Anglican Apostolic Succession Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter frankielogue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frankielogue

Guest
Hey guys,

So I know that Anglican Orders are invalid, because of the changes made in the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552, that changed the nature of the priesthood. I agree with such.

What did puzzle me was a point made by Timothy Dufort, writing in The Tablet in 1982, which was that, by 1969, all Anglican bishops had acquired apostolic succession fully recognised by Rome, since from the 1930s Old Catholic bishops (whose orders Rome recognises as valid) have acted as co-consecrators in the ordination of Anglican bishops. Would I be correct in thinking the fundamental understanding of the priesthood has still changed, and so the intention is invalid? What do you guys think?
 
That is the argument that some Anglicans make: that the “Dutch touch” or the “Polish pat” has restored their Apostolic Succession. That is not an argument that the Catholic Church is going to accept anytime soon. The sad reality is that the Anglican church, as an organization, is steadily moving farther away from Apostolic Christianity, not back to it. Even the Greek Orthodox, formerly quite friendly with the Anglicans, are somewhat at a loss.
 
Last edited:
So, because their understanding of the priesthood (especially as it pertains to the ordination of women and such), the intent is nullified and therefore their Orders are too?
 
Most people do not realize that you must have three bishops to ordain a new bishop. Even if one of these bishops received a valid ordination, it would still be invalid.
 
That is correct.

At least with respect to the Roman Catholic Church. I do not know the canon law for the Eastern Rites or the procedure for the Orthodox Churches.
 
Last edited:
The point is mute regarding valid ordinations in Anglicanism since many provinces in the Anglican Communion have started consecrating women to the episcopacy.
 
I just read this post;
“Yes, the norm right now (in the West at least) is three bishops: one principal consecrator and two co-consecrators. This is more or less a safeguard for apostolic succession. If it was ever discovered at a later date that one of the bishops was not validly a bishop, succession would not be broken because of the other two. It would be very unlikely that all three would be found to not be valid bishops.”

Would, therefore, the mere presence of one bishop who was validly consecrated allow for Anglicans to have Apostolic Succession?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top