Church of England

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blood_Angel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EvangelCatholic said:
Agree. The argument against women’s ordination is shallow even among Lutherans who claim the Augsburg Confession forbids female priests when it does not explicitly.
Click to expand...
There is no ‘Lutheran’ argument against women’s ordination - all man-made logic, decency, practicality, and kindness points to anybody doing anything they want as long as they aren’t hurting others - women dressing and saying the same thing as male priest would be no exception.

God’s choice to differentiate the sexes in certain matters, however, trumps all self-made ideals.
 
getysbg said:
Once again, my apologies for my “explosions” I did some further research on this topic and came up with an interesting site.

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/
Click to expand...
Your explosions didn’t bother me. I’ve been in the middle of larger ones here. Don;t let that worry you.

The site you linked to, while not giving a full historical account of the subject, is a very good one. Henry and his problems and the long, sad, tangled story of how Apostolicae Curae came to be, have been hobbies of mine for many years, resulting in many books lining my shelves (not that that is unusual). And it certainly reflects what all RCs should affirm, as I often say. And it covers a lot of points that I routinely explain and correct RCs on, given that the details are not as widely known as they might be. You can notice a certain parallel in that material and what I posted on it above. And keep in mind, as the site says, Anglicans might possibly have a different idea on the matter.

I bookmarked the site, might be useful. And so are books, which I often recommend. For the best overall exposition of the RC reasoning, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. For the best presentation of the history of the subject, and the theological possibilities of an Anglican case, Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, respectively.

GKC
 
getysbg said:
Once again, my apologies for my “explosions” I did some further research on this topic and came up with an interesting site.

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/
Click to expand...
GKC is the expert here on this topic, and he might find the explanation on that site a bit short on detail, but to an amateur like me it seems a fair attempt to put an even-handed explanation of the situation from the RC viewpoint. I might add a few points, though: (1) Anglicans are not particularly annoyed by the RC view, I think, it is just that they naturally do think their orders are valid, and the English archbishops composed a forthright reply to Pope Leo in their letter Saepius Officio which many have found cogently argued. (2) As to Apostolic Succession, there is an argument that the joint consecration of Church of England bishops by bishops of the Old Catholic Church during and since the 20th Century would have repaired any breach in the succession had any such breach in reality taken place. (3) The ordination of women in Anglican churches renders their orders invalid in the eye of many parts of the Christian Church, not only the Roman Communion.

Edit: Good. I now see GKC has got in before me.
 
Picky_Picky said:
GKC is the expert here on this topic, and he might find the explanation on that site a bit short on detail, but to an amateur like me it seems a fair attempt to put an even-handed explanation of the situation from the RC viewpoint. I might add a few points, though: (1) Anglicans are not particularly annoyed by the RC view, I think, it is just that they naturally do think their orders are valid, and the English archbishops composed a forthright reply to Pope Leo in their letter Saepius Officio which many have found cogently argued. (2) As to Apostolic Succession, there is an argument that the joint consecration of Church of England bishops by bishops of the Old Catholic Church during and since the 20th Century would have repaired any breach in the succession had any such breach in reality taken place. (3) The ordination of women in Anglican churches renders their orders invalid in the eye of many parts of the Christian Church, not only the Roman Communion.

Edit: Good. I now see GKC has got in before me.
Click to expand...
I have a knee-jerk spasm on the subject, occasionally.

The site is as good as I have seen, from the RC viewpoint. It is truncated, but then what on the net isn’t. Else, why do I have all these books?

Early on there were Anglican prelates who were mightily incensed at the effrontery. Time heals all affronts.

*Saepius Officio *is good as far as it goes, and cogently argued. Perhaps a little light in considering the sacramental intent issue.

To the Dutch Touch point, one can add the Polish Pat. Rome has never, AFAIK, spoken on what all that might mean, but I would be curious to hear.

The supposed ordination of women does indeed have consequences, as you say. It, in itself, does not generally invalidate any orders in such a jurisdiction, until you get to the level of considering the actions of female bishops, when you would have to start tracing episcopal lines, to determine individual validity of priests. And eventually, one might raise the issue of intent, in making these attempts, and whether it could be said not to be, sacramentally facere quod facit ecclesia..

It’s a good article, though.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I have a knee-jerk spasm on the subject, occasionally.

The site is as good as I have seen, from the RC viewpoint. It is truncated, but then what on the net isn’t. Else, why do I have all these books?

Early on there were Anglican prelates who were mightily incensed at the effrontery. Time heals all affronts.

*Saepius Officio *is good as far as it goes, and cogently argued. Perhaps a little light in considering the sacramental intent issue.

To the Dutch Touch point, one can add the Polish Pat. Rome has never, AFAIK, spoken on what all that might mean, but I would be curious to hear.

The supposed ordination of women does indeed have consequences, as you say. It, in itself, does not generally invalidate any orders in such a jurisdiction, until you get to the level of considering the actions of female bishops, when you would have to start tracing episcopal lines, to determine individual validity of priests. And eventually, one might raise the issue of intent, in making these attempts, and whether it could be said not to be, sacramentally facere quod facit ecclesia..

It’s a good article, though.

GKC
Click to expand...
I believe some Forward in Faith priests have expressed the wish not to be responsible to bishops who (though male and embishoped by males) have ordained women. Such a viewpoint could surely only be a questioning of intent? If so, the event in “eventually” may already have taken place, I suppose?
 
Picky_Picky said:
I believe some Forward in Faith priests have expressed the wish not to be responsible to bishops who (though male and embishoped by males) have ordained women. Such a viewpoint could surely only be a questioning of intent? If so, the event in “eventually” may already have taken place, I suppose?
Click to expand...
Yes, as to FiF priests. But not necessarily a questioning of intent, in the sense it is used in Apostolicae Curae. It is certainly a questioning of what consitutesa valid subject, in that sacrament, but intent could still be (theoretically) to do what the Church does in that action: ordain a priest, as historically understood, the gender issue being (so it might be thought) not relevant to confecting that particular sacrament.

Not to say that what one considers valid intent is going to match what another does.

GKC
 
GKC said:
To the Dutch Touch point, one can add the Polish Pat. Rome has never, AFAIK, spoken on what all that might mean, but I would be curious to hear.
Click to expand...
But all is OK with a good Mick Flick, maybe? … 😛

BTW, thanks for the info earlier on HVIII. Always a pleasure to read. 👍
 
I think that the majority of my Congregation would consider themselves to be Protestant-only catholic as in Universal-

with that said we are a continuation of the Church established by Christ and the Apostles-we have unbroken temporal succession of our Clergy from the time of the Apostles-we are the “via media” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches-

NO one in my Congregation is claiming to be Catholic as in Roman or Byzantine catholic-

King Henry separated the Church from the authority of the Pope-Queen Elizabeth (Henry’s daughter by Ann Bolyn) completed the separation from the Roman Church

By the way we respect the Pope as a Holy and wise man-

I think it annoys some members of the Roman catholic Church-that our sacraments-rituals and core beliefs are similar to their’s

We differ among ourselves particularly in areas pertaining to human sexuality & this is causing great turmoil and suffering among us

We do not long for reunion with the Roman catholic Church-we are in communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the USA-it is highly unlikely that we will ever reunite with the Roman or Orthodox Churches-we will stumble along doing God’s work and praying for all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top