Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site petsd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!petsd!cjh
From: cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Eucharistic practices
Message-ID: <447@petsd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 13:54:13 EST
Article-I.D.: petsd.447
Posted: Thu Feb 14 13:54:13 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 05:42:04 EST
References: <101@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, N.J.
Lines: 60

[]
	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