|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity
|
Laud-able
Ship's Ancient
# 9896
|
Posted
A lifetime ago the notice board at our place was a confection of glittering gilt letters on glossy black. It proclaimed:
ST SOANDSO’S
for the administration of the Rites and Ceremonies of
THE CHURCH
[and then in decidedly smaller lettering]
according to the Use of the Church of England.
Well, since those days the name has changed in Australia, but we remain no –erian, -ism or -ist, but part of Ecclesia Anglicana. What others may think or say of our Orders is their concern, not ours.
--------------------
'. . . "Non Angli, sed Angeli" "not Angels, but Anglicans"', Sellar, W C, and Yeatman, R J, 1066 and All That, London, 1930, p. 6.
Posts: 279 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
In the Anglican Church I attend, any Christian who is able to do so with a good conscience is welcome to receive the Sacrament. It is the Pope who is not in communion with us.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laud-able
Ship's Ancient
# 9896
|
Posted
Such welcoming is also our custom.
--------------------
'. . . "Non Angli, sed Angeli" "not Angels, but Anglicans"', Sellar, W C, and Yeatman, R J, 1066 and All That, London, 1930, p. 6.
Posts: 279 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I suppose we look at Methodists the way Rome does us.
Exactly. We get all pissy and moany about the way Rome categorizes at us and then turn right around and do the same thing to the Methodists.
And the CofE's claim to be the Catholic Church in England is ridiculous. How can you be the Catholic Church anywhere if you're not in communion with the pope?
Easy-- if you believe that being in communion with the Pope is not the deciding factor. Even the RCs think so, as they happily recognize the Orthodox and the Old Catholics as such, as well as a few little schismatic groups. The difference here is that Anglican ecclesiology places the Anglican church in the catholic category but the RCs (and many Anglicans, possibly even a majority) do not.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
Open communion is indefensible.
--------------------
"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
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by RuthW
How can you be the Catholic Church anywhere if you're not in communion with the pope?
Even if one doesn't think the pope is the deciding factor, to be part of the Catholic church you surely have to teach the Catholic faith. Individual Church of England churches do so but the Church of England as a whole doesn't, and I don't think it ever has.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Open communion is indefensible.
Instead of just throwing out an unsupported assertion, why don't you try making an actual argument? Reasoned arguments can be made on both sides and I'm conversant with the central RC position. To me, however, just making an assertion without providing some rationale just seems trolling. Isn't open v. closed communion a DH on the Ship?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The fact that Anglicans hold that you cannot "unpriest" someone but only remove their licence to exercise their ministry seems to bear this out. The idea that all baptised people are priests is not one that is widely promoted in my experience of Anglicanism.
I imagine that most lay Anglicans, and most lay Roman Catholics, would see no difference between their priests in terms of their duties and their function.
YMMV, but not every Anglican that I have met accepts the idea of indelible ontological change. Given that many of us know former priests (and at least one former bishop) who have renounced their orders and who do not consider themselves priests suggests that some Anglicans do believe that you can be 'unpriested'. And the 'priesthood of all believers' is regularly discussed and promoted IME, although of course everyone will understand different things by that phrase.
RC laity will certainly believe there is a difference between their priests and Anglican clergy, not least because most of them will have been taught that there is a difference - at least, Catholics of my age (mid 40s) and older, even if the approach has been more ecumenical since my childhood. Anglicans tend to think it's a pity that RC priests aren't allowed to marry, but that's that in most cases.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I suppose we look at Methodists the way Rome does us.
Exactly. We get all pissy and moany about the way Rome categorizes at us and then turn right around and do the same thing to the Methodists.
And the CofE's claim to be the Catholic Church in England is ridiculous. How can you be the Catholic Church anywhere if you're not in communion with the pope?
Easy-- if you believe that being in communion with the Pope is not the deciding factor. Even the RCs think so, as they happily recognize the Orthodox and the Old Catholics as such, as well as a few little schismatic groups. The difference here is that Anglican ecclesiology places the Anglican church in the catholic category but the RCs (and many Anglicans, possibly even a majority) do not.
