I’m convinced that Ratzinger is the greatest living theologian. In much the same way that even Popes recognised Karl Barth as a theological genius during his lifetime, non RCs can and should sit up and listen whenever Ratzinger speaks. Even those who seem a long way from Ratzinger’s Catholic orthodoxy find value in his words - I know a group of radical feminist Christians who share quotes from his eucharistic works between themselves!Yes. An online friend of mine (a convert to Catholicism, though definitely not what folks on this forum would consider an orthodox Catholic) has been reading the work of a feminist theologian called Tina Beattie, who (according to my friend) approaches feminism in a way that transcends liberal/conservative categories. The same could be said in certain ways for the gay theologian James Alison (who actually loves the theology of Joseph Ratzinger and has even, impertinently, argued that some of Ratzinger’s theological positions point toward the legitimation of gay unions).
Well, unless you count Methodists, Baptists, Quakers or Congregationalists as mainline.
Good points. I was writing too fast.But it did exist in my Holiness tradition for much longer (at least a century–of course, in low-church Protestantism ordination is defined rather differently).
Still, of course, very recent in terms of all of Church history
Except those who can, of course. Like most Scandinavian bishops.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.
You skipped over one crucial premise here: You imply that accepting that believers can be gay entails accepting that they may marry (people of the same sex, presumably). That is the premise upon which your entire argument rests, and you just assume it as a premise. That is a classic example of begging the question.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.
I think his point is tracing episcopal consecrators, as opposed to episcopal lines. And that for all of us who are claiming legitimate episcopal lineage, in apostolic succession, the actual hands on heads fade into the mists, at some point in time.Except those who can, of course. Like most Scandinavian bishops.
Which was partly my point, too. Even if the post-Reformational Scandinavian consecrations were invalid, all Lutheran bishops in, say, the Church of Norway has since the 90s been incorporated into the English line of consecrations.I think his point is tracing episcopal consecrators, as opposed to episcopal lines. And that for all of us who are claiming legitimate episcopal lineage, in apostolic succession, the actual hands on heads fade into the mists, at some point in time.
GKC
Yep. Similarly, in the original discussion, I was emphasizing that whatever was the story, with respect to what was known about apostolic succession, prior to about 1536+ that succession was the same for the RCC and the Anglicans. If, indeed, that statement that the RCC can only trace the consecrations lineage back to 1577, and it becomes misty thereafter, is accurate, perforce, the same is true of the Anglican line. But the Anglican line of consecrators would be discernible from Henry’s day forward. Which makes your lines equally visible as ours, post Hank.Which was partly my point, too. Even if the post-Reformational Scandinavian consecrations were invalid, all Lutheran bishops in, say, the Church of Norway has since the 90s been incorporated into the English line of consecrations.
Cool.Except those who can, of course. Like most Scandinavian bishops.
I took that statement, as it was used in the other thread, to be a loose expression of *ab initio/I.Only 1/12th or so of any bishops could trace their lineage “back to Peter”. Anyone who says they can trace “back to Peter” displays remarkable ignorance of WHAT apostolic succession really is.