the validity of Anglican orders.'
Will that do?
[ 02. July 2014, 09:24: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Apostolicae Curae stands as the formal RC view, of course, though the involvement of Old Catholic bishops in CofE consecrations between the Wars today alters the situation on which it stands. Some more recent prominent ACs converts have been conditionally ordained having produced some documentary proof or other
This doesn't matter, though, because unity around the faith is more important in the post-conciliar Church than former notions of "mechanical validity". In other words, today, communion with the pontiff in the faith is the issue for the Vatican - if you don't have that, doesn't really matter whether ordained or not - but all the best, anyway.
Anglicans tend to assume views from the opposite side - from other Protestant groups - are a foregone conclusion in favour, but I wonder.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
*snip* Anglicans tend to assume views from the opposite side - from other Protestant groups - are a foregone conclusion in favour, but I wonder.
Most of these churches rely on call and response and authority, rather than the western canon law focus on validity, so the language and understanding is different. AFAIK most Anglican clerics who move to Protestant communities fall under three categories: 1) a simple licensing from the presbytery/conference (e.g., UCC, PCC); 2) more often, the same licensing, but with a brief ceremony of prayers and welcoming (also UCC, PCC, Unitarian, BCC); or 3) a sort-of re-ordination/ supplemental ordination (Pentecostal).
The Anglican Church of Canada has an agreement (Waterloo Declaration of 2001) with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada with interchangeability of clergy, but not with other Lutheran churches-- I know of no transfers to other Lutheran churches here but they may be around.
I'm not sure of the status of the priest of Algoma diocese who became a cleric of the Church of Elvis, but perhaps a more learned shipmate can inform us.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Albertus I too ,although I don't know you at all,have no doubts about your status as an Anglican priest. I have no doubts,although I know nothing about your ordination, about the validity of your orders as an Anglican priest and a servant of both Word and Sacrament and a co-operator with your local diocesan bishop.
Your priesthood is ,there is no doubt on my part ,blessed by the Good Lord.
However you belong to a community,where a good number of your brother and sister clerics do not have the same views as you have.Some of them have no doubts that they are not priests,Catholic priests, in the sense that you understand these words.
Now you may say that the wider Catholic church,in traditional communion with the successor of St Peter,is a broad church where a certain number of clerics and lay people will hold disparate views which may diverge from the teachings of the magisterium but there is no doubt about the official teachings of the Church on important matters of faith. It is that which I mean by the 'certainty' which one finds within the Church in communion with the Roman pontiff.
Each Presbyterian parish in the Church of Scotland is a sort of 'mini-diocese'.The parish minister is chosen/elected by the parishioners,just as in theory (okay, it is only in theory) the Catholic bishop is elected by the diocesan family.Just as a Catholic bishop, the parish minister is ordained to serve in a particular parish.The parish minister/the 'overseer', the teaching elder,chooses other elders and ordains them to help him in the celebration of the sacraments.This is just like a Catholic bishop and his elders/presbyters/priests.Prebyterians may not use the same words,and many of them,just like many Anglicans,would not feel able to say with confidence 'I am a Catholic',but they must have just as much right as their Anglican brothers
and sisters to be seen as having valid orders.
HOWEVER,if there is any doubt then one should consult with Rome.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Thank you, Forthview, for a post which is well up to your usual high standards of sensitivity, clear thought and good sense. BTW, though, I'm not ordained, although I would have liked things to have worked out that way.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.
But their succession comes through presbyteral ordination. In other words, John Wesley (a priest) ordained presbyters for the Methodists. Even in Anglicanism, that doesn't work, as far as I know.
Some assert that Wesley received consecration from an Oriental Orthodox bishop. Anyone know more about that?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
It would seem that presbyteral ordination was prevalent in some parts of the earliest churches.
It mucks up my anglo-catholic notions but things are never as neat as we would like them to be.
If anyone did wrong towards catholic order, it was the Bishop of London who refused to ordain priests for America.
Wesley did the best he could with a bad lot and found ancient justification.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I'd say they were both violating catholic order. The Bishop of London was indeed being a butthead, but that doesn't justify Wesley's action.