OK, so what's the deciding factor then?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
I have always thought that the Historic Episcopate in Anglicanism was sort of like Confederate currency -- something with no real validity, since neither of the two largest Christian denominations recognizes the currency. Ecumenical relations with Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, have not been dependent on the historic episcopate -- it is only with Old Catholics that it has been an issue, and I doubt that the Catholic and Orthodox churches would still recognize Old Catholic orders, given their ordination of women. I'm having a hard time understanding the need for Episcopalians/Anglicans to hold on to this part of the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral.
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
OK, so what's the deciding factor then?
It's a question of fact. Assuming that priesthood is an ontological change and so on (or the entire discussion just makes no sense at all), there are two possibilities. Either C of E priests are priests, or they are not priests.
We don't have an ontological priesthood detector, so collections of humans can certainly come to opinions ranging from "I am certain that he is a priest" through "He might be a priest but we can't be certain" to "We're pretty certain he's not a priest".
These three conditions would correspond to being received into the RC church, being conditionally ordained, and being unconditionally ordained, for a priest who wished to join the RC church.
It is clear that the (current) view of the RC church is the latter, but unless you think that the RC church has the power to make such an infallible determination, the fact that this is the opinion of the RC church doesn't necessarily make it true.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
....whereas by contrast there are a good number of ordained Anglican ministers who don't even believe that there is any such thing as ordination. I am reminded of a conservative evangelical Wycliffe ordinand who described ordination (on the eve of his own ordination) as "a bit dodgy".
What about those of us who believe that we're all ordained?
[code]
[ 30. June 2014, 08:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
....whereas by contrast there are a good number of ordained Anglican ministers who don't even believe that there is any such thing as ordination. I am reminded of a conservative evangelical Wycliffe ordinand who described ordination (on the eve of his own ordination) as "a bit dodgy".
What about those of us who believe that we're all ordained?
Well yes, sorry: that's what he meant of course. I think this is the majority position among evangelicals. Hence the word "priest" is rarely used to denote a minister.
[code]
[ 30. June 2014, 08:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
A problem here is that there are a few at each end of the CofE's catholic-evangelical spectrum (mostly, I think, at the evangelical end) who have no real loyalty to the Anglican way and who merely regard the CofE as a convenient structure within which to pursue their wayward ministries while they receive a paycheck every month. I believe at one end of the spectrum the usual phrase to describe this is that the CofE is merely "the best boat to fish from". (Goodness knows how these people got through the ministerial selection process, but that's a whole 'nother thread.) These people may believe that there's no such thing as ordained ministerial priesthood, or that Anglican orders are contingent on the opinion of the Pope, but they're a small minority even in these dark days.
The fact is, the CofE maintains the apostolic faith and ministry. We simply don't need anyone else to declare that "valid" or not - which is why I said upthread that the Pope's opinion of my orders is irrelevant. Whether I like it or not (and as is well known, mostly "not"), I am a priest, ordained by the Holy Spirit at the intercession of my bishop. Whether I exercise that ministry or not, I'm a priest for life and then, as a wise old bishop once said to me, "either a priest in heaven or a priest in hell".
What's rather sad is that talk of "validity" betrays a lack of confidence in the Anglican way. It's like we go begging to our neighbour churches, whining, "Please like me! - pleeeeease!" In my opinion, any Anglican who questions the "validity" of our orders has essentially already taken a step out of the door.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
It was put to me some years ago now that every Christian is called to be a minister of God in some capacity or other; not all are called to be priests. And as long as we serve God honestly according to our lights, I'm not sure he cares very much what we call ourselves (or how we dress ourselves up to do it, he added in an undertone.)
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Confirmation is just a ceremony that incorporates one into the full entitlements and obligations of church membership. As such Methodists have it par excellence, indeed the Methodist Church of GB can tell you what the standing of every member is and which congregation they belong to. There exists a central roll.
The good old CofE can not do that for confirmed members. This is why Methodist Church confirms former Anglicans! Former URC, Congregationalists and Baptists members often are accepted as we keep local rolls.
What surprised me was not that Methodists needed confirming but that Roman Catholics did not.
