Anglecian's (sp?) have apostilistic(SP?)succession?

[loyola_rambler]

You’re likely to find a big difference of opinion on your original question…and with the current ecumenical talks, the “understanding” may also shift.

From a purely academic standpoint, the Anglicans and Lutherans have an unbroken apostolic succession. They have been able to trace each bishop backward the same way the Catholics have.

But then the theology steps in and asks if each of those bishops was validly ordained. For centuries, the stance of the Church is that those who chose schism left the Church and abandoned their orders through excommunication. So anyone that they ordained was invalidly ordained and the succession ended.

NOW, however, there’s an effort to reconcile the differences between the Church of Rome and both the Lutherans and Anglicans. To do that will require recognition of the validity of their clergy. That’s a problem. It means that what previous popes wrote will have to be viewed in a new perspective and some of it will have to changed. Some of it can be changed by the act of the pope in setting aside by setting aside the previous excommunications, recognizing subsequent ordinations as valid, and restoring the line of apostolic succession.

BUT, none of that has happened, though some of it likely will happen someday. So the short answer is that from a Catholic perspective, there’s no apostolic succession outside of the Church of Rome and her Sister Churches of the East (we do recognize the apostolic succession of the Orthodox Churches). But we are investigating the possibility of healing the Protestant schism with certain faith groups and if we do that, then the Church may come to recognize valid apostolic succession outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[GKC]

Salvo:

Yes. Well said. I don’t think there’s anything else to add here

GCK,

I do know exactly what the situation was back then. I’ve read about the accounts, seen the movies, watched the documentaries etc. But the bottom line is this: Henry VIII was an amoral, lecherous person. He founded his own religion strictly on the basis that he wanted his will to be done over that of the church or God. Regardless of how much you wish to muddy the waters with your moral relativism, the facts remain.

St Thomas More pray for us!

Salve, Salvo,

Henry was even more than that. He was a man with a shaky dynasty, and no legtimate male offspring, in an era which considered the male heir essential for maintenance of the royal line, and in a country which had no history of a Queen, save in civil war, and which has just seen the White Roses and the Red covering the ground. What Henry sought was a commonplace of the time; the entire canonical system, reformed later by Trent, was set up to accomodate just that sort of thing. Seeking it against the wishes of the Holy Roman Emperor was not so common. Clement fervently wished that the matter would go away, that Catherine would agree, that the matter would be resolved in English ecclesiastical courts, anything. Didn’t work out that way. And that is the bottom line, with respect to the decree of nullity…

You can’t get far ahead of me in considering Henry a failed character. But I was fairly certain that our exchanges were not going to be very fruitful, given that I’m interested in the history; what happened, who did what and why, and you seem primarily interested in waving cardboard cutouts. Given, however, that you have read the accounts, seen the movies, watched the documentaries, etc., maybe there is something we can talk over.

What significance to you attribute to the actual titles, and relative rank which Hank bestowed upon Henry Fitzroy, when he ennobled him? And do you feel that Henry actually endowed his daughter Mary with the title of Princess of Wales, in her own right, at this time? I have read it both ways. The significance of these points for why he eventually sought the decree of nullity, once he was besotted with the Boleyn, is evident.

And how would you compare the causa that Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, advanced as justification for his desired decree of nullity, with respect to his marriage to Margaret Mortimer, in order to marry Henry’s younger sister, Mary, with Henry’s official causa in his own case? And why do you suppose that Clement granted the one and not the other, at approximately the same time frame?

If the answer is that Horny Hank was a homicidal sack of raging hormones (or words to that effect), so be it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

loyola rambler:

You’re likely to find a big difference of opinion on your original question…and with the current ecumenical talks, the “understanding” may also shift.

From a purely academic standpoint, the Anglicans and Lutherans have an unbroken apostolic succession. They have been able to trace each bishop backward the same way the Catholics have.

But then the theology steps in and asks if each of those bishops was validly ordained. For centuries, the stance of the Church is that those who chose schism left the Church and abandoned their orders through excommunication. So anyone that they ordained was invalidly ordained and the succession ended.

