Episcopalian

[jrtrent]

Do Anglican’s accept marriage as a sacrament?

From Article XXVIII:

"There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

However, it is not unusual for at least some Anglicans to refer to the latter five as “minor or lesser sacraments,” as in this excerpt from the Joint Affirmation of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America:

"It is therefore affirmed that Christ directly instituted only two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, for use in the Church, by means of which his people partake of the mystery of the Incarnation. These two sacraments are rightly considered “generally necessary for salvation.” Furthermore, the Church orders her life sacramentally in services, rites, and signs that are rooted in the baptismal and eucharistic mysteries. The Church through these ministrations is the instrument and channel of God’s grace. For this reason, it is permissable within Anglicanism to refer to the rites and ceremonies of confirmation, penance, matrimony, ordination, and unction as ‘minor or lesser sacraments’ " rechurch.org/recus/?MIval=/recweb/anglican_belief_practice.pdf

 

[GKC]

I find the disdain that some have for Episcopalians difficult to read, so I am not here as often as I would like. But I do have three brief points to make:

The first is in reply to DavidFilmer…in my experience, a majority of Episcopalians do accept the Real Presence. Of course yours may differ.

The second is to GeorgeStegmeir…everyone loves to point to Spong as a bad example (and I can’t disagree, I didn’t like the guy). But no one ever points out that the governance of TEC didn’t much care for him either. In fact, his Assistant Bishop, Walter Righter, was brought up on charges for holding many of Spong’s views as a surrogate for Spong himself who was seen as too powerful and popular. Righter ended up being acquitted by the ecclesiastical court in a long and complicated process, but given the rarity of such actions, I think it demonstrates that most of us aren’t on the loony fringe like Spong. Much like the First Amendment in the United States allows people to espouse unpopular beliefs, we believe that individual Episcopalians (and, indeed, bishops) can speak their conscience even if it’s a minority view.

Finally, to the OP…I think one other essential difference is that the Episcopal Church is a ground-up sort of organization. Churches call their own rectors. Dioceses elect their own bishops. The General Convention (both clergy and laity) vote on changes to canon law. We lack the top-down governance of the RCC. Some may say that is not a good thing, while others would say it’s more in keeping with the democratic ideals of this nation’s founders.

I wish you all a blessed day.

As to the concept of the Real Presence, I agree with you.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Do Anglican’s accept marriage as a sacrament?

Generally (a dangerous term), yes.

GKC

 

[GKC]

From Article XXVIII:

"There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

However, it is not unusual for at least some Anglicans to refer to the latter five as “minor or lesser sacraments,” as in this excerpt from the Joint Affirmation of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America:

"It is therefore affirmed that Christ directly instituted only two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, for use in the Church, by means of which his people partake of the mystery of the Incarnation. These two sacraments are rightly considered “generally necessary for salvation.” Furthermore, the Church orders her life sacramentally in services, rites, and signs that are rooted in the baptismal and eucharistic mysteries. The Church, through these ministrations is the instrument and channel of God’s grace. For this reason, it is permissable within Anglicanism to refer to the rites and ceremonies of confirmation, penance, matrimony, ordination, and unction as ‘minor or lesser sacraments’ " rechurch.org/recus/?MIval=/recweb/anglican_belief_practice.pdf

Hence, it is not uncommon for Anglicans to affirm two Dominical Sacraments, ordained of our Lord, in form, and 5 other Sacraments, not so ordained, but not lesser. Just distinguished by that fact. Without asking whether that might be permissible of some one.

All sorts of Anglicans out there.

GKC

 

[J_the_Centrist]

I find the disdain that some have for Episcopalians difficult to read, so I am not here as often as I would like. But I do have three brief points to make:

The first is in reply to DavidFilmer…in my experience, a majority of Episcopalians do accept the Real Presence. Of course yours may differ.

The second is to GeorgeStegmeir…everyone loves to point to Spong as a bad example (and I can’t disagree, I didn’t like the guy). But no one ever points out that the governance of TEC didn’t much care for him either. In fact, his Assistant Bishop, Walter Righter, was brought up on charges for holding many of Spong’s views as a surrogate for Spong himself who was seen as too powerful and popular. Righter ended up being acquitted by the ecclesiastical court in a long and complicated process, but given the rarity of such actions, I think it demonstrates that most of us aren’t on the loony fringe like Spong. Much like the First Amendment in the United States allows people to espouse unpopular beliefs, we believe that individual Episcopalians (and, indeed, bishops) can speak their conscience even if it’s a minority view.