Just to pick up a few points for accuracy, from this and preceding posts. The Methodist Church in Britain does have confirmation (laying on of hands and "Confirm, Lord, your servant N by your Holy Spirit that she/he may continue yours for ever." It is administered by presbyters (ministers). For someone who has not been previously confirmed, they would be received into membership and confirmed at the same time. We do not reconfirm people who have been confirmed elsewhere (for example in the Church of England) - they would just be received by transfer.
Membership rolls are held at local level; there is no central roll, although we are required to report numbers of members annually.
All of that said I'm pleased people are picking up the irony that Anglicans often display to Methodists and others the same position (mutatis mutandis) that they complain about Catholics taking.
--------------------
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
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
The fact that the RC Church does not recognize the validity of male Anglican holy orders is mildly annoying to me. This is because whatever our historical differences it seems to me that after the Ritualist Movement on our part and Vatican II on their part an Episcopal Eucharist and a Roman Catholic mass are essentially the same thing. In my understanding (i)Apostolicae Curae(/i) rests on the lack of explicit references to a Eucharistic sacrifice in the Ordinals of 1550 and 1662. Many of the 20th century Anglican rites put them back in, and we now have the "Dutch Touch" from bishops whose orders were accepted without question as valid. Much more importantly, the novus ordo ordinal of the RCC took such references out! But this does not affect me in any way.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The fact that the RC Church does not recognize the validity of male Anglican holy orders is mildly annoying to me. This is because whatever our historical differences it seems to me that after the Ritualist Movement on our part and Vatican II on their part an Episcopal Eucharist and a Roman Catholic mass are essentially the same thing. In my understanding (i)Apostolicae Curae(/i) rests on the lack of explicit references to a Eucharistic sacrifice in the Ordinals of 1550 and 1662. Many of the 20th century Anglican rites put them back in, and we now have the "Dutch Touch" from bishops whose orders were accepted without question as valid. Much more importantly, the novus ordo ordinal of the RCC took such references out! But this does not affect me in any way.
The "Dutch Touch" is irrelevant today (due to WO if nothing else) and for the most part always has been as it still doesn't sort out who among CofE clergy have valid orders and who does not due to the total incoherence of Anglicanism as whole as to what Holy Orders actually are, i.e. how can one intend to do as the Church does when you can't agree among yourselves what the Church is actually doing?
This is the difference with regards to the changes made to Catholic ordinals from 1947. The doctrine of the Church regarding the nature of Holy Orders cannot change and has not changed, i.e. a sacrificial priesthood. Context is everything.
Just to return to the Dutch Touch for another moment I would also point out that it's applicability would only have been in the context of CofE ordinations, not other parts of the Anglican Communion such as ECUSA in which it was purported to have occurred. If I may quote Dr William Tighe from several years ago:
quote:
Some years ago I had several conversations with the Rt. Rev'd Anthony Rysz (b. 1924), Bishop of the Central Diocese of the Polish National Catholic Church from 1968 to 1999. He is (and was then) the last living PNCC bishop who participated in consecrations of Episcopal Church bishops during the period of intercommunion between those two bodies from 1946 to 1978. He told me that at such events the PNCC bishop present either laid on his hands in silence or said aloud the words prescribed in the Anglican rite. He told me clearly and specifically that as far as he knew during the whole 1946 to 1978 period no PNCC bishop ever followed, or was asked to follow, the practice of European Old Catholic bishops in the period from 1932 to either 1959 or 1974 (consecration of Eric Kemp as Bishop of Chichester) in reciting "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" etc., from the Pontifical.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
CL posts, inter alia, quote:
how can one intend to do as the Church does when you can't agree among yourselves what the Church is actually doing?
Red Herring alert. What is relevant in terms of judging the sacramental intent of Anglicanism can be found in the ordinals of Anglican churches. Contemporary ordinals are fairly comparable (there's a few comparison tables wandering around the web for the interested) and most of them address many of Apostolicae Curae's specific objections.
Surveys of popular sentiment, or clerical opinion, or a review of blogs on the topic, are all quite irrelevant to this. If there be incoherence in the ordinals, that's what matters.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The fact that the RC Church does not recognize the validity of male Anglican holy orders is mildly annoying to me.
Try getting into a frame of mind where you couldn't care less. It's great for winding up Catholics who are bothered by it.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
All of that said I'm pleased people are picking up the irony that Anglicans often display to Methodists and others the same position (mutatis mutandis) that they complain about Catholics taking.
