A Lament for Anglicanism

[Dempsey1919]

Not a bad statement of why I think nsper7 is a little off base on this.

I agree.

However, your belief of Apostolic Succession being the link to the Early Church is also a little off base because the valid Orders within the Anglican Communion are fragmented to a large degree. Also, given the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares amongst the Anglicans, would it be fair to assume that one of his predecessors was consecrated using the invalid Edwardine Ordinary? That being the case, the current Archbishop of Canterbury would not possess Apostolic Succession.

 

[Hesychios]

Obviously, that is a major disagreement between Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Communion. We recognize our Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession (as well as that of the Roman Catholic Church), but you do not recognize ours.

I think that there is a danger that both parties are making an idol of the institution.

 

[mercygate]

I think that there is a danger that both parties are making an idol of the institution.

I don’t see this as making an “idol” of the institiution. They are struggling with how historic vicissitudes affect the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[GKC]

I agree.

However, your belief of Apostolic Succession being the link to the Early Church is also a little off base because the valid Orders within the Anglican Communion are fragmented to a large degree. Also, given the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares amongst the Anglicans, would it be fair to assume that one of his predecessors was consecrated using the invalid Edwardine Ordinary? That being the case, the current Archbishop of Canterbury would not possess Apostolic Succession.

Orders within Anglicanism, the current issue of invalid matter aside, are greatly permeated with the OC/PNCC lines that have been interwoven into Anglicanism since 1932. It’s hard to toss a brick at a Lambeth (pleasant idea, that) without hitting a prelate infused with the Dutch touch. If one accepts Apostolicae Curae (and few Anglicans do), that is still the logic that matters to them. I do not worry about fragmentation. I look for succession. Those who possess valid orders are in apostolic succession.

+*Cantaur * is in no sense *primus inter pares * amongst Anglican prelates. His position is that of a toothless, symbolic figurehead for the constituent independent jurisdictions forming the Anglican Communion, with no authority beyond his own see. (This is very reminiscent of the first post I ever made, anywhere).

The logic of *Apostolicae Curae * is that the form of the Edwardine ordinal used in 1559 was invalid, and that was the rupture point with apostolic succession. Hence, by that logic, any Anglican prelate who traces his lines to ++Parker would not be in apostolic succession, any +Cantuar you might cite included. That, of course, is the RC position. Anglicans have another one.

Do keep in mind that the form of the ordinal was changed in 1662, though that is stated for historical interest only.

Apostolic Curae, it’s history, personalities, political aspects and logic is one of my hobby areas.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

+*Cantaur *is in no sense *primus inter pares *amongst Anglican prelates. His position is that of a toothless, symbolic figurehead for the constituent independent jurisdictions forming the Anglican Communion, with no authority beyond his own see.

To my mind, “toothless symbolic figurehead” perfectly defines “primus inter pares,” wherever it is used.

 

[GKC]

To my mind, “toothless symbolic figurehead” perfectly defines “primus inter pares,” wherever it is used.

I sort of thought it might, to someone, anyway. Even so…

GKC

 

[IowaJay]

As a side point, I hope to correct an implication made by some on this thread. I see it commonly stated that under a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and Holy Orders, “no valid orders” means “no real presence.” It is not that simple.

Ecumenical dialogues since Vatican II have discussed this idea, and Pope Benedict XVI, while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, referred to these dialogues in a letter to a Lutheran bishop in 1993. The letter is quoted in the joint statement concluding Round X of dialogues with the Lutherans.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

Paragraph 107:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.(166)”

So, under Catholic theology, Anglican’s do not possess valid orders, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they receive mere bread and wine at their Eucharist.

 

[chris_molter]

To my mind, “toothless symbolic figurehead” perfectly defines “primus inter pares,” wherever it is used.

I always pictured a guy ineffectively banging a gavel at a town hall meeting that had erupted into a shouting match while saying “Gentlemen, please!”

 

[GKC]

As a side point, I hope to correct an implication made by some on this thread. I see it commonly stated that under a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and Holy Orders, “no valid orders” means “no real presence.” It is not that simple.

