tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post7085485438894546846..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: The Bestowal of the Denver Succession to the Episcopate upon the St. Louis Churches Jan. 28thFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51815004021019294292010-04-06T15:12:35.306-04:002010-04-06T15:12:35.306-04:00Oh, a hit and run from Mr. Anonymous!
Nothing is ...Oh, a hit and run from Mr. Anonymous!<br /><br /><i>Nothing is said about Chambers disavowing his action with extreme regret before his demise.</i><br /><br />Just as nothing is said about Abe Lincoln dying peacefully in bed in his old age-and for the same reason.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52830002529129626912010-04-06T07:16:24.094-04:002010-04-06T07:16:24.094-04:00Nothing is said about Chambers disavowing his acti...Nothing is said about Chambers disavowing his action with extreme regret before his demise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52905771802313526602010-01-29T01:34:31.718-05:002010-01-29T01:34:31.718-05:00Thanks, William. I will add these books to my eve...Thanks, William. I will add these books to my ever-lengthening Amazon wishlist. They all sound very good.<br /><br />veriword: "skinding"...probably a venial sin worth about 3 or 4 Hail Maries.RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17423359098414219312010-01-28T14:32:19.876-05:002010-01-28T14:32:19.876-05:00RC Cola,
I will start with four books:
*The Scot...RC Cola,<br /><br />I will start with four books:<br /><br />*The Scottish Reformation* by Gordon Donaldson (Cambridge, 1960: University Press)<br /><br />*The Scottish Reformation: Church and Society in Sixteenth-Century Scotland* by Ian B. Cowan (London, 1982: Weidenfels & Nicolson)<br /><br />These have identical titles, but are very different books. Cowan's is a broad book ranging over the background, the politics, the establishment, the resitance and the triumph of the Reformation in Scotland. Donaldson's, which originally had the subtitle "1560" focuses for the most part on the (wholly political) triumph of the Protestant party in 1560 and then how they went about to plant, stricture, root and establish the Kirk in the face of entrenched opposition and the reluctance of theit lay patrons to back up their firmly Calvinist ideas. Cowan gives a broader overview, Donaldson nmore details, especially concerning matters such as church polity and episcopacy.<br /><br />*Episcopacy in Scotland: The History of an Idea 1560-1638* by David George Mullan (Edinburgh, 1986: John Donald Publishers Ltd.)<br /><br />Probably the closest thing yet to a definitive work on the subject, although written with a slight Presbyterian slant.<br /><br />*The Cause sof the English Civil War by Conrad Russell (Oxford, 1990: Oxford University Press)<br /><br />This has little to do with the Scottish Reformation per se, but it admirably and clearly underscores the mutual repercussions of the Engliah Reformation and the Scottish Reformation upon one another from the 1560s onwards to the 1630s, and how those English Calvinists dissatisfied with the "incomplete" and even "semi-popish" nature of the English Reformation (as they saw it) sought to emulate the Scots and obtain their sympathy and support, and those Scots dissatisfied with the "extremity" of their Reformation its presbyterian polity, sought to emulate the English, especially by supporting a "royal supremacy" over their church like that of the English, and after 1603 to push the Kirk closer in its polity to the Church of England. The chapter on "The Man Charles Stuart" goes far to demonstrate (implicitly) why that king may well deserve the title of "the first Anglo-Catholic layman."William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91037256819085980522010-01-28T00:25:00.636-05:002010-01-28T00:25:00.636-05:00Opponents of Bishop Hobart claimed he was invalidl...Opponents of Bishop Hobart claimed he was invalidly consecrated because of the lack of three bishops. He wrote a nice refutation defending Holy Orders. (Against Philander Chase???)<br /><br />William, I'd gladly accept a couple of recommendations. I've really never understood the situation in Scotland, so any advice is welcome.RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55918582370465565982010-01-27T22:49:49.041-05:002010-01-27T22:49:49.041-05:00After thinking about it, I seem to recall the Deer...After thinking about it, I seem to recall the Deerfield Beach "consecrators" were Mercer, Mize, and Genders. Bishop Boyton was very much there, quite enfeebled. But he was under a canonical cloud in TEC, with some sort of charges underway. He would not have met the "having jurisdiction" rubric.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75948122097285768742010-01-27T22:17:10.043-05:002010-01-27T22:17:10.043-05:00Valerian:I think you were right the first time.I d...Valerian:I think you were right the first time.I don't think +Anselm CR was involved in the consecration of anyone in the Continuum.Fr.Jas.A.Chantler TOSAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46810100138234815422010-01-27T22:08:47.669-05:002010-01-27T22:08:47.669-05:00My recollection is that the third Deerfield consec...My recollection is that the third Deerfield consecrator was Bp Anselm Genders. One motivation was that Falk and Claiver wanted to be Canterbury-ized<br />and shed the vagantes stigma so painful to the Clavier bishops.<br /><br />Of the eleven who received this strange rite, most of them promptly disappeared from the ACA. The only one remaining in the TAC-ACA is Louis Falk himself.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19051125078836250922010-01-27T17:01:14.614-05:002010-01-27T17:01:14.614-05:00I think I was mistaken in my previous post. Actual...I think I was mistaken in my previous post. Actually, I believe the third bishop was Bishop Anselm Genders. That was so long ago, it is hard to remember.Valerianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18067696993950962981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67969034163043771172010-01-27T16:57:53.075-05:002010-01-27T16:57:53.075-05:00If I recall correctly the third bishop was Bishop ...If I recall correctly the third bishop was Bishop Mize.Valerianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18067696993950962981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48687455913543381362010-01-27T15:41:08.507-05:002010-01-27T15:41:08.507-05:00David wrote: "I note that there were only &#...David wrote: "I note that there were only 'two' consecrators of the 'four' [Denver Bishops].... Is this the reason that subsequently, the TAC bishops rectified this omission in the order of things?"