|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Apostolic Succesion
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Zach82 posts: quote:
Anglican and Utrecht Old Catholic bishops are connected to this Rebiba line. The Pre-Reformation tactile successions of England, Ireland and Scotland all died out or are undocumented.
Utrecht, of course, but the Anglican line is solidly documented at least back to Simon Langham (+1376)-- the problem with pre-Rebiba is that the nature of record-keeping changed at that period and for succession before then the researcher must wade through calendars of warrants and capitular and episcopal records. Detailled registers, such as delight us all (I speak as a retired bureaucrat!!) were not maintained in a way which passes our muster. But mediaeval chronologies (and pre-mediaeval, for those of us who spent today's breakfast looking at the life of S Julian of Toledo) show us the great trouble taken to ensure proper procedures at episcopal consecrations -- there is some good Irish church stuff there for the idle reader. In any case, as the Supreme Court tells us with respect to land claims, oral traditions, critically examined, can be authoritative and conclusive.
Snarling fights at the time of the Montanists over succession and eligibility and duty, I think, set the tone for care in maintaining a tactile succession. The absence of registers in itself proves nothing at all, other than that registers are not there.
The problem, which the Lutherans do emphasize (if only for their own historic reasons), is that the tactile succession is not terribly pertinent if there is no apostolic succession in the teaching of faith.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
My recollection is that the English line is traced back to 1377, but then we hit the problem of a missing episcopal register. It is a case of 'we don't know who' rather than 'we don't know if' X. It is the same problem of that of the Rebiba succession, but 150 or so years earlier. Despite quite a bit of effort down the years supporting documentation has not come to light. In the case of the English Succession perhaps not surprisingly. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that somewhere in the Vatican there is a piece of paper that can shed some light on the Rebiba succession. The Carrafa theory is probably correct though.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Since the laying-on of hands is, and has been from earliest times, a component of the consecration of bishops, it's not unreasonable to expect that there is in fact an unbroken tactile succession, even if it's not documented to the satisfaction of academic historians. Need I point out that there are a number of things which historians doubt that Christians believe on faith?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
If I recall correctly, the only bishop to jump from Mary to Elizabeth was Matthew Parker. Was the Anglican line ever "reinforced" before the appeal to the Old Catholics?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If I recall correctly, the only bishop to jump from Mary to Elizabeth was Matthew Parker. Was the Anglican line ever "reinforced" before the appeal to the Old Catholics?
AFAIK only once, by Marco de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalato. I have heard one or two urban legends, but I don't think that they're worth mentioning-- one of them places Cardinal Ghinucci, who was Bishop of Worcester 1522-1535, in the wrong century.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
According to Wiki, Owen Oglethorpe was + Carlisle from 1557 IE, under Mary Tudor) and crowned Elizabeth I, a few months before being deprived. I assume that his consecration was within the succession, but do not know if he participated in the consecration of any others. From the same source, those consecrating Matthew Parker included both William Barlow and John Hodgkins; again, I think that their consecrations were within the succession, but cannot verify that.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I meant to add that + Marcantonio Spoleto was not a bishop in England, and AFAIK, did not participate as one in any consecration. There may have been one or perhaps 2 others whose episcopate straddled Mary Tudor and Elizabeth for long enough to have participated, but my copy of Elton is somewhere at home, and I'm not there to verify.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
None of Mary's bishops, besides Matthew Parker, participated in any consecrations. None of them would affirm her supremacy over the Church.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
None of Mary's bishops, besides Matthew Parker, participated in any consecrations. None of them would affirm her supremacy over the Church.
In consecrations for the Church of England under Elizabeth, that is...
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I meant to add that + Marcantonio Spoleto was not a bishop in England, and AFAIK, did not participate as one in any consecration. There may have been one or perhaps 2 others whose episcopate straddled Mary Tudor and Elizabeth for long enough to have participated, but my copy of Elton is somewhere at home, and I'm not there to verify.
Wikipedia is not unimpeachable but reports that Msgr de Dominis participated: quote:
in the consecration of George Montaigne as Bishop of Lincoln, and Nicolas Felton as Bishop of Bristol on 14 December 1617
I think that there were Irish and Welsh bishops who straddled the reigns of the two queens, but do not have names at hand.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I suppose that his consecration remained, despite his formal appointments in England not being as a bishop*, so he could have validly participated. I'm fairly sure you're right about at least one Welsh bishop straddling; again from memory, probably insecure, he was an Henrician, and was lucky to have survived Edward VI's reign.
