Episcopalian/ Anglican services

[jay29]

No matter what, a female “priestess” or “bishop” can never consecrate the bread and wine in the Most Holy Eucharist. With “Dutch Touch” or any other means. It is utterly null and void in every circumstance.

 

[Augie1530]

Rome should wake up and rethink her biased opinion on all NON ROMAN Christians , I have a very old and dear friend who is a Greek Orthodox Priest who years ago told me that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have recognized ANGLICAN ORDERS and Most Lutherans in consecration of Bishops Priests and Decons as well as communion services AKA The Mass , but they are still in doctrinal controversy with other non liturgical christians like Methodists, Presbyterians and southern baptists and other extreme protestant deniminations and splinter groups. I personally DO NOT take or recognise communion in non Anglican Lutheran or Roman Catholic Churches simply because they do NOT preach , teach or believe in the Real Presence or apostolic succession of priests which is essential .

 

[GKC]

No matter what, a female “priestess” or “bishop” can never consecrate the bread and wine in the Most Holy Eucharist. With “Dutch Touch” or any other means. It is utterly null and void in every circumstance.

I’ll buy that, too. Invalid matter for the sacrament of Orders.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Rome should wake up and rethink her biased opinion on all NON ROMAN Christians , I have a very old and dear friend who is a Greek Orthodox Priest who years ago told me that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have recognized ANGLICAN ORDERS and Most Lutherans in consecration of Bishops Priests and Decons as well as communion services AKA The Mass , but they are still in doctrinal controversy with other non liturgical christians like Methodists, Presbyterians and southern baptists and other extreme protestant deniminations and splinter groups. I personally DO NOT take or recognise communion in non Anglican Lutheran or Roman Catholic Churches simply because they do NOT preach , teach or believe in the Real Presence or apostolic succession of priests which is essential .

I don’t think this is accurate, as to the opinion of the Orthodox, generally, on Anglican orders. Most such statements, as far as I can tell, trace back to the 1920s/30s, when corporate Anglicanism was interested in expanding the jurisdictions with which they were in full communion (this also led to the establishment of full communion between the Anglicans and the OCs of Utrecht). Inquiries were sent from the Anglicans to 4 Orthodox Patriarchs, as to their opinions on Anglican Orders. The replies were a little ambiguously worded, and might have been interpreted as saying they didn’t find them invalid, but (IIRC) the gist was that they were viewed as the RC orders were viewed; outside Orthodoxy, and hence, in some sense, lacking.

I can no longer lay my hands on the material I read at the time, but that is as I recall it.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

After reading the above I have to wonder about something. Is there really perceived to be such a thing as a “schismatic ‘anglican’?” I grew up Episcopalian and I never heard such a phrase before. I never thought that the Episcopal Church had that kind of idea about itself. And I never got the impression that other denominations were seen as being in schism with us since they lacked a formal relationship with Canterbury. Is the above understanding really something that the Episcopal Church holds to these days?

Well, I suppose that technically we would regard the Congregationalists and other Puritan-derived traditions as schismatic, and maybe the Methodists too. The Anglo-Catholics of the 19th century certainly did. However, most Anglicans don’t think that way these days. The recent splits are different because they are, well, recent, and also because the schismatics are claiming the label “Anglican” for themselves. (No one thinks that a Methodist or a Congregationalist is a “real Anglican.”) Therefore, Episcopalians are justified in pointing out that groups such as the “Continuers” are in fact in schism from the Anglican Communion and certainly from the Episcopal Church. Of course, the current situation is complicated given the strained relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. People who go into schism from the Episcopal Church these days generally enter into a relationship with some other part of the Anglican Communion. Hopefully this situation will be resolved eventually.

Of course, I’d like it to be resolved by us all entering into communion with Rome. . . .

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Anyone have suggestions on proper reverence for Catholics who are attending Episcopalian/Anglican “masses”?

Hi Mystagogy,

I would say do everything that you would in a Catholic church except for going forward at communion time, and genuflecting.

Personally, what I would do is to bow to the cross when entering/leaving the pew.

