Validity of Anglican Orders?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 17 2004, 02:19 PM'] I don't think Rome could adopt a form of Holy Orders that includes denounciation of the Pope..... it's a doctrinal thing: they do not have valid Holy Orders.

The disbanding of the Jesuits and the promuglation of the form of the Roman Brevairy used such language so as to stop bishops from the time from altering stuff without the approval of Rome.  The statement about Anglican Holy Orders being invalid was apples to those oranges.  It's a matter of the need for Apostolic Succession.  The anglican priests were not ordained correctly by successors to the Apostles, and thus are not true priests. [/quote]
I agree with you for the most part, especially on the issue of Anglican ordination. I gave did a presentation once on that very issue.

Unfortunately, there are some in Rome (especially Cardinal Kasper) who do not agree and who think the judgment in Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo needs to be re-evaluated.
I do believe there are cases where there has been declaration of invalidity that was overturned, though I think they would have no grounds on which to overturn this.

A denunciation of the Pope in an ordination ritual, even if it was there, would not invalidate it. What invalidates it is that they have a deficient form which is "informed" by a deficient intention. The form used by the Anglicans does express the intention of conferring the power "of consecrating and of offering the true body and blood of the Lord" in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (to quote Leo, quoting Trent.)

Edited October 18, 2004 by popestpiusx

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Didn't the Anglicans themselves try to correct their Apostolic Succession problems when they got some bishops reordained by Old Catholics and Orthodox (which doesn't matter unless ALL the priests were reordained)? The claim that the Anglicans have had Apostolic Succession is one that not even the Anglican Communion would accept.

And "ordaining" women would effectively break the chain.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 18 2004, 04:06 PM'] Didn't the Anglicans themselves try to correct their Apostolic Succession problems when they got some bishops reordained by Old Catholics and Orthodox (which doesn't matter unless ALL the priests were reordained)? The claim that the Anglicans have had Apostolic Succession is one that not even the Anglican Communion would accept.

And "ordaining" women would effectively break the chain. [/quote]
There have been situations where this took place, in which case, they would be able to say a valid Mass so long as the other prerequisites are met, but this is not widespread. As a whole the Anglican Communion does claim to have retained Apostlic Succession. But they define it differently. They define it the same way that Cardinal Kasper does, which is heretical.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Cardinal Kasper?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 18 2004, 07:55 PM'] Cardinal Kasper? [/quote]
[url="http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/kasper_biographyl.htm"]http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/kasper_biographyl.htm[/url]

[popestpiusx]

Here is an except from one of his articles (I posted this in another thread as well):

There has been substantial progress between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. Agreement on priesthood and Eucharist was already achieved in the first phase of ARCIC. We also agreed upon the episcopal structure of Church ministry. In the meantime most of the churches have acknowledged that episcope (oversight) is constitutive for the church, and indeed that some form of episcope can be found in every church. But Protestants on the one hand, and Catholics and Orthodox together with Anglicans on the other hand, differ on the question of whether such episcope must be carried out by an episcopos who stands in historic apostolic succession. Protestants see here space for a variety of forms of episcope which, being equivalent, can be reciprocally recognised; for them the episcopate in historic apostolic succession is only one possible form, and is at its best a sign for the bene esse of the Church, but not for her esse. Some Lutheran churches opened themselves to the Anglican view in recent years in agreements such as the Porvoo Statement (1992) or Called to Common Mission (2001), but they did so not without resistance from other Lutherans and especially Reformed churches. How can we overcome this problem?

[b]As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co–opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.

To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.

This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of an other Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.

It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re–evaluation of Apostolicae curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life and shared apostolic mission. [/b]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Boston College? Could have guessed. That does look phishy.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 18 2004, 09:38 PM'] Boston College? Could have guessed. [/quote]
We must painfully admit that ND is hardly better in that regard.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 16 2004, 01:40 AM'] Incidentally, that guy on the left of ironmonk's signature picture almost looks like a KKK member. Anyone else notice that? Perhaps I just have a perverted mind. But anyway, go back on with your conversation. [/quote]
You said it yourself - "perhaps" you are right.

