You simply do not get it. This is my last attempt. Humans cannot limit God's graces that He gives by His sacraments. It does not matter if a priest makes Hitler look like a saint, his sins do not invalidate a sacrament. No matter how appalled you are by the heinous crimes a priest may have committed your feelings do not invalidate sacraments. Personal incredulity is evidence of nothing.
You sound by that as if you would be willing to accept communion from the devil incarnate. It stikes me that the 6th Alex's congregation must have either been composed of saints of super human levels of faith in the sacrament itself, OR they were quite happy to receive from Alex because they were as demonically inspired as the pope they willingly cowtowed and grovelled to. I don't have a problem with the principle of the sacrament not being contaminated by the sins of the celebrant. (None of us are perfect, and someone needs to do the job). I have a problem though with the people who would willingly and knowingly receive from him, thereby keep him in post and tacitly becoming complicit in his crimes. (You shall know them by their fruit). The problem with Alex No.6 was that he was the Pope. No one could get rid of him or stop him, because he was untouchable, though definitely NOT impeccable, not with HIS legion peccadillos. .
I am still mulling over this, but the testimony of the Articles seems to be pretty clear... I observe that @PDL has an anglican tag where @Tiffy doesn't, so I am assuming the one is informed by the articles whereas the other one isn't, yes?
I have no beef whatever with the validity of Article 26. Under normal circumstances it is quite logical to assume that though the priest is also a human being and a sinner like every one of the congregation, they are also duly ordained to perform the function of a go between, between the heavenly and earthly spheres. I would only point out that if ANY man, (and Pope Alander VI definitely qualifies sexually), no matter how sinful they may be, can perform a valid eucharist, then to hold the opinion that a woman cannot and must not perform one places women below the moral and social status of any of the most heinous criminals on earth. That's not just misogynistic, I just don't think that's either fair or just. and certainly not Christlike. Am I going to be excommunicated by Phoenix for holding this diabolical heretical opinion though. Well ..... - So be it. .
That is not a valid line of argument. I have not subscribed to the articles, and yet I am quite well informed of them, and regularly make reference to them in theological discourse. The Anglican Badge does not declare 1st and 2nd class Anglicans. Hermenegild the elder brother of Recarred 1 was martyred because he refused the accept the blessed sacrament from the hands of an Arian Bishop. There really are two points at issues here. One the one hand, Christ himself is ultimately Priest, President, Host and Victim in the great celebration at the table set in this world and the next. We all, priests included - even bishops) are all stained by sin, one way or another, and those deficits are surely overcome by the light that shines in the darkness that cannot be extinguished. So it is we find Article 26 confirms this truth in telling us that the worthiness of the minister hindereth not the effect of the sacrament. There have the clergy throughout the ages, and in many cultures, where aspects of their personal or theological lives were in question. If I received the sacrament at their hands (be it marriage, baptism, ordination, unction, or eucharist), so long as I am acting in good faith, then I would have no trouble with invoking Article 26, and yes you marriage, baptism, ordination ... are valid and efficacious. Does that mean that we do not care about the sins of the clergy? No it does not, and indeed Article 26 is still to be invoked where it says: Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed. Of course we live in an age of greater mobility, so I may well have the prospect of attached my ecclesial affection to a neighboring parish, if my normal parish option is being filled by a person whose living/theology causes me some concern. That luxury has not always been possible, and indeed is not always possible today. I don't expect my clergy to be perfect, however I would prefer it that they were not notorious evil livers. Our commitment to the Truth and our commitment of the Unity of the Church may seem like competing claims, somehow as Anglicans we have most often resolved this with a modest level of aquesance. Ultimately Truth should not be at the expense of Unity, and yet neither is Unity always to be upheld at the expense of truth. That there are maybe some 40,000 Christian Denominations today should, I suggest, suggest to us that sometimes we have not been very gracious with our brothers and sisters in faith and perhaps they with us as well. If we are to look at Acts 15, this was quite similar to the issues being wrestled with by the early Church. Ultimately they were able to hold by Truth and Unity in considering what it took to be part of the Church at that time. In reality that is what we are still wrestling with.
To me it is just a shorthand way or knowing who has agreed to what, in terms of their Anglican discourse.. i apologize it wasn’t meant as offensive I don’t know that story but I believe you... and we may have reasons to reject the Sacrament from those who stand against us, even if we could indeed validly receive it That being said, we should note that an Arian bishop is not really a Christian, so he was not a Christian bishop to receive anything holy from, nor was it holy when he dispensed it because almost certainly he did not bless it in the name of the Trinity... so whatever he dispensed, it certainly wasn’t the Sacrament, making the question be about his even being a Christian, not about his moral status If I understand the Article correctly it deals with the minister’s moral status, not his theological/doctrinal status That being said I happily agree with everything you said below that
I would suggest you rethink that. My observation in my time here has been that some people with the flag can at times suggest things outside that I perceive as the general tenor of Anglicanism and people without the flag can say some remarkably insightful things inside Anglican discourse. I truth the flag tells you little. Whilst an Arian Bishop is not a Nicene-Chalcedonian Christian, it actually oversteps the mark to suggest that they are not a Christian. Heretics are Christians in error, unlike pagans, atheists, and followers of other religions who are not christian. Ambrose of Milan in 390 wrote to Pope Siricius 'Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled.' Milan of course, prior to Ambrose was a hotbed of Arianism, and Ambrose (a nicene Christian) had been elected with significant Arian support, and his argument to the Pope was and classic effort at resolving the tension between truth and unity, a repeated theme in Christian history. I think the Arian position is fundamentally misspoken by many, and often people think it meant that Jesus was not God, that however is not the correct position. Arius taught that there was a time when the Son was not. He draws from that a differentiation in the nature of the divinity of the Son from the Father, but not so as to deny the divinity of the Son. Arius was in fact almost certainly trinitarian, albeit not a Nicene trinitarian.
* logs back on after a few weeks being away * "Oh Tiffy is defending donatist heresy. Business as usual here on Anglican forums."