Anglican origins, claims, theology.

[MoreCoffee]

I'd assumed it was "origins, claims, and theology". If we are dropping the "origins" piece, then I will leave it alone. Apologies

I created the thread and it is about origins, claims, and theology. It is not just "theology".

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Apostolic Succession figures large in both the Anglican and Roman Catholic perspectives regarding the validity of the Anglican Priesthood.

The Anglicans point to a demonstrable, unbroken physical succession of ordination.

The Roman Catholic perspective I have seen expressed in a number of ways. This is one:
“Apostolic succession alone is not sufficient to transmit Orders. Like all Sacraments, Holy Orders also requires valid subject, form, matter, and intent. The Anglican Church originally possessed valid Orders, but lost them due to a theological shift which invalidated their intent (and probably form). By the time this was corrected by the Oxford movement, the Anglicans had no valid Bishops left. Anglicans had (and still have) valid succession, but invalid Orders.”

I have seen specifically mentioned that that invalidation is caused directly by the incorrect understanding/administration of the Eucharist.

==============================================================================================

And that brings up an interesting point.

The apostolic practice regarding the commemoration of Jesus’ death is well know and proven. The “Quartodecimans” (“14th Day-ers”) commemorated Jesus’ death exactly how and exactly when He commanded – on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan (Abib), annually. The Apostles did not speak against that practice, because it was a command of their Master, and they naturally were observing it as well. It was only after pagan influence grew in the visible church thereafter, that things changed, and the faithful observers were actively persecuted out of existence.

So the Roman Catholic Church fails its own test. It has an understanding and administration of what it calls “the Eucharist” that is different from Jesus’ instituted memorial that the original faithful believers (including the apostles – most had received the command first hand) practised in obedience.

==============================================================================================

So either the Anglican claim of practical apostolic succession is valid, or the Roman Catholic Church stands condemned by its own proposition.

Which is it?

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

==============================================================================================

Apostolic Succession figures large in both the Anglican and Roman Catholic perspectives regarding the validity of the Anglican Priesthood.

The Anglicans point to a demonstrable, unbroken physical succession of ordination.

The Roman Catholic perspective I have seen expressed in a number of ways. This is one:
“Apostolic succession alone is not sufficient to transmit Orders. Like all Sacraments, Holy Orders also requires valid subject, form, matter, and intent. The Anglican Church originally possessed valid Orders, but lost them due to a theological shift which invalidated their intent (and probably form). By the time this was corrected by the Oxford movement, the Anglicans had no valid Bishops left. Anglicans had (and still have) valid succession, but invalid Orders.”

I have seen specifically mentioned that that invalidation is caused directly by the incorrect understanding/administration of the Eucharist.

==============================================================================================

And that brings up an interesting point.

The apostolic practice regarding the commemoration of Jesus’ death is well know and proven. The “Quartodecimans” (“14th Day-ers”) commemorated Jesus’ death exactly how and exactly when He commanded – on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan (Abib), annually. The Apostles did not speak against that practice, because it was a command of their Master, and they naturally were observing it as well. It was only after pagan influence grew in the visible church thereafter, that things changed, and the faithful observers were actively persecuted out of existence.

So the Roman Catholic Church fails its own test. It has an understanding and administration of what it calls “the Eucharist” that is different from Jesus’ instituted memorial that the original faithful believers (including the apostles – most had received the command first hand) practised in obedience.

==============================================================================================

So either the Anglican claim of practical apostolic succession is valid, or the Roman Catholic Church stands condemned by its own proposition.

Which is it?

==============================================================================================

Anglicans hold to heresy on a number of issues and many support ordination for female priests and bishops. I do not think it is possible for a female to be ordained according to the holy scriptures so at the very least Anglican female priests and bishops do not participate in apostolic succession.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

I agree wholeheartedly with MoreCoffee regarding the ordination of female priests and bishops.

I consider it totally unscriptural.

However, by focusing our attention on that relatively modern aspect of Anglican organisational practice, he has drawn attention away from the long-standing historical issue, before women entered the spotlight.

That point still stands:

==============================================================================================

The apostolic practice regarding the commemoration of Jesus’ death is well know and proven. The “Quartodecimans” (“14th Day-ers”) commemorated Jesus’ death exactly how and exactly when He commanded – on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan (Abib), annually. The Apostles did not speak against that practice, because it was a command of their Master, and they naturally were observing it as well. It was only after pagan influence grew in the visible church thereafter, that things changed, and the faithful observers were actively persecuted out of existence.

So the Roman Catholic Church fails its own test. It has an understanding and administration of what it calls “the Eucharist” that is different from Jesus’ instituted memorial that the original faithful believers (including the apostles – most had received the command first hand) practised in obedience.

==============================================================================================

So either the Anglican claim of practical apostolic succession is valid, or the Roman Catholic Church stands condemned by its own proposition.

Which is it?

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

==============================================================================================

I agree wholeheartedly with MoreCoffee regarding the ordination of female priests and bishops.

I consider it totally unscriptural.

