homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  20  21  22 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

The present position with Synod and the revision committee makes it that the game is over for catholic Anglicans who believe that the threefold order or bishops, priests and deacons, and the reciting of the historic creeds of the undivided Church, makes the C of E part of that Church.

This is nothing to do with credal orthodoxy, on which +Pete and +John would agree in the main, and indeed a majority of Synod and the Revision Committee.

I thought you left the CofE for Judaism?

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659

 - Posted      Profile for chiltern_hundred   Author's homepage   Email chiltern_hundred   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ChastMastr wrote:

quote:
Is there anyone posting or reading here who is considering going to Rome in this situation -- who believes that Anglican ordinations have been valid but wishes to enter the RCC anyway? Can you fill us in on how this works for you?
I was at the FiF assembly over the weekend as a delegate.

I hadn't seriously considered going to Rome before last week's events (although my objections to it had been largely dissipated or at least changed in nature by things I have read on this Ship and by personal acquaintances here and elsewhere) but the thought is crossing my mind now.

Where my belief in the validity of Anglican ordination comes into this (it's founded not on a rigorously Catholic view of things) I have no idea as yet. I am currently waiting and seeing and praying and thinking, as are so many.

Fortunately, I am a layman.

--------------------
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

The CofE might even sell-off a building that it no longer needs, but that would not be quick if it were the only church in a parish or benefice, as the parish would have to merged in a pastoral scheme as well as the Commissioners selling off a church, so it would be two years plus with goodwill.

And a lot longer than that without. Parish reorganisations can take decades.

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

For instance a third of FiF going next year make women bishops much more likely.

Probably inevitable.

quote:


That makes talks with the methodists more serious as an option. Which makes social gospel stuff more at the forefront. The younger evangelicals in the CofE are as in to fairtrade etc. as the liberals.

Only if by "younger" you mean "under the age of sixty-five"! Fairtrade was all the rage in St John's & Cranmer Hall in the 1970s.

quote:


But in the short term, there would be a group of evo clergy (from open to charismatic, but perhaps not the most conservative) who would be the biggest clergy group in HoC in Synod, with AffCath only the second largest.

Not sure about that. Maybe its being used to Southwark and Brighton but the Liberal Catholic ascendency looks pretty unassailable here.

I still worry that we might see a disproportionate departure of priests, leading to a lack of people who know how to conduct the kind of liturgy that some of the abandoned parishes might expect.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
When Walter Cardinal Kasper addressed the General Synod, he said that the Church of England must decide if it sees itself as part of the undivided Church of the first millennium, or does it self-identify as a church of the Reformation.

100% both. If the Cardinal thinks they are mutually exlusive, that's his problem.


quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
The present position with Synod and the revision committee makes it that the game is over for catholic Anglicans who believe that the threefold order or bishops, priests and deacons, and the reciting of the historic creeds of the undivided Church, makes the C of E part of that Church.

Yikes (from my point of view)! So... you mean the C of E is formally abandoning that, or...? [/QB][/QUOTE]

No, the CofE has no intention of anabdoning that. Any claim that it is dong so is simple scaremongering.

I think that the difference between Bishops Broadhurst and Broadbent on this issue is that Pete (like me) would I think recognise the the three-fold ordering of ministry in the Lutherans, and the Presbyterians, and the Methodists, (as those denominations do themselves). Methodists don't have men with pointy hats and palaces with "bishop" in their job title, but they do practice the ministry of oversight.

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don't think anything is being formally abandoned. The compromise is falling apart. This is a good summary.

It looks a lot like a blank web-page stuffed with dodgy links to me [Frown] Any chance of a summary for those of us the site won't load for?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It looks a lot like a blank web-page stuffed with dodgy links to me [Frown] Any chance of a summary for those of us the site won't load for?

Sure, I'm not certain why it's not rendering correctly. It's an opinion piece in a newspaper here in the states.

quote:
David Lewis Stokes: On the pope’s outreach to Episcopalians

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, October 27, 2009

DAVID LEWIS STOKES

IN EARLY JUNE 1999 I was deposed as a priest in the Episcopal Church. By the month’s end my family and I were received into the Roman Catholic Church. And four years later, I was ordained a priest under what is called the Pastoral Provision.

At that time I made the resolve neither to write about my conversion nor to engage in religious skirmishes on the op-ed page. Knowing that “informed public discourse” is an oxymoron, I had no desire to give offense to a church whose spirituality I loved (and still love) and whose people I had been privileged to serve.

Nor did I have any desire to travel the circuit of professional convert and recite my “story” as something of an over-rehearsed party-piece. Moreover, I have become increasingly allergic to a certain sub-culture that would turn the Roman Catholic Church into an neo-conservative ideology impervious to nuance and devoid of humility. (I confess that I did consent to one newspaper interview and a cable-TV program. But I did so with great reluctance and have lived to regret both.)

But the recent announcement by Rome of an apostolic constitution by which Anglicans — parishes, pastors and people — will be incorporated into the Catholic Church and still retain their ecclesial identity demands comment. Or I should say that the reporting of this news demands comment. For the foundational issue that has roiled the Anglican Communion (especially the Episcopal Church) for three decades continues to be obscured by the simplistic spin to which journalists, theological naifs, are inclined.

The basic issue has never been women priests nor even the ordination of practicing homosexuals. These two issues, as serious and divisive as they may be, are simply the more newsworthy symptoms of a pathology that has gone in and out of remission for some 400 years, and that was fated to return with a fatal virulence upon the demise of British culture.

The basic issue that has eroded the Anglican Communion is what has been eating away at its foundations for 400 years: how ecclesiastical authority is to be understood. Since the 16th Century, two very different understandings of authority have engaged in a tug-of-war within the Church of England and the larger Anglican Communion.

One understanding is that the church is determined and shaped by Catholic tradition. Anglicans committed to this understanding of authority have sought to be faithful to that which has been believed by Christians everywhere and at all times. And while these Anglicans would admit that a correct discernment of Catholic tradition is often difficult, they have always considered their church bound by this tradition.