To be honest, I'm utterly mystified by this line of thinking. It seems a rather theological way of saying, 'You don't like it when people are mean, so don't be mean to other people.' But it's not about being mean - it's about truth and and the three fold order.
Is it that unusual to think that Methodists and Anglicans are not quite doing the same thing at the time of ordination? Surely this is not controversial?
I have always found it reasonable to think that Anglican and Methodist orders are different - maybe even apples and oranges. Both are fruit, but are not the same.
Confirmation is (at present) an episcopal 'thing' in the CoE. As is ordination - and non-episcopal ordination is very much a historical anomaly in Western Christendom. I'm sure it's happened in the CoE at times, but it's certainly not the norm.
But then again, as a former Methodist, I'm the sort of person who prays for the Methodist church to return to the bosom of the Church of England.
x
AV
[ 01. July 2014, 10:35: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Is it that unusual to think that Methodists and Anglicans are not quite doing the same thing at the time of ordination? Surely this is not controversial?
No more unusual than to think that Anglicans and Catholics are not quite doing the same thing at the time of ordination. When the Methodist Church ordains, she intends to ordain to the presbyterate and diaconate of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think that Anglicans intend the same?
[ 01. July 2014, 10:52: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I think that the Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland think the same of their ordinations (and confirmations !).Just because they don't use the word 'bishop' and they don't really talk about 'apostolic succession' at least not in the same way,it doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of being part of the one,holy,catholic and apostolic church.
Ultimately if you want certainty about what Catholics call 'apostolic succession' you need to be ordained by a bishop in communion with the successor of St Peter.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Do you mean to exclude the Orthodox, then, or am I misreading your last sentence? (Or do the Orthodox have a different view of 'apostolic succession'?)
[ 01. July 2014, 15:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
No,I don't mean to exclude the Orthodox,in fact I personally don't exclude anyone.
However for those who call themselves Catholics,if they want certainty,then they can have that, without any doubt ,from those in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Ah, I see, it's the 'those who call themselves Catholics' bit I didn't think of.
Don't agree wth you, mind: I'm an Anglican, I call myself a Catholic, and I have no doubt at all about the validity of Anglican orders.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I am more than happy for you to have no doubt about the validity of your orders,just as I am happy for Presbyterians to have no doubt about the validity of their orders.
Obviously some Anglicans are aware that (Roman)Catholics have doubts about the validity of Anglican orders as (Roman) Catholics understand them.
We are where we are just now.In Heaven,if we get there, everything will be clearer.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Albertus I notice you say, 'I am an Anglican,I call myself a Catholic.'
Why not just say,as I do , 'I am a Catholic' ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that the Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland think the same of their ordinations (and confirmations !).Just because they don't use the word 'bishop' and they don't really talk about 'apostolic succession' at least not in the same way,it doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of being part of the one,holy,catholic and apostolic church.
There is a fair amount of Presbyterian writing that specifically speaks of the pastor/minister as "bishop." For most of its history, the governing documents of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (or its predecessor bodies) explicitly identified the office of "bishop" with the ministry of Word and Sacrament, effectively locating the three-fold order of ministry—the minister or pastor (bishop) with the elders (presbyters) exercising spiritual oversight, assisted by deacons—in each congregation.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Albertus I notice you say, 'I am an Anglican,I call myself a Catholic.'
Why not just say,as I do , 'I am a Catholic' ?
Because lots of people will assume that one means specifically Roman Catholic?
I make do with "I'm an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto" and then if people want to ask, they can. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Albertus I notice you say, 'I am an Anglican,I call myself a Catholic.'
Why not just say,as I do , 'I am a Catholic' ?
Because lots of people will assume that one means specifically Roman Catholic?
I think you slightly missed Forthview's point there. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that the Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland think the same of their ordinations (and confirmations !).Just because they don't use the word 'bishop' and they don't really talk about 'apostolic succession' at least not in the same way,it doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of being part of the one,holy,catholic and apostolic church.