However, by focusing our attention on that relatively modern aspect of Anglican organisational practice, he has drawn attention away from the long-standing historical issue, before women entered the spotlight.

That point still stands:

The ordination of women is widespread within the Anglican community in "first world nations" but not so much in "developing nations". The Archdiocese of Sydney is an exception.

==============================================================================================

The apostolic practice regarding the commemoration of Jesus’ death is well know and proven. The “Quartodecimans” (“14th Day-ers”) commemorated Jesus’ death exactly how and exactly when He commanded – on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan (Abib), annually. The Apostles did not speak against that practice, because it was a command of their Master, and they naturally were observing it as well. It was only after pagan influence grew in the visible church thereafter, that things changed, and the faithful observers were actively persecuted out of existence.

Apostolic practise regarding holy communion was to celebrate it at every meeting of the faithful for worship. It was closer to a daily and weekly observance than an annual one. But the Holy Days around Passover time were retained under the name "Pesach" and in English speaking lands under the name "Easter".

So the Roman Catholic Church fails its own test. It has an understanding and administration of what it calls “the Eucharist” that is different from Jesus’ instituted memorial that the original faithful believers (including the apostles – most had received the command first hand) practised in obedience.

Catholics do not hold to the view you've expressed and never have, nor do the Orthodox, nor, as far as I know, do any of the older Protestant denominations. But Jehovah's witnesses celebrate an annual "Lord's evening meal" and possibly some of the newer Protestant groups do the same or something similar.

Anglicans, as far as I know, celebrate the Lord's supper weekly or more often and Easter at the same time as do Catholics. So your reasoning would equally apply to Anglicans.

==============================================================================================

So either the Anglican claim of practical apostolic succession is valid, or the Roman Catholic Church stands condemned by its own proposition.

Which is it?

The Anglican claim is not to "partial apostolic succession" that, I think, is your claim on their behalf. Catholics do not adhere to your stated views.

==============================================================================================

 

[Albion]

http://anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html

You're missing some details Albion.

The web page gives no support to "37 AD" as the commencement date for churches in "England"

I clearly stated that that is but one possibility. I mentioned it because that would be about the earliest date that has been surmised. But I also said that no one knows the precise date, although somewhere in the first century or very early in the second seems pretty certain. I am sure that one website is going to treat the subject a bit differently from the next one--as is the case with almost all religious topics, regardless of denomination.

But your denomination started when Henry VIII separated from the Catholic Church which is the Church from which the mission to the British isles originated in the sixth century.

That is what the Papal church requires you to believe, but historians know better and all the facts say otherwise.

You also get to believe that innumerable apparitions really happened, various popes were not scoundrels, and the Catholic church never persecuted or tortured anyone but they simply stood by helpless while governments caused the inquisitions, strictly on their own. Stand by the stories your denomination requires of you, MC. but none of them belong in this thread.

 

[Albion]

==============================================================================================

Apostolic Succession figures large in both the Anglican and Roman Catholic perspectives regarding the validity of the Anglican Priesthood.

The Anglicans point to a demonstrable, unbroken physical succession of ordination.

The Roman Catholic perspective I have seen expressed in a number of ways. This is one:
“Apostolic succession alone is not sufficient to transmit Orders. Like all Sacraments, Holy Orders also requires valid subject, form, matter, and intent. The Anglican Church originally possessed valid Orders, but lost them due to a theological shift which invalidated their intent (and probably form). By the time this was corrected by the Oxford movement, the Anglicans had no valid Bishops left. Anglicans had (and still have) valid succession, but invalid Orders.”

I have seen specifically mentioned that that invalidation is caused directly by the incorrect understanding/administration of the Eucharist.

That is the claim, all right, However, it is completely phony. The wording of the Anglican ceremony that the Papacy claimed--300 years later!--was invalid was the same one as the Roman Catholic Church used before the Reformation. In addition, the entire issue is silly since no one, no one!, can say what wording was used when first or second century bishops raised some other man to the position of bishop in the church!

What does the RCC say were the words that Peter spoke when making other men bishops? As a matter of fact, not only does no one know the answer to that, but the RCC itself admits that Peter chose no one to be his successor, and yet they claim an unbroken line of popes and bishops. It is ridiculous on its face.

 

[Albion]

I created the thread and it is about origins, claims, and theology. It is not just "theology".

And it is not about Roman Catholic sour grapes or Roman Catholic revisionist history.

And by the way, you "created" the thread on my suggestion that we talk about Anglicanism, not that it was your bright idea and certainly not that we should have a thread for the purpose of lying about Anglicanism!

 

[MoreCoffee]

And it is not about Roman Catholic

It was not me who introduced the topic of Catholic belief and practise.

It looks like you started it, Albion, in post #4

 

[Albion]

It was not me who introduced the topic of Catholic belief and practise.

You mean perhaps that it was your partner, Menno. But you certainly joined in. Now, may we please move on to some discussion of Anglican theology or practices?

 

[MoreCoffee]

You mean perhaps that it was your partner, Menno.

He's a Protestant isn't he? More closely related to you than to me.

 

[Albion]

He's a Protestant isn't he? More closely related to you than to me.

