Another question about the Anglican Eucharist...

[PaladinValer]

I think when we use the term 'valid' in a church context we simply mean: it says what it is.

A 'valid' baptism is a ritual where we can acknowledge that it actually was a baptism. If someone sprinkles some water over a baby and says 'God loves you' we would not call that a baptism. If they say it was a baptism we would argue that it was not a valid baptism. Or the Eucharist: if it is performed by some minister with coke and crisps and they recite some poetic texts it might be a lovely thing to do but not a 'valid' Eucharist.

So validity in a context of a discussion in an Anglican church means simply that we acknowledge a rite to be a sacrament or to do what it says.

I think in this our use of the term is different from that in the Roman Catholic church.

If we read Saepius Officio, which was our official reply to Apostolicae Curae, we find that much of the verbage used when discussing validity, chiefly, the words "form", "matter", and "intent", is the same. Thus, "validity" is taken seriously in Anglicanism, as would "licity", although that's very plain given our liturgy.

 

[Bonifatius]

That means that they are commonly called sacraments, not that they are sacraments. BTW, no one is advocating that they be discontinued by the church, so that idea is hardly worth approaching.

Well, that they are 'commonly' called sacraments does not say they are 'wrongly' called sacraments.

 

[Albion]

Well, that they are 'commonly' called sacraments does not say they are 'wrongly' called sacraments.

That was already taken care of in the rest of that Article. They are either the result of corruption in the church or else ordinary states of life allowed in the Scriptures but not sacraments like B and HC because they weren't ordained of God. It's hard to argue that they are sacraments in ANY sense if they aren't "of God."

 

[Bonifatius]

If we read Saepius Officio, which was our official reply to Apostolicae Curae, we find that much of the verbage used when discussing validity, chiefly, the words "form", "matter", and "intent", is the same. Thus, "validity" is taken seriously in Anglicanism, as would "licity", although that's very plain given our liturgy.

It is pretty clear that the Archbishops use a lot of the 'Roman' terminology to repsond to Apostolicae Curae, but it is still fair to say that the way in which the Roman Church defines validity, non-validity or legitimacy is not very common in Anglicanism. The whole concept of 'valid but illegitimate' sacraments' (such as ordinations) is a bit strange. The Roman Church has a tendency to make decision about whether God's grace is at work or not - hence their understanding of valid or invalid sacraments in other churches. Anglicans have - rightly - been very careful in making judgements about whether God is at work in rites of other denominations.

 

[Bonifatius]

That was already taken care of in the rest of that Article. They are either the result of corruption in the church or else ordinary states of life allowed in the Scriptures but not sacraments like B and HC because they weren't ordained of God. It's hard to argue that they are sacraments in ANY sense if they aren't "of God."

The article does not say they are 'not of God', but that there is no 'visible sign or matter' ordained by God - which simply means that their form has developed during the early history of the church. So they are not Sacraments of the Gospel (such as Baptism and Holy Communion), but they may still be called sacraments. If they were really corrupt in nature and 'not of God' they should be abandoned altogether and not practices that be kept in the life of the church.

However, this is a discussion which has been going on for a long time in the Church of England. I can accept people who would not call 'the other five' sacraments. On the other hand there have been many Anglicans and still are who do.

 

[Albion]

The article does not say they are 'not of God', but that there is no 'visible sign or matter' ordained by God

No, it actually says "they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." IOW, they do not meet the test of being a sacrament, although I'd think that a case could be made for them being considered "sacramental," which is what many people say of these ceremonies.

I can accept people who would not call 'the other five' sacraments. On the other hand there have been many Anglicans and still are who do.

No disagreement there. We were discussing the status of these sacraments or alleged sacraments. Accepting the people who think they are sacraments is another matter altogether.

 

[PaladinValer]

It is pretty clear that the Archbishops use a lot of the 'Roman' terminology to repsond to Apostolicae Curae, but it is still fair to say that the way in which the Roman Church defines validity, non-validity or legitimacy is not very common in Anglicanism. The whole concept of 'valid but illegitimate' sacraments' (such as ordinations) is a bit strange. The Roman Church has a tendency to make decision about whether God's grace is at work or not - hence their understanding of valid or invalid sacraments in other churches. Anglicans have - rightly - been very careful in making judgements about whether God is at work in rites of other denominations.

Not common, perhaps, but used and accepted. There is, as we I'm sure can agree, a difference between "uncommon" and "foreign".

Furthermore, validity has always been about visibility, and Anglicans are the same way. That's why it is a part of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. However, part of the problem is that people think "not visible=no grace", and that's never been even a part of the Roman Catholic idea, and since we're no different truly, it isn't part of ours either. Part of the Roman Catholic problem is that too many of them have a wrong perception of it as well, and, of course, Apostolicae Curae is utterly defeated by Saepius Officio.

So we do, officially, have the concept of validity and licity. Our orders are valid, and we know those other than some Lutherans and Moravians is not. Does that mean God cannot or doesn't work through Protestant groups? No. But we have absolutely no way to know for absolute certain. I'm very certain He does, and we should be in discernment, but without assurance, caution is always forefront. I couldn't go to a Methodist altar and receive, but I can go to a Moravian one and receive, because I'd not know for certain at the Methodist altar (hopefully that will change soon!) but I do know for certain at a Moravian altar.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well, I think the ancient teaching of the undivided church was that holy orders was grace bestowed on the ordained transmitted from the Apostles down a line of bishops, and that bishops exclusively could consecrate new bishops or ordain priests, and bishops or priests could exclusively through the word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit and by virtue of their ordination confect the body and blood of Christ.

Yep- I understand that. But the grace bestowed is not defined as to what that grace is. We pray for the grace to perform the task, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a special unique charism is given that makes wine turn into bread. The notion that only specially zapped people have the magic to change earthly elements into God is about as far from the Judeo-Christian scriptures as one can get. That's why the Church (esp in the West) has always accepted that the responsibility for making a sacrament valid does not rest on the minister, but on the Word of God. As St Augustine put it: "Accedat verbum ad elementum, et At sacramentum", that is "If the Word be joined to the element it becomes a Sacrament". This means God makes sacraments, not priests or bishops.

The deacon, priest or bishop is given the responsibility for the public exercise of the priesthood of all (just as in the OT) and we pray in their ordinations and consecrations that they receive the grace necessary for those tasks (as we are taught in the scriptures) So, grace is genuinely given (from God the giver of grace, not from the bishop but through his office and prayer) but no special magic power is passed on. Not in scripture anyway. Medieval theology may disagree, but much of that had to be reformed, didn't it?

Without this understanding of sacramental validity and grace coming from God via His Word, one could not be in agreement with the Articles:

"Article XXVI

Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."

Scriptures teach clearly that God's grace can leave the sinful person or place. However, it also teaches that all things come about by, through and with His word. Thus even though the minister of the sacrament be the worst sinner, if He is working within the office to which he is validly and properly called and is working with the Word of God, God is dispensing grace through that Word. The word has all the power and authority as the means of grace, the minister is being "borrowed" in a sense. If it were any other way, you would never be certain that God's grace is being offered in any sacrament or in any absolution.

I don't think it's a case where lay people could do it and are just told not to as a matter of church order. That would be a very Protestant understanding.

While people who dabble in theology like to throw around terms like "that's Protestant" or "That's Roman" and all that kind of nonsense, the real question is not what label to throw on a teaching, but to test whether or not it is true. However, for the sake of being honest with terms and avoiding inaccurate hyperbole, I have not seen any Reformation era Protestant Confession that allows lay people to administer the sacraments without a valid call to the ministry. That would include the Anglican Church. However you do find church authorities that are most ancient that allow for laymen to administer the sacraments in certain cases. In fact, you even find bishops being elected and set apart for the episcopacy from among the presbyters. That throws a curious spanner in the works for some versions of sacerdotalism.

 

[ContraMundum]

I'm waiting for the case to be made that the donkey was either a priest or a prophet.

Technically, the donkey was prophesying. Not in in the office of the Prophet, but given the gift to do so. God does have His own ways, doesn't He?

 

[Albion]

Technically, the donkey was prophesying. Not in in the office of the Prophet, but given the gift to do so. God does have His own ways, doesn't He?

Are you sure that the donkey was not simply used by God, for effect, much like the burning bush or even in the manner of a ventriloquist's dummy? IOW, the donkey was simply the vehicle for the message?

 

[Bonifatius]

No, it actually says "they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." IOW, they do not meet the test of being a sacrament,

Where do you take that definition of a sacrament from?
IOW I do not know of any standard (Anglican) definition of a sacrament that requires a (particular) visible sign or ceremony to be 'ordained of God' for each of the sacraments.

 

[Bonifatius]

So we do, officially, have the concept of validity and licity. Our orders are valid, and we know those other than some Lutherans and Moravians is not.

I agree with most of what you say. Still, I would say that the Anglican churches would not officially say that Methodist orders or orders of other Protestant churches are not 'valid'. Yes, they are (currently) lacking the visible sign of Apostolic Succession in the unbroken line of episcopal ordinations, and therefore they are lacking one of the fundamental standards of Anglican ordinations, but that does not make them 'invalid'. Otherwise it would have been impossible to sign mutual agreements such as the Anglican-Methodist Covenant in England, it would have been impossible to start Local Ecumenical Partnerships where Anglicans and Methodists are effectively live together in one congregation.

The difference in my view is: If you decide about valid/invalid it's a YES or NO option. If you talk about 'deficiency' it leaves open to what degree. So I personally have no problems with receiving at a Methodist altar even if the ministers are not ordained within the visible line of succession. For me the fact that they have been ordained according to the customs of the Methodist Church and are following the commandment of the Lord in celebrating the sacrament is enough of a common ground.

 

[Albion]

Where do you take that definition of a sacrament from?
IOW I do not know of any standard (Anglican) definition of a sacrament that requires a (particular) visible sign or ceremony to be 'ordained of God' for each of the sacraments.

By its wording, the Article is referring to the standard catholic definition of a sacrament: must have been ordained by Christ, must utilize physical elements, must forgive sins, and must confer grace. The Eucharist and Baptism are the only two which meet the definition. Read the Article with this in mind and you see what it's saying about which are sacraments and which are not. Also the part about Transubstantiation in Art. XXVIII.

 

[Bonifatius]

By its wording, the Article is referring to the standard catholic definition of a sacrament: must have been ordained by Christ, must utilize physical elements, must forgive sins, and must confer grace. The Eucharist and Baptism are the only two which meet the definition. Read the Article with this in mind and you see what it's saying about which are sacraments and which are not.

That doesn't make sense, since that doesn't even describe the (Roman) Catholic sacraments. Not all of them have an explicit commandment of Christ behind them such as Baptism or the Eucharist (i.e. a kind of clear 'institution'), not all of them do forgive sins.

AFAIK the catholic understanding of a sacrament is:
- it makes use of physical elements or rite (such as bread, water, oil, laying on of hands etc.)
- it combines the elements with words of promise
- it is a visible and instrumental means of God's grace (not necessarily forgiveness of sins, for ordination or marriage convey a different kind of grace).

 

[Albion]

That doesn't make sense, since that doesn't even describe the (Roman) Catholic sacraments.

As I said, the language refers to the Catholic (and not just Roman) understanding of a sacrament.

Not all of them have an explicit commandment of Christ behind them such as Baptism or the Eucharist (i.e. a kind of clear 'institution'), not all of them do forgive sins.

You are right about that, and that's why we do not consider them to be sacraments. HOWEVER, the RCC does use that standard and also "fits" the lesser five into it. I agree that it's double talk and a lot of inferring, but what's new about that? LOL

 

[xenia]

Regarding my friend, my hope for him is that he embraces his new Anglican church fully, with all her sacraments (however many they may be ). I don't see how he can be a whole-hearted Anglican and run his own little non-denom church on the side, baptizing people and all. I asked my original question because I know how this would be looked upon in the Orthodox world but didn't know how you all did things in the Anglican world. What a fascinating discussion has ensued!

 

[Albion]

Regarding my friend, my hope for him is that he embraces his new Anglican church fully, with all her sacraments (however many they may be ). I don't see how he can be a whole-hearted Anglican and run his own little non-denom church on the side, baptizing people and all. I asked my original question because I know how this would be looked upon in the Orthodox world but didn't know how you all did things in the Anglican world. What a fascinating discussion has ensued!

Yes, and I'm sorry the discussion took off and wandered like it did. That's par for most threads on CF, I guess we can say. But his ideas do not look to be compatible with Anglican theology as we understand what you laid out for us. He cannot function as a clergyman without being ordained according to Anglican standards, and he cannot pretend that a fellowship meal conducted in a living room that features the consumption of bread and wine is the equivalent of the Lord's Supper. But maybe he is attracted to Anglicanism because of other reasons and will decide to pursue it, even knowing that this particular idea we've been discussing idea is not workable.

 

[xenia]

I'm sorry the discussion took off and wandered like it did.

No need to apologize, I enjoyed reading all the opinions.

My thoughts are that he is attracted to Anglicanism for all the right reasons but has been the leader of his group for so many years he is loathe to give it up and I believe this is out of affection for his little flock.

 

[ContraMundum]

Are you sure that the donkey was not simply used by God, for effect, much like the burning bush or even in the manner of a ventriloquist's dummy? IOW, the donkey was simply the vehicle for the message?

We are not told. But the same could be asked of human prophets- at least in part.

 

[Bonifatius]

As I said, the language refers to the Catholic (and not just Roman) understanding of a sacrament.

My confusion comes from you referring to the 'Catholic' understanding of a sacrament and then naming a few points that are actually NOT part of the Catholic understanding or are narrowing it down so that it fits your understanding of a sacrament. You can't blame the Romans for that. ;-)

According to Catholic doctrine a sacrament needs
a. matter (bread, water, laying on of hands ect.)
b. form (words that go with it)
c. a priest to perform the sacramental rite.

Apart from that Sacraments do convey grace (not necessarily the forgiveness of sins), they are not just a visible sign of a grace but also effectual in in conveying that grace. And they go back to Christ.
However, the Catholic understanding does not make it necessary that there is a formal act of institution in the gospel such as with Baptism (Mt 28) or the Eucharist, it could only be a commandment such as 'forgive sins' (penance) or 'heal the sick' (anointing of the sick).

Even the Roman Catholics knew that there were no clear institution narratives in the Holy Gospel for rites such as ordination, unction or matrimony. Still they believe that these sacramental rites go back to a commandment of Christ. So it is clear in the language of the articles that they have no 'visible sign or language commended by God'. It is also clear that the matter and form of some of the sacraments has changed during the times.