A Lament for Anglicanism

[GKC]

For good reason. According to your 39 Articles, the Sacrament of Ordination is not a Dominical Sacrament (that is, you believe that it was not established by Christ, nor known to the Apostles - which kind of blows Apostolic Succession out of the water right there - how could the Apostles have passed on something they didn’t receive from Christ, nor know anything about?) - further, the Ordination ceremony itself does not include the intention to ordain priests as the Catholic Church ordains them.

No, no. The Dominical sacraments have their form established by Our Lord. Apostolic Succession is also scriptural but the form of the Sacrament is not prescribed in like manner as the other two.

As to the idea of whether the Edwardine ordinal has an innate defect of form, with respect to naming the precise power of the ordinand, that is a disagreement that is partially at the heart of what we think of Apostolicae Curae.

But you should try to avoid using “intention” when referring to the supposed defect of the form. Only a person can have an intention, not a ceremony. Defect of intention, while alleged in
Apostolicae Curae, is not related to the form. It’s separate.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

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.

For me, even as an Anglican, there never really was a choice. The history of the situation is clear. We never should have ruptured the tie with the See of Peter.

 

[mercygate]

No, no. The Dominical sacraments have their form established by Our Lord. Apostolic Succession is also scriptural but the form of the Sacrament is not prescribed in like manner as the other two.

As to the idea of whether the Edwardine ordinal has an innate defect of form, with respect to naming the precise power of the ordinand, that is a disagreement that is partially at the heart of what we think of Apostolicae Curae.

But you should try to avoid using “intention” when referring to the supposed defect of the form. Only a person can have an intention, not a ceremony. Defect of intention, while alleged in
Apostolicae Curae, is not related to the form. It’s separate.

As always, you are correct. But in this case the form reflects the intention.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I know where you’re coming from here but truly, the whole apostolic succession ticket got chewed up and spat out. I know GKC (or is it Contarini?) disagrees, but you really do mess up the validity when you mess up your intention in ordination.

I’d suspect it’s both of us.

And we don’t think we messed up anything, esp. in intention.

For the best case for the Anglican position on Apostolicae Curae, read Fr. J. J. Hughes two superb books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. BTW, Fr. Hughes is RC. (And for the best single exposition of the logic behind Apostolicae Curae, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is recommended.

Please remember that what the RCC alleges in Apostolciae Curae, while what all RCs should affirm, is not what an Anglican will necesarily find convincing. After a little over 10 years of studying the document and the history behind it, I certainly don’t. Merely citing it doesn’t cause an Anglican to flee in terror.

GKC

 

[GKC]

As always, you are correct. But in this case the form reflects the intention.

GKC

No, no, again. I can cite half a dozen forms of ordination, from Rites that the RCC considers as capable of conveying the sacrament of orders validly, which have the same defect of form. Lots of Anglican apolgists, in replying to *Apostolicae Curae *, thought they had discovered a gaping hold in the logic, from that. The form and the intention of those using it in consecrating Archbisop Parker in 1559 have to taken together, as two separate things, that are supposedly the justification of the Bull. See Clark, op. cit.

 

[SIA]

After reading and participating in several threads discussing Anglicanism, I find it a bit saddening. On June 1st, I was Confirmed into the Episcopal Church, but it seems as though I have become Anglican in bad times for Anglicanism.

We have the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession, we recite the Nicene Creed, yet many Anglicans seem to have lost their way. We have a long and proud history (what other church can trace its foundation to a Pope?), yet we seem to losing our future, at least in America and the ‘Western’ provinces of Anglicanism.

Where is the church that Pope Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury founded (and, yes, I know there were Christians in Britain before that time, but it was not totally continuous due to Anglo-Saxon invasions and such…although it is interesting to note that in the 4th Century AD there was an Archbishop of London, Restitutus, who attended the Council of Arles and may have been involved in the First Nicene Council)?

Please do not believe that the Episcopal church speaks for all Anglicanism. The Episcopal church is being considered heretical by the majority of Anglicans around the world. I myself after leaving the Roman Catholic church was received into the Episcopal church but we as a parish have split with our diocese and have joined the Diocese of Uganda which is still solidly Anglican but is not Episcopal. We practice and are deeply rooted into the orthodoxy of the Scriptures and in Christianity. I am so proud to be an Anglican and to be serving God according to his will. Episcopalians have clearly run off the path and are headed for the cliff.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi. Great discussion.

I don’t know enough about the whole mess to offer a response, but reading guys like Dr William Tighe (Catholic) and Fr Robert Hart (Anglican) gives me some hope that at least SOME sort of consensus might be reached.

I’ve read a few great Touchstone articles by Dr. Tighe, but not much else by him. What sort of writing do you have in mind? (I also recognize the name ‘Fr Robert Hart’ but don’t know too much about him.)

 

[nsper7]

Please do not believe that the Episcopal church speaks for all Anglicanism. The Episcopal church is being considered heretical by the majority of Anglicans around the world. I myself after leaving the Roman Catholic church was received into the Episcopal church but we as a parish have split with our diocese and have joined the Diocese of Uganda which is still solidly Anglican but is not Episcopal. We practice and are deeply rooted into the orthodoxy of the Scriptures and in Christianity. I am so proud to be an Anglican and to be serving God according to his will. Episcopalians have clearly run off the path and are headed for the cliff.

