www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Anglicans and the Papacy

Dear ByzanTN and Alex:

So, if ordaining women is like consecrating coca cola, does that not mean that there is an illicit celebration of the Eucharist going on in the Anglican Church?

If so, how can we be talking about communion in the first place?

Bascially, the Anglicans would have to de-frock all of its women priests and make the most serious act of pennance the world has ever seen.

So, unitl that happens, ecumenical talks in this regard are a useless waste of oxygen.

Yours,

hal

Orthodox Catholic wrote:
As for Prince Charles, he doesn't have to be Protestant in order to be King.

He could be Orthodox too .

Funny thing, he might be... OK, maybe not, but his dad, Prince George, was Greek Orthodox. In fact, Prince Charles even visits Mt. Athos now and again. An ACROD hieromonk I know even had his picture taken with the prince last time he was at Mt. Athos! It's a great picture.

Dear Hal,

Certainly, Rome does not recognize the orders of Anglicanism, something to goes back a while.

Also, Rome would definitely not recognize Eucharists presided over by women priests.

This is why I said that communion with Rome among the Anglicans would involve an internal schism (if such doesn't already exist in various regions and to varying degrees).

There are Anglican groups that don't recognize women priests and are very "high church." These are the groups, even entire Anglican provinces that MIGHT consider coming into communion with Rome.

There are and will be Anglicans who will not give up on the idea of women priests and some other issues.

One may doubt if they would want to consider communion with Rome or Orthodoxy.

The fact is that the Anglicans are divided into various camps, including the continuing churches, the Anglican Catholics, the Anglicans that maintain their Rite in Orthodoxy and in Roman Catholicism.

Even in that magazine I picked up at the Anglican church I visited, there were BOTH Anglican Catholics and Evangelicals saying that they no longer consider themselves as being in union with Canterbury for a number of reasons.

There is no one voice within Anglicanism that speaks for it in this, its time of crisis.

Anglicans are perhaps further away from the "Rome project" than ever before.

But Rome itself has said that talks should continue.

Alex

Intereestingly enough, there are local Episcopal priests who have gone to the Middle East and had themselves re-ordained by Orthodox bishops. Evidently, even some of the Anglicans don't believe in the validity of their orders. Now why they stay in a church whose orders they don't recognize as valid is beyond me.

i'm actually an orthodox Anglican myself. In my humble opinion, the errors of women orders and validation of homosexuality (which followed from the former) would have been prevented had Pope Leo XIII listened to the mainland clergymen and not the prejudiced English clergymen. Before Leo XIII issued his bull which denounced Anglican orders as invalid, he appointed a committee of mostly English Latin clergymen to investigate the matter. The English clergymen were hot to trot to see the non-Latin English tradition denounced and destroyed. The mainland clergymen actually were sharp enough to realize that an invalidation of Anglican orders actually invalidated their own orders as well, and they recommended that Leo XIII not invalidate Anglican orders. The argument was something like this:

"The Anglicans have an invalid form in their ordination."

"What is the invalid form?"

"They have a shortened form of the sacrament."

"How is it shorter?"

"Well, it is missing some things that we added."

"So their form is actually more ancient than our own?"

Thus, the Latin church denounced Anglican orders because it was missing small elements in the form - elements that were added by the Latin church. To contrast, look at how the Latin church has treated Orthodox orders. This whole mess stinks of politics (IMHO).

There also were serious talks between Cantebury and Moscow regarding mutual communion a while back, but now there are some serious hindrances.

Nowadays, however, we have a much different picture. The Anglican church has essentially become three churches - very liberal Protestant, very conservative Protestant/Bible church, and Anglo-Catholic-Orthodox (of which i am a part). This February will be a big month - more than likely the ECUSA will be ousted from the Anglican communion worldwide (due to the whole gay bishop thing) which will bring the Anglican church that much closer to Orthodoxy.

Interestingly enough, the *only* thing that holds the ECUSA together these days are a.)real estate and b.)pension funds. Apart from that, there is no unity and the whole thing would fall apart.