He looks nothing like a kkk member, only someone who was around kkk a lot would think such things because he looks like a monk - because he is a monk.

Do you actually think that you bring enlightening insights to discussions?

Thank you for your permission to go back to the conversation... I don't know if anyone would have thought to go back to the conversation without your allowing of it.


You should think long and hard about what your going to say/write before you insinuate that someone is an ignorant bigot.


Here are kkk:

[img]http://www.law.du.edu/jenkins/images/kkk.gif[/img]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 18 2004, 10:53 PM'] We must painfully admit that ND is hardly better in that regard. [/quote]
Not for long. Wait untill I take the place by storm.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 19 2004, 06:05 PM'] Not for long. Wait untill I take the place by storm. [/quote]
Let me know. I'll join you. We'll start a crusade. All I ask is one thing. Let me deal with McBrien. (No I won't hurt him).

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 19 2004, 06:51 PM'] Let me know. I'll join you. We'll start a crusade. All I ask is one thing. Let me deal with McBrien. (No I won't hurt him). [/quote]
Suuure you won't.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Hehe. Ironically, both Universities have a well-known orthodox Catholic professor:
Ralph McInery for Notre Dame
and...
Peter Kreeft for Boston College

I have (good) books by each of them.

[ICTHUS]

Funny how Ironmonk never responded to my calling him on his stupid rhetoric.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 08:41 PM'] Funny how Ironmonk never responded to my calling him on his stupid rhetoric. [/quote]
[b]St. Matt 16:18 [/b] "[color=red]And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and [b]the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.[/b][/color]"
[b]19 [/b][color=red]I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]"



Says it all. The Church which holds the Sacraments and the successor of Peter CANNOT leave itself.

Jesus is not wrong, and does not lie.


I do not answer you because you fail to pay attention to facts presented to what is being said, just as you fail to understand what I wrote in how what you cite is against the truth.

To say that the Council of Trent preached a different Gospel is to [b]show that you have not read it...[/b] nor do you comprehend the meanings of the words after numerous people here have tried to explain things to you.

Here it is AGAIN for about the 5th time:
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/trent.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/trent.asp[/url]


Hmmmm... the Church before the Council of Trent, before the Council of Carthage, Hippo, Ephesus, etc... taught and believed in...[list]
[*]The Real Presence
[*]Confession to a Priest
[*]Papal Authority
[*]Apostolic Succession
[*]Infallibility
[*]Holy Orders
[*]Holy Water
[*]Anointing of the sick
[*]permanence of marriage
[*]Purgatory
[*]Penance
[*]One Faith - One Church - One Group... aka Unity
[/list]If your group fails to have the above, then you sir, are in the group that left... that is all seen in Christian teachings for the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church IS THE ONLY group that looks like the group in 33 AD, 300 AD, 500 AD, 1500 AD, 2004 AD, and will continue well past 3000 AD if the second coming doesn't come before that.

End of Story.

[b]When you stop ignoring the facts, then I'll reply to the "points" that you attempt to make.[/b]

Edited October 21, 2004 by ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 20 2004, 09:05 PM'][b]St. Matt 16:18 [/b] "[color=red]And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and [b]the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.[/b][/color]"
[b]19    [/b][color=red]I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]"

Jesus is not wrong, and does not lie.


I do not answer you because you fail to pay attention to facts presented to what is being said, just as you fail to understand what I wrote in how what you cite is against the truth.

To say that the Council of Trent preached a different Gospel is to [b]show that you have not read it...[/b] nor do you comprehend the meanings of the words after numerous people here have tried to explain things to you.

