Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
Have YOu read it? Has the authorship even registered with you? The bishops of the Westminister archdiocese. Haha they could barely read then.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Godric:
I wonder what the evidenced and demonstrable succession is for Archbishop Elect Welby and what strictly Anglican pedigree he has compared to that he derives from the Old Catholic tradition. What is it that the present Bishop of Durham has on offer in the area of Apostolic Succession? Will he need/be offered further consecrations when enthroned?

---

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, therefore our orders are valid.'

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Mumbo-jumbo about "validity" is irrelevant. For most of our history as Protestants Anglicans have been much more likely to worry about legality than validity - not the same thing at all.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Godric:
The problems arising from irregular ancient consecration seem to have been erased with the passing of time and everything is now seen as 'Pukka' before Rebiba. The golden thread may be a bit patchy in reality and I observe that there is a lack of forensic evidence for early consecrations.

I wonder what the evidenced and demonstrable succession is for Archbishop Elect Welby and what strictly Anglican pedigree he has compared to that he derives from the Old Catholic tradition. What is it that the present Bishop of Durham has on offer in the area of Apostolic Succession? Will he need/be offered further consecrations when enthroned?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
His place in the documented English succession traces back to the early 16th cen. and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba.

*

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
Dr William Tighe wrote the following on a blog a few years ago on the matter of the 'Dutch Touch':

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

His place in the documented English succession traces back to the early 16th cen. and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba.

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Not that open, Augustine.

South India created a two-part clergy list in 1948 at its union. The A-list were Anglican clergy and new ordinands ordained by a bishop with Anglican-approved liturgy. These clergy could go anywhere and do anything. B-list clergy, that is everyone else from the South India United Church, the Methodists, the Baptists, etc. could not be placed into a former Anglican parish without that parish's approval. The B-list was intended to become extinct, and it is now.

South India got expelled from the Anglican Communion for its trouble and wasn't let back in until the 1960's due to the presence of the B-list.

I have no idea what fudge the UCCan and the ACCan came up with in the 1974 Proposed Basis of Union, but even that fudge gave your lot cold feet.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

Mr Rob writes:

quote:

---

His place in the documented English succession traces back to the early 16th cen. and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba.

---

The documented English succession goes back to the 1380s, at least, and if you bring in the Irish which intersects from time to time, to the 12c. Like Triple T, I wonder what Cdl Rebiba has to do with it other than that he is the channel for the Utrechtian succession ...

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Somebody told me that in the 1960s he visited a small church in a very remote part of the Fens where there was a notice in the porch saying 'Members of the Church of South India are not admitted to Communion here'.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
His place in the documented English succession traces back to the early 16th cen. and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba.

*

---

Huh? How do you reckon that then? Rebiba was only consecrated a bishop in 1541, after the Church of England broke away from Rome. Where does the CofE lineage intersect with Rebiba's?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Somebody told me that in the 1960s he visited a small church in a very remote part of the Fens where there was a notice in the porch saying 'Members of the Church of South India are not admitted to Communion here'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
Dr William Tighe wrote the following on a blog a few years ago on the matter of the 'Dutch Touch':

---

If Francis Clark is right in his *Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention* (1956) — the best book I have read on the subject — the so-called “Dutch Touch” may make no difference, if (1) the ordination rite being used is the same as Cranmer’s Anglican Ordinal of 1552, or substantially the same (as with the 1662 Prayer Book’s revision of those rites) and (2) if the non-Anglican “touchers” participated by using the Anglican rite only, or by laying-on their hands in silence ...

... Etc, etc, etc.

To put this quote in proper context, William Tighe, author and compiler, has a notorious traditionalist Roman Catholic bias against Anglicans or progressively minded Roman Catholics in general. Don't count on Tighe to give a balanced view of any religious issue. He has been on the web a long time with his one sided, wordy arguments intended to convince the unwary that the Church of England and the Church of Sweden are mere Protestant sects.

*

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
SPK writes:

quote:

---

Not that open, Augustine.

