Anglo-Catholics, Holy Orders, AC, and relevence

[GKC]

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.

Or maybe even some Missal language.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would still love to know the major differences in the 79 prayer book and the 28 prayer book. As an Anglican, I was only familiar with the 1979 BOCP. I adored it. Every conservative Anglican I know tells me they hate it…I guess ignorance was bliss?

Or maybe even some Missal language.

GKC

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I would still love to know the major differences in the 79 prayer book and the 28 prayer book. As an Anglican, I was only familiar with the 1979 BOCP. I adored it. Every conservative Anglican I know tells me they hate it…I guess ignorance was bliss?

I don’t hate 1979, in fact there are creative ways to make it almost the same as 1928 without stretching the rubrics so far that they snap back at you.

The book of 1928 is not very big in comparison, it has the Gospel and Epistle for each Sunday printed (in the manner of old Missals), and it has the really old (Bishop’s Bible) translation of the Psalms, so you get some neat Pre-KJB language there as well.

There are some differences in the order of things, for example the Gloria is after the Collect for the day in 1979 and after the Post Communion Prayer in 1928. I think, historically, it is better placed as in 1979.

The Prayer for the Whole State… is after the offertory and immediately before the General Confession in 1928, and is before the offertory in 1979.

The primary differences occurr in these three prayers, which are the

1. The Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church (Whole State meaning that it be Whole and not weakened or dimished)

Rite 1 has, in place of “by thy holy Apostle”, “in thy holy Word”. There is not much different, but of course this in Rite 1 or Rite 2 are the “Prayers of the People” (as if other prayers are not of the people(?))

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, who by thy holy
Apostle hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications,
and to give thanks for all men; We humbly beseech
thee most mercifully to accept our [alms and] oblations, and
to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto thy Divine
Majesty; beseeching thee to inspire continually the
Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord:
And grant that all those who do confess thy holy
Name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live
in unity and godly love.

Here I had to cut words to fit inside the 6000 character limit. See justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928Standard/hc.pdf for the whole service.

1. The comfortable words are different, in 1979 they are “Hear the Word of God” and in 1928 are as follows:

Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith
unto all who truly turn to him.
COME unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden,
and I will refresh you. St. Matt. xi. 28.
So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten
Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life. St. John iii. 16.
Hear also what Saint Paul saith.
This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received,
That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
1 Tim. i. 15.
Hear also what Saint John saith.
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the Propitiation for
our sins. 1 St. John ii. 1, 2.

1. The “Humble Mumble”. Rite 1 of 1979 ommits the part that is underlined

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful
Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in
thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much
as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art
the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:
Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy
dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our
sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls
washed through his most precious blood, and that we may
evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

1. This is the only Prayer of Consecration or Canon allowed:

ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly
Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst
give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death
upon the Cross for our redemption; who made
there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full,
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for
the sins of the whole world; and did institute,
and in his holy Gospel command us to continue,
a perpetual memory of that his precious
death and sacrifice, until his coming
again: For in the night in which he was betrayed,
(a) he took Bread; and when he had
given thanks, (b) he brake it, and gave it to
his disciples, saying, Take, eat, (c) this is my
Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance
of me. Likewise, after supper, (d)
he took the Cup; and when he had given
thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink
ye all of this; for (e) this is my Blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for you, and
for many, for the remission of sins; Do this,
as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance
of me… (had to delete the rest as I can only post 6000 characters. See this link for the whole service: justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928Standard/hc.pdf.

1. The Post Communion Prayer has the underlined words absent in 1979.

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank
thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have
duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food
of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour
Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of thy favour
and goodness towards us; and that we are very members
incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the
blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs
through hope of thy everlasting kingdom, by the merits of
his most precious death and passion. And we humbly beseech
thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy
grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do
all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk in;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the
Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end.
Amen.

 

[MarkBrown]

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.

(

But the ministers would not be accepted as valid ministers. I truly find the anguish of Anglicans about the views of the Catholic Church on Anglican Orders interesting. (My Spock interpretation of funny.) Anglicans seem to have alot of heart burn over this issue.
Do not the Orthodox require it? I know an Anglican Priest and his parish converting to Orthodoxy. A two year process for the Priest with ordination as an Orthodox Priest, hopefully at the end of the process.

I was at one time an Ordained Southern Baptist Minister. I did everything the Baptist required of ordination. When I converted to the Anglican Church, I was not immediately accepted as an Anglican Priest. I was irregularly ordained according to ALL the Anglican Bishops, Priests and Deacons I talked with and it was written in the canons of the Church. I had to go through confirmation and start as a layreader to Chalice bearer to Deacon to Priest. Anglicans had concerns and questions about my ordination in the “radical” aspects of Protestantism.

