Tradition, primarily Scripture, as well as the writings of the church fathers of the undivided church, of previous ecumenical councils of the Anglican tradition, and (with discretion) the writings of saints from the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well. Taking all of these into account, and forming the requisite ecumenical councils, decisions can be made. In the Anglican world, both the ordination of female "priests" and female "bishops" were irregular, done irregularly, without the acceptance of the Episcopate at large. In other words, they were done rebeliously, much like the postconciliar abuses in the Roman church. They were done to the point that the authorities simply accepted them.
How does anyone in any church? Infiltrate. Assume authority. Condemn the abuses. Return to orthodoxy.
I haven't read his Essay on the Development of Doctrine. I intend to give it a read at some point. I can't imagine I'll disagree too much.
No. That's not what I mean. Pre-William, the Anglo-Saxon bishopswere known for being very Pro-Rome, until Rome actually started requiring obedience and tribute. They were Catholic, but their ecclesial structure and pieties were different from, say, France or Spain. I mean only that their Church was, in spirit and structure, somewhat detached from the continent. Although, I've read some conflicting reports about William at some point declaring himself the head of the Church in England, and pushing away the Pope. Although it's my understanding that this was patched up. The sort of conflict we'll see later with Henry VIII was really NOT new.
Ryan Jackson
The primate of the TEC was a women Bishop. Almost every TEC ordination is invalid at this point. The only way to validate them now would be to reordain everyone with a CofE Archbishop or a Nigerian Bishop.
But newsflash: Anglicanism outside of Africa is dead. Join an African affiliated Church or stop calling yourself Anglican.
Check'd and heil'd. In your understanding, if one of the co-consecraters is invalid, then the ordination itself is invalid. Correct?
Jason Thompson
In my understanding about 95% of the TEC is hellbent on ministering and evangelizing heresy and they are carrying out the work of the devil. If that doesn't invalidate ordinations and consecrations, I don't know what does. And this is coming from a former TEC seminarian who is now safely far away from "(((anglicanism)))" as found in the American State™ religion of social justice and gay pride.
There is the small matter of the Roman Catholic Church being consecrated to Satan. See embed related. Also: youtube.com/watch?v=z0SiRVsrO84 That of course, does not mean we can just up and say that the Catholic Church now belongs to Satan. We don't get to give up territory that way. Not on the physical battlefield, and not on the spiritual battlefield. So why would we do it with Anglicanism?
Given that the state religion of America is currently one of Progressivism with it's principal eucharistic rite being the sacrifice of the unborn to Moloch, I cannot but think that all Christianity is rebellion at this point. However, there is but one heart of all this, and it is Anglicanism. If the sacrifices for all the world are made in the Vatican, then the sacrifices for the United States are made somewhere as well. That somewhere is, I believe, not in the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, nor in any decentralized congregation (though to some extent in all of them), but in the Episcopal Church. If we want to look for the sickness in America, we must look at the Episcopal Church. If we want to look for the sickness in England, we must look at the Church of England. There may be a time at which God will bring them tumbling down. For England, that time has likely come, but I am not certain that time has come for America, and I pray that we reconcile that it may never come at all.
Luis Ross
Very interesting, can you elaborate on this?
Colton Mitchell
Pardon the double-posting, but do you mind if I ask where you ended up?
I'll try to get more in depth tomorrow, as I have to get to sleep so I can go to church tomorrow morning. The basics are that there are some certain liturgical similarities between the old Celtic liturgies and the Syrian liturgies. These similarities go so far, and remain so long as to prompt people to say that England was, before the Schism of 1054, Orthodox, rather than Catholic, despite the fact that they were in Communion with Rome. There's also the fact that Celts are, racially, derived from Syrians who went North to Spain and later to Ireland. (Spaniards are also Celts if you didn't know.) For more info see: orthodoxinfo.com/general/celtic.aspx Robert Graves The White Goddess
Those aren't really the best sources, but they're the ones off the top of my head (and Google).
Hunter Morris
The long and short of it is that the Celtic Christianity probably has more roots in Eastern Monasticism which spread to Ireland than in the Roman Rite Catholicism which was the cult of the continent. This probably has something to do with how remote they were. The monastic model probably worked better specifically because they were remote.
Ethan Cook
I'll bump for our silly Church; may our tea and scones be eucharistic, may Peter Hitchens evangelize us and may Justin Welby retire.
Gavin Brown
Not they weren't and beside the main thing is that you guys don't do it with the right intention too since you don't believe mass is a sacrifice.
