Apostolic Succession

[Someguynamedmatt]

Hey everybody, it's been a long time since i posted, so long that I had to get a new log in name.

I am Catholic but my dad and stepmom are Episcopalian. I found a booklet they had which defined church terms, and when reading it I discovered that the Episcopal church claims to have Apostolic Succession. Here's what it said:

Anglicans, Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and some other Christian communions believe the same authority for service that Jesus received from His Father was passed on to the apostles, and they in turn passed it on to the ministers who succeeded them in Apostolic Office. These persons were called, in Greek, episkopoi, in English, bishops. Our bishops are, by their ordination, in direct, unbroken line of succession to the original apostles.

I will be honest and say that I know next to nothing about the Episcopal church, how it started, or what claims they might have to Apostolic Succession. Any ideas?

[Lil Red]

our reference section is a great place to start, i'll see if i can find some links for you.

[Lil Red]

what did you used to go by? welcome back, btw!

[Lil Red]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm"]Apostolic Succession from New Advent[/url]

[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ53.HTM"]How Newman Convinced me of Apostolicity of the Catholic Church[/url]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=4690"]Here's the direct link to our Reference section on Church Authority and Apostolic Succession[/url]

Hope these help!

[Apotheoun]

Generally speaking, and thus prescinding from particular cases, the Anglican Communion does not have valid orders, and as a consequence it has not maintained the Apostolic Succession. Pope Leo XIII dogmatically confirmed this fact in his Apostolic Letter [u]Apostolicae Curae[/u], in which he wrote, "Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, [i]we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void[/i]." [Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter [u]Apostolicae Curae[/u], no. 36] In conclusion, it should be noted that Cardinal Ratzinger has recently reaffirmed the dogmatic and infallible character of this act of the Papal Magisterium. [cf., CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 11]

Edited June 25, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Someguynamedmatt]

Thanks for the literature guys. I have gone by a few different names, the only one i can remember was Eternal Juice. can't remember the password for it, and i don't have the email address i signed up for it with... no big deal though, I like this one better. I never really posted all that much, more of a reader, so i guess i'm still kind of a newbie.

-Matt Tettleton

[RandomProddy]

Many within the Anglican Communion now claim they can trace Apostolic Succession through the Old Catholics, who are now part of the Anglican Communion:

"However, Pope Leo's Bull did send some Anglican-Catholics in search of Holy Orders which were still "valid" with the Roman communion but still independent of Rome. This lead many of them back to Utrecht. The Order of Corporate Reunion was another British attempt to connect directly back to Rome because of this controversy.

Arnold Harris Mathew, a British clergyman was consecrated by the Old Catholic bishops in Holland on April 28, 1908 to establish an Old Catholic Church in England. Violating his agreement not to consecrate other bishops without the participation of the Dutch bishops, Mathew passed the lineage on to fifteen men who in turn consecrated even more in the process of creating such new institutions as the Liberal Catholic Church, the North American Old Roman Catholic Church and the Old Polish Catholic Church in America. He was "repudiated" by the Dutch Old Catholics in 1910.

The Dutch "Old Catholic" bishops did not want to repeat their "mistake" with Mathew and hence they would not consecrate +Joseph Rene Vilatte, who had been ordained a priest by +Herzog in Switzerland. This sent Vilatte to seek orders elsewhere.

+Vilatte turned to +Antonio Alvarez, a bishop of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, a church under the authority of the Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East located in Aden, South India. +Vilatte was the first Independent Catholic Bishop to later consecrate African American Bishops into a valid Apostolic Succession in North America.

Suddenly, in the 1920s, there was an influx of "Orthodox" and Eastern succession into the West for "independent" apostolic churches. There were also new lines from the Catholic Uniat Successions. These lines were often Orthodox in tradition but had remained in communion with Rome and were not monophysites. These new independent bishops often did not use the rites or liturgy of the East but continued with the rites of the "Old Catholic" church even though most of their orders were not considered "valid" by the Utrecht Union. The PNCC (Polish National Catholic Church) is considered by the Utrecht Union to be their only valid church in North America.