Finally, to the OP…I think one other essential difference is that the Episcopal Church is a ground-up sort of organization. Churches call their own rectors. Dioceses elect their own bishops. The General Convention (both clergy and laity) vote on changes to canon law. We lack the top-down governance of the RCC. Some may say that is not a good thing, while others would say it’s more in keeping with the democratic ideals of this nation’s founders.

I wish you all a blessed day.

Cool (name removed by moderator)ut and you will find no disdain coming from this Catholic, God bless you.

 

[GKC]

The Episcopal Church of the United States is more or less an apostate organization, and has completely abandoned Anglicanism as properly understood, and did so many years ago. Its Rite II Eucharist liturgy is a great example of this. Look at the General Confession and Absolution used at that liturgy, looks like the priest just waves a magic wand and your sins go away. Compare that, then, to the Confession and Absolution from the 1928 Prayer Book. It’s completely different.

Anglicanism is in a perilous state at the moment, for a number of reasons. The Church of England is in a slightly better position, at the moment, because it more or less has two churches operating within the same ecclesiastical structure, with those under ‘flying bishops’ far better able to maintain the orthodox faith. I am blessed to be in a part of the church which stays true to it, but fear for the future.

In terms of the Eucharist, the only doctrinal difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism is the very specific nature of the real presence, where Roman Catholics assert the doctrine of transubstantiation, whilst Anglicans leave it as a mystery (much as the Eastern Orthodox do).

The Roman Church does not recognize Anglican orders. This is based on some rather nuanced logic which has been proven faulty. I believe the logic was employed at the behest of the new RC hierarchy in 19th century England who, concerned about their own legitimacy, wanted such a pronouncement after it turned out the ‘Nag’s Head fable’ was just that, a fable. So the pope bowed to their pressure and put together a rather poor bull to back them up. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York then replied (in rather better Latin, funnily enough) with ‘Saepius Officio’, which is definitive.

The problem with most Anglicans when they try to justify themselves is that they spend far too much time trying to do so with their backs up against the wall. They don’t actually consult primary sources, only seeing them interpolated or used by Roman or Eastern blog writers and authors and panicking about it. It’s far more productive, for those interested in Anglicanism and what that actually is, to consult actual Anglicans. Start with Richard Hooker.

Apostolicae Curae did owe its existence to some of the dealings of Cardinal Vaughan, in reaction to the actions of Lord Halifax and the Abbe Portal, but it is neither fair or accurate to say that it in any way involved a doubt of the RC hierarchy as to the legitimacy of their own orders. It’s more complicated than that. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID is highly recommended.

Saepius Officio is a good response, but like Dom Gregory Dix’s little book on the subject, may not adequately address the intent issue. OTOH, as Francis Clark has shown,* Apostolicae Curae* is not precisely clear as to what is meant by intention, in the Bull (ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION).

I can’t recall panicking, myself. But if one wanted to avoid it, I’d read* AC*, SO, and the two books I mentioned above, plus Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, which addresses the theological points, as opposed to the historical.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

Hence, it is not uncommon for Anglicans to affirm two Dominical Sacraments, ordained of our Lord, in form, and 5 other Sacraments, not so ordained, but not lesser. Just distinguished by that fact.

Interesting. I’ve never seen the term Dominical Sacrament used in any of the books I own by Anglican writers. But then, you already know I’m not widely read in all things Anglican yet. I’m currently working my way through 13 different expositions of the 39 Articles; taking a quick look at Article XXV in each of them, I couldn’t find the term, and every commentator distinguishes two as being greater than the other five. Not saying you’re wrong, just that I can’t find that sense of the sacraments that you mention in my small library of books.

Is there a particular time frame of Anglican writer or perhaps a movement or school of thought within Anglicanism I should be looking for to get a more well-rounded perspective? You had previously recommended Clutterbuck’s MARGINAL CATHOLICS, Staley’s THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, and Moorman’s HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND. I have to admit I got sidetracked by the cd of 39 Articles books and haven’t even ordered them from the library yet. I’ll go do that today.