Ecumenical dialogues since Vatican II have discussed this idea, and Pope Benedict XVI, while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, referred to these dialogues in a letter to a Lutheran bishop in 1993. The letter is quoted in the joint statement concluding Round X of dialogues with the Lutherans.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

Paragraph 107:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.(166)”

So, under Catholic theology, Anglican’s do not possess valid orders, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they receive mere bread and wine at their Eucharist.

Interesting. Thank you.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

So, under Catholic theology, Anglican’s do not possess valid orders, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they receive mere bread and wine at their Eucharist.

Very interesting! But it also doesn’t meant that the Eucharist is valid, either. It could just be regarded as a ‘means of grace’ and not actual transubstantiation. It’ll be fascinating to see if there are any follow-up discussions or documents regarding this!

 

[mercygate]

As a side point, I hope to correct an implication made by some on this thread. I see it commonly stated that under a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and Holy Orders, “no valid orders” means “no real presence.” It is not that simple.

Ecumenical dialogues since Vatican II have discussed this idea, and Pope Benedict XVI, while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, referred to these dialogues in a letter to a Lutheran bishop in 1993. The letter is quoted in the joint statement concluding Round X of dialogues with the Lutherans.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

Paragraph 107:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.(166)”

So, under Catholic theology, Anglican’s do not possess valid orders, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they receive mere bread and wine at their Eucharist.

Note that the phrase “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord” is in no way parallel to saying that the Lutheran Eucharist IS the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. What is being acknowledged is that the Lord’s presence is in some way presnt.

Before coming into the Catholic Church, I experienced in an undeniable way the grace of Christ in the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confession. But that is not to say that it was an objectively identical or equivalent reality or experience.

 

[Hesychios]

To my mind, “toothless symbolic figurehead” perfectly defines “primus inter pares,” wherever it is used.

That’s only because you are not familiar with the concept of conciliarity.

That is why GKC is correct when he states:

+*Cantaur *is in no sense primus inter pares…

And he is right. My thoughts exactly. The Anglican collection of churches never developed the concepts of patriarchy and conciliarity.

And your church magnified it’s only patriarchate while it crippled it’s conciliarity. That is why you are so mistaken about the term *primus inter pares, *you have no experience of it.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

To my mind, “toothless symbolic figurehead” perfectly defines “primus inter pares,” wherever it is used.

That’s only because you are not familiar with the concept of conciliarity in a Patriarchal church.

That is why GKC is correct when he states:

+*Cantaur *is in no sense primus inter pares…

And he is right. My thoughts exactly. The Anglican collection of churches never developed the concepts of patriarchy and conciliarity.

And your church magnified it’s only patriarchate while it crippled it’s conciliarity. That is why you are so mistaken about the term *primus inter pares, *you have no experience of it.

Michael

 

[nsper7]

The Anglican Communion gains it’s connection to the Early Church because the first Archbishop of Canterbury was consecrated by the Roman Pontiff. You associate the Early Church with the Pope. Therefore, if the Pope is related to the Early Church, you must also deduce that the Roman Catholic Church was the Early Church, due to the fact that the Pope is it’s leader.

Obviously, I, and many other Anglicans (Broad-to-High Church at least) recognize the connection between Roman Catholicism and the Early Church. We recognize Roman Catholic Holy Orders and many of us would agree that Roman Catholics are part of that ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of the Nicene Creed.

Personally, I recognize the Roman Catholic connection to the Early Church and the importance of Roman Catholicism in Christian historical and theological development.

This means that you believe the Pope has the ability to grant authority to others. This being the case, you must also agree that the Pope has the ability to revoke authority, or take it away.

The Anglicans believe that the Pope is first among equals, and that he has no pastoral authority over the other Bishops. However, you believe that the Pope gave authority to the Archbishop of Canterbury and only a person with authority can grant authority to others. As the Archbishop of Canterbury gained his authority from the Pope, it would be logical to conclude that the Pope has the ability to take this away.

By your own statement, you showed that you believed in the power of the Pope to bind and loose as granted to St. Peter, his predecessor.

