Anglican & Lutheran Eucharistic miracles

[veritashunter]

As I have been following the postings on this thread I beleive that the questions initially posed seem to have been somewhat bypassed at times so I wanted to answer them.

No, there are no confirmed eucharistic miracles in the Lutheran or Anglican traditions whether confirmed by Catholic or Protestant sources.

Why so? This is not because Lutherans and Anglicans are not baptized Christians, nor is it because they lack faith. It is because they lack the Apostolic Blessing and continued lineage from a valid source to “consecrate” the bread and the wine.

This is seen in all of the sacraments except baptism since it was done by John the Baptist befor the institution of the priesthood at the Last Supper. Remember that 2 TM 1:6 reads “For this reason, I remind you to stir into the flame the gift of God that you received through the laying on of my hands”.

And ACTS 6:1-7 shows the ordination of St. Stephen (and the other six) by the 12 Apostles (including Matthias). We see Sacred Scripture state “whom we shall appoint to this task” and "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed for them and laid hands on them" (ordaining them).

When the last of the justly consecrated priests within Anglicanism/Lutheranism died (those who were ordained before the split and continued in Anglican/Lutheran churches afterward) then the consecrated eucharist ceased in their churches with the end of their earthly priesthood. And since the Apostolic lineage was severed with the Supreme Roman Pontiff (the existing apostolic successor to the particular church of Rome from whence the Anglicans/Lutherans came) the future priest became priests in name only.

This in no way speaks to the faithfulness and/or love of God in the Anglican and Lutheran ecclesial assemblies. But, in the early 1600’s within Germany the Lutheran clergy challenged the Catholic clergy in the practice of exorcism of several persons possessed by demons. The most serious of these was followed by the public in many secular publications of the time. After attempting to exorcise the demons the Lutherans failed and later admitted that only the Catholic exorcists had such complete power against the strongest of these dark forces. All of the victims were eventually dispossessed and healed which led to a mass reconversion in Germany to Catholicism.

**One of the reasons that these severely possessed people were unable to be cleansed by faith-filled Lutheran clergy was due to the weapon that the Lutherans lacked in their attempts… the weapon that every Catholic priest has at his disposal. That spiritual superweapon is the Holy Eucharist…The Real Presence…the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Jesus **(just as do the Orthodox since they have maintained the apostolic succession from the respective apostolic founders of their particular churches). It had nothing to do with the love of the Lutheran clergy for our Lord…it had everything to do with valid holy orders (clergy) and a valid Eucharist.

I, as a baptized Catholic (former Protestant), can say the words of consecration but to no avail since I am not a validly ordained priest. No matter how faithfully I wish it to be so I am unable to will it into being by mere desire or repeating the words and formula. This scenario has been relived several times in history when Lutheran clergy have been unable to exocise particular demons only to call upon Catholic clergy to do so on their behalf.

It is just one more reason to call home our faith-filled, yet separated brothers and sisters in Christ. They desire and should have the fullness of Christ…body, blood, soul, and divinity. I pray for such a reconciliation even if it is merely one believer at a time.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[GKC]

“When the last of the justly consecrated priests within Anglicanism/Lutheranism died (those who were ordained before the split and continued in Anglican/Lutheran churches afterward) then the consecrated eucharist ceased in their churches with the end of their earthly priesthood. And since the Apostolic lineage was severed with the Supreme Roman Pontiff (the existing apostolic successor to the particular church of Rome from whence the Anglicans/Lutherans came) the future priest became priests in name only.”

This is not, in fact what* Apostolicae Curae * says, with respect to the reasons given for judging Anglican orders as invalid. It was not the schism that was faulted, it was the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, judged defective in form, and the defect of intent of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker, as judged by their use of that Ordinal. The two defects must be taken together, since the form of the Ordinal does not differ from a number of Rites which are not judged as defective. On this, for the RC viewpoint, see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION.

GKC

 

[CentralFLJames]

Ecclesiastical body… Just go ahead and say schismatic or heretic or something else to say what you really think.

OK Heretic is it - but Anglicans are my favorite heretics since they actually seem pretty Catholic and have some good choirs and don’t take on the fundamental tradition of shouting and screaming in the microphone. You all tend to follow the tradition of putting everyone in the pews to sleep with mono-tone and don’t grandstand too much on how evil it is to call anyone father or call the pope antichrist at the podium. With Anglicans I can take refuge in Jesus’ teaching ‘who is not against us is for us’.

With that out of the way, I would remind you that we do not claim to establish apostolic succession through wishful thinking, but through holy orders. Anyone educated on the subject can tell you that the true issue now, is not whether any defects have been cured, as they most certainly have, as they have in infamous …

Hmmm, I don’t know what part of apostolic authority put the King of England between Peter and The Archbishop of Canterbury and those downstream of the latter. Leo XIII’s anathamization terminated forever the apostolic succession - if you can believe your bible about the authority to loose and bind. Shaking a Catholic Pope’s or Catholic Bishop’s hand at an ecumenical council meeting does not count as “laying on of hands”.

We desire and believe in only limited grace? And why do you hope for only limited grace for us?

A misunderstanding - I don’t hope for that personally but its all I could see as possible given the heretical status of Anglicans.

And there’s the whole problem, isn’t it? An argument from authority rather than from sound reason. It’s no wonder the world as a whole flatly rejects religion. We are all fighting about AUTHORITY TO PREACH THE GOSPEL instead of THE GOSPEL. Come off it, already.

Tell this complaint to Jesus please. A lot of people in His time challenged His authority and said his teachings made no sense (especially Eucharist teachings). I suspect those are all in hell now telling Satan it all does not make sense and no one had any authority to toss them down there. Without authority there is NOTHING but opinion and conjecture. Even natural law gets its force of law from the authority of rational order seen in nature.