* There is perhaps an analogy in the appointment of a bishop as head of the Anglican Brotherhood of St Laurence in Aust - a bishop without a see.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I seem to remember from my schooldays, where I was taught history by someone who would have known such things, that all the first Elizabethan consecrations included Kitchen of Llandaff, or people who had been consecrated by him, because he accepted the Elizabethan settlement and his orders were more pukka.
But it's 45 years since I left school, and my memory might be deceiving me.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Parker was consecrated by +Hodgkin, +Scory, +Coverdale and +Barlow all of whom had been consecrated under either Henry VIII or Edward VI. I think it was +Barlow, who had been consecrated under the old Ordinal, was the principle consecrator. All four had been consecrated by +Cranmer, whose principle consecrator had been +John Longlands of Lincoln. He in turn was consecrated by ++Warham.
Marcantonio De Dominis, former Archbishop of Spoleto, was a co-consecrator of George Montaigne. +Montaigne, as Bishop of London, was IIRC principle consecrator of Laud as Abbot was inhibited due to a gamekeeper problem. From the Laud the De Dominis line passes to most Anglican bishops through +Juxon.
The next top-up would be the participation of Old Catholic bishops in Anglican consecrations after 1932. In the USA, two Polish National Catholic Church bishops participated in the consecration of Horace Donegan as Coadjutor Bishop of New York in 1948, and he in turn was one of the two named co-consecrators of Albert Chambers, who was elected from Church of the Resurrection, NYC to the Diocese of Springfield in 1962.
The PNCC line goes back to ++Gul of Utrecht, who consecrate Bishop Hodur about 1908. Ultimately that line goes back to Bishop Bossuet, court reacher to Louis XIV and to Cardinal Barbarini, the brother, IIRC, of Pope Urban VIII.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Godric
Apprentice
# 17135
|
Posted
Do consecrations last forever in their descendents or do consecrations fade over time?
By that I mean : Do Anglicans need a constant 'top-up' of Old Catholic orders to prevent any hint of a lack of validity? Would an Orthodox participant at a consecration offer more to Anglicans than an Old Catholic from Utrecht?
--------------------
I write on funerals and burials http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/
Posts: 28 | From: England and Malta | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
Do consecrations last forever in their descendents or do consecrations fade over time?
By that I mean : Do Anglicans need a constant 'top-up' of Old Catholic orders to prevent any hint of a lack of validity? Would an Orthodox participant at a consecration offer more to Anglicans than an Old Catholic from Utrecht?
I think that the idea was to foreclose on one of the objections of RC theologians in the wake of Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae who suggested that the 1552 ordinal was too weak, even if that of 1662 was not. The Dutch touch injection addressed that objection as well as that of a break in tactile succession in 1561. A third nail in the Leonine coffin was the Latin declaration of intent by the OC consecrators, which addressed the objection of a lack of catholic intent on the part of consecrators.
An Orthodox bishop's help would have addressed most of the objections just as well, but Orthodox ecclesiology would not have permitted participation, as much as Anglicans of the era might have liked. Either way, there is no need for a renewed injection. Once it's there, it's there.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
Do consecrations last forever in their descendents or do consecrations fade over time?
By that I mean : Do Anglicans need a constant 'top-up' of Old Catholic orders to prevent any hint of a lack of validity? Would an Orthodox participant at a consecration offer more to Anglicans than an Old Catholic from Utrecht?
I think that the idea was to foreclose on one of the objections of RC theologians in the wake of Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae who suggested that the 1552 ordinal was too weak, even if that of 1662 was not. The Dutch touch injection addressed that objection as well as that of a break in tactile succession in 1561. A third nail in the Leonine coffin was the Latin declaration of intent by the OC consecrators, which addressed the objection of a lack of catholic intent on the part of consecrators.
An Orthodox bishop's help would have addressed most of the objections just as well, but Orthodox ecclesiology would not have permitted participation, as much as Anglicans of the era might have liked. Either way, there is no need for a renewed injection. Once it's there, it's there.
Dr William Tighe wrote the following on a blog a few years ago on the matter of the 'Dutch Touch':
quote:
If Francis Clark is right in his *Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention* (1956) — the best book I have read on the subject — the so-called “Dutch Touch” may make no difference, if (1) the ordination rite being used is the same as Cranmer’s Anglican Ordinal of 1552, or substantially the same (as with the 1662 Prayer Book’s revision of those rites) and (2) if the non-Anglican “touchers” participated by using the Anglican rite only, or by laying-on their hands in silence.
