The whole tone is that it is things the Anglican Communion is doing which prevents Union. It isn't. The most fundamental barrier is the Catholic elevation of ministers to priests and Papal Infallibility etc. It is those sorts of areas of church governance which led to the Reformation and which remain the most intractable difficulties in the path of reunification.
"His Grace Justin Welby"?! I do wish people who bothered with this kind of nonsense did so properly. Justin Welby is not His Grace; the Archbishop of Canterbury is. It's not personal. (Pun intended!)
Are you sure you are not in the wrong Church, Kate? Haven't you heard there are priests in the Anglican Communion too?
No David, we don't have 'priests' in that sense. Anglicanism doesn't have priests although very lamentably some have started using that word and worse some who use the title blur the meaning to try to ape Catholic priests but the two classes are different. It's part of the reason why the Church of Rome doesn't recognise the validity of Anglican "priests": they recognise the difference even if some Anglicans try to pretend there's not a difference.
As in the very long opening sentence Pope Gregory did indeed send Augustine to evangelise but for centuries before there was an orthodox and independent Christianity in the British Isles. This was later to be brought under the 'control' of Rome in the seventh century. Anglicans today need to be extremely cautious in dealing with a Church that is twenty times or more the size of their Communion, it's not an equal partnership.
With deep disagreements in theological matters concerning homosexuality and ordination of women, I don't hold out hope for unification any time soon. Despite inflicting the would of division that is still festering about five hundred years ago, the Anglican Church continues to make the wound of division fresh and deep by her embrace of pan sexuality and the ordination of women. The Catholic Church may as well be wasting its time.
I suggest Kate you look at the 1662 Book of Common Prayer which uses "Priest" in the service of Holy Communion. Hardly very recent. I, for one, do not recognise the service as Anglican if anyone other than an ordained Priest administers the Eucharist. I was glad to move away from the Diocese of Sydney where such ideas were being widespread. I believed they should take the world 'Anglican' off their noticeboards as there was nothing Anglican about them.
I'm not sure how to understand the Ordinal of 1550 other than that the Church of England has 'deacons, priests and bishops'. Jewel and Hooker seemed pretty strong on the continuity of orders in the Church of England and it was a key part on the Laudian and Restoration church that priests in the Church of England were priests.
It seems a bit of a revision of history to say that it is a recent innovation that priests in the Church of England have started calling themselves such.
Kate, if you read the preface to the Ordinal that has been in place in English and American rites since the Reformation, you'll be unable to avoid noting that at the time of the separation of the English church from Roman obedience, the English church leadership explicitly stated its intention, not of changing, but of continuing, the three-fold ministry that had existed anciently; namely, of bishops priests and deacons. This is incontrovertible.
I don't know what your frame of reference is, but it certainly isn't Anglican, If you prefer a more protestant view and praxis of ordained Christian ministry, plenty of churches will accommodate you. But the Anglican, Roman and Orthodox churches will not.
I support any move that results in us being kinder to each other.
A priest is a priest, and, as NJW pointed out, *has* been a priest since whenever.
You don't like priests?
Baptists welcome you.
Methodists welcome you.
Presbyterians welcome you.
A central feature of the Reformation was a moral and theological rebellion against the nature of Roman Catholic priesthood. Protestants instead accepted a priesthood of the people, seeing every baptised Christian as a minister, and the term priest was dropped to differentiate from priests. It is wrong, I suggest, when talking of Protestants about "lay" celebration of the Eucharist etc because baptism is seen as including ordination.
Anglicanism is a compromise. We saw a benefit in retaining ordination but those ordained are presbyters, not the priests of Catholic tradition. Our presbyters are not intercessors. They cannot forgive sins, order penance or offer indulgences. They never offer sacrifices. Inevitably, because of the social status connotations of the term, "priest" became used to refer to ordained ministers. But it is a theologically unsound, an un-Anglican, term and we should deprecate it urgently.
Thank you Kate for confirming you are in the wrong Church.
I would like to agree with Kate in part and disagree with Kate in part.
The term "priest" is not just a matter of social cache. Early Anglicans (in the Homilies) often translated various terms as priest in Patristic texts. For them, priest and presbyter were equivalent terms. They would have never stopped using the word priest, as some do, so as not to lose continuity with the Fathers or a rather tenuous connection with the Church of the East, who they admired in Fathers like Chrysostom or Basil of Caesarea. What the Ordinal says is the truth.
However, that early Anglicans used the term priest to refer to a person who offers sacrifice on behalf of the community is also incorrect, in line with Kate's view. The main evidence for this is the Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament (the best Anglican statement on Real Presence in my opinion) and the Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments. In the latter Homily, the need for the people to understand the liturgy is justified from Patristic texts in order to establish the importance of the unity of the congregation in heart, mind, and sometimes tongue during common prayer. Thus, the minister leading a service is embodying the congregation before Christ Jesus, not embodying Christ Jesus before the people contra Aquinas in the Summa (III:82:1).