I would tentatively suggest that there is a difference between Anglican views of Rome as a particular church in another part of the world and traditional CofS views of Catholics as borderline satanic (Westminster Confession article XXV). Heck, even 30 years ago around here folk attending Episcopalian services were denounced from the pulpit at the CofS.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Albertus I notice you say, 'I am an Anglican,I call myself a Catholic.'
Why not just say,as I do , 'I am a Catholic' ?
Fairy nuff. 'I am an Anglican and a Catholic, and I have no doubt whatsoever about the validity of Anglican orders.'
Will that do?
[ 02. July 2014, 09:24: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Apostolicae Curae stands as the formal RC view, of course, though the involvement of Old Catholic bishops in CofE consecrations between the Wars today alters the situation on which it stands. Some more recent prominent ACs converts have been conditionally ordained having produced some documentary proof or other
This doesn't matter, though, because unity around the faith is more important in the post-conciliar Church than former notions of "mechanical validity". In other words, today, communion with the pontiff in the faith is the issue for the Vatican - if you don't have that, doesn't really matter whether ordained or not - but all the best, anyway.
Anglicans tend to assume views from the opposite side - from other Protestant groups - are a foregone conclusion in favour, but I wonder.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
*snip* Anglicans tend to assume views from the opposite side - from other Protestant groups - are a foregone conclusion in favour, but I wonder.
Most of these churches rely on call and response and authority, rather than the western canon law focus on validity, so the language and understanding is different. AFAIK most Anglican clerics who move to Protestant communities fall under three categories: 1) a simple licensing from the presbytery/conference (e.g., UCC, PCC); 2) more often, the same licensing, but with a brief ceremony of prayers and welcoming (also UCC, PCC, Unitarian, BCC); or 3) a sort-of re-ordination/ supplemental ordination (Pentecostal).
The Anglican Church of Canada has an agreement (Waterloo Declaration of 2001) with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada with interchangeability of clergy, but not with other Lutheran churches-- I know of no transfers to other Lutheran churches here but they may be around.
I'm not sure of the status of the priest of Algoma diocese who became a cleric of the Church of Elvis, but perhaps a more learned shipmate can inform us.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Albertus I too ,although I don't know you at all,have no doubts about your status as an Anglican priest. I have no doubts,although I know nothing about your ordination, about the validity of your orders as an Anglican priest and a servant of both Word and Sacrament and a co-operator with your local diocesan bishop.
Your priesthood is ,there is no doubt on my part ,blessed by the Good Lord.
However you belong to a community,where a good number of your brother and sister clerics do not have the same views as you have.Some of them have no doubts that they are not priests,Catholic priests, in the sense that you understand these words.
Now you may say that the wider Catholic church,in traditional communion with the successor of St Peter,is a broad church where a certain number of clerics and lay people will hold disparate views which may diverge from the teachings of the magisterium but there is no doubt about the official teachings of the Church on important matters of faith. It is that which I mean by the 'certainty' which one finds within the Church in communion with the Roman pontiff.
Each Presbyterian parish in the Church of Scotland is a sort of 'mini-diocese'.The parish minister is chosen/elected by the parishioners,just as in theory (okay, it is only in theory) the Catholic bishop is elected by the diocesan family.Just as a Catholic bishop, the parish minister is ordained to serve in a particular parish.The parish minister/the 'overseer', the teaching elder,chooses other elders and ordains them to help him in the celebration of the sacraments.This is just like a Catholic bishop and his elders/presbyters/priests.Prebyterians may not use the same words,and many of them,just like many Anglicans,would not feel able to say with confidence 'I am a Catholic',but they must have just as much right as their Anglican brothers
and sisters to be seen as having valid orders.
HOWEVER,if there is any doubt then one should consult with Rome.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Thank you, Forthview, for a post which is well up to your usual high standards of sensitivity, clear thought and good sense. BTW, though, I'm not ordained, although I would have liked things to have worked out that way.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
What surprised me was not that Methodists needed confirming but that Roman Catholics did not.
The Episcopal Church recognizes the validity of the sacrament of confirmation in the Catholic Church, but not in the United Methodist Church, because the Catholic Church is held to be in the apostolic succession and the Methodist Church is not.
Which is just crazy, if you ask me. If Anglicans are in the apostolic succession, it's because we got it from the Catholic Church we broke away from, so I don't see why the Methodists can't have gotten it from the church they broke away from.