In the 1931, on July 2nd, at Bonn Germany, the Union of Utrecht signed an agreement of inter-communion with the Church of England. This brought Dutch "Old Catholic" lines into the C of E and made some of the English High Ango-Catholics happier with Anglican Orders."

The jist:[list]
[*]Pope says anglican orders are invalid.
[*]Anglicans change order back.
[*]Old Catholics join Anglican communion and share succession.
[*]Old Catholics and Anglicans become one communion therefore all sees eventually inherit succession.
[*]Problem solved (?).
[/list]

Edited June 25, 2004 by RandomProddy

[cmotherofpirl]

The ordination rite itself is invalid.

[Ellenita]

[quote]The Order of Corporate Reunion was another British attempt to connect directly back to Rome because of this controversy.[/quote]

Amazing! It indicates that they were clear in their minds that Apostolic succession came only through the Catholic church, thus making a mockery of all that Henry VIII advisers and self appointed archbishops and bishops had stated about the church.

Difficult to have any respect for them though....if they were convinced that apostolic succession was found in the Catholic church, why didn't remain within her....oh wait, was it because the crown and parliament were seizing catholic land and property, and imprisoning catholics and putting them to death for celebrating the Mass?

[Apotheoun]

The gist of it:

[quote]Pope says anglican orders are invalid.[/quote]

Yes, Pope Leo XIII dogmatically defined that Anglican orders are invalid, and so they are "absolutely null and utterly void." [Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter [u]Apostolicae Curae[/u], no. 36] This is a dogmatic fact of history. It can only be rectified by the wholesale ordination of all Anglican "clergy" by validly consecrated Bishops in apostolic succession, and not by piecemeal attempts to ordain some Anglican "clergy," but not others.

[quote]Anglicans change order back.[/quote]

A change in the Anglican ordinal, in order to conform it to the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood, is a good thing in itself. But without the wholesale ordination of all Anglican "clergy" by Bishops possessing valid orders in apostolic succession, it is not sufficient to validate the orders of the Anglican Communion as a whole.

[quote]Old Catholics join Anglican communion and share succession.

Old Catholics and Anglicans become one communion therefore all sees eventually inherit succession.[/quote]

Both of these propositions are false. The Old Catholics have not joined the Anglican Communion; instead, both communities retain their own separate jurisdictions and ecclesial structures, but it is true that the Old Catholics and some Eastern Orthodox have ordained a few Anglican Bishops, thus giving only those Bishops, and any other clerics ordained by those specific Bishops, valid orders. Even if a general intercommunion between the Anglicans and the Old Catholics is permitted, that does not [i]per se[/i] validate the orders of all the invalidly ordained "bishops" and "priests" in the Anglican Communion, because only the wholesale and individual ordination of each and every Anglican "priest" and "bishop" could do that. Valid apostolic succession is not simply a juridical matter and so intercommunion between Churches cannot bestow validity on episcopal sees. The fact that there may be a few validly ordained priests in the Anglican Communion is why I said in my original post that, "Generally speaking, [i]and thus prescinding from particular cases[/i], the Anglican Communion does not have valid orders . . ." This remains the case today, since only the wholesale ordination of Anglican "clergy" by Bishops possessing valid orders could restore a true succession to the whole of the Anglican Communion.

[quote]Problem solved (?).[/quote]

No, the problem remains, because although there may be a small number of validly ordained clerics in the Anglican Communion, the vast majority of Anglican "clergy" do not possess valid orders. In addition, since the publication of Pope Leo XIII's letter [u]Apostolicae Curae[/u], both the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics (Utrecht) have begun ordaining women, which is contrary to the [i]de fide tenenda[/i] doctrine of the male only priesthood. As far as the Anglican Communion is concerned, the "ordination" of women will prevent them from ever fully realizing a valid restoration of apostolic succession; and in the case of the Old Catholics, it will lead to the loss of valid orders in their community as more women are "ordained." Only the rejection of the heresy of the "ordination" of women, and the wholesale ordination of all Anglican "clergy" by valid Bishops can alter the present situation.

[Hananiah]

Anglicans having valid orders isn't a solution. It makes the problem worse. Before they just had pretend masses on Sundays, but now they eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Edited June 25, 2004 by Hananiah