|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
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.
Precisely.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
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.
That's the strictly mechanical view of apostolic succession, and in my opinion only half of the picture. The other half is continuing in the apostolic faith, which in the West is much more emphasized in churches which shy away from (or have jettisoned completely) the catholic understanding of the priesthood.
Western Christians who value the apostolic succession would be well served to put both halves together instead of relying solely on the mechanics. In my opinion, of course!
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Methodist bishops have never claimed to be in tactile succession to the apostles; their ministry is biblical and historic, but administrative rather than sacramental. Methodist presbyters in leadership positions assumed the title "bishop" but are not and have never been considered to be the literal successors of the apostles.
And British Methodism doesn't even have 'bishops', because Wesley never wanted them. He was quite cross when the American Methodists decided to use the term.
I understand that the 'problem' with Methodist orders has contributed towards the CofE reluctance to enter into a full (re)union with the British Methodism Church. This article covers some of these problems.
I've heard that evangelical Anglicans have concerns of their own about a union with the Methodists, but presumably these concerns have nothing to do with Methodist orders. (I wonder if Methodist evangelicals have ever tried to work with CofE evangelicals to reach some kind of consensus on this? In theory they could represent an stronger voice if they came together, but I've never heard of any rapprochement between the two groups.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
It's a bit too long to quote, so I would commend to all the summary on page 6-7 of the succession/historic episcopate found in this recent CoE document, Recognition by the Church of England of Orders Conferred by Other Churches (2014).
x
AV
[ 04. July 2014, 08:07: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm still dancing around on the sidelines of all this, thinking that if a Church's apostolic ministry and faith has nothing more substantial to say about itself than "That bloke in the pointy hat touched me, so I'm ok", then to me it sounds pretty feeble.
That's the strictly mechanical view of apostolic succession, and in my opinion only half of the picture. The other half is continuing in the apostolic faith, which in the West is much more emphasized in churches which shy away from (or have jettisoned completely) the catholic understanding of the priesthood.
Western Christians who value the apostolic succession would be well served to put both halves together instead of relying solely on the mechanics. In my opinion, of course!
The Catholic Church tends to be unfairly characterised as having a mechanistic understanding of apostolic succession. That has never been the case; the fact that Thuc and Milingo's episcopal consecrations are regarded as invalid is illustrative.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Catholic Church tends to be unfairly characterised as having a mechanistic understanding of apostolic succession. That has never been the case; the fact that Thuc and Milingo's episcopal consecrations are regarded as invalid is illustrative.
Are the (pre-laicisation at any rate in Milingo's case) consecrations considered invalid or merely illicit?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Catholic Church tends to be unfairly characterised as having a mechanistic understanding of apostolic succession. That has never been the case; the fact that Thuc and Milingo's episcopal consecrations are regarded as invalid is illustrative.
Are the (pre-laicisation at any rate in Milingo's case) consecrations considered invalid or merely illicit?
Those "consecrated" are held to be in the same state as they were prior to the "consecrations", i.e. laymen.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Small semi-tangent on the question of episcopal/ non-episcopal RC Confirmations raised upthread: my RC brother (in the diocese of Shrewsbury, I think) tells me that it is usual there for the Bishop to confirm- indeed, my nephew and godson is being confimed by the Bishop today.
Just out of curiosity, how common is this in the RCC?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
In the RC it is the norm for the bishop to confer confirmation. A bishop may give temporary faculties to a priest to confer confirmation but this is the exception, not the rule. When I was an RC I only remember once seeing the priest confer the sacrament and that's because the bishop was in Rome. All the other times it was the bishop.
[ 11. July 2014, 09:00: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm an Anglican. I'm a priest. And I've come to believe over the years (thanks, in part, to conversations I've been part of on the Ship) that what the Pope thinks about that is an utter irrelevance. What do we think? - that at the Reformation the Holy Spirit had some colossal hissy fit, turned her back on us and said, "Well! That's it! I'm not going to any of their ordinations any more!"?
Exactly. and same thing in regard to the Eucharist we celebrate or any of the other sacraments.
Exavtly. And the same could be said for Salvation Army orinations and commissionings where we have the ordination of the nail-scarred hands, but no human hands to confer anything. Words are spoken and prayers made but we believe there is a true ordination to the ministry even though no heads are touched.
Surely the true apostolic 'succession' is where the succeeding generations continue the apostles' teaching.
[ 11. July 2014, 09:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Perfectly valid view but not the view embraced by communions expressing Catholic succession.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Perfectly valid view but not the view embraced by communions expressing Catholic succession.
It might surprise you to learn that not every church expresses catholic succession; we don't have to agree with Rome in order to be authentic followers of Christ organised in an acceptable way.
We remember, of course, that there is very little by way of direction for church order and discipline within the pages of the NT.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Believe it or not, it doesn't surprise me. Both positions are legitimate.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Perfectly valid view but not the view embraced by communions expressing Catholic succession.
Isn't the idea of communions expressing Catholic succession a contradiction in terms? If you express Catholic succession you're united in one communion with the Bishop of Rome surely?
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
He might say so: we (e.g. CofE, CofS, indeed your own Methodist Church AIUI)don't. We don't think that Catholic = (only) Roman Catholic.