This last is what happened in those cases in which bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church participated in various Anglican episcopal consecration ceremonies in America and Canada between 1946 and 1971: they either enunciated the words of the Anglican rite or simply laid-on their hands in silence (as the last surviving PNCC bishop who participated in such consecrations himself told me 12 years ago). In England the “Dutch touchers” always between 1932 and 1959 and on occasion as late as 1974, enunciated the “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum …” etc. from the Roman Pontifical, at he same time as the Anglican consecrating archbishop and bishops were enunciated “Receive the Holy Ghost …” etc. from the 1662 Prayer Book rite (after the early 1970s the Dutch Old Catholics discontinued their use of the Roman Pontifical in favor of their own new ordination rites). Many 19th-Century scholars, Catholic as well as otherwise, thought that “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum …” etc. had been the “form” of the sacrament before the 1442 Decretum pro Armenis declared it to be the porrectio instrumentorum; although by the time that Pius XII promulgated the Apostolic Constitution on the Matter and Form of Holy Orders it had been generally realized that both the porrectio instrumentorum and the injunction “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum …” etc. had alike entered Catholic ordination rites in the High Middle Ages.
As far as the 1662 Prayer Book’s alteration of the Anglican episcopal ordination prayer, I leave it for readers to consider whether it in any way altered the sense of the rite. The 1552 prayer ran” “Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.” That of 1662 runs “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.”
The Anglican rite for the ordination of priests was likewise altered to include the phrase “for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands” which had likewise been absent from that rite (although in that for the diaconate Cranmer’s rite had run “Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God committed unto thee; in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen,” which remained unchanged in 1662). These seem to me to be changes more of a cosmetic nature than of a substantial one, although thay may have been a response to one (among many) Catholic arguments asserting the inadequacy and invalidity of the Anglican rites, that they did not specify the Order being conferred by them.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The preface to Cranmer's Ordinal, however, makes it clear that there are three historic orders of ministry in the Church, and that it is intended to perpetuate these orders. The defect of intent, if indeed there were any, would lie not in the verbal formula of ordination, but rather in the issue of whether the Reformers were really meaning to do what the Church had always done when conferring the orders of the tripartite ministries. The formulaic words might arguably point to a defect, but don't constitute the ostensible defect itself, nor are they proof positive of such a defect. Rather, one must resort to other material to infer a defective intention in the Reformers' approach to the historic orders. In my view, this puts the inquisitor on very shaky ground, especially if it is admitted that the Church's theology of orders has not been absolutely static over the course of its history.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
As do I. If we believed the pope had a right to declare Anglican orders invalid (based, it would seem, on his ability to read the minds of Reformation era bishops), wouldn't we be Roman Catholics? I was just stating what I thought to be a fairly obvious fact.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
Actually, they don't, and this is a critical fact when it comes to looking at how the Porvoo agreement and the US and Canadian concordats with the Lutherans are working out. Mind you, there's a great deal of incoherence and inconsistency over this (it can be argued that the RCs go entirely overboard in the other direction). As well, Anglicans participation in South Asian church union, as well as in the now-expired COCU and ACoC/UCC plans, make it pretty clear that Anglicans have been quite open on the issue--- certainly far too much for good ecclesiology, but that's another tangent.
Lietuvos does have a point, in that Apostolicae Curae passes over a centuries of theory and practice in ordination matters; the idle may notice that much of the Anglican Archbishops' reply (Saepius Officio) is occupied in laying that out with buckets of examples uncomfortable to Leo XIII's logic. I find that, whenever these examples are brought up in discussions, one is briskly informed that The Discussion Has Moved On.
Having read far too much on the topic, I think it reasonable to ask to what degree ecclesiastical politics (by this, I do not mean petty politics, but rather working out major policy issues) has to do with the formal theological positions taken.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Go to Anglicans Online and look at what is considered to be a definitive listing of the many Anglican/Episcopal churches listed as 'not in communion with Canterbury'. Many of them proudly display their lists of episcopal lineage by tactile succession. For some, that list is their only claim to fame. There is a deal of play with the words Anglican and Episcopal, despite the fact that they are not recognized by the See of Canterbury or the Instruments of Communion.
