A question for Anglo Catholics (not in communion with Rome)

[7_Sorrows]

And, up to just past the Henrician Acts, whatever the line is, it’s the same as the RCC’s.

GKC

What are the Henrician Acts GKC?

 

[GKC]

What are the Henrician Acts GKC?

The Acts of Parliament that took place in 1532-1534: the Conditional Restraints of Annates, the Act in Restraint of Appeals, the Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals, the Ecclesiastical Appointments Act, the Dispensation Act, the Supreme Head Act, and the Succession Act. It was Henry’s declaration of independence.

GKC

 

[masuwerte]

Now that the Church of England, in England, has determined to ordain female Bishops, does this place Anglo Catholics in future doubt of the validity of their Priests?

That is, for those holding to the Anglo Catholic conservative position which holds that their Bishops are validly ordained and hold succession (which of course Catholics disagree with), now that this has occurred, and it will become impossible at some point to determine if a male Priest was ordained by a male or female holding the office of Bishop in the Church of England, what is the impact?

While I wouldn’t call myself an Anglo Catholic conservative, I do believe that our bishops are validly ordained and hold succession. Since I wholeheartedly support the ordination of women, and have since I was old enough to have an informed opinion on the subject, this has no impact on me. I don’t doubt the validity of Episcopalian priests, male or female.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The Acts of Parliament that took place in 1532-1534: the Conditional Restraints of Annates, the Act in Restraint of Appeals, the Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals, the Ecclesiastical Appointments Act, the Dispensation Act, the Supreme Head Act, and the Succession Act. It was Henry’s declaration of independence.

GKC

Ok. Thanks. Lots of acts!

 

[GKC]

Ok. Thanks. Lots of acts!

It was an active time.

GKC

 

[commenter]

Further, Anglican theology is traditionally based in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The latter says that, if we can accept believers being gay, if we do not consider priests to be materially different from other believers, and, if we can accept priests being married, we have do not have self-evident reasons for refusing to allow gay, married priests.

Thus, some Anglicans (e.g., this one) have no problem with priests who are male, female, celibate, or married (whether to their own sex or the other). Other Anglicans find some of these combinations intolerable (but differ on which). Other Anglicans try to avoid the topic all together.

Christians can love - not accept - “believers being gay”. We also love believers who have inclinations towards other kinds of sinful actions. But we ask those who have inclinations to immoral acts to be abstinent. We can’t “judge” the alcoholic in relation to God. But we do judge drunks in relation to other drivers on the road, or the safety of young children in their care. If an alcoholic drinks and defends his right to get intoxicated as no barrier to his actions, I would “judge” him as probably imprudent for marriage or ordination; likewise with those with defend their right to oppose Christianity on sexual issues.

Language like “accept believers” is misleading. Christianity doesn’t call us to “accept” anybody. Even if a gay person is, overall, holier than me, my love for that gay person (or alcoholic, etc) brings me to do whatever I can to discourage anything that tempts them to unholiness. So I do “judge” that it’s imprudent to make the alcoholic a bartender, or have someone enter into a gay “marriage”.

By the way, Protestants universally affirmed or assumed the “Natural Law” until several decades ago. When they started to give it up, to justify birth control, they never anticipated at the time what other things would now be justified, or even taught with fanaticism.

 

[kathmandu]

With reference to “gay bishops”, do you think it is in accord with Scripture and tradition to have bishops who are SS married?

We live in different times. And how are we to know what sort of relationship anyone has with our Creator? Who are you, or I to judge? Same sex bishops are giving the gift of service back to their dioceses. They are capable of their jobs as bishops in the Episcopal Church. It is a job far bigger than I, or most of the rest of us could handle. I am grateful for their service. I respect them.

 

[kathmandu]

That’s a remarkable claim, considering the vast majority of Roman Catholic bishops can trace their lineage no further than Cardinal Rebiba, who died in 1577. Now, nobody of note disputes that all Roman Catholic bishops have valid apostolic succession tracing all the way back to one of the apostles (not just Peter, because any apostle could be the source of the link from Jesus’ ordination), but the problem is a loss of documentation thanks to Napoleon, et. al.

I would be interested to see the documentation that permits you to trace episcopal lineages “all the way back to Peter”. Please provide URL links or bibliographical citations.

I used to have the paperwork on the lineage of the bishop who received me into the Episcopal Church. My late husband used to call him by a number that reflected how many bishops had come before him in that lineage. Because this same argument seems to come up continually, many of us Episcopalians are sensitive to it.

At this time I do not have links, but I see someone else on this thread has posted some. Thank you. I have found them in the past and they have been bookmarked on a previous computer that is no longer functional. They are out there if you chose to take the time to go through the tedious process of reading them.

 

[commenter]

We live in different times. And how are we to know what sort of relationship anyone has with our Creator? Who are you, or I to judge? Same sex bishops are giving the gift of service back to their dioceses. They are capable of their jobs as bishops in the Episcopal Church. It is a job far bigger than I, or most of the rest of us could handle. I am grateful for their service. I respect them.

We can’t judge a person’s relationship with God. We can, and should, judge their actions and statements, how they impact on other people - but always remembering people can repent and change.

