The question of the validity of Anglican orders in Roman eyes is indeed a thorny matter. And in truth there was a difficulty in terms of Apostolic succession in the Church of England, where a doubt unquestionably did hang over the matter of the bishops’ Succession in Marian/Elizabethan times.
The (Anglican) Church of Ireland, however, is an entirely different matter. Here there was no hiatus whatsoever in terms of direct transmission of Apostolic Succession. The bishops, as a body (with only two exceptions) accepted the Anglican Settlement at the time of the Reformation, and the Church proudly proclaims its direct line of descent from Patrick in the 400s. Moreover, the participation of C of I bishops in the ordination of C of E Bishops in the past 500 years undoubtedly has long since conferred the thread of true Apostolicity back to the C of E bishops.
On the matter of the understanding of the Eucharist, it is my understanding that the ARCIC talks had reached a point of substantial understanding of the position of both the Catholic and Anglican sides, which seemed to be remarkably close to agreement. Great progress had also been made on the question of the position of the Pope and on Authority. But there has been nothing on this in quite a number of years. The matter seems to have stalled, and personally, I was left with the impression that Rome had lost interest in Ecumenism. I stand, gladly, to be corrected on this point. Can anyone say where it stands on the present Holy Father’s agenda?
Personally, as an Anglo-Catholic, I have no difficulty in subscribing to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, although I believe that it was proclaimed rather late - in the 1400s? [Council of Constance?] I feel, however that a reliance on the words and intention of Our Saviour is a surer anchor on which to pin my belief. The old ‘jingle’
His was the word that spake it;
He took the Bread and brake it;
And what that word did make it,
I do believe and take it.
sums my position. And I see nothing in this that is contrary to holding to Transubstantiation as a tenet of faith.
As to genuflecting in Anglican churches, it is not required. Respect can be shown in many ways - pausing to say a quiet prayer, light a candle, buy a book of magazine. Besides, most Anglican churches where I come from do not reserve the Blessed Sacrament, so a genuflection would not be appropriate. It is customary among Anglicans, however, to incline the head in a modest bow when passing before the altar. This indicates respect for the place where our ‘sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ is made.
Anglicanism occupies a precarious place between the Roman Catholic Church and the much furtherer shores of the Genevan-style Reformation. It leans rather towards the Roman Catholic Church which most Anglicans regard as the great Mother Church of the West, and the Pope as the Patriarch - the Father. It is saddening, therefore to see some of the comments that I have noticed from time to time here on this board. Surely triumphalism has no part to play in shaping realtions between Christian brothers and sisters? Is it every bit as hindering to unity as the Reformers’ name-calling? Certainly there were bad Popes, but the Office of the Papacy always remains unsullied; and while calling the Pope the Antichrist may have seemed justified in terms of a Borgia, it was forgotten that Our Lord instituted the Office and that Office must always be respected and honoured regardless of the incumbent. But moderation, sadly, was not a virtue of those far off times. We should make it a virtue in the here and now.
Jesus’ prayer was that we all be one. We owe it to our Master to encourage each other, in all charity, towards that goal.
