Anglican Use, the sacraments, and validity

  • Thread starter Thread starter TarkanAttila
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Picky_Picky said:
Right – corrected as expected – I hadn’t realised it dated in N America from as early as 1946. Yep, it will have done a fair bit of propagating in 70 years.

++Justin sent a pleasant note to the last Gafcon get-together, I recall. He evidently thinks getting in a huff about things is not the most productive way forward. And a nice gesture from the RC bishop. I remember being impressed with seeing the bishop of the Lutherans in Britain and the (now Cardinal) Archbishop of Westminster reading from the Scriptures at ++Justin’s installation. Church leaders seem on the whole less likely than their followers to adopt the standoff-ish attitudes we so frequently see. (What, here?)
Click to expand...
I’m fairly certain I could make a correct guess, or ask the Google. But who represented the Lutheran synod(s)/church(es) there?
 
Picky_Picky said:
Right – corrected as expected – I hadn’t realised it dated in N America from as early as 1946. Yep, it will have done a fair bit of propagating in 70 years.

++Justin sent a pleasant note to the last Gafcon get-together, I recall. He evidently thinks getting in a huff about things is not the most productive way forward. And a nice gesture from the RC bishop. I remember being impressed with seeing the bishop of the Lutherans in Britain and the (now Cardinal) Archbishop of Westminster reading from the Scriptures at ++Justin’s installation. Church leaders seem on the whole less likely than their followers to adopt the standoff-ish attitudes we so frequently see. (What, here?)
Click to expand...
It’s not a “standoff-ish attitude” to maintain the necessity of valid Apostolic Succession.
 
steido01 said:
I’m fairly certain I could make a correct guess, or ask the Google. But who represented the Lutheran synod(s)/church(es) there?
Click to expand...
Oh dear, I would have to rely on Brother Google myself. A woman, Nordic name if I remember aright. Lutheran Church of Great Britain, does that sound right?
 
GKC said:
Nor would I.

OTOH, ++Justin does have a somewhat standoffish approach to the ACNA.

GKC
Click to expand...
Well … anyone says “Justin Welby” and I chirrup “reconciliation”. That’s what he’s about. On ACNA any ++Cantuar is between a rock and hard place, but Justin has been much more emollient than many would want. He’s even appointed an ACNA priest a preacher at Canterbury Cathedral. I expect a lightning strike any day.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Well … anyone says “Justin Welby” and I chirrup “reconciliation”. That’s what he’s about. On ACNA any ++Cantuar is between a rock and hard place, but Justin has been much more emollient than many would want. He’s even appointed an ACNA priest a preacher at Canterbury Cathedral. I expect a lightning strike any day.
Click to expand...
Yes, that fact on the visiting priest has been bruited about in the Anglo-sphere. And also discussion of what the polity of the Communion says about how membership in the Communion is conveyed or granted.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Yes, that fact on the visiting priest has been bruited about in the Anglo-sphere. And also discussion of what the polity of the Communion says about how membership in the Communion is conveyed or granted.

GKC
Click to expand...
My understanding of the CofE understanding, if you see what I mean, about how membership of the Communion is granted remains this, now ageing, General Synod paper:

churchofengland.org/media/1389262/gs%20misc%201011%20-%20acna.pdf
 
I’m pleased that folks are finally gaining an understanding of the re-institution (had they been lost) of Anglican Orders. I remember several years ago, there was little understanding of what has happened between AC and today.

While all seem to agree a Catholic should officially uphold the churches teaching; reason, tradition and more recent history are beginning to be understood.

Pax
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I’m pleased that folks are finally gaining an understanding of the re-institution (had they been lost) of Anglican Orders. I remember several years ago, there was little understanding of what has happened between AC and today.

While all seem to agree a Catholic should officially uphold the churches teaching; reason, tradition and more recent history are beginning to be understood.

Pax
Click to expand...
But, (and I’ve discussed this in many, many posts over the years), it must also be recalled that, for the RCC, no definitive statement has been made, beyond that made in Apostolicae curae, no matter what might or might not have happened in the interval. It is for that reason that I’m amongst the ones who remind folk that RCs should affirm what Apostolicae curae declares, at whatever level of theological certainty is appropriate. What might be the theoretical impact of anything occurring since is beside the point, as far as definitive RCC teaching is concerned.

GKC
 
FrDavid96 said:
Coming from a Catholic priest: call him what he wants to be called. Over the years, I’ve experienced different Episcopalian clergy preferring different forms of address.

The same can be said even for Catholic priests. Father John Smith might be “Father Smith” or “Father John” or just “Father” or even Monsignor John Smith who preferred to be called “Father Smith.”

The local Episcopalian prefers to be called simply by his first name, unless it’s a formal setting. That’s his preference. Others I’ve known prefer different titles. Use whatever he prefers.

From my perspective, I don’t mind if someone get it wrong. I don’t mind if someone accidentally says “reverend” or “pastor” or even “preacher.” What I do mind is that when I say “hi, I’m Father …” and the response is “I’ll just call you…” That’s when it grates on my nerves.

Imagine someone named James who hates the name Jimmy. If someone says “I’ll just call you Jimmy anyway” that’s disrespectful.

Call him what he prefers. You’re not making any kind of theological statements by doing that. If he prefers to be addressed as “Father” then go ahead and call him that. If you intentionally omit it, he will notice.

Don’t call him “Mister” unless that’s a preference that you know he’s expressed. Yes, some want this (and surely it’s more British than American). But those who do not will (most likely) take it as an insult that you are making it a point of telling him that you do not regard him as any kind of clergy at all.
Click to expand...
As an aside, the term “Father” isn’t universally (historically) applied to all Catholic priests either. In the Western Tradition, Father was only used for ordained priests with a parish, monks and others were called Rev. or Brother or Friar… In the Eastern Tradition, the title Father was used for bishops, all priests, all monks (whether ordained priests or not), and even Deacons (Father Deacon).
 
SyroMalankara said:
As an aside, the term “Father” isn’t universally (historically) applied to all Catholic priests either. In the Western Tradition, Father was only used for ordained priests with a parish, monks and others were called Rev. or Brother or Friar… In the Eastern Tradition, the title Father was used for bishops, all priests, all monks (whether ordained priests or not), and even Deacons (Father Deacon).
Click to expand...
Yes.👍 You’re right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top