Anglicans Online Churches not in the Communion
Neither the Church of England nor the Episcopal Church are recognized by the Holy See, yet they still retain the use of ‘catholic.’ Why is it OK for someone do so so, bu not OK for someone who has broken off from the Church of England or the Episcopal Church to retain the use of ‘anglican’ or ‘episcopal’? Are those terms any more ‘sacred’? Do the Anglican communion ‘own’ these terms? Should I, who am part of the Lutheran Church of Norway, demand that Lutheran free churches should stop to define themselves as ‘Lutheran’?
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't mind if they call themselves Episcopalians or Anglicans, but they probably ought to come around to the fact that the Anglican Communion in the United States is The Episcopal Church.
Which suggests that the Anglican Communion (those churches in communion with +Canterbury) 'owns' the label 'Anglican.' Which is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church 'owns' the label 'Catholic,' or that the historic Lutheran churches in Europe, and their sister churches, 'own' the label 'Lutheran.'
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Which suggests that the Anglican Communion (those churches in communion with +Canterbury) 'owns' the label 'Anglican.' Which is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church 'owns' the label 'Catholic,' or that the historic Lutheran churches in Europe, and their sister churches, 'own' the label 'Lutheran.'
Uh, no it doesn't? "Anglican" and "Part of the Anglican Communion" are not the same things.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]
Uh, no it doesn't? "Anglican" and "Part of the Anglican Communion" are not the same things.
Correct. Above I mentioned the list maintained by Anglicans Online of Churches in the Communion. That AO list actually duplicates the
Provincial Directory found on the web site of the Anglican Communion, and published by the Anglican Communion Secretariat, St. Andrew's House, London.
To be part of the Anglican Communion the church body in question must be recognized by the Instruments of Communion, among which is the see of Canterbury. Many churches or groups use the name Anglican or Episcopal though they are not in fact constituent members of the communion.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
Actually, they don't, and this is a critical fact when it comes to looking at how the Porvoo agreement and the US and Canadian concordats with the Lutherans are working out. Mind you, there's a great deal of incoherence and inconsistency over this (it can be argued that the RCs go entirely overboard in the other direction). As well, Anglicans participation in South Asian church union, as well as in the now-expired COCU and ACoC/UCC plans, make it pretty clear that Anglicans have been quite open on the issue--- certainly far too much for good ecclesiology, but that's another tangent.
Lietuvos does have a point, in that Apostolicae Curae passes over a centuries of theory and practice in ordination matters; the idle may notice that much of the Anglican Archbishops' reply (Saepius Officio) is occupied in laying that out with buckets of examples uncomfortable to Leo XIII's logic. I find that, whenever these examples are brought up in discussions, one is briskly informed that The Discussion Has Moved On.
Having read far too much on the topic, I think it reasonable to ask to what degree ecclesiastical politics (by this, I do not mean petty politics, but rather working out major policy issues) has to do with the formal theological positions taken.
That is certainly true. The position of the ghastly Msgr Talbot, and his influence in the papal household lasting into Leo XIII's pontificate with regard to Anglican orders, is well known.
Saepe Officio was a masterly document (not least the splendor of its Latin), but based on answering AC point by point - which it did most successfully.
Following the rather tautuous logic of both documents (to a later generation), one might well point to the absurdity of Pope Alexander VI allowing his early teenage 'nephews' to ordain on his behalf. The lack of clear intention and the frivolity of his action might well shake Anglican confidence in the validity of Italian orders.
However the real issue is of course the nature of the Church. Holy Orders do not stand alone. As Newman once remarked: 'Anglicans believe their orders are valid, therefore they have a valid church; we believe we have a valid Church, therefore our orders are valid.'
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
However the real issue is of course the nature of the Church. Holy Orders do not stand alone. As Newman once remarked: 'Anglicans believe their orders are valid, therefore they have a valid church; we believe we have a valid Church, sed on answering AC point by point - which ittherefore our orders are valid.' [/QB]
I think this underscores the point that the old approach - in the West, at least - of analyzing a characteristic called "validity" in terms of old categories of matter, form, minister, and intent, most of these brimming over with a priori assumptions, isn't any longer helpful. I find it more useful to explore issues of what constitutes a properly ordered ecclesial community in which the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments truly and duly administered; likewise, how the polity of an ecclesial community is organised to express a ministry of oversight in which the unity of that part of the Church is manifested, and how various local ministry proceeds from this superordinate ministry of ecclesial oversight, so that ministries are properly ordered, called, ordained, commissioned and legitimised within an overall ecclesial unity.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
I have always regarded the nub of the Roman denial of the validity of Anglican Orders as a manifestation of the 'not-made-here' attitude.
