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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity (Page 0)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Anglican Orders and Non-Anglican Opinions of Their Validity
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
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      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for CL     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for CL     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Ahleal V     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for CL     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for CL     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Try   Email Try   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Ahleal V     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for TomM     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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