Anglicans/ Episcopalians: Do you know where i can trace the apostolic line?
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
If you think I’m making the case for Apostolicae Curae, you are forgetting who I am. I’m making the Roman case for AC, as best I can.
Rome might have questioned the point, no matter what form was used, and where it came from. AC addressed two points: what had, historically, been the position of the RCC on the questions and was there any reason to change this. It then went on to address the logic behind the answers.
To your first question (dubium), yes.
To your second question, yes.
To your third question, AC states that the intent, as with the intent of any sacramental action, is hidden, is internal. So the only way to judge it is by some external indicator, a method of determining it by reference to something else. And that is, by reference to what form is used, or what matter is used. Since intent is not visible, in the sense matter and form are, considering the sacrament of the Eucharist, if one had to determine the intent of the sacramental minister, by reference only to what he was thinking, to determine the validity of the sacrament, you would never know. Therefore, if a valid minister, using the valid form on valid matter is confecting the sacrament, absent anything that allows a determination to the contrary (like trying to consecrate rice wine and rice cakes), or form, (like “Hey God, get down here”), the intent is taken to be to do what the Church does, and the intent is valid. But if there is use of an invalid form (like baptizing in the name of Odin, Zeus and Obama) or invalid matter, intent is taken to follow these invalid aspects and be in itself invalid.
What I am saying is that this is what Rome is saying. What I think myself is far more complicated and subtle and I’ve not even mentioned it.
You think you’re working at a disadvantage. I’m working on 4 bourbons and cokes.
GKC
Rome might have questioned the point, no matter what form was used, and where it came from. AC addressed two points: what had, historically, been the position of the RCC on the questions and was there any reason to change this. It then went on to address the logic behind the answers.
To your first question (dubium), yes.
To your second question, yes.
To your third question, AC states that the intent, as with the intent of any sacramental action, is hidden, is internal. So the only way to judge it is by some external indicator, a method of determining it by reference to something else. And that is, by reference to what form is used, or what matter is used. Since intent is not visible, in the sense matter and form are, considering the sacrament of the Eucharist, if one had to determine the intent of the sacramental minister, by reference only to what he was thinking, to determine the validity of the sacrament, you would never know. Therefore, if a valid minister, using the valid form on valid matter is confecting the sacrament, absent anything that allows