Lastly, i would also add that this is not uncommon to the Latin church as well. i know of plenty of Latin parishes that would affirm female clergy as well as homosexual. They simply have not produced a very loud voice as of yet. This is a problem that will confront everyone in our "modern" culture - at least in the US. The dissenters in Europe generally have the courtesy to recognize that they don't need to call themselves "Christians". (My that sounds harsh... i don't mean to sound judgemental - i'm just very emotional about this issue)

However, i still wrestle with this issue. Were it not for our Anglican parish in Dallas (which is actually more orthdox and Catholic than most of the Latin parishes around here - minus the pope of course), my wife and i would either be in the Latin tradition or the Orthodox. i myself tend to lean towards the Orthodox (mainly because of the Western errors in the schism of East and West), and my wife leans towards the Latin church (most of her childhood friends were Roman Catholic). Any advice/personal experience/comments here are appreciated, but that's probably OT.

Bottom line - if things shake up for the good this year in the Anglican church (i.e. get the US church back in line), then we may see the sparse dialogues in this area actually heat up a bit (in my small estimation).

Peace,
the_grip

Great point. There are also a number of Episcopal parishes that have joined the Orthodox tradition as well - several in my area, in fact.

However, other parishes like these that have not left (like my own) see the Anglican church (at least the Anglo-Orthodox-Catholic side of it... not the female orders and the homosexuality) as a kind of "Western Orthodoxy" to some extent. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but at least it is a home for now. i'm having a tough struggle in this whole Latin/Orthodox thing.

Peace,
the_grip

If I remember correctly - and I may not since I need to read up on all this again - part of the problem with Anglican orders was because the Anglican bishops lost the proper intent to ordain. The Anglican church has gone through several cycles when it was more Protestant-leaning, and then more Catholic in its practices. I remember reading that at the coronation of the son of Henry VIII, the bread and wine were left on the altar unconsecrated to prove the Anglican bishops didn't believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. That would seem to indicate another loss of intent.

Originally posted by the_grip:
Great point. There are also a number of Episcopal parishes that have joined the Orthodox tradition as well - several in my area, in fact.

However, other parishes like these that have not left (like my own) see the Anglican church (at least the Anglo-Orthodox-Catholic side of it... not the female orders and the homosexuality) as a kind of "Western Orthodoxy" to some extent. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but at least it is a home for now. i'm having a tough struggle in this whole Latin/Orthodox thing.

Peace,
the_grip

The same type of thing has happened here. After the early homosexual/feminist wars, a conservative parish formed here. It eventually converted to Orthodoxy and is now an OCA parish. Now, a new conservative Anglican congregation has formed. I think it is under the jurisdiction of an African Anglican bishop.

i see your point here as well, but this was not the whole Anglican communion - nor was it dogmatic Anglican teaching. To parallel, would the Latin rite be invalid because of errors in the past by some? Or perhaps look at the Arian heresy - the heresy that (according to Bede the Venerable) had infected almost the whole world.

i also am not trying to simply uphold Anglicanism for the sake of itself. i'm trying to be as objective as i can, and i have a feeling that i won't be in the Anglican communion forever... i don't know.

Anyways, just some final thoughts. i'll close my loud mouth for a bit and try to listen to what others have to say.

Your friend,
the_grip

As I indicated, it's been years since I read about the reasons for Leo XIII saying Anglican orders were invalid. But at the time of Henry VIII, the entire Anglican communion was in England. I would suspect at the coronation of Henry's son, most all the bishops would be present, and united in what they were doing. If I recall correctly, with the already mentioned qualifications to that recall, some Anglican clergy later wanted to restore valid intent, but Leo pretty much said it was too late by that time, since the intent to ordain had already been rejected and lost.

I should also mention that some of my conservative Episcopal friends have been deeply hurt by all the chaos in the Episcopal Church in the U.S. Some will tell you with tears in their eyes, why they had no choice but to join conservative Anglican parishes. Many are leaving churches where their families have been members for generations, and it's really heartbreaking for them. I am glad to not be in their situation.

Dear Charles,

It would make sense for Anglicans to reject other, even Apostolic orders (re: Middle East).

The 39 Articles of Religion do, after all, say that Rome AND Orthodoxy are in error.

Alex

Strangely enough, some Episcopal priests in this city have gone to the Middle East and been re-ordained by Orthodox bishops. In conversations about this, it has been hinted that this would get around the RC argument that Anglican orders are invalid, since Orthodox orders are accepted as valid by Rome. Consequently, they now have orders that Rome can not challenge.

The points made in Apostolicae Curae were that apostolic succession was lost at the Consecration of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury (1559) and that there was no intent (in the Ordinal of 1553) to produce a sacrificing priesthood.

Yes, I do remember that now that you mention it. This has not been a burning issue among those I know in recent times, so what I once read on the subject has faded from my memory.