Anna Norman-Walker ViaMedia.News “Spiritual Abuse” – A Pandora’s Box?
Mary Cole Psephizo Valuing people with Down’s Syndrome: a parent’s response
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Active citizenship in the Church of England
Michael Sadgrove Woolgathering in North East England The Report on Cathedrals: Further Thoughts
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes Disentangling Christianity and Patriarchy
Jayne Ozanne ViaMedia.News Neighbours – Can’t We Just “Walk By” Sometimes (please)?
Two opposing views on the same topic in Church Times:
Steven Croft C of E must make first move across the divide
Andrew Davison An intolerable departure from order
‘that nothing about the eucharist (or anointing or absolution) is significant for the journey of salvation;….’ I think I may have misunderstood Andrew Davison – is he saying (or implying) that Methodists do not have a valid eucharist? And does it then follow that Baptists, URC, Brethren, Pentecostals etc. do not have a valid eucharist either? If so, that is quite extraordinary – that such a huge number of Christians the world over should be regarded as celebrating Holy Communion in vain, and not actually partaking of Jesus in this way. But perhaps I have got the wrong end of… Read more »
I suspect the obvious point is where “Baptists, URC, Brethren, Pentecostals etc” themselves disagree with Anglicans over how Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper.
It isn’t that Anglicans have some gold standard they are withholding from others, and ought not to. Historically there have been significant disagreements against Anglicans over what it means to “partake of Jesus.” And some of these are resident within anglicanism!
I don’t venture to declare what God does in a Protestant communion service in terms of imparting grace. But I’m clear they don’t have the Eucharist as described by Catholics. Nor would they claim to.
I agree with Fr. David H. The lack of proper Episcopal ordination is a stumbling block on the path to full communion. We Anglicans are saying what the Church of Rome says: valid ordination is required for a valid Eucharist. If Methodist clergy have valid ordination, why would there be any need for the planned discussions, which include episcope?
I’m on holiday and was only able to read the report into cathedrals quickly before I came away (and I’m having as much of a break from all things ecclesiastical as possible). But I do want to put down a marker somewhere about the lack of anything in the report about the role, function, responsibilities and opportunities of the Cathedral Congregation and community. Although mentioned a number of times their position is nowhere examined in any detail or suggestion made about how it /they might more fully exercise and support the ministry and mission of the Cathedral itself and the… Read more »
Janet – yes, I think this is exactly what Andrew is saying. It is pretty standard theology in Catholic Anglican circles. It takes apostolicity to mean bishops and takes apostolic succession pretty literally.
I know that Anglo-Catholics understand apostolic succession to be defined by an unbroken chain of laying on of hands for ordination and consecration. Evangelicals generally understand apostolic succession to be a matter of faithfulness to the teaching of the apostles, and that is what a fairly large number of Anglicans will believe. I was unaware that Anglo-Catholics regard the Holy Communion as celebrated and partaken of by millions of Christians as not being Holy Communion at all. Not even my RC colleague at Salford went that far. I wonder, then, what concept people who hold such beliefs can have of… Read more »
On Pandora’s Box (this time spiritual abuse, not definitions of valid eucharist): Some 20 years ago I completed my MPhil on ‘Charismatic Healing Ministries and the Sexual Abuse Survivor’. There is no doubt that some of the techniques and ministries I described were )snd are) spiritually abusive. Others are more less clearly so – as Anna asks, where do we draw the line? I’m now researching the subject again, looking at how things have developed over the intervening decades. Among others, there is a new (to me) technique called Sozo, which has been adopted by a number of churches from… Read more »
I am happy to offer some clarification for Janet Fife. For some of my fellow Anglicans, the question of who celebrates the Eucharist is not a matter of particular importance, whereas it is a matter of importance to me (as it is in our canon law and our historical practice since 1662). There are several possible reasons why someone might place relatively little importance on that question of who celebrates the Eucharist, and I am trying to put myself in their shoes. Rather an extreme reason, but not totally uncommon among Anglicans, would be to think that sacraments simply do… Read more »
I have tried to avoid the language of ‘validity’. What I know, and am confident in, is the pattern of ministry bequeathed by the early church, and embraced and embodied by the Church of England. Where a Church has turned away from that order, is there nothing? Of course not, and charity properly compels me to celebrate all that is good and true in another tradition. However, I can and still do think that something is lost in departing from the inherited pattern. I will explain my own practice: I participate in Methodist Eucharists with joy and gratitude, but I… Read more »
Luckily for all of us, the Lord doesn’t depend on us or anything we do to make his presence in the Eucharist “valid.” The idea is breathtakingly arrogant. Even Roman Catholic theologians have become squeamish about how the term gets applied. The fact of the matter, to be discovered by a clear reading both of church history and of sacramental theology, is that all of us – every part of the Body – have messed it up so many ways and for so long that the idea that anybody can claim an unsullied path back to the Apostles is, well,… Read more »