This reminds of a time, several years ago, when I was traveling and went to mass at the nearest Catholic church. When I was exiting the building I took a little holy water on my hand, and turned planning to face the cross, bow, and bless myself – only to discover that there wasn’t a cross to be seen. In retrospect, this wasn’t all that surprising, given the slightly liberal vibe I had picked up during the mass. Anyhow, after a moment’s thought I turned toward the Station of Cross that represented the cruxification, and proceeded.

Sorry that’s so off topic, but in any case bowing to the cross is a great gesture, either in addition to or as a substitute for genuflecting to the tabernacle.

 

[Peter_J]

There are plenty of Catholic churches in London, you don’t need to go to an Anglican service when you can attend Mass.

You mean you’re going to attend more than one liturgy on the same Sunday? How shocking!

 

[Peter_J]

It seems to me that anyone who considers the Episcopal alter “false” and the consecration “invalid” and the host mere bread, should do everyone a favor and just not go in. I rather imagine such a person wouldn’t eat with tax collectors or ask for water from a Samaritan either.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I’ve never called the Episcopal altar “false”, although I do call the consecration “invalid” (or, rather, uncertain, in view of the Dutch Touch question). Nevertheless, I believe that I’ve always behaved quite well whenever I’ve been at an Episcopal liturgy.

P.S. I get the impression that you’re really trying to punish all Catholics for the rudeness of a small number of Catholics.

 

[Mystagogy]

I don’t think this is accurate, as to the opinion of the Orthodox, generally, on Anglican orders. Most such statements, as far as I can tell, trace back to the 1920s/30s, when corporate Anglicanism was interested in expanding the jurisdictions with which they were in full communion (this also led to the establishment of full communion between the Anglicans and the OCs of Utrecht). Inquiries were sent from the Anglicans to 4 Orthodox Patriarchs, as to their opinions on Anglican Orders. The replies were a little ambiguously worded, and might have been interpreted as saying they didn’t find them invalid, but (IIRC) the gist was that they were viewed as the RC orders were viewed; outside Orthodoxy, and hence, in some sense, lacking.

I can no longer lay my hands on the material I read at the time, but that is as I recall it.

GKC

The side issue exists, of a number of Anglican bishops being additionally ordained by Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops so they COULD confect a valid Eucharist.

Old Catholics have been becoming more and more Protestant, but I believe that some have valid orders.

 

[Mystagogy]

You mean you’re going to attend more than one liturgy on the same Sunday? How shocking!

I’m not actually planning to (in an affirmative sense). The issue came up from my recent attendance at a funeral. Then, there is some Boy Scout in me that felt it should be prepared depending on where I go in London this summer.

I like the idea of a bow to the cross/crucifix. The altar (in an authentic Christian setting) is still a symbol of the Cross to me, also potentially worthy of a bow.

 

[GKC]

The side issue exists, of a number of Anglican bishops being additionally ordained by Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops so they COULD confect a valid Eucharist.

Old Catholics have been becoming more and more Protestant, but I believe that some have valid orders.

Your view of Utrecht these days is accurate, AFAIK.

The point about the joint consecrations of Anglican bishops, involving OC bishops (and, after 1946, PNCC bishops), is the Dutch Touch that has been mentioned in this thread before. The DT is widespread amongst Anglicans by this time (following the Augustinian concept of the transmission of orders; my own priest was ordained by a bishop whose principal consecrator had PNCC lines) but I am not aware that Rome has ever made a definitive statement as to the result. Certainly, it would appear logically to follow that such orders were valid, at least. But no definitive word.

OTOH, it is assumed that such a factor was considered in the only two cases known, in which an Anglican priest (or bishop, in Graham Leonard’s case) was ordained as a RC priest, sub conditione, rather than absolutely.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

not to be confused with OG

. . . who the hell is he?

