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

[FrDavid96]

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…

Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.” papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
There’s no escaping this simple fact. Null and void.

Since there is no priesthood in the Anglican community, neither is there any Eucharist, so no, the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of Christ.

If you went to a store and bought something, and the clerk handed you your change, but stamped across the face of the money was the word “COUNTERFEIT” in big red letters, would you accept the bills?

 

[GKC]

Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.” papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
There’s no escaping this simple fact. Null and void.

Since there is no priesthood in the Anglican community, neither is there any Eucharist, so no, the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of Christ.

If you went to a store and bought something, and the clerk handed you your change, but stamped across the face of the money was the word “COUNTERFEIT” in big red letters, would you accept the bills?

Yep. That’s certainly what the words Monsignor Merry del Val (with a little help) wrote, and Leo XIII signed, said.

You will understand that Anglicans take a different view of the matter (or, rather, the form, or the intent).

GKC

 

[GKC]

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.

No, the form was the Edwardine Ordinal, but the usual point at which the Apostolic succession was said to be lost was in Elizabeth’s day; the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559. And the issue of valid intent was also central to the conclusion.

It’s a complicated subject, involving history; a thing to be deep in, to be sure.

And, sure, I mentioned taking a careful look at the Episcopal Church before doing anything hasty, myself.

GKC

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m a bit curious why a perspective Anglican cares what the Roman Catholic Church believes? The Anglican Church teaches it has valid Apostolic Succession, and certainly there has been a historical passage of authority by bishops through the laying on of hands.

 

[Cranmer2010]

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…

Anglicans for the majority do not believe in Transubstantiation (the physical change of bread and wine into body and blood). We believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine during communion and that it spiritually IS his body and blood. We know that it is physically still bread and wine and not actually physical flesh and blood because if tested, it would not contain DNA.

 

[ImReallyNice]

Anglicans for the majority do not believe in Transubstantiation (the physical change of bread and wine into body and blood). We believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine during communion and that it spiritually IS his body and blood. We know that it is physically still bread and wine and not actually physical flesh and blood because if tested, it would not contain DNA.

Thank you for the answer. What about apostolic succession? What do Anglicans have to say on that?

 

[ImReallyNice]

certainly there has been a historical passage of authority by bishops through the laying on of hands.

There has?

 

[FrDavid96]

There has?

No. There has not been. Apostolic succession was lost.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.” papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
There’s no escaping this simple fact. Null and void.

Since there is no priesthood in the Anglican community, neither is there any Eucharist, so no, the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of Christ.

If you went to a store and bought something, and the clerk handed you your change, but stamped across the face of the money was the word “COUNTERFEIT” in big red letters, would you accept the bills?

I think your point could have been made simply by pushing a button instead of taking a baseball bat and bashing in the wall to make certain that it was depressed. Also, your position is certainly debateable, maybe not by Catholic standards within Catholic walls, but certainly in light of what really didn’t take place within Apostolicae Curae.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Thank you for the answer. What about apostolic succession? What do Anglicans have to say on that?

Anglicans absolutely do have Apostolic Succession. This will be vehimately denied by Catholics by Apostolicae Curae. But this is very much debateable.

 

[GKC]

Anglicans for the majority do not believe in Transubstantiation (the physical change of bread and wine into body and blood). We believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine during communion and that it spiritually IS his body and blood. We know that it is physically still bread and wine and not actually physical flesh and blood because if tested, it would not contain DNA.

Which would not show an understanding of what transubstantiation means.

In addition, the Real Presence is the concept of the change to the very Body and Blood. Transubstantiation is an explanation of how this happens.

Lots of Anglicans affirm the Real Presence. Some also affirm transubstantiation. But neither is de fide..

Lots of variations in Anglicans.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Victorious]

Anglicans absolutely do have Apostolic Succession. This will be vehimately denied by Catholics by Apostolicae Curae. But this is very much debateable.

Actually, Leo XIII would have liked for Anglicans to have valid orders, as this would have made it easier to heal the schism. But the truth is the truth.

 

[GKC]

I think your point could have been made simply by pushing a button instead of taking a baseball bat and bashing in the wall to make certain that it was depressed. Also, your position is certainly debateable, maybe not by Catholic standards within Catholic walls, but certainly in light of what really didn’t take place within Apostolicae Curae.

