Thanks. That really sums it up for me. Never knew such Anglicans took that position.“Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment
30 July 2016
Anglican Orders”
liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2016/07/anglican-orders.html
I kinda always wondered why the Anglicans sought the “dutch touch” and the Old Catholic priests if they truly believed their orders were valid.Thanks. That really sums it up for me. Never knew such Anglicans took that position.
Four monarchs over twelve years. The break in apostolic succession occurred during the reign of Edward VI.… I was reading a book by deceased Anglican Bishop Charles Gore that stated no valid priestly consecration before the 9th century EVER mentioned the power to offer sacrifice. Correct me but wasn’t one of Leo XIII’s argument was that Anglicans removed all mention of “sacrifice” from the BCP? …
Thanks. It makes sense as well with Christ being a priest forever according to Melchisidek. That continuous offering has to continue. again, I’m a struggling catholic but this helps. That’s why I brought it up in the 1st place.Four monarchs over twelve years. The break in apostolic succession occurred during the reign of Edward VI.
Apostolicae Curae, Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII
- 1547 Death of Henry VIII, reign of Edward VI
- 1549 Thomas Cranmer publication of Book of Common Prayer (BCP)
- 1552 Revised the BCP
- 1553 Death of Edward VI, Mary I restored Catholic Mass
- 1558 Death of Mary I, reign of Elizabeth I, restored the Church of England’s independence from Rome, reintroduced the 1552 BCP (with some revisions) 1559
Numbers 25, 29, 30,31 contain sacrifice.
25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3). …
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
- The authority of Julius III, and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic rite even in Rome.
…- It is not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether, when bestowed, as they say per saltum , on one who is not a priest, it has or has not its effect. But the episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa . So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.
- For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
- In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
They didn’t seek the Dutch touch. They entered into full communion with the Old Catholics. The joint consecrations in both churches were the result of the Bonn Agreement, not its cause.I kinda always wondered why the Anglicans sought the “dutch touch” and the Old Catholic priests if they truly believed their orders were valid.
It would be as well not to turn to Fr Hunwicke for an understanding of how Anglicans think. After leaving Anglicanism he has been expressing some of the zeal of the convert.Thanks. That really sums it up for me. Never knew such Anglicans took that position.
I have a little problem with your last paragraph. It would be nice to say this was reality however there are Christians who questioned all this in the early and ensuing centuries and were cast aside as heretics and survived underground to save their lives.Some things are so basic, so taken for granted, they are not explicitly defined until a much later date, when a challenge is brought up, and there is need for clarification. In the United States Constitution, there was no mention of marriage being a union of man and woman. Suppose in the 1980s, there had been a constitutional amendment to explicitly state that fact. It would be a mistake for a future historian to look at that amendment, and say that gay marriage had been common and socially accepted until the 1980s, when some group decided to change the rules.
I believe it is only in the last decade the Catholic Church declared Mormon baptism isn’t valid. That doesn’t mean the Church considered it valid for all those years, or was unsure for all those years. The question didn’t come up until recently. Then it was answered. That recent answer, and clarification, doesn’t mean the Church changed the rules, or invented the doctrine, a few years ago. People in earlier years probably never considered this.
Some aspects of the Real Presence were clarified until over 1000 years after Christ. That’s because it was not questioned till over 1000 years after Christ. After it was questioned, theologians looked more closely to clarify, to explain the doctrine for more people, in a more formal detailed way.
Perhaps that might be one of the reasons why there were less definition. The Church often did not act until it had become necessary or when done it was deemed to avoid confusion to the faithful. Of course then she only had to deal with less heretics and the fact they had to go underground lessened the negative effect it had on the believers. So Real Presence was very much uncontested then, at least not openly as it does today.I have a little problem with your last paragraph. It would be nice to say this was reality however there are Christians who questioned all this in the early and ensuing centuries and were cast aside as heretics and survived underground to save their lives.
Yes, all Christians today that have freedom to think, read and express and live out their convictions with the guidance of the Holy Spirit have much to be thankful for.Perhaps that might be one of the reasons why there were less definition. The Church often did not act until it had become necessary or when done it was deemed to avoid confusion to the faithful. Of course then she only had to deal with less heretics and the fact they had to go underground lessened the negative effect it had on the believers. So Real Presence was very much uncontested then, at least not openly as it does today.
Where are their writings, so we can examine the truth of your claims?I have a little problem with your last paragraph. It would be nice to say this was reality however there are Christians who questioned all this in the early and ensuing centuries and were cast aside as heretics and survived underground to save their lives.
It happened that may left Jesus Christ because he taught:I have a little problem with your last paragraph. It would be nice to say this was reality however there are Christians who questioned all this in the early and ensuing centuries and were cast aside as heretics and survived underground to save their lives.
Being familiar with oral tradition I am surprised you feel truth is based sola writing!Where are their writings, so we can examine the truth of your claims?
:harp:It happened that may left Jesus Christ because he taught:
John 6
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” …
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. …
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?*
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.c
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
What does harp mean?:harp:
You know Vico, I have wondered that too. They don’t have a description beside him in the menu. Maybe it is one of those things where we can take from it what ever it is we happen to see it as or want it to be? I have several theories.What does harp mean?
What do you want it to be?You know Vico, I have wondered that too. They don’t have a description beside him in the menu. Maybe it is one of those things where we can take from it what ever it is we happen to see it as or want it to be? I have several theories.
I want it to be harmoniously in tune with other musicians in the orchestra, aware of the existence of the others he is playing with. He appears to be missing most of the strings on his instrument so he constantly plays only the three same notes over and over which rise only to fade into oblivion like steam without meshing with the efforts of the others. Then it seems like he is unaware that he is alone, playing the only notes he knows repitiously. But, unfortunately, he is so wrapped up in his own performance he doesn’t realize the others have finished the song, packed up their instruments and went home. Cute little guy though!What do you want it to be?
Is it a simile or metaphor when attached to our post with the scriptures?I want it to be harmoniously in tune with other musicians in the orchestra, aware of the existence of the others he is playing with. He appears to be missing most of the strings on his instrument so he constantly plays only the three same notes over and over which rise only to fade into oblivion like steam without meshing with the efforts of the others. Then it seems like he is unaware that he is alone, playing the only notes he knows repitiously. But, unfortunately, he is so wrapped up in his own performance he doesn’t realize the others have finished the song, packed up their instruments and went home. Cute little guy though!
It is neither in connotation to the scripture you presented. Was the scripture you presented meant to be a simile or metaphor to my post?Is it a simile or metaphor when attached to our post with the scriptures?