Anglican Holy Orders

[luckyfredsdad]

“[Pope] Stephen * . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17). *

First let me repeat what Our Blessed Lord tells us,

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true"
"Jhn, 5/vs31.]

**Therefore I cannot accept quotes from popes who are usually blowing their own trumpet. Neither do I accept quotes from New Advent, most of whom I believe had apprenticeships from Stalin or Goebels. In return I do not expect your good self or your colleagues to accept Foxe’s Book of Martyr’s as an acceptible source. Further the Holy fathers we quote should be from the first four centuries!
**
Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Ambrose of Milan

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

…"**.Faith is therefore the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s person,[lit. flesh] but of his faith, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it ,but his confession conquered hell."
[De Incarn.Doni. 33 34.]
"The Rock is Christ, for they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them and the Rock was Christ…The faith is rock…a faith is the foundation of the Church! [Expos, in Liuam vi.97, 98.]
They sucked oil out of the firm rock, for thee Rock was the flesh of Christ,which redeemed heaven and the whole world. [Ep. xliii] **

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

He was right about the Roman Church " that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches,…"
If any Romanist starts on about Henry 8th, and the Church in England, the behaviour of Damsus would make them blush unless they have lost all shame.However, Damasus is a Pope speaking in his own right, or at least on behalf of the See, he crawled to the State for! Therefore I refer you to the quote from John above.[John 5vs 31]

**

Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

The only pertinent clause in the above is the chair of Peter
and jerome is speaking of Peter and Peter’s faith. many times he points out that it is just that, Peter’s confession of Faith in Christ… i.e.“Christ is the Rock who granted His apostles that they should be called rocks.” [Comm. in Amos. vi.12.]
But thou sayest that the Church is built on Peter, albeit the very same thing is done upon all the apostles and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven.The strength of the Church is established upon all of them equally; [Adv.Jovin.AD393.]

Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

**
"The rock is not from Peter. Just as Christ is not called from Christian ,but Christian from Christ , but Peter from the Rock.Therefore it is as the Lord saith,‘upon this rock will I build My Church, because Peter had said,"Thou art the Christ,the Son of the Living God.’…For Christ was the Rock whom Simon confessing,as the whole Church confesses Him,was Peter."called
**

**Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]). **

Just what would you expect one of the Pope’s deacons to say? When at the “8th,” Council, the deacon went against protocol, he was accused by the papacy of receiving bribes!!

Sechnall of Ireland
"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; a

Well, it doesn’t say much about the popularity of the papacy when it has to share honours with a British deacon,from a Church which rejected the papacy according to early writers.You are scraping the barrel.Both the last two named were some 400yrs after the event we’re talking about?

Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . .

**Leo was a dark man, using the police to gain his ends and this fiddling about with Canons from the Holy Councils. Anywhere else he would be looked askance at! It was in his reign, 350 AD or whatever, that the question was first poised! It seems wrong to me that we should have had to wait so long for something of such great importance.

**

 

[GKC]

Four valid components. Form, matter, intent and minister.

GKC

Holy Orders is a sacrament. All sacraments require three valid components to be valid. They are form, matter and intent. Jesus founded His Church on men. He did not found His Church on the Bible. Jesus ordained His apostles to carry out His mission of spreading the faith, doing what He taught them to do and governing His Church. He gave them the power and authority to do this in His name. They established the Church in various places and spread the faith Jesus taught. Jesus made promises to them. he said there was much He wanted to tell them, but they could not yet bear it, but He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into ALL truth, and be with them until the end of time. He said many would come in His name and lead astray many. So we see the phenomenon of denominationalism, many groups with different versions of doctrine claiming to be church. They say their authortiy to exist comes from the Bible and their various doctrines are Biblical. Jesus commands unnty of His Church.

According to the words Jesus said, recorded in the Bible, if you want to know what the truth is in matters of faith and morals you will have to learn it from an apostle or someone who an apostle gave authority to teach on behalf of the Church. Others are imposters. Logic says all of these churches claiming to be Bible churches can not have true doctrine, because they contradict one another.