Blessed Matt Talbot, or Francis Thompson, had temptations towards certain kinds of sin. It may be those temptations were partly genetic, partly from their upbringing, or other reasons. They fought those temptations. They received support from Christians - to overcome those temptations. We can’t judge the holiness of the man who is trying to quit smoking, and we also can’t judge the person who says smoking is fine, and encourages others to try it. But if I were hiring a health teacher, it’s obvious which one I would not hire.

I don’t know what you mean by a same sex bishop. If you mean someone who has a temptation, and is trying to overcome it as part of ongoing conversion, that’s one thing. If you mean someone who says Christianity can be selectively ignored, no need for conversion, then there is no “gift of service” here. Think of the rich young man in the gospel.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

You can see one here:
theistic-evolution.com/succession.html

That list is a conflation of both episcopal successions and consecrations. kathmandu originally claimed to be able to trace the episcopal ordinations (i.e. consecrations) back to Peter, and it was this claim that Elizium asked for supporting documents.

 

[GKC]

That list is a conflation of both episcopal successions and

consecrations. kathmandu originally claimed to be able to trace the episcopal ordinations (i.e. consecrations) back to Peter, and it was this claim that Elizium asked for supporting documents.

As noted, through roughly 1536, at least, whatever documentation would be available for the RCC would be the same available of the CoE. Thenceforward, it would be divergent, but certainly documented, as well as anything from 550 years ago might be.

GKC

 

[Duane1966]

As noted, through roughly 1536, at least, whatever documentation would be available for the RCC would be the same available of the CoE. Thenceforward, it would be divergent, but certainly documented, as well as anything from 550 years ago might be.

GKC

A question for you GKC, on something I have wondered about. Since Cranmer was secretly married before becoming a bishop, that would invalidate his appointment as bishop correct? And invalidate anyone he ordained?

 

[GKC]

A question for you GKC, on something I have wondered about. Since Cranmer was secretly married before becoming a bishop, that would invalidate his appointment as bishop correct? And invalidate anyone he ordained?

Married twice, though the first wife died before he took orders.

It would so seem to me. But the fact plays no part in the judgement on Anglican orders, or related controversies, from the days of Queen Mary, and Cardinal Pole, through Apostalicae curae..

GKC

 

[twf]

Married twice, though the first wife died before he took orders.

It would so seem to me. But the fact plays no part in the judgement on Anglican orders, or related controversies, from the days of Queen Mary, and Cardinal Pole, through Apostalicae curae..

GKC

I imagine it would have rendered his orders illicit, but not invalid.

 

[GKC]

I imagine it would have rendered his orders illicit, but not invalid.

I could imagine that, but have never seen anything on the subject, nor any discussion of its effect on his orders, though the marriage was known during Edward VI’s day.

GKC

 

[Mystophilus]

Christians can love - not accept - “believers being gay”.

Since people who self-identify as Christians (whole churches of them, in fact) do accept believers being gay, you appear to be claiming that such self-identifying Christians are not Christians, which is quite a claim.

By the way, Protestants universally affirmed or assumed the “Natural Law” until several decades ago. When they started to give it up, to justify birth control, they never anticipated at the time what other things would now be justified, or even taught with fanaticism.

First, Natural Law is interpreted in many and various ways, and is not a single viewpoint. Second, an interpretation of Natural Law was actually the basis of the acceptance of birth control. Third, you seem to be suggesting that the acceptance of homosexuality is a result of the acceptance of birth control, which is a huge leap.

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
“Christians can love - not accept - “believers being gay”.”

When I posted that, I was responding to an earlier post about “accepting” people. I meant we should go beyond that and love them, which doesn’t mean that we don’t also accept people who have various sexual inclinations. But I, and other posters, are going off the topic of the thread, which is very interesting in itself. Let’s stick to that.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

As noted, through roughly 1536, at least, whatever documentation would be available for the RCC would be the same available of the CoE. Thenceforward, it would be divergent, but certainly documented, as well as anything from 550 years ago might be.

GKC

That doesn’t change the fact the list provided fails to show that Episcopalians can trace their episcopal lines of consecration back to Peter. As far as I know none of the Christian denominations are able to do this.

 

[GKC]

That doesn’t change the fact the list provided fails to show that Episcopalians can trace their episcopal lines of consecration back to Peter. As far as I know none of the Christian denominations are able to do this.

Not my point. My point is similar to yours. If the RCC says the episcopal consecration lineage can only be traced to around 1577, then, perforce, that would be precisely (until roughly 40 years earlier) the case for the Anglicans.

But it would be the same lineage, whatever it might be. Which was my point.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Now that the Church of England, in England, has determined to ordain female Bishops, does this place Anglo Catholics in future doubt of the validity of their Priests?

That is, for those holding to the Anglo Catholic conservative position which holds that their Bishops are validly ordained and hold succession (which of course Catholics disagree with), now that this has occurred, and it will become impossible at some point to determine if a male Priest was ordained by a male or female holding the office of Bishop in the Church of England, what is the impact?

You’re assuming that Anglo-Catholics reject women’s ordination. Many of course do, and those who do insist that all real Anglo-Catholics share their position. But there are certainly Anglicans who hold to the doctrine of apostolic succession and have no problem with women’s ordination.

Edwin