South India created a two-part clergy list in 1948 at its union. The A-list were Anglican clergy and new ordinands ordained by a bishop with Anglican-approved liturgy. These clergy could go anywhere and do anything. B-list clergy, that is everyone else from the South India United Church, the Methodists, the Baptists, etc. could not be placed into a former Anglican parish without that parish's approval. The B-list was intended to become extinct, and it is now.

South India got expelled from the Anglican Communion for its trouble and wasn't let back in until the 1960's due to the presence of the B-list.

I have no idea what fudge the UCCan and the ACCan came up with in the 1974 Proposed Basis of Union, but even that fudge gave your lot cold feet.

---

What SPK believes is not open is what, in Anglican ecclesiology, was blazingly so. The CSI approach was based on economia, of breaking or bending rules for a greater pastoral good, and ran into the wall of those who felt that the rules actually meant something. The two-list approach facilitated congregations' keeping their integrities for a transitional period which, as SPK notes, lasted until the 1960s-- pretty fast for these things, but YMMV.

In response to this, the Church of North India approach had a universal ceremony on inauguration, where all the clerics of the joining churches got hands laid on them receiving them into the new church to do the work of a presbyter etc. In the opinion of many commentators, this was a fudge which permitted one to squint and pretend that it was an ordination or a supplying of defect, and for the other lot to squint and pretend that it was not.

It worked very well in India and Pakistan and, on this basis, the UCoC and the ACoC tried to copy it. Opposition at the time was from both sides on a range of grounds. The intellectual dishonesty one caught on among a number of clerics who would likely have agreed to the CSI approach. Faced with the dissenters likely keeping about six dioceses (of 29) out of the union, the House of Bishops decided it was too soon to be put to the vote. Having been around at the time, I think that the bureaucratic nature of the plan killed almost all lay enthusiasm for organizational change at a time when practical inter-church efforts were going well beyond the ACoC/UCoC axis. Between fudge and irrelevance (merinque??), the Plan of Union became a thesis topic/church trivial pursuit question.

When I said "very open," I was trying to point out that the Anglicans were putting an essential aspect of their ecclesiology on the table. That this was not an essential aspect to the other partners does not take away from that.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:

... You seem to be under the impression that I don't know who Bill Tighe is. I do and rarely, if ever, find myself disagreeing with him.

P.S. he's not Roman Catholic.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
However their use of the names can be misleading or duplicitous, as in the case of the so-called "Episcopal" Diocese of Fort Worth, which has in fact separated from The Episcopal Church. I their case, the continued use of the name Episcopal is blatantly misleading, especially as they are now part of the separatist Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), a group of churches that hoped (hopes?) to be but isn't part of the Anglican Communion.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

Interesting to ask why the EDof FW chose to keep the 'Episcopal' bit of their title ...

---

It's part of their attempt to convince the courts that they are the rightful claimants to all Episcopal Church properties in the former diocese of Fort Worth, even though they no longer want to be part of the The Episcopal Church. They actually are now part of the Anglican church of North America. Of course when the split took place some years ago, the national Episcopal Church quickly gathered the remaining, loyal parishes into a continuing diocese of Fort Worth, and appointed a provisional bishop for them. That's why we wind up with two dioceses with exactly the same name. Properly, one diocese is an ACNA diocese and the other a TEC diocese, both covering the same area.

All of this does not make sense, but nevertheless, it's the way the nomenclature remains - for now anyway.

*

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:


In 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth decided, with a 80% majority, to leave the Episcopal Church. And they decided to keep their name; the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. What is the principled difference between this, and the Archioceses of Canterbury and York leaving the Catholic Church, yet keeping their names?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:


In 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth decided, with a 80% majority, to leave the Episcopal Church. And they decided to keep their name; the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. What is the principled difference between this, and the Archioceses of Canterbury and York leaving the Catholic Church, yet keeping their names?

