Anglo-Catholics, Holy Orders, AC, and relevence

[Daedelus76]

I have been visiting a local Continuing Anglican parish that is in dialogue with Rome. Recently though, a priest at this church was criticized by other Anglicans because he was perceived as suggesting his Holy Orders were invalid. This made some conservative Anglicans concerned and upset because this priest acts like a priest in front of his congregation. Frankly, if it’s true, this behavior seems duplicitous/disingenious and endangering the spiritual health of his congregation. If he really believes his holy orders are in question (and Rome can “fix” that), he should simply renounce his Anglican priestly vocation and mmediately convert to Roman Catholicism as a layman.

I also am blaming Roman Catholics some on this. This seems too much like disingenious sheep stealing and phoney promises to win a few traditionalist allies in their ranks, cannon fodder for wider problems that Rome refuses to deal with on their own. Some other Continuing Anglicans are warning this particular denominations leaders and laity (TAC), that there are plenty of “gotchas” in the Pope’s AC offer. Most would prefer to see cautious dialogue from the ACA/TAC, real reunion rather than capitulation/absorbtion. And it’s likely that a good percentage of laity in the ACA/TAC will not join the clergy in “swimming the Tiber”, as well, at least at the moment.

This behavior is troubling and it disgusts me, and it’s questioned if I’d want to join this church at all. Honestly I am fed up with the Continuing Anglican movement, having visited several of the churches. Outreach seems to be poor, too much of a fortress mentality and it’s mostly made of ederly and older middle aged people ,and as somebody who is still relatively young (and single), I feel very much out of place. I don’t care to be in a liturgical relic (and I don’t read the King James Bible either), I want to be a living community that believes in taking the Gospel seriously and living it out beyond the walls of the church, without embracing the bitter attitude I sometimes see in “conservatives” (which often seems to be overly political and hostile to people who disagree). I love the idea of embracing a more catholic faith as a “mere Christian” (I honestly admit complete ignorance as to wheather the Bishop of Rome has supernatural powers to speak without error, and I have no love for Scholastic and systematic theology, Reformed or Catholic), but I have no particular attachment for Tudor English and it seems this movement fetishizes this stuff to the point that they miss the “big picture”. There’s something missing in the movement that I still see in the Episcopalian Church and the Church of England, despite their problematic embrace of modernism. So I am considering finding a conservative Episcopalian/TEC parish to attend, if possible.

 

[GKC]

I have been visiting a local Continuing Anglican parish that is in dialogue with Rome. Recently though, a priest at this church was criticized by other Anglicans because he was perceived as suggesting his Holy Orders were invalid. This made some conservative Anglicans concerned and upset because this priest acts like a priest in front of his congregation. Frankly, if it’s true, this behavior seems duplicitous/disingenious and endangering the spiritual health of his congregation. If he really believes his holy orders are in question (and Rome can “fix” that), he should simply renounce his Anglican priestly vocation and mmediately convert to Roman Catholicism as a layman.

I also am blaming Roman Catholics some on this. This seems too much like disingenious sheep stealing and phoney promises to win a few traditionalist allies in their ranks, cannon fodder for wider problems that Rome refuses to deal with on their own. Some other Continuing Anglicans are warning this particular denominations leaders and laity (TAC), that there are plenty of “gotchas” in the Pope’s AC offer. Most would prefer to see cautious dialogue from the ACA/TAC, real reunion rather than capitulation/absorbtion. And it’s likely that a good percentage of laity in the ACA/TAC will not join the clergy in “swimming the Tiber”, as well, at least at the moment.

This behavior is troubling and it disgusts me, and it’s questioned if I’d want to join this church at all. Honestly I am fed up with the Continuing Anglican movement, having visited several of the churches. Outreach seems to be poor, too much of a fortress mentality and it’s mostly made of ederly and older middle aged people ,and as somebody who is still relatively young (and single), I feel very much out of place. I don’t care to be in a liturgical relic (and I don’t read the King James Bible either), I want to be a living community that believes in taking the Gospel seriously and living it out beyond the walls of the church, without embracing the bitter attitude I sometimes see in “conservatives” (which often seems to be overly political and hostile to people who disagree). I love the idea of embracing a more catholic faith as a “mere Christian” (I honestly admit complete ignorance as to wheather the Bishop of Rome has supernatural powers to speak without error, and I have no love for Scholastic and systematic theology, Reformed or Catholic), but I have no particular attachment for Tudor English and it seems this movement fetishizes this stuff to the point that they miss the “big picture”. There’s something missing in the movement that I still see in the Episcopalian Church and the Church of England, despite their problematic embrace of modernism. So I am considering finding a conservative Episcopalian/TEC parish to attend, if possible.