Actually the first Anglican church I ever attended (I was invited by a friend) was one affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya. While I really liked it there, I felt that, as an American, my province is the Episcopal Church. I believe it comes close to violating Anglican Canon Law when you start having provinces infringing on each other and I think back to Scriptures. Would St. Paul have advised the ‘good Corinthian Christians’ to go join in St. James in Jerusalem or, later, St. Peter in Rome? No, I feel St. Paul would have said something about taking heart and fighting against what is going on.

Now, what I do worry about sometimes is that if the Church of England goes liberal (unlike some people, I do not have a problem with ordaining women) and we ‘lose the See’ as it were, it may force a major schism. After all, although I think +Cantuar is a tad too conciliatory, I believe that he is ‘orthodox’ and is advised by good people (N. T. Wright…although I do not agree with everything he says, I see him as a good voice these days).

If somehow the See of Canterbury, the Chair of St. Augustine, fell into the hands of Spong-type (shudders) then I could see Anglicanism schisming horrendously. The problem is: who has the spiritual authority of +Cantuar? It is not just Apostolic Succession (which any rightly consecrated Anglican, or even Continuing Anglican, bishop has), but also, for lack of a better term, Apostolic authority. After all, the original Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Augustine, was consecrated by Il Papa. No one else has that kind of authoritative claim.

I know that in Africa there are Sees with connections equal, or even better than, +Cantuar, but they are either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (or some other Orthodox Christian).

EDIT: And I think our chances of getting a new See with that kind of connection to Il Papa and the Early Church are nil. After all, I do not believe that neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy would be willing to give up one of its Sees for Anglicanism.

 

[chris_molter]

Hi. Great discussion.

I’ve read a few great Touchstone articles by Dr. Tighe, but not much else by him. What sort of writing do you have in mind? (I also recognize the name ‘Fr Robert Hart’ but don’t know too much about him.)

Fr Hart is a contributor to the Anglican Continuum blog, which you can google. Dr Tighe also comments on the same blog, and both also contribute their thoughts to a few other Catholic blogs such as Dr Mike Liccione’s Sacramentum Vitae. A browse through both blogs should give you some interesting reading!

 

[mercygate]

Zenit had an article today indicating that following the Lambeth Conference, the situation in Anglicanism is “more complicated” and they are revisiting the situation with the TAC.

 

[nsper7]

Zenit had an article today indicating that following the Lambeth Conference, the situation in Anglicanism is “more complicated” and they are revisiting the situation with the TAC.

How is Lambeth going? I have heard mixed reports on it. Even if it is not going so well, we still need +Cantuar in order to maintain that connection to the Early Church and the Pope.

 

[Dempsey1919]

How is Lambeth going? I have heard mixed reports on it. Even if it is not going so well, we still need +Cantuar in order to maintain that connection to the Early Church and the Pope.

What would it mean to you if you lost the +Cantuar?

 

[nsper7]

What would it mean to you if you lost the +Cantuar?

If we lose +Cantuar, then Anglicanism loses its historical to the Early Church and Il Papa. Although Apostolic Succession would remain, who else but the Archbishop of Canterbury can claim their authority having been historicdally granted by the Pope (the first Archbishop of Canterbury was consecrated by Pope Gregory the Great and granted provincial authority).

 

[mercygate]

How is Lambeth going? I have heard mixed reports on it. Even if it is not going so well, we still need +Cantuar in order to maintain that connection to the Early Church and the Pope.

Sorry to say, I have no idea.

 

[chris_molter]

How is Lambeth going? I have heard mixed reports on it. Even if it is not going so well, we still need +Cantuar in order to maintain that connection to the Early Church and the Pope.

If you haven’t already, I’d HIGHLY recommend going to Canon Kendall Harmon’s blog TitusOneNine (www.kendallharmon.net/t19)). That’ll give you a really good idea about how Lambeth’s going from a variety of POVs. He has a number of emails and letters from Bishops posted up right now with a sticky post at the top for all Lambeth related articles and posts.

DEFINITELY worth looking. (My own former Bishop’s reports have been highly praised for their frankness and honesty with some of the frustrations the Bishops are feeling)

 

[GKC]

If we lose +Cantuar, then Anglicanism loses its historical to the Early Church and Il Papa. Although Apostolic Succession would remain, who else but the Archbishop of Canterbury can claim their authority having been historicdally granted by the Pope (the first Archbishop of Canterbury was consecrated by Pope Gregory the Great and granted provincial authority).

As I have said, this is an exceedingly idiosyncratic concept. The link to the early Church is apostolic succession. That’s what apostolic succession is.

GKC

 

[nsper7]

As I have said, this is an exceedingly idiosyncratic concept. The link to the early Church is apostolic succession. That’s what apostolic succession is.

GKC

Perhaps, but what can I say? Is it wrong that I want that spiritual authority and historical connection of +Cantuar?

 

[GKC]

Perhaps, but what can I say? Is it wrong that I want that spiritual authority and historical connection of +Cantuar?

No. And if that’s all you want, it’s easy enough to get it. Just hold still.

GKC

 

[Dempsey1919]

If we lose +Cantuar, then Anglicanism loses its historical to the Early Church and Il Papa.

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.

who else but the Archbishop of Canterbury can claim their authority having been historicdally granted by the Pope

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.

 

[GKC]

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.

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.

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

GKC