 

[GKC]

Interesting. I’ve never seen the term Dominical Sacrament used in any of the books I own by Anglican writers. But then, you already know I’m not widely read in all things Anglican yet. I’m currently working my way through 13 different expositions of the 39 Articles; taking a quick look at Article XXV in each of them, I couldn’t find the term, and every commentator distinguishes two as being greater than the other five. Not saying you’re wrong, just that I can’t find that sense of the sacraments that you mention in my small library of books.

Is there a particular time frame of Anglican writer or perhaps a movement or school of thought within Anglicanism I should be looking for to get a more well-rounded perspective? You had previously recommended Clutterbuck’s MARGINAL CATHOLICS, Staley’s THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, and Moorman’s HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND. I have to admit I got sidetracked by the cd of 39 Articles books and haven’t even ordered them from the library yet. I’ll go do that today.

I would suspect that every book you’re reading will support the 2 sacraments idea. Some Anglicans do. And I also suspect that most of your commentaries will date from the late 1700s through the late 1800s. Just a guess.

You need more on the Anglo-Catholic/Tractarian movement and the Ritualist movement.

Google “Dominical Sacraments Anglican” and you’ll see the term here and there, and a variety of interpretations of them.

GKC

 

[Deegie]

Interesting. I’ve never seen the term Dominical Sacrament used in any of the books I own by Anglican writers.

For what it’s worth…GKC and I come from opposite ends of the U.S. Anglican spectrum. But the term is one that I hear quite often as well, and in fact use sometimes in my teaching.

 

[GKC]

For what it’s worth…GKC and I come from opposite ends of the U.S. Anglican spectrum. But the term is one that I hear quite often as well, and in fact use sometimes in my teaching.

My thanks. And Anglican spectrum, or Anglican range, are terms I have used oft in the past. Along it one can find all sorts of Anglicans, affirming all sorts of things.

GKC

 

[fluttershy]

Well I’m Episcopalian and I pray to saints. We just leave this up to personal preference.

 

[GKC]

Well I’m Episcopalian and I pray to saints. We just leave this up to personal preference.

We encourage it.

We being the sort of Anglicans who do that sort of thing.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

GKC:

I used the word ‘legitimacy’ cautiously but deliberately in respect of the RC hierarchy in the 19th century in England. It is remarked upon a lot that Nicholas Wiseman was openly mocked for declaring himself bishop of the ‘diocese’ of Westminster, because people believed very much at the time that a diocese was ruled by one bishop only, and the idea that a bishop of another church could claim canonical rule in that part of Christendom was simply foreign to people’s minds. This is especially the case in a country like England, where having an established church would have certainly affected people’s thinking.

I suspect the RC bishops might have been beholden to the same principle.

 

[GKC]

GKC:

I used the word ‘legitimacy’ cautiously but deliberately in respect of the RC hierarchy in the 19th century in England. It is remarked upon a lot that Nicholas Wiseman was openly mocked for declaring himself bishop of the ‘diocese’ of Westminster, because people believed very much at the time that a diocese was ruled by one bishop only, and the idea that a bishop of another church could claim canonical rule in that part of Christendom was simply foreign to people’s minds. This is especially the case in a country like England, where having an established church would have certainly affected people’s thinking.

I suspect the RC bishops might have been beholden to the same principle.

But the RC bishops would not doubt the legitimacy of their own orders.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Now - the invincible becomes vincible through places like this site.

Please provide support for this statement.

Anna

 

[DavidFilmer]

As to the concept of the Real Presence, I agree with you.

But I would ask you (and also Deegie) to what extent you agree. How do you define the “Real Presence?” Do you subscribe to the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation? Or Cranmer’s idea of receptionism? Or something else?

If I showed you bread which was consecrated in an Episcopal communion service and asked you, “what is this?” - what would you answer? Would you say: “that it is the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity, and Humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, no matter what you or I might think it is”? To me, that’s what “real” presence “really” means. Or would you reply with something less? Maybe Martin Luther’s idea of consubstantiation (it’s not actually the Body of Christ, but the Body of Christ is somehow handcuffed to the bread). Don’t feel bad if an answer escapes you - Thomas Cranmer didn’t have an answer either (and he’s the Anglian who invented the whole idea of receptionism, with a little help from Hooker).

What would YOU answer?

 

[GKC]

But I would ask you (and also Deegie) to what extent you agree. How do you define the “Real Presence?” Do you subscribe to the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation? Or Cranmer’s idea of receptionism? Or something else?

