2as1 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Good evening folks, My wife and I have become quick fans of your site....thank you. We found you while searching for info on Ap. Suc. regarding the ICCEC...or Charismatic Episcopal Church. We have been members in ministry at a local CEC church since its began 3 years ago. We moved a while back into a Catholic chapel to worship/rent/borrow and the Holy Spirit there (among other things) has impacted us in a way we could not have predicted. We are quickly moving towards the Catholic Church as a rare pair of 30-somethings. We feel we are being lead to be the voice of the Catholic Church within our CEC church for a season. Nuf said... Here's our issue. Apostolic Succession is the hot topic in our church. We've heard of a couple CEC priests moving to the catholic church after researching the subject. Has anyone here heard any news recently regarding this subject and the CEC? We feel their claim to Succession is shaky at best, but the more we search the more inconclusive it seems to become. CEC bishops just did, or are about to convene to discuss, "firm up", their position. We hope to shed some light for our CEC brothers and sisters (and ourselves) HELP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I do not mean just to point you some where else, but I suppose that is just what I am going to do. In the Catholic Defense part of this site I think you will find info on Apostolic succession. Here is the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/74"]link[/url] that lists the different articles. I would recommend reading there first and then if you have any specific questions concerning a point or two bringing them here. Best of luck and I will keep you and yours in my prayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/3"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/3[/url] You'll find all you need therein. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 only churches in the world that can, with very credible historic backing, claim that their bishops and priests were ordained by people who were ordained by people et cetera et cetera all the way back to the Apostles... and thus Christ himself, are the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Though we think they broke the line by altering it too much, the Anglicans could still claim that, but other than that Apostolic succession resides in the Catholic Church, historically speaking. Christ ordains apostles, apostles ordain successors, successors ordain bishops, bishops ordain bishops, et cetera et cetera... till you get Benedict XVI and his crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2as1 Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 As I looked over my husbands post yesterday I agreed with all the info. but wanted to be more concise and clarify .. we are in the process of converting to Catholicism. Because of our transition out of the CEC we are the ones being questioned about the Catholic viewpoints as they review their own beliefs (ex. ap. succ.). Thank you very much for the proper direction we should be looking on this site. We will definately go and search through whatever info. is there. Before I go I want to set out acouple of specific questions I will be looking for. Costa was ordained a Bishop in the Roman Catholic Church in 1924. He was forced to retire in 1937 because of his outspoken viewpoints against the Vatican. In 1945 he broke from the Roman Catholic Church and started his own church .. the National Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil. One month later Costa ordained Father Ferraz into the NCAC. 3 yrs. later another priest (Mendez) was also ordained into the NCAC. Both were ordained as Bishops. In 1958 Father Ferraz left the NCAC and rejoined the Roman Catholic Church. In 1961 Mendez succeeded Costa as patriarch of the NCAC. 3 specific questions arise for us: First, some of our research claims that because they were ordained without holy orders from Rome they should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church ... all 3! I question the validity of that claim because when Ferraz rejoined the Catholic Church in 1958 he did not have to be reconsecrated. How could that be if he had been excommunicated? Isn't excommunication forever? Secondly, his ordination into the CEC is considered "valid, but illicit". If it's valid, even if unlawful, then wouldn't that still be in the line of apostolic succession? Thirdly, if their ordination is considered valid what specifically does this mean regarding transubstantiation? What it all boils down to for our CEC friends is if the Eucharist is really being transformed into Christ or not. I am making a huge presumption for them on this site, however, I wonder if apostolic succession would even remain an issue as long as they believed they were receiving a valid (truly transformed = their valid) Eucharist. I'm not speaking for the CEC as a whole, only the church we have been attending. I feel as though these questions keep getting answered differently on every site we visit. Truly what we need to put this issue to rest is an actual ruling from a Catholic Bishop, canon lawyer, or person of authority in the Catholic Church. Something more specific than the "valid but illicit" statement. If anyone can send us in the right direction to find that it would help add weight to our stance. I know this was long ... thanks for the ear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I will get back to your question in more detail, but first you should read what I am about to read as to answer your question. Augustine on the Donatist Contraversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 [quote name='2as1' date='Jan 24 2006, 08:05 AM'] How could that be if he had been excommunicated? Isn't excommunication forever?