The second understanding of authority, while often respectful of Catholic tradition, proceeds from the Protestant principle of private judgment. This understanding may (and often does) appeal to Scripture and the Holy Spirit. And as long as it was rooted in a coherent culture, this understanding seemed to possess a theological coherence of sorts. But when it is torn from the soil of a coherent culture, as has occurred over the last century, the roots of this understanding are seen to be what they always were: the occasional opinions of whatever happened to be the prevailing majority.

The first understanding of church authority is that Christian revelation presents us with an objective truth to be pursued. The second understanding believes that if there ever was a Christian revelation, it presents us only with an approximation of whatever God may (or may not) be. That such a house divided has managed to stand for 400 years is an odd testament, I suppose, to the power of British culture. But an ethos can hide incoherence for only so long.

And it is this incoherence that Pope Benedict XVI now seeks to address. Benedict is acknowledging nothing less than the integrity of those Anglicans who have always understood themselves rooted in the Catholic tradition. And, at the same time, he seeks to provide them with a structure by which they may be incorporated into the universal church, without having to jettison a rich devotional patrimony.

To reduce the Vatican’s proposal to ecclesiastical sheep-stealing is of course stupid. And to explain it away as providing a fire escape for those who have “difficulty” with women priests and gay bishops would be condescending if it wasn’t so simple-minded. But given that objective truth has long since ceased to be a concern for many (Anglicans and others), it isn’t surprising that Benedict’s proposal would be viewed simply in terms of one ecclesial corporation engaging in a hostile take-over of another.

Will there be a mass exodus from the Church of England? Probably not. The few Englishmen who continue to attend their local parish church do so more as a way of staving off the cultural chaos that now ravages English society than out of any confessional commitment. If anything, the pope’s proposal may inadvertently accelerate Anglicanism’s drift to becoming a global equivalent of the Metropolitan Church.

What of the impact on America? I suspect that its impact will be minimal. Within a mere two centuries Americans have become genetically predisposed to the Protestant principle of private judgment — including many “conservative” Episcopalians and, paradoxically enough, a large number of Roman Catholics. Besides, with each passing generation, ethnic Catholic parishes, marginal to begin with, have been absorbed by the larger church or closed. Moreover, it’s hard to imagine the Anglican Book of Common Prayer stemming the flood of liturgical mediocrity any time soon.

But the impact of Pope Benedict’s proposal is really beside the point. Truth has never been about numbers, and victories are always pyrrhic. It is enough for many of us that those Anglicans who have labored long after the Catholic tradition have at last been recognized by the church that most completely instantiates this tradition.

The Rev. David Lewis Stokes, a Catholic priest and formerly an Episcopal one, is an associate professor of theology at Providence College.

Source

I have seen comments elsewhere that this whole issue is over sexuality, and I agree with the author of this piece that it isn't. It is about authority and ecclesiology. It's a side issue, but I also agree with the author's distaste with a good deal of the convert culture that surrounds the RCC in the U.S.; at least of a certain ideological bent a la the Grodi crowd.

Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...

I still worry that we might see a disproportionate departure of priests, leading to a lack of people who know how to conduct the kind of liturgy that some of the abandoned parishes might expect.

...

A disproportionate departure of a certain sort of hyperconservative Anglo-Catholic ceremonial specialists is exactly what some people fear most.

If it does take place I suspect that sort of extreme Anglo-Catholicism might well die out.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks.

Hardly worth bothering to read though.

The man is obviously very ignorant of Britain, or very bigoted (or possibly both)

This:
quote:

The basic issue has never been women priests nor even the ordination of practicing homosexuals. These two issues, as serious and divisive as they may be, are simply the more newsworthy symptoms of a pathology that has gone in and out of remission for some 400 years, and that was fated to return with a fatal virulence upon the demise of British culture.

is simply regurgitated neo-con drivel. "the demise of British culture." eh? Because of all those gays and women and blacks and Muslims I suppose. I pity the poor parish that had this nasty, bitter man imposed on it as their priest.

and this:

quote:

The first understanding of church authority is that Christian revelation presents us with an objective truth to be pursued. The second understanding believes that if there ever was a Christian revelation, it presents us only with an approximation of whatever God may (or may not) be.

Is a plain lie, casting false witness on his Protesant neighbours. It is rather the other way round. Protestantism (done properly) is based firmly on the objective revealed word of God, not human traditions.

If this little shite is typical of the kind of people who might go to Rome, good riddance to bad rubbish.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Not sure about that. Maybe its being used to Southwark and Brighton but the Liberal Catholic ascendency looks pretty unassailable here.

I think it is you being used to Southwark norms. Even within the big smoke, life looks very different in the Kensington or Willesden areas norf of the river say. There are plenty of other diocese where liberal catholicism has never taken root.

Even in Brighton, there are signs of change. St Peter's re-opens this week, with a little bit of help from the Kensington area!

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"the demise of British culture." eh? Because of all those gays and women and blacks and Muslims I suppose. I pity the poor parish that had this nasty, bitter man imposed on it as their priest.

Wow. I just sped past that line and vaguely imagined he meant something about the demise of sun-never-sets-on-the-Empire British colonialist culture... perhaps even with the implication that a certain type of non-spiritual, cultural "Christianity" (churchianity?) was rightly vanishing, allowing people's real beliefs to come through as the cultural pretenses faded away. Or, er, something like that. I think your analysis is right here...

[Hot and Hormonal] [Hot and Hormonal] [Hot and Hormonal]

David
see prior statement about my recently distracted grey matter above; I must work harder on reading for comprehension...

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Will there be a mass exodus from the Church of England? Probably not. The few Englishmen who continue to attend their local parish church do so more as a way of staving off the cultural chaos that now ravages English society than out of any confessional commitment.
... is my favourite section from this highly educated theologian.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I am excited to see what Liberals can bring to the table in terms of discipleship and mission.