I don’t think being “in” the Roman Catholic Church is the end all - be all goal. Even within the Roman Catholic Church you are denied sacraments if you do the wrong thing, as a means of regulating the grace available to believers. While I don’t consider grace a thing to be received “cheaply,” I think you are being disingenuous when you make implications that it cannot be received “outside” the Roman Catholic Church, whatever that even means.

Grace is a very complex area that I am not expert in. There is a notion of a universal grace available to both heathen, serious sinner and a good Christian.

“I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live” (Ezech., xxxiii, 11)

“The Lord . . . . dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance” (II Peter, iii, 9),

Each of us has a moral duty of conversion, but the necessary grace must be at hand for that to be possible. I think the Catholic position is that while on earth all sinners never go to a complete state of obduracy and universal grace can find an entrance. Essentially while there is life there is hope. However again, despair of God’s mercy is also a grievous sin - catch 22.

Therefor I think it is safe to say that God ultimately regulates all grace through the cooperation with the soul that receives it. But the Church does in fact control through its authority of loosing and binding very very large channels of grace through the sacraments - especially through Eucharist and penance. But ultimately it is the individual who must choose to avail himself of the graces and get access to these channels. With perhaps the ever present universal grace of God there is the means to bootstrap a heathen, sinner or heretic to come into God’s grace through the sacraments of The Church.

My understanding is that ultimately every heathen or grave sinner who incurs eternal damnation will be forced on the last day to make the honest confession: “It is not for want of grace, but through my own fault that I am lost.”

From my perspective it is suicidal or inviting spiritual death to stand in heresy against The Catholic Church. On the other hand, heretics should know that we Catholics pray for them. If we are in grace and have favor with God who is to say that some of you might “make it” through receiving God’s saving grace through our intercessory prayers. The 1st best strategy for salvation is being Catholic. The 2nd best may be to befriend a Catholic and remind him to pray for you often and remember you at mass.

Then why deal with it as a political issue, like those preaching from Roman Catholic pulpits today? In scriptural times, whenever the apostles exhorted the church in Thesselonica, for example, to refrain from a certain behavior, it was because the people within the church were engaging in said behavior. Now on most issues of sin, the Roman Catholic church today will deal with them in private counseling, confession and absolution. continued…

Because we have an explicit moral obligation to do so. We are commanded to love our neighbor. It is not loving one’s neighbor to not try to persuade her from doing acts that will result in being condemned to eternal hell is it? God hates moral cowards who hide behind the jingoism of separation of church and state. There is no such division in hell nor in heaven.

James

 

[GKC]

" Leo XIII’s anathamization terminated forever the apostolic succession - if you can believe your bible about the authority to loose and bind. Shaking a Catholic Pope’s or Catholic Bishop’s hand at an ecumenical council meeting does not count as “laying on of hands”.

I hate to keep referring to *Apostolicae Curae *in all this, but can you tell me where in the document mention is made of binding and loosing (I’m guessing para 36 is what you mean) or of anathema?

Part of your prolbem lies, perhaps, in a mistaken impression of what question the AC commission was chartered to answer. It wasn’t “Are Anglican Orders valid or invalid?” It was a two fold question: Has there been a consistent policy on the part of the Church, with regard to the validity of Anglican orders, over the years? Is there any reason to change this policy? You can see the roots of these specific questions in the discussion, which led to the conclusion at the end, that Anglican orders were null and void. But Leo, in the Bull, did not make the orders null and void. He declared that the Church had always found the orders null and void and would continue to do so. No change.

An excellent (indeed the best) discussion of the historical background of AC is found in Fr. J. J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, which I recommend highly, but with no great confidence.

And it would also reveal another point I find rarely known: precisely why the commission was established in the first place. It relates to why the two questions were formed as they were.

GKC

 

[jblake]

GKC;:

The Queen, and +Cantaur, have no authority

Isn’t Cantaur the official name of the Office for the Archbishop of Canterbury?

xan

jonathon

 

[veritashunter]

Veritashunter wrote: "When the last of the justly consecrated priests within Anglicanism/Lutheranism died (those who were ordained before the split and continued in Anglican/Lutheran churches afterward) then the consecrated eucharist ceased in their churches with the end of their earthly priesthood. And since the Apostolic lineage was severed with the Supreme Roman Pontiff (the existing apostolic successor to the particular church of Rome from whence the Anglicans/Lutherans came) the future priest became priests in name only."

GKC replied: “This is not, in fact what* Apostolicae Curae * says, with respect to the reasons given for judging Anglican orders as invalid. It was not the schism that was faulted, it was the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, judged defective in form, and the defect of intent of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker, as judged by their use of that Ordinal. The two defects must be taken together, since the form of the Ordinal does not differ from a number of Rites which are not judged as defective. On this, for the RC viewpoint, see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION.”

**Dear GKC:

**Canon Law 1009 thru 1017 states the reasons listed in my posting. Although the reasons you have stated are also reasons for the further invalidity of the Anglican orders and a valid Eucharist, the primary reason is that no bishop (such as a successive bishop) can be ordained without the express consent and direct pontifical mandate of the See (Canon Law 1013). Therefore, the transmission of holy orders is not possible. And without a valid priesthood there is no valid Eucharist. Also see #**882 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church **for the explanation of such authority vested in the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pastor of the Church.

Conferring of Holy Orders must be done within a valid Mass/Divine Liturgy Celebration (and in order to be a valid Mass it must have a valid Eucharist) on a regular Sunday or holy day of obligation (Canon Law 1010). A valid Mass cannot be celebrated by the action of a well-intentioned priest invalidly consecrated by an invalid bishop (all those after the first generation of the Anglican revolt). Even if the priest is consciencely and consciously disposed to the action, the lack of faculties of the priesthood neagates him from consecrating the Eucharist even with the proper words of institution and willful desire to make it so.