It would appear to me that you are a poor fit for traditional Anglicanism, certainly not as it is found in the Continuing Anglican movement, generally. If the issues related to female ordination, validity of sacraments, apostolic succession, or other minutia involved in the existence of the Continuum, are not central to your understanding of the Church, then the TEC might well suit you. Or perhaps the ACNA.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Javl]

Daedlus76:

I agree with GKC. I think that you should do a deep and serious study of the history and validity of the sacraments of the English Church and compare it to a serious study of the Catholic Church before reaching any conclusions. This should answer your questions.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[GKC]

I’ll buy that.

GKC

Daedlus76:

I agree with GKC. I think that you should do a deep and serious study of the history and validity of the sacraments of the English Church and compare it to a serious study of the Catholic Church before reaching any conclusions. This should answer your questions.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Jesus_123]

+Considering that it was the gravely disordered, disobedient and MORTALLY SINFUL King Henry VIII that stole/kidnapped the English Roman Catholic Church . . . (which over the ages has contained millions upon millions of souls) . . . away from the Holy Father in Rome . . . the Vicar of Christ . . . the Pope . . . and their Holy Mother Church . . . the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . .** it is with great and prayerful . . . HOLY JOY! . . . that many of us are watching our . . . **Wonderful Lord **. . . opening wide the doors for His dear Anglican Catholic children to return to Him in complete communion within the dear heart of the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church from whence they were so horribly rent apart and separated . . . through the grave disordered murderous soul of King Henry VIII . . . The very foundation of the Episcopalian Church, Anglican Catholic Church, Church of England, whatever ecclesial communities which sprang from the original evil action of King Henry VIII . . . is founded not upon the Rock as spoken of by . . . Jesus . . . **the Blessed Christ **. . . but on the shifting unstable sands of sinful mankind’s mortally sinful abuse of power . . . pride-full disobedience to . . . and departure from . . . the Holy Bloodstained Cross of . . . Christ Jesus . . . our . . . Crucified Resurrected Ascended Lord . . . and a . . . horrifically . . . evil . . . intent . . . of man . . . spawned by the enemy of souls in the deepest pit of hell . . . against **God’s **innocent beloved fully Catholic children . . .

For any of you interested . . . Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) broadcast a *Journey Home *show this week dealing with Anglican Catholic priests and whole Anglican Catholic communities of the faithful returning to their original sheepfold of the Holy Mother Catholic Church . . . and several Anglican Priests who have been received and become Catholics and are now ordained Roman Catholic priests were the guests and contributors who interacted with Marcus Grodi the moderator of the show . . . who himself . . . an ordained protestant minister of the Word . . . came into Holy Roman Catholic Church from another Christian denomination/ecclesial community . . . which communities contain what Pope John XXIII . . . . who was the . . . Vicar of Christ . . . the Holy Bishop of Rome . . . from 1958-1963 . . . called the "separated brethren" . . .

The returning of thousands upon thousands **God’s **"separated brethren" to the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church is one of the phenomenon’s of our age . . . and a . . . glorious . . . Work of God’s Holy Spirit . . . it is. . . *and returning they are . . . by the droves . . . *

+ To God Be The Glory +
:harp:
Be very prayerfully careful young Daedelus76 . . . perhaps . . . you should consider possibly revisiting in prayerful consideration your expressed dissent and the basis for your expressed discouragement . . . and thoughtfully consider studying the materials recommended by other posters here . . . and prayerfully consider in the light of those studies . . . whether or not it may not be against just the Anglican Catholics returning home to their Holy Mother Church . . . or the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . . but be with our . . . **Wonderful God ** . . . who is accomplishing a miraculous holy redemptive Work of God amongst us in this our day and age . . . that you are expressing your displeasure . . .