In many ways, the Pope occupies an interesting position for Anglicans. After all, Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay, as someone pointed out earlier (perhaps in another thread), believed the Pope to be the head of the temporal Church. Personally, I recognize the validity of the Pope’ s role as Bishop of Rome and as the legitimate spiritual authority in the Roman Catholic Church. Historically (say Pre-Reformation), the Pope was the dominant figure in Western Christianity. As an Anglican, I recognize that it was a Pope (Gregory the Great) that consecrated the first Archbishop of Canterbury and laid the groundwork for the Church of England.

Thus, the Pope is, in some ways, a truly Catholic (as in Universal) figure of importance. After all, his role as Bishop of Rome is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church, but his Holy Orders make him a Bishop in that easy-to-describe (made up of all Christians), but hard-to-determine Catholic (Universal) Church. The Anglican Communion, historically, owes a great debt to the Papacy for the consecration and elevation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and allowing the Church in England to become of such spiritual importance that it would one day become the Church of Englad and a Rite in its own right )). And, of course, I do have great respect for the current Pope.

It is truly difficult to determine the Pope’s actual role in modern Christianity. On the one hand, one could try to demote him to simply the leader of a denomination (although the largest and oldest…although the Eastern Orthodox would debate the latter), but that seems to deny his historical and theological importance and his valid role as Bishop of Rome (which is not just in Roman Catholicism, but in that elusive Catholic [Universal] Church).

EDIT: Although I realize this will probably never happen, I would love to be able to attend a Papal Mass and receive Eucharist from His Holiness. Unfortunately, as an Anglican, I realize that blessing would not be open to me.

 

[mercygate]

EDIT: Although I realize this will probably never happen, I would love to be able to attend a Papal Mass and receive Eucharist from His Holiness. Unfortunately, as an Anglican, I realize that blessing would not be open to me.

Well, you know what it takes. Door’s open.

 

[chris_molter]

EDIT: Although I realize this will probably never happen, I would love to be able to attend a Papal Mass and receive Eucharist from His Holiness. Unfortunately, as an Anglican, I realize that blessing would not be open to me.

I’m thrilled that you hold such an appreciation for the Pope. I held a great affection for this Pope in particular, even while I was Anglican and he was Cardinal Ratzinger. When he was elevated to the Papacy I was so excited I was jumping up and down! At the time I was studying to become an Episcopal Priest and remembered the gracious letter he had sent to the meeting of conservative/reasserting Anglicans in Plano, TX.

I think he has a great appreciation for the good in Anglicanism and if any Pope in the history of the Papacy can do something to retain those good things and bring them into full communion with the Catholic Church, it’s Pope Benedict.

(Obviously my affection and appreciation of the current Pope can’t be understated. What can I say?)

 

[GKC]

Very interesting! But it also doesn’t meant that the Eucharist is valid, either. It could just be regarded as a ‘means of grace’ and not actual transubstantiation. It’ll be fascinating to see if there are any follow-up discussions or documents regarding this!

I had also thought of that.

If things had been different, all this might have been worked through in the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission.

Those days are past.

GKC

 

[nsper7]

I’m thrilled that you hold such an appreciation for the Pope. I held a great affection for this Pope in particular, even while I was Anglican and he was Cardinal Ratzinger. When he was elevated to the Papacy I was so excited I was jumping up and down! At the time I was studying to become an Episcopal Priest and remembered the gracious letter he had sent to the meeting of conservative/reasserting Anglicans in Plano, TX.

I think he has a great appreciation for the good in Anglicanism and if any Pope in the history of the Papacy can do something to retain those good things and bring them into full communion with the Catholic Church, it’s Pope Benedict.

(Obviously my affection and appreciation of the current Pope can’t be understated. What can I say?)

Well, as I said, I recognize the Pope as the valid Bishop of Rome (as does Anglicanism in general) and I think he is an extremely intelligent man, but also, from what I have read, a very good and caring person and a person who truly loves Christ and His Church (obviously, only God knows a man’s heart, but you can read what someone says and how they behave and such).

It would be amazing to have an audience with the Pope and to attend a Papal Mass, wouldn’t it?

Although there have been less-than-good Popes in history, that does not mean that the Office of the Pope (as Bishop of Rome and as an important Christian figure) is suddenly unimportant or illegitimate. Being able to trace Apostolic Succession back to St. Peter is a pretty amazing thing . And besides, if God can work through Henry VIII, He can probably work through some of history’s corrupt Popes.

