About 'Apostolic Succession' in the Anglican,Lutheran or other Churches?

[GKC]

Anglicans absolutely are in Apostolic Succession regardless of what Apostolicae Curae said. The facts are found in what is commonly called the Dutch touch and the Polish pat that Anglican priests were in fact ordained within the line of Succession.

Assuming all other sacramental factors were valid, that is certainly the logic expressed in Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458. But, as I say about as often as necessary (see post #15), and perhaps a little more so, the RCC has not made any general comment on it.

*Apostolicae Curae *rules, for RCs, though the rare sub conditione ordination (two known) does make one wonder.

GKC

 

[pablope]

I am familiar with the history of the Order for Corporate Reunion. But much of what you are saying is confusing. Is it your position that the RCC recognizes the Order for Corporate Reunion as, in some sense, possessing valid orders? What document are you referring to, and in what sense is it still in effect from the Vatican?

I must be missing something. Perhaps if Bishop Gladfelter is around, he might comment. I find his name associated with the some of these things, on line.

GKC

This is Bishop Gladfelter’s explanation in another post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=576412&page=8&highlight=gladfelter

From which I quote:

Ah. . . then, under the Augustinian criteria that would be defects of both form and intent, based on the form - the text - of the ordination service, and on the intent of the ordaining Church, its official doctrine of the nature of the priesthood, and of the nature of the Eucharist based on his profession of faith (if without qualification) to the 39 Articles of Religion, which are quite Calvinistic. So in that case, the ordinations would be “de novo”. Some Catholic canon lawyers will dispute that point - there is no consensus as to the lingering effects of an OC secondary lineage where matters of form and intent are involved. But personally, were I the ordaining bishop, I would also ordain them “de novo” to be on the safe side. For this reason, Lutheran clergy who have the Swedish apostolic lineage and continuing Anglicans whose Church will not claim any orders other than the English succession (there are a few of those out there) are re-ordained by the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church “de novo.”

Blessings,

• Irl

P.S. The ALCC clergy and I, incidentally have no problem whatsoever going through “do novo” ordinations if that is what Holy Mother Church, in its wisdom wants to do with us.

 

[pablope]

Anglicans absolutely are in Apostolic Succession regardless of what Apostolicae Curae said. The facts are found in what is commonly called the Dutch touch and the Polish pat that Anglican priests were in fact ordained within the line of Succession.

I think you should read how Bishop Gladfelter explains why the Anglican orders are not valid, which I posted in a previous post.

They both lack form and intent, which are important elements for a valid order.

Other than that, thank you for your opinion.

 

[CopticChristian]

Anglicans absolutely are in Apostolic Succession regardless of what Apostolicae Curae said. The facts are found in what is commonly called the Dutch touch and the Polish pat that Anglican priests were in fact ordained within the line of Succession.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea5.asp

The Cranmerian reform was militantly anti-sacerdotal. Altars were desecrated and replaced by wooden tables. The English Reformation was iconoclastic (in contrast to the Lutheran), and until the nineteenth century English Protestantism balked even at the image of the cross—never mind the crucifix. Cranmer formulated a rite of ordination that lost the apostolic succession for Anglicanism although it retained the titles of bishop, priest, and deacon.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0012fr.asp

That particular defect arises from another: the absence of true priests. Some of the Protestant churches call their ministers priests or bishops, but we know that those are terms of courtesy, not reality. Archbishop Carey is addressed as “Archbishop,” but only because he claims to be in apostolic succession, not because he really is. In fact, he is a Christian layman, not even a priest—a consequence of the defects his church has.

 

[GKC]

This is Bishop Gladfelter’s explanation in another post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=576412&page=8&highlight=gladfelter

From which I quote:

Ah. . . then, under the Augustinian criteria that would be defects of both form and intent, based on the form - the text - of the ordination service, and on the intent of the ordaining Church, its official doctrine of the nature of the priesthood, and of the nature of the Eucharist based on his profession of faith (if without qualification) to the 39 Articles of Religion, which are quite Calvinistic. So in that case, the ordinations would be “de novo”. Some Catholic canon lawyers will dispute that point - there is no consensus as to the lingering effects of an OC secondary lineage where matters of form and intent are involved. But personally, were I the ordaining bishop, I would also ordain them “de novo” to be on the safe side. For this reason, Lutheran clergy who have the Swedish apostolic lineage and continuing Anglicans whose Church will not claim any orders other than the English succession (there are a few of those out there) are re-ordained by the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church “de novo.”

Blessings,

• Irl

P.S. The ALCC clergy and I, incidentally have no problem whatsoever going through “do novo” ordinations if that is what Holy Mother Church, in its wisdom wants to do with us.

Yes. And 2 posts further down, is my reply, in which I differ with his Excellency as to a few points on that particular matter.

But that not what I was referring to most recently, which was a consideration of the Order for Corporate Reunion. A subject that I think the Bishop might shed some light on. One could also read the references I suggest, above, too, on the origin of the OCR.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

I was once a member of the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod here in the USA, and I can tell you that they at least **do not **believe in Apostolic succession.

If I remember correctly (because I was once a member of it too), even ELCA (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) also does not believe in it.

-Chris

Hi Chris, When one says that (certain) Lutherans do not believe in Apostolic Succession, one needs to be careful what is meant. The confessions are clear about 2 things: 1) AS is a human tradition, and 2) it is desirable to maintain for good Church order, but not necessary for valid orders.

So, while we have a different view of the origins and role of AS, the confessions never rejected A.S., and therefore neither should Lutherans.

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention

bookofconcord.org/defense_13_ecclesiasticalorder.php#article14

Jon

 

[pritchard85]

I think you should read how Bishop Gladfelter explains why the Anglican orders are not valid, which I posted in a previous post.

They both lack form and intent, which are important elements for a valid order.

Anytime.

 

[pritchard85]

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea5.asp

The Cranmerian reform was militantly anti-sacerdotal. Altars were desecrated and replaced by wooden tables. The English Reformation was iconoclastic (in contrast to the Lutheran), and until the nineteenth century English Protestantism balked even at the image of the cross—never mind the crucifix. Cranmer formulated a rite of ordination that lost the apostolic succession for Anglicanism although it retained the titles of bishop, priest, and deacon.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0012fr.asp

That particular defect arises from another: the absence of true priests. Some of the Protestant churches call their ministers priests or bishops, but we know that those are terms of courtesy, not reality. Archbishop Carey is addressed as “Archbishop,” but only because he claims to be in apostolic succession, not because he really is. In fact, he is a Christian layman, not even a priest—a consequence of the defects his church has.

This is your opinion and that of the Catholic church as well. That is all it is.