Here it is AGAIN for about the 5th time:
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/trent.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/trent.asp[/url]


Hmmmm... the Church before the Council of Trent, before the Council of Carthage, Hippo, Ephesus, etc...  taught and believed in...[list]

[*]The Real Presence

[*]Confession to a Priest

[*]Papal Authority

[*]Apostolic Succession

[*]Infallibility

[*]Holy Orders

[*]Holy Water

[*]Anointing of the sick

[*]permanence of marriage

[*]Purgatory

[*]Penance

[*]One Faith - One Church - One Group... aka Unity

[/list]If your group fails to have the above, then you sir, are in the group that left... that is all seen in Christian teachings for the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church IS THE ONLY group that looks like the group in 33 AD, 300 AD, 500 AD, 1500 AD, 2004 AD, and will continue well past 3000 AD if the second coming doesn't come before that.

End of Story.

[b]When you stop ignoring the facts, then I'll reply to the "points" that you attempt to make.[/b][/quote]
Of course, you beg the question by assuming that the Catholic Church is the Church and that all the things you describe were what the Apostles taught in their letters.

In any case, Ironmonk, you have changed the subject, as you are wont to do. Let me bring you up to speed.

I said:

[quote]Y'all should read the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to "Apostolicae Curae", "Saepius Officio" [/quote] thedude asked "Why?" to which you responded

[quote]Don't you know?

Because it's anti-Catholic and if one does not have a firm understanding of Catholicism, then one might leave the Church when reading the nonsense of those who left the group (Acts 20:29-30).


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote] I doubt you even read the document. I responded with the following.

[quote]Ironmonk,

"Saepius Officio" is not anti-Catholic. In fact, the Primates who wrote it began with an extremely friendly greeting to the Pope and 'all the bishops of the catholic Church", a tone which is maintained throughout the document. There is no animosity inherent in it whatsoever - only sound argumentation.

Ironmonk, your rhetoric is nonsensical. How dare you call something nonsense having not even read it?

Incidentally, it was Rome who 'left the group' at the Council of Trent by preaching another Gospel (Galatians 1) and declaring it irreformable, to boot.

For anyone who wants a clear understanding of why the English Church's orders are in fact valid, "Saepius Officio" can be read here. [/quote] I refuted your claim that Saepius Officio was anti-Roman Catholic. It's pro-English Church, but not anti-Romanist.

Incidentally, part of the reason why I am so hostile here is because of you. You spout all this garbage, calling what we write in defense of ourselves 'nonsense' [i]not even having read it[/i] or trying to respond to it.

[b]Sola Gratia ~ Sola Fide ~ Sola Scriptura ~ Solus Christus ~ Soli Deo Gloria[/b]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 22 2004, 02:27 PM'] Of course, you beg the question by assuming that the Catholic Church is the Church and that all the things you describe were what the Apostles taught in their letters.

In any case, Ironmonk, you have changed the subject, as you are wont to do. Let me bring you up to speed.

I said:

thedude asked "Why?" to which you responded

I doubt you even read the document. I responded with the following.

I refuted your claim that Saepius Officio was anti-Roman Catholic. It's pro-English Church, but not anti-Romanist.

Incidentally, part of the reason why I am so hostile here is because of you. You spout all this garbage, calling what we write in defense of ourselves 'nonsense' [i]not even having read it[/i] or trying to respond to it.

[b]Sola Gratia ~ Sola Fide ~ Sola Scriptura ~ Solus Christus ~ Soli Deo Gloria[/b] [/quote]
Funny how you fail to read trent.

I was correct when I said it was anti-Catholic.

It is a statement against Papal Authority, if you cannot see that, then you've proved my point that you do not understand what you read.

Maybe you should have read saepius officio?

[quote name='"saepius officio"']The answer to these harsh and inconsiderate words has already been partly made when we gave the warning that he who interprets the acts of our Church by mere conjecture and takes it upon himself to issue a new decree as to what is necessary in the form of Order, condemning our lawful bishops in their government of the Church in the XVIth century by a standard which they never knew, is entering on a slippery and dangerous path. The liberty of national Churches to reform their own rites may not thus be removed at the pleasure of Rome. For, as we shall show in part later, there is certainly no one "catholic rite," but even the forms approved by the Roman Church vary much from one another. [/quote]

The bottom line is that the Angelican orders are NOT valid.

