Should We See Anglican Holy Orders As Valid?

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1429390' date='Dec 4 2007, 07:53 PM']But what about the notion that Anglicans have a valid apostolic succession, since they can trace the laying on of hands to Augustine who was a valid Roman Catholic Bishop.[/quote]

As I highlighted before it doesn't make a difference. If the Pope himself laid hands upon me and did not adhere to the ordination rubrics then my ordination would be invalid. Likewise if the Pope decided he didn't really like Trinitarian baptism and changed the words that baptism would be invalid. Or if, shock horror, the Pope decided he didn't really like the anaphora or the consecration so he was gonna mix it up a little etc.etc. I'm sure my point has been duly illustrated. When the Anglican bishops altered their rubrics their apostolic succession ceased Leo XIII has already ruled upon this issue and did so after an exhaustive study of the whole affair. Anglicans do not have valid orders.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

It should be noted, that should a group like the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) come into Communion with the Church once again, they would have their Rites approved and ordained by valid Bishops.

Let's pray that this happens soon!

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

The way the Anglicans use the term "Roman Church" is incorrect, but the term "Roman Church" or "Latin Church" can be used properly when differentiating from the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church", or the "Syriac Church", the "Chaldean Church", etc..

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1429397' date='Dec 4 2007, 02:15 PM']Does the term 'Roman Church' bother anyone else as much as it bothers me?[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1429390' date='Dec 4 2007, 12:53 PM']But what about the notion that Anglicans have a valid apostolic succession, since they can trace the laying on of hands to Augustine who was a valid Roman Catholic Bishop.[/quote]

Their alleged apostolic succession doesn't actually trace to St. Augustine of Canterbury: "[b]It is uncertain whether the consecration of the Anglican Archbishop Martthew Parker (1559), on whom the apostolic succession in the Anglican Church depends, was performed by validly consecrated consecrator or by a consecrator who was consecrated at all.[/b]" (cf. Ludwig Ott, [i]Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma[/i] p. 456)

Edited December 5, 2007 by StThomasMore

[N/A Gone]

update response...

[quote]As the new advent page sort of showed, Ott's claim is suspect.

but yeah. i guess from a Catholic point of view there can be no conversation (which is one minor problem i have with Catholics. in some ways i think the infallible claims can be good, but in other ways i think they are overstated and leave no room for what i feel is valid conversation.)

I feel that the CAtholics may be right that according to Catholic standards, Anglicans probably do not have valid orders. But i do not feel that these standards are right. And if you claim that we do not have Apostolic Succesion then you are saying we do not partake in true sacraments and therefore are barely Christians or not Christians.

I immensely respect the Catholic Church, however i do not respect their sorry attempt at ecumenism. (Though i respect John Paul II and Benedict XVI's attempts at ecumenical conversation)...

It all comes back to my one problem with Catholicism: that is, they say too much too explicitly. Sometimes they seem to be the fundamentalists of Sacramental Churches.

so yeah, i guess you can accept Anglicans as true Christians or not, but the truth is we have apostolic succession and we have true sacraments. I cannot believe that God would reject imparting grace, simply because someone may have been corrupt in history.

here's a little quote. a little biased, but no more biased than the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"There have been disputes about the continuity of the succession of bishops, and some writers in the Protestant tradition have questioned the need for it. Questions about the historic succession led to the condemnation of Anglican Orders by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. The grounds put forward for this attack on the Church of England ordination rites were: that the actual succession had been broken in a number of irregular ordinations; that the English ordinal was insufficient in conveying the ministry because of the removal of certain traditional rituals; and that there is no mention in the rite of the priestly power to offer sacrifice.
Scholars today do not take seriously the questioning of certain bishops' ordinations (notably Parker and Barlow). The Anglican Ordinal is more strict than most in insisting that three bishops take part in the consecration of a new bishop, so maintaining the historic succession. Even if some of the earlier consecrations were suspect, the succession was surely restored in the consecration of Archbishop Laud, who was consecrated by bishops both in the Irish and Italian succession .
To the Bull of Pope Leo (Apostolicae Curae), the Archbishops of Canterbury and York replied in 1897: that the Anglican Church confers the office instituted by Christ and all that it contains. They affirmed that the Anglican Church teaches the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in terms as explicit as the Canon of the Roman Mass, and finally, that the words and actions required by the Pope are not even found in the earliest Roman Ordinals. This latter point puts the validity of Roman orders on no surer footing than those of the English Church. Although theologians have come to major agreement on these issues, the Church of Rome refuses at this point to rescind the Papal Bull condemning Anglican Orders. It is a major sore point between our two churches.[/quote]