What did or didn’t take place, with respect to Apostolicae Cuare, (and as we know, that’s a hobby of mine) is not the point. The point, for RCs, is that what was stated, that must be affirmed by them. And that is “Absolutely Null And Utterly Void”.

The point for Anglicans is that we don’t have to affirm that. Things work out that way.

GKC

 

[Cranmer2010]

What did or didn’t take place, with respect to Apostolicae Cuare, (and as we know, that’s a hobby of mine) is not the point. The point, for RCs, is that what was stated, that must be affirmed by them. And that is “Absolutely Null And Utterly Void”.

The point for Anglicans is that we don’t have to affirm that. Things work out that way.

GKC

I thought that’s what I said.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Which would not show an understanding of what transubstantiation means.

In addition, the Real Presence is the concept of the change to the very Body and Blood. Transubstantiation is an explanation of how this happens.

Lots of Anglicans affirm the Real Presence. Some also affirm transubstantiation. But neither is de fide..

Lots of variations in Anglicans.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

That’s a fair statement.

 

[GKC]

Actually, Leo XIII would have liked for Anglicans to have valid orders, as this would have made it easier to heal the schism. But the truth is the truth.

Historically, this is not accurate. But the story is a complex one. For the history of what happened, and who did what to whom, and why, (Leo played a very minor part, up to the point of the Cardinals’ meeting on Thursday, 16 July, 1896. The best account by far is Fr. J. J. Hughes’ book, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID.

GKC

 

[GKC]

That’s a fair statement.

I thank you.

GKC

 

[Nine_Two]

There has?

To clarify, bishops in the Anglican communion have always been appointed by other bishops laying on hands, which is the ancient tradition. Through this Anglicans claim Apostolic Succession.

The question is whether this is enough. I’ve never quite understood why the Catholic Church considers Anglicans to lack Apostolic succession while they consider other non-Catholic groups to have it.

But I do repeat my question, if you’re looking at the Anglican Church, why do you care what the Catholic Church says?

 

[GKC]

To clarify, bishops in the Anglican communion have always been appointed by other bishops laying on hands, which is the ancient tradition. Through this Anglicans claim Apostolic Succession.

The question is whether this is enough. I’ve never quite understood why the Catholic Church considers Anglicans to lack Apostolic succession while they consider other non-Catholic groups to have it.

But I do repeat my question, if you’re looking at the Anglican Church, why do you care what the Catholic Church says?

The official statement of why the RCC does not consider the Anglican Church to have valid orders may be found in Leo XIII’s Bull, Apostolicae Cuare/1896. The process that led to the Bull is complex, and the history it itself relates is, too. In brief, the logic expressed involves two of the four factors of a valid sacramental act: form and intent. According to the Bull, the form used in consecrating bishops/ordaining priests, as found in the Edwardine Ordinal used by Anglicans, was defective. This was combined with a presumed invalid intent (a point the Bull does not make clear) in the consecrator’s of Archbishop Parker in 1559. The interrelated invalid form/invalid intent (as was stated) broke the Apostolic succession, Parker being something of a bottleneck in Anglican episcopacy. After losing Apostolic succession, Anglican bishops were unable to validly consecrate/ordain, and hence Anglican orders were, as the Bull states, null and void.

This is a RCC teaching, that RCs must affirm. It is not so, for Anglicans.

GKC

 

[Nine_Two]

The official statement of why the RCC does not consider the Anglican Church to have valid orders may be found in Leo XIII’s Bull, Apostolicae Cuare/1896. The process that led to the Bull is complex, and the history it itself relates is, too. In brief, the logic expressed involves two of the four factors of a valid sacramental act: form and intent. According to the Bull, the form used in consecrating bishops/ordaining priests, as found in the Edwardine Ordinal used by Anglicans, was defective. This was combined with a presumed invalid intent (a point the Bull does not make clear) in the consecrator’s of Archbishop Parker in 1559. The interrelated invalid form/invalid intent (as was stated) broke the Apostolic succession, Parker being something of a bottleneck in Anglican episcopacy. After losing Apostolic succession, Anglican bishops were unable to validly consecrate/ordain, and hence Anglican orders were, as the Bull states, null and void.

This is a RCC teaching, that RCs must affirm. It is not so, for Anglicans.

GKC

But what about groups like the Polish National Church? Don’t they have valid orders? Wouldn’t they have the same issues with intent? Even if the form is identical.