When did Anglicanism go astray?

[Meowzltov]

The Church of England took its first step away from orthodoxy when it abandoned the rite for the ordination of priests, and thus lost apostolic succession. But the real blow came much later, with the ordination of women priests. Until then, there was always the chance that apostolic succession could be restored, but once women were introduced into the picture, there was no longer that hope. Once they lost the scriptural understanding of the priesthood, they pretty much gave up their dependence upon scripture for morality as well.

BTW, there is a reactionary Anglican church here in the USA that is also Anglican: the Anglican Church in North America. It is very Evangelical and Bible based. It came into being when the Episcopal church began doing gay marriages.

I have to say that the Anglican Communion isn't entirely lost if they had the sense to give the Episcopal Church USA three years of sanctions.

 

[Paidiske]

Open heart, the rite of ordination hasn't been abandoned. All of the things which would be considered essential elements in a Catholic ordination are still there.

The argument about the validity of our orders hinges not on the rite, or even on apostolic succession, which we demonstrably have, but on whether the Anglican understanding of priesthood is close enough to the Roman Catholic one that it can be said that our intention is the same. That is a matter of lively debate; personally I think that a flat rejection of the possibility of valid Anglican orders (in Roman Catholic terms) is based more on the desire to condemn us than a fair look at our theology of ministry.

(That is leaving aside the question of the ordination of women, although that is a debate that Catholics are yet to properly have).

 

[Meowzltov]

Open heart, the rite of ordination hasn't been abandoned. All of the things which would be considered essential elements in a Catholic ordination are still there.

I'm not a person to disrespect everything about the Anglican Church. In particular, I think Anglo-Catholicism has a lot to offer. I learned a lot about Christianity from CS Lewis, my favorite Anglican. I myself was the Director of Music at an Episcopal church for a while. And so it is with all respect that I say, the Church of England did deliberately change the words of the rite. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Paidiske]

Well... we put them into English. But as I read the Roman rite (in English) - the essential matter is the laying on of hands, not the words themselves. The essential words of ordination are in this Roman rite inserted into the Eucharistic preface, are thus: "Almighty Father, we pray that you bestow on these servants of yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew in their hearts the spirit of holiness, so that they may be steadfast in this second degree of the priestly office received from you, O God, and by their own lives suggest a rule of life to others." (Taken from here: http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resou...-holy-orders-rite-of-priestly-ordination.html)

Anglican rites differ in different places, but if we take the rite by which I was ordained as an example, it has a considerably longer prayer at the imposition of hands, rather than as part of the Eucharistic preface, and it runs thus:

"Blessed are you, Lord our God!
You have given us your only Son
to be the Apostle and High Priest of our faith,
and the shepherd of our souls.
Exalted as Lord of all,
he poured out the Spirit and gave gifts to your people,
making some to be apostles, some prophets,
some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
to equip the saints for the work of ministry,
and to build up the body of Christ.
And now we give you thanks
that you have called these your servants
to the ministry of priests in your Church.

Here the bishop with the priests present lay their hands on the head of each ordinand, and the bishop says

Send down the Holy Spirit upon your servant N,
whom we set apart by the laying on of our hands,
for the office and work of a priest in your Church.

When hands have been laid on all who are to be ordained priest, the bishop continues

Grant to these your servants, merciful God,
grace and power to fulfil their ministry:
to proclaim the gospel of salvation through word and sacrament,
to declare the forgiveness of sins,
and to watch over and care for the people committed to their charge.
As you have called them to your service,
make them worthy of their calling.
Accept our prayer through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord,
to whom with you and the Holy Spirit belong glory and honour, worship and praise, now and forever.

The people respond Amen."

So if the essential matter is the laying on of hands, and the essential form is a prayer that God bestow on the ordinands what is needed to become priest, our rites (in their variety) fulfill both. And that is what I have also been told by Catholic liturgical scholars.

The issue is not in our rites, it is in the intention behind them and whether it is seen as being the same.

Either way, suggesting that we're going to hell for it is not appropriate CF etiquette, is it?

 

[Albion]

The Church of England took its first step away from orthodoxy when it abandoned the rite for the ordination of priests, and thus lost apostolic succession.

If one actually were to believe that, this would put the "first step" substantially AFTER Henry VIII and his dispute with the Pope and the reassertion of the autonomy of the Church of England. Contrary to what you wrote about the ordination service, the rite that the Roman Church declared to be invalid 300 years later was the same as used by the Roman Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages. The Vatican never declared those ordinations invalid, of course.

BTW, there is a reactionary Anglican church here in the USA that is also Anglican: the Anglican Church in North America. It is very Evangelical and Bible based. It came into being when the Episcopal church began doing gay marriages.

