Orthodox-Anglican Dialogue breakdown?

  • Thread starter Thread starter T_More
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
manualman said:
Bluegoat, I’d like to clarify something in your post. Catholic teaching on Anglican orders is indeed that Apostolic Succession was lost during the Calvinization period under King Edward when an entire generation (plus) of Anglican bishops was ordained using an invalid ordination process that denigrated the inherent sacramentality of ordination itself. Since the sacramental sense of ordination was not renewed until an entire generation later, there were no more true Anglican bishops anymore capable of ordaining new priests or bishops; they had all died off during the Calvinist period.

Obviously Anglicans have a radically different opinion on the above, but I’m just trying to bluntly explain the catholic understanding of what happened.

Some EO believe that the “errors” of the Roman Catholic Church are of sufficient magnitude to have invalidated Latin orders too. I’m not an EO expert by a long shot, but since at no time did the RCC disparage the value or intent of the sacrament of Holy Orders, I have a hard time understanding their logic.

It really wasn’t meant as a clever retort? All the better! 👍
Click to expand...
I’m quite aware of the Catholic position. But you suggested that the Orthodox and Catholics were not so far apart because some Orthodox think Catholics have real priests, neglecting to mention that some think Anglicans do too. I don’t think they really care much about the Catholic arguments about Anglican validity.
 
gmcbroom said:
I’d go one step further and say even if the sucession was lost. The Dutch Touch was used later on a few Anglicans and that infused it into a few Anglican Lines Note I said a few, not all of them. Yet, It would be extremely difficult to track down which was which. So when you add a valid Apostolic Sucession in a few, plus Liturgical developements that that keep a Roman Catholic theme and a hierarchal structure ie Deacon, Priest, Bishop. I feel that The Roman Catholic Church held out this olive branch. Obviously not all Anglicans will go. Yet a few will. As for the Orthodox since they didn’t exactly come from them its no surprise that they’d have something to say on the matter as they have nothing to lose.
Click to expand...
It would not be so difficult as you might think, though I couldn’t do it myself. As with the RCC, Anglicans keep records of episcopal lines; who consecrated whom. A start could be found in Appendix II of Fr. J. J. Hughes STEWARDS OF THE LORD, where a list of 27 Anglican bishops who had either OC or PNCC lines is to be found, from the first formal occasion in 1932, through 1963. These bishops would then spread those lines, through their normal episcopal functions, and the propagation would continue. Who laid hands on which hair is a matter of record, but I don’t have it. But it would likely be harder to find an Anglican bishop without a trace of the Dutch Touch than otherwise. But remember, there is no definitive RCC statement as to what all that might mean.

GKC
 
Thanks for the precison GKC. My knowledge of the subject is distinctively “thick paint-brushed!”
 
It would be neat if they had somewhere a list of bishops’ succession in the last 100 years showing who exactly has been affected by the Dutch Touch and Polish patting…I don’t believe I’ve seen such a list. I’ve seen some long, hairy lists of succession in TEC but never any in relation to the Dutch Touch consecrations…
GKC said:
It would not be so difficult as you might think, though I couldn’t do it myself. As with the RCC, Anglicans keep records of episcopal lines; who consecrated whom. A start could be found in Appendix II of Fr. J. J. Hughes STEWARDS OF THE LORD, where a list of 27 Anglican bishops who had either OC or PNCC lines is to be found, from the first formal occasion in 1932, through 1963. These bishops would then spread those lines, through their normal episcopal functions, and the propagation would continue. Who laid hands on which hair is a matter of record, but I don’t have it. But it would likely be harder to find an Anglican bishop without a trace of the Dutch Touch than otherwise. But remember, there is no definitive RCC statement as to what all that might mean.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
It would be neat if they had somewhere a list of bishops’ succession in the last 100 years showing who exactly has been affected by the Dutch Touch and Polish patting…I don’t believe I’ve seen such a list. I’ve seen some long, hairy lists of succession in TEC but never any in relation to the Dutch Touch consecrations…
Click to expand...
You would have to dig it out of those long hairy lists. They’re in there.

GKC
 
I’m not that good of a digger! 😃 Besides, right now I’m still caught up in the euphoria of my Giants winning the West! 👍:cool:
GKC said:
You would have to dig it out of those long hairy lists. They’re in there.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The night is not complete without a Kahn quote, right?