****The Catechism of the Catholic Church #1400 states "Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, ‘have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of holy orders.’ It is for this reason that for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However, these communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper…profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

Holy orders must also be conferred by a validly consecrated bishop (Canon Law 1012). This cannot exist within Anglicanism after the death of the last validly consecrated bishop (at the time of the separation from Rome) in union with the rightful patriarch of the Roman particular church. And in the case of Lutheranism there has never been a validly consecrated bishop heading their assembly from its inception as Martin Luther was not a member of the Episcopate.

A bishop cannot confer holy orders outside of his own jurisdiction without the permission of his ranking diocesan bishop (Canon Law 1017). The East hold similar laws in their Canon as do the Orthodox. This is one of the reasons that the Lutheran and Anglican communions were and are seeking communion with the Orthodox; to renew their ministry into Holy Orders by virtue of Apostolic Succession. Likewise, this is one reason that the Eastern Churches and Orthodox have not proceeded in this direction.

Therefore, the Roman Pontiff must give him (the Archbishop of Cantebury) permission and this permission can only exist within the community of the Church…not within schismatic groups. A good modern day example is that of the counterfeit catholic church in China sponsored by its government (like the English government and historic Anglicanism). The Vatican has already ruled on the validity of this action.

**#1399 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church **does however recognize the validity of the Eastern Churches and the Orthodox as having fully valid orders and sacraments by means and in light of verifiable linear uninterrupted apostolic succession. It also encourages Eucharistic communion between the east and west when permitted.

Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1559 states "One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchal communion with the head and members of the college." (College of bishops throughout the Church). Without this union the bishop cannot further his See in the future. This is because 2 bishops must be present to consecrate any new bishop unless the Pope (the head of the College of Bishops) has offered a dispensation to this requirement (Canon Law 1014). So, if one isn’t in communion with the See of Peter they are not in communion with the head of the Church or its college of bishops. Thus, any priests insalled after the first generation of Anglicanism are invalid and priests in name only.

It is also not in any way a call to negate or call into question the Anglicans love of God or their faith in Him in any way. This is not to negate or minimize their call to holiness and evangelization. It just shows that they are in error.

I hope this cleared it up and didn’t muddy the waters even more.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[CentralFLJames]

… the primary reason is that no bishop (such as a successive bishop) can be ordained without the express consent and direct pontifical mandate of the See (Canon Law 1013). Therefore, the transmission of holy orders is not possible. And without a valid priesthood there is no valid Eucharist.

Also see #**882 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church **for the explanation of such authority vested in the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pastor of the Church…


Thanks Veritashunter. You stated it beautifully. I was working up a rebuttal but you saved me quite a lot of labor to get all the proper references.

All I might add is the following as a cautionary to Anglicans and their derivative sects so they do not put their eternal salvation at risk thinking that “believing” and wishful thinking are sufficient. They in fact ARE NOT.

Pope Innocent XI in 1679 condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….**Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders. **(Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)

**Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. **

The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity.

I URGE the true believers in the Anglican Eccleastical Community to understand that you have no valid Priestly Orders and thus invalid sacraments - likely sacrilegious sacraments which condemn not save. Further, you have NO CHURCH. There is no doctrine and no valid authority nor proper teaching - only a loose tradition that is fragmenting rapidly now as you fight internally between the orthodox, the ultra progressives and every liberal and fringe special interest subgroup. It will now be a continuous pattern of schisms. Get OUT and come to The Catholic Church while you still can before you die impenetent. Your only refuge is in Christ and His Apostolic Catholic Church. The two are inseparable. One can NOT be “in Christ” while being seperate from His Church - The Church was created from His side (when the spear pierced Him) just as Eve was created from Adam’s side. Marriage of Bride to Bridegroom is perpetual and inseparable - hence the metaphor for human marriage and decrees against divorce and marriage being made into a sacrament.

James

 

[GKC]

Veritashunter wrote: "When the last of the justly consecrated priests within Anglicanism/Lutheranism died (those who were ordained before the split and continued in Anglican/Lutheran churches afterward) then the consecrated eucharist ceased in their churches with the end of their earthly priesthood. And since the Apostolic lineage was severed with the Supreme Roman Pontiff (the existing apostolic successor to the particular church of Rome from whence the Anglicans/Lutherans came) the future priest became priests in name only."

GKC replied: “This is not, in fact what* Apostolicae Curae * says, with respect to the reasons given for judging Anglican orders as invalid. It was not the schism that was faulted, it was the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, judged defective in form, and the defect of intent of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker, as judged by their use of that Ordinal. The two defects must be taken together, since the form of the Ordinal does not differ from a number of Rites which are not judged as defective. On this, for the RC viewpoint, see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION.”

(cut)

That’s a most interesting post.

At the time of the issuing of* Apostolicae Curae*, what was the Canon law on the matter? Similarly, what was the law at the time of the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559?

Can you offer a conjecture, or speculation, as to the reason that pertinent Canon law such as this was not cited or referenced in AC, as conclusive to establishing the question on Anglican orders? By the logic cited, do you suppose that the RCC recognises the validity (illicit, to be sure), of the orders of the Old Catholics (when Utrecht was still observing the rules on matter) and the PNCC? And what, in general, is your understanding of the Orthdox views of Roman orders, as well as Anglican? Would you say that validity of orders requires Communion with the Holy See? And is that a doctrine of the RCC?

And please understand. I’m not arguing and never have argued that what you are stating is not what a RC should and must affirm. It is, at whatever level of detail.

But (as I continually state) I’m an Anglican. I don’t think like that. This wouldn’t be the only point that this is true on. What you hold as de fide, I don’t. But I like to learn more on the matter. So to speak.

I do appreciate your post, and hope for a reply to my questions.

A pleasure meeting you.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Thanks Veritashunter. You stated it beautifully. I was working up a rebuttal but you saved me quite a lot of labor to get all the proper references.