 

[Contarini]

One might just as easily say that the liberal Episcopal Church was the schismatic group

Not if one cares about the Church as an embodied community rather than as some sort of spiritualized tradition of piety. Communion matters. Historical continuity matters. Faithfulness to a concrete Christian community plagued by sin and corruption matters.

in fact, that’s exactly what the conservative, traditionalist, orthodox Anglicans

These terms are not identical. And as a Catholic you really shouldn’t think that any Anglicans are orthodox, should you? Indeed, one of the best theologians in the Episcopal Church (in my opinion), Ephraim Radner, has argued that we shouldn’t claim the label “orthodox” for ourselves, because the Church is too divided to support any kind of orthodox identity. For there to be orthodoxy, there needs to be a Church with the authority to determine orthodoxy. This is why reading Radner tends to make me want to become Catholic (and indeed Radner’s chief disciple, Rusty Reno, did become Catholic a few years ago).

The Anglicans are not “schismatic” who are re-aligning Anglicanism in North America. In fact, the statistics are very very clear that Episcopalian congregations are the oldest in age and growing older.

I’m not sure how relevant this is. Or is it your opinion that young people can’t be schismatic?

Their parishes are heavy on the elderly and the younger, middle-aged, etc. have left en masse.

Over-generalized.

If the Episcopal Church is the normal, orthodox, epitome of Anglicanism in America,

No one said we were orthodox

Right now the Episcopal Church is still the official branch of the Anglican Communion in the U.S. But you are right that that status has come under some question.

why did the Archbishop of Canterbury not even allow “Bishop” Gene Robinson, the gay man who cheated on his wife for a relationship with another man, to attend the last Lambeth meetings?

It’s a compromise between throwing us out and letting the election of +Robinson pass without consequences. ++Williams’ ecclesiology (rightly, in my opinion) doesn’t take much account of national churches (which has greatly annoyed many Episcopalians). He looks at each diocese as a distinct local church.

Why have Africans, Asians, and South Americans felt a need to MISSION to American Episcopalians? Why did bishops and thousands of good, God-fearing folks split their entire dioceses from the Episcopal Church? Because they’re schismatics?

They are separating from fellow Christians.

Technically all Anglicans are schismatic from Roman Catholicism to begin with so for an Episcopalian to mock Anglican realignment parishes as schismatic is the ultimate in irony.

And for Anglicans to claim to be “orthodox” is just as ironic. And for you as a Catholic to pronounce on which of us are or are not schismatic or orthodox is even more ironic.

The idea of schism operating here is obviously not the Catholic one–splitting from the one true Church. You need to look at Richard Hooker, or for that matter Calvin, to understand where Anglican and more broadly Reformed/Protestant ecclesiology is coming from. (The Anglo-Catholic “branch church” language is as far as I’m concerned a half-baked attempt to reconcile the essentially Reformed ecclesiology of Anglicanism with Catholic ecclesiology.) In this ecclesiology, schism is primarily local–it is the act of separating from an existing Christian church at a given place and time and setting up a rival, supposedly “purer” church in the same place. Schism among local churches (and in the American context, one would have to say “between existing local churches in the same place,” since it would be hard to identify one ‘original’ church in most places) consists primarily of the refusal of one local church to recognize another as Christian (hence, Hooker and other early Anglicans would argue, we are not in schism from Rome, since we recognize them as Christian, but they are in schism from us, as shown by their excommunication of Queen Elizabeth and their attempt to establish a “Catholic” church in England after 1572). I think there are flaws in this ecclesiology. But it does provide a coherent basis for saying that the conservatives are in schism.

 

[Contarini]

Also, when did Anglican identity necessitate a relationship with Canterbury? As far as I know, continuing Anglicans haven’t been in a relationship with the ABOC for decades?

Three decades is a long time in your book? Wow–that’s a short memory for a Catholic. The “continuing Anglicans” are in schism from the Anglican Communion, as I have already noted.

He is an empty figurehead with no real power

Is it your view that leadership in the Church should be a matter of “real power”? I do not find this to be compatible with the words or actions of Jesus.

and no influence.

That is certainly false.

In many ways he has no credibility either.

Your opinion is noted, but I hope you will forgive me for not giving it much weight.

The last four ABOC’s have been so impotent, lost, and unable to keep the communion together that some consider them totally irrelevent.