If you define 'Liberals' in terms of what they cannot authentically deliver, you're hardly going to see much to get excited about. Although that seems pretty much the view implicit in most of the Fresh Expressions stuff I've seen.
quote:
all the Churches I know which are Liberal and growing are also evangelistic, centered in the tradition, and confessionally creedal, even if the individual is free to interpret as they wish.
I don't see anything theologically liberal there. There's no empirical reality by which to compare interpretations for correctness, so it's only ever a matter of degree of variation. Even those happy to trot out a party line may undertstand what they say entirely differently. It makes no sense (unless you have an empire to control) for a faith-related institution to make membership depend on willingness to say a particular form of words.
quote:
If the Liberals want a stronger voice in the Church then they need to demonstrate how they are part of Christ's plan 'to build my church'. I am not sure 'being the Church for people who don't go' will work unless some people actually do go in the first place.
Yeah, well, if you assume Church is what you happen to prefer and ignore the possibility that such a model might be outdated, you automatically exclude those who find it irrelevant. But I guess that's Radical Orthodoxy.

The disappointing thing about Benedict's offer is that it's only a real option for conservative anglo-catholics. I see there's no way round that (you have to feel pretty strongly for the benefits to outweigh the disruption) but if those who like the idea of one (big C) Catholic Church institution all threw in their lot with the Vatican, the Church of England might have to think a bit more clearly about what it's for. It's obviously not going to happen over this, but I can't help thinking something like it would be better than the kind of mutally assured stagnation we seem to have now.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Yeah, we do. I wish we didn't, and that we just admitted Baptist and URC and Methodists who come over into the ordained ministry of the CofE. Perhaps that'll change one day and we'll stop staring over the Tiber and look the other way.

Having been the other way it is much better in the, er, middle.

I am very glad that when I came into the Church of England an Apostle laid hands on me, and Another Apostle laid hands on me when I was Ordained!

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Myhrr Wouldn't anglicans say that any ordination which a Reformed/Presbyterian/Baptist may have had,was not an ordination which allowed that person to function as an anglican priest and to undertake the cure of souls in an anglican context?

..
Perhaps some Anglican who knows more about this could let us know.

The answers came back yes. I don't know what reasons the Anglican's give for not considering these ordinations 'valid', but the argument for the Anglicans wishing to join the RCC specifically returns to the orginal Bull which deemed Anglican ordinations invalid because of the words of ordination. It's a long while since I looked at this so I don't remember exactly what the difference was, but validity depends on the actual words used and by succession. The succession was lost because the right words weren't used. Since the words used were changed by the RCC in 1948 one could argue that the actual wording was not important and the Bull therefore a misjudgment and irrelevant, since it's clearly reformable and not infallible.

As far as I know, the Old Catholics are deemed to have valid orders. Another solution might be to have one such in an Anglican, Anglo-Catholic or whatever Ordination and include in it a validation backwards to all previous ordinations.

They're still using the pre1948 formula so could also effectively argue none of the present RCC are validly ordained and need to come to them to sort it out.

Some German Old Catholics are ordaining women.


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freejack:
quote:

I thought you left the CofE for Judaism?
I embrace certain Jewish theological ideas. But I'm not a Jew. I've no intention of being circumcised or giving up bacon sandwiches! I also embrace many Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox ideas. I'm a spiritual misfit!

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Yikes (from my point of view)! So... you mean the C of E is formally abandoning that, or...?

I'm not suggesting that the Church of England is about to give up its creeds. Just that the understanding of what it means to pray for "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" is very different between Catholic Anglicans and Protestant Anglicans, and that the consensus which has held them together for 400 years has now completely broken down.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I am excited to see what Liberals can bring to the table in terms of discipleship and mission.

If you define 'Liberals' in terms of what they cannot authentically deliver, you're hardly going to see much to get excited about. Although that seems pretty much the view implicit in most of the Fresh Expressions stuff I've seen.
I think something like Living the Questions brings a lot to the table in terms of Discipleship and Mission from a US focus. I would love to see something more culturally British in the same vein. Unlike others I see no intrinsic problem with progressive or radical theology. Even non-Realism brings something to the table in terms of Discipleship or Mission.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
all the Churches I know which are Liberal and growing are also evangelistic, centered in the tradition, and confessionally creedal, even if the individual is free to interpret as they wish.
I don't see anything theologically liberal there. There's no empirical reality by which to compare interpretations for correctness, so it's only ever a matter of degree of variation. Even those happy to trot out a party line may undertstand what they say entirely differently. It makes no sense (unless you have an empire to control) for a faith-related institution to make membership depend on willingness to say a particular form of words.
Then what is Liberal Christianity? Perhaps it is my post-modernity, but I would see engagement with a particular set of faith narratives as having meaning and value beyond classical faith as a mark of Liberal Christianity. Not saying 'we don't believe in the resurrection', but saying 'this is what the story of the resurrection means to us'. The Church I mentioned was a center for spirituality and attracted people from a wide range of faith backgrounds who were interested in exploring the Christian tradition. No-one made them say the creed, but it is clearly part of the Christian narratives and to be Christians requires an engagement with it even if it interpreted as metaphor.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
If the Liberals want a stronger voice in the Church then they need to demonstrate how they are part of Christ's plan 'to build my church'. I am not sure 'being the Church for people who don't go' will work unless some people actually do go in the first place.
Yeah, well, if you assume Church is what you happen to prefer and ignore the possibility that such a model might be outdated, you automatically exclude those who find it irrelevant. But I guess that's Radical Orthodoxy.

So the Liberalism you are now suggesting is post-church? I do not deny that the Church needs to be reformed, it always does. But what is the point of being part of a Modern Church-person's Union if you don't believe or wish to participate in the central christian narrative of the church?

Or is your project closer to the way some people butcher the nice bits out of Taoism or Zen, import them to the west, and ignore or the bits of those religions they don't like?

Sorry Dave, I don't mean to get at you. I am honestly interested as a critical friend to liberalism who owes much to the safety net of radical and progressive theology.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I see no intrinsic problem with progressive or radical theology. Even non-Realism brings something to the table in terms of Discipleship or Mission.