So the Church from the very beginning is called apostolic, of the apostles, sent to teach the nations. The proof that the Church is apostolic is valid Holy Orders.

The orders of a priest are incomplete in a sense. The orders of a bishop are complete. A priest can not pass on his authority, ordain another priest. Only a bishop with valid orders can ordain validly.

Anglicans claim their orders are valid. Catholics say Anglican orders are invalid. You can not pass on what you do not have. Orders are passed on from the apostles. I know Lutheran ministers who claim today to have valid orders. Luther claimed there was no such thing as Holy Orders. He attacked the priesthood. Now there is some realization among some Lutherans that orders are necessary and even their women ministers try to claim they are validly ordained and say it is rude or insulting to even question someone’s orders who claims to have them.

Anglicans claim that some of those who joined them at one time or another were validly ordained priests and therefore that makes Anglican orders valid. This attempt shows the Anglicans recognize the necessity of orders, but also is illogical. A bishop is required for ordination, and if Anglicans did have a validly consecrated bishop join them here or there what you would have is the possiblility of some Anglican priests being validly ordained, assuming form and intent was valid, but which are which? Which men are validly ordained and which are not?

But now with the mess they have created with women in their episcopacy and priesthood there will be no unentangling of the confusion, ever. They keep digging themselves into a deeper morass. Gene Robinson abanonded his marraige vows and left a wife and two children to run off with another man. He said he always wanted to be a June bride. The Episcopalians of Vermont overwhelmingly elected him their bishop. Now a woman who is living with her lesbian lover may get elected as the Episcopal bishop of another state. There is no fixing this. For decades there were meetings and conferences to discuss ways to reunify Anglicanism with the Church. There were words coming out of both camps that they were working to reunify. They said there was not much of a breach to overcome and things were getting closer, but the actions of the Anglicans, rather than narrow the divide, steadily widened it to where there is a great gulf of separation.

The result is those who were waiting and hoping to rejoin the Church have lost patience and are leaving Anglicanism and its confusion en masse. As the saner parties and groups leave, what is left behind are the more radical camps that favor women bishops, gay and lesbian bishops, homosexual marriage, defenders of abortion, etc., and the gulf grows ever wider. Their numbers dwindle more and more, because they don’t believe in anything.

 

[GKC]

You are very kind. I just got back in town after a week long trip and this is a long thread. I doubt I’ll go over it in detail. But you are correct. The issue in Apostolicae Curae is an intertwined one, of form (of the Edwardine Ordinal, as originally written) and intent (usually taken to be the intent of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, in 1559. These are technical points, and I would expand on them as required. When I recover. But it must be remembered that the two judged defects have to be taken together; neither stands alone.

Leo XIII wasn’t the literal author of the Bull, that was Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val. But it bore Leo’s signature, yes.

Long trip.

GKC

There is a lot to it. At least you can see clearer to ask the question than many who say they are invalid because Henry had too many wives…or because he was 6 ft 2 tall in a day when men were shorter or because he was mean (ie people who have no earthly clue).

GKC is probably the best subject matter expert here.

They were deemed invalid do to a couple of reasons, one of which was a change in the ordinal. Frankly, this is highly debatable since it goes back to similar wording (or lack) of) in earlier Roman Catholic rituals. In other words, to invalidate Anglican orders would be to invalidate Catholic. In any case this perceived defect was fixed looooong before Leo made his pronouncement.

When Leo (1800’s) wrote his infamous statement about Anglican orders there were Catholic theologians who did not agree (one specifically whose name I do not recall). I suspect that Leo’s issue his pronouncement had more to do with political realities than theological. At the time Britain was the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. At the height of the empire they controlled all of the world’s oceans and 1/4 of its surface. If Leo had recognized Anglican orders this could have had very negative consequences for the Catholic church around the world where to be British and Anglican had status and to be Catholic meant discrimination. It could have led to many people converting to fit in and so on (at least where British culture held influence). Even in the US the Episcopal Church (though not established) was one of the churches of the establishment.