All I might add is the following as a cautionary to Anglicans and their derivative sects so they do not put their eternal salvation at risk thinking that “believing” and wishful thinking are sufficient. They in fact ARE NOT.

Pope Innocent XI in 1679 condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….**Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders. **(Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)

**Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. **

The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity.

I URGE the true believers in the Anglican Eccleastical Community to understand that you have no valid Priestly Orders and thus invalid sacraments - likely sacrilegious sacraments which condemn not save. Further, you have NO CHURCH. There is no doctrine and no valid authority nor proper teaching - only a loose tradition that is fragmenting rapidly now as you fight internally between the orthodox, the ultra progressives and every liberal and fringe special interest subgroup. It will now be a continuous pattern of schisms. Get OUT and come to The Catholic Church while you still can before you die impenetent. Your only refuge is in Christ and His Apostolic Catholic Church. The two are inseparable. One can NOT be “in Christ” while being seperate from His Church - The Church was created from His side (when the spear pierced Him) just as Eve was created from Adam’s side. Marriage of Bride to Bridegroom is perpetual and inseparable - hence the metaphor for human marriage and decrees against divorce and marriage being made into a sacrament.

James

James,

That was an interesting post, from Truthseeker, as I said. But I’m not sure I’m making my point. I have no doubt that the RCC does not recognise the validity of Anglican Orders. I am moderately sure that the reasons are as stated in* AC*. I’m reasonably sure (I see them above) that the current Canon law specifies what conditions must obtain for the transmission of valid Orders, in the eyes of the RCC. It’s good info.

I still await the answer to my questions, which would be even more good info, on the subject. I like knowing things.

And I appreciate your fervor. I never object if someone seeks to do good by me, as they see it. I mean that. You concern speaks well of you.

But, I’m an Anglican. What Rome requires, to recognise orders as valid, is not of a great concern to me, as an Anglican, though it is, for understanding the sad story of *AC *. As is likewise the role played by Cardinal Vaughan, and the other players, which I already know.

Pax, frater.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Isn’t Cantaur the official name of the Office for the Archbishop of Canterbury?

xan

jonathon

Yes, in Latin.

I thought I had already replied. If I did, this may show up twice.

GKC

 

[veritashunter]

Dear GKC:

Let me first again state that this is in no way an attack upon your faith or that of Anglican Christians. In these matters it is easy to see things move in that direction. This is not my intention.

The primary reason that the Canon was not invoked was that the bishops in question knew the Law of the Church. The primary action was an act of disobedience to the Law of the Church and to the uniformity of its celebration through the body of the Church (change in form of the consecration formula and the intention of disobedince to one’s superiors). Also, the Canon has been more precisely defined through time as questions and protests arose such as the crisis in Anglicanism regarding homosexual and female ordinations. As heresies arise Canon must be further defined.

Conversely, an example of something subject to potential change is the discipline of unmarried priests (provided he was married prior to ordination). This is a Roman Catholic discipline that other eastern rites do not necessarily follow. But all apostolic churches including the Western Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Byzantine Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox hold that once a man is a priest he can never marry again. If his wife dies he must remain celibate. These same churches all hold that Bishops must be celibate…even if married. In such a case the wife must be willing to support the vocation of her husband as a mutual pledge of giving and sacrifice. Otherwise, the bishop cannot accept the position.

The Byzantine Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Syriac/Chaldean/Coptic Churches, etc. all recognize the See of Peter as the apostolic Patriarch of the Western Church although some do not recognize his Papacy as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church. Likewise, the Catholic Church recognizes the same in these mentioned apostolic rites. All have valid patriarchs, uninterrupted apostolic succession (from various apostles), and valid sacraments (including holy orders).

They do, however, in many cases have an imperfect communion with one another. Yet, that in no way invalidates their priesthood or the validity of their Eucharist. It just makes the family reunion somewhat argumentative…a common Christian virtue…ha ha.

The reason that intercommunion cannot take place even between some valid rites (one with another) is the subject of obedience. (MT 16:19, MT 18:16-18, 1 PT 5:5, HEB 13:17, 1 THES 5:12-13, 2 PT 1:19-21, 1 COR 12:37, GAL 5:7-10, GAL 5:14-15, ROM 16:17-18, 1 COR 1:10-13, 2 THES 2:14-15, EPH 4:1-6, ACTS 20:28)

One must follow his or her Apostolic Patriarch or seek communion with another. When we receive (not take) communion we affirm that we believe in the fullness of truth within that family of believers. We affirm “all” of the teachings of the Church as a single voice. We are not permitted to pick and choose. We are permitted and expected to faithfully examine, doggedly investigate, and even to charitably criticize as part of the responsibility given to all of us in Christ whether clergy or laity. But when we approach and receive the Eucharist we’re making a public act of complete obedience to the spouse of Christ and His embodiment on earth, the Church. When we approach the priest we leave our opinions and our natures behind in full obedience to God and His spouse. At that moment we are publicly stating that “I believe as do we all in all that the Church teaches.” If you do not then you should not and cannot receive communion in a Catholic Church. I am a Melkite Catholic…when I approach the Eucharist I must say “Behold, I approach my King and my God.” So, the difference between Transubstance and Consubstance is the difference between affirming the truth or something less than the truth.

When a Catholic Church refuses to give someone the Eucharist from outside of its communion (except in special circumstances) it is not trying to snub someone. It is trying to protect them from committing a lie (in that they do not fully agree & are not in full communion with the Church). This applies to all of the Orthodox as well. They will not permit any Anglican to receive communion within their community (except in circumstances of near death moments). It is to protect the person…not to punish them in any way.

Regarding Old Catholics…I am an old Catholic…near 40 years old this July…ha ha. Seriously though, the Old Catholics are valid only as far as the first generation of priests after their schism…just as with the Anglican clergy. Their Eucharist was valid up until the day the once-validly ordained priests died*…“you are a priest forever”.* Once a man becomes a priest he is a priest for life…that seal is eternal. Even if he has been ordered not to consecrate he still has the ability to disobediently do it so long as it is done with valid matter (pure bread and wine meeting the rubricks for the Mass) and with the valid formula for consecration.