What I'm getting at is that both discipleship and mission have at least connotations of something prescriptive. They assume there is a right way to live (discipleship) and a kingdom to build (mission) that the Church is uniquely equipped to teach and deliver. That's an inherently conservative position; a typical liberal alternative might be that we're all in this together, the Church has no justification for privileging its perspective over others.

A liberal Church might be listening and exploring and debating and connecting its thinking to the society and cultures within which it operates, inviting participation and encouraging the implementation of what seems the right thing to do. But the idea of imposing a tradition-based vision in the ways that discipleship and mission suggest is not something I think would be considered.
quote:
I would see engagement with a particular set of faith narratives as having meaning and value beyond classical faith as a mark of Liberal Christianity. Not saying 'we don't believe in the resurrection', but saying 'this is what the story of the resurrection means to us'.
That's certainly how many MCU people would see it. But they seem to be those who are still active (and therefore I assume at least comfortablish) within worship-oriented church. I've found (like most of the UK) this does not work for me (and I am familiar with it). This practice/discipline of group worship of a Divine Other does not relate to who I understand the real God to be. The What makes a world view Christian? thread might explain a bit more where I'm coming from.
quote:
So the Liberalism you are now suggesting is post-church? I do not deny that the Church needs to be reformed, it always does. But what is the point of being part of a Modern Church-person's Union if you don't believe or wish to participate in the central christian narrative of the church?
I don't think the real value in the Church has ever been the narrative. That's only a wrapper for the priorities and attitudes (values for short) that are illustrated in the life and person of Jesus. For me it's those values that are the essence of 'Christian'. They're what connect with reality as we experience it and have the creative potential. The rest is culture and context; where's the eternal value in that?
quote:
Sorry Dave, I don't mean to get at you.
That's OK. I appreciate the interest. [Smile]

[ 28. October 2009, 13:20: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622

 - Posted      Profile for pete173   Author's homepage   Email pete173   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
[QUOTE]I am very glad that when I came into the Church of England an Apostle laid hands on me, and Another Apostle laid hands on me when I was Ordained!

And I just wonder how you know (apart from the assertion of the denominations concerned) that those who laid hands on you were apostolic (which I do believe) and those who led the church(es) you were in previously weren't. Tactile succession (historically broken anyway) is a rather feeble way of discerning this curious idea of "validity", don't you think?

--------------------
Pete

Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And I just wonder how you know (apart from the assertion of the denominations concerned) that those who laid hands on you were apostolic (which I do believe) and those who led the church(es) you were in previously weren't. Tactile succession (historically broken anyway) is a rather feeble way of discerning this curious idea of "validity", don't you think?

I don't believe that those who led the churches I was in previously were not Apostolic. Although they had never laid hands on me, which is what happened when I was confirmed as an Anglican. Seeing a Bishop take time to carefully pray individually for each candidate at a recent confirmation was a reminder of how flat the CofE is compared to some other church movements where the apostles are so distant.

For me, it is not the tactile succession itself that strengthens the idea of the apostolic, but the model of representative ministry. As apostolic ministers we all represent the ongoing apostolicity of the church catholic.

Like you I do not deny that the sacraments and ministry order work outside that order, but I do believe that a fullness is found within that order.

Having said that I do believe that their is a special gift passed on through tactile succession. Must be the pentecostal in me? The idea of apostolic succession is quite common there.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm curious about the notion of Liberal Catholic stuff and what it entails, but I don't want to derail the thread asking about it here -- is there a pre-existing thread devoted to it?

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
NB Take care with your capital letters here- Liberal Catholic (a denomination or church with Theosophist roots) is not the same as liberal Catholic (mainstream Catholic* Christians who consider themselves to be liberal)!

*or maybe small-c catholic? I mean, at least, both ACs and RCs, anyway.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah! (Who's NB?) Which is the concept under discussion (albeit tangential to the main topic) here then?

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Ah! (Who's NB?) Which is the concept under discussion (albeit tangential to the main topic) here then?

'liberal catholic' can mean a lot of different things to different people.

To some it means 'liberals who like dressing up and doing catholic stuff'.

To others it means 'catholic's who are liberal about aspects of their catholicism'

I suspect like the term 'Liberal Evangelical' it is rather broken.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Resurgam
Shipmate
# 14891

 - Posted      Profile for Resurgam     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(Who's NB?)

[NB= Nota Bene --Latin for "note well" ]
Posts: 54 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Ah! (Who's NB?) Which is the concept under discussion (albeit tangential to the main topic) here then?

'liberal catholic' can mean a lot of different things to different people.

To some it means 'liberals who like dressing up and doing catholic stuff'.

To others it means 'catholic's who are liberal about aspects of their catholicism'

I suspect like the term 'Liberal Evangelical' it is rather broken.

And then there would be liberal politically or liberal theologically -- and what that would mean... in the US it is often assumed that "liberal" or "conservative" politics and theology go hand in hand, but this is fortunately not assumed in the UK.

Erm, sorry, I should not derail the thread. [Hot and Hormonal] Although there may be some overlap come to think of it -- at least in my personal experience, the departing Anglicans who have been leaving the Episcopal Church have tended to also be more conservative politically too. I imagine this need not be the case in the UK?

(And this brings up the whole array of issues of Rome, the Anglican Communion, and various countries' politics, etc. -- all of which deserves its own thread...)

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Is there anyone posting or reading here who is considering going to Rome in this situation -- who believes that Anglican ordinations have been valid but wishes to enter the RCC anyway? Can you fill us in on how this works for you?

I've been thinking of going to Rome but I'm not sure. Personally I don't think validity matters very much (which may be one reason not to go to Rome).

ISTM that modern RC theology, by saying a sacrament can both efficacious and invalid, has made the concept of "validity" so abstract as to be meaningless.

If I ask a Catholic (be it the Roman or Anglo- variety) "What's wrong with invalid sacraments if they still work?", the usual answer is "They're not being performed in the way Christ intended". But no church is carrying out its duties in the way Christ intended - that's the point of Original Sin. So why single out validity as the deal-breaker?