Some people think all sorts of silly things. Myself, I admire both the men who have been ABCs since I became an Anglican in 1998, with particular admiration and affection for ++Williams. I hear good things about Ramsey as well and like what I’ve read of his writings. Runcie I’m not so sure of, but whether I like a given Archbishop is hardly a matter of huge importance anyway.

When you have a guy like Archbishop Rowand Williams recommending that England embrace Islamic Shariah Law, you’ve entered the Twilight Zone!

If you want to live in the Twilight Zone (otherwise known as the British media’s religion reporting) instead of actually reading what the +Archbishop said, it’s your loss. If you seriously want to discuss what he said, I’m happy to do so in a different thread. But my experience has been that few people who bring this subject up actually care about what he really said–expressing horror at what he supposedly said is way too much fun.

And then he allowed Buddhist chanting during the last Lambeth Conference.

I don’t know about this. Who was doing this and were the words chanted contrary to the Faith?

And we can’t forget the African tribal groupings he had for “problem-solving” at Lambeth

Is the fact that this method of discussion is linked with Africa somehow a bad thing? Sorry to play the race card here, but it’s not clear to me why the phrase “African tribal” is relevant. There are, as you have noted, many Africans in the Anglican Communion.

where he threw Gene Robinson and the gay cause he usually supports under the bus?

Since becoming Archbishop, ++Williams has made it abundantly clear that he understands the difference between expressing private theological opinions and using his office to tamper with the faith and practice of the Church. I think it is disturbing that conservative Anglicans and Catholics, who ought to understand this approach (think of an earlier, sainted occupant of the See of Canterbury, whose memory Catholics have preserved in honor when Anglicans shamefully desecrated it), instead adopt the language of liberal individualism to condemn Williams as a hypocrite or a traitor.

I hope Anglican legitimacy isn’t predicated on a relationship with this guy!

Some attention to the anti-Donatist writings of St. Augustine might be in order. Again, I expect a Catholic to understand the difference between office and person (not that we agree on the personal character of the Archbishop). But Catholics surprise me all the time.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The question then becomes who left the FAITH. The church is first and foremost the Faith, not the building or the hierarchy, despite the Episcopal church running around suing anyone who wants to keep the property they paid for, along with their faith.

As a continuing Anglican, we are continuing the same faith the Episcopals had 50 years ago. Someone strayed from the faith. Could it be the Episcopals with women priests and openly homosexual bishops?

You really need to figure out who left what here. There comes a time when people must take a stand against heresy and proclaim “Jesus Chist is the same, yesterday, today and forever…”

Couldn’t agree more. Nicely-put. The conservatives didn’t leave the TEC, TEC left the teachings of Christ starting in the 1970’s. Things just snowballed from there.

GKC’s point about how Anglicanism came to America via the Non-Jurors is an excellent point and quite true. EmeraldCoast’s point about schism along with piperspop are totally moot points based on history, theology, and common sense.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your opinion is noted, but I hope you will forgive me for not giving it much weight.

Edwin

Nor I yours, Edwin. Your opinion weighs about that of an earwig with me. You’re a moral relativist in an anything-goes, feel-good, morals-free denomination that is crumbling, getting old, and losing parishoners. That’s why you guys have to sue the pants off people breaking off. Anglicanism of the Episcopalian variety is becoming irrelevent; you yourself know that as well.

The only mistake I made today was taking you off my ignore list and actually reading what you have to say. In that regard, I was foolish! I’m now putting you back on my pie-in-the-sky, theologically-out-there ignore list. I hope you’ll do the same for me…

As they say on Saturday Night Live…buh-bye!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Three decades is a long time in your book? Wow–that’s a short memory for a Catholic. The “continuing Anglicans” are in schism from the Anglican Communion, as I have already noted.
**Did I say a long time, Edwin? I said for decades. And three decades constitutes decades? **
Is it your view that leadership in the Church should be a matter of “real power”? I do not find this to be compatible with the words or actions of Jesus.
Power? No. Holy, true to the Gospel, teaching in line with Peter and the deposit of faith? yes. Your church has departed from the historic, deposit of faith for a social justice, modern, twisted gospel.
That is certainly false.