:bible1:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15

*Perhaps *. . . ? . . . you have been rather quick to judge . . . and have entered into unfounded rash judgment . . . based on outward signs . . . and have not gotten to the heart of the matter . . .

:bible1:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Matthew 7:3

Peace . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Gracious Heavenly Father+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[GKC]

Creatively presented.

How about it, Daedelus76? Are you intrigued by this?

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Daedelus76]

Creatively presented.

How about it, Daedelus76? Are you intrigued by this?

No, it still doesn’t make sense.

I’m disgusted enough at that priest it’s made me pause and think very hard about this church, and about Roman Catholicism, to be honest. I think this kind of behavior, casting into doubt your own holy orders while pretending to be a priest in front of people, is shameful. If Anglicanism is so rotten that your orders are “invalid”, it is time to just resign in conscience and become Roman Catholic and forget Anglicanism.

 

[MarkBrown]

(I cut some of the op to make my response fit one entry.)
Daedelus,

It appears from the wording of this post you are, to use an old military term, going off half cocked. In your first paragraph “he was percieved as suggesting” and “if this is true”. Appear you took rumor, gossip etc as face value. From your rant against this priest, the TAC, the Continuum and the RCC, it appears you latched on to something to support your feelings and have ran with it.

Lacking is any reference to any dialogue with the accused priest. You accuse him, as do others in the continnum without speaking with him. So by your post you have acted as judge, jury and hangman.

I would suggest you first talk with the priest before condemning him. You do not know the full context and contents of the talks between Rome and TAC. Only the Holy Father, CDF and the Bishops of the TAC know what is being said. Everyone else is making assumptions. The TAC is now in the process of holding regional Synods and will have an answer to the Holy Father and CDF by Easter. After Easter all assumptions can cease as Rome will have spoken.

Rome is not sheep stealing. Many Anglicans, TAC and FIFUK among them, have been knocking on the door of the Vatican for almost 17 years. Anglicans since the reformation have been going to Rome and since the silliness of the 70’s, many more Bishops, priest, deacons and laity are asking Rome to let them in. I do understand the fear in the continuum about this, and other Anglican Churches. As Anglicanism continues to splinter, fragment and some portions continue running away from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, more will leave. It is not Rome’s fault, but the Anglicans. Read the ArchBishop’s of Egypts latest letter on why he is pulling out of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. He sadly states there is no room for Orthodox Anglicans within the Communion anymore. Anglicans and Satan are tearing apart the Anglican Church, not Rome.

Since you appear to be reading Fr. Robert Harts Continuum blog, as most of your arguments against the TAC leadership sound very much like the musing of Fr. Hart and company, I would suggest you read the TAC’s blog. www.theanglocatholic.com., VOL, Standfirm and T19 would help you to reach a balanced conclusion. Will it be absorption? Or will it be an Anglican Use/rite within the Catholic Church using Anglican liturgy, prayers, seminary houses, religious etc. The current Anglican Use Catholic parishes are already preparing to enter the ordinariate, their ArchBishop and Bishops are ready to release them to the Anglican use Ordinary to help establish what everyone seems to be saying will not be happening.

As for your last paragraph, I would suggest Anglican Mission in America. They are not tied to any set liturgy, may or not delve into systematic theology…as to catholic in my opinion they don’t have that, oh some will tell you they are catholic, but the theology is protestant. They have Bishops, but as one told me,“we are really just coaches and encouragers.” They are planting churches, use current translations of the Bible, not too concerned with theology, sacraments, change the liturgy every few months to keep it alive for the congregation and do alot of social outreach (at least in this area). The TEC is shrinking. ACNA is TEC lite. Trying to find a conservative TEC parish depends on what your idea of conservative.

As you leave the continuing movement, at least have the Christian charity to speak with the priest whose character you have smeared publicly, you owe it to him to find out his position.

Peace,

Fr.Mark
ACNA

 

[mercygate]

It would appear to me that you are a poor fit for traditional Anglicanism, certainly not as it is found in the Continuing Anglican movement, generally. If the issues related to female ordination, validity of sacraments, apostolic succession, or other minutia involved in the existence of the Continuum, are not central to your understanding of the Church, then the TEC might well suit you. Or perhaps the ACNA.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

I’ve been away from the forums for a while, and blam! My first moment back, there you are, GKC, with your sterling acumen and sense of humor, giving me the big laugh of my day. I forgot how much fun this can be.