Richard says (3 Feb, 5.41 pm GMT): “We Anglicans are saying what the Church of Rome says: valid ordination is required for a valid Eucharist.” That may be what the Church of Rome and some Anglicans are saying, but it does not accord with my reading of the New Testament: see, for example, Acts 2 vv 42 and 46; 1 Corinthians 11. For a book setting out the arguments for a change in practice within historic Anglicanism, see “The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands – Who should administer?” (2008, Latimer Trust); also Grove booklet, “Lay Presidency: An Anglican Option?” by… Read more »
Our bishops are real bishops because a real bishop laid hands upon them; your bishops are false. Our ministers are real presbyters because a real bishop laid hands upon them; your ministers are false. Let’s not beat about the bush. That is what Davison is claiming. We are better than you: I am better than you. The Lord has blessed us, not you, so we can do things that you can’t do. Matthew 7, Luke 6, James 4 etc. In any other context, the difficulty with Davison’s proposition would be obvious but somehow clerical and episcopal orders are exceptions. Seriously?… Read more »
When I see something from Colin Coward linked I always look forward to reading it. He did not disappoint. So often, analogy is a great way of teaching and his observations about citizenship are spot on. The more CofE leadership disenfranchises LGBTQI people, the more the conflict will escalate. Indeed, I think the debate now, as Coward intimates, has moved on from specifics to the fundamental demand that the bishops recognise our full integrity as “citizens” of the Church.
Speaking as someone who became an Anglican in part because of the Church of England’s continuation of the historic episcopate, I would be sorely disappointed to see a breach of order that would allow non-episcopally consecrated presbyters to preside at the eucharist. It’s not that I believe the eucharists I participated in as a Presbyterian were ‘invalid’– the grace of God is mysterious and wonderful– but that the episcopate best represents the mind of the universal Church in regard to sound order. The more we move away from universal practice, the more we separate ourselves from the Body, both past… Read more »
“Does God withhold this grace from Christians simply because they happened to be born into, or grew up in, the wrong denomination? Or live in the wrong part of the world?” asks Janet Fife.
I’m sure God Himself decides where to impart His grace without regard to Anglican canons. An accident of birth can result in people being Anglicans, Jews, Methodists, or Muslims. Does Janet regard such beliefs as being “equal” because they’re accidental? If it’s not arrogant to suggest Muslim and Jewish beliefs are ‘wrong’, why can’t Anglicans say Methodists are also “wrong”?
Quite a number of people on this thread seem to be following Welby’s example and either kicking theology into the long grass, or attempting to over-simplify the issues by insisting that the accumulated historical and doctrinal experience of the Church is irrelevant. What Andrew Davison is underscoring (if I have understood him correctly) is the wider Oecumene beyond our relationship with the Methodists, and the impact that this decision could have on the Church of England’s relationships with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, especially where the issue of the apostolic character of the ordained ministry is concerned. Is the… Read more »
FWIW I have always resisted being recognised as an authorised minister to lead the Methodist Holy Communion service – something quite common in my deanery – because I do not believe that I have the necessary formation in the Methodist tradition for me to be an appropriate Eucharistic president in such a context. I suspect the debate has a lot more to do with ecclesiology – always the theological poor relation – than we might imagine. Certainly my reading of the GS document found it alarmingly light, and very much a theology of ‘wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was… Read more »
Thanks for the various replies. Andrew, I’m relieved to read that you don’t consider Methodist eucharists invalid, and are happy to participate in them. However, the earliest Church, as recorded in the New Testament, used the titles ‘presbyter’ (what we now call a priest) and ‘overseer’ (bishop) interchangeably. So, how can we claim that our pattern of church order is more authentic than theirs? Are those ordained by, say, Peter Ball more authentically ordained than those ordained within the Methodist Church? I’m with Daniel and Kate on this. Evan, in saying that ‘the episcopate best represents the mind of the… Read more »
“Suggesting that a concern for sacramental integrity is no more than ‘we are better than they are’ simply has no place in this discussion. It is regrettable that the absence of a responsible theological perspective has allowed it to become so.” It has every place because that is precisely the attitude of Davison and several commentators. It is impossible to study the Gospels and not be struck by Jesus’s distaste – almost despair – at Temple practices and customs. There is an an obvious parallel with the practices and customs which have built up around the sacraments of the Church.… Read more »
Janet Fife, I am surprised that you haven’t encountered the concept of invalidity beforehand.
In terms of my own view on the presbyteral ministry of female Anglican clergy, of Methodists, of Baptists, etc., is that, where the celebrant is a man who has been episcopally ordained, one can be sure that it is a valid Eucharist. I wouldn’t dream of saying that others were invalid but I could not be sure that they were valid.
