Referring mainly to the spread of Christian migrants to England. There are numerous sources that state the earliest churches settled there were from Middle Eastern Christians, who traveled up the coast of France via the Mediterranean. The Celtic liturgy reference points out the similarity between churches found in England that predate Augustine bearing a striking resemblance to churches in Syria; in addition to mosaics, iconography, et al.
As I thought.
XXV: I’d simply say you’re reading that last line wrong. That’s not a denial. Rather it’s simply stating that they’re sacraments not ordained by specific ceremony in the Gospel’s by God. Doesn’t mean the other 5 aren’t present in the Gospels, simply that there is no ceremony or visible sign for them present in the Gospels. It’s a thin distinction to be sure, but it’s not a denial of the other 5. Indeed the other 5 are listed as states of life allowed in the scriptures so they’re not denied or forbidden. And subsequent Anglican teaching has upheld them in most of the Anglican traditions I’m aware of, not as required but as available means of grace.
That theory, in your second reference, is called “utterly groundless” by “qualified persons”
It forms (I think) part of a larger picture of how the Church arrived in the Isles. Not one well accepted, no.
Fair enough, but I still see the argument as being the same. Veneration or Worship, the notion remains the same, don’t venerate images. And since Roman Catholics don’t venerate images in their churches either I don’t see how it’s entirely incompatible. Catholics venerate the saints many of those icons and images are of yes, but not the icons or images themselves. This is one place that historical context of the Elizabethan era is instructive too since Queen Elizabeth herself kept crucifix in her own chapel.
Of course even if you accept that the Edwardian changes were invalid, which has been IMO effectively disputed from the Anglican side, there’s still the issue of the “Dutch Touch” and “Polish Poke” by clergy that the RCC does admit have valid orders despite breaking from Rome.
Such a mere “view” is precisely why Anglicans were among the first to throw away the practice and doctrine against contraception in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference. They lost the Magisterium and the priesthood with the rupture by Henry VIII, and therefore the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, most of the sacraments, and have now chosen what they call women “priests” and “bishops”, and have no clear teaching on many vital moral questions such as abortion, euthanasia and more.
The assertion that the change in the 1661 form, as reflected in the 1662 Prayer Book, was brought about by a realization of the error in the form, is an historical error itself, not often seen these days, any more than the Nag’s Head Fable. That change was the result of a difference of teaching between the Church of England and the Presbyterians, over the nature of the orders of priest and bishop.
Do not let your enthusiasm run off with you. The Dutch/Polish impact is not definitive in this, merely suggestive.Of course even if you accept that the Edwardian changes were invalid, which has been IMO effectively disputed from the Anglican side, there’s still the issue of the “Dutch Touch” and “Polish Poke” by clergy that the RCC does admit have valid orders despite breaking from Rome.
As for women priests and bishops, that’s only a yawning gulf if you’re of the view that women cannot be validly ordained. Many in the Anglican world do not see Christ as having limited the priesthood to only men and would count themselves as part of Christ’s church even with female priests.
As for the relevance of this to the thread’s topic, we’ll if these are of course issues one will have to discern for themselves if they’re considering leaving Anglicanism for Roman Catholicism or vice versa.
True I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Simply pointing out that even IF you accept the notion that the Edwardian changes broke the line (or you accept Apostolicae Curae and reject it’s counter arguments) that it’s not so cut and dry with regard to many Anglican Orders vis-a-vis the Catholic connection.
I take a more conservative approach on the Touch/Tap . If you mean it is not cut and dry, with respect to the RCC position, that is why I express skeptical curiosity. It is not clear that it is, or is not, a situation that would cause a breach in the condemnations in AC.
But was it not binding on clergy? Was it not also legally binding in the past? An individual Anglican denying the doctrines is no different from an individual Catholic denying a doctrine. Sadly I know many Catholics who have no problem with abortion or SSM. But their personal belief doesn’t change the teaching of the Church. The only point I’d make is that the Anglican Church, meaning the clergy, at one time fully consented to these. And that is for me a serious problem. It would seem to me to be a big problem to a claim of continuity with the Apostolic Faith.
I thought that too until very recently. Try reading * An Eirenicon* by Edward Pusey. It might change your mind.
James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh:
A silly, picky point, but “Your Worship” is not the proper way to address a judge in an English court — such a solecism would probably provoke one of those pompous judgly retorts. “Your Worship” is for magistrates. Among judges things get more complicated, but a much simplified version would be to say “Sir/Madam” for district judges, “Your Honour” for circuit judges, and “My Lord/My Lady” (the famous m’lud) in the rarified atmosphere of the High Court and above.
I see
Oh I’ve not doubt that it wouldn’t cause a breach in the condemnations of AC. If it ever became a big issue I’m sure that there’d be a AC Part II that would find some defect in the current rite despite the Dutch Touch and Polish Poke. Or an Apostolicae Curae directed at the Old and Polish Catholics would be issued finding some defect in their orders rendering the Touch and Poke meaningless from a Catholic perspective (presuming they have any meaning today).
Interesting. I’ll stop wandering off topic now, but you’ve made me realise how little I really know about the US judicial system. I see I have some reading to do. Thanks.I see
In practice, the American English only distinguishes magistrates from judges in law and authority, not in common parlance. Both are typically called “judges” and referred to as “Your Honor”. Technically, only the Constitutionally sanctioned “Article 3” judges are ‘untouchable’ by Congress or the President. The rest are Congressionally established (Articles 1 and 4) and can be altered by Congress, the President or a decision of the Supreme (Article 3) Court.