[ 28. October 2009, 21:25: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
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
Mother Julian

Ship's librarian
# 11978

 - Posted      Profile for Mother Julian   Author's homepage   Email Mother Julian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Chastmastr
quote:
Is there anyone posting or reading here who is considering going to Rome in this situation -- who believes that Anglican ordinations have been valid but wishes to enter the RCC anyway? Can you fill us in on how this works for you?
The papal declaration that Anglican orders are invalid was made in the 19th century - since then there have been changes, some Anglican bishops have included Old Catholic bishops in their consecration. There are ways of arguing that current Anglican ordinations are valid even if they may not have been in the 19th century. In any case, God's grace is not confined to the rules and declarations of the Church, and along with Ricardus, I believe there can be efficacy without validity, which does tend to reduce the meaning and importance of validity.

Christian growth develops our beliefs - they never stand alone but are formed and develop in a particular ecclesial and social context. I currently believe Anglican ordinations to be valid, but accept there is an argument they are invalid. If I swim the Tiber, I will already believe through my own human understanding 99% of the teachings of the Church. The rest I will take on faith, trusting in the magisterium of the Church and hoping that I can also come to believe them with my human understanding as I grow as a Roman Catholic. I think this is both an honest and a reasonable position to hold.

As to politics and religion, like many Catholics, whether Roman or Anglo, I combine socialist, green and liberal political views along with Catholic orthodox religious beliefs - for me, they are two sides of one coin, and how I try to live an integrated life. Clearly, other political views are available and are genuinely held, but a personal blind spot of mine is that I can't see how ...

--------------------
The corn was orient and immortal wheat which never should be reaped, nor was ever sown.

Posts: 359 | From: the banks of the mighty River Mersey | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am slightly hesitant about posting this, because of past experience on the SoF in discussing the RC attitude to Anglican Orders. It is a subject about which Anglicans are naturally sensitive and offended, and can lead to rancour. But there is a lot of misinformation floating about in this thread.

The argument of "tactile succession" is one often put forward by Anglicans, as if that were the key Catholic objection. It is not. Inserting a stray Old Catholic hand for a "Dutch touch" does not address what the Catholic contention about Anglican Orders is. Indeed Apostolicae Curae itself argued against the idea that all that mattered was the laying on of hands: "the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confiirmation".

Neither is it true that it is only since Apostolicae Curae that this has been an issue. In fact Leo XIII was careful to lay out how it had always been the Catholic Church's judgement that there were defects in the Anglican Ordinal, so that Cardinal Pole was sent as a Legate and he ordained absolutely (not conditionally) those ordained using the Edwardine Ordinal. This continued to be the Catholic Church's practice.

The judgement rested on what is termed a defect in form and intention. In other words, the intention clearly articulated in the Anglican Ordinal was quite different from what the Catholic Church intended in ordination. The Anglican Ordinal, in line with Reformed theology, struck out any reference to those things which for the Catholic Church constitute ordination. What it replaced them with was very clearly, and intentionally, the idea of the threefold ministry as a ministry of the Word rather than of priesthood.

This was expressed also by the prorectio instrumentorum, or giving of the symbols of Office. In the Catholic Rite that would include both vesture and the Chalice and Paten. The Anglican Ordinal removed both of these, and substitued them with the giving of the Bible. This was the intention of the Ordinal, not a mere accident.

From 1550 to 1662 there was not even a mention of the words priest or bishop in the service of ordination. 1550 simply used the formula "Receive the Holy Ghost" and "Take the Holy Ghost", without saying for what. 1662 added the words "for the Office and work of a priest" and "for the Office and work of a bishop". This must be what Myrrh is referring to. But the objection is not based simply on a change in wording - formulae change. But the change effected by the Anglican Ordinal was to remove any Catholic intention, and this was done deliberately.

The famous 19C English RC scholar John Lingard said that the order used for the ordination of a bishop could equally be used for the admission of a parish clerk. Or as I once argued here, for the blessing of a new school headmaster. There was nothing to indicate that a bishop was being ordained for the Catholic Church.

That 1662 and later ordinals changed the formulae somewhat. But as Pope Leo wrote:
quote:
This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
It is worth noting that Apostolicae Curae was written in response to a suggestion of corporate re-union of Anglicans with the Catholic Church. A situation which is not dissimilar from the current one. But then as now the judgement remains the same: from a perspective of conferring Catholic Orders, the Anglican Church gave up both the form and intention of doing so. Thus Pope Leo wrote:

quote:
In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
That judgement still holds. So those now converting will need to be ordained in the Catholic Church if they wish to exercise a priestly ministry.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that modern RC theology, by saying a sacrament can both efficacious and invalid, has made the concept of "validity" so abstract as to be meaningless.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. An invalid sacrament isn't a type of sacrament (one that, despite being "invalid," can still be "efficacious"); it isn't a sacrament at all. To say that a ritual might be invalid sacramentally but still be an occasion of grace is pretty much the same as saying that reading Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory or listening to Allegri's Miserere are not sacraments, but that they can still be occasions of God's grace. Grace is not restricted to the sacraments. So the ministry of an Anglican priest might be an occasion of grace, even if (in RC eyes) he did not validly receive the sacrament of orders.

[ 29. October 2009, 01:11: Message edited by: FCB ]

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I am slightly hesitant about posting this, because of past experience on the SoF in discussing the RC attitude to Anglican Orders. It is a subject about which Anglicans are naturally sensitive and offended, and can lead to rancour.

No rancour from me; we disagree, of course, about these matters, but I understand the issues from a very similar position regarding the sacramental validity of the Lutherans, Methodists, and others, and this does go into the precise concerns I've been asking about. If we all agreed on these matters we'd be in the same church; which is, indeed, my concern -- that the groups involved really don't generally believe in the Pope as the Pope, rather than just the Bishop of Rome or the like -- so are they actually seeking to come to Rome for the wrong reasons, etc.?

