Anglicans & The Blessed Sacrament

[Ellenita]

OK, that's a clearly written justification for their apostolic succession. (I'm not saying I agree with them, before anyone wonders! )

I can fully understand the logic that a bishop who had 'broken away' from the authority of Rome would no longer be considered in communion and therefore the apostolic succession would not be valid.....and yes, (I hear the gasps of shock from Phatmassers who know that I'm originally from the Anglican tradition), I am aware of the implications of accepting that principle!

However, it seems to me from reading that 'justification' that the dispute about their apostolic succession has in part been created by the failure of the Catholic church to insist that the Bishop who returned to the church should go through some form of reinstating (for the want of a better word) his apostolic succession if it had been broken during his time in this 'break away' church. It has allowed them to claim that since the church has not done this, they must see it as valid after all.

[Anna]

However, it seems to me from reading that 'justification' that the dispute about their apostolic succession has in part been created by the failure of the Catholic church to insist that the Bishop who returned to the church should go through some form of reinstating (for the want of a better word) his apostolic succession if it had been broken during his time in this 'break away' church. It has allowed them to claim that since the church has not done this, they must see it as valid after all.

When others stray, they always say it's the Church's fault.

If bishops leave communion with Rome, separating themselves from the head, how can they claim to be united to the Body?

And before I get the "Christ is the head" lecture, please realize that Christ established a Church, His Mystical Body, on earth, with Peter at the head (as Christ's representative, or vicar).

Pax Christi. <><

[p0lar_bear]

Anglican Eucharist is not valid because their holy orders are not valid.

Anglicans do not have valid holy orders because they no longer have valid bishops.

The validity has nothing to do with whether the ordaining bishop is in union with Rome. The Anglicans lost their valid holy orders when Elizabeth I changed the rite in 1552. The form of that rite (i.e. the words) and the intent were such that they invalidated the rite, and therefore, the sacrament.

Holy Orders, once validly conferred, cannot be invalidated. The Church can take away permission to act as a priest, but She cannot take away the priesthood. Like Baptism and Confirmation, Holy Orders bestows a "character" that cannot be removed.

This is why Old Catholics, SSPX, SSPV, Thuc's sect (I can't remember the name of it...), and other groups not in union with Rome have valid sacraments.

[ICTHUS]

Anglican Eucharist is not valid because their holy orders are not valid.

Anglicans do not have valid holy orders because they no longer have valid bishops.

The validity has nothing to do with whether the ordaining bishop is in union with Rome. The Anglicans lost their valid holy orders when Elizabeth I changed the rite in 1552. The form of that rite (i.e. the words) and the intent were such that they invalidated the rite, and therefore, the sacrament.

Holy Orders, once validly conferred, cannot be invalidated. The Church can take away permission to act as a priest, but She cannot take away the priesthood. Like Baptism and Confirmation, Holy Orders bestows a "character" that cannot be removed.

This is why Old Catholics, SSPX, SSPV, Thuc's sect (I can't remember the name of it...), and other groups not in union with Rome have valid sacraments.

In what respect are Anglican orders invalid?

This is of particular interest to me because I go to an Anglican school, and I was asked to be a LEM (Lay Eucharistic Minister) for a chapel service at Easter. I would have been happy to do it, were it not for the fact that I asked the Bishop of my diocese to see if it was okay and he (in a nutshell) said NO, it was not.

It raised a bit of a stink when I had to tell my principal (who is an ordained Anglican priest) that I couldn't be an LEM. However, thank God he's an Anglican and not a Baptist, because as an Anglican clergyman he understands episcopal authority, because he himself is under the authority of HIS Bishop and understands that I must submit to, and obey, my own Diocesan Bishop.

Does it have something to do with the intent to offer Christ's body and blood, the One completed sacrifice of Calvary?

[Ellenita]

Anna and Polar bear, so what you are both saying is that the Brazilian bishop who broke away from communion with Rome still has valid orders because he was originally ordained within the true apostolic succession? This would mean therefore that the claims by the Charismatic Episcopal Church are correct! This is quite a disturbing thought since it does not seem to 'fit into' the logic of what I have been reading here at phatmass concerning apostolic succession!

Check the link in Katholikos post.

