How Necessary Are Bishops?

Well, you are not correct in assuming that the Restoration was not necessary. The issue was of doctrine, however, and not discipline. The Thirty-nine Articles were rejected in the Interregnum and the Westminster Confession of Faith adopted in its place. It was this point that made the Restoration necessary. The issue of episcopacy and the Prayer Book are matters of discipline, which I am glad was restored to the form before the Civil War but it was not necessary.

 

I think I see what you are saying. However if as you said the 1662 Prayerbook states that the bishops are necessary, and we are living in a post-1662 world, then how can you deny that they are necessary?

 

I haven't denied that episcopal ordination is necessary in Anglicanism, however, it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. Before 1662, episcopal ordination was normal but not necessary, it is now necessary. This does not reflect any theological significance for ordination (it does reflect the Church's understanding of tradition).

 

Ok you should say that in the future. I wasn't sure what world I was living in for a sec.

 

What is heresy? As I understand it it is false doctrine and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland teaches some kind of Calvinism that in 1643 it tried to foist on the Church in England. It isn't the belief of the Church in England, it never has been. The Church of England has always been a Catholic Communion. Now if the Calvinists don't like the term , I'm truly sorry, (I've an aunt, whose a Scot,). They don't hold to the faith as held by antiquity, we do.

 

So anyone who does not share the beliefs of the Church of England is a heretic?

:think:

 

No, I didn't say that, but when a sect differs from the faith in matters such as the necessity of Bishops and Orders generally the Communion or Mass, etc, and breaks the unity of the Catholic Church as the Calvinists did in Scotland, then I should think ,'Heretic,' is the right word!
Points that are held by the Church and taught by the Councils wouldn't you?

 

So, Calvinists are heretics. Presumably Anglicans, RCs and Orthodox are not. But what about Methodists? Baptists? Members of the United Reformed Church? Lutherans?

In Australia the Uniting Church, the third biggest after the Anglicans and RCs, is a merger of the Methodists and Presbyterians. Whether or not they are heretics must be a moot point.

 

Friend ! Think about it! If they are not, what are they? I suppose technically if you teach or propound anything in opposition , or other than that revealed by Christ, taught by His Apostles or the Councils and Holy Tradition you must be teaching false doctrine. Preserve the Deposit!

 

Please could you answer my question.

 

from my own perspective, the list of heretical institutions, on the basis of denial of the real presence of christ in the elements of the lord's supper would include most protestants except for some anglicans, even less methodists, and most lutherans. Roman Catholics went too far on the other side of the coin with transubstantiation and removed the earthly elements which has no warrant in scripture.

 

[/QUOTE]lease could you answer my question.

 

Let's put it this way then, what difference is there between the different Churches , to your mind?I have only twice received the Houseling in another Church. One Lutheran and once in Rome , both times at their invitation , but some years ago. Since then I've refused invites.

 

lease could you answer my question.[/quote]


OK, High Churchman, I'll try again. Which of the following are "heretical":

i) Methodists;

ii) Lutherans;

iii) Baptists;

iv) United Reformed Church

v) Uniting Church (Australia)?

(Presumably you accept that RCs, Orthodox and Anglicans are not heretical?).

 

seagull.

During the time we have had the pleasure of space on this board, I have explained my beliefs on this matter and that I believe that Bishops are essential and further that without them there's no Church. This being the historical position of the Church in this country ! I believe they are of biblical origin and are the modern counterpart of the apostles. Latterday apostles in fact Tell me then, which of the above list hold to the historic episcopate?
I was always taught that there is only one church, if you don't live up to expectations in your belief, you are in a sect!

I do accept that Romans, Anglicans Or Orthodox are not heretics. But up to recently there was a large group within the C.of E, that didn't accept papists. How-and-ever, I think Rome is a Catholic Sect! This for reasons I've given earlier!

 

So if you do not accept the historic episcopate (as I do), then you are a heretic?

 

It isn't enough to have the Apostolic Succession, in Holy orders! It has to be held in the Faith also! Try to understand!

 

I'm trying to understand. But, perhaps unknowingly, you seem to be homing in on the tenets of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Or are your requirements tighter than that, rendering the "faithful" (the chosen, the non-heretical) a very small group.

I can see why you left the CofE (and why I won't be leaving).

 

My objection to the Chicago /Lambeth, Quad., is that it has to be read through the prism of the Seven Councils.

It is not read in this way obviously, which makes me think that the Anglican Communion is run by Neo Anglicans, or New Anglicans. In other words the Quad, is being used to re-interpret old truths and giving new ideas. Whereas, for me the original are sacred. Tell me in this new church of yours, have you ever been taught the idea of the interpretation of scripture being carried out by the Bishops and the Greek Fathers of the first three centuries?