Indeed, one reason I've not been happy with the Episcopal/Lutheran Concordat is the exact same principle involved here -- and I've said many times before that it's worse for the Lutherans -- since the Lutherans don't believe their previous ordinations were invalid, making them ordain future clergy with at least one Episcopal bishop involved (so that future Lutheran clergy will have Apostolic Succession as we Episcopalians believe in it) is something they should rightly reject, according to their own ecclesiology.

Sometimes I think we're all trying too hard to rush too fast into formal communion with each other, rather than working and praying together in areas in which we have common ground, with respectful inter-faith dialogue, but not glossing over the real differences in belief and more that, for now here on Earth but hopefully not in Heaven, divide us.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My understanding (as the kind of Anglo-Catholic I am, anyway) of sacraments and their validity is that they are definitely valid when consecrated by a priest or bishop in Apostolic Succession (which includes those in the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches), and when they are not consecrated by someone in that Succession, they are not definitely valid -- but that we should not limit what God may choose to do through His Grace, so in a given case, He may choose to make the bread and wine into a real vehicle of actual, sacramental grace -- a real Eucharist -- even when no sacramentally valid priest is present -- but that we should not presume upon that. It's not certain, from this perspective, the way that an ordained-in-Apostolic-Succession priest's consecration of bread and wine is.

Re things being valid/efficacious/etc., is this the sort of thing you're talking about?

[ 29. October 2009, 01:39: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd be more inclined to say that, absent the proper minister, it's not the sacrament, but may still be an occasion of grace.It Catholic sacramental theology, it is always possible to have the ultimate grace at which the sacrament aims without having the sacramental reality.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Indeed, one reason I've not been happy with the Episcopal/Lutheran Concordat is the exact same principle involved here -- and I've said many times before that it's worse for the Lutherans -- since the Lutherans don't believe their previous ordinations were invalid, making them ordain future clergy with at least one Episcopal bishop involved (so that future Lutheran clergy will have Apostolic Succession as we Episcopalians believe in it) is something they should rightly reject, according to their own ecclesiology.
I believe that agreement allows for exceptions for ordinations without involvement of a bishop. Lutheran ministers have also I would assume presided over the celebration of the Eucharist in Episcopal parishes who as part of their ordination had no episcopal involvement.

I don't know that the agreement between the UMC and the ECUSA for full communion had any stipulations at all in regards to ordinations as outlined here. It also allows for the use of grape juice of all things.

Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310

 - Posted      Profile for uffda   Email uffda   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
First off, I would like to thank Triple T for a really well written defense of a Roman Catholic understanding of Holy Orders. Its clarity can only help advance the conversation.

The Roman Catholic Church has certainly offered other Christians a consistent understanding of ordained ministry as a sacrificial priesthood. And, if I understand Triple T correctly, that consistency is expressed in the idea of apostolic succession. The laying on of hands without the consistent understanding of what the priesthood is, leaves room for doubt and invalidity.

As I have written in previous posts on other threads, the Lutheran understanding of ordained ministry is different from the Roman Catholic one. In fact, it is based on a rejection of the sacrificial priesthood. The confection of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist is not based on any power to change the elements, but on a faithful recounting of Christ's promise to be present in, with, and under, the bread and wine. This has been a consistent teaching within Lutheranism over the centuries.

The purpose of the ecumenical movement, as I have always understood it, and particularly in the model of bilateral dialogue, is for churches to come to a better understanding of what is actually taught and believed by each body of believers; to discover those places where the beliefs of the other had been caricatured or misunderstood; and then, to explore the possibiity of finding new approaches or new language to draw divided churches past old impasses to a deeper unity.

I wonder if our Anglican sisters and brothers would say their church's understanding of ordained ministry has also been consistent. From my perspective on the outside looking in, it seems to me that Anglicanism tries to hold together a rather wide range of viewpoints about the nature of ordained ministry. I think that the reason the ordination of women is such a difficult issue for some Anglicans is because there are multiple understandings of ministry held together by culture and tradition. Those who see the Anglican priest and bishop in terms of a sacrificial priesthood, (most closely aligned with the RCC) will find themselves necessarily having to reject the Ordination of Women as inconsistent with tradition. While those who see the Anglican priest and bishop as ministers of the Word (closer to the Reformation
sense) will see the ordination of women as a legitimate development of tradition.

What for me is problematic about the Pope's offer to Anglicans is the sense in which it implicitly rejects the goal of bilateral dialogue
particularly in seeming to say there is no way round the classic impasse over ordination. The only way is to come back to Rome, accept re-ordination, and become "valid" according to our Roman Catholic understanding.

The Anglican Communion seems to me to be in a vulnerable spot at this moment in history, yet, knowing that God often takes the long view when working his will out on earth, I'm left feeling that the Pope's offer has somehow interrupted the long and difficult process of self-understanding that Anglicans are working through.

As someone who has left one church to become part of another, I completely respect those who feel their conscience calling them to make a similar journey. What bothers me is the hybrid nature of these "personal ordinariates".If someone believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the correct church, let them be a Roman Catholic, and not some kind of Catholic with elements of the Anglian "tradition" tossed in.

The impact on the wider ecumenical movement is also a matter of concern. If we are not able to view the life and ministry of each other's churches as faithful and effective in their own ways,then perhaps Pope Benedict's way will be the only offer on the table for Christian Unity.

[ 29. October 2009, 03:21: Message edited by: uffda ]

--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!

Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310

 - Posted      Profile for uffda   Email uffda   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Regarding Alt Wally's post.

The Lutheran-Episcopal agreement is a perfect example of the goal of a bilateral dialogue: finding new ways to go beyond old impasses.

The agreement was carefully crafted in this way:
Lutherans were able to accept the laying on of hands by an Episcopal Bishop,to come into Apostolic Sucession as Episcopalians understand it, because Episcopalians were able to modify their ordinal to accept the ministry of Lutheran pastors immediately, even though not all of them would be in the Apostolic succession right away. This arrangement avoided the notion that Episcopalians were conferring validity on Lutherans. We had come through bilateral dialogue to recognize each other's churches as Apostolic, the laying on of hands was then seen as "a sign, though not a guarantee" of Apostolicity.

