Anglicans/ Episcopalians: Do you know where i can trace the apostolic line?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ImReallyNice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ImReallyNice

Guest
Hi!!!

I’m considering an Anglican/Episcopalian church and was wondering if anyone here with that background could let me know…

I know that Anglicans and Episcopalians both point to the church of England, which came off of the Roman Catholic Church. My question is if there is a chart of the Bishops all the way back to the days of the beginning of the Church of England…so I can see how the CofE is linked to the Catholic church.

In other words, were there Catholic bishops who were validly ordained that began the CofE, thus making the priestly ordinations and consecrations within the apostolic succession?

Please do not be afraid to respond, I won’t judge, promise. I’m nice. 🙂
 
There actually was such a listing of the episcopal lines in the CoE, on-line. I had it bookmarked for years, but that was two computers ago. No idea where it was, but it was on a larger site.

Seeing as how the lines of the CoE were identical with those of the RCC, until1535, where does your concern commence?

If you are looking seriously at the Episcopal Church, I’d suggest looking at a lot of things, episcopal lines included.

I’m glad you’re nice. I’m old.

GKC
ImReallyNice said:
Hi!!!

I’m considering an Anglican/Episcopalian church and was wondering if anyone here with that background could let me know…

I know that Anglicans and Episcopalians both point to the church of England, which came off of the Roman Catholic Church. My question is if there is a chart of the Bishops all the way back to the days of the beginning of the Church of England…so I can see how the CofE is linked to the Catholic church.

In other words, were there Catholic bishops who were validly ordained that began the CofE, thus making the priestly ordinations and consecrations within the apostolic succession?

Please do not be afraid to respond, I won’t judge, promise. I’m nice. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
There actually was such a listing of the episcopal lines in the CoE, on-line. I had it bookmarked for years, but that was two computers ago. No idea where it was, but it was on a larger site.

Seeing as how the lines of the CoE were identical with those of the RCC, until1535, where does your concern commence?

I’m glad you’re nice. I’m old.GKC
Click to expand...
I suppose I was just wondering if the apostolic line got totally messed up in 1535…like I wanted to know if the people ordaining new (Anglican) priests were already validly ordained…and fit into the apostolic succession. Does that make sense?

And I don’t consider someone old until they hit 60…so maybe you are maybe you aren’t. Age is just a number…it’s who you are that counts. I have friends who are in walkers and friends who are just learning to walk. 😃
 
ImReallyNice said:
I suppose I was just wondering if the apostolic line got totally messed up in 1535…like I wanted to know if the people ordaining new (Anglican) priests were already validly ordained…and fit into the apostolic succession. Does that make sense?

And I don’t consider someone old until they hit 60…so maybe you are maybe you aren’t. Age is just a number…it’s who you are that counts. I have friends who are in walkers and friends who are just learning to walk. 😃
Click to expand...
Let me put it this way. By your standards, I’ve been old for 5 years and 4 days.

The point you want to investigate is not 1535, but 1559, and the consecration of Archbishop Parker. Until then the issue wouldn’t have arisen. Parker’s consecration is a bottleneck in the CoE lines, and is the focus point for Apostolicae Curae. But, oddly enough, Apostolicae Curae does not assert that the consecrators of Parker were not valid ministers of the sacrament. Rather, it asserts that the form used (the Edwardine Ordinal) was invalid, and the intent of anyone who used it, invalid, sacramentally, and could not confect the sacrament. So the issue of whether the CoE has apostolic succession does not relate to who did what, but how it was done.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Let me put it this way. By your standards, I’ve been old for 5 years and 4 days.

The point you want to investigate is not 1535, but 1559, and the consecration of Archbishop Parker. Until then the issue wouldn’t have arisen. Parker’s consecration is a bottleneck in the CoE lines, and is the focus point for Apostolicae Curae. But, oddly enough, Apostolicae Curae does not assert that the consecrators of Parker were not valid ministers of the sacrament. Rather, it asserts that the form used (the Edwardine Ordinal) was invalid, and the intent of anyone who used it, invalid, sacramentally, and could not confect the sacrament. So the issue of whether the CoE has apostolic succession does not relate to who did what, but how it was done.

GKC
Click to expand...
So the people who performed Parker’s bishop ordination were validly ordained bishops? But the Catholic view is that they did it under the wrong formula, correct?
 
GKC said:
Let me put it this way. By your standards, I’ve been old for 5 years and 4 days.