In any case, the introduction of the Old Catholic orders (recognized as valid by Rome) into the Anglican orders in the 20th century, likely rendered Leo’s pronouncement (from the 1800’s) as largely invalid. The Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics had intercommunion and this is why there are continuing Anglican groups who likely have valid orders through the Chambers and PICC succession (both having OC orders).

But as long as the Pope says “we are sticking to Leo’s pronouncement” it really does not matter whether Anglican orders are truly valid. Even if Leo’s statement has been rendered obsolete, is contradictory to other recognition given by Rome to Old Catholic orders and is illogical…it must be recognized by Roman Catholics as policy. Most Anglicans have no heartburn as you must follow instructions. Frankly, most Anglicans do not give it much thought (ie they know their orders are valid).

PS. One interesting thing that got comment recently in the meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope was the fact that the Pope gave the Archbishop a pectoral cross. Commentators noted this is usually a recognition of orders.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you luckfredsdad for all your time and response; there is alot of quotes to deduce from on both sides; You have made it clear to me from your response to the Early Church Father quotes and councils that you appear to have insights to some of these that I was not made aware of, and has sparked an interest to me, although the ones that Iam very aware of, and upon reading your “personal opinons” and views to the teachings, I find much of your views in opposition.

It appears coming from an Anglican background, I sense a force of “kingship” from a secular power in thinking being introduced to the Early Church Fathers’ thinking. In most cases, you have found a way to introduce in all of your opinions, your personal rejection of Peter’s Chair ( or authority succeeded upon each Pope in every age), in all of the Early Church Fathers and council quotes? I find this negativity very surprising and amazing coming from a well read person as you.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are against the Teaching of Jesus building his Church upon Peter and his successors in the Popes. But you dont have to force your negative belief’s upon the unbroken succession of Popes from Peter, by changing the original thinking and belief’s of the Early Church Fathers and councils, to your 20th century thinking, coming from your personal opinion, from a secular Hierarchical society belief and way of thinking as the Anglican Church’s began its individualism, as a free independent sect from Peter’s Chair or his successor in the Pope. Prior to this the English were always great defenders of the Pope and the Catholic Church. What happened? who changed? Could this anglican sect be the result of not holding valid holy orders or valid sacraments today? Because the anglican sect seperated from what you validate as Peter’s successor in the Popes.

I find all your opinions very interesting, but are very much debatable. For this much you have confirmed to the posting that from all these early centuries Peter is mentioned in every age, but we know Peter’s physical body did not live past the first century, But you an Anglican from your opinion though negative confirmed, Peter’s authority (Chair) still remained and lived on in his successors of every Pope and every age introduced here till today.

So you see, no matter from which angle you take about Peter and his successors, your negativity towards Jesus teaching of building his church upon Peter and his successors in the Popes, only confirms Jesus building his Church upon Peter and every Pope in every century since the martyrdom of Peter whether you accept it or not.

To conclude; I believe in Peter’s Chair of authority in his successors in the unbroken succession of the Popes, not because the Early Church Fathers confirm this, or the Councils confirm this, but because scripture in the New Testament confirms it, because the first three successors of Peter are in scripture, but most of all our dear Lord Jesus makes it count as fact, when he states to Simon bar jona; “YOU ARE PETER AND UPON THIS ROCK I BUILD MY CHURCH”. You opinionated that every ECF who repeats these Words of Jesus, is referencing Peter himself, not his faith as protestants have invented this new interpretation in order to deny Peter and his successors in the Popes.

Besides if you believe in the successors to the apostles, how hard is it to accept Jesus words when he states to Peter, and the gates of hell will come against you, but they will not prevail, and commands Peter to “strengthen your brethern”. Do you think Jesus Words from scripture ceased to make an impact upon building his Church? or are of the opinon that Jesus finished building his Church when Peter died?