The Anglican refusal to recognize non-episcopal orders stems for the Anglican belief that bishops are at least bene esse in the Church, though higher counsels regard them as essential.
Of course 'top up' is an extremely misleading phrase. However, to write 'another way in which RC objections to the format ++Parker's consecration could be answered is to point to the participation of X. in the consecration of Y.." get a it cumbersome after a while. However, all that about Dutch Touch is a bit too close to the hocus-pocus theory of Apostolic Succession for me, though it does provide Roman theologians with a street to back-up along should they ever need it.
ISTM that Anglicans and Romans both consider themselves Catholic. Anglicans, because the Romans add rather than tae away from The Faith accept Roman orders as valid (there is also the ladder issue) whilst Romans regard Anglicans as subtracting from The Faith and therefore see their orders as invalid.
PD
[ETA Translation link "bene esse" - DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 03. November 2012, 18:06: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I love hocus pocus and regret that there isn't enough of it in the church these days.
Whilst I have posted elsewhere that it is a question of the nature of the Church, one might expand the touch theory a little further.
It has been said - and I can cite no authorites whatsoever bar one - that when Albania was suffering under perfidious and vile Communism, the RCC sanctioned RC priests to ordain priests due to the impossiblity bishops being allowed to enter the country. This would be an interesting precendent for the apostolic succession being passed through the presbyteral line, and why one might not have any problem with Methodist ordinations.
The 'authority' was a former professor at Tubingen and the Gregorian (Michael Winter) who stated in a lecture that the power to ordain was present in priests but dormant - and reserved to the episcopate.
Slightly digressionally, it has also been suggested that Mary, Queen of Scots possessed a tiny chalice and paten and was authorised by the pope to say Mass for herself when in confinement and unable to receive the ministrations of a priest.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say, hopes of Rome ever recognizing Anglican Orders, even with the Dutch Touch, were always forlorn.
I always find it ironic when Anglicans complain their orders aren't recognised by Rome when they treat other traditions in exactly the same way. Sauce for the goose and all that?
Actually, they don't, and this is a critical fact when it comes to looking at how the Porvoo agreement and the US and Canadian concordats with the Lutherans are working out. Mind you, there's a great deal of incoherence and inconsistency over this (it can be argued that the RCs go entirely overboard in the other direction). As well, Anglicans participation in South Asian church union, as well as in the now-expired COCU and ACoC/UCC plans, make it pretty clear that Anglicans have been quite open on the issue--- certainly far too much for good ecclesiology, but that's another tangent.
Lietuvos does have a point, in that Apostolicae Curae passes over a centuries of theory and practice in ordination matters; the idle may notice that much of the Anglican Archbishops' reply (Saepius Officio) is occupied in laying that out with buckets of examples uncomfortable to Leo XIII's logic. I find that, whenever these examples are brought up in discussions, one is briskly informed that The Discussion Has Moved On.
Having read far too much on the topic, I think it reasonable to ask to what degree ecclesiastical politics (by this, I do not mean petty politics, but rather working out major policy issues) has to do with the formal theological positions taken.
That is certainly true. The position of the ghastly Msgr Talbot, and his influence in the papal household lasting into Leo XIII's pontificate with regard to Anglican orders, is well known.
Saepe Officio was a masterly document (not least the splendor of its Latin), but based on answering AC point by point - which it did most successfully.
Following the rather tautuous logic of both documents (to a later generation), one might well point to the absurdity of Pope Alexander VI allowing his early teenage 'nephews' to ordain on his behalf. The lack of clear intention and the frivolity of his action might well shake Anglican confidence in the validity of Italian orders.
However the real issue is of course the nature of the Church. Holy Orders do not stand alone. As Newman once remarked: 'Anglicans believe their orders are valid, therefore they have a valid church; we believe we have a valid Church, therefore our orders are valid.'
It's funny how no one ever seems to remember that there was responded to Saepius Officio by, among others, Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of the Province of Westminster: A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae' (London, 1898)
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Please can I remind folk to translate, or link to a translation of, non-English terms used in their posts. If you are unsure if it needs translation - you can do a quick check here. (Obviously that does not include book titles - though it would help to explain when they are in latin for those readers less up to date with the Vatican's publications.)