I hope very much that that is supposed to be a joke. It would reflect badly on you as a participant on a religious discussion forum if it were meant to be a serious comment.

Now can we discuss Anglican theology or practices -- or do you know so little about the subject that you have no other contributions to make? As I recall, you said earlier that such is the case. But going on like this is probably deterring everyone else who might want to post something.

 

[MoreCoffee]

can we discuss Anglican theology

You keep asking permission. Why not just do it.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You mean perhaps that it was your partner, Menno. But you certainly joined in. Now, may we please move on to some discussion of Anglican theology or practices?

Not as long as Anglican history is still germane to the OP of this thread. It's a valid discussion point. Anglican theology was ably introduced by Josiah, which is appreciated as well, and also goes to the OP

 

[Josiah]

Not as long as Anglican history is still germane to the OP of this thread. It's a valid discussion point. Anglican theology was ably introduced by Josiah, which is appreciated as well, and also goes to the OP

IMO, all denominations have a starting point. Such may or may not be determinable but such is still the case. The founding of a denomination, however, does not preclude the (very likely) possibility of Christians and their congregations being present in a given locale BEFORE some denomination was founded or before such may have begun ministry in a that locale.


I find it baseless and incredible to accept that the specific, singular, unique RC Denomination (or even some predecessor or proto-denomination) existed anywhere in the First Century. Or even Second or Third. I find it the best historical position that the Roman Empire created the first denomination in the 4th Century, and this Roman Church is the "source" of nearly all western denominations today (including "The Catholic Church"). Why this matters is entirely beyond me.... Just because a denomination is old doesn't make it better - much less infallible, unaccountable, and empowered to lord it over others as the Gentiles do. The RCC and EOC and Syrian Orthodox and the Anglican Communion all are fine denominations - with strong points and not-so-strong points - but they are all denominations. I'm in favor of denominations, and they are good ones, but they are only denominations. And they are best when they are focused on Christ and not on self, when they lift high the Cross rather than themselves, when they humbly serve rather than egotistically claim.


What is very revealing to me is MC's insistence that it is "crazy" and "insane" to even suggest (which Albion has not) that a denomination is present because Christians are present. And yet that is his foundational argument for his denomination having always existed. He has stated that because there were Christians living in Rome soon after Pentecost (a point he has never even attempted to substantiate) ERGO the Catholic Church existed then. It's an apologetic he uses over and over, yet calls "crazy" and "insane."




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

IMO, all denominations have a starting point. Such may or may not be determinable but such is still the case. The founding of a denomination, however, does not preclude the (very likely) possibility of Christians and their congregations being present in a given locale BEFORE some denomination was founded or before such may have begun ministry in a that locale.

Agreed; and such is the case with the churches of England and all of Europe (small 'c'). It may be possible to date the presence of Christians in general in a certain locale, and the movements that brought them there; however, dating the Church of England, the Anglican communion, and those movements is an extension of that history.

 

[Albion]

Not as long as Anglican history is still germane to the OP of this thread. It's a valid discussion point. Anglican theology was ably introduced by Josiah, which is appreciated as well, and also goes to the OP

How many times do you think the record needs to be set straight on that one before we discuss a couple of the thousand issues of doctrine that could be addressed--just as they were when the focus was on Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, or some other faith??. Just asking.

 

[Albion]

IMO, all denominations have a starting point. Such may or may not be determinable but such is still the case. The founding of a denomination, however, does not preclude the (very likely) possibility of Christians and their congregations being present in a given locale BEFORE some denomination was founded or before such may have begun ministry in a that locale.

You're right of course about that, but in this case we are not talking about some scattered groups or anything close to it. Its the same church before and after the Reformation!

 

[Albion]

Agreed; and such is the case with the churches of England and all of Europe (small 'c'). It may be possible to date the presence of Christians in general in a certain locale, and the movements that brought them there; however, dating the Church of England, the Anglican communion, and those movements is an extension of that history.

There you go again trying to reduce a functioning, recognized, church in England to "the presence of Christian in general." Stop trying to rewrite history.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

There you go again trying to reduce a functioning, recognized, church in England to "the presence of Christian in general." Stop trying to rewrite history.

Conflating the history of Anglican Church/Church of England with the presence of Christians in Britain was not my doing in this thread. The re-write was begun by you

The church in Britain was not planted by missionaries from Rome and, according to historians, functioned well for its first centuries while having no knowledge of the doings of the Roman church. It is a fact of history that when Augustine was later sent there by the Pope in order to convert the inhabitants to Christianity, he was greeted by representatives of the British church the Pope thought did not exist.

For most of its history, the church was independent, a fact that is referred to in the first article of the Magna Carta. In the 13th century, however, the church accepted Papal oversight, but then under Henry reasserted its historic status as an autocephalous national church. Henry nevertheless remained a Catholic for the rest of his life and was never declared a heretic by the Papal church.

By this, are you meaning to equate the Anglican church/Church of England with the presence of Christians in Britain? If so, then I think my point is valid. You've conflated the two. If not, then clarify your point.