WOW...interesting perspective on catholicism.

[jeffpugh]

This sort of thing can be easy to ignore... and pretend people aren't sore over this... at least it was for me till this article came up. Thanks Rev. My beef with Anglicans though is the lack of tabernacles in some of their churches. Maybe I've only been to the "low Anglican" buildings... I guess I grew up as a "low" Anglican as well...

[jeffpugh]

I guess I should explain my point... the point is... if they believe their sacraments are valid (including the Eucharist) then why do some Anglican communions not respectably put "Jesus" in a tabernacle instead of leaving the hosts to the side for later?

[N/A Gone]

I was hoping you would look at this thread SMM. What do you think of his angle on catholic ecumenism?

[jeffpugh]

I think his angle on the whole Catholic ecumenism picture is quite fair from his perspective. This is how I see it: we need to approach this point of view both subjectively and objectively. Subjectively insofar that we need to see through his eyes on the matter, and objectively according to the standard of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now, the articles do say things about succession being "true" and points to certain individuals. I can't pretend I know what he's talking about, or what other sources on the matter say. In fact, it brings up this question: "what if the orders are 'valid'? What is the consequence for 're-ordaining' and re-installing [unmarried] bishops?". So this is the deal... we need to figure out what power the bishops of the schism had, what damage the changes (which were absolutely made during the protestantizing of the Church of England) to the ordination and Eucharistic sacraments were done (ie removing of authority/power).
It would have been a lot easier if the effects of the schism ended after the king's declaration... unfortunately, I think disintegration of the Anglican communion accelerated when it became a political thing, that is when the government started slaughtering people who would not knuckle. It was a sort of a symbolic act of breaking away completely...
I digress...
I'll do a bit of reading, if I make time and I'll try and give more than my two cents. I'll follow this thread if it stays afloat... I wish I could say more.
I'll talk to some other Anglican friends on the subject. Might enlighten me a bit.

God bless/

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1429390' date='Dec 4 2007, 02:53 PM']But what about the notion that Anglicans have a valid apostolic succession, since they can trace the laying on of hands to Augustine who was a valid Roman Catholic Bishop.[/quote]

The Anglican church changed the the ordination when they didn't have the authority to. All "priests" created with the Anglican ordination did not have succession.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[st-annes]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1429397' date='Dec 4 2007, 03:15 PM']Does the term 'Roman Church' bother anyone else as much as it bothers me?[/quote]



Me too.


I would think the Anglican orders would have to be invalid, since they willfully separated from the Catholic Church. In doing so they deliberately and specifically rejected the authority of the Pope. I think this leaves only the Anglicans themselves as those who would recognize Anglican ordination.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='st-annes' post='1431021' date='Dec 7 2007, 09:45 PM']Me too.
I would think the Anglican orders would have to be invalid, since they willfully separated from the Catholic Church. In doing so they deliberately and specifically rejected the authority of the Pope. I think this leaves only the Anglicans themselves as those who would recognize Anglican ordination.[/quote]

The Eastern schismatics have valid Orders even though they are separated from the Catholic Church and reject the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. The reason the Anglican Orders are invalid is because they have invalid form in addition to an invalid intention.

[N/A Gone]

His post on catholicism is still bothering me

-- one minor problem i have with Catholics. in some ways i think the infallible claims can be good, but in other ways i think they are overstated and leave no room for what i feel is valid conversation

--I feel that the CAtholics may be right that according to Catholic standards, Anglicans probably do not have valid orders. But i do not feel that these standards are right. And if you claim that we do not have Apostolic Succesion then you are saying we do not partake in true sacraments and therefore are barely Christians or not Christians.

