A Lament for Anglicanism

[Peter_J]

In regards to Apostolic Succession, even if we assume that women are invalid matter for ordnation (which I disagree with wholeheartedly…my Chaplain is female, but this is a different argument), would they necessarily be invalid for determining Apostolic lines?

Interesting … I don’t believe I’ve heard that specific question before.

I would have to say that only a validly ordained bishop can ordain anyone, so I would answer “yes”.

 

[jmcrae]

We have the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession …

Not since Edward VI changed your Ordination ceremony to exclude the ability to confect the Eucharist or to hear Confessions, actually.

Where is the church that Pope Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury founded …] ?

It is where ever you find a Catholic Church in England that retains full communion with Rome with an unbroken line of succession to Pope Gregory the Great, and through him, to the Apostles, especially St. Peter.

 

[jmcrae]

In regards to Apostolic Succession, even if we assume that women are invalid matter for ordnation (which I disagree with wholeheartedly…my Chaplain is female, but this is a different argument), would they necessarily be invalid for determining Apostolic lines?

Compare it to the idea of cognatic male primogeniture under a Salic inheritance system. A King has no son, but does have a daughter, who has sons. Although the daughter cannot inherit under Salic law, the line would continue through her and her son (the King’s grandson) would inherit.

This is because the normal means to becoming the heir to a King is to be born of the King’s wife or daughter.

Thus, for those who deny that woman are valid matter for certain ecclesiastical roles, are they invalid matter for consecrating Eucharist?

Yes - only the male is valid matter for Ordination, and Ordination is required for consecrating the Eucharist - a lay person cannot do this, and women cannot ever be anything other than lay people.

If so, then then are they still invalid matter for receiving/conveying Apostolic Succession?

Yes, for the same reasons stated above - only a validly ordained Bishop can ordain priests or other Bishops, and women cannot be validly ordained.

 

[jmcrae]

I guess as long as they’ll tolerate someone who does believe the words of the BCP, the XXXIX Articles and the Anglican Catechism, I guess I will probably remain joyously Episcopalian.

It’s been a while since I’ve read them, but don’t the 39 Articles deny the existence of the Sacrament of Ordination, and instead propose the existence of only two Sacraments - Baptism and Holy Communion?

 

[nsper7]

It’s been a while since I’ve read them, but don’t the 39 Articles deny the existence of the Sacrament of Ordination, and instead propose the existence of only two Sacraments - Baptism and Holy Communion?

I think standard Anglican theology sees two major Sacraments (defined as being set out in the Gospels)- Baptism and Holy Eucharist.

There are five minor Sacraments (not defined in the Gospels, but based on extrapolation from NT writings and Church Tradition)- Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Reconciliation of a Penitent, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick.

 

[mercygate]

BTW- I glanced at the Anglican Use Rite. It is extremely similar to the BCP (although the 1928, not '79, one).

Nope. They modeled on the '79 book. The Eucharistic canon is Miles Coverdale’s translation of the Roman Canon.

Now, if only the Pope would submit to the authority of +Cantuar, then it would all work out fine. j/k

Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay openly admitted that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church on earth.

Many of us have taken the trail of tears from Canterbury to Rome. Admitting that my life, liturgy, and spirituality, which were “more” catholic than that of most catholics, were “defective” was the hardest thing I have ever done. The day the first woman was consecrated to the episcopacy was one of the darkest of my life.

Catholic snipers who taunt Anglicans for the “defects” and “katholik pretensions” of Anglicanism, would do well to appreciate that Anglicans over the past 170 years have recovered, restored, preserved and cherished ancient treasures of faith and practice that contemporary Catholicism has treated with wanton disrespect.

Denigrating the genuine accomplishments and virtues of others is certainly not in the spirit of either Gregory the Great or of St. Augustine of Canterbury, who recognized the strengths of the Britons and built on those strengths rather than taking aim at their knees with two-by-fours.

 

[mercygate]

I just found out my Chaplain is considering trying out using Pre-Reformation liturgies for Eucharist. That should be really interesting. After all, how often can one truly connect with that Early Church?

Have him go to the Anglican Use Book of Divine Worship. It’ GORGEOUS and rock (heh, heh) solid.

 

[nsper7]

Have him go to the Anglican Use Book of Divine Worship. It’ GORGEOUS and rock (heh, heh) solid.

My Chaplain’s a ‘her’.

 

[mercygate]

Yeah, I was just making a general comment not really related to what I had been talking about earlier. I just thought it would be interesting to note.

Just with the wisdom of hindsight, I would counsel not going down this path. You end up just “playing” with the liturgy and making it up ad hoc. If you have come to a cross roads, then face it. Stand and fight. Or do whatcha gotta do and bolt for Home. Rhymes with . . . . ???

 

[mercygate]

My Chaplain’s a ‘her’.

Um. No comment. So much for valid Orders or Sacraments. Sorry to sound like one o’ them “Catholic snipers” but when I was an Anglican, I was part of the Anglo-Catholic party that stood firm against the ordination of women on the grounds that Holy Orders a sacrament of the whole Church, not a discipline of the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church, and that if Rome and the Orthodox deem the ordination of women to be impossible, we had no business going our own way and declaring otherwise.

 

[elgar]

Have him go to the Anglican Use Book of Divine Worship. It’ GORGEOUS and rock (heh, heh) solid.

mercygate–are you fortunate enough to have access to an Anglican Use parish or do you have to suffer on a regular basis? What is the answer when one is living in a vast wasteland of liturgical innovation and irreverence–seek out the Latin Mass? People on this blog are quick to just say “swim the Tiber,” but then what? What keeps you going on a practical level once you’ve signed on?