But their succession comes through presbyteral ordination. In other words, John Wesley (a priest) ordained presbyters for the Methodists. Even in Anglicanism, that doesn't work, as far as I know.
Some assert that Wesley received consecration from an Oriental Orthodox bishop. Anyone know more about that?
--------------------
"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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
It would seem that presbyteral ordination was prevalent in some parts of the earliest churches.
It mucks up my anglo-catholic notions but things are never as neat as we would like them to be.
If anyone did wrong towards catholic order, it was the Bishop of London who refused to ordain priests for America.
Wesley did the best he could with a bad lot and found ancient justification.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I'd say they were both violating catholic order. The Bishop of London was indeed being a butthead, but that doesn't justify Wesley's action.
I certainly won't go so far as to declare the orders of Protestant churches invalid. I can't make that determination, and I can't set limits on what the Holy Spirit will do. On the other hand, I hope I won't be blamed for preferring certainty to doubt where apostolic orders are concerned...
--------------------
"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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
What surprised me was not that Methodists needed confirming but that Roman Catholics did not.
The Episcopal Church recognizes the validity of the sacrament of confirmation in the Catholic Church, but not in the United Methodist Church, because the Catholic Church is held to be in the apostolic succession and the Methodist Church is not.
Which is just crazy, if you ask me. If Anglicans are in the apostolic succession, it's because we got it from the Catholic Church we broke away from, so I don't see why the Methodists can't have gotten it from the church they broke away from.
But their succession comes through presbyteral ordination. In other words, John Wesley (a priest) ordained presbyters for the Methodists. Even in Anglicanism, that doesn't work, as far as I know.
Some assert that Wesley received consecration from an Oriental Orthodox bishop. Anyone know more about that?
Wesley was said to have received consecration from one Erasmus who purported to be the Greek Orthodox bishop of Arcadia in Crete. There seems to be debate over whether he actually was a bishop or not but even if he was the Orthodox would not regard any purported consecration he performed in England as valid as their canons require three bishops to consecrate a new bishop.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Confirmation's not so simple because RCs practice presbyteral confirmation - using the Bishop's chrism - & Anglicans insist on episcopal confirmation. I've known converts over from Rome who have been "re-confirmed".
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
AIUI the Greek Bishop whom Wesley approached declined to consecrate him, on the grounds that, as CL says, in his church three Bishops were required for a consecration.
Wasn't there some business with the Porvoo Agreements about the CofE (etc)recognising the Orders of some of the Nordic Lutheran Churches (not the Swedes) who had at some point lost the 'relay' of episcopal consecration and had had more or less to start again? Can't find the detail but doubtless someone here will know.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Confirmation's not so simple because RCs practice presbyteral confirmation - using the Bishop's chrism - & Anglicans insist on episcopal confirmation. I've known converts over from Rome who have been "re-confirmed".
Just for the sake of clarity I would point out that in the Latin Rite the bishop is the ordinary minister of the sacrament of confirmation. A priest who carries out confirmations is acting vicariously. The relevant canons are Can. 884-888 (Codex Iuris Canonici)
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
You know that, I know that - doesn't matter a damn as far as CofE canon law goes
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
You know that, I know that - doesn't matter a damn as far as CofE canon law goes
Well no, but unless I'm missing something it also means that it doesn't matter if the CofE wants to dress things up nicely with a bishop when a priest acting vicariously could do it if they were RC (I had a very elderly former bishop of Crediton).
If the issue is with the orders, it doesn't matter whether it's the ABC himself from an RC pov. But then, conversely, apart from the CofE bishop's not delegating vicariously there doesn't seem to be any difference in intent.
I would have thought Anglicans insisting on a bishop isn't the insuperable barrier here, so it's a bit of a red herring.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
It's a red herring now, yes, but I was originally addressing the point made above that Anglicans recognise RC confirmations - they do if it's episcopal. If it's not, then you're done again.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
I would suggest the "more substantial" part is assumed to be present for the purposes of this discussion - the question is whether that is sufficient or whether ordination within the apostolic succession is necessary and under what circumstances said ordination can be deemed to have taken place.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