Did the Anglicans tell me my prior ministry was invalid, the baptistism and the Lord’s Supper. No. I just did not have the fullness of faith as they and I saw it.

So all of us Anglicans need to just stop acting so outraged, the Roman Catholic Church is only doing what the Anglican Church does to other protestants. The Anglican Church has it’s reasons, which my Baptist friends disagreed with by the way, the Orthodox have their reasons and the Catholics have theirs.

As a Catholic Bishop told me, “your prior ministry, even the Baptist, is repected and honored. Due to the seriousness, the Church has to be sure…souls are at stake.” I can respect and even agree with it. Just as I kneeled before Baptist, and kneeled before Anglicans, I would kneel before Catholics and ask to be a servant.

Fr.Mark

 

[MarkBrown]

I would still love to know the major differences in the 79 prayer book and the 28 prayer book. As an Anglican, I was only familiar with the 1979 BOCP. I adored it. Every conservative Anglican I know tells me they hate it…I guess ignorance was bliss?

gurney,

Get a copy of Fr. Louis R. Tarsitano and Fr. Peter Toons (both of blessed memory) book: Neither Orthodoxy Nor a Formualry (The Shape and Content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church). If the library does not have it, a copy should be available from The PrayerBook Society of the USA.

This is a detailed, almost line by line, examination of the '79 Prayerbook. The Fathers point out changes in theology, prayers, moving from God centered to man center worship, problems with the lessening of original sin etc etc etc etc. This prayerbook along with Women’s ordination signaled the breakup of the Episcopal Church in the States. It is only about 100 pages, so a school teacher like you can easily read it between grading papers and waiting for parents to show up for the parent-teacher conferences.

I cut my teeth on the 1928 BCP, and to the shock of some in my former parish, added from the Missal. Or sang where I was not suppose to…the rubics are there for a reason. Guess part of the original canon of scripture.

Fr.Mark

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Father Mark. I think I’ll pass on reading it in class…lol…my principal is the anti-Christ, crazy lady! lol

gurney,

Get a copy of Fr. Louis R. Tarsitano and Fr. Peter Toons (both of blessed memory) book: Neither Orthodoxy Nor a Formualry (The Shape and Content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church). If the library does not have it, a copy should be available from The PrayerBook Society of the USA.

This is a detailed, almost line by line, examination of the '79 Prayerbook. The Fathers point out changes in theology, prayers, moving from God centered to man center worship, problems with the lessening of original sin etc etc etc etc. This prayerbook along with Women’s ordination signaled the breakup of the Episcopal Church in the States. It is only about 100 pages, so a school teacher like you can easily read it between grading papers and waiting for parents to show up for the parent-teacher conferences.

I cut my teeth on the 1928 BCP, and to the shock of some in my former parish, added from the Missal. Or sang where I was not suppose to…the rubics are there for a reason. Guess part of the original canon of scripture.

Fr.Mark

 

[GKC]

Speaking only for myself, I do not feel anguish or heart burn. I feel interest. Leading to a 10 year hobby and a lot of books. Lots of things lead to that same place.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

But the ministers would not be accepted as valid ministers. I truly find the anguish of Anglicans about the views of the Catholic Church on Anglican Orders interesting. (My Spock interpretation of funny.) Anglicans seem to have alot of heart burn over this issue.
Do not the Orthodox require it? I know an Anglican Priest and his parish converting to Orthodoxy. A two year process for the Priest with ordination as an Orthodox Priest, hopefully at the end of the process.

I was at one time an Ordained Southern Baptist Minister. I did everything the Baptist required of ordination. When I converted to the Anglican Church, I was not immediately accepted as an Anglican Priest. I was irregularly ordained according to ALL the Anglican Bishops, Priests and Deacons I talked with and it was written in the canons of the Church. I had to go through confirmation and start as a layreader to Chalice bearer to Deacon to Priest. Anglicans had concerns and questions about my ordination in the “radical” aspects of Protestantism.

Did the Anglicans tell me my prior ministry was invalid, the baptistism and the Lord’s Supper. No. I just did not have the fullness of faith as they and I saw it.

So all of us Anglicans need to just stop acting so outraged, the Roman Catholic Church is only doing what the Anglican Church does to other protestants. The Anglican Church has it’s reasons, which my Baptist friends disagreed with by the way, the Orthodox have their reasons and the Catholics have theirs.

As a Catholic Bishop told me, “your prior ministry, even the Baptist, is repected and honored. Due to the seriousness, the Church has to be sure…souls are at stake.” I can respect and even agree with it. Just as I kneeled before Baptist, and kneeled before Anglicans, I would kneel before Catholics and ask to be a servant.