((With writings like this, people are going to accuse to me more often of being Roman Catholic ))

 

[Peter_J]

To my mind, “toothless symbolic figurehead” perfectly defines “primus inter pares,” wherever it is used.

That’s quite a generalization isn’t it?

“Wherever it is used”? What about among Catholics?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Obviously, I, and many other Anglicans (Broad-to-High Church at least) recognize the connection between Roman Catholicism and the Early Church. We recognize Roman Catholic Holy Orders and many of us would agree that Roman Catholics are part of that ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of the Nicene Creed.

Personally, I recognize the Roman Catholic connection to the Early Church and the importance of Roman Catholicism in Christian historical and theological development.

In many ways, the Pope occupies an interesting position for Anglicans. After all, Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay, as someone pointed out earlier (perhaps in another thread), believed the Pope to be the head of the temporal Church. Personally, I recognize the validity of the Pope’ s role as Bishop of Rome and as the legitimate spiritual authority in the Roman Catholic Church. Historically (say Pre-Reformation), the Pope was the dominant figure in Western Christianity. As an Anglican, I recognize that it was a Pope (Gregory the Great) that consecrated the first Archbishop of Canterbury and laid the groundwork for the Church of England.

Thus, the Pope is, in some ways, a truly Catholic (as in Universal) figure of importance. After all, his role as Bishop of Rome is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church, but his Holy Orders make him a Bishop in that easy-to-describe (made up of all Christians), but hard-to-determine Catholic (Universal) Church. The Anglican Communion, historically, owes a great debt to the Papacy for the consecration and elevation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and allowing the Church in England to become of such spiritual importance that it would one day become the Church of Englad and a Rite in its own right (). And, of course, I do have great respect for the current Pope.

It is truly difficult to determine the Pope’s actual role in modern Christianity. On the one hand, one could try to demote him to simply the leader of a denomination (although the largest and oldest…although the Eastern Orthodox would debate the latter), but that seems to deny his historical and theological importance and his valid role as Bishop of Rome (which is not just in Roman Catholicism, but in that elusive Catholic [Universal] Church).

You describe the Catholic Church as “the largest and oldest” Christian denomination in the world, while also stating that it is part of the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” mentioned in the Nicene Creed. The fact that you used the world “oldest” to describe the Catholic Church is very important; you have stated that the Catholic Church is the most ancient remnant of the original Church alluded to in the Nicene Creed.

This means you believe that all other Christian denominations have broken away from the Catholic Church, and in a certain sense, have a common origin in the Catholic Church; all Christian Churches trace their lineage back to the Catholic Church, according to your beliefs. This is also another way of saying that the Catholic Church was the original Church founded by Christ.

As the Church founded by Christ, you also acknowledge “the importance of Roman Catholicism in Christian historical and theological development.” In your own words you stated that the Catholic Church played an important role in determining theology, or to put it another way, to decide what was to be believed by Christians. By using the word “development” you also acknowledged that fact that understanding of doctrine increases or develops over time. This development can clearly be seen in the increased understanding of Eucharistic theology. As the “largest and oldest” denomination, the Catholic Church continues to play an important role in “Christian theological development.”

As leader of the “oldest” Church, you believe that “the Pope was the dominant figure in Western Christianity” and continues to be “a universal figure of importance.” As demonstrated in previous posts, you also believe this “importance” includes pastoral authority over others, as demonstrated by the fact that the Pope gave authority to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is also important to note that you believe this importance is not lost because certain men have been “less than good Popes” throughout history. You correctly state that existence of unscrupulous Popes “does not mean that the Office of the Pope is suddenly unimportant or illegitimate.”

Without realising it, you have stated your belief that the Catholic Church was the ancient Church founded by Christ, as mentioned in the Nicene Creed. You have also stated your belief that the Catholic Church determined what was to be believed by Christians; and through the development of doctrine, continues to do so. You also believe that the Office of the Papacy included pastoral authority over others, and continues to do so; this is why you have described the Pope “as a universal figure of importance.” The use of the word “universal” also implies that you believe the Pope has a certain level of authority over all Christian Churches, despite the fact that this is not often recognised.