elwell@osu-eddie.UUCP (Clayton M. Elwell) (02/12/85)
Vince's recent posting has raised my curiousity. I am a member of the Episcopal church. For those unfamiliar with it, the Episcopal church is the north american equivalent of the Anglican church (also called the Church of England). We are catholic (note small "c"), but not Roman Catholic. Episcopal liturgy and theology is very close to the Roman church in a great many respects (there are differences, but most of them are relatively minor). There are problems with papal infallibility, transsubtantiation, and the like, but we get along with each other pretty well. I am curious to know more about the problems the Roman church has with the ordination of Episcopal priests. My guess would be that the Anglican bishops were no longer considered duly ordained after the beak with Rome during the reign of Henry VIII, but this strikes me as a rather political decision. Also, the Roman and Episcopal celebrations of Eucharist are as far as I can tell essentially identical (especially since Vatican II and the Revised Book of Common Prayer). Granted, we pray for our Presiding Bishop instead of the Pope, but aside from that I can think of no real difference off hand. Even the wordings and order of events are incredibly close. What is the basic problem? History? -- Clayton Elwell Ohio State University CIS Computing Facility ...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!elwell Elwell@Ohio-State.CSNET Elwell%Ohio-State@CSNet-Relay.ARPA
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (02/14/85)
[] Clayton Elwell writes: > Episcopal liturgy and > theology is very close to the Roman church in a great many respects > (there are differences, but most of them are relatively minor). What seems minor to one party (e.g. how "real" is the presence of Christ in the consecrated host) may seem like a major stumbling block to the other party. However, the perceived importance of issues does change over the years. > There > are problems with papal infallibility, transsubtantiation, and the > like, but we get along with each other pretty well. This was not always true, alas. I have the impression that from the reign of Elizabeth I till sometime after 1800 Englishmen were as alarmed about "Papists" as Americans were about Communists in the Cold War period. > I am curious to know more about the problems the Roman church has > with the ordination of Episcopal priests. My guess would be that > the Anglican bishops were no longer considered duly ordained after the > beak with Rome during the reign of Henry VIII, but this strikes me > as a rather political decision. Yes, well, the occasion of starting the Church of England was rather political, wasn't it? At one time, the Catholic position was, I think, that (a) the continuity of the Apostolic Succession is propagated when one Bishop consecrates another priest, giving him the rank of Bishop; (b) all the Anglican bishops' consecrations could be traced back to one which was irregular (I forget the details of why); (c) therefore the were not validly consecrated; the Apostolic Succession had been broken. The issue was taken up in the nineteenth century, and the same answer was given. I have the impression that, since Vatican II, many Roman Catholic theologians have decided that this was a simplistic view of how the life of the Church sustains itself. The Church is a community, and when part of the community secedes its common ancestry with the rest is not broken. Clearly the Church of England did not cease to be Christian, and so its priests and bishops are still real ones. > What is the basic problem? History? Yes. As Sam Johnson said to Boswell, the differences between Christian denominations are more political than over matters of irreconcilable principles. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 870-5853