The Anglicans

[ironmonk]

IronMonk's history is right on target.    With one added question.  Did the Anglicans lose valid ordinations, the minute they left Rome?  In other words, while the original Bishops and priests (who were Catholics before the split) anyone ordained after the split would be automatically invalid?  Yes?  This is what is going on with SPX and other schismatics, right?  Just a bit confused...

peace...

The Anglican's that were priests had valid orders until they died....

All new Angelican Priests that were ordained had valid orders until 16 years after the split... i.e. if someone was ordained 17 years after the split, their ordination was not valid, but someone who was ordained 15 years after had valid orders.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

bump

[ICTHUS]

Ironmonk, you do realize that I am unable to spend my whole day in front of a computer - I also have duties to perform on CGR, as I am a mod there. So if I don't respond to some of these challenges you dig up from the annals of phatmass history, please do forgive me.

[CatholicforChrist]

Ellenita, the Apostles left their wives to follow Christ. This does not mean that God did not intend them to be married in the first place. Also, people are often deceived of God's will, especially when they are outside the unity of His Church (outside of which there can be no worship pleasing to God, cf., Roman Catechism). This itself should indicate that those outside the Church have an erroneous understanding of God's will.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 21 2003, 09:01 PM'] The Anglican's that were priests had valid orders until they died....
All new Angelican Priests that were ordained had valid orders until 16 years after the split... i.e. if someone was ordained 17 years after the split, their ordination was not valid, but someone who was ordained 15 years after had valid orders.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
ironmonk [/quote]
But this is due to the pomulgation of the new Edwardian Ordinal in 1549/1550, not merely to the fact that they had been apart from Rome for some odd years (16 years). The ordinal reflected the change in theology about the Mass and the priesthood and therefore it was deficient in form and intention. HAd they retained the old ordinal and retained a Catholic view of the MAss and priesthood (as the Orthodox did) they would have maintained valid orders.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 28 2004, 12:03 PM']But this is due to the pomulgation of the new Edwardian Ordinal in 1549/1550, not merely to the fact that they had been apart from Rome for some odd years (16 years).  The ordinal reflected the change in theology about the Mass and the priesthood and therefore it was deficient in form and intention.  HAd they retained the old ordinal and retained a Catholic view of the MAss and priesthood (as the Orthodox did) they would have maintained valid orders.[/quote]


[b]Radio Replies. Vol. 1. #286:[/b]
[b]How can you deny the Orders of the anglican bishops? They go back to the Bishops of the Reformation period.[/b]

There have been anglican bishops continuously since the reformation, but valid Orders have not been continuously handed on. Henry VIII began the Church of England in 1534. The Bishops who submitted to him were validly consecrated, and validity lasted until 1550. But in that year, under Edward VI, a great effort was made to protestantize still more the Church of England both in doctrine and in practice. The form of Ordination was deliberately changed, all reference to priesthood in the true Christian sense of the word being eliminated. This defective form utterly useless for the true ordination of priests, remained unchanged until 1662- 112 years later. then the mistake was realized and the form was corrected. But the correction was too late, for those whith correct Orders had died, and oly those who had been invalidly consecrated remained to hand on their pretended Orders. Not a few Anglicans have tried to make sure of Orders by re-ordination at the hands of schismatical Bishops. The Angelican Bishop Knox, writing in the National Review for September, 1925, said correctly, "The Pope refused absolutely to recognize our Anglican Orders on the ground that our Church does not ordain priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. In spite of attempts made by our Archbishop to conceal this defect, the Pope from his point of view was unquestionably right. It is true that certain priests of the Church of England offer so-called Masses, but as they were not ordained by the Church with the intention that they should offer the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, the Sacrament of their Ordination is for this purpose a failure. The Prayer Book and Ordinal are simply un-Catholic, since they show no sign of fulfilling the most important of all Catholic functions.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[popestpiusx]

Ironmonk,
That doesn't contradict what I said. Or was it not supposed to? In any case, good post.