<br /><br />As Fr. Hart has aleady said, only one consecrator is actually required for a valid Sacrament. It is a long-established custom, and a rule of good order, that there should be more, both to signify the consent of the other "bishops of that Province" with whom the new bishop(s) will be in communion and as a sort of belt-and-suspenders measure to assure validity, but it is only a custom.<br /><br />For example, virtually the entire U.S. Roman Catholic hierarchy traces its Succession back through Archbishop Carroll of Baltimore. Yet even after he had consecrated more than one comprovincial, who then could have participated with him in subsequent episcopal consecrations, he continued to do so by himself. Yet no one has ever suggested that the R.C. bishops in this country are not validly in the Apostolic Succession. And there are other examples of unquestioned single-bishop consecrations as well.<br /><br />As to what actually motivated the organizers of the Deerfield Beach consecrations in 1991, only they can say with certainty. However, from an objective standpoint, and as Fr. Hart touched on, it was unlikely to have been the "correction" of any alleged "omission" in the consecrations of the Denver Bishops.<br /><br />That is because only two of the three Deerfield Beach consecrators (Bps. Mercer and Boynton) themselves had episcopal Orders conferred in the pre-1976 Lambeth Communion independently of the Denver Succession. In contrast, the third consecrator there (Bp. Crawley) was himself a product of that same Denver Succession.<br /><br />So, had the aim been to "redo the Denver consecrations, but this time with three bishops," Bp. Crawley's participation would not have "rectified" any such perceived "omission" because he himself would have carried the "two-bishop taint", had there been any such thing.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20720395483513388842010-01-27T15:34:30.639-05:002010-01-27T15:34:30.639-05:00If it is any conciliation, I did not notice it eit...If it is any conciliation, I did not notice it either when preparing to post it. The solution was easy just now.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6639551817113968872010-01-27T15:18:24.542-05:002010-01-27T15:18:24.542-05:00A kind reader has gently pointed out that I commit...A kind reader has gently pointed out that I committed an inadvertent "howler" when I wrote, "James was expelled and his Protestant daughter Anne, with her husband and cousin, William of Orange, were installed as joint Sovereigns."<br /><br />It was, of course, James' elder daughter Mary, with her husband and cousin William. Thus, for example, the name of the famous college in Virginia. Anne, Mary's younger sister, succeeded her and was the donor of "Queen Anne's Bounty", the genesis of the funds now administered (or maladministered) by the Church of England's "Church Commissioners".<br /><br />It just goes to show that even several proof readings can fail to pick up the most elementary goofs....<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34033254042780870302010-01-27T15:11:55.669-05:002010-01-27T15:11:55.669-05:00RC Cola,
I could recommend a couple of books on t...RC Cola,<br /><br />I could recommend a couple of books on the subject, but it is too complex a question to answer briefly.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75807795549552654752010-01-27T14:48:51.440-05:002010-01-27T14:48:51.440-05:00David:
The sacrament would be valid if the circum...David:<br /><br />The sacrament would be valid if the circumstances had allowed only one bishop to consecrate. The third bishop was unable at the last minute, but four had given consent. The canon from Nicea required three bishops giving consent for practical reasons, so that the Church would not fragment easily. Over time this developed into three acting as consecrators; but that was not the actual requirement of the canon.<br /><br />There is no question about the validity of the sacrament in this matter, but it was used as an excuse for Deerfield Beach, despite the fact that in one case the consecrator's orders had come from the Denver Consecrations. So, even if they thought the magic number of three was required for validity (which the Church has never taught), the logic breaks down.<br /><br />And, by the way, you asked a good question and had every right to ask it. I hope the answer does not make you feel cut down with a vengeance.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9798304552606768362010-01-27T12:05:18.391-05:002010-01-27T12:05:18.391-05:00I am sure someone is going to cut me down with a v...I am sure someone is going to cut me down with a vengence, but I note that there were only 'two' consecrators of the 'four' with two sending in their approval of the candidates to be elevated as bishops. I thought the preferred method was the 'power of three' when elevating priests to the status of bishop. Is this the reason that subsequently, the TAC bishops rectified this omission in the order of things? Just asking for clarification.... <br />DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-68872614203908542042010-01-27T11:22:19.581-05:002010-01-27T11:22:19.581-05:00This is a great little history lesson. It's m...This is a great little history lesson. It's my understanding, from what I've been able to get my hands on, that the early Episcopal Church in the USA was extremely Catholic and men like John Henry Hobart were essentially forerunners of the Oxford Movement.<br /><br />Quick question: Why did Presbyterianism take such a hold in Scotland? I don't understand that period of time and all of the background. Can someone help me out?RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59989762961458551842010-01-27T08:39:34.897-05:002010-01-27T08:39:34.897-05:00It seems ungrateful to nitpick at this valuable hi...It seems ungrateful to nitpick at this valuable historical summary. But is it strictly correct to call the observance on Nov. 14 a "special votive Mass"? The Americam Missal classifies this day as a "Greater Double".<br /><br />My understanding (subject to correction from liturgical experts) is that a Votive Mass is a mass of special intention, independent of the kalendar. The rubrics on pager xix in American Missal seem to corroborate this impression.<br /><br />Otherwise, this is a valuable piece and should be circulated in print, possibly a project for the APA. It would be a fine addition to our parish tract racks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com