Some people think all sorts of silly things.
I know. You continue to
If you want to live in the Twilight Zone (otherwise known as the British media’s religion reporting) instead of actually reading what the +Archbishop said, it’s your loss. If you seriously want to discuss what he said, I’m happy to do so in a different thread. But my experience has been that few people who bring this subject up actually care about what he really said–expressing horror at what he supposedly said is way too much fun.
Rowan has been an impotent wimp in trying to handle GAFCON, the liberal loons and the break-offs. Not only has he written some disturbing things about his views on homosexuality, the guy’s very office is worthless to begin with. He’s a figurehead, nothing more.

Is the fact that this method of discussion is linked with Africa somehow a bad thing? Sorry to play the race card here, but it’s not clear to me why the phrase “African tribal” is relevant. There are, as you have noted, many Africans in the Anglican Communion.
**When Rowan has to sit people down doing African tribal activities to come to resolutions, that’s just weird. I suppose you’d think it normal if he used Chinese oracle bones or consulted the Oracle of Delphi, Edwin. **
Since becoming Archbishop, ++Williams has made it abundantly clear that he understands the difference between expressing private theological opinions and using his office to tamper with the faith and practice of the Church. I think it is disturbing that conservative Anglicans and Catholics, who ought to understand this approach (think of an earlier, sainted occupant of the See of Canterbury, whose memory Catholics have preserved in honor when Anglicans shamefully desecrated it), instead adopt the language of liberal individualism to condemn Williams as a hypocrite or a traitor.
Williams isn’t a traitor, just a flake and lacks crediblity or authority.
Some attention to the anti-Donatist writings of St. Augustine might be in order. Again, I expect a Catholic to understand the difference between office and person (not that we agree on the personal character of the Archbishop). But Catholics surprise me all the time.
Folks like you never surprise me, however. You’re predictable to a tee. Defend any liberal, wild notion, acquiesce to the ways of the world, ignore the truth, and live in a moral relativist prison. Pope Benedict XVI speaks of this and I’m sure, being well-read, you know the heart of his message. Living in your own truth which separates you from the Church and moral clarity that is immutable and eternal, you mold the Church like clay into your own vision. Now that I’m done replying to this silliness, ignore time. I’m not reading your posts anymore. They’re not worth it.
Edwin

 

[GKC]

Personal opinion. After many years of knowing Contarini (and disagreeing with him, from the very first post) I wouldn’t share this evaluation. Edwin is a different sort of Anglican from what I’m. He stretches the boundary (IMO) of what is permissible, within the elastic frame of Anglicanism, historically, though, even as others stretch the boundaries of mere Christianity . Among what he supports are things that mitigate against any consideration (for those of us who consider such things, and he isn’t one) of Anglicanism’s claim to Catholicity (not the same as the branch theory). But personally, in my experience, I do not find him to be a liberal relativist, yielding to the zeitgeist IOW, he’s better than the company he keeps, as of now. And, in (an indeterminate) time, I sort of expect he will be keeping company with other, more worthy types. His toe has long been near the river.

On the positive side, he is a learned, erudite and committed Christian, as far as I can tell after about 10 years conversation. We happen to share the name of a ecclesiastical community, without sharing much of what one might assume such a situation would entail. Now, more than ever, that is true of those who claim the name of Anglican. Edwin did not make this situation. I sense he is not at ease or at home in it. Wait for a twitch upon the thread.

GKC

 

[rr1213]

OTOH, it is assumed that such a factor was considered in the only two cases known, in which an Anglican priest (or bishop, in Graham Leonard’s case) was ordained as a RC priest, sub conditione, rather than absolutely.

GKC

I know of Leonard. Who was the other one?

 

[GKC]

I know of Leonard. Who was the other one?

Fr. John J. Hughes, who preceded the Bishop of London across the river by 20 years or so. And who is the author of the two best books (as I often say) I know of on Apostolicae Curae.

GKC