I certainly won't go so far as to declare the orders of Protestant churches invalid. I can't make that determination, and I can't set limits on what the Holy Spirit will do. On the other hand, I hope I won't be blamed for preferring certainty to doubt where apostolic orders are concerned...
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.
But their succession comes through presbyteral ordination. In other words, John Wesley (a priest) ordained presbyters for the Methodists. Even in Anglicanism, that doesn't work, as far as I know.
Some assert that Wesley received consecration from an Oriental Orthodox bishop. Anyone know more about that?
Wesley was said to have received consecration from one Erasmus who purported to be the Greek Orthodox bishop of Arcadia in Crete. There seems to be debate over whether he actually was a bishop or not but even if he was the Orthodox would not regard any purported consecration he performed in England as valid as their canons require three bishops to consecrate a new bishop.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Confirmation's not so simple because RCs practice presbyteral confirmation - using the Bishop's chrism - & Anglicans insist on episcopal confirmation. I've known converts over from Rome who have been "re-confirmed".
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
AIUI the Greek Bishop whom Wesley approached declined to consecrate him, on the grounds that, as CL says, in his church three Bishops were required for a consecration.
Wasn't there some business with the Porvoo Agreements about the CofE (etc)recognising the Orders of some of the Nordic Lutheran Churches (not the Swedes) who had at some point lost the 'relay' of episcopal consecration and had had more or less to start again? Can't find the detail but doubtless someone here will know.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Confirmation's not so simple because RCs practice presbyteral confirmation - using the Bishop's chrism - & Anglicans insist on episcopal confirmation. I've known converts over from Rome who have been "re-confirmed".
Just for the sake of clarity I would point out that in the Latin Rite the bishop is the ordinary minister of the sacrament of confirmation. A priest who carries out confirmations is acting vicariously. The relevant canons are Can. 884-888 (Codex Iuris Canonici)
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
You know that, I know that - doesn't matter a damn as far as CofE canon law goes
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
You know that, I know that - doesn't matter a damn as far as CofE canon law goes
Well no, but unless I'm missing something it also means that it doesn't matter if the CofE wants to dress things up nicely with a bishop when a priest acting vicariously could do it if they were RC (I had a very elderly former bishop of Crediton).
If the issue is with the orders, it doesn't matter whether it's the ABC himself from an RC pov. But then, conversely, apart from the CofE bishop's not delegating vicariously there doesn't seem to be any difference in intent.
I would have thought Anglicans insisting on a bishop isn't the insuperable barrier here, so it's a bit of a red herring.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
It's a red herring now, yes, but I was originally addressing the point made above that Anglicans recognise RC confirmations - they do if it's episcopal. If it's not, then you're done again.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
I would suggest the "more substantial" part is assumed to be present for the purposes of this discussion - the question is whether that is sufficient or whether ordination within the apostolic succession is necessary and under what circumstances said ordination can be deemed to have taken place.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
Precisely.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
That's the strictly mechanical view of apostolic succession, and in my opinion only half of the picture. The other half is continuing in the apostolic faith, which in the West is much more emphasized in churches which shy away from (or have jettisoned completely) the catholic understanding of the priesthood.
Western Christians who value the apostolic succession would be well served to put both halves together instead of relying solely on the mechanics. In my opinion, of course!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
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.
And British Methodism doesn't even have 'bishops', because Wesley never wanted them. He was quite cross when the American Methodists decided to use the term.
I understand that the 'problem' with Methodist orders has contributed towards the CofE reluctance to enter into a full (re)union with the British Methodism Church. This article covers some of these problems.
I've heard that evangelical Anglicans have concerns of their own about a union with the Methodists, but presumably these concerns have nothing to do with Methodist orders. (I wonder if Methodist evangelicals have ever tried to work with CofE evangelicals to reach some kind of consensus on this? In theory they could represent an stronger voice if they came together, but I've never heard of any rapprochement between the two groups.)
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
It's a bit too long to quote, so I would commend to all the summary on page 6-7 of the succession/historic episcopate found in this recent CoE document, Recognition by the Church of England of Orders Conferred by Other Churches (2014).
x
AV
[ 04. July 2014, 08:07: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
That's the strictly mechanical view of apostolic succession, and in my opinion only half of the picture. The other half is continuing in the apostolic faith, which in the West is much more emphasized in churches which shy away from (or have jettisoned completely) the catholic understanding of the priesthood.