I understand your argument about the Anglican church. Not being able to refute the logic of it is very frustrating because of course it forces me to re evaluate all that I have understood about Holy Communion which has always been something very special to me in the anglican mass.

[hyperdulia again]

a validly ordained bishop/priest is jusst that, a validly ordained bishop or priest...howver if he's not in communion w/rome his ordination is valid, but illicit.

[Ellenita]

And the relevance of illicit? Does this mean that the communion taken within a church under the authority of an illicit bishop is not Holy Sacrament?

I'm sorry, I'm confused! It seems with regard to the Charismatic Episcopal Church people who have responded in this thread are unclear - some of you seem to be saying they do not have valid apostolic succession and others are arguing they do.

Isn't valid apostolic succession clear? And doesn't this have a reflection on what is regarded as Holy Communion?

[cmotherofpirl]

When the English broke away from Rome, they changed the words of ordination and removed all references to it being a sacrament. aposolitic succession, priesthood etc. Therefore the men recieving it were not validly ordained. It would be like baptising in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit and leaving out the Son.

Words do matter.

[Ellenita]

I absolutely understand your arguments about the English Anglican church and by definition the Episcopal church since this is what it is called worldwide.

However my question was about the Charismatic Episcopal Church which is NOT part of the anglican communion since it has encompassed all and sundry from a number of different denominations and includes the claim that it has valid apostolic succession directly from Rome through the Catholic church in Brazil. Their point is that one of their bishops returned to Rome and was not required to 'be reordained' (I don't know the correct word for what ever process this might involve) and therefore they must have valid apostolic sucession according to Rome otherwise he would have been required to do this.

Please read the link in Katholikos post.

So does it mean that if someone has valid apostolic succession but breaks away from Rome, their communion still regared as Holy Sacrament even though they are no longer part of the Catholic church? I don't think from reading the link in Katholikos post to the Charismatic Episcopal Church that it would regard itself as a Catholic church. (Or Anglican for that matter)

[p0lar_bear]

Ellenita,

I have not researched this personally, so I can't offer details at this time. However, someone I know used to be a priest in the Charistmatic Episcopal Church before he converted to Catholicism. For obvious reasons, he researched the claims of valid orders. According to him the claims are based on spurious evidence and statements made by people who were not qualified to make judgements on the matter. He is convinced that he was never validly ordained. I don't know the details, so I can't offer a critique of their claims.

Edited November 12, 2003 by p0lar_bear

[p0lar_bear]

In what respect are Anglican orders invalid?

Does it have something to do with the intent to offer Christ's body and blood, the One completed sacrifice of Calvary?

Anglican orders are invalid because the rite of 1552 changed the wording in such a way as to deny the traditional sacrificial priesthood instituted by Jesus Christ.

A valid sacrament requires proper form and proper intention. Cmom is correct in her example of baptism. For baptism to be valid, it must be performed with pure water, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the intent to baptize. If the baptism takes place with any other liquid, is done in the name of the Son only, or without the intent to baptize, then it is not valid. The same applies to Holy Orders. When the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer was issued, the changes in the wording of the rite and the intent of those who composed it rendered the rite invalid.

After exhaustive research was done on the issue, Leo XIII issued His Papal Bull, Apostolicae Curae in 1896 stating that because of a defect in both form and intention, apostolic succession was not preserved in Anglican orders.

[Ellenita]

Polar Bear, thanks for replying about the Charismatic Episcopal Church. So the claims on their website are completely false then if your friend is correct. It's a shame the Catholic Church can't sue over the matter!

OK, in terms of the Anglican apostolic succession being invalid since 1552 when Elizabeth I instituted the change in the rite, I now understand the reasoning behind why Catholics have not been able to receive communion at an Anglican mass on the advice of their bishops and why I have always been told that I cannot participate in communion in a Catholic church. I have never understood this before, though of course I have always respected the wishes of the church.

Does the same then apply to baptism and confirmation? Is the baptism I received in the Anglican church not accepted by Catholics as valid since it carried out by a priest who does not have valid apostolic succession? An interesting point which might have something to do with this is that I was not baptised as an infant since one of my godparents was Catholic and the Anglican priest refused to baptise me as a result. It alienated my parents from the church for many years.

[Katholikos]

It's a shame the Catholic Church can't sue over the matter!   