“It is impossible to study the Gospels and not be struck by Jesus’s distaste – almost despair – at Temple practices and customs.” This is breath-taking in its sweep, as is the alleged analogy. We just celebrated Candlemas. What a bunch of nonsense for Jesus’ parents to follow the Law. Or for Jesus to send the healed man to offer what Moses requires. Or tell the Samaritans that “salvation is from the Jews” and point to the temple that he calls his father’s house. Or ignore the hypocritical teachers’ conduct but not their proper teaching of Moses. Not one jot… Read more »
There is nothing remotely Gnostic in what I wrote. In any event, the Catholic Church insists that Anglican Bishops have not been made in apostolic succession. That’s the thing, if you rely upon a specific rite performed by a specific group of people, then deviations break succession. And, according to Rome, our sacraments (apart from baptism) are all invalid. So how do we tell whether an Anglican bishop is really a bishop? Because he tells us he is? Because other bishops, whose pedigree is the same, say that he is? It’s totally circular and obviously unsatisfactory. In what way is… Read more »
Richard II, of course I have encountered the concept of invalidity before, but I hadn’t heard it expressed quite so clearly in the context of other non-RC denominations. When I was working in an ecumenical uni chaplaincy, we had some discussions about the eucharist. One of the (pretty conservative) RC nuns expressed it this way: ‘it’s not that we think you aren’t in communion with Jesus. It’s just that when we receive the eucharist we’re in communion with the Pope and the saints and bishops, and you aren’t.’ Which is fair enough. (Except I would say if we’re all in… Read more »
A few random comments perhaps somewhat unrelated among themselves: when I was training for ordination, I was very lucky (in my opinion) to be in an ecumenical training course (EAMTC) and I certainly never felt that those entrusted with my training who were not Anglicans were somehow less “Christian”or less “entitles” to oversee my work, nor did I ever feel that a non-Anglican Eucharist “wasn’t”indeed a Eucharist; Methodists in UK don’t have bishops, but in the USA (and maybe other places) do – any comments? In my retirement I have taken a Sunday morning Eucharist at one of the C-of-E… Read more »
It is perhaps worth pointing out that the “historic episcopate” is one of the four “laterals” of the Lambeth-Chicago quadrilateral, and thereby designated as one of the “distinctives” of the Anglican Communion. I understand that the Communion is not necessarily popular around here, but the quadrilateral is the foundational document, and says nothing whatsoever about the Secretary General, the ABoC, the ACC, or the Primates meeting. But the historic episcopate is listed as one of the four key elements of Anglicanism, and of the Communion, and our claim to being part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If… Read more »
I am totally unable to accept that Methodist ministers can celebrate the Eucharist any more than an Anglican layman can. But I’m not prepared to say Methodist communion services are “less effective or valuable than ours” (Janet Fife). Why is it unchristian to believe Methodists are different?
As a new contributor, I would be very interested in further clarification of the difference between a valid and invalid eucharist. Does God actually allow one to transmit his grace but not the other? Are people who attend invalid eucharists merely deluding themselves that Jesus is present when, in fact, he is absent? However one defines it, the presence and power of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the eucharist is the central issue. I regard with horror the possible consequences of some arguments over validity, which seem to hold their nose and concede that he may be present, but… Read more »
I think Anglicanism (which we like to think of as its own ecumenical movement, and very broad-minded and tolerant) may turn out to be ‘the church it’s impossible to have unity with’ – from the Catholic and Orthodox point of view, because they don’t think our ordinations are valid, and from the Protestant point of view, because we don’t think their ordinations are valid!
(Yawn). And meanwhile the work of the Gospel goes on (or not), and new disciples are made (or not), and the poor are served (or not), and justice and compassion are promoted (or not) – by people of all denominations… I’m sorry, but if this made a blind bit of difference in the lives of ordinary Christians, I’d expect to see a qualitative difference in the holiness and love exhibited by those who *really* receive the Body of Christ on Sundays as compared to those who don’t. Didn’t someone give us the right to use this criteria? ‘…if you have… Read more »
A few points from an Australian Episcopalian in no special order. (1) Did Jesus institute the Holy Communion ? Apart from S.Paul’s writing,”do this…&c” is found only in one Gospel – the “longer version” of S.Luke. (2) What proof is there that early Eucharists were celebrated only by bishops or presbyters ? Andrew McGowan, expert in this area, shows that there was great diversity in the early Christian communities with regard e.g. to the elements used, and I’d guess regarding who “celebrated” (and they included “prophets”. (3) What exactly is meant by the “presence” of Jesus in Holy Communion ?… Read more »
What an interesting debate. I’ve chosen to be an Anglican, not a Methodist. I’m all for working together and respecting one another. But I’m an Anglo-Catholic because the liturgy, sacraments, and music help me enter into the Great Mystery and connect with God. I don’t know what’s “valid” or “invalid,” but I do believe that intentionality makes a difference. We believe in the “real presence” in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we do not believe that it is only a memorial. Our BCP (TEC) has it both ways, it has “do this in memory of me” and the epiclesis. So… Read more »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Archbishops_of_Canterbury
If apostolic succession is true then we need to be 100% certain that every person on that list was validly ordained and then validly consecrated as a bishop before translation to be Archbishop of Canterbury. Just one – just one – failure and the chain is broken and every subsequent sacrament is invalid. We won’t know, of course, until after death because nobody has set out a litmus test to determine if the Eucharist, marriage or ordination we attend is valid or invalid.