If I showed you bread which was consecrated in an Episcopal communion service and asked you, “what is this?” - what would you answer? Would you say: “that it is the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity, and Humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, no matter what you or I might think it is”? To me, that’s what “real” presence “really” means. Or would you reply with something less? Maybe Martin Luther’s idea of consubstantiation (it’s not actually the Body of Christ, but the Body of Christ is somehow handcuffed to the bread). Don’t feel bad if an answer escapes you - Thomas Cranmer didn’t have an answer either (and he’s the Anglian who invented the whole idea of receptionism, with a little help from Hooker).

What would YOU answer?

Anglicans are certainly a varied lot. Me, I’m the sort that holds that Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1 is as good a reply as can be made. No, I don’t feel bad, but thank you for your concern.

But I’d be a little careful about the Luther/consubstantiation idea. JonNC might hear you.

GKC

 

[Symphorian]

But I would ask you (and also Deegie) to what extent you agree. How do you define the “Real Presence?” Do you subscribe to the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation? Or Cranmer’s idea of receptionism? Or something else?

What would YOU answer?

Whilst there is much common ground in Eucharistic theology between Roman Catholicism an Anglicanism there is difficulty when specific and tightly drawn ways of describing the presence of Christ in the Eucharist are drawn. Anglicans affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist but we tend to be reticent on defining the precise mode of His presence. We are instead generally content to reverence that presence as a mystery.

Here are a few snippets from some Christmas sermons by Mark Frank (1612-1664) one of our Caroline Divines. I do not see Receptionism here.

“We call it a receiving, let us then receive it; receive, and answer this receiving in the text with the receiving in the day; receive we Him and His fullness, Him and His graces, Him with all thankfulness, reverence, and devotion…We call it a receiving, and so it is, the most signal receiving that we have, a receiving Him full and whole; body and blood, flesh and spirit, really though not corporally both; let us therefore receive it.”

“One of His places of rest we are told you was in the church, or holy place; let us seek Him there. Another rest of His we mentioned to be in the Blessed Sacrament; let us seek Him there…And indeed, in the holy mysteries of the Blessed Sacrament, is His second place of rest. There it is that He ‘feeds His flock, and rests at noon.’ And He is glorious there, glorious in His mercies, illustrious in His benefits, wonderful in His being there.”

“He is now ready by and by to give Himself to eat; you may see Him wrapped ready in the swaddling clothes of His blessed sacrament; you may behold Him laid upon the Altar as in his manger. Do but make room for Him, and we will bring Him forth, and you will look upon him, and handle Him, and feed upon Him: bring we only the rags of a rent and torn and broken and contrite heart, the while linen cloths of pure intentions and honest affections to swathe Him in, wrap him up fast, and lay Him close to our souls and bosoms. It is a day of mysteries: it is a mysterious business we are about; Christ wrapped up, Christ in the sacrament, Christ in a mystery; let us be content to let it go so, believe, admire and adore it.”

“Never so gracious words proceeded out of his mouth as those you hear there: ‘This is my body, which was given for you. Take and eat’ the one; ‘Take and drink’ the other. What more abundant grace, what higher favour, than thus to have our lips, and mouths, and hearts filled with himself, and all the benefits of himself? Wonder we may at it, for it is a work of wonder * an ineffable mystery.”

“But to-day we have a fairer discovery and sight of him. This Jesus that is so fair, this Jesus so full of grace, this Jesus so blessed of God for ever, is this day presented to us in his Blessed Sacrament; there is he himself in all his beauty, all his fullness…Take we it, then, and bless him with it; ‘taste and see how gracious the Lord is;’ see and behold how fair he is, how amiable and lovely; and be ravished with his beauty and sweetness, and never think we can be satisfied with it, with seeing, or hearing, or blessing him, but be always doing so for ever.”

 

[Indifferently]

There is a great gulf between the Catholic, patristic doctrine of the Real Presence and the Aristotlean, medievalist, scholastic dogma of Transubstantiation.

 

[CleverUserName]

Do Anglican’s accept marriage as a sacrament?

I’m compelled to quote my former priest- an Episcopalian.

This, from a recent conversation:

“I hate marriage. It’s all a lie, anyway. I am never performing another marriage ceremony”.

And he has not.

Scary.