The Catholic Church can sue. But she chooses not to. Have you ever heard of a law suit brought by the Catholic Church against any calumnist, regardless of the lies and slander heaped upon her?

The Church never loses the focus of her mission: to work for the salvation of mankind by teaching the Truth and nothing but the Truth. She simply prays for those who spread lies about her.

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

JMJ Likos

[Uncle Gus]

Does the same then apply to baptism and confirmation? Is the baptism I received in the Anglican church not accepted by Catholics as valid since it carried out by a priest who does not have valid apostolic succession?

The baptism is valid, but the confirmation is not. (short answer )

[Ellenita]

Thanks Uncle Gus.

But now I am truely confused! In my dictionary it states that the sacaments for protestants are baptism and the Lords supper; for Catholics and the Eastern churches they are baptism, penance, confirmation, the Eucharist, holy orders, matrimony and the anointing of the sick. (this is the dictionary order, not in order of importance if one exists!)

My question is wouldn't valid apostolic succession be required for all these if they are considered as sacraments, in which case baptism by any other church would not be acceptable, or marriage, or even anointing the sick? I'm trying to understand the logic of valid apostolic succession - do different rules apply? Also is this the reason why interfaith marriage, while not rejected, is not encouraged either and when it does happen the ceremony is usually held in a Catholic church? In my life time I have seen a relaxing of the marriage 'rule'.

She simply prays for those who spread lies about her. Father, forgive them for they know not what they do

Katholikos, of course! A much more Christian and charitable attitude than the one expressed in my comment about taking legal action. Please forgive me!

[Uncle Gus]

Nah, baptism is valid no matter who does it, even an atheist. They just have to use the right matter (water) and the right form ("I baptise you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit").

I'm not sure about the other sacraments.

[Paladin D]

Jesus used Juicy Juice.

()

Edited November 13, 2003 by Paladin D

[p0lar_bear]

Ellenita,

So the claims on their website are completely false then if your friend is correct.

While they are wrong about their relationship with the Catholic Church and about the validity of their Holy Orders, I do think that the people who claim the CEC has apostolic succession really believe that they do. There probably was actually a Brazilian bishop who broke away from the Church and, apparently, validly consecrated at least one bishop. However, if they did not use a valid rite for ordaining priest or bishops, they no longer have valid Holy Orders or apostolic succession (I don't know that this is what happened, merely speculation on what could have happened). I don't think those who claim apostolic succession are intentionally lying.

It's a shame the Catholic Church can't sue over the matter!

Since I don't think the CEC is actually claiming to be Catholic, only to have apostolic succession like the Catholic Church does, it wouldn't really be a matter for a lawsuit. It would be kind of like trying to sue the Anglican church...

Does the same then apply to baptism and confirmation? Is the baptism I received in the Anglican church not accepted by Catholics as valid since it carried out by a priest who does not have valid apostolic succession?

The Catholic Church can recognize baptisms and marriages of other Christian churches. This is because neither require a priest. Anyone can be the minister of baptism and the couple are the ministers of marriage. Confirmation, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Annointing, and Reconcilliation all require a validly ordained priest as their minister.

But now I am truely confused! In my dictionary it states that the sacaments for protestants are baptism and the Lords supper; for Catholics and the Eastern churches they are baptism, penance, confirmation, the Eucharist, holy orders, matrimony and the anointing of the sick.

The dictionary says this because most Protestant and Evangelical churches recognize only two sacraments (or ordinances): baptism and the Lord's supper. Catholics, Orthodox, and some high church denominations (such as Anglicanism) recognize seven.

However, the Catholic Church does not recognize the Eucharist as valid in churches or ecclesial communities without valid Holy Orders.

[BLAZEr]

Ellenita, I know a lot of Charismatic Episcopal Church priests and bishops. Actually, of all the non-catholics I have met, these guys are the best, most fun, absolutely cool guys I have ever encountered (as a collective group).

Anyway, one of my good friends, Jim Pinto used to be a CEC priest in Alabama and just this year he came into full communion with Rome. If you want, I can email him and you ask him to email you. I'm sure he would be happy to help with any questions. He's very cool.

[BLAZEr]

Also, you can't "RE-DO" a sacrament. If it is "valid" even if it is illicit, it is still a sacrament.