About sixteen years after the Angelican group when into schism, they changed the rite. What makes it anti-Catholic is not that it varies, but it varies WITHOUT approval.

Rites that do vary and are Catholic have ALL been approved by the Successor of Peter.

[quote name='"saepius officio"']the church of Rome herself has an invalid priesthood, [/quote]

Saying the Church of Rome has an invalid priesthood is not anti-Catholic?

hmmm... let's look at this with a little logic... to be "anti" anything one must attack or give negative criticism to that which the thing one is "anti" about. Saying that the Office of Peter, established by Christ is invalid is VERY anti-Catholic.

The funniest thing about this statement is we must first ask ourselves, by what authority does the Angelican Church speak? Hmmm... they originaly where Catholic, soooo that has to mean that they get their authority about Scripture and Faith from the Catholic Church "FROM WHOM THEY LEARNED IT"... So, saying that the Catholic Church, Office of Peter has invalid orders says that they too are invalid.

Unless the Angelican Church can trace their succession to the Apostles without going into the Catholic Church, then the Angelicans have proven themselves wrong.


The matter is at an end. If you stop going off half-cocked, you might learn something. Just as you have emailed me numerous times about Church teachings, and I've clearly shown you where they where and explained them, you never had a rebutal, but now you deny them and cannot say why you deny them.

When you can show you pay attention to the facts, then I'll start replying again. Pride is a deadly sin ya know... it keeps you from Christ. See, the arguements that I use are not mine... they are the Churches, the Church is always right.

The truth speaks for itself, and the Catholic Church is the Truth.

God Bless.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 23 2004, 07:02 PM'] I was correct when I said it was anti-Catholic.

Maybe you should have read saepius officio?



Saying the Church of Rome has an invalid priesthood is not anti-Catholic?












[/quote]
[quote]I was correct when I said it was anti-Catholic.[/quote] No, you weren't, you and your 'church' just can't stand up to criticism, so you cry 'anti-Catholic' whenever anyone says anything negative about Rome.

[quote]It is a statement against Papal Authority, if you cannot see that, then you've proved my point that you do not understand what you read.[/quote] It is an argument that the Roman Bishop has overstepped and abused his authority, yes. It is not [i]against[/i] papal authority.

[quote]The bottom line is that the Angelican orders are NOT valid.[/quote] Begging the question. You assume from the get-go what you set out to prove - however, Saepius Officio provides an adequate antithesis to your position.

[quote]Saying the Church of Rome has an invalid priesthood is not anti-Catholic?[/quote] That is not what the venerable Archbishops were saying. You failed to show the context of the statement.

[quote name='Saepius Officio']But let the Romans consider now not once or twice what judgment they will pronounce upon their own Fathers, whose ordinations we have described above. For if the Pope shall by a new decree declare our Fathers of two hundred and fifty years ago wrongly ordained, there is nothing to hinder the inevitable sentence that by the same law all who have been similarly ordained have received no orders. And if our Fathers, who used in 1550 and 1552 forms which as he says are null, were altogether unable to reform them in 1662, his own Fathers come under the self-same law. And if Hippolytus and Victor and Leo and Gelasius and Gregory have some of them said too little in their rites about the priesthood and the high priesthood, and nothing about the power of offering the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, [b]the church of Rome herself has an invalid priesthood, and the reformers of the Sacramentaries, no matter what their names, could do nothing to remedy her rites[/b]. "For as the Hierarchy (to use the Pope's words) had become extinct on account of the nullity of the form, there remained no power of ordaining." And if the Ordinal "was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient, since no change has taken place.[1] In vain those who from the [VIth and XIth centuries] have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, [and power of remitting and retaining sins], have made some additions to the Ordinal." Thus in overthrowing our orders, he overthrows all his own, and pronounces sentence on his own Church. Eugenius IVth indeed brought his Church into great peril of nullity when he taught a new matter and a new form of Order and left the real without a word. For no one knows how many ordinations may have been made, according to his teaching, without any laying on of hands or appropriate form. Pope Leo demands a form unknown to previous Bishops of Rome, and an intention which is defective in the catechisms of the Oriental Church. [/quote] The Primates who wrote the letter were simply applying Rome's own standards in her judgement against them, to their own ordinations "For by the standard by which ye judged, ye shall be judged". One of the grounds upon which Rome said that Canterbury's ordinations were invalid was that they made no mention of offering the sacrifice of the altar. The venerable Primates who responded, therefore, held Rome to her own standard of judgement in saying, in effect, if you apply this criterion to our ordinal to say that our orders are null and void, then so are yours. As he says...