Thanks,
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
It's funny how no one ever seems to remember that there was responded to Saepius Officio by, among others, Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of the Province of Westminster: A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae' (London, 1898)
What gave you the impression that we had forgotten? I have seen a half dozen replies to it at least.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
It's funny how no one ever seems to remember that there was responded to Saepius Officio by, among others, Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of the Province of Westminster: A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae' (London, 1898)
What gave you the impression that we had forgotten? I have seen a half dozen replies to it at least.
And this is meant to be a moderately serious discussion. The so-called 'Vindication' is memorable for the weakness of its arguments, and the flaccidity of its scholarship, but this is hardly surprising given its authorship.
There was a huge vested interest in the so-called 'Vindication'. Were AS to be seen as false (in a sense of course,) then what postion would that have left the English RC hierarchy? : presumably 'the Italian mission to the Irish', as some polemicists unkindly called them. Msgr Talbot amongst others realised this and hence pressure was put on Rome.
Of course as some posts have hinted, the arguments of these interesting historical documents are not entirely helpful as time has rolled by and situations have changed. The Anglican use of Old Catholic bishops on the one hand, and their ordination of women on the other, have made that particualar boat sway from side to side. Also the premise of the argument might be seen as faulty on both sides in terms of intention and manual tranmission.
Once again, in the West the discussion should return to the nature of the Church, and thereafter to the question of Holy Order.
It would be intersting to hear from some Eastern Brethren on this issue. I have heard it said that reconcilation and validity of seemingly defective orders might be righted by a single anointing, but of whom and when I am not sure.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
The one anointing concept would certainly be an interesting premise. After all, consecration of the MBS in many traditions does not require touching of every element.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The so-called 'Vindication' is memorable for the weakness of its arguments, and the flaccidity of its scholarship, but this is hardly surprising given its authorship.
Back up that assertion please.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Simply read it.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Which suggests that the Anglican Communion (those churches in communion with +Canterbury) 'owns' the label 'Anglican.' Which is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church 'owns' the label 'Catholic,' or that the historic Lutheran churches in Europe, and their sister churches, 'own' the label 'Lutheran.'
Uh, no it doesn't? "Anglican" and "Part of the Anglican Communion" are not the same things.
My initial post dealt with Mr. Rob's suggestion that using 'Episcopal' and 'Anglican' is wrong for churches not in communion with ++Canterbury. I assumed that you agreed with him. If I read you wrong, I'm sorry about that.
The bottom line is that one cannot criticize the Catholic Church for not wanting people to use 'catholic,' and than say that it's wrong for continuing bodies to use 'anglican' or 'episcopal.'
--------------------
"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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Simply read it.
So you've got nothing. Thanks for that.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
My initial post dealt with Mr. Rob's suggestion that using 'Episcopal' and 'Anglican' is wrong for churches not in communion with ++Canterbury.
I reviewed the posts of this thread to find out where I said that. As far as I can see, I said ...
quote:
Go to Anglicans Online and look at what is considered to be a definitive listing of the many Anglican/Episcopal churches listed as 'not in communion with Canterbury'. Many of them proudly display their lists of episcopal lineage by tactile succession. For some, that list is their only claim to fame. There is a deal of play with the words Anglican and Episcopal, despite the fact that they are not recognized by the See of Canterbury or the Instruments of Communion.
... but that is not the same thing as saying their use of Anglican/Episcopal is wrong per se.
However their use of the names can be misleading or duplicitous, as in the case of the so-called "Episcopal" Diocese of Fort Worth, which has in fact separated from The Episcopal Church. I their case, the continued use of the name Episcopal is blatantly misleading, especially as they are now part of the separatist Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), a group of churches that hoped (hopes?) to be but isn't part of the Anglican Communion.
Most of the many other examples of "Anglican/Episcopal" churches I could mention believe that the observance of Anglican/Episcopal externals are what make them such. Their lack of recognition by Canterbury and the Instruments of Communion are ignored when, in fact such recognition is essential to being part of the Anglican Communion.
I for one don't think that a church can properly called Anglican or Episcopal without holding membership in the Communion. Continued use of Anglican/Episcopal names by spurious groups are often merely part of a cheap con games to deceive ignorant laity.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Joy. Let's find more of the same old same old to look, be, weird, out of touch, divide, disunite, compete, hate one another.