In the context of this discussion, I think it’s worth pointing out that no-one is formally proposing that Methodist ministers should be able to exercise a priestly ministry in the C of E just as they are. The proposals before Synod involve (1) the Methodist church receiving an adapted form of the historic episcopate (2) the Methodist church commiting to exclusively episcopal ordination in the future. The proposals contend that these actions are sufficient, within Anglican theology, to permit existing Methodist ministers to exercise priestly ministry in the C of E with no further ordination. Many people have raised concerns… Read more »
In part answer to Kate’s point, W E Gladstone published a mathematical analysis of this question in 1840, in which he claimed to demonstrate that even if one bishop in twenty were invalidly consecrated as a result of defective baptism or mistakes in the rite of consecration, then the chance of all three consecrating bishops at a consecration sharing such a flaw would be 8000 to one, and even were this to occur, the chance of anyone they had purported to consecrate being himself in due course chosen as a consecrator with two other invalidly consecrated bishops would be 512,000,000,000… Read more »
It’s hardly a deep analysis. 20^3 = 8000. 20^9 = 2^9 x 10^9 = 512000000000. It’s however a flawed analysis, because it presumes that each bishop only consecrates one other bishop, and that each person being consecrated picks three bishops at random from the pool of all bishops. Neither’s true. Links in chains of association are catalogued semi-seriously, such as the Bacon Number [1], the Erdos Number [2] (mine is 4), or even, for the very specialised, the Erdos-Bacon Number [3] show how these sorts of chains cluster around particular “hot” individuals. It would be interesting to plot a similar… Read more »
I doubt the numbers Robin, and he is ignoring that in the early years bishops were often made only by archbishops, but he is also assuming that the participation of one invalid celebrant doesn’t invalidate the entire sacrament. Does it? Who can guess?
Interested Observer, the matter is complicated for Anglicans in that there are nearly always more than two co-consecrators, but they are not required to say anything expressing an intention to consecrate. This, combined with as you say the fact that only the two archbishops generally consecrate, means the whole thing is quite a bit riskier, even if Gladstone’s assumption of one fundamental flaw for every twenty bishops is excessive. Perhaps his maths improved when he became Chancellor.
I find the language of ‘spiritual abuse’ unhelpful. What defines it? It could mean anything – including a strong opinion offered in a sermon that someone in the pew finds unsettling. The issue about the ‘abuse of spiritual power’. This needs more carefully defining.
Rod Gillis, thank you for pointing me in the direction of Miranda’s very good article. Thank you also for making the connection between the patriarchy and debates about validity. I have been tracing the validity arguments back to Origen and the intrusion of legal thinking into Christianity with its adoption by the Roman Empire. I hadn’t made the connection with patriarchy but it’s a good point. Incidentally, Jerome received a lot of help with his translation of the Bible (the Vulgate) from Marcella, a high-born Roman woman. Her Hebrew and Greek were even better than his and he consulted her… Read more »
“Her Hebrew and Greek were even better than his and he consulted her often.”
I’m just curious how you know this to be true.
Jerome was commissioned to produce a single fresh Latin translation of the scriptures. After his first effort he decided he needed to consult the “Hebrew Verity” as he called it, and get behind Greek translations then available to him. One gets a good sense of the implications of this in the Psalms, as critical editions print his serial efforts and one can see the changes he made. Jerome himself describes how difficult it was for a Christian to learn Hebrew. One could get only so far with Origen’s Hexapla as a kind of ‘crib.’ He relocated to Bethlehem in part… Read more »
In Jerome’s words: ‘As in those days my name was held in some renown as that of a student of the Scriptures, she never came to see me without asking me some questions about them, nor would she rest content at once, but on the contrary would dispute them; this, however, was not for the sake of argument, but to learn by questioning the answers to such objections might, as she saw, be raised. How much virtue and intellect, how much holiness and purity I found in her I am afraid to say, both lest I may exceed the bounds… Read more »