The Anglican Church in North America is just the latest in a series of reformed Anglican church bodies to separate from The Episcopal Church.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The Anglican Church in North America is just the latest in a series of reformed Anglican church bodies to separate from The Episcopal Church.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well... we put them into English. But as I read the Roman rite (in English) - the essential matter is the laying on of hands, not the words themselves. The essential words of ordination are in this Roman rite inserted into the Eucharistic preface, are thus: "Almighty Father, we pray that you bestow on these servants of yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew in their hearts the spirit of holiness, so that they may be steadfast in this second degree of the priestly office received from you, O God, and by their own lives suggest a rule of life to others." (Taken from here: http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resou...-holy-orders-rite-of-priestly-ordination.html)

I understand. I think that we can agree to disagree on the validity of orders and at the same time I can appreciate the very real good that you do as a pastor.

 

[Meowzltov]

If one actually were to believe that, this would put the "first step" substantially AFTER Henry VIII and his dispute with the Pope and the reassertion of the autonomy of the Church of England. Contrary to what you wrote about the ordination service, the rite that the Roman Church declared to be invalid 300 years later was the same as used by the Roman Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages. The Vatican never declared those ordinations invalid, of course.

Is there a reason you have to nitpick? Is that the point of this thread? Since you insist on splitting hairs, the ordinations during that period of time were valid but illicit.

 

[Paidiske]

I understand. I think that we can agree to disagree on the validity of orders and at the same time I can appreciate the very real good that you do as a pastor.

I can agree to disagree on the validity of Anglican orders, but what I was trying to get at is why they're said to be invalid. It's not the changed words, it's the question of intent. Which isn't important if you don't want to explore it, but could be important if you wanted to have an indepth discussion.

Anyway, we can leave it for now.

 

[Albion]

Is there a reason you have to nitpick? Is that the point of this thread? Since you insist on splitting hairs, the ordinations during that period of time were valid but illicit.

You were wrong, then. But neither should you lose your composure because someone corrects a mistake.

 

[Meowzltov]

You were wrong, then. But neither should you lose your composure because someone corrects a mistake.

I was wrong about what?

 

[FireDragon76]

The Episcopal Church has absorbed lines of valid succession from the Union of Utrecht. I suspect the same is true in much of the Church of England.

 

[Paidiske]

We had lines of valid succession from the beginning. All of our original bishops had been Roman Catholic bishops.

 

[FireDragon76]

We had lines of valid succession from the beginning. All of our original bishops had been Roman Catholic bishops.

Yes, I very much sympathize with that too . There are some churches that the Roman church has recognized, such as certain Syriac churches, that don't even have the Words of institution in their liturgy.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Episcopal Church has absorbed lines of valid succession from the Union of Utrecht. I suspect the same is true in much of the Church of England.

MUCH????? nah.

 

[FireDragon76]

MUCH????? nah.

I don't know as much about the CoE but I do know the Episcopalians take the issue of apostolic succession seriously. So much so that it was a barrier to altar fellowship with the ELCA (Lutheran), until the ELCA agreed to allow the Episcopalians to participate in the co-consecration of clergy in the future.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If (I said "if") a denomination were apostate, would a mountain of evidence of apostolic succession be of any value?

In other words, isn't the important thing practicing the Christianity of the apostles, rather than tracing one's lineage to them?

It reminds me of the Jews resting in their having Abraham as their "father".

 

[FireDragon76]

In other words, isn't the important thing practicing the Christianity of the apostles, rather than lineage?

For some that believe in apostolic succession, it's part of the faith of the apostles. Many Anglicans believe it is part of the bene esse (well-being) of the Church, but not an essential part of the esse (being).

It's noteworthy that the concept of apostolic succession understood today did not exist without debate at one time. During the middle ages there were various opinions as to whether presbyterial succession was possible.

 

[Paidiske]

To me personally, apostolic succession is not a big deal.

However, it is a very big deal to some people, and given that we have ample evidence that we have preserved it, we are able to counter claims to the contrary.

 

[FireDragon76]

Years ago I read The Panther and the Hind by Aidan Nichols. It's from a Roman Catholic perspective but still a good history of Anglicanism. Liberalism has been a strain that some would argue was there from the beginning, especially among the early refugees coming from Germany and Geneva. Combine that with a certain Erastianism (the local church following the state) that developed around Elizabeth I, and liberalism was a natural response to the religious debates of the day. Especially after the English Civil War, people were looking for an alternative to sectarianism, and a sort of dry English "deism" or moralism emerged in the broad church movement. Sort of the "Joel Osteen" of its day, it often preached about the benefits of religion or holy living in society.

The modern liberalism owes a lot to the postwar years and the profound disenchantment that occurred in the wake of two world wars and the Holocaust. Certain theologians from the Anglican broad-church tradition misunderstood Bonhoeffer's idea of Religionless Christianity in the context of the dry deism they had long held to, and this created the modern movement seen in some parts of the Anglican world (note I said some). Bishop John A.T. Robinson or Bishop John Shelby Spong represent the heirs of this approach, but it is by no means the dominant one in Anglicanism.