Kahn: *I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her; marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet… buried alive! Buried alive…! *

Kirk: Kaaaaaaaahn!! Kaaaaaaaahn!
😛
Click to expand...
if we go by the book, like Lieutenant Saavik,…
 
Adam_Warlock said:
if we go by the book, like Lieutenant Saavik,…
Click to expand...
…hours could seem like days. And that is exactly how the Orthodox feel when they try to dialogue with us.

[/seamlessly weaving a return to the thread’s original purpose :D]
 
Sometimes they also say "I have had enough of you! :D, and I can’t say I blame them.
 
To the last, I will grapple with thee… from Hell’s heart, I stab at thee! For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee!
Thanks to what W.O. has done to ecumenical dialogue between orthodoxy and anglicanism I’m not surprised…
Adam_Warlock said:
…hours could seem like days. And that is exactly how the Orthodox feel when they try to dialogue with us.

[/seamlessly weaving a return to the thread’s original purpose :D]
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
To the last, I will grapple with thee… from Hell’s heart, I stab at thee! For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee!
Thanks to what W.O. has done to ecumenical dialogue between orthodoxy and anglicanism I’m not surprised…
Click to expand...
Or it could be Anglican ambiguity, as some reject WO and others accept it. Is there hope for those who reject it? Sounds like they are hurt by the pro-WO leaders under the “Anglican” umbrella.
 
The Orthodox seem to feel that because “some” Anglicans accept WO, it taints the entire priesthood of the Anglican Church. Metropolitan Jonah couldn’t have put it better when he spoke to the ACNA convocation and told them to knock it off with the stupid WO stuff already if they wanted real unity.

Most Anglican bishops and priests there rolled their eyes at his admonition. Sad. Because he was RIGHT!
JohnnyReb said:
Or it could be Anglican ambiguity, as some reject WO and others accept it. Is there hope for those who reject it? Sounds like they are hurt by the pro-WO leaders under the “Anglican” umbrella.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The Orthodox seem to feel that because “some” Anglicans accept WO, it taints the entire priesthood of the Anglican Church. Metropolitan Jonah couldn’t have put it better when he spoke to the ACNA convocation and told them to knock it off with the stupid WO stuff already if they wanted real unity.

Most Anglican bishops and priests there rolled their eyes at his admonition. Sad. Because he was RIGHT!
Click to expand...
What does he suggest they do about it, or go about stopping it? Doesn’t the ACNA reject WO already? Looks like we are online at the same time LOL that was a fast response.
 
He suggests they totally, utterly STOP it. The ACNA is split on WO, sadly. The more orthodox, faithful-to-tradition bishops like Schofield and Iker are opposed to it and forbid it in their dioceses. ++Duncan, the head of ACNA, allows it and still actively ordains women.
JohnnyReb said:
What does he suggest they do about it, or go about stopping it? Doesn’t the ACNA reject WO already? Looks like we are online at the same time LOL that was a fast response.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
He suggests they totally, utterly STOP it. The ACNA is split on WO, sadly. The more orthodox, faithful-to-tradition bishops like Schofield and Iker are opposed to it and forbid it in their dioceses. ++Duncan, the head of ACNA, allows it and still actively ordains women.
Click to expand...
Schofield and Iker are awesome
 
That’s for sure. +Schofield retires October 2011. I pray to the Lord that the next bishop is as conservative and traditional as he is with W.O.! +Iker is a ROCK. Love him.
Adam_Warlock said:
Schofield and Iker are awesome
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
He suggests they totally, utterly STOP it. The ACNA is split on WO, sadly. The more orthodox, faithful-to-tradition bishops like Schofield and Iker are opposed to it and forbid it in their dioceses. ++Duncan, the head of ACNA, allows it and still actively ordains women.
Click to expand...
Well then some did stop it. The issue is that the ones who split have no control over the fact that the others continue to ordain women. It creates quite a mess, and shows that there is no one Anglican position on the issue. The Orthodox are right, it does create a mess.

Ironically, some of the pro women’s ordination people I have studied with when I was in the Assemblies of God (they ordain women) take the position-held by evangelist Charles Finney-that revival is hindered by taking the wrong position on social issues. Modern day revival is hindered because many churches have taken the wrong stance-against-women’s ordination. Yes, they even compared it to slavery of African Americans. Crazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top