Fr Chad:

You raise a good question.  Don't know that I can answer that right now.  I could hazard some guesses:

1. I'm wrong and stand need of correction.
or
2. We changed this part of the prayer book.  After all, that's what a national church can do, right?  Which, BTW, helps to show the difference between the 39 Articles and the BOCP.  The former are much more fixed.  The latter maychange w/each church's general convention.

I don't have an REC BOCP at work w/me, so I can't check it.

I'm 99% sure that my rector told me he was only "regularized", not re-ordained (which may be more a semantic than real difference).   My muddled brain may have confused some things, tho.

Regardless of that, I do know that the good Bishop Cummins did consider those not ordained by Episcopal laying on of hands to be able to offer a valid Eucharist.  It would seem that however irregular a Presbyterian ordination, it is not invalid according to him.

mw


> If sacramental ordination of ministers from protestant communions who lack 
> Apostolic Orders is inappropriate, then what does one do with the preface to 
> the Ordinal of 1662, which is an authoritative Anglican formulary?:
> 
> 'No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or 
> Deacon, in this Church... except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted 
> thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal 
> Consecration or Ordination.'
> 
> Any wilful ongoing rejection of this axiomatic formulary, which has been 
> binding on the Church of England and her daughter Churches since the 
> Restoration, is simply un-Anglican, not to mention contumacious.
> 
> God bless you!
> 
> Chad+
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>