[/quote] I will try to answer these the best that I can while we are waiting on theoketos. Excommunications are not forever if they have been lifted. Only certain people can do this, but the Church does not excommunicate someone without being able to welcome them back into the Church. Of course that is a long process and would probably require the one excommunicated to repair damage, etc...It depends on the individual case. Those cases that are excommunicated but never have it lifted, are indeed forever. [quote]Secondly, his ordination into the CEC is considered "valid, but illicit". If it's valid, even if unlawful, then wouldn't that still be in the line of apostolic succession? [/quote]As far as I know, yes the bishop would be in sucession as long as: 1)the sacrament was valid meaning it had both form and matter, and 2) he either had a see or was a titular or coadjutar of another diocese. [quote]Thirdly, if their ordination is considered valid what specifically does this mean regarding transubstantiation? What it all boils down to for our CEC friends is if the Eucharist is really being transformed into Christ or not. [/quote]One who is a validly ordained bishop or priest may consecrate the Eucharist. Those are the answers the best to my knowledge. Someone here will be able to correct me where I err. If this is concerning the validity of your church's orders, then I believe there was a document some time ago stating that Anglican (also Episcopal ?) priests and bishops did not have valid ordersbecause it lacked proper form. Please let me know how those answers jive with others that you have been receiving. It is better to ask a Catholic bishop concerning this, but we work with the means we have right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4303"]On the Nullity of Anglican Orders by Pope Leo XIII[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 24 2006, 09:23 AM'][url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4303"]On the Nullity of Anglican Orders by Pope Leo XIII[/url] [right][snapback]864586[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Ask and you shall recieve? Thanks for the link Myles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Jan 24 2006, 03:25 PM']Ask and you shall recieve? Thanks for the link Myles. [right][snapback]864588[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Anytime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2as1 Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 Bishop Costa was named Titular Bishop of Maura, however I'm not sure how his break from the Catholic Church affected that position. Also, I need to clarify that the CEC is not considered an Anglican Church. They don't consider themselves a denomination, but rather a movement. Their goal is to unify the liturgical/sacramental, evangelical, and the charismatic thus becoming a bridge between the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Baptized Catholic but raised Protestant the CEC was the bridge back into the Catholic church for us. The Eastern Orthodox church is considered in line with apostolic succession, even though they are not in communion with Rome. How is it that their Bishops can continue to be ordained and seen as valid? Costa was a valid Bishop, and even after his break from the church he still held his validity and could consecrate the host etc., so wouldn't that make all the bishops he ordained valid as well? Soooo we are valid in apostolic succession (?), however the question becomes why would our sacraments be seen as illicit? It seems contradictory when compared to the Orthodox church. They are in the same position yet considered valid and llicit regarding the eucharist. The Anglican Church is considered illicit because they apparently can not prove apostolic succession. The Greek Orthodox Church can trace it succession, but so can the CEC. Does anyone see where the confusion comes in as to why we are valid but illicit? I'm swimming in a sea of confusion over here. Augustine on the Donatist Contraversy. I did read up on this. I got the general drift of what it was about but I'm waiting on your explanation. I am definately out of your league here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 [quote name='2as1' date='Jan 24 2006, 10:51 AM']The Eastern Orthodox church is considered in line with apostolic succession, even though they are not in communion with Rome. How is it that their Bishops can continue to be ordained and seen as valid? Costa was a valid Bishop, and even after his break from the church he still held his validity and could consecrate the host etc., so wouldn't that make all the bishops he ordained valid as well? Soooo we are valid in apostolic succession (?), however the question becomes why would our sacraments be seen as illicit? It seems contradictory when compared to the Orthodox church. They are in the same position yet considered valid and llicit regarding the eucharist. The Anglican Church is considered illicit because they apparently can not prove apostolic succession. The Greek Orthodox Church can trace it succession, but so can the CEC. [/quote]It depends on the form that the bishop used to ordain his succesors. If he did not use the correct form then the sacrament itself is invalid. The EO churches use a valid form of ordination, so their bishops received the sacrament validly and are thus bishops. Clarification on illicit: it is something makes it unlawful as you know, but it may be something as small (not meaning to down play it) as not following the proper rubrics for liturgy. It seems like there is some confusion on the terms illicit and invalid. An invalid sacrament is one that does not work because it is laking proper form or matter. Matter- the things in a sacrament such as water, oil, etc… Form- the words in a sacrament Since both matter and form make up a sacrament both are needed for validity (eg: one cannot baptize with wine, or omit the epiclesis). The two must also be sufficiently united. An illicit sacrament is one that is still valid for it has proper form and matter, but something unlawful was done. As I mentioned this could be a breach in the rubrics, or it could be as doing something without the proper permission of the local ordinary. An illicit sacrament is not the same as an invalid one for sacraments work ex opero operare. So when the proper form and matter are present and suffeciently united, you have a valid sacrament (presuming you have a valid ordained priest). As far as whether the EO churches are licit I am not sure. I would have to look into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krostandt Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 [quote]As far as whether the EO churches are licit I am not sure. I would have to look into that.[/quote] No we are not considered licit by Rome. In fact, I've been told by one theologin, since it's not under Rome, it's actually displeasing to God. That's okay, we just say everyone is has invalid orders. Bishop Costa, however has an interesting history. However, there are many lines that trace back to him and personal, I'm downright suspicious of any of those in the vagante movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 [quote name='Krostandt' date='Jan 25 2006, 07:38 PM']No we are not considered licit by Rome. [/quote]Thank you for confirming that. I wonder if 2as1 ever found this since it was moved. I should pm them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quietfire Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 dang. Im confused. Licit, illicit, valid, invalid, form, matter, epiclesis, rubrics. I think I just popped a blood vessel reading this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now