-- immensely respect the Catholic Church, however i do not respect their sorry attempt at ecumenism. (Though i respect John Paul II and Benedict XVI's attempts at ecumenical conversation)...

--It all comes back to my one problem with Catholicism: that is, they say too much too explicitly. Sometimes they seem to be the fundamentalists of Sacramental Churches.

--so yeah, i guess you can accept Anglicans as true Christians or not, but the truth is we have apostolic succession and we have true sacraments. I cannot believe that God would reject imparting grace, simply because someone may have been corrupt in history.

(and then just accuses our quotes of being bias)

grr hiss blah

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']His post on catholicism is still bothering me

-- one minor problem i have with Catholics. in some ways i think the infallible claims can be good, but in other ways i think they are overstated and leave no room for what i feel is valid conversation[/quote]
Unfortunately, we as Catholics can "talk about" what they feel is wrong, but infallibility is infallibilty. We can't knuckle to other people's demands, just like what the Bishops of England did 500 years ago.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']--I feel that the CAtholics may be right that according to Catholic standards, Anglicans probably do not have valid orders. But i do not feel that these standards are right. And if you claim that we do not have Apostolic Succesion then you are saying we do not partake in true sacraments and therefore are barely Christians or not Christians.[/quote]
Well, he's putting words into our mouth. We didn't say they're barely Christians. For the record, baptism works, and I think marriage? I'm sure someone could correct me there. For the record, they're no less Christian than the non-denominational-fundie-indepenent-Pentebaptist-Lutheran guy/gal who runs a "home church".

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']-- immensely respect the Catholic Church, however i do not respect their sorry attempt at ecumenism. (Though i respect John Paul II and Benedict XVI's attempts at ecumenical conversation)...[/quote]
Just his opinion. Leave it be. Ecuminism is on our grounds, not his. As long as we're showing Jesus truly, there should be no cause for alarm.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']--It all comes back to my one problem with Catholicism: that is, they say too much too explicitly. Sometimes they seem to be the fundamentalists of Sacramental Churches.[/quote]
Lawl.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']--so yeah, i guess you can accept Anglicans as true Christians or not, but the truth is we have apostolic succession and we have true sacraments. I cannot believe that God would reject imparting grace, simply because someone may have been corrupt in history.

(and then just accuses our quotes of being bias)

grr hiss blah[/quote]

Interesting thought. What can we say... I guess we gotta wait till we're dead... then we can ask God, "so hey, what's the deal with the Anglicans?"

[N/A Gone]

LAWL?

[CatholicCid]

Form of "lol".

[jeffpugh]

[N/A Gone]

What about this

[url="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm"]http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm[/url]

[quote]Encyclical on Anglican Orders
from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:]

1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.

2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.

3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.

4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches.[/quote]

What makes the anglican orders not valid? It this just being polemic on our side? Are their sacraments valid and do they have the real presence? Is that church in apostolic succesion?

[jeffpugh]

So the Orthodox are saying that in grave circumstances, they'd go into an Anglican "service" to receive what is said to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? Even if the Anglican parish is "low church"?

Edit: Another thought. How much of a say do they have? (You might want to take this as a bit rhetorical)

Edited December 12, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[the 13th papist]

Because the Anglican Church separated from the Holy See and had the King placed as the head of the Church, they no longer have Apostolic suggession. If they do not have Apostolic succession then they cannot have valid sacraments, thins includes ordination and the Eucharist, but does not include baptism, which is universal.

The church has even decalred that The Anglican and other protestant churches are not rightly "churches" becaus they do not have apostolic succesion. (Unitatis Redintigratio) Thery are called "ecclesial communities".

On a practical note, do the results of Anglican holy orders look the same as lets say Catolic or the Orthodox Churches? I know the Catholic Church in America has had its problems as far as the sex abuse scandal, but look at Canada. One of my Proffessors used to be and Anglican minister in Canada and is now a classics proffessor.