There is much to reflect and contest about your unbelief in how Jesus build his Church upon Peter and his successors in the Popes. So I would just ask to look around you. When did Peter’s faith die in his successors, and when did Jesus stop building his Church? If you look aroung you in every society, you will find a history attached to Peter and his successors in the Popes. This is living proof, that Jesus Words did not die with Peter, but continued on his Successors of the Popes to this day. It was bumpy at times for the Popes, but the gates of the netherworld never prevailed against Peter the Rock and Jesus Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Thank you luckfredsdad for all your time and response; there is alot of quotes to deduce from on both sides; .

**Many thanks for your kind words! It is true that I have, ‘read up,’ as the saying goes, on this subject. Yet, it isn’t only Anglican scholarship that I study, but Orthodox and Roman as well. It is the writings of the Anglican Fathers of the late 19th, Cent that I have been revisiting lately, Puller, Littledale and Denny ,chiefly! An interesting thing, I find, is the collapse of the High Church section in the Anglican Church, it has disappeared, if not completely, but to a great extent! Abandoning English traditions.
The consequence being that traditional attitudes, held by Anglican faithful over the **millenia have been abandoned for medieval additions to the faith.

It appears coming from an Anglican background, I sense a force of “kingship” from a secular power in thinking being introduced to the Early Church Fathers’ thinking.

Regarding the Papacy?

I do reject what Littledale calls,The Petrine Primacy. For ,I consider that while due must be given to Peter , that the early Catholic fathers did not consider the Papacy had a part to play, other than that primacy given by the Ecumenical Councils and that was given to both Old Rome and New Rome! This is at present the dividing line between Catholics. The rest, Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, Assumpsion and so on are minor things. We hold to the views held also by the Orthodox and whilst I, do not object to some one holding Transubstantiation, in addition to the Real Presence, I find it impossible to accept the Infallibility and Jurisdiction! I cannot see where there is any justification in scripture or tradition> What I have read from the Fathers confirms me in that view!

The consequence being that traditional attitudes, held by Anglican faithful over the millenia have been abandoned for medieval additions to the faith.**

You have made it abundantly clear that you are against the Teaching of Jesus building his Church upon Peter and his successors in the Popes. But you dont have to force your negative belief’s upon the unbroken succession of Popes from Peter, by changing the original thinking and belief’s of the Early Church Fathers and councils, to your 20th century thinking, coming from your personal opinion, from a secular Hierarchical society belief and way of thinking as the Anglican Church’s began its individualism, as a free independent sect from Peter’s Chair or his successor in the Pope. Prior to this the English were always great defenders of the Pope and the Catholic Church. What happened? who changed? Could this anglican sect be the result of not holding valid holy orders or valid sacraments today? Because the anglican sect seperated from what you validate as Peter’s successor in the Popes.

I do not attack the Roman Church as such, neither do I initiate any unpleasantness between our two divisions, But I do not feel able to accept, a situation where I should sit passively whilst the most unkind and untrue things are said about the Body of Christ here in this Island!
i.e. The Anglican Church! [Not the A/C.]

I find all your opinions very interesting, but are very much debatable. For this much you have confirmed to the posting that from all these early centuries Peter is mentioned in every age, but we know Peter’s physical body did not live past the first century, But you an Anglican from your opinion though negative confirmed, Peter’s authority (Chair) still remained and lived on in his successors of every Pope and every age introduced here till today.

I do not find ,‘Peter,’ any trouble, though I do not think Paul would be so tolerant of what some Romans say, what I find hard to accept is the transferen the Papacy! But Peter is simply ,One,’ of twelve and indeed rather more if we read aright. That he has received more publicty than most others is because of misuse,to my mind, of his name.

To conclude; I believe in Peter’s Chair of authority in his successors in the unbroken succession of the Popes, not because the Early Church Fathers confirm this, or the Councils confirm this, but because scripture in the New Testament confirms it, because the first three successors of Peter are in scripture, but most of all our dear Lord Jesus makes it count as fact, when he states to Simon bar jona; “YOU ARE PETER AND UPON THIS ROCK I BUILD MY CHURCH”. You opinionated that every ECF who repeats these Words of Jesus, is referencing Peter himself, not his faith as protestants have invented this new interpretation in order to deny Peter and his successors in the Popes.