But there is no such power specific to a bishop to consecrate a new bishop without being in communion with and linked to the Episcopate (the brotherhood and communion of bishops)…the College of Bishops headed by the Patriarch (in the case of the Roman Catholic Church that is the Pope). The reason that all of the Apostolic Churches require 2 bishops to be present is to protect the Church against heresy such as was the case with heretical Nestorian and Arian bishops of the past.

It is the same in any Apostolic Church. The authority is desseminated through the patriarch to his bishops then to the priests and deacons. And we, the laity, start the entire process from within as all of our bishops, priests, and deacons are called from the body of the laity to serve the laity.

To my Anglican and Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ, come home soon (InchAllah - Arabic for “God Willing”). We miss you, we are not a complete family without you.

Yours in Christ,
Veritashunter

 

[GKC]

Veritashunter,

I thank you for your words. But my questions still remain.

*Apostolicae Curae *does not address the issue as one of disobedience to the Church, nor of the intention as one of disobedience to superiors. Rather it addresses the issue in the classic Thomistic approach to the validity of a sacrament. The Ordinal form, as noted, was unexceptional in itself. A number of accepted historical Rites have the same “defect”, with respect to the mention of the function of the sacertodal priesthood. It was the use of that form, derived in those specific historical circumstances, in another specific historical circumstance, the consecration of Archbishop Parker, which led to the finding of a defect of intention on the part of Parker’s consecrators; an intention, that was not facere quod facit ecclesia, which is all the Church requires for valid intent. This resulted in the conclusion of the Bull, as stated. I ask again why the Canon law you quote was not cited (by bishops, I assume you mean the Cardinals’ meeting, under the Holy Office, which reviewed the Commission’s findings at the Feria V meeting, 16 July 1896). Again I ask, what was the relevant Canon law at that date. What was it during the period when ++Parker was consecrated? And why was it not mentioned?

My own opinion, which is that, merely, is that the Canon law as cited is primarly concerned with the transmission of orders that are both valid and licit, validity being a function of the classic formula. And AC addressed the validity only. A valid consecration can not be performed, without being in communion with the College of bishops, under the Holy Father. A valid but illicit one can.

Otherwise (and your comments on the Old Catholics reinforce this conclusion) Rome holds a view of the transmission of Orders far closer to the Cyprianic, and that of the East, than it does the Augustinian, in which the licit/illicit distinction is made. From all my reading in this general area, not merely that related to Apostolicae Curae, this simply isn’t so. As an aside, can you cite an authoritative RC source stating that the Church does not recognise Old Catholic (subject to the use of valid matter), or PNCC orders as valid? I would be greatly interested.

I thank you for the other material, also. I would take a great deal of convincing to believe that Rome’s position on orders is basically Cyprianic (more than, perhaps, you care to provide). And at least as much to convince me that Rome does not hold OC/PNCC orders as valid, though illicit, generally.

I appreciate greatly your posts, and, if you have specific, authoritative, and definitive sources on those two questions, I would gladly know them. It would affect my understanding of how the RCC views orders. But not my understanding of the validity of Anglican orders, which is not directly tied to that.

Your kind wishes are appreciated, this Good Friday.

GKC

 

[veritashunter]

Dear GKC:

Your question was related to the motivation for *Apostolicae Curae *…not what it addressed in its text. The motivation for this and “all” such writings of the Church is to ensure uniformity to required norms within the rite and to obedient action within such. Otherwise we could expect that any particular rite might contain several different unrecognized traditions (not Traditions) within the celebration of the Mass from geographic location to geographic location causing further separation (case in point).

The reality of the Church is that it has many contrasting Traditions existing within the “particular churches” that comprise the Catholic Church (Roman, Greek, Melkite, Maronite, Caldean, Romanian, Coptic, etc.). Each has a distinctly common yet unique Tradition that is fully Catholic.

But when one attempts to circumvent the prescribed form, matter, and formula of the Celebration of the Divine Liturgy (among other things) then they move toward extreme error through acts of disobedience to the patriarchate established by Christ Jesus and the apostlic successors of the Apostles. The threat to the body of Christ is that one act leads to another, etc. making such willful actions an attempt to distinquish oneself from the body…even separate oneself if you will.

The references I cited from St. Paul note this especially HEB 13:17, 1 THES 5:12-13, GAL 5:7-10, RM 16:17-18, 2 THES 2:14-15, 1 COR 1:10-13, 1COR 12:12-31, then in ACTS 20:18, etc., etc., JAS 3:12, and in the Gospel of Matthew 18:15-18.

I reference these many passages because Canon Law, the Catechism, and its product (such as AC) are based on Sacred Scripture and cannot exist without it. It exists through it and the basis for this Truth is obedience to Sacred Scripture (1 TM 3:14-15). It is by and through this Truth of Sacred Scripture that obedience is required. 1 TM 3:14-15 states that the Church, the household of the Lord, is the pillar and foundation of truth. One might say that that is subjective but Anglicanism & Lutheranism have disproved this by their example.

Both have had squabbles with one another in the past over doctrine, etc. but neither have an authority to petition over both groups to settle the dispute as shown in MT 18:15-18. This is because they do not defer to the authority of the singular Church and are thereby separated from it; both in philosophy and practical matters such as the settling of disputes between rival Christian entities. This applies to all of the Proetestant Christian ecclesial assemblies as they see themselves as “independent” of any earthly ecclesial authority within or without their ranks. And if one does not like a particular teaching they just move on to another assembly…and another…and another…with no real home.

Any other understanding of MT 18:18 denies the very singular all encompassing authority of the Church in all matters to which the passage testifies. MT 18:18 shows the Church as the final judge in earthly matters…if you reject its authority you are to be treated as a taxcollector or a Gentile. In other words, treated as if you have no regard.

