With reference to the validity of the
Eucharist, some would argue for strict Apostolic order (clergy ordained by
Bishops in Apostolic Succession). Among those with this emphasis, some would
argue that Apostolic succession is not enough to make a Sacrament valid. Intent
with authorization to ordain under the authority of the Papacy is also
required. At the other end of the spectrum from those who define validity based
on order would be those who emphasize faith. For them faith validates and the
order is not particularly the issue. Classical Anglicanism generally maintained
a balance between faith and order. Episcopacy is for the "full being"
(plene esse), or "well being" (bene esse), not the
"being" (esse) of the Church. In other words, churches and
clergy can exist without Bishops. Moreover, Anglican orders do not involve
papal authorization and intent, but then, neither did the Eucharistic services
in the Early Church prior to the development of the Papacy. The intent of the
Papacy does not have Apostolic precedent. Yes, there were Bishops of Rome but
their authority and therefore their intention was not what the Papacy later
became! Finally, for the most part Anglicanism has not totally denied the orders
of Protestant churches, recognizing them as in some sense valid but irregular.
Accordingly, Anglicans have sought to regularize them where possible. The
doctrine is called per saltum (by a leap), which says that the higher order
validates and regularizes the lower ones. The famous example for Anglicans is
the situation where Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (early seventeenth century) was
involved in the consecration of Presbyterian clergy to the Episcopacy even
though they had not been made Deacons and Presbyters by a Bishop. (Ray R.
Sutton, Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: A Study of Holy Baptism [Houston,
Tex.: Classical Anglican Press, 2001], 53 n. 15)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