Fr.Mark

 

[GKC]

gurney,

Get a copy of Fr. Louis R. Tarsitano and Fr. Peter Toons (both of blessed memory) book: Neither Orthodoxy Nor a Formualry (The Shape and Content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church). If the library does not have it, a copy should be available from The PrayerBook Society of the USA.

This is a detailed, almost line by line, examination of the '79 Prayerbook. The Fathers point out changes in theology, prayers, moving from God centered to man center worship, problems with the lessening of original sin etc etc etc etc. This prayerbook along with Women’s ordination signaled the breakup of the Episcopal Church in the States. It is only about 100 pages, so a school teacher like you can easily read it between grading papers and waiting for parents to show up for the parent-teacher conferences.

I cut my teeth on the 1928 BCP, and to the shock of some in my former parish, added from the Missal. Or sang where I was not suppose to…the rubics are there for a reason. Guess part of the original canon of scripture.

Fr.Mark

From your last para, I say you would have gotten along well with my late rector (may his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy and love of God, rest in peace.

GKC

 

[Daedelus76]

But the ministers would not be accepted as valid ministers. I truly find the anguish of Anglicans about the views of the Catholic Church on Anglican Orders interesting. (My Spock interpretation of funny.) Anglicans seem to have alot of heart burn over this issue.

The way some Catholics talk about validity issues can be offensive. Many Anglicans do not consider themselves merely receiving bread and wine at the Eucharist. When the priest places the Host on the hand and says “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ…”, I assume he means it.

As a Catholic Bishop told me, “your prior ministry, even the Baptist, is repected and honored. Due to the seriousness, the Church has to be sure…souls are at stake.” I can respect and even agree with it. Just as I kneeled before Baptist, and kneeled before Anglicans, I would kneel before Catholics and ask to be a servant.

Fr.Mark

I don’t blame them in being cautious. I dislike the triumphalist tone, though, I sometimes see among the more ultramontane and the just-plain naive. My perception isn’t that Roman Catholics have unique spiritual power and authority, I just don’t see evidence of it. In fact I see alot of evidence to the contrary. Roman Catholics want Protestants to come home to “Holy Mother Church”, but are Roman Catholics willing to at least see the Protestant positions on things? Trashing our sacraments and orders, our forebearers like Luther and Cranmer isn’t a good way towards reconciliation. I have some Protestant friends who these issues are close to the heart.

 

[GKC]

What, in your view, is necessary for the confection of a valid sacrament? Considering the Eucharist, can any one validly confect it? Such that it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ? Is a belief that it is so, that it is the Body and Blood, sufficient? Is anything else required, in your view?

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

The way some Catholics talk about validity issues can be offensive. Many Anglicans do not consider themselves merely receiving bread and wine at the Eucharist. When the priest places the Host on the hand and says “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ…”, I assume he means it.

I don’t blame them in being cautious. I dislike the triumphalist tone, though, I sometimes see among the more ultramontane and the just-plain naive. My perception isn’t that Roman Catholics have unique spiritual power and authority, I just don’t see evidence of it. In fact I see alot of evidence to the contrary. Roman Catholics want Protestants to come home to “Holy Mother Church”, but are Roman Catholics willing to at least see the Protestant positions on things? Trashing our sacraments and orders, our forebearers like Luther and Cranmer isn’t a good way towards reconciliation. I have some Protestant friends who these issues are close to the heart.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think some more evangelical-minded Anglicans have the belief that “where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am” assures them that Christ is present in the Sacrament. Anglo-Catholics would not agree.

What, in your view, is necessary for the confection of a valid sacrament? Considering the Eucharist, can any one validly confect it? Such that it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ? Is a belief that it is so, that it is the Body and Blood, sufficient? Is anything else required, in your view?

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[MarkBrown]

Thanks, Father Mark. I think I’ll pass on reading it in class…lol…my principal is the anti-Christ, crazy lady! lol

Speaking as a former principal, I see she was properly trained for dealing with teachers.

Fr.Mark

 

[MarkBrown]

Speaking only for myself, I do not feel anguish or heart burn. I feel interest. Leading to a 10 year hobby and a lot of books. Lots of things lead to that same place.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

GKC, sorry if offended. I should realize that not all Anglican are popping a gasket over this. I guess this is what happens when I read Continuum Blogs and then come here.

Fr.Mark

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, she’s a real pip, graduated from Joe Stalin University with her Masters, received her administrative credential from Mao’s Great Leap Forward Institute! Micromanagement personified!

Speaking as a former principal, I see she was properly trained for dealing with teachers.

Fr.Mark

 

[GKC]

GKC, sorry if offended. I should realize that not all Anglican are popping a gasket over this. I guess this is what happens when I read Continuum Blogs and then come here.