Elgar

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m afraid you have no Real Presence and no Apostolic Succession. Anglicans keep on talking about St. Augustine and I think he wouldn’t be happy about it. He was in unity with the pope while Anglicans are not. Anglicanism was born in the XVI century in the blood of Catholic martyrs.

This is an oversimplification. The reign of Queen Mary and other papists killed countless Anglicans. Look at how many reformers were killed during Mary’s reign. Both sides committed plenty of bloodshed. Anglicans and Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. all have martyrs.

And you’re basing your “no” real presence, etc. etc. upon a papal bull in the late 1800’s. It’s a matter of opinion.

 

[Peter_J]

Catholic snipers who taunt Anglicans for the “defects” and “katholik pretensions” of Anglicanism, would do well to appreciate that Anglicans over the past 170 years have recovered, restored, preserved and cherished ancient treasures of faith and practice that contemporary Catholicism has treated with wanton disrespect.

Amen.

 

[GKC]

It’s been a while since I’ve read them, but don’t the 39 Articles deny the existence of the Sacrament of Ordination, and instead propose the existence of only two Sacraments - Baptism and Holy Communion?

Not exactly. They make a distinction between the two Dominical sacraments, those established by Our Lord (Baptism/Communion) and the other sacraments, “commonly called” (commonly called is Anglican-speak for “another name for which is”, as in “The Nativity of Our Lord, or the Birthday of Christ, commonly called Chirstmas Day”). Article XXV does make a disticntion between the Two and the Five Sacraments. And for any Anglicans who accept the Articles, that is something they deal with.

You are aware that the articles are not a form of Anglican Confession, and are not binding (except in a technical, Erastian sense) on any Anglicans other than ordinands of the Church of England?

GKC

 

[GKC]

angelusm;3970093:

I’m afraid you have no Real Presence and no Apostolic Succession. Anglicans keep on talking about St. Augustine and I think he wouldn’t be happy about it. He was in unity with the pope while Anglicans are not. Anglicanism was born in the XVI century in the blood of Catholic martyrs.

This is an oversimplification. The reign of Queen Mary and other papists killed countless Anglicans. Look at how many reformers were killed during Mary’s reign. Both sides committed plenty of bloodshed. Anglicans and Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. all have martyrs.

And you’re basing your “no” real presence, etc. etc. upon a papal bull in the late 1800’s. It’s a matter of opinion.

It’s got some logic behind it, too. Also some politics, history and personality issues.

For RCs it’s not opinion, but de fide. For us Anglicans, otherwise.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Um. No comment. So much for valid Orders or Sacraments. Sorry to sound like one o’ them “Catholic snipers” but when I was an Anglican, I was part of the Anglo-Catholic party that stood firm against the ordination of women on the grounds that Holy Orders a sacrament of the whole Church, not a discipline of the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church, and that if Rome and the Orthodox deem the ordination of women to be impossible, we had no business going our own way and declaring otherwise.

I’ll buy that.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[jmcrae]

You are aware that the articles are not a form of Anglican Confession, and are not binding (except in a technical, Erastian sense) on any Anglicans other than ordinands of the Church of England?

GKC

And apparently, not even its ordinands, if Bishop Spong is any indication.

My own former denomination has its own 47 statements of common belief that are meant to unite the faithful - near as I can tell, all 47 of these eternal precepts have managed to become “outdated” in a space of less than 100 years. Today, as long as one believes “in the spirit of” the 47 statements (which could include beliefs that are completely opposite to any one of them, including the belief that there is one, and only one, God), one may take on the office of preaching in that denomination. In the last year of my membership, we had a Moderator of General Council who had at one time publicly declared himself to be an atheist.

I didn’t leave because of him, though - my feeling at the time was that if God wanted an atheist to head the Church, there must be some good reason for it.

But I did find that the Catholic Church at the end of my street was better equipped to meet my spiritual needs - and I kind of like the notion of belonging to the same religion as the Apostles.

The fact that we had an atheist as Moderator of the General Council didn’t make it difficult to leave, though.

 

[GKC]

And apparently, not even its ordinands, if Bishop Spong is any indication.

My own former denomination has its own 47 statements of common belief that are meant to unite the faithful - near as I can tell, all 47 of these eternal precepts have managed to become “outdated” in a space of less than 100 years. Today, as long as one believes “in the spirit of” the 47 statements (which could include beliefs that are completely opposite to any one of them, including the belief that there is one, and only one, God), one may take on the office of preaching in that denomination. In the last year of my membership, we had a Moderator of General Council who had at one time publicly declared himself to be an atheist.

I didn’t leave because of him, though - my feeling at the time was that if God wanted an atheist to head the Church, there must be some good reason for it.

But I did find that the Catholic Church at the end of my street was better equipped to meet my spiritual needs - and I kind of like the notion of belonging to the same religion as the Apostles.

The fact that we had an atheist as Moderator of the General Council didn’t make it difficult to leave, though.

The Spongster isn’t Church of England. He’s good ol’ ECUSA.

GKC

 

[jmcrae]

The Spongster isn’t Church of England. He’s good ol’ ECUSA.

GKC

Uh huh, yeah. Y’all are united under one God, until one of ye does something embarrassing - then it’s, “Oh, he’s a different religion than us.”

 

[Peter_J]

Not exactly. They make a distinction between the two Dominical sacraments, those established by Our Lord (Baptism/Communion) and the other sacraments, “commonly called”

Could you say a word or two (maybe a sentence) about meaning and/or original of the term “Dominical”?