Knowing this and its centrality to Christianity the AC did not have to explicitly state what was already understood within the Christian Faith. To restate the obvious in Church doctrine at that time would probably have been considered as insulting.

At the date of its writing there was no need to “stir the pot” further exposing obvious mistakes made by those affected parties in Anglicanism and causing more uncharitable injury to the reputations of those in error. The hope of reunion was also to be considered.

I would further suspect that this was to offer a charitable route to reconciliation with the Church for those who might seek reunion as it has been in numerous Church documents. For those who did so and the laying of hands was later performed to the separated bishops then from those bishops to the other clergy the validity of such orders would then be restored.

Archbishop Newman is a good example in much later times of one such return conversion. He was ordained by the Church and raised to Bishop again but only when the proper form and matter had been correctly applied in obedience to the Church which is the instrument of God’s grace on earth.

This is why I always encourage our close yet separated Anglican, Episcopal, and Lutheran brothers and sisters to come home. If the Tradition of the Roman Church is not to your taste you can still be fully obedient and equally Catholic in any Eastern or Byzantine Rite Catholic Church. Why not explore the possibilities? By the way…my family was one of those Protestant families that came home when I was younger…so I am speaking from experience.

I hope this helps.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

PS - No stones here. I am the biggest sinner I know (since I only really know myself)! So, please pray for me as I will for you.

 

[GKC]

Veritashunter,

I once again thank you for your irenic and gracious words. But once again I feel we are not communicating.

AC was occassioned by a specific historical occasion, whicht began wiith the meeting of Lord Halifax and the Abbe Portal, in 1890, and on events subsequent to that, over the next 5 years. The occasion of the appointment of a commission, under the Holy Office, to answer the two quite specific question which *AC * did address, arose from Portal’s and Halifax’s efforts, and resulted directly from a meeting between Cardinal Vaughan and Leo XIII. The lengthy, detailed and not completly edifying historical details may be found in Fr. J. J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. I commend it to you (Fr. Hughes is a RC priest, formerly an Episcopal priest and the first such to receive ordination *sub conditione *

Let me repeat what I am asserting. None of which is that a RC should affirm the validity of Anglican orders.

*Apostolicae Curae *was a specific reaction to a specific set of circumstances, arising from the activities of Portal and Halifix, and directly occasioned by Cardinal Vaughan’s representation of those actions to Leo XIII.

The commission that was set up, under the Holy Office, was asked 2 specific things: Had there been a consistent attitude on the part of Rome toward Anglican orders, and, if so, should there be a change in that attitude or should it be continued.

The response (written primarily by Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val), followed the discussions of the commission (which was split half and half between invalid and valid or potentially valid) and the conclusions of the Cardinals to whom their report was presented. This response constitutes AC and addressses absolutely nothing about Anglican orders, or any orders, with respect to being in communion with Rome. The orders were declared invalid on two supposed, interlocking defects, of form and intention, under the classic four-fold Thomistic formual for determining the validity of a sacrament. None of which requires communion with the Holy See.

The reason no mention was made of communion with Rome as a determining factor in the validity is that the Anglicans were, quite admittedly, schismatic. If this was sufficent to invalidate the orders, that would have been the finding, at a minimum. But it was not. Rome holds a basically Augustinian view of orders, and holds such schismatic groups as the Old Catholics (at the time) and the PNCC today, as possessing valid, but not licit orders. And that is the case today. This then relates to the idea that the joint consecrations of OC and the PNCC with Anglicanism would *logically *affect the validity (not the licitness) of Anglican orders. Logically, but Rome has not, to my knowledge made a statement on that. I do not insist upon it. But I do insist that Rome does, indeed, hold schismatic groupls who have not lost Apostolic succession (OCs/PNCCs. for example) as possessing valid but illicit orders and as capable of transmitting the same. Absent any specific, authoritative and definitive reference to contrary, I see no reason to believe otherwise.

I again appreciate your post, but most of what you are saying is not germane to the points, and what you assume about the history and theological issues in AC is simply not correct. The classic exposiiton of the Roman position on AC is ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, by the then Jesuit Father Francis Clark. The best exposition of the Anglican case, and the best single history of the total issue, is found in the two books by Fr. Hughes: ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. These are the classic works, though the literature on the subject is immense; I own perhaps 20 titles on it and that doesn’t scratch the surface.

Again, your words are greaty appreciated. But I don’t think you quite understand the history of *AC *.

May you have a blessed Easter, frater.

GKC

 

[veritashunter]

Dear GKC:

I understand your questions and your frustration in my answers. But the original posting was asking if the Anglican (and Lutheran) orders and Eucharist are valid and if there are any instances of Eucharistic miracles of such.

My answers are given by means and effect of Canon Law and obedience to the Church as testified to in Sacred Scripture, Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the similar Canon of other Apostolic Churches such as the Churches of the East because what is in question is Apostlic continuation and nothing else.

After the Orthodox schism they still could trace their apostolic roots back to a singular Apostolic source (other than Peter, the Patriarch of the See of Rome from whence Anglicans and Lutherans emerged). The Eastern lineage is not interrupted by the severence of obedience to the Supreme Pastor of the Church. It merely created an imperfect communion. But Anglicans and Lutherans have severed their apostolic lineage with the Apostolic Communion and by virtue of the Canon have ended their valid orders (as stated in the Catechism).

Therefore, there can be no valid ordination and, thereby, no valid Eucharist. There are also no confirmed Eucharistic miracles in these assemblies. Such miracles exist to draw believers closer to the true Eucharist and testify to its presence. Such miracles have occured in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches…all containing a valid Apostolic priesthood. Yet, they have not in the Protestant assemblies. Are we better more faithful human beings as Catholics, Orthodox, or Oriental Christians. No…of course not…we are sinners…just more obedient sinners in this manner.