[quote][b]Thus in overthrowing our orders, he overthrows all his own[/b], and pronounces sentence on his own Church. Eugenius IVth indeed brought his Church into great peril of nullity when he taught a new matter and a new form of Order and left the real without a word. For no one knows how many ordinations may have been made, according to his teaching, without any laying on of hands or appropriate form. Pope Leo demands a form unknown to previous Bishops of Rome, and an intention which is defective in the catechisms of the Oriental Church[/quote] IronMonk, you have been shown the fool. You have attempted to lie by taking a statement out of context and trying to prove something that wasn't in the text. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[quote]hmmm... let's look at this with a little logic... to be "anti" anything one must attack or give negative criticism to that which the thing one is "anti" about. Saying that the Office of Peter, established by Christ is invalid is VERY anti-Catholic. [/quote] There is a difference between defending oneself and taking the offensive. I maintain that the English Primates were doing the former. If you had bothered to read the above statement in context, you would have seen that the English Church was [i]not saying that the Church of Rome's ordinations were invalid[/i], only that by[i] the criterion by which she judged the English Church's ordinations to be invalid, she judged her own ordinations to be invalid simultaneously. [/i]

[quote]The funniest thing about this statement is we must first ask ourselves, by what authority does the Angelican Church speak?[/quote] They speak from the authority of their episcopacy, defending themselves against the attacks of a brother bishop who attacked the validity of their bishophrics and ordinations.

[quote]Hmmm... they originaly where Catholic, soooo that has to mean that they get their authority about Scripture and Faith from the Catholic Church "FROM WHOM THEY LEARNED IT"... So, saying that the Catholic Church, Office of Peter has invalid orders says that they too are invalid. [/quote] That is not what they said, as shown above.

[quote]The matter is at an end.[/quote] No, it's not, and I showed you why above. [quote] If you stop going off half-cocked, you might learn something. Just as you have emailed me numerous times about Church teachings, and I've clearly shown you where they where and explained them, you never had a rebutal, but now you deny them and cannot say why you deny them.[/quote] Ask me about something, and I'll tell you if I deny it and why.

[quote]When you can show you pay attention to the facts, then I'll start replying again. Pride is a deadly sin ya know...[/quote] And so the pot calls the kettle black.

[quote]it keeps you from Christ.[/quote] The false Gospel of the Roman Church keeps you from Christ. Now that the insults are over, can we get to the substantiative issues?

[quote] See, the arguements that I use are not mine... they are the Churches, the Church is always right. [/quote] So the true Church that Jesus established uses put-downs, insults, rhetoric, and taking statements out of context? Hmmm, interesting.

[quote]Unless the Angelican Church can trace their succession to the Apostles without going into the Catholic Church, then the Angelicans have proven themselves wrong.[/quote] We don't need to. Our orders are valid, and yes, we can trace them back the Apostles.

[quote]The truth speaks for itself, and the Catholic Church is the Truth.[/quote] Yes, it is, as we teach.

[quote name='The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion']XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.[/quote] However, the catholic Church outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation [b]does not inhere in the Church of Rome. [/b]

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Icthus I thought you were done with us.....

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Female "orders" are untracable.