---

The last individual claiming to be a Roman Catholic archbishop of Canterbury was Cardinal Reginald Pole. When he died in 1558 (on the very same day and close to the same hour) as Queen Mary I, Tudor, no further Roman Catholic appointments were made to Canterbury or York. The were no Roman Catholics bishops in England, except a couple of fairly hidden, traveling, apostolic administrators, for nearly three hundred years.

Catholic emancipation enabled re-establishment of a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in 1850, by Pope Pius IX, with the bull Universalis Ecclesiae, which made no mention of Canterbury, York or the other ancient sees then in the hands of the Church of England. Instead, new, Catholic sees were erected by other titles or in other places. Effectively, an entirely new Catholic hierarchy was established along side of, but not in place of, that of the Church of England. That ended Roman Catholic moral and legal claims to continuity and any inheritance connected to the ancient titles, sites and patrimony of the Church of England.

Now the "principled difference," between Fort Worth and Canterbury & York, is that Anglicans make no claim to be the Roman Catholic church of England. And, sensibly, neither does the Roman Catholic church any longer lay claim to be the Church of England. In other words, the they are realistic. The principle involved here is "be realistic."

BTW ... and not to put too fine a point on it, but Canterbury & York are not, in Church of England usage, called "archdioceses," but each are simply called a diocese, each with a metropolitan archbishop, and each with a metropolitan cathedral church.

*

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:


In 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth decided, with a 80% majority, to leave the Episcopal Church. And they decided to keep their name; the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. What is the principled difference between this, and the Archioceses of Canterbury and York leaving the Catholic Church, yet keeping their names?

---

The last individual claiming to be a Roman Catholic archbishop of Canterbury was Cardinal Reginald Pole. When he died in 1558 (on the very same day and close to the same hour) as Queen Mary I, Tudor, no further Roman Catholic appointments were made to Canterbury or York. The were no Roman Catholics bishops in England, except a couple of fairly hidden, traveling, apostolic administrators, for nearly three hundred years.

Catholic emancipation enabled re-establishment of a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in 1850, by Pope Pius IX, with the bull Universalis Ecclesiae, which made no mention of Canterbury, York or the other ancient sees then in the hands of the Church of England. Instead, new, Catholic sees were erected by other titles or in other places. Effectively, an entirely new Catholic hierarchy was established along side of, but not in place of, that of the Church of England. That ended Roman Catholic moral and legal claims to continuity and any inheritance connected to the ancient titles, sites and patrimony of the Church of England.

Now the "principled difference," between Fort Worth and Canterbury & York, is that Anglicans make no claim to be the Roman Catholic church of England. And, sensibly, neither does the Roman Catholic church any longer lay claim to be the Church of England. In other words, the they are realistic. The principle involved here is "be realistic."

BTW ... and not to put too fine a point on it, but Canterbury & York are not, in Church of England usage, called "archdioceses," but each are simply called a diocese, each with a metropolitan archbishop, and each with a metropolitan cathedral church.

*

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
Also the primacy was transferred to Westminster upon the restoration. Go into Westminster Cathedral and you will see a list of Archbishops of Canterbury from Augustine down to Reginald Cardinal Pole (excluding Cranmer) followed by vicars apostolic and Archbishops of Westminster.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
Also the primacy was transferred to Westminster upon the restoration. Go into Westminster Cathedral and you will see a list of Archbishops of Canterbury from Augustine down to Reginald Cardinal Pole (excluding Cranmer) followed by vicars apostolic and Archbishops of Westminster.

---

Just to be accurate, the name of Thomas Cranmer does in fact appear on the board you mention - followed by the words "Deposed for heresy".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
ust to be accurate, the name of Thomas Cranmer does in fact appear on the board you mention - followed by the words "Deposed for heresy".

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The Church of England sees itself as the legitimate continuation of the Church before the Reformation, and the Roman Catholic Church doesn't.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Cranmer was condemned to death for treason on 13 November 1535. He was deposed as Archbishop for heresy by Rome on 4 December 1535. He was degraded from Holy Orders on 14 February 1556. The Church deposed him for heresy, the state executed him for treason.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
The Catholic Church was legally prohibited from having dioceses with the same names as CofE dioceses at the time of the restoration (and still is as far as I'm aware).