So, it comes back to the fact that the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is not present in these assemblies since the end of the first generation of their valid priesthood so long ago. That answer is according to Canon Law. I can offer you no better one of my own invention because that would be mere supposition.

You have questioned why the Canon was not cited…my question to you is why it wasn’t recognized by Anglicanism which gave itself over to Henry VIII and his false appointees? Why were over 500 monasteries and Churches looted and burned to the ground throughout Britain by Henry’s crown? Why, after Henry’s death, did the Anglicans with “still valid holy orders” not return home to obedience within the embodiment of Christ on earth, the Church?

Again, it is human disobedience…the same for me as it is for you as it is for them. We are human…that is the very reason we need the Church established by our Savior.

The flaw I see in the path we are travelling is that you continually refer to the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Catholic Church. The Roman Bishop and Pontiff presides over the Church by means of Peter (the supreme pastor) and Paul (the teacher of the nations). The authority and truth both reside there in virtue of the continuation of Peter and Paul through the Bishop of Rome and its successors.

Canon Law and the Catechism are authoritative and binding expressions of the “Catholic” (all encompassing Universal) Church and its Apostolic Faith. Also, Anglicanism teaches a variety of theories about the transubstance, consubstance, and/or lack of substance regarding the Eucharist. This is the result of the invalidity of these orders and going on a path away from the Church.

I do understand your points about AC. But you are asking for conjecture in determining the thoughts of why and why not.

The most responsible answer is the one I gave you…charity in seeking to correct yet not alienate the persons being corrected beyond the scope of what was required. We know that reunion was sought by the Church at that time and that the stumbling block was as it has always been…refusal to obey. Also, in the late 1500s there were still probably some valid priests in their ranks. This might also explain the “closeness of the vote” that you mentioned.

But I cannot reasonably offer any greater explanation while lacking definitive proof of intent regarding AC. Again, that would be irresponsible. That is why I have not diverted the discussion in that direction. We can diasect just about any such document in Church history looking for that single item which seems to justify this separation in the family of God.

It really just boils down to a single question…will you obey the commands of Sacred Scripture and Christ’s Universal Church? In my own life I have answered “yes” to that question. I cannot answer it for anyone else…I can merely try to encourage them to do so charitably and without judging them.

Though, I can definitively state what I do know from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon Law that Lutherans/Anglicans/Episcopals (although faithful Christians) are in error and do not possess valid orders…and as a consequence, do not have a valid Eucharist. This is the standing of all of the Apostolic Churches. None recognize the validity of any Protestant communion as having a valid Eucharist. This is not a Roman Catholic doctrine…this is Catholic Canon.

So, how can one claim his membership as an “Anglican Catholic” priest or bishop with a valid priesthood and Eucharist while rejecting “Catholic teaching”? One cannot. We are either Catholic or non-Catholic. There are many Catholics of 23 particular churches…all in union with Rome. Anglicans, though loving Christians, are not Catholic because Catholic means that you are in union with and obedient to Catholic teaching.

This is a common issue within Protestantism where many faithful hearts seek the fullness of truth but are offered over 30,000 derivatives and contradictory statements about what absolute truth is. I have seen it in my own upbringing and it was one of the reasons my family came home to the Church.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[GKC]

Veritashunter,

Once again, I admire your willingness to explain; once you have told me things that I mostly know and that are not germane to the point. We are unlikely to make much headway, I fear.

My points remain as in my post above:

You are not familiar with the history of *AC *; of what it was issued for, and why.

You do not appear to be familiar with the RCC’s attitude toward the Old Catholics/PNCC, that is, with Churches which possess valid but illicit orders, in the eyes of the RCC…

You do not appear to be familar with the disticntion between valid and licit orders, and what would be required to transmit them, in Romes’ opinion.

But you have a great heart and faith, and I salute you.

GKC

 

[veritashunter]

Dear GKC:

Just a sidenote.

In my case I was baptized and confirmed as a Roman Catholic but am now a member of a Melkite Catholic Church (Syrian/Lebanese). And I am Irish. I have served on the altar and was even asked to be on the church council. Go figure!

This is the real glory of being Catholic. It takes all of the “particular churches” to fully express the “Catholic Church”.
Different but equal…all with unique customs and ethnic backgrounds but all equally Catholic and obedient to one another while equally necessary for the Church to fulfill its mission of the Universal Faith.

All over the world we are One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are always welcome one to another…Melkite to Roman to Chaldean to Coptic and all fully Catholic. We can inter-communion at will within the Eucharist.

There’s always room for one more, GKC. By the way, this is one of those not-so-subtle invitations…if you haven’t figured it out by now.

God bless,

Veritashunter

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[CentralFLJames]

The reason no mention was made of communion with Rome as a determining factor in the validity is that the Anglicans were, quite admittedly, schismatic. If this was sufficent to invalidate the orders, that would have been the finding, at a minimum. But it was not. Rome holds a basically Augustinian view of orders, and holds such schismatic groups as the Old Catholics (at the time) and the PNCC today, as possessing valid, but not licit orders. And that is the case today. This then relates to the idea that the joint consecrations of OC and the PNCC with Anglicanism would *logically *affect the validity (not the licitness) of Anglican orders. Logically, but Rome has not, to my knowledge made a statement on that. I do not insist upon it. But I do insist that Rome does, indeed, hold schismatic groupls who have not lost Apostolic succession (OCs/PNCCs. for example) as possessing valid but illicit orders and as capable of transmitting the same. Absent any specific, authoritative and definitive reference to contrary, I see no reason to believe otherwise.

I again appreciate your post, but most of what you are saying is not germane to the points, and what you assume about the history and theological issues in AC is simply not correct. The classic exposiiton of the Roman position on AC is ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, by the then Jesuit Father Francis Clark. The best exposition of the Anglican case, and the best single history of the total issue, is found in the two books by Fr. Hughes: ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. These are the classic works, though the literature on the subject is immense; I own perhaps 20 titles on it and that doesn’t scratch the surface.