 

[MarkBrown]

No, it still doesn’t make sense.

I’m disgusted enough at that priest it’s made me pause and think very hard about this church, and about Roman Catholicism, to be honest. I think this kind of behavior, casting into doubt your own holy orders while pretending to be a priest in front of people, is shameful. If Anglicanism is so rotten that your orders are “invalid”, it is time to just resign in conscience and become Roman Catholic and forget Anglicanism.

Sad to see such a judgmental heart. You condemn without talking with the man you condemn. I could outline the various sins you are committing and have committed, but you are not in a place to hear or to act Christlike. You just want to condemn. I pray God does not hold you to the level of your judgment against His priest. I pray you do not experience such unchristian behavior you are showing toward this priest. I will pray for you.

*note to self, from now on read the entire thread before answering.
Peace,

Fr.Mark
ACNA

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe I’ve lost my sense of humor but I’m seriously trying to find what was funny in GKC’s post? It seems like very serious advice, not humor?

I’ve been away from the forums for a while, and blam! My first moment back, there you are, GKC, with your sterling acumen and sense of humor, giving me the big laugh of my day. I forgot how much fun this can be.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

to me, an Episcopalian, could any Catholic answer:

Has my entire sacramental life (after baptism) been play acting? Have the sacraments I have received (Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance and Matrimony) been invalid and not conveying grace. When I percieve the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, has he not truly been there? When the bishop prayed “receive the Holy Spirit” did the Holy Spirit not deign to be received? When the priest say “…pardon and deliver you from all your sins…”, have my sins just continued to stick, and any feeling of forgiveness, was I just deluded?

Would I, an Anglican ever say to a Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc (whose orders we do not accept) that any of this is so? Never.

(I exclude from this the occasions when the Eucharist and Absolution have been celebrated by a former Catholic priest.)

 

[Daedelus76]

Sad to see such a judgmental heart. You condemn without talking with the man you condemn. I could outline the various sins you are committing and have committed, but you are not in a place to hear or to act Christlike. You just want to condemn. I pray God does not hold you to the level of your judgment against His priest. I pray you do not experience such unchristian behavior you are showing toward this priest. I will pray for you.

*note to self, from now on read the entire thread before answering.
Peace,

Fr.Mark
ACNA

I’ll take what you’ve written into consideration. I find the hint of an Anglican priest suggesting that he is not a priest to be profoundly disturbing. I will look into that blog you suggested. Keep in mind I have other reservations about Roman Catholicism. I have a hard time accepting Papal Infallibility as being true or meaningful- I see issues of infallibility as being spiritually immature anyways, and it’s hardly lead to obedience in Rome.

to me, an Episcopalian, could any Catholic answer:

Has my entire sacramental life (after baptism) been play acting?

If taken literally, Roman Catholic language says you are play acting.

I will probably stick with the Episcopalians or a more broad Continuing Church. Or possible consider Orthodoxy. But the more I read about things related to Pope Leo’s claim of “nullity” on Anglican orders and the latest AC document, I’m convinced the tone of Roman Catholicism just isn’t for me. It’s too triumphalist and really turns the Gospel, which should be the “end of religion”, into an institutional beaurocracy. I really do doubt the Magisterium or Pope is infallible in these matters.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I’ll take what you’ve written into consideration. I find the hint of an Anglican priest suggesting that he is not a priest to be profoundly disturbing. I will look into that blog you suggested. Keep in mind I have other reservations about Roman Catholicism. I have a hard time accepting Papal Infallibility as being true or meaningful- I see issues of infallibility as being spiritually immature anyways, and it’s hardly lead to obedience in Rome.

If taken literally, Roman Catholic language says you are play acting.

I will probably stick with the Episcopalians or a more broad Continuing Church. Or possible consider Orthodoxy. But the more I read about things related to Pope Leo’s claim of “nullity” on Anglican orders and the latest AC document, I’m convinced the tone of Roman Catholicism just isn’t for me. It’s too triumphalist and really turns the Gospel, which should be the “end of religion”, into an institutional beaurocracy. I really do doubt the Magisterium or Pope is infallible in these matters.