Western Christians who value the apostolic succession would be well served to put both halves together instead of relying solely on the mechanics. In my opinion, of course!
The Catholic Church tends to be unfairly characterised as having a mechanistic understanding of apostolic succession. That has never been the case; the fact that Thuc and Milingo's episcopal consecrations are regarded as invalid is illustrative.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Catholic Church tends to be unfairly characterised as having a mechanistic understanding of apostolic succession. That has never been the case; the fact that Thuc and Milingo's episcopal consecrations are regarded as invalid is illustrative.
Are the (pre-laicisation at any rate in Milingo's case) consecrations considered invalid or merely illicit?
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Catholic Church tends to be unfairly characterised as having a mechanistic understanding of apostolic succession. That has never been the case; the fact that Thuc and Milingo's episcopal consecrations are regarded as invalid is illustrative.
Are the (pre-laicisation at any rate in Milingo's case) consecrations considered invalid or merely illicit?
Those "consecrated" are held to be in the same state as they were prior to the "consecrations", i.e. laymen.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Small semi-tangent on the question of episcopal/ non-episcopal RC Confirmations raised upthread: my RC brother (in the diocese of Shrewsbury, I think) tells me that it is usual there for the Bishop to confirm- indeed, my nephew and godson is being confimed by the Bishop today.
Just out of curiosity, how common is this in the RCC?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
In the RC it is the norm for the bishop to confer confirmation. A bishop may give temporary faculties to a priest to confer confirmation but this is the exception, not the rule. When I was an RC I only remember once seeing the priest confer the sacrament and that's because the bishop was in Rome. All the other times it was the bishop.
[ 11. July 2014, 09:00: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
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.
Exavtly. And the same could be said for Salvation Army orinations and commissionings where we have the ordination of the nail-scarred hands, but no human hands to confer anything. Words are spoken and prayers made but we believe there is a true ordination to the ministry even though no heads are touched.
Surely the true apostolic 'succession' is where the succeeding generations continue the apostles' teaching.
[ 11. July 2014, 09:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Perfectly valid view but not the view embraced by communions expressing Catholic succession.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Perfectly valid view but not the view embraced by communions expressing Catholic succession.
It might surprise you to learn that not every church expresses catholic succession; we don't have to agree with Rome in order to be authentic followers of Christ organised in an acceptable way.
We remember, of course, that there is very little by way of direction for church order and discipline within the pages of the NT.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Believe it or not, it doesn't surprise me. Both positions are legitimate.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Perfectly valid view but not the view embraced by communions expressing Catholic succession.
Isn't the idea of communions expressing Catholic succession a contradiction in terms? If you express Catholic succession you're united in one communion with the Bishop of Rome surely?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
He might say so: we (e.g. CofE, CofS, indeed your own Methodist Church AIUI)don't. We don't think that Catholic = (only) Roman Catholic.
[ 11. July 2014, 20:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
That depends on whether you are a Roman Catholic or some other kind of Catholic. Certainly all Orthodox and Old Catholic bishops, priests, and deacons consider themselves to be Catholics and part of the Apostolic Succession despite not being in communion with the pope. All but the lowest of low-church Anglicans think the same thing.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Indeed - precisely what I meant. Roman Catholicism is one of several modern denominations which claim to be distinctive continuations of the ancient/medieval Catholic Church - when denominations as we understand them today didn't exist. The Pope has always exercised a primacy in the West & I'm happy to continue recognising that.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We remember, of course, that there is very little by way of direction for church order and discipline within the pages of the NT.
That's because the Church was already present when the New Testament was compiled - the NT isn't a guidebook on how to create and run your own church.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Very true - in its present form, a very late compilation & not needing to contain what was already established and being practised - though obviously retaining key texts.
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
That's because the Church was already present when the New Testament was compiled - the NT isn't a guidebook on how to create and run your own church.
As I'm sure Mudfrog is well aware, what about the witness of the early church, which certainly resembles the threefold order of the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican model?
quote:
...Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, [the Apostles] appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit. And this they did in no new way...by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop; and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.Those who were thus appointed by them, or afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church... [Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 43-44]
That certainly *looks* like Apostolic Succession to me. To say nothing of Ignatius of Antioch:
quote:
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest — Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1
x
AV
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Oh, please.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any provable "Apostolic Succession".