Again, your words are greaty appreciated. But I don’t think you quite understand the history of *AC *.

May you have a blessed Easter, frater.
GKC

Is history even relevant to the current condition of not having valid priestly orders in the eyes of Christ’s Vicar? Irrespective of all that it seems to me that Anglicans physically lost their chain of apostolic succession when the last of the licitly and validly ordained original Anglican Catholic Church Bishops and priests all died.

One thing I think is interesting in all of this is that you seem almost to suggest that Fr. Hughes, the Anglican who converted to Catholicism, becomes in the Roman collar the champion for the Anglican case. You are not suggesting here that Fr. Hughes converted to Catholicism “validly but illicitly” for ulterior reasons just to get inside The Church to colour the Catholic Bishop’s
opinions about validity of Orders. In other words you don’t imagine the Fr. Huges is ostensibly a Catholic but privately wears Union Jack & Anglican Coat of Arms undergarments do you?

I come back to the remarks of Pope Innocent XI in 1679 condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a *probable opinion *regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….“Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders. (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)”.

I would say that in addition to losing physical continuity of apostolic succession that Anglicans through neglect in abandoning a safer opinion with regards to the sacraments demonstrated not only a lack of communion with The Church but a wilful and even hostile act of abdication of whatever dubious authority (valid but illicit) it may have had in fact.

I also think that there were enough anathemas being tossed around in the wake of Luther’s rebellion that Anglican’s catch one between the eyes somewhere in the early 1530’s time frame.

If we want now to look at history just judge how fast things went to hell in England after Luther comes onto the scene and Henry usurps The Church:

1520–1 • Luther excommunicated by papal bulls Exsurge Domine and Decet
1521 • Imperial Diet at Worms; Luther anathematized and his teachings condemned by Edict of Worms
1534 • Act of Supremacy institutes Henry Ⅷ as official head of the Church of England
1577 • Beginning of a wave of executions of Catholic missionaries in Elizabethan England
1581 • First anti-Catholic legislation enacted in the United Provinces
1641 • Anti-English and anti-Protestant uprising in Ireland suppressed by Oliver Cromwell
1642 • Beginning of Civil War in England

Given that history I’d say that if Anglicans had valid orders they certainly have had little good fruit to show for it. In fact ever since the Anglican Church was taken over by the British Monarchy it looks like Catholics became the new sacrifice for the secular crown. Maybe that’s a bit harsh but its not exactly a pretty picture of the merrie ol England that Gilbert Keith Chesterton loved and portrayed but never really ever existed.

Getting back to the OP topic I will believe Anglicans have valid Holy Orders when I see miracles. I will believe it when I see Anglicans reunited with The Catholic Church or when England becomes as merrie as it imagined it once was. The reality though is that England is not like it used to be and never was.

The evidence suggests its high time for some changes…

James

 

[veritashunter]

GKC:

I apologize about the date in my head. I was referring to the Bull in 1555 or so from Paul IV as it related to the later work Clement XI at the beginning of the 1700s regarding to the ordination of Gordon.

I realize that the AC was not issued until the later part of the 19th Century but was dependent upon these previous documents for much of its intent.

It listed defective form and intention as reasons as well as the reasons I stated to you regarding the existence of a partially valid clergy from the initial time of the schism. This discussion is contained in the letter of Cardinal Pole around 1554 relating this concept determining 2 groups to be present: those validly ordained before the schism and those after also noting the issues relating to those related to the Edwardine Ordinal. The first was only considered valid if the form and matter were in harmony with the existing rubrics…the second was considered null in any case.
This led to the “all or nothing” decree later due the fact that it was impossible to trace the lineage for certain.

I do understand the issues. The same applies to the the Old Catholic order…as I said…even if not in an absolute sense. And each of the points I have made were with that in mind…but offered from a broader perspective that relates back to the initial questions posed on the thread. I also try to explain them in a way that that realates more closely to fundamentalist Christians (especially Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Canon) so they can better follow long (and join in to these discussions) as they are not usually as well versed as you or I in these teachings (and many others).

I apologize if that has led you to believe otherwise. But these forums tend to spin off into huge subplots of their own (as I am sure you have noticed), so I make every attempt to keep them on point.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

PS - You should read my book on the teachings of the Catholic Church…although I fully admit it is likely to be a little “below the bar” of the subjects and text that you are used to reading.

 

[Truthstalker]

Do the Anglican/Episcaples and Lutherans claim to have any Eucharistic miracles like we as Catholics have? I have never heard of any but I’m curious.

Also what about incorrupt bodies of protestants, anything on that subject?

On the first point, I can only tell one anecdote. A lady I knew, years before I met her, had gone through a very difficult time with husband, kids, his employment troubles, her physical and emotional health. What sustained her was what happened at the beginning of her “time of troubles”. The Lord told her He was going to take her through a difficult time and He would be the only strength she would have. Shortly afterwards she was surprised the first time when the Communion wine was hot and salty and the wafer was meaty in texture. She said this continued for about six months, and when it ended, she knew her time of troubles was coming to an end, and so it did, with everything pulling together in quick order.

She was Lutheran at the time. I heard this story from her about fifteen years ago and I don’t think I’m free to give any details. What I said may not be exactly true, but I specifically remember the detail about the elements. Last I knew she was on the mission field in the tropics. I can of course prove nothing of this, and perhaps I’m not getting it right, but it was something similar. And she was a lady of profound and admirable faith.

Did it happen? I don’t really know. But she was always trustworthy, and I often wonder if I will taste hot salty liquid and feel meat in my mouth when I take the Eucharist in my Presbyterian Church.

On the second point, there is a counterexample. There was an incorruptible in Northern England. When the Protestants moved his body, the miracle ceased. I can’t recall the name of the saint.