I’m staying put as far as I can see. For me, the magisterium is both an attraction and an impediment. It’s nice to have a coherent teaching, but not nice to have to surrender your mind to it.

Papal infallibility is a real problem, because it does not make sense over the whole of history. I suppose you could posit a very limited doctrine, where as history moves the church in various directions, the Pope gives some guidance that may be called “infallible”, but the RCC is very cagey about which decision it considers infallible. There is no infallible master list of infallible decisions, and individual Catholics seem free to ascribe infallibility to whatever documents they want.

Having said all that, I do long for Christian unity.

 

[GKC]

Heck, I’ll take any plaudits I might get, without looking too closely. It’s wet, and cold here, I’m up to my elbows in stuff (materia), and who knows where it will all end.

GKC

Maybe I’ve lost my sense of humor but I’m seriously trying to find what was funny in GKC’s post? It seems like very serious advice, not humor?

 

[GKC]

I’ll take what you’ve written into consideration. I find the hint of an Anglican priest suggesting that he is not a priest to be profoundly disturbing. I will look into that blog you suggested. Keep in mind I have other reservations about Roman Catholicism. I have a hard time accepting Papal Infallibility as being true or meaningful- I see issues of infallibility as being spiritually immature anyways, and it’s hardly lead to obedience in Rome.

If taken literally, Roman Catholic language says you are play acting.

I will probably stick with the Episcopalians or a more broad Continuing Church. Or possible consider Orthodoxy. But the more I read about things related to Pope Leo’s claim of “nullity” on Anglican orders and the latest AC document, I’m convinced the tone of Roman Catholicism just isn’t for me. It’s too triumphalist and really turns the Gospel, which should be the “end of religion”, into an institutional beaurocracy. I really do doubt the Magisterium or Pope is infallible in these matters.

If you can find them, read Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the RC side of Apostolicae Curae, and Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD for the opposing side (IMO, Hughes comes out ahead). Both were written by RC priests.

GKC

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

If you can find them, read Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the RC side of Apostolicae Curae, and Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD for the opposing side (IMO, Hughes comes out ahead). Both were written by RC priests.

GKC

Thanks for the titles. I found Hughes at a library in Berkeley.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the titles. I found Hughes at a library in Berkeley.

You are very welcome. And lucky, to find STEWARDS, which is rarer than NULL AND VOID. STEWARDS is concentrated on the theology of the issue, and takes a good aim at Clark’s book. NULL AND VOID is more history, who/what/when/why. And draws on unpublished material.

I hope you enjoy them. And Hughes has the distinction of being the first (and only, until Graham Leonard) Anglican priest/bishop to become a RC priest sub conditione in modern time.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

to me, an Episcopalian, could any Catholic answer:

Has my entire sacramental life (after baptism) been play acting?

No! Nor does the Church teach that invalid sacraments are necessarily devoid of Grace!

Have the sacraments I have received (Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance and Matrimony) been invalid and not conveying grace.

Invalid? That depends on the validity of the minister of the sacrament. It’s possible that many or most Anglican Priests now have valid orders, but the Church has not revisited that question for some reason or other. Not conveying Grace? No! Nowhere does the Catholic Church claim that God’s Grace is limited to only valid sacraments. The grace I received through reception of the Eucharist and Confirmation as an Episcopalian were unbelievably helpful and sustaining, even though now, I confess they were invalid as sacraments.

When I percieve the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, has he not truly been there?

Real Presence vs Transubstantiation notwithstanding (try saying that 10 times fast!), He is always there. Perhaps he was present in that invalid Eucharist, but as Catholics we cannot say he was with certainty. I could not kneel before that sacrament and proclaim “My Lord and my God!” with absolute certainty that He was physically before me.

When the bishop prayed “receive the Holy Spirit” did the Holy Spirit not deign to be received?

We cannot say he was not, but not in the same, particular, sacramental way that occurs within a valid sacrament of Confirmation.

When the priest say “…pardon and deliver you from all your sins…”, have my sins just continued to stick, and any feeling of forgiveness, was I just deluded?

