| Thanks for the compliment. I've studied this in depth in the past, but I hope I approach it humbly as many great theologians have grappled with this as well.
The papal bull that claimed the orders of Anglican clergy invalid based on the LANGUAGE used in the ordination rite as far as claiming that it had last it's sacrificial nature. The problem becomes then that by this same line of reasoning, older RC ordination rites and all of Orthodoxy's ordination rites are invalid as there is not explicit sacrificial language in those rites. That presents a mighty problem for the logical reasoning of Apostolicae Curae. I believe the historical precedent for Apostolicae Curae is rooted in Counter-Reformation polemics against Lutheran/Reformed theology (as noted in the article I posted). Using such reasoning to claim Anglican ordination as invalid is a bit of a slippery slope.
You're right about some low church Anglicans not emphasizing the historic Episcopate. Yet, except in the Diocese of Sydney (Australia), the historic Episcopate has been maintained and its functions maintained. While some folks may not totally agree with the offices of bishops, all of the autocephalous churches that comprise the Anglican Communion are led by bishops. Regardless of individual lay thought, the bishops still teach and exercise authority. Isn't there also a strong lay movement in the Roman Catholic Church as well? One might argue that some of your same points about that particular group as well.
Thanks for the good discussion. |