[ 11. July 2014, 20:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
That depends on whether you are a Roman Catholic or some other kind of Catholic. Certainly all Orthodox and Old Catholic bishops, priests, and deacons consider themselves to be Catholics and part of the Apostolic Succession despite not being in communion with the pope. All but the lowest of low-church Anglicans think the same thing.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Indeed - precisely what I meant. Roman Catholicism is one of several modern denominations which claim to be distinctive continuations of the ancient/medieval Catholic Church - when denominations as we understand them today didn't exist. The Pope has always exercised a primacy in the West & I'm happy to continue recognising that.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We remember, of course, that there is very little by way of direction for church order and discipline within the pages of the NT.
That's because the Church was already present when the New Testament was compiled - the NT isn't a guidebook on how to create and run your own church.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Very true - in its present form, a very late compilation & not needing to contain what was already established and being practised - though obviously retaining key texts.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
That's because the Church was already present when the New Testament was compiled - the NT isn't a guidebook on how to create and run your own church.
As I'm sure Mudfrog is well aware, what about the witness of the early church, which certainly resembles the threefold order of the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican model?
quote:
...Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, [the Apostles] appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit. And this they did in no new way...by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop; and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.Those who were thus appointed by them, or afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church... [Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 43-44]
That certainly *looks* like Apostolic Succession to me. To say nothing of Ignatius of Antioch:
quote:
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest — Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1
x
AV
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Oh, please.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any provable "Apostolic Succession".
Yes, I know there Church of Rome, in particular, likes to claim it traces back to St Peter, but the claims have no basis in FACT.
If you are an Anglican you accept that Anglican orders are valid / genuine. If you are an RC you don't. I don't know any CofE clergy who lose sleep over this, nor should they.
Yes, I know the Roman habit of denying the orders of others is rude, disrespectful and un-Christian but by going on about it we only validate their behaviour.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know there Church of Rome, in particular, likes to claim it traces back to St Peter, but the claims have no basis in FACT.
I'm no RC apologist, but surely know one seriously denies that the Church in Rome was founded by the blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul, do they? Could you explain a little more what you mean please?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know the Roman habit of denying the orders of others is rude, disrespectful and un-Christian but by going on about it we only validate their behaviour.
Oh yeah! And could you explain that as well, please? Isn't this the "We recognise you so why don't you recognise us?" argument? (Followed by toys being thrown out of a pram)
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know there Church of Rome, in particular, likes to claim it traces back to St Peter, but the claims have no basis in FACT.
I'm no RC apologist, but surely know one seriously denies that the Church in Rome was founded by the blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul, do they? Could you explain a little more what you mean please?
There is no doubt than SS Peter and Paul had much influence on the early Roman Church, but there is a tendency in some RCC circles to think of S Peter as a monarchical bishop in the way later Popes were. Of this, there is much historical doubt!
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know there Church of Rome, in particular, likes to claim it traces back to St Peter, but the claims have no basis in FACT.
I'm no RC apologist, but surely know one seriously denies that the Church in Rome was founded by the blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul, do they? Could you explain a little more what you mean please?
There is no doubt than SS Peter and Paul had much influence on the early Roman Church, but there is a tendency in some RCC circles to think of S Peter as a monarchical bishop in the way later Popes were. Of this, there is much historical doubt!
Ok, that's fair enough. No, St. Peter wasn't a monarchal bishop. He may have (or rather did) cofounded the see but there is no mention of him as bishop amongst the earliest accounts. St. Irenaeus records Linus or Anacletus as the first bishop. BTW, in the Orthodox Church we consider all our bishops to be St. Peter's successors.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
It seems clear that Peter was martyred at Rome and it seems appropriate that the See subsequently retains a particular & unique association with him. Furthermore, I don't have any problem with the Roman See continuing to hold primacy, simply as having once been the Imperial capital.
I think any further claims by the RCC are red herrings; unnecessary and unhelpful.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
AO
The idea that St Peter was in Rome for any length of time is entirely based on an unsupported report from the 4th century.
St Paul in his letter to the Romans mentions various people and families - St Peter is not among them: that omission is amazing if Peter was in Rome at the time, let alone in any kind of position of leadership.
The acknowledged 'father' of church history, Eusebius of Caesaria, write of St Peter having preached to communities in varying places, but only mentions him in Rome at the end of his life for a brief period before his death. Most historians now would agree that St Peter was in Rome for around 3 years at the most, and there is no record of his either having founded the Christian community there (it was already in existence) or having led it.
Perhaps most telling: in the early lists of the bishops of Rome St Peter's name doesn't appear. Irenaeus of Lyon numbered all the early bishops up to Eleutherius (12th bishop): he names LINUS as first bishop, appointed by St Paul, then Clement, appointed by Peter. Again, there is no mention of St Peter being bishop of Rome - or St Paul, for that matter.
As one of the original 12, St Peter would have had unique standing in the early Christian community in Rome, but that would have been true of any of the early Christian communities: to a certain extent the same is true of St Paul. By their direct/almost direct link to Christ they would have been seen as highly important so any position they held would have been noted - yet there is no trace.
Perhaps the clincher is that, as a non-Roman citizen, it is highly unlikely that Peter would have been given any position of leadership among a group of people who, even though Jewish, were almost all likely to have been Roman citizens.
In any case, AO, I genuinely don't care whether or not the Roman church recognises the orders of the CofE - I'm a member of the CofE and I recognise them. But then I'm not trying to claim through altered history/denial of historical sources a provenance which doesn't exist.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