Babylon.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I love hocus pocus and regret that there isn't enough of it in the church these days.
Whilst I have posted elsewhere that it is a question of the nature of the Church, one might expand the touch theory a little further.
It has been said - and I can cite no authorites whatsoever bar one - that when Albania was suffering under perfidious and vile Communism, the RCC sanctioned RC priests to ordain priests due to the impossiblity bishops being allowed to enter the country. This would be an interesting precendent for the apostolic succession being passed through the presbyteral line, and why one might not have any problem with Methodist ordinations.
The 'authority' was a former professor at Tubingen and the Gregorian (Michael Winter) who stated in a lecture that the power to ordain was present in priests but dormant - and reserved to the episcopate.
Slightly digressionally, it has also been suggested that Mary, Queen of Scots possessed a tiny chalice and paten and was authorised by the pope to say Mass for herself when in confinement and unable to receive the ministrations of a priest.
Ah yes, this is all fairly familiar territory. Luther justified presbyters ordaining bishops on the basis of the dormancy theory. Late mediaeval ruminations about the nature of Holy Orders often seem to regard three major orders as subdeacon, deacon, priest with the last divided between Bishops who exercise the fullness of the priesthood, and priests who were seen as modern versions of the chorepiscope of the early Church. Odd as that theory sounds to modern ears, it may not be that far from the truth given how difficult it is to prove that the Episcopate and the Presbyterate are completely separate and distinct orders in the Early Church.
+PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Yes, that's my understanding of ecclesiology/theology of orders in the late middle ages, too. Whereas the high church stream in Anglicanism has always looked at the episcopate as the essential order, for which presbyters deputise - and this seems at least congruent with the patristic concept that "the Church is in the bishop" - the late mediaeval notion seems to have reversed this idea, making bishops merely into high priests, promoted to the full exercise of the priestly ministry from the rank and file of the presbyterate. In Lutheran bodies lacking the historic episcopal succession, this seems mediaeval catholic orientation seems to have continued up to the present (and perhaps is likewise maintained in those Lutheran churches that do possess the historic episcopal succession). Yet, there seem to be vestiges of the mediaeval view hanging on in the Roman Catholic Church, in which the unique Petrine office diminishes the episcopal ministry (in my reading at any rate)to something that is less than the patristic, big-O Orthodox, and modern/high Anglican view of the episcopate.
Again, my own view is that the relation of apostolicity to ordained ministry is more to do with the way the functions of episcopacy - a unifying ministry of governance and oversight - have developed and are exercised within a given ecclesial community that claims to be a constituent part of the Una Sancta, as opposed to an ostensibly unbroken succession of bishops consecrating bishops.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yet, there seem to be vestiges of the mediaeval view hanging on in the Roman Catholic Church, in which the unique Petrine office diminishes the episcopal ministry (in my reading at any rate)to something that is less than the patristic, big-O Orthodox, and modern/high Anglican view of the episcopate.
Whether this derives from a late mediaeval understanding of orders or not, I'd agree with the consequences. It's a bit difficult to talk about the collegiality of the bishops, if one of them has authority to take decisions and make pronouncements that pip all the others.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Sebby writes: quote:
It has been said - and I can cite no authorites whatsoever bar one - that when Albania was suffering under perfidious and vile Communism, the RCC sanctioned RC priests to ordain priests due to the impossiblity bishops being allowed to enter the country. This would be an interesting precendent for the apostolic succession being passed through the presbyteral line, and why one might not have any problem with Methodist ordinations.
I think I would need to see authorities for this. The RCs went to great lengths (generally unsuccesful) in the USSR under Stalin, sending in quickly-imprisoned bishops with wide-ranging faculties to ordain priests and consecrate bishops. Further efforts in postward Czechoslovakia included consecrating several clandestine worker bishops (at least one of whom was married) to ensure the ordination of priests for the underground church. There are a few books on the resolution of the canonical untidiness, which seems to have been bluntly done by the Vatican-- the one I saw had texts of the authorities given by Paul VI for the clandestine bishops.
My only Albanian contacts knew nothing of any clergy at all when they lived there in Enver Hoxha's day, although one had heard of lay baptisms and had once been present at absolution prayers at a relative's deathbed. She herself was conditionally baptized at a Latin RC parish in Ottawa before her marriage.