Fr.Mark

No offense taken, Father. Just tooting my own bibliophilic horn. I can certainly see the theoretical basis of Apostolicae Curae. And the reasons to reject it. But it is an undoubted fact that the official position of the RCC is that Anglican orders are as stated. Doesn’t affect me, at the rail.

GKC

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

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

Sadly, the GTU library requires a mighty pricey library card. I found a copy elsewhere, and may try interlibrary loan.

 

[mercygate]

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

Unfortunately, without valid Orders, sacraments other than baptism and marriage are invalid.

. . . and not conveying grace.

Nobody can answer that. All of us former Episcopalians struggled with this very real and lively perception of grace in Anglican sacraments, and we cannot deny that they have been instruments of grace. The Holy Spirit “bloweth where it listeth,” and grace is not restricted to the operation of valid sacraments. That said, the validity of the sacraments is tied to the validity of the Orders. There’s no way around that.

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

This notion is called ‘receptionism.’ Episcopalians do not believe that one’s perception of the Real Presence is either the evidence or the substance of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

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

In sacramental theology, without valid Orders, it is not possible to say for certain that the grace of Confirmation was transmitted or 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?

I understand. This was one of the toughest things for me to get past. I had practiced sacramental confession for many years as an Episcopalian, and with fruitful outcome. The idea that this was a mere charade was unthinkable. The answer is, of course, that grace operates in many ways. But if we intend to receive Christ on His own terms, we must take him at His word and do things His way in His Church – namely, in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

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.

The issue does not come up because classical Anglicanism recognizes only two sacraments and because Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians don’t give a hoot whether sacraments are valid. The whole issue is, for them, completely incomprehensible.

 

[mercygate]

The way some Catholics talk about validity issues can be offensive. Many Anglicans do not consider themselves merely receiving bread and wine at the Eucharist. When the priest places the Host on the hand and says “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ…”, I assume he means it.

I don’t blame them in being cautious. I dislike the triumphalist tone, though, I sometimes see among the more ultramontane and the just-plain naive. My perception isn’t that Roman Catholics have unique spiritual power and authority, I just don’t see evidence of it. In fact I see alot of evidence to the contrary. Roman Catholics want Protestants to come home to “Holy Mother Church”, but are Roman Catholics willing to at least see the Protestant positions on things? Trashing our sacraments and orders, our forebearers like Luther and Cranmer isn’t a good way towards reconciliation. I have some Protestant friends who these issues are close to the heart.

I can relate to your view, but you are talking about manner more than substance. Objectively taken, in Catholic sacramental theology, the matter of validity comes down to either it IS or it is NOT. Whether Protestants are acting in good faith with good will is beside the point. And, indeed, many do much better at living Christian lives WITHOUT the sacraments than a lot of us do WITH them. Unfortunately.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Dutch Touch consecrations with Old Catholic lines in the early twentieth century complicates the issue and makes many consecrations within Anglicanism, including TEC, valid but from a Catholic point of view, illicit. These consecrations are post-Apostolicae Curae, which most Catholics on here quote all the time in seeking to prove Anglican orders are worthless.

**Unfortunately, without valid Orders, sacraments other than baptism and marriage are invalid.**Nobody can answer that. All of us former Episcopalians struggled with this very real and lively perception of grace in Anglican sacraments, and we cannot deny that they have been instruments of grace. The Holy Spirit “bloweth where it listeth,” and grace is not restricted to the operation of valid sacraments. That said, the validity of the sacraments is tied to the validity of the Orders. There’s no way around that. This notion is called ‘receptionism.’ Episcopalians do not believe that one’s perception of the Real Presence is either the evidence or the substance of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament.In sacramental theology, without valid Orders, it is not possible to say for certain that the grace of Confirmation was transmitted or received. I understand. This was one of the toughest things for me to get past. I had practiced sacramental confession for many years as an Episcopalian, and with fruitful outcome. The idea that this was a mere charade was unthinkable. The answer is, of course, that grace operates in many ways. But if we intend to receive Christ on His own terms, we must take him at His word and do things His way in His Church – namely, in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The issue does not come up because classical Anglicanism recognizes only two sacraments and because Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians don’t give a hoot whether sacraments are valid. The whole issue is, for them, completely incomprehensible.

 

[GKC]

It is also possible, though it is too technical to be practical in this venue (and I’d have to re-read a lot) to oppose the idea of the invalid intent, via consideration of roughly 16th century Eucharistic theology. This is Hughes’ point, in STEWARDS OF THE LORD. If intent is not an issue, form loses its point, in the two judgments in Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

The Dutch Touch consecrations with Old Catholic lines in the early twentieth century complicates the issue and makes many consecrations within Anglicanism, including TEC, valid but from a Catholic point of view, illicit. These consecrations are post-Apostolicae Curae, which most Catholics on here quote all the time in seeking to prove Anglican orders are worthless.