---

quote:

---

And whereas the right and title of Archbishops to their respective provinces, of Bishops to their sees, and of Deans to their deaneries, as well in England as in Ireland, have been settled and established by law; Be it therefore Enacted, That if any person after the commencement of this Act, other than the person thereunto authorized by law, shall assume or use the name, style or title of Archbishop of any province, Bishop of any bishoprick, or Dean of any deanery, in England or Ireland; he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of One hundred pounds.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The Church of England sees itself as the legitimate continuation of the Church before the Reformation, and the Roman Catholic Church doesn't. That part is so old hat I would be shocked if it wasn't a dead horse.

The part the K-mann seems to be consciously refusing to understand is that ACNA and certain others are claiming to be something they aren't- part of the Anglican Communion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I present an obvious flaw in all of this lineage business?

The Apostle Paul got a direct communication from God. He didn't get his role in the church from someone else handing it to him.

Why on earth, then, does it actually matter whether you can identify who 'passed on' your role to you? Not only can I not see any evidence that this is the way things have to work, I can see Biblical evidence to the contrary.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

... That may be. But the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is till the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. To make it give up its name, and its assists would be to undermine the whole history of Anglicanism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I present an obvious flaw in all of this lineage business?

The Apostle Paul got a direct communication from God. He didn't get his role in the church from someone else handing it to him.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

... But Paul's vocation makes it hard for me to see the Apostolic Succession as a needful thing. I'm sure there's an explanation, but I can't for the life of me see what it is ...

... Another thing that has always bothered me about the insistence upon the importance of the Apostolic Succession is that it's very hard for me to believe that the church really did, one way or another, hand the faith down in an unbroken line of duly consecrated bishops, especially during some of the murkier periods of history. Really? No slip-ups along the way? And we know for sure that it was really apostles or their duly consecrated successors who founded all the early churches? No laypeople from one church ever found themselves displaced by war or famine and decided to evangelize their neighbors in the new place and start a new church?

And a third thing that has always bothered me about it is that I really don't at all see how the churches in the Anglican Communion can claim to be in the Apostolic Succession and then turn around and say that the Methodists aren't, given the Anglican break with Rome, through which the Anglican claim lies. We broke with Rome but somehow stayed in the Apostolic Succession, but the Methodists broke with us and somehow got lost?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

... That may be. But the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is till the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. To make it give up its name, and its assists would be to undermine the whole history of Anglicanism.

---

I really don't see how a claimed title by For Worth "undermines the whole history of Anglicanism" or not, as you put it. The whole history of Anglicanism amounts to much more than that. … Now perhaps all of them are undermining "the whole history of Anglicanism," but I doubt it. They have, unlike Fort Worth, taken the sensible and realistic step of being honest. Unfortunately, not one of them is a member diocese of the Anglican Communion because ACNA is not a member province of the Anglican Communion. Nor are they any longer part of the Episcopal Church, the sole recognized provincial member of the Anglican Communion in the USA.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

Just found this on FaceBook with regard to the CofE:

---

"This shred of catholicism ... "

*

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

They don’t undermine the history themselves. But if the Episcopal Church forced them into doing so, and forced (or tried to force) them into giving up their assets, they (the Episcopal Church) would be undermining the history of Anglicanism. Anglicanism started out by two dioceses, together forming the Church of England, separating themselves from the communion of which they were a part. And neither gave up their name nor their assets.

You keep saying that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is no longer part of the Anglican Communion. So what? The Dioceses of Canterbury and York are no longer part of the Catholic Church (‘the Catholic communion’). Did they give up their name, or their assets? No, and they even saw themselves as the continuation of the Church of England from Augustine of Canterbury. Can you give me a principled reason why the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth should give up its name that doesn’t at the same time undermine the Anglican history of Canterbury and York?

---