tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3510683104110156630..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: E.J. Bicknell on Anglican Orders (first published in 1919)Fr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69797952721934095392008-12-20T19:02:00.000-05:002008-12-20T19:02:00.000-05:00Dear Father Hart and Poetreader:Thank you for your...Dear Father Hart and Poetreader:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your responses. I too would call myself somewhat of a platypus, since in my experience it is not common for Traditional or Conservative Roman Catholics (I'm a Traditional RC) to be overly interested in "ecumenical dialogs". To their credit, it's one of the Progressive RCs favorite activities.<BR/><BR/>My interest in ecumenical dialog stems partly from the point of view of psychology. It seems to me that ecumenism, as practiced today, concentrates on stating our beliefs at each other, and sometimes supplementing such statements with historical data. Usually, that's as far as it goes.<BR/><BR/>I wonder to what extent denominations shape the psychology of their members, and how this plays into the area of ecumenical dialog. I wouldn't claim to understand all the ways Traditional Roman Catholicism has shaped my own psyche, but I suspect it has, at a deep level. I'm sure it's the same for everyone else who's serious about religion. But neither am I suggesting that we psychoanalyze each other - that would be a terrible mess. This should remain a private matter. <BR/><BR/>Which makes me think, how does this affect Christ's wish that we all be one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47617395649889029122008-12-20T16:45:00.000-05:002008-12-20T16:45:00.000-05:00Mark,I'm sorry if I seem to have over-reacted a bi...Mark,<BR/>I'm sorry if I seem to have over-reacted a bit. I did not realize that you were a new reader. You see, we do indeed have many visisyts from the kind of "apologist" to which I refered, who have read many posts that answer these questions and yet prefer to act as though they had never heard any such thing. Truly I do appreciate honest inquiry - our position, as Fr. Hart so ably points out, is not intuitively grasped by those who have not encountered us. With the spirit you have shown in your response to my over-strong answer, you are certainly welcome to participate in this conversation.<BR/>If you'll browse some of our previous posts, you'll find that there are a lot more things being discussed than the validity of our orders. We'll likely not convince you to adopt our way if thinking, but we would hope that you can come to understand just what it is. We may have disagreements (some of tghem of real substance), but I firmly beluieve that we are brethren in the Faith of Christ.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53524873926262998082008-12-20T15:43:00.000-05:002008-12-20T15:43:00.000-05:00Mark:To answer your questions I would remind you o...Mark:<BR/><BR/>To answer your questions I would remind you of the Orthodox Church, inasmuch as the issues that divide Catholic Christians are not really so novel. The idea that sacramental validity can be recognized without submission to the See of Rome is not unique to us, nor is it new. <BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>What first intrigued me about this blog was a curious, from my Roman perspective, blend of Romanism and Protestantism.</I><BR/><BR/>Romanism in that we are western, and the Roman Catholic Church also inherits that same western Catholicism that was both culturally and spiritually the possession of the Church of England. But, it is better to say "Catholic," as a word that is in the Creeds common to Rome, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. <BR/><BR/>Protestant, yes, but in a very different way from what the usual definition suggests. It is that distinctive <I>via media</I> of Anglicanism, a Protestant Catholicism, or Catholic Protestantism, looking to restore the way of antiquity in order to be more truly Catholic. <BR/><BR/>We defy the neat categories of conventional religious definition. This is why I have used the Duck-Billed Platypus as a symbol for Anglicanism. Perhaps it could be our Patron mascot.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60783715561373212442008-12-20T15:24:00.000-05:002008-12-20T15:24:00.000-05:00Dear Poetreader:Thank you for your response. It wa...Dear Poetreader:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your response. <BR/><BR/>It was not my intention to harangue or be an apologist. If some of my questions were ignorant, then please accept my apology. What first intrigued me about this blog was a curious, from my Roman perspective, blend of Romanism and Protestantism.<BR/><BR/>I wanted to get a better sample of the psychology here, since I've never encountered this type before. Your conversations and responses to my occasional comments did give me a fleeting glimpse of some of the inner workings, and for this I'm grateful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59957683611244367082008-12-20T10:31:00.000-05:002008-12-20T10:31:00.000-05:00Mark,I saw this in the pending box and took it upo...