NOW, however, there’s an effort to reconcile the differences between the Church of Rome and both the Lutherans and Anglicans. To do that will require recognition of the validity of their clergy. That’s a problem. It means that what previous popes wrote will have to be viewed in a new perspective and some of it will have to changed. Some of it can be changed by the act of the pope in setting aside by setting aside the previous excommunications, recognizing subsequent ordinations as valid, and restoring the line of apostolic succession.

BUT, none of that has happened, though some of it likely will happen someday. So the short answer is that from a Catholic perspective, there’s no apostolic succession outside of the Church of Rome and her Sister Churches of the East (we do recognize the apostolic succession of the Orthodox Churches). But we are investigating the possibility of healing the Protestant schism with certain faith groups and if we do that, then the Church may come to recognize valid apostolic succession outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Greetings, Loyola Rambler,

I don’t agree with the conclusions of Apostolicae Curae, though I can see a case for them. And I’m a little cynical about the efforts of the ARCIC, much as I liked “The Gift of Authority”, Even so, what you post here is well said. With the Anglicans, however, the issue wasn’t excommunication, it was a judgement on the form, and more fundamentally, the intent of the framers of the Edwardine Ordinal, and the specific instance of the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559. That was the break point, according to AC.

I greatly fear that the condition of the official Anglican Communion currently makes what you discuss here all the less likely. There is some possiblility of talks with the dissenting Anglicans, I have heard. It would make more sense than in attempting to unravel the official Anglican penchant for novelty.

Thanks for posting this.

GKC

 

[Pro_Iesu]

Eh I beleive that if Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans decide to return there will be some ground rules.

A) The Pope is the head of the church no ifs ands or buts, Why cuz Jesus the Christ himself instituted it!

B) The giving of true apostolic succesion that is acceptably verifiable

C) Loss of Priestesses/Female priests and openly Gay cleregy

D) Acceptance of all Eccumenical councils since the splits

E) Everyone calling themselves Catholic cuz Luther-heretic and Anglican that was just to change the name.

F) ALL Anglicans and Lutherans who decide to return to the faith would have to accept basic catholic dogma, teachings on purgatory mary and the saints and return the missing books to the bible!

There will be no compromising by the Catholic church the Popes and councils have all stated that in order to come back into the flock they must accept everything!

Is it possible? yes
Will it happen soon? Among certain factions within each denomination
Will there still be dissenters? of course some will choose not to accept the supremacy of the pope, catholic doctrine, or catholic traditions so they will be excluded!

It seems harsh but the Church founded by Christ is not going to change its teachings or traditions.

Would I like to see them back of course many are better christians than many catholics, but there can’t be compromise for if there is then sadly only more problems would arise and in the end we would see nothing had changed.

But always pray.

And I’m sorry you don’t wish to agree with Christ’s vicar on earth whom he gave the power to bind and unbind, whom he gave sheep and lambs to tend.

I’ll pray for you and yours and I hope you’ll pray for me too!
Pray for better ecumenism and for the day we are all once again all on the bark of Peter and the Popes!

 

[loyola_rambler]

Pro Iesu, I think you’ll be very disappointed when the ecumenical efforts conclude. It appears they’re going in a completely different direction and we may well see the efforts of the First Vatican Council reevaluated. There will be a lot of unhappy Catholics.

 

[Pro_Iesu]

I beg to differ the Pope John Paul 2 has already stated that the Church will not change its position that it will not bend the truth in order for reunification for as I stated before if we just accept them then problems will surface. From accepting their orders, then there are still the problems of female priests. Lutherans don’t have preists! Many Anglicans (not all) don’t believe in transubstantiation(book of prayers). Lutherans believe in Cosubstantiation.

Article 27 of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Communion calls transubstantiation “repugnant” to the words of Scripture and the cause of many superstitions. It also says that the sense in which the faithful receive the Body of Christ is “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.”

Thats a basic core belief of the Catholic faith my friend the real body and blood soul and divinity!

Purgatory they can accept easily based on scripture OT and NT.
Regarding Mary most protestants just have a skewed view of what we really do concerning Mary and the saints and would aslo easily be straightened out.

Just because certain documents may be reviewed does not mean that the Church will bend the Truth.

Over the course of the Past 2000 yrs certain eastern rites left but have since come back into the fold accepting the Pope and basic doctrines etc!
The Church has not changed the rules 2000 yrs I don’t see it happening any time soon.