In what category do Anglicans fit?

[Will_B]

At the risk of just repeating what has already been said …

No offense (I hope) but with all the issue that divide Christians, it seems a little strange to me that you single out the “closed communion” issue.

Is not the Eucharist the center of worship in both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church?

Did Jesus say “Unless you eat of My Flesh and Drink my Blood, you have no life in you” ??

Then to deny a fellow Christian, who believes the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ is to deny both the Center of worship and Life.

On a more personal note: My youngest daughter went to a very fine Roman Catholic University in Ohio… She fell in love with the Roman Catholic Church as was received into the Church at the 2004 Easter Vigil… Her mother and I were not able to receive the Body and Blood of Christ at that mass… Yet, in another diocese at another time we attended a funeral mass in a Roman Catholic Church, and the Bishop of that diocese allowed us to received… Why could we receive at the funeral and not at the vigil?? Answer: Two different bishops… One knew our theology and granted us dispensation… The other wasn’t sure so therefore denied us the dispensation.

 

[GKC]

i am not sure what a “continuing” anglican church is. are anglican bishops still considered to be in line with apostolic succession according to the Roman Catholic Church or just by the anglican church? there might be a difference of opinion depending on which side you are on. your definition of what an anglican is might be too simplistic.

Continuing Anglican Churchs, or the Continuum is the generic name for the sort of Anglican I am. Generally, these are the Episcopalians who separated from the Episcopal Church (or Anglicans worldwide who did similar things) beginning after the St. Louis meeting in 1979. The issue of separation was originally the changes to the Book of Common Prayer, and later included female “ordination” and the familiar litany of stuff that has gone wrong with the official Anglican Communion over the past 30+ years.

Continuing Anglicans are not in communion with Canterbury. The largest Continuing groups in this country are the Anglican Province of Christ the King, the Anglican Catholic Church, and the Anglican Church in America. Googling these will find you their home pages. The ACA is the Amercican jurisdiction that is part of the Traditional Anglican Communion, of which you may have heard.

Officially, the RCC does not consider Anglican bishops to be in apostolic succession. Hence, they do not consider Anglican Holy Orders to be valid, and the sacraments which depend on orders, likewise. This is the point of *Apostolicae Curae *

GKC

 

[anon52328184]

thank you GKC. i am glad to hear that there was one anglican group that split away that actually is not in communion with canterbury. that helps me a little more know from where you are coming from.

i had no idea that any groups had split away as far back as 1979, but i didn’t even know there had been a new prayerbook until 1982 because i hadn’t attended church for so many years and then i had moved to a different state,
so i thought maybe they just did it differently here. i just knew it wasn’t how i remembered it from high school.

i definitely missed the prayerbook from 1928 and i think now some of the anglican churches are going to use the prayer book from 1662?

if the church had remained how it was from how i remembered it in the 1960’s, maybe i wouldn’t have left. but that is speculating.

 

[manualman]

To expand on GKC’s fine post, *Apostolicae Curae *essentially concludes that there was a period in early Anglican history in which the rite of ordination became SO thoroughly protestantized that it no longer contained the essential elements necessary to confect a valid sacrament of Holy Orders. Since that period extended for an entire generation of bishops, apostolic succession was lost and the priests and bishops ordained by those ‘bishops’ also did not and could not receive apostolic succession, even when the rite was restored to the proper form. A correct rite is no good if the one celebrating it has no Holy Orders.

Naturally, Anglicans disagree, but you asked for the catholic position in a nutshell.

IIRC, A.C. is silent on the matter of bishops later consecrated by bishops who DID have valid Holy Orders, but were in schism. Many Anglicans have an interesting belief that apostolic succession has since been restored through the use of these schismatic bishops. I’m not sure if Rome has weighed in on the idea.

 

[GKC]

thank you GKC. i am glad to hear that there was one anglican group that split away that actually is not in communion with canterbury. that helps me a little more know from where you are coming from.

i had no idea that any groups had split away as far back as 1979, but i didn’t even know there had been a new prayerbook until 1982 because i hadn’t attended church for so many years and then i had moved to a different state,
so i thought maybe they just did it differently here. i just knew it wasn’t how i remembered it from high school.

i definitely missed the prayerbook from 1928 and i think now some of the anglican churches are going to use the prayer book from 1662?

if the church had remained how it was from how i remembered it in the 1960’s, maybe i wouldn’t have left. but that is speculating.

Try googling the names I listed. And while they are the largest groups, there are many more.

Not sure what some Anglican groups may use. We use 1928.

GKC

 

[GKC]

To expand on GKC’s fine post, *Apostolicae Curae *essentially concludes that there was a period in early Anglican history in which the rite of ordination became SO thoroughly protestantized that it no longer contained the essential elements necessary to confect a valid sacrament of Holy Orders. Since that period extended for an entire generation of bishops, apostolic succession was lost and the priests and bishops ordained by those ‘bishops’ also did not and could not receive apostolic succession, even when the rite was restored to the proper form. A correct rite is no good if the one celebrating it has no Holy Orders.

Naturally, Anglicans disagree, but you asked for the catholic position in a nutshell.

IIRC, A.C. is silent on the matter of bishops later consecrated by bishops who DID have valid Holy Orders, but were in schism. Many Anglicans have an interesting belief that apostolic succession has since been restored through the use of these schismatic bishops. I’m not sure if Rome has weighed in on the idea.

To your last question, no. Nothing official has been said by Rome, though the logic of the infusion of PNCC or Old Catholic lines, which started in 1932, would logically suggest that the judgment would be valid, but illicit. But it’s not my call.

The point in history that is usually taken as the point of a break with apostolic lines, is the consecration of ++Parker, in 1559 (see Clark/ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) , using the Edwardine Ordinal. The logic was that the form was defective and that the intention of anyone who used the form would be judged defective, too. Both defects (form and intent) have to be considered together, since many rites which the RCC does recognise as conveying valid orders have the same “defect”.

It is complicated, and as you note, Anglicans have their own opinion on the whole sad, story.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Greg27]

In my reading of Anglican theological documents, Anglicans claim to be ‘Catholic’ and ‘Reformed.’ They are ‘Catholic’ in the sense they hold on to the traditions of Christianity (such as the Bible, the creeds, the sacred ministry of deacons, priests and bishops, and the sacraments) but also ‘Reformed’ in the sense they adopt several key ideas of Reformed Christianity, such as rejecting the Papacy and holding the Bible to be the final authority in matters of faith, doctrine, discipline, and morality.

I personally prefer the idea of ‘scripture, tradition and reason’ rather than the ‘Catholic’ and ‘Reformed’ idea when talking about Anglicanism. I think it is pointless for Anglicans to compare themselves with Roman Catholics when clearly in a historical sense, they repudiated Roman Catholicism through schism. While some aspects of Roman Catholic practice and theology have influenced Anglicanism, I think it makes much more sense to regard it as a very different creature than Roman Catholic Christianity. I also think Anglicanism is very different from the evangelical and reformed denominations. I think this can obviously be seen in the fact that Anglican churches have adopted a range of theological, doctrinal and pastoral positions in various issues that are completely repugnant to Roman Catholics (such as ordaining women and permitting divorce and remarriage) or Evangelicals (consecrating gay clergy). Instead it makes more sense to see Anglicanism as a seperate and unique Christian denomination and church that has developed independently of both Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism in a historical and theological sense, though its development has been influenced by both.

So, Anglicans fit in their own category, independent of Roman Catholic and Evangelical Christianity.

 

[anon52328184]

that sounds like a pretty good description to me. it makes a lot of sense.