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I saw this in the pending box and took it upon myself to publish it, though it's not usually my role, as I did want to comment.<BR/><BR/>I don't want to sound patronizing or combattive, but this response is startling in the lack of awareness of concepts and events well and constantly discussed on this blog.<BR/><BR/><I>First, since this seems to continue to be one of the main issues here, why not, in this ecumenical age, discuss it directly (face to face) with Rome herself ? Has such an effort ever been undertaken by the Anglican Church in the recent past? Or is this now a more or less a frozen disagreement?</I><BR/><BR/>Conversations between, first the Anglican Communion, and now Continuing Anglicans, and Rome has never ceased to discuss this very issue. It is at the heart of the ongoing discussions.<BR/><BR/><I>Second, is it reasonable to expect to receive the Roman imprimatur of the Anglican orders, without also expecting the Anglican priests to acknowledge the primacy of Peter?</I><BR/><BR/>Why would it NOT be reasonable? Is truth to be arrived at by a series of pragmatic and seemingly 'fair' compromises? If that be the case, there is no stable truth and the question becomes irrelevant. Either validity is present or not, regardless of attitudes toward Peter. Besides, the primacy of Peter (though in a somewhat different sense from the way Rome defines the papacy) is generally assumed to be proper.<BR/><BR/><I>Third, is the definition of the Anglican priesthood today, uniform enough throughout the Anglican communion to carry on such a conversation with Rome?</I><BR/><BR/>One more time. Why is it that RC "apologists" continually come to a board devoted to Continuing Anglicanism without troubling to notice our repeated declaration that we are NOT part of what is called the Anglican Communion? To repeat: we simply are not part of a 'communion' that has left classic Anglicanism and embraced such a wide assortment of grievous errors, but stand as a distinct fellowship affirming the historic principles called Anglican.<BR/><BR/>One who is reading this board, whether in agreement or not, in order to hear what is being said here, cannot avoid hearing us say these things. One who doesn't know that this is what we're saying, simply hasn't been listening, and is perhaps here to harangue rather than to have a conversation.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69031676989484496822008-12-20T06:14:00.000-05:002008-12-20T06:14:00.000-05:00"The validity of our orders has constantly been de..."The validity of our orders has constantly been denied by theologians of the Church of Rome on various grounds."<BR/><BR/>Based on this quote, some miscellaneous questions from the Roman perspective: <BR/><BR/>First, since this seems to continue to be one of the main issues here, why not, in this ecumenical age, discuss it directly (face to face) with Rome herself ? Has such an effort ever been undertaken by the Anglican Church in the recent past? Or is this now a more or less a frozen disagreement?<BR/><BR/>Second, is it reasonable to expect to receive the Roman imprimatur of the Anglican orders, without also expecting the Anglican priests to acknowledge the primacy of Peter?<BR/><BR/>Third, is the definition of the Anglican priesthood today, uniform enough throughout the Anglican communion to carry on such a conversation with Rome?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54705151130994712292008-12-19T16:28:00.000-05:002008-12-19T16:28:00.000-05:00Sandra:This new breed did not exist in their prese...Sandra:<BR/><BR/>This new breed did not exist in their present form 50 years ago in America or England, or most of the west, partly because the Charismatic movement had not yet become respectable enough for hoity toity Angloids, certainly not for the Episcopal Church in America, the closest thing to nobility ever allowed over here. Nonetheless, I concede that there were always a few people trying to convert Anglicanism into post Wesley Methodism, if not Revivalism. Some of them had, of course, broken off to form the Reformed Episcopal Church in the late 19th century when they could not get their way.<BR/><BR/>But, the Evangelical party of Anglicanism was not the same. They were, as you worded it, "Good Prayer Book Evangelicals." This new breed cares nothing for the Fathers, and nothing for the Prayer Book.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7340079805048323262008-12-19T07:43:00.000-05:002008-12-19T07:43:00.000-05:00Yes, that is an important point. (I refer to the ...Yes, that is an important point. (I refer to the difference between Evangelicals of the Symeon--Ryle sort and those who regard Rick Warren as the greatest of the Church Fathers.) The difference became painfully obvious when the neo-Anglicans, at one of their major gatherings, invited Warren, of all people, as a principal speaker. Now if they had wished to hire some Protestant to address them, they might have invited RC Sproul, Michael Horton, Richard Land, Albert Mohler, or a dozen others. But Rick "It's not about you" Warren? Res ipsa loquitur.<BR/><BR/>Another way of illustrating the point is the rapid acceptance of what they call "lay presidency."