A question about Apostolic Succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coeurpieux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Coeurpieux

Guest
How can the Anglican Church not have Apostolic Succession if their clergy were originally Catholics who separated from Rome? Can a priesthood lose apostolic succesion? Or does the line of Apostolic Succession in the Anglican preisthood still exist but is not recognized by the Catholic Church?
 
Because they changed the proper Rite of Ordination; see apostolicae curae.

“With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.”
 
Last edited:
And one might point out that Anglicans have their own view of the matter (and the form and the intent).
 
GKMotley said:
And one might point out that Anglicans have their own view of the matter (and the form and the intent).
Click to expand...
Sure, that’s fair. However, from whom/what do Anglicans derive their authority?
 
GKMotley said:
Some place all Apostolic Churches do. Apostolic succession
Click to expand...
If the Anglicans had Apostolic succession, then their sacramental rites for ordination would be synonymous with the Apostles in proper intention.
 
Last edited:
The form found lacking in Apostolicae Curae is not invalid in itself. It not exceptional, in that some Rites which the RCC does recognize as conveying sacred orders validly, partake of the same “defect”. That is the point of intertwining the concept of invalid sacramental intent, in the conclusion of Apostolicae Curae. And note that sacramental intent is not the “intent” of a Rite, or of the form of ordination,

The history of this tale; long, sad, and rife with politics, theology, personalities and even more history, has been a hobby of mine for roughly 20 years. My recommended reading on this sad subject is invariably Fr. J. J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, for pure history, and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD for some thought-provoking theology. And ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, by Fr. (as he was at the time) Francis Clark, for the best exposition of what the Apostolic Letter was saying.

And on all of this, Anglicans have their own views. Not that you need to take that into consideration, to be sure.
 
Last edited:
Coeurpieux said:
Can a priesthood lose apostolic succesion?
Click to expand...
Apostolic succession resides in the bishops, not the priests. Bishops who have/had valid apostolic succession can fail to transmit that to bishops they might consecrate, for various reasons.

In the case of the Anglican/Episcopal churches, they have now departed so far from apostolic Christianity that there can be little serious discussion of apostolic succession.
 
I agree with the overall opinion of the majority of 1st world Anglicans. But heterodoxy of opinion does not necessarily break Apostolic Succession, in itself, assuming it were to be possessed (and for this example, you would not so assume, post Apostolicae Curae). A validly consecrated bishop, be he heretical, schismatic, or excommunicated, can convey valid/illicit orders, if other sacramental factors are valid, per Ott, p. 458.
 
Last edited:
PaulfromIowa said:
40.png
Coeurpieux:
Can a priesthood lose apostolic succesion?
Click to expand...
Apostolic succession resides in the bishops, not the priests. Bishops who have/had valid apostolic succession can fail to transmit that to bishops they might consecrate, for various reasons.

In the case of the Anglican/Episcopal churches, they have now departed so far from apostolic Christianity that there can be little serious discussion of apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
an Episcopal church in San Francisco a few weeks ago had a Beyonce Mass.
 
AugustTherese said:
If the Anglicans had Apostolic succession, then their sacramental rites for ordination would be synonymous with the Apostles in proper intention
Click to expand...
There are multiple meanings to “Apostolic Succession” in play here.

There has been an archbishop in Canterbury since the 600s. That satisfies the successive laying on of hands idea, ie proper matter. “Apostolic Succession.”

The Vatican ruled 120 years ago, echoing earlier decisions, that the form used by the Anglicans was not proper, so there were no valid ordinations while using the Edwardine ordinal (or since). This means the Catholic Church holds that there has not been a a valid archbishop in Canterbury continuously since the 16th century. That means no “valid Apostolic Succession.”

More recently, Apostolic Succession has been assigned not to the individual bishops, but to the body of bishops. Being out of communion with Catholic bishops means no “Apostolic Succession.”

As Catholics, we believe, as Leo XIII said, that Anglican orders are absolutely null and void, AND that it is appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury, in full episcopal garb (some of which was given by a Pope) to stand alongside the Pope in some religious ceremonies.
 
With respect to the complicated history of Apostolicae Curae, the question of the form is intertwined with the question of sacramental intent. Neither stands alone in the judgement.

I again recommend Hughes’ books, and that of Clark l cited above, for intro.

Whatever the RCC might think of the status of Cantuar, when standing by the Holy Father, whether wearing the episcopal ring Paul VI gave to ++Ramsey, or the pectoral cross that Benedict XVI gave to ++Williams, or not (and what, if anything that imports; I know not), Anglicans have their own view on the matter. Informed ones, even.
 
No. i am sure if you google “Beyonce Mass” the article will appear. i am sorry, but i do not know how to provide a link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top