I have heard that there were Anglican presbyteral ordinations in Maoist China but these clerics seem to now be in connexional evangelical groups. However the RCs in China had (and still have) both schismatic Patriotic bishops as well as above-ground and underground papal bishops, and both sorts appear to focus on correct and careful ritual practice.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Sebby writes: quote:
It has been said - and I can cite no authorites whatsoever bar one - that when Albania was suffering under perfidious and vile Communism, the RCC sanctioned RC priests to ordain priests due to the impossiblity bishops being allowed to enter the country. This would be an interesting precendent for the apostolic succession being passed through the presbyteral line, and why one might not have any problem with Methodist ordinations.
I think I would need to see authorities for this. The RCs went to great lengths (generally unsuccesful) in the USSR under Stalin, sending in quickly-imprisoned bishops with wide-ranging faculties to ordain priests and consecrate bishops. Further efforts in postward Czechoslovakia included consecrating several clandestine worker bishops (at least one of whom was married) to ensure the ordination of priests for the underground church. There are a few books on the resolution of the canonical untidiness, which seems to have been bluntly done by the Vatican-- the one I saw had texts of the authorities given by Paul VI for the clandestine bishops.
My only Albanian contacts knew nothing of any clergy at all when they lived there in Enver Hoxha's day, although one had heard of lay baptisms and had once been present at absolution prayers at a relative's deathbed. She herself was conditionally baptized at a Latin RC parish in Ottawa before her marriage.
I have heard that there were Anglican presbyteral ordinations in Maoist China but these clerics seem to now be in connexional evangelical groups. However the RCs in China had (and still have) both schismatic Patriotic bishops as well as above-ground and underground papal bishops, and both sorts appear to focus on correct and careful ritual practice.
According to the late great Archimandite Serge Keleher (whose 1st anniversary is on Sunday now that I think about of it) an Orthodox bishop in Siberia ordained at least two RC men to the priesthood for the local RC population in the 60s or 70s (can't remember which) when Soviet restrictions meant it was impossible to get a Catholic bishop to do so.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
Sorry to be so late to this discussion. Round Ten of the US Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue, entitled: The Church as Koinonia of Salvation, has a careful section on the Patristic and Medieval Understanding of Communion and Ministry (#166-170) A Couple of Pertinent quotes:
#168 "While these developments made it difficult to envisage every local parish as embodying everything which is required in order to be 'church', the ancient equivalence of presbyter and bishop was not forgotten. Jerome insists on that equivalence when he is making the argument that it is normal for bishops to be chosen from among the presbyters of the church, rather than from the deacons. He argued: 'For also at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist down to bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one of themselves and, having elevated him in grade, named him Bishop--just as if an army might make an emperor by acclamation. For what, apart from ordaining, does a bishop do which a presbyter may not?'"
They also quote Isodore of Seville: "and only on account of authority is ordination and consecration reserved to the high priest, lest if the discipline of the church were arrogated by many it might dissolve concord and generate scandals."
In #169 they also cite the example of Willehad and Liudger who were missionaries sent by Chjarlemagne to convert the Saxons who "ordained clergy for the churches they founded, long before they themselves received consecration as bishops."
They also cite cases in the 15th century: "three different popes delegated the power to ordain to abbots who had not been ordained to the episcopate; in two of those cases, the privilege included ordination to the priesthood. "
I've enjoyed this conversation and hadn't seen any of this mentioned, so I thought to include it.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Simply read it.
So you've got nothing. Thanks for that.
Have YOu read it? Has the authorship even registered with you? The bishops of the Westminister archdiocese. Haha they could barely read then.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Godric
Apprentice
# 17135
|
Posted
The problems arising from irregular ancient consecration seem to have been erased with the passing of time and everything is now seen as 'Pukka' before Rebiba. The golden thread may be a bit patchy in reality and I observe that there is a lack of forensic evidence for early consecrations.
I wonder what the evidenced and demonstrable succession is for Archbishop Elect Welby and what strictly Anglican pedigree he has compared to that he derives from the Old Catholic tradition. What is it that the present Bishop of Durham has on offer in the area of Apostolic Succession? Will he need/be offered further consecrations when enthroned?
--------------------
I write on funerals and burials http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/
Posts: 28 | From: England and Malta | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Simply read it.
So you've got nothing. Thanks for that.
Have YOu read it? Has the authorship even registered with you? The bishops of the Westminister archdiocese. Haha they could barely read then.
Arrah sure I'm a just a poor illiterate mackerel snapper like their Lordships. *tugs forelock* ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