GKC
Click to expand...
I have only been ‘old’ for 3 years and 3 months. Does that make me ‘comparatively young’?
I think so, anyway. Heck I feel so much better.

Why be an Episcopalian when you can be a Catholic?
 
StevieD said:
I have only been ‘old’ for 3 years and 3 months. Does that make me ‘comparatively young’?
I think so, anyway. Heck I feel so much better.

Why be an Episcopalian when you can be a Catholic?
Click to expand...
I went to the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults for a year and attended masses every Sunday for a year but I decided not to become Catholic. 🙂
 
ImReallyNice said:
So the people who performed Parker’s bishop ordination were validly ordained bishops? But the Catholic view is that they did it under the wrong formula, correct?
Click to expand...
I’ve seen it argued by RC apologists that there was only one valid bishop among the four who co-consecrated Parker. I think it historically inaccurate. But it does not appear to be the point the RCC has made.

The RCC position is that the form used was invalid,and incapable ot transmitting valid orders. Again, the issue of intent is unclear, as to whom it was referring to in Apostolicae Curae, but the most scholarly RC position (Clark/ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) concludes that it was the intent of the consecrators of Parker, revealed in their use of the Edwardine Ordinal as not being intending facere quod facit ecclesia.

It is a complicated subject. But again, the RCC has not made a definitive statement on the consecrators of anybody, any time, with respect to the point when apostolic succession was said to be lost. The definitive assertion (Apostolicae Cuare) is that it related to an intertwined consideration of form and intent.

GKC
 
StevieD said:
I have only been ‘old’ for 3 years and 3 months. Does that make me ‘comparatively young’?
I think so, anyway. Heck I feel so much better.

Why be an Episcopalian when you can be a Catholic?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

(This is a subtle response, that those who know me well will spot).

GKC
 
Well thank you for the information, GKC. If any other Catholics or Anglicans are interested in the subject, go ahead and chime in. I won’t bite! 😛
 
ImReallyNice said:
Well thank you for the information, GKC. If any other Catholics or Anglicans are interested in the subject, go ahead and chime in. I won’t bite! 😛
Click to expand...
Sorry to come back again so quickly but I will be attending the beatification of Cardinal Newman next month and it just occurred to me that his perspective might be of some use to you. I am not a Newman scholar but you may like to read his reasons for reaching his conclusions about his own orders.
 
I got your PM.

But my attempted repy was rejected. It says your inbox is full.

You’re moving fast, for someone with 5 posts.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I got your PM.

But my attempted repy was rejected. It says your inbox is full.

You’re moving fast, for someone with 5 posts.

GKC
Click to expand...
Well this question has been kind of burning in me recently because I’m considering getting baptized by the episcopal church but I’ve been wondering about the validity of their priesthood orders and if the eucharist really does change into the body and blood.

And maybe try again? I deleted my messages…
 
StevieD said:
Sorry to come back again so quickly but I will be attending the beatification of Cardinal Newman next month and it just occurred to me that his perspective might be of some use to you. I am not a Newman scholar but you may like to read his reasons for reaching his conclusions about his own orders.
Click to expand...
What conclusions do you mean? 🙂
 
ImReallyNice said:
Well this question has been kind of burning in me recently because I’m considering getting baptized by the episcopal church but I’ve been wondering about the validity of their priesthood orders and if the eucharist really does change into the body and blood.

And maybe try again? I deleted my messages…
Click to expand...
I will.

No problem with the baptism,unless they have a new, nontrinitarian formula (and they might), or try using something other than water. Valid orders not required for baptism.

On the Real Presence, could be dicey, whatever the truth about the CoE episcopal lines.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I will.

No problem with the baptism,unless they have a new, nontrinitarian formula (and they might), or try using something other than water. Valid orders not required for baptism.

On the Real Presence, could be dicey, whatever the truth about the CoE episcopal lines.

GKC
Click to expand...
Ok then. 🙂
 
ImReallyNice said:
Well this question has been kind of burning in me recently because I’m considering getting baptized by the episcopal church but I’ve been wondering about the validity of their priesthood orders and if the eucharist really does change into the body and blood.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you decided not to become a Catholic, because if you became a Catholic, you would not need to worry about either the apostolic succession or whether transubstantiation takes place. The fact is that the Anglican Church deliberately destroyed the apostolic succession during the reign of Edward VI, so that Anglican orders are not valid, and the bread and wine are exactly the same things they were after consecration as before.

I encourage you to reconsider your decision, and to take instruction from a holy priest who pulls no punches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top