M
Montalo
Guest
when did, and why, did the Anglican church lose apolistic succession, and why do we view their sacraments and Bishops as invalid, while holding the EO as valid
- Status
F
FightingFat
Guest
When they broke from Rome their Bishops no longer had the authority to ordain valid Bishops I guess. In 1531 King Henry VIII attempted to get everyone in England to take an oath declaring the king the Supreme Head of the English Church “as far as the law of Christ allows”. Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536, formally splitting away from Rome although the Anglican church wasn’t given any formal structure until 1562 during the reign of Elizabeth I.
As for the EO issue, England was never a Patriarchal See in the way Constantinople was-- Constantinople was the second Rome. Anglicans hold different beliefs regarding the Sacraments to us, although some believe in transubstantiation, for example, they accept consubstantiation as well. So you can be at communion in an Anglican Church and consider you are receiving the body and blood of our Lord, the bloke next to you isn’t…Basically they have relativised Catholicism IMO.
As for the EO issue, England was never a Patriarchal See in the way Constantinople was-- Constantinople was the second Rome. Anglicans hold different beliefs regarding the Sacraments to us, although some believe in transubstantiation, for example, they accept consubstantiation as well. So you can be at communion in an Anglican Church and consider you are receiving the body and blood of our Lord, the bloke next to you isn’t…Basically they have relativised Catholicism IMO.
G
GKC
Guest
This is a not uncommon answer to this question, but it is not accurate. The point of losing Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with the break with Rome. The logic behind Rome’s judgment on Anglican Orders/succession is found in the 1896 Bull, *Apostolicae Curae *. In brief, it is based on a declared invalid form of ordination/consecration, as found in the Edwardine Ordinal, considered with what is judged to be invalid intent, on the part of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker, in 1559. The two points, of intent and form, have to be taken together, since the supposedly invalid form is also found in Rites which Rome does recognize as conveying valid orders.
Technically, it is a complicated subject, and much has been written on it. But this is the gist of it.
As an aside, the phrase “as far as the law of Christ allows” was not part of the Supreme Head Act passed by Parliament in 1534, that Henry required assent to. It occurred in an earlier argument Henry had with the Convocations of Canterbury and of York, back in 1531. The words then were not Henry’s and they displeased him. He made sure they did not appear in the Act, which was statutory law for the country.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
F
FightingFat
Guest
Thank you for better informing me.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
No one denies that Anglicans are in a succession of laying on of hands.
But can apostolic orders be divorced from apostolic faith? This is the Orthodox attitude.
But can apostolic orders be divorced from apostolic faith? This is the Orthodox attitude.
G
GKC
Guest
T
Third_Day
Guest
Seems to me that the 1896 Bull, Apostolicae Curae would fall under the authority of the Church to make the Anglican orders invalid. Didn’t Christ says that whoever refuses to listen “even to the Church” should be treated as outside the Church" and that the decision of the Church is “bound on earth as it is in heaven?”
G
GKC
Guest
No, the RCC doesn’t make the claim that they can make orders invalid. The point is that they recognize what is required for valid transmission of valid orders (valid minister, form, matter, and intent), and that in two respects (intent and form) the Anglican transmission was broken, in 1559 (this is the usual point taken. As Fr. Francis Clark points out, in his ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, it’s a little hard to pin *Apostolicae Curae *down on the precise point the break occurs. But it is not related to not being in communion with Rome, in itself. Eastern Orders, some Old Catholic orders and PNCC orders are recognized by Rome as valid (though illicit).
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
True. The fact is that when you objectively look at much in the way of issues the RCC has with the Anglican orders it does not hold water. In fact, they recognize (as GKC states) PNCC orders and other Old Catholic groups (some of whom have quite odd theology) as valid but illicit. In fact the PNCC has limited intercommunion with the RCC. Of course, many…many Anglican Bishops have succession/orders derived from the PNCC. So even holding to Roman Catholic interpretation and looking at the way that has been implemented with regard to other groups, there is not logical constency for maintaing that Anglican orders were invalid.
As I have noted before, I think much of what was behind Leo’s issues had more to do with political and cultural realities of the consequences of recognizing Anglican orders in an era when Britain (dominated by the Anglican Church) controlled 1/4 of the earth’s surface and all of its oceans. Not to mention the fact of United States being an up and coming power. The attraction for many Catholics (especially immigrant groups) would have been to have attempted to fit in with the more prestigious and socially acceptable Episcopal/Anglican Communion bodies were Leo to have said they had valid orders and so on. Recall that there was a great deal of discrimination against Catholics and certainly to be Catholic was to be down on the social order. In Leo’s day all things British were in due to the power and influence of Britain in everything from literature to world poltics.
G
GKC
Guest
Apostolicae Curae had a great deal to do with the personality of Herbert, Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster.
GKC
GKC
K
KathleenGee
Guest
So it is not that they are without the apostolic ordination of the laying on of hands by our bishops as well?
I mean, the laying on of hands to consecrate a priest in truth and holiness is also a physical action, the transmission of faith from the Apostles down through time…
I met Anglicans who swear they are receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist…
I mean, the laying on of hands to consecrate a priest in truth and holiness is also a physical action, the transmission of faith from the Apostles down through time…
I met Anglicans who swear they are receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist…
G
GKC
Guest
I’m one of those sorts of Anglicans, myself.
No. The requirement for the transmission of valid orders is for a valid minister, meaning a bishop in apostolic succession, not necessarily in communion with Rome, who uses a valid formula, with valid intent (to do what the Church does, in such a case), on valid matter; a baptized male Christian, of a certain age.
It is for this reason that Rome considers the orders of the Eastern Churches, and those of some Old Catholics, and the PNCC, to be valid, though illicit.
GKC
No. The requirement for the transmission of valid orders is for a valid minister, meaning a bishop in apostolic succession, not necessarily in communion with Rome, who uses a valid formula, with valid intent (to do what the Church does, in such a case), on valid matter; a baptized male Christian, of a certain age.
It is for this reason that Rome considers the orders of the Eastern Churches, and those of some Old Catholics, and the PNCC, to be valid, though illicit.
GKC
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Thank you !
- Status