Yes, I know there Church of Rome, in particular, likes to claim it traces back to St Peter, but the claims have no basis in FACT.
If you are an Anglican you accept that Anglican orders are valid / genuine. If you are an RC you don't. I don't know any CofE clergy who lose sleep over this, nor should they.
Yes, I know the Roman habit of denying the orders of others is rude, disrespectful and un-Christian but by going on about it we only validate their behaviour.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know there Church of Rome, in particular, likes to claim it traces back to St Peter, but the claims have no basis in FACT.
I'm no RC apologist, but surely know one seriously denies that the Church in Rome was founded by the blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul, do they? Could you explain a little more what you mean please?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know the Roman habit of denying the orders of others is rude, disrespectful and un-Christian but by going on about it we only validate their behaviour.
Oh yeah! And could you explain that as well, please? Isn't this the "We recognise you so why don't you recognise us?" argument? (Followed by toys being thrown out of a pram)
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know there Church of Rome, in particular, likes to claim it traces back to St Peter, but the claims have no basis in FACT.
I'm no RC apologist, but surely know one seriously denies that the Church in Rome was founded by the blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul, do they? Could you explain a little more what you mean please?
There is no doubt than SS Peter and Paul had much influence on the early Roman Church, but there is a tendency in some RCC circles to think of S Peter as a monarchical bishop in the way later Popes were. Of this, there is much historical doubt!
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know there Church of Rome, in particular, likes to claim it traces back to St Peter, but the claims have no basis in FACT.
I'm no RC apologist, but surely know one seriously denies that the Church in Rome was founded by the blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul, do they? Could you explain a little more what you mean please?
There is no doubt than SS Peter and Paul had much influence on the early Roman Church, but there is a tendency in some RCC circles to think of S Peter as a monarchical bishop in the way later Popes were. Of this, there is much historical doubt!
Ok, that's fair enough. No, St. Peter wasn't a monarchal bishop. He may have (or rather did) cofounded the see but there is no mention of him as bishop amongst the earliest accounts. St. Irenaeus records Linus or Anacletus as the first bishop. BTW, in the Orthodox Church we consider all our bishops to be St. Peter's successors.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
It seems clear that Peter was martyred at Rome and it seems appropriate that the See subsequently retains a particular & unique association with him. Furthermore, I don't have any problem with the Roman See continuing to hold primacy, simply as having once been the Imperial capital.
I think any further claims by the RCC are red herrings; unnecessary and unhelpful.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
AO
The idea that St Peter was in Rome for any length of time is entirely based on an unsupported report from the 4th century.
St Paul in his letter to the Romans mentions various people and families - St Peter is not among them: that omission is amazing if Peter was in Rome at the time, let alone in any kind of position of leadership.
The acknowledged 'father' of church history, Eusebius of Caesaria, write of St Peter having preached to communities in varying places, but only mentions him in Rome at the end of his life for a brief period before his death. Most historians now would agree that St Peter was in Rome for around 3 years at the most, and there is no record of his either having founded the Christian community there (it was already in existence) or having led it.
Perhaps most telling: in the early lists of the bishops of Rome St Peter's name doesn't appear. Irenaeus of Lyon numbered all the early bishops up to Eleutherius (12th bishop): he names LINUS as first bishop, appointed by St Paul, then Clement, appointed by Peter. Again, there is no mention of St Peter being bishop of Rome - or St Paul, for that matter.
As one of the original 12, St Peter would have had unique standing in the early Christian community in Rome, but that would have been true of any of the early Christian communities: to a certain extent the same is true of St Paul. By their direct/almost direct link to Christ they would have been seen as highly important so any position they held would have been noted - yet there is no trace.
Perhaps the clincher is that, as a non-Roman citizen, it is highly unlikely that Peter would have been given any position of leadership among a group of people who, even though Jewish, were almost all likely to have been Roman citizens.
In any case, AO, I genuinely don't care whether or not the Roman church recognises the orders of the CofE - I'm a member of the CofE and I recognise them. But then I'm not trying to claim through altered history/denial of historical sources a provenance which doesn't exist.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0