I would never say deluded. nor should ANY Catholic. Nor would I presume to say you have not been forgiven since I cannot know the contrition of your heart. However, just as with the others, we cannot know with certainty unless any mortal sins have been confessed and absolved by a valid minister.

Would I, an Anglican ever say to a Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc (whose orders we do not accept) that any of this is so? Never.

Really? I never considered any of their orders valid when I was an Episcopalian (and I wasn’t a very high church type, either). I saw intercommunion with the Methodists as a grave error since they have a very different idea of what the Priesthood is, and what the Eucharist means. I felt the Lutherans were probably the only other mainline denomination we could explore intercommunion with.
The rest had far too low a view of ecclesiology and sacramental theology. But, again, I would never presume to state that when the Methodists had their monthly Lords’ Suppers, that their actions were without God’s Grace, even if I knew they were not the same as our Anglican Holy Eucharist.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

No! Nor does the Church teach that invalid sacraments are necessarily devoid of Grace!

Invalid? That depends on the validity of the minister of the sacrament. It’s possible that many or most Anglican Priests now have valid orders, but the Church has not revisited that question for some reason or other. Not conveying Grace? No! Nowhere does the Catholic Church claim that God’s Grace is limited to only valid sacraments. The grace I received through reception of the Eucharist and Confirmation as an Episcopalian were unbelievably helpful and sustaining, even though now, I confess they were invalid as sacraments.

Real Presence vs Transubstantiation notwithstanding (try saying that 10 times fast!), He is always there. Perhaps he was present in that invalid Eucharist, but as Catholics we cannot say he was with certainty. I could not kneel before that sacrament and proclaim “My Lord and my God!” with absolute certainty that He was physically before me.

We cannot say he was not, but not in the same, particular, sacramental way that occurs within a valid sacrament of Confirmation.

I would never say deluded. nor should ANY Catholic. Nor would I presume to say you have not been forgiven since I cannot know the contrition of your heart. However, just as with the others, we cannot know with certainty unless any mortal sins have been confessed and absolved by a valid minister.

Really? I never considered any of their orders valid when I was an Episcopalian (and I wasn’t a very high church type, either). I saw intercommunion with the Methodists as a grave error since they have a very different idea of what the Priesthood is, and what the Eucharist means. I felt the Lutherans were probably the only other mainline denomination we could explore intercommunion with.
The rest had far too low a view of ecclesiology and sacramental theology. But, again, I would never presume to state that when the Methodists had their monthly Lords’ Suppers, that their actions were without God’s Grace, even if I knew they were not the same as our Anglican Holy Eucharist.

You are right to point out that the issue of Anglican Orders is complicated by the presence of Old Catholic and Orthodox bishops in many Anglican apostolic lineages. Also, of course many Catholic priests have become Episcopal priests and I know of 2 Episcopal bishops who were once Episcopal priests. No bishops from the RCC have entered the Anglican communion as far as I know, but there is that jovial Archbishop Milinda who has conferred orders on several bishops since being excommunicated. I don’t know if any Anglicans were among his consecrands.

As far as the Methodist monthly Lord’s Supper, you exaggerate. I grew up in the Methodist church and it was done perhaps quarterly or maybe every 6 or so weeks. The Episcopal Church I attended first when I swam the Thames (looking for river metaphors) had Holy Communion every first Sunday and any Holy Day that fell on a Sunday, but 8:00 Holy Communion every Sunday (this seems more or less universal throughout the Anglican World, except in Paris where the American Cathedral has 9:00 and 11:00, I suppose to accomodate for the indolence of the French capital).

My very traditional parish now has 8:00 Holy Communion using 1928 and 10:00 Rite 1, using 1979, but 1928 Morning Prayer every third Sunday.

Let me get something off my chest right here. When the Pastoral Provision started, they used the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as the model for the Book of Divine Worship. Both books are a big as a Sears catalog but more confusing. Of course the 1979 prayer book was modeled on various “reforms” of Vatican II. I think the Nicene Creed in Rite II is identical to the “We believe” format in Novus Ordo. I remember coming into the ECUSA in 1968 and there being a trial liturgy. That ended and we went back to 1928. Even Rite 1 has some unfortunate changes in wording.

I can only hope that the new Ordinariate might just be able to redo the Prayerbook to include more of the 1928 language.