I think the bottom line here is that the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the word “bishop,” or on any particular collar style. With regard to the so-called Roman collar, I have heard it from at least one prominent Protestant minister (now deceased) that he wore the collar as a reminder to himself of who/what he was, so that he would not yield to any temptations that might present themselves.I realize that outside the Catholic Church there is no valid Priesthood much less Bishops,my question is how do protestant ministers deem themselves Bishops,I’m not referring to Lutherans or Episcopal I’m certain that they are elected albeit from their respective parishioners or fellow clergy which we know to be invalid lacking Apostalic succession although I’m sure they argue this point to some degree,my question is to the usual nondenominational group that have business cards printed and such and typically avail themselves of clerical vestments from Catholic bookstores,usually without the most basic appreciation or vague understanding of the significance,I must also admit that it disturbs me to see nondenominational preachers wearing the Roman Collar,any thoughts ?
By saying “will certainly complicate” and “will probably have to reexamine,” you seem to imply that the ordination of women by Anglicans has only recently started. In fact, the Episcopal Church has been ordaining women for nearly forty years. It was approved in 1976, and the first such ordinations took place on New Year’s Day, 1977. The infamous “Philadelphia Eleven,” women who were illicitly ordained as priests in 1974, were regularized at the same time. The Anglican Church of Canada started in 1976, and the Anglican Church in New Zealand the following year. The Church of England approved it in 1992, and ordained women in January, 1994. South Africa approved the same year.The ordination women priests will certainly complicate claims to apostolic succession, Even the Eastern Orthodox who believed the Anglican apostolic succession was valid during the early 1900’s, will probably have to reexamine the things that have changed with the priesthood.
In fact, the “Roman” collar has Protestant origins. Roman clergy co-opted it.I think the bottom line here is that the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the word “bishop,” or on any particular collar style. With regard to the so-called Roman collar, I have heard it from at least one prominent Protestant minister (now deceased) that he wore the collar as a reminder to himself of who/what he was, so that he would not yield to any temptations that might present themselves.
True. But ordination of invalid subjects as priests, or even consecration of such as bishops, does not affect any preexisting apostolic succession directly. Until such bishops began to ordain, in their own activities, and to the extent such episcopal lines become the (supposed) source of the transmission of apostolic succession, preexisting apostolic succession is not affected. And since no one in the RCC considers Anglicans (with occasional theoretical exceptions) to possess apostolic succession anyway, it is a moot point.By saying “will certainly complicate” and “will probably have to reexamine,” you seem to imply that the ordination of women by Anglicans has only recently started. In fact, the Episcopal Church has been ordaining women for nearly forty years. It was approved in 1976, and the first such ordinations took place on New Year’s Day, 1977. The infamous “Philadelphia Eleven,” women who were illicitly ordained as priests in 1974, were regularized at the same time. The Anglican Church of Canada started in 1976, and the Anglican Church in New Zealand the following year. The Church of England approved it in 1992, and ordained women in January, 1994. South Africa approved the same year.
Female Anglican bishops were first ordained in 1989 in the U.S., and the Episcopal Church has had twenty female bishops. New Zealand also had its first female bishop in 1989, Canada in 1994. England was late to the party, as it was just last year.
But the ordination of women as Anglican deacons, priests and bishops has been a fact for decades now.
More accurately, it was a converging evolution, with things coming together (preaching band/tabs, cravat, the upturned collar of a cassock) from several sources and adopted by all sorts of folk.In fact, the “Roman” collar has Protestant origins. Roman clergy co-opted it.
“prematurely prescient”? As opposed to “tardy prescient”?True. But ordination of invalid subjects as priests, or even consecration of such as bishops, does not affect any preexisting apostolic succession directly. Until such bishops began to ordain, in their own activities, and to the extent such episcopal lines become the (supposed) source of the transmission of apostolic succession, preexisting apostolic succession is not affected. And since no one in the RCC considers Anglicans (with occasional theoretical exceptions) to possess apostolic succession anyway, it is a moot point.
An Anglican with orthodox opinions on the question of valid subjects for the sacrament of of Holy Orders would look at the practice of considering females such, to be a sort of black hole at the center of Anglican apostolic succession, which would, in time, make Apostolicae Curae a prematurely prescient document.
Of course. Artful alliteration, carefully crafted.“prematurely prescient”? As opposed to “tardy prescient”?
I think the alliteration here is for dramatic emphasis.
Fair enough. Never understood why it was ever called the “Roman” collar, though. Why not “Anglican?” Your kin were the first to wear it on the regular.More accurately, it was a converging evolution, with things coming together (preaching band/tabs, cravat, the upturned collar of a cassock) from several sources and adopted by all sorts of folk.
In a sense, but you’d have to credit the Kirk o’ Scotland as Anglican kin. Most folk who cite a single source seem to make Rev Macleod the fons et origo. But I’ll bet it had roots deeper than that.Fair enough. Never understood why it was ever called the “Roman” collar, though. Why not “Anglican?” Your kin were the first to wear it on the regular.
You are incorrect on the nature of the defect that was introduced into the rite that resulted in the decree of Leo XIII concerning Anglican Orders.The Church of England might have historical succession however in ordinations their intention is not to do what the Catholic Church does- i.e. they do not intend fidelity or obedience to the Pope or to the teachings of the magisterium. It is my understanding that this lack breaks their claim of apostolic succession.
I am not denigrating the Church of England or its members in any way.
The consideration of sacramental intent, in the use of the allegedly defective form of the Ordninal, was also a consideration, the two points being intertwined in Apostolicae Curae. The intent, as mentioned in the post here, is not that of sacramental intent, in the sacramental action, of course.You are incorrect on the nature of the defect that was introduced into the rite that resulted in the decree of Leo XIII concerning Anglican Orders.
Honestly I think it’s just an extension of the biblical and near biblical titles that are often used by folks in that non denominational or heavily reformed protestant family. I do business with a number of folks who are in that near Baptist non-denominational family of faiths and they all refer to each other as Brother or Sister despite the fact they’re all just regular congregants at their churches. Deeply believing and involved laity, but laity none the less.I realize that outside the Catholic Church there is no valid Priesthood much less Bishops,my question is how do protestant ministers deem themselves Bishops,I’m not referring to Lutherans or Episcopal I’m certain that they are elected albeit from their respective parishioners or fellow clergy which we know to be invalid lacking Apostalic succession although I’m sure they argue this point to some degree,my question is to the usual nondenominational group that have business cards printed and such and typically avail themselves of clerical vestments from Catholic bookstores,usually without the most basic appreciation or vague understanding of the significance,I must also admit that it disturbs me to see nondenominational preachers wearing the Roman Collar,any thoughts ?
I came from a background in which this was fairly common. I would be certain that It has no implication in their minds of anything except a recognition of a relationship in the faith; lay, to be sure.Honestly I think it’s just an extension of the biblical and near biblical titles that are often used by folks in that non denominational or heavily reformed protestant family. I do business with a number of folks who are in that near Baptist non-denominational family of faiths and they all refer to each other as Brother or Sister despite the fact they’re all just regular congregants at their churches. Deeply believing and involved laity, but laity none the less.