<BR/>The Puritans, Calvinists all, vehemently condemned lay baptism even in extremis, and sternly forbade laymen from even reading Scripture lessons in public. But this new heresy of laity "presiding over the assembly" and going something with bread and wine seems to be catching on. In theory now, in practice all too soon. Wait and see.<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38404904524464930972008-12-19T06:29:00.000-05:002008-12-19T06:29:00.000-05:00'The modern Evangelicals are Fundamentalists and C...'The modern Evangelicals are Fundamentalists and Charismatics, and have re-invented an "Anglican" version of that religion that has been around no longer than about thirty years itself.'<BR/><BR/>At least 45, from my memory, and probably more than 50 if you ask my parents, who can remember back that far--or maybe that comes from being a product of a Sydney outpost.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, excellent point. Good Prayer Book Evangelicals are unfortunately difficult to find these days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56992281004806669152008-12-19T01:23:00.000-05:002008-12-19T01:23:00.000-05:00"Now, this problem of Evangelicals who are decided..."Now, this problem of Evangelicals who are decidedly not Catholic in their Intention, it is a new problem, and not at all in keeping with what it meant to be of the Evangelical party many years ago. . . . The modern Evangelicals are Fundamentalists and Charismatics, and have re-invented an "Anglican" version of that religion that has been around no longer than about thirty years itself."<BR/><BR/>Bravo. This is a great point, Fr. Hart, and right on the money. The older Evangelicals in the Anglican Communion were by and large very careful to preserve Apostolic Order and the main points of the Catholic Faith as outlined in the Creeds. They were not at all interested in reinventing Anglicanism, but in standing up for and promoting the Biblical and evangelical aspects of the Christian faith within an Anglican context. I wonder what happened to them? They seemed to have vanished from the scene starting in the 1960s. The neo-Anglican Evangelicals are a totally different kettle of fish.Fr_Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869701021679422382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33973056850687119392008-12-19T01:09:00.000-05:002008-12-19T01:09:00.000-05:00First of all, the Anglican Communion left us behin...First of all, the Anglican Communion left us behind long ago, and we are not part of it due to the decision of Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggin in 77/78 not to recognize us. Now, this problem of Evangelicals who are decidedly not Catholic in their Intention, it is a new problem, and not at all in keeping with what it meant to be of the Evangelical party many years ago. For evidence, see Brian Taylor's paper <I>Accipe Spritum Sanctum</I>, and note that Graham-Brown was of that party, but still was acceptable to, and agreeable to, the Old Catholic bishop who traveled to England to co-consecrate him in 1931. The Evangelical clergy then made a point of having confessors. The modern Evangelicals are Fundamentalists and Charismatics, and have re-invented an "Anglican" version of that religion that has been around no longer than about thirty years itself.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15251584680613392112008-12-18T21:51:00.000-05:002008-12-18T21:51:00.000-05:00Although I accept the Anglican position as so stat...Although I accept the Anglican position as so stated by E.J. Bicknell (and others), the biggest problem I would have is that a whole segment of the Anglican Communion would (and I assume does) reject this position. Here I refer to the so-called 'evangelical party'. Too strange, since all have the same consecration and Apostolic Succession. How do you explain that one?Matthew the Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14220331930608361238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55756019985814932012008-12-18T09:26:00.000-05:002008-12-18T09:26:00.000-05:00"If the Church of Rome chooses to say that we do n..."If the Church of Rome chooses to say that we do not intend to make priests exactly in her sense of the word, we are not concerned to deny it."<BR/><BR/>This is an essential and often overlooked point. With any discussion of the validity of orders it is necessary to first settle on a definition of the orders themselves. <BR/><BR/>(And this is especially true in the issue of women's "ordination"; it is understandable that so many neo-Anglicans would be in favor of it, because they lack a sacerdotal notion of the priesthood. No one is saying that women are incapable of presenting a good Bible lecture, and since this is the locus of ordained ministry for them, their position on priestesses is at least logically consistent, however ultimately wrong.) <BR/><BR/>I also find it amusing and not a little bizarre at how those attacking Anglican orders fall back on argument that makes ordination scarcely more than a magic spell: If precisely the right incantation isn't used, then the consecration doesn't take place. Unlike the Eucharist, in which Christ Himself gave us the necessary words, this is a form of semi-Pelagianism and rank superstition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com