Besides if you believe in the successors to the apostles, how hard is it to accept Jesus words when he states to Peter, and the gates of hell will come against you, but they will not prevail, and commands Peter to “strengthen your brethern”. Do you think Jesus Words from scripture ceased to make an impact upon building his Church? or are of the opinon that Jesus finished building his Church when Peter died?

**As I have pointed out frequently on this Board, all views of the faith and the people involved have to be seen through the prism of the Fathers and Councils. (Trent tells you that ) now, not to be peevish, but do Romans do that? One Romanist says one thing and another something totally different.

---

 

[grandfather]

Anglicans accept Episcopalians and their orders as part of their communion. The Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles just elected a lesbian bishop. Are her orders valid? If not, why not? If she is ordained a priestess by a validly consecrated bishop using valid form and intent what could be the problem with her orders? Catholics would say one problem is there is no valid succession. Catholics might also say there is invalid matter. Only males may receive Holy Orders.

Anglicans and Episcopalian bishops who insist their own orders are valid, by succession and proper form, matter and intent, ordain women as priestesses and insist their orders are valid as well. The vast majority of Anglican and Episcopalian laity accept female clergy.

If an Anglican refuses to accept the Los Angeles lesbian, Jardine Bruce, or Gene Robinson, or Katherine Schori, or any priestess as his spiritual head or authority, what argument could be made to do so, using Anglican doctrine? These ordinations are done under the auspices of his church. These people bear titles of his church and wear the robes and regalia of his church. They are fully Anglican.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Anglicans accept Episcopalians and their orders as part of their communion. The Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles just elected a lesbian bishop.

]If only you would read the various posts on the various threads we’ve clashed on, you would have had an answer to your problem! {or at least one of them!}

**First of all Anglicans are catholics, it is the very heart and soul of their religion, by Baptism they are made ,‘members of Christ and Children of God!’ That is they are Catholics and members of His Church. To be this, they must accept the teachings of the Church and its ministry. Part of this teaching is Tradition! Read Paul and learn all about keeping the Deposit . [2nd, Tim.] and ‘Everyone that pusheth forward and abideth not in the doctrines of Christ,hath not God.’ This latter is possibly 2,John. There are a lot more such as ,‘Contending for the Faith once delivered.’ [Jude] Paul writes again, ‘Stand fast the Traditions ye have been taught!’’
This is what our faith stands on ,Scripture, Tradition and fathers. [According to your founding conference Trent, so does yours.]
Now the people who accept Women Clergy of any rank, do not folllow Scripture,[Paul] or Tradition,]They are not Anglicans and therefore by definition not Catholics.

But what is it that scripture tel**ls us quoting Christ, about Motes and beams? Do you look at the very definite beams in the eyes of the Roman Church? The ages long toleration ofpractising Homosexuals, that has allowed vicious men to prey on their congregation?
If you had real concern for both victim and predater you would not develop this infantile line of attack!

Are her orders valid? If not, why not? If she is ordained a priestess by a validly consecrated bishop using valid form and intent what could be the problem with her orders? Catholics would say one problem is there is no valid succession. Catholics might also say there is invalid matter. Only males may receive Holy Orders.

**As to valid orders? Not for me they’re not, that is why I left the Communion, for me they are no longer Anglicans, but are Neo Anglicans. A Sect! Trouble is they have all the money and the buildings! We have very little,but what matters is that we have kept the faith.
**

Anglicans and Episcopalian bishops who insist their own orders are valid, by succession and proper form, matter and intent, ordain women as priestesses and insist their orders are valid as well. The vast majority of Anglican and Episcopalian laity accept female clergy.

**What they do is there business not mine, it’s the Pope and his colleagues who mix with them not I. I must tell you that I do not receive the Houseling from Neo Anglicans ,Romans or Protestants!
**