Does the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral count as an Anglican formulary. The meaning of the Historic Episcopate most logically embraces an understanding of Apostolic Succession. The were those who did not want Bishops - Puritans and Presbyterians amongst them - however Elizabeth I and James I (VI) certainly did not want a Church without Bishops. The notion of Apostolic Succession in inexorably linked to the Notes of the Church, and provide a sense of unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolic credentials. Just ask Michael I Cerularius.
Would I be right in assuming then that it is all a matter of faith, or is there a list somehere carved in stone which definitely names all those who have been 'consecrated' since Jesus Christ consecrated his apostles. Does this always also involve the laying on of hands and annointing with oil by someone who also has been thus consecrated or can God consecrate someone for ministry without the physical intervention of any other human agency? .
In the 1662 Ordinal, the orders lacking episcopal ordination were declared invalid. The church took this so serious that there being thousands of presbyterian, baptist and other dissenter clergy from the time of the Cromwell Commonwealth, they were all declared, something like 4000 ministers, invalid, and ejected out of the CofE. It was called the Great Ejection.
Yes but that was only for the Church in England. There was never a definitive statement about the validity of orders in Continental Reformed Churches. The Church in Scotland, of which the Monarch is also the Supreme Governor, is presbyterian in polity. The Monarchs of the Hanoverian line were simultaneously Anglican, Presbyterian, and Lutheran, and communicated in each Church, depending on where they were located at the time.
In the 1662 Ordinal, the orders lacking episcopal ordination were declared invalid........... That seems pretty definitive to me as to the validity of Continental Reformed Churches orders. Also the Porvo Agreement had the Church of Denmark reconsecrate all their Bishops before they could join. Now granted that was like in 1992 or something.
The Ordinal says: The Ordinal does not refer to Churches outside of England, nor could Parliament have legislated for Orders outside the jurisdiction of the British Monarch. As for Porvoo, can you cite any sources for that? The Declaration says:
Sure, and conversely the Orthodox or the Romans similarly don’t have official statements that formally state their opinion on the validity of orders of the Presbyterians either. It’s only that they will treat them as laymen upon coming into the domain of the Roman church. Just as we will. If you are an ordained Presbyterian attempting to enter the Anglican holy orders, it will be not be recognized as a valid ordination. In general it is very rare to find one denomination aggressively attacking the orders of another (as Rome did against Anglicans in Apostolicae Curae). Typically each church will simply have criteria for ordination within its own jurisdictions. All of the ancient-traced churches will require Bishops. If you enter in, we will require you to submit to our understanding of holy orders (as shared with other ancient-traced churches). What I have seen, though, is positive affirmations of which churches we do share holy orders with (rather than a negative affirmation of whom we castigate). For example Rome will say that they accept Orthodox ordinations. And that’s what @bwallac2335 and @Botolph have been referring to, our official statements in recent years of other churches whose orders we could accept. ALL of those statements held as their prerequisite that the ordination were Episcopal-based.
Yep it does not apply to their churches as they are outside of the CoE but it does state what we view be the truth and what we believe. It draws a line in the sand. You have orders or you don't and this is how we view them
You are confusing liceity with validity. We are not talking about what the Church of England and her daughter Churches will or will not allow within their respective jurisdictions; we are talking about the effectiveness of sacraments outside those communions with episcopal polities. Sure they do. Exhibit A is Decree 17 from the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem (Decree 10 on Episcopacy should be consulted as well): Find me an Anglican statement like that about the sacraments in the Continental Protestant Churches.
Of note is the fact that at least one of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches in the Porvoo Communion of churches, the Church of Denmark has bishops, but strictly speaking they were not in the historic apostolic succession prior to their entry into the Porvoo Communion, since their episcopate and holy orders derived from Johannes Bugenhagen, who was a pastor, not a bishop.[125] In 2010, the Church of Denmark joined the Porvoo Communion of churches, after a process of mutual consecrations of bishops had led to the introduction of historic apostolic succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Lutheran_churches http://anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/denmark.html Whether the true Apostolic Succession is necessary or even desirable is still an open question in Denmark with writers both for and against. The latest events, however, seem to point more and more to the growing influence of those who insist upon a true Episcopate. Lately two English Bishops assisted in the consecration of two Swedish Bishops. Thus it would seem the day must surely come when the Church of Denmark, too, shall be in possession of the Apostolic Episcopate.
Why does the Porvoo Statement in 1992 mention the Church of Denmark? http://porvoocommunion.org/porvoo_communion/statement/the-statement-in-english/
Oh, how impractical! Stop and think how much all those stone tablets would weigh! And if a scribe dropped one on his foot, shattering both the foot and the tablet...
Seen as such by which EO? What organ of EO authority has declared it thus? Are you saying Orthodox today don't still believe the content of what Decree 17 of the Synod said? Of course they do. In any event, regardless of its status today, it was an official statement by the Orthodox hierarchs at the time. The 1672 Synod was about as close to a truly Ecumenical Council in every sense of the word as the Orthodox have had since the Middle Ages. It's hard to imagine what all those bishops thought they were doing otherwise. It is a historic and official (even if not binding) witness to what the Orthodox believed then and believe today. Come on, Stalwart, you know this. Find me a similar Anglican official statement that refers to the (non-episcopal) Continental Churches in these terms.
I don’t know of an Anglican statement about ANY outside ecclesiastical contexts. For example there is no Anglican document rejecting Mormon ministerial ordination. Right? What conclusions can you draw from that? Such documents were simply not seen as necessary by the Anglicans, and neither did the Lutherans, and neither mostly did the Romans, and neither did the Greeks except for the one synod which today is is largely rejected anyway.
Because the Ordinal answers the question who may be authorized to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Those with episcopal ordination.
Would it not follow logically that if we require everyone to have a valid ordination by a Bishop that those without such an ordination we find to be invalid and not able to properly perform sacraments
Just to recap how we got to this point in the discussion... In response to this question, I provided a reference (though not a link, which is now provided here), containing numerous nineteenth century repudiations of the Oxford Movement's interpretation of apostolic succession. These sources in turn are discussed in an essay by Edward Norman, whom I will quote at some length here: Lastly, there is Richard Hooker, who stated in Book 3 of his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, that: Indeed, Hooker is clear throughout Book 3 that matters of church order belong to positive law, not natural law or divine law. Episcopacy does matter, but not because its absence renders the sacraments dependent on Holy Orders invalid or ineffective, as Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism claim.