However, the Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament (like Aquinas) informs us that we are all offering the sacrifice of thanksgiving in the Eucharist. (And then contradicts itself by saying we are not making a sacrifice.) The only way I can explain this is that our communion in Christ Jesus through the Sacrament unites us to Christ's sacrifice (through memory) and His ongoing intercession with the Father. What we are not doing is making a new sacrifice to the Father based on our own merits or making sacrifices on behalf of the dead.
It is hard to understand what separates this eucharistic prayer/offering from non-eucharistic prayer, but I suspect there was an intention that the Lord's Supper physically renewed the union between Christ and the believer in Baptism that was necessary for spiritual union with Christ in prayer. (continued...)
"It is wrong, I suggest, when talking of Protestants about 'lay' celebration of the Eucharist etc because baptism is seen as including ordination."
I'd not go so far as that. Baptism unites one with Christ's priesthood. In Anglicanism, I'd say that ministerial character is a legal status with mystical aspects rather than a mystical status with legal aspects (as the Roman Catholics have it). For instance, consider Article XXIII, "IT is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same." This is the model of Acts 13:2-3 but extendable to the calling of the apostles in the Gospels or the calling of deacons in Acts. One is separately ordained to "public" ministry.
There is the potential for having an open mind here. I regard the man who officiated at my wedding as a bishop, because he was called and chosen as a "superintendent" in a more congregational polity, and I have seen that the Spirit is still empowering him in the gifts of the apostles. I regard Roman Catholic priests as priests or presbyters, because I believe that the Sacraments they administer are the same as any bishop or presbyter of the Church of England. We all may be wrong about what is being done in the Sacrament or how it is being done, but it is very important to note what is held in common.
Dear Kate. Once again your strong anti-clerical slip is showing. I think you have a few good points to make on T.A., but, considering the fact that the Church of England enshrines the catholic tradition of the ordained priesthood - as well as the 'priesthood of all believers'- you may, as someone has suggested here, really be in the wrong Church for your views on the ordained ministry.
The Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Anglican church, recognises the priesthood of all believers, as well as a category of those ordained to the order of Priest. Neither church recognises a notion of there being a contradiction between the two.
Ron, I find it ironic that you think Kate may be in the wrong church. Two hundred years ago, almost all 'Anglicans' (the name, of course, would not have been used at the time, but it will serve as a descriptor) would have thought that a person who wanted to call themselves 'Father' was also in the wrong church.
"In Anglicanism, I'd say that ministerial character is a legal status with mystical aspects rather than a mystical status with legal aspects (as the Roman Catholics have it)."
What an astute observation which goes right to the heart of the matter.
Dear Tim and Kate. One thing about our beloved Anglican Churches is that most of them are what might be called 'Broad Church'; but all of them still use the (catholic) rite of ordination for ministerial priests. One reason we have bishops is to ensure that we share the ancient priestly line.
"Dear Kate. Once again your strong anti-clerical slip is showing. I think you have a few good points to make on T.A., but, considering the fact that the Church of England enshrines the catholic tradition of the ordained priesthood - as well as the 'priesthood of all believers'- you may, as someone has suggested here, really be in the wrong Church for your views on the ordained ministry."
I don't believe that CofE does enshrine "the Catholic tradition of ordained priesthood" which is part of why the Catholic Church doesn't recognise Anglican ordained "priests".
But more importantly if "We believe in one Holy, catholic and apostolic church", how can anyone be said to be in the wrong church? Even if you mispoke and meant denomination, I still can't reconcile your statement with the creed. Fundamentally nobody can be in the wrong church or denomination because it is all one church.
As I have said, and others have implied, unity isn't about sending bishops out two-by-two which is mere gesture politics. Unity is about recognising "one holy, catholic and apostolic church". So the Catholic Church needs to recognise Anglican ordination but it goes much further than that. If someone (maybe a married lesbian) who has never been ordained customarily presides over the Eucharist in a protestant church, she should be welcome to preside over the the Eucharist or conduct marriage in any Anglican or Catholic church.
Unity is about unrestricted and unrestrained recognition of the status people have within that "one holy, cathloic and apostolic church" and translating that to the equivalent in different places even if the process by which they reached that status misses steps such as ordination or consecration.
The reason unity is elusive is not because of differences of opinion over women priests, or contraception or differences in ordination. Unity is elusive because so many don't actually believe in "one holy, catholic and apostolic church". That's what needs to change.
Very sad as it allows Anglicans to think they share the authentic Gospel and walk in the way of salvation. The Gospel is too precious for compromise.
Strange that, on this thread, I find myself closer to the ABC *and* Bishop of Rome than I do to many of the commenters (of either extremely Protestant or extremely Roman varieties!).
"I support any move that results in us being kinder to each other": thank you, Adamm.
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.