--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!

Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think uffda's post encapsulates well how significant the shift was for the Episcopal Church in moving away from what would traditionally be considered the "catholic" understanding of holy orders. This inevitably has led in my experience to a change in the understanding of the sacrament itself, often shifting from substance to sign.

quote:
If someone believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the correct church, let them be a Roman Catholic, and not some kind of Catholic with elements of the Anglian "tradition" tossed in.
Similar arguments have been made against the traditions of the Eastern Catholics. If they were real Catholics, etc...

One of the greatest attributes of Catholicism is its diversity and universality. It surely has room for multiple liturgical rites, and I personally don't see why there isn't room for additional ones such as an Anglican use. I think the Pope in his wisdom recognizes this.

[ 29. October 2009, 03:49: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]

Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An excellent post, uffda, but I would disagree with this one bit --

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Those who see the Anglican priest and bishop in terms of a sacrificial priesthood, (most closely aligned with the RCC) will find themselves necessarily having to reject the Ordination of Women ...

-- but that is definitely Dead Horses territory and I don't want to derail the thread by focusing on that here.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think uffda's post encapsulates well how significant the shift was for the Episcopal Church in moving away from what would traditionally be considered the "catholic" understanding of holy orders. This inevitably has led in my experience to a change in the understanding of the sacrament itself, often shifting from substance to sign.

If you mean ordaining women, for at least some in the CofE that went along with a move in the other direction. For reasons that are probably off-topic here.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that modern RC theology, by saying a sacrament can both efficacious and invalid, has made the concept of "validity" so abstract as to be meaningless.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. An invalid sacrament isn't a type of sacrament (one that, despite being "invalid," can still be "efficacious"); it isn't a sacrament at all. To say that a ritual might be invalid sacramentally but still be an occasion of grace is pretty much the same as saying that reading Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory or listening to Allegri's Miserere are not sacraments, but that they can still be occasions of God's grace. Grace is not restricted to the sacraments. So the ministry of an Anglican priest might be an occasion of grace, even if (in RC eyes) he did not validly receive the sacrament of orders.
FB, are you saying that an Anglican Eucharist is equivalent to reading a good book in terms of the grace it affords?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872

 - Posted      Profile for the coiled spring   Author's homepage   Email the coiled spring   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
FB, are you saying that an Anglican Eucharist is equivalent to reading a good book in terms of the grace it affords?
Now who is being a naughty boy, surely any Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Mass/etc should be Christ centered and not be denomination thingy.

If this holy clergy do decided to trot off to Rome, may I humble suggest that the empty property be used to provided homes for the needy of the parish as a sign of the Anglican love for others

--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.

Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that modern RC theology, by saying a sacrament can both efficacious and invalid, has made the concept of "validity" so abstract as to be meaningless.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. An invalid sacrament isn't a type of sacrament (one that, despite being "invalid," can still be "efficacious"); it isn't a sacrament at all.
I stand corrected, but that seems to me merely to shift the locus of abstraction from "validity" to "sacrament".

Assuming Apostolicae Curae is correct, an Anglican Eucharist is still a physical thing through which God effects divine grace. The only respect in which it is deficient is the lack of apostolic succession. But all churches are deficient in some respect.

--------------------
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
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
FB, are you saying that an Anglican Eucharist is equivalent to reading a good book in terms of the grace it affords?

I suppose, in a sense, I am. But you should know that I'm a Catholic today because (among other things) I read The Power and the Glory. So when I say "an occasion of grace" I don't mean simply "something that gives you a good feeling" but rather "something that unites you to God." But if novel reading seems too trivial, then perhaps I might compare it to praying the rosary or reading Scripture. They are great good things and means of salvation for many; they are just not (as RCs understand it) sacraments.

[ 29. October 2009, 12:24: Message edited by: FCB ]

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for that. Does that not make Anglo-Catholics guilty of idolatory?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I edited but forgot to post it!

Thanks for that. Does that not make Anglo-Catholics guilty of idolatory?

One of the things that will prevent many A-Cs, whether ordained or no, poping (through the Apostolic Constitution or otherwise) is, to my mind, the fact that they would be denying either their previous sacerdotal ministry or the fact that they had received such.

I am not criticising your view - it is the view of the Catholic Church and makes perfect sense within that community's self-understanding.

What I'm trying to understand, though, is whether those who do not regard Anglican priests as being priests within the Church of God regard their sacraments [sic.] as being misguided but sincere prayers which are simply guilty of misunderstanding what's actually going on or, alternatively, the "blasphemous fables" that some Protestants would accuse them of so being.

Thurible

[ 29. October 2009, 13:38: Message edited by: Thurible ]

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:



The famous 19C English RC scholar John Lingard said that the order used for the ordination of a bishop could equally be used for the admission of a parish clerk. Or as I once argued here, for the blessing of a new school headmaster. There was nothing to indicate that a bishop was being ordained for the Catholic Church.

Yes, this is what I meant, but as the Abyssinian case has never been ruled against (despite the gloss Patrizi put on it which is mere supposition), Leo's decision that the words being absent during that initial period nullified the succession anyway because the words were introduced too late, have no force. He can't argue from form.

see Patrizi here


quote:
..But then as now the judgement remains the same: from a perspective of conferring Catholic Orders, the Anglican Church gave up both the form and intention of doing so. Thus Pope Leo wrote:

quote:
In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
That judgement still holds. So those now converting will need to be ordained in the Catholic Church if they wish to exercise a priestly ministry.
Leo's on firmer ground here as the intention was not to have the same kind of priesthood (I'm taking it this is correct, i.e. that Anglicans would agree with him here). But, his reason that his is the priesthood Christ initiated is not proved. (Whatever the gloss put on this in ecumenical dialogue by and with the Orthodox to pretend we have the same priesthood) Christ instituted the form and intent of the royal sacrificial priesthood (see Peter) in the Church, baptism still now as then being the ordination into this priesthood for the Orthodox.

The divide into a separate priesthood of some apart from the rest, known in the West as the divide between clergy and laity (see Schmemann on Clergy and Laity), is an innovation/different development (*) and so suffers from the same inadequacy of intent re the Orthodox as the Anglican intent suffers re the RCC, and so, is not in and of itself an absolute definition of priesthood neither in the variety of Christian Churches nor in any idea of a "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

Take it from there..

Myrrh

(*) My thoughts are that the concept of the Royal Priesthood was somehow lost in Rome in the times of concentrated persecution.

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175

 - Posted      Profile for Shadowhund   Author's homepage   Email Shadowhund   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I edited but forgot to post it!

Thanks for that. Does that not make Anglo-Catholics guilty of idolatory?

One of the things that will prevent many A-Cs, whether ordained or no, poping (through the Apostolic Constitution or otherwise) is, to my mind, the fact that they would be denying either their previous sacerdotal ministry or the fact that they had received such.

I am not criticising your view - it is the view of the Catholic Church and makes perfect sense within that community's self-understanding.

What I'm trying to understand, though, is whether those who do not regard Anglican priests as being priests within the Church of God regard their sacraments [sic.] as being misguided but sincere prayers which are simply guilty of misunderstanding what's actually going on or, alternatively, the "blasphemous fables" that some Protestants would accuse them of so being.

Thurible

Anglican orders is an issue that each individual clergyman will have to work out for himself. I gave an example of how a layman (myself) worked it out, very imperfectly, but somehow managed to put it all together at the end.

I would not globablly describe latter-day Anglicans as idolatrous or sacriligious. (I might well say that about Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, and Latimer, and perhaps even Parker himself though he is a more sympathetic human being than the first four.) As for whether Christ himself visits the altars of Anglican clergy, he does not need mine or the Pope's permission to do so if he chooses. As I see it, we are bound to the sacraments, but God is not so bound...see the Parable of the Generous Employer. There is no Catholic doctrine of the Real Absence.

--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"

A.N. Wilson

Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427

 - Posted      Profile for Clavus   Email Clavus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is waht the RC Church has said in the past:

quote:
• Prayer at the ordination of a former Anglican minister to the Catholic presbyterate.
This prayer was ordered to be said by the CDF. It is said before the Litany and not, it should be noted, the ordination prayer itself.
Oratio ad gratias agendas pro ministerio ab electo in Communione anglicana expleto
Deinde mones surgunt. Epsicopus, deposita mitra, stans manibus iunctis versus ad electum dicit:
N., the Holy Catholic Church recognizes that not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion as carried out in communities separated from her can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation. And so we now pray.
Et omnes, per aliquod temporis spatium, silentio orant. Deinde, manus extensis, Episcopus orat dicens:
Almighty Father, we give you thanks for the x years
of faithful ministry of your servant N. in the Anglican Communion [vel: in the Church of England],
whose fruitfulness for salvation has been derived
from the very fullness of grace and truth
entrusted to the Catholic Church.
As your servant has been received into full communion
and now seeks to be ordained to the presbyterate in the Catholic Church,
we beseech you to bring to fruition that for which we now pray.
Through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Populus acclamat:
Amen.


Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
From 1550 to 1662 there was not even a mention of the words priest or bishop in the service of ordination. 1550 simply used the formula "Receive the Holy Ghost" and "Take the Holy Ghost", without saying for what.

Not the whole [picture.

In 1550, candidates for the diaconate were told: It perteyneth to the office of a Deacon [in the Churche where he shalbe appoynted,]* to assiste the Prieste in devine service, and speciallye when he ministreth the holye Communion, and [to]* helpe him in distribucion thereof, and to reade holye scriptures and Homelies in the congregacion, and [to]* instructe the youth in the Cathechisme, to Baptise and [to]* preache yf he be [commaunded]† by the Bisshop. And further more, it is his office [where provision is so made]* to searche for the sicke, poore, and impotente people of the parishe, and to intimate theyr estates, names, and places where thei dwel to the Curate, that by his exhortacion they maye bee relieved by the parishe or other convenient almose [alms]: wil you do this gladly and wyllingly?

Presbyteral candidates were asked: Will you then geve your faythfull dylygence alwayes, so to mynister the doctryne and Sacramentes, and the discipline of Christ, as the lord hath commaunded, and as thys realme hath received the same, accordyng to the commaunde mentes of God, so that you may teache the people committed to youre cure and charge, with al diligence to kepe and observe the same?

Then, at the laying on of hands, the prayer/invocation was: RECEIVE the holy goste, whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained: and be thou a faithful despensor of the word of god, and of his holy Sacramentes. In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy gost. Amen.

Later: TAKE thou aucthoritie to preache the word of god, and to minister the holy Sacramentes in thys congregacion[, where thou shalt be so appointed]*.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
I would not globablly describe latter-day Anglicans as idolatrous or sacriligious. (I might well say that about Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, and Latimer, and perhaps even Parker himself though he is a more sympathetic human being than the first four.) .

Maybe you might earn the right to insult those martyrs if you yourself were burned at the stake by a bloodthirsty foreign tyrant in the name of religion.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
I've asked this on both my facebook and my twitter and I'm going to ask it here:

What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?

This question assumes that the Catholic Church's ecclesiology is of the same pick-and-choose type as some protestant churches. The Catholic Churh will never ordain women to the priesthood.

Of course, they could eventually ordain women as deacons...

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
I've asked this on both my facebook and my twitter and I'm going to ask it here:

What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?

This question assumes that the Catholic Church's ecclesiology is of the same pick-and-choose type as some protestant churches. The Catholic Churh will never ordain women to the priesthood.
All it takes is one pope...
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
All it takes is one pope...

Infallibility, but its own definition, cannot be exercised in a way to overturn the tradition of the church. It can only confirm it. John Paul II himself said he did not have the power to change the the church's stance on the ordination of women.

quote:
If you mean ordaining women, for at least some in the CofE that went along with a move in the other direction. For reasons that are probably off-topic here.
No, I meant there could be shifts in how the other sacraments are viewed and understood. I have seen this in my own experience.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  20  21  22 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools