Feb 2nd Feast Day of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple

[No Swansong]

That isn't even Anglicanism. Tradition 'has erred' is Anglicanism.

Bob Hope lives!

Please note my icon. I'm Old Catholic. While I admire the 39 articles I certainly do not believe them to be inspired.

So Calluna stop dodging the question Anglican or Old Catholic?

 

[pmcleanj]

at least we come to the table together and worship and are there for each other as part of the body of Christ! Better than bickering about obligations etc.

Hear! Hear!

This is what Via Media is all about -- the possibility of being "both ... and". One of the things I love about being Anglican, is that I can luxuriate in a tradition that exemplifies the BOTH best aspects of Catholicism AND the best aspects of Protestantism. It's sad to see either aspect of our great tradition being denigrated by adherents to opposing extremes.

 

[Secundulus]

What you write is not Anglicanism at all, however much the Puritans wanted it to be. This is easily proven from the 1662 BCP.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.

HE Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated or ordered.
http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html#36

​

From here we can look directly to the the BCP chapter on the Ordering of Priests to see exactly what the Anglican Church thought their function was and is.

When this Prayer is done, the Bishop with the Priests present, shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the Order of Priesthood; the receivers humbly kneeling, and the Bishop saying,

ECEIVE the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them kneeling the Bible into his hand, saying,

AKE thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.
http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/ordinal/priests.html

​

We see plainly that the Anglican concept of Priesthood is identical to the Roman concept of Priesthood and bears no relation to the idea of the Priesthood of all Believers which while true, has nothing to do with the duties and functions of the ordained Priesthood set apart for particular service to God.

 

[calluna]

the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.

This does not state that power of forgiveness or not is exclusively for the presbyter, and it is not understood to be anything at all special to Anglican priests. Many Anglicans understand and teach that this power is that given to all Christians, being the guidance of the Holy Spirit who leads all the saints into all truth. Here, as in all things, the final arbiter in Anglicanism is the Scripture.

We see plainly that the Anglican concept of Priesthood is identical to the Roman concept of Priesthood

Not only is there no exclusive power of absolution, there is no sacrificial role for any Anglican. The objection that Rome has to Anglican orders is that Anglicans cannot offer Christ because they cannot effect transubstantiation. (Of course the Anglican reply is that nobody can do that.) The Anglican presbyter is not part of a 'magic' caste, as in Roman theology, but one simply appointed and approved to do what anyone can do. The relationship of parishioners to clergy in Anglicanism is one of equals, very different to that of ordinary Catholics to their clerics, particularly among the poorer classes.

 

[Secundulus]

The Anglican presbyter is not part of a 'magic' caste, as in Roman theology, but one simply appointed and approved to do what anyone can do. The relationship of parishioners to clergy in Anglicanism is one of equals, very different to that of ordinary Catholics to their clerics, particularly among the poorer classes.

That is simply false. Anybody cannot consecrate the elements of the Eucharist. This is reserved to the Priests. Anybody cannot Confirm members of the Church. This is reserved for Bishops.

 

[calluna]

That is simply false. Anybody cannot consecrate the elements of the Eucharist. This is reserved to the Priests. Anybody cannot Confirm members of the Church. This is reserved for Bishops.

Indeed. But because they are duly appointed, not because they have 'magic hands' by succession.

 

[Secundulus]

Indeed. But because they are duly appointed, not because they have 'magic hands' by succession.

They are duly consecrated by a Bishop in Apostolic succession. If you want to call that magic hands then you simply do not understand the Anglican concept of Apostolic succession. If you do understand it but simply reject it then why are you an Anglican at all? If you are not an Anglican, then why are you here trying to tell us what we believe?

Furthermore, as to whether they sacrifice or not; Yes they do.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

Saepius Officio

Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull Apostolicae Curae of H. H. Leo XIII

ANSWER TO THE APOSTOLIC LETTER OF
POPE LEO XIII.
ON ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. ​

Further we truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and do not believe it to be a "nude commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross," an opinion which seems to be attributed to us by the quotation made at that Council. But we think it sufficient in the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the holy Eucharist, -- while lifting up our hearts to the Lord, and when now consecrating the gifts already offered that they may become to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, -- to signify the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service in such terms as these. We continue a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ, who is our Advocate with the Father, and the proptiation for our sins, according to His precept, until His coming again. For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord's Passion for all the whole Church; and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic sacrifice.

 

[calluna]

They are duly consecrated by a Bishop in Apostolic succession.

Not according to a great many Anglicans.

Furthermore, as to whether they sacrifice or not; Yes they do.

Not the propitiatory sacrifice that RCers claim to offer.

'For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord's Passion for all the whole Church; and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic sacrifice.'

East is east, and west is west.

 

[pmcleanj]

And, for those of us who would like to discuss how we observed Candlemas ... the Candlemas no-bickering thread: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7338772:)

 

[No Swansong]

Bless you Pamela, Secundulus go for it, I have no desire to debate with a person who has no grasp of Holy Tradition and who obviously does not qualify as a member of this forum and continues to debate here contrary to the rules.

 

[pmcleanj]

There can be no middle way between polar opposites.

Now, that's one of the sillier metaphors I've seen in a while! There's a whole world of middle-ground between the two polar extremes. Admittedly, one misses that perspective if one stands right on the pole and looks down at one's feet. If, on the other hand, you look up at the stars, you might just realize that the same Heaven blankets all of us -- both poles, and the whole Via Media world in between.

You're claiming that one extreme IS the whole world. That's not the Anglican reality. Anglicanism is Catholic -- that is self-evident from our Book of Common Prayer -- "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church ...." ... " ... we pray for the good estate of the Catholic Church ..." ... "for Thy holy Catholic Church ..."

The Anglican Church believes in the sufficiency of Scripture -- but it doesn't define the term narrowly or use it as a hammer to beat down perfectly valid perspectives that co-exist within the whole company of all faithful people. The Anglican Church *is* protestant -- at least by the common definition of the term if not by the technical definition -- and that's a very good thing. We don't generally define our Catholicism so narrowly as to use it to beat down perfectly valid perspectives, either.

And there's really no point in using our congregational fellowship forum to wale away on the *Roman* Catholic congregation, either -- it's rude and unpleasant. They are what they are, and they aren't us. I'm praying for a "global warming" of the heart, that might just melt away the polar icecaps that are keeping people trapped in their opposing polar extremes. The via media is at least built on the Solid Rock, and not on ice that only feels solid, and only so long as one remains cold-hearted.

 

[calluna]

Now, that's one of the sillier metaphors I've seen in a while!

Très drôle. Yes, if understood in a literal, geographical way.

 

[No Swansong]

[/color][/size][/font]Très drôle.Yes, if understood in a literal, geographical way.

Even in a metaphorical way it is true that there is always middle ground between polar opposites.

By the way Calluna Anglican or Old Catholic?

 

[calluna]

Even in a metaphorical way it is true that there is always middle ground between polar opposites.

Please give an example.

 

[0-2Continuum]

The objection that Rome has to Anglican orders is that Anglicans cannot offer Christ because they cannot effect transubstantiation.

I would like to say that the chief element of the Roman objection to Anglican orders has less to do with the verbage of the ordination rite so much as the porrection of instruments. The roman rite of ordination from the medieval period emphasized the instruments given to the ordinand as 'symbols' over the words said. Though Anglican clergy are ordered in quite similar language, different instruments are/were given. The instruments in question are understood to indicate (as Rome understands them) sacrifice as has been argued about already in this thread. The Anglican reply to this is that clergy (in and out of the Roman line of succession) were not always ordained in such a way that these instruments were given and if Anglican orders are void for such a reason then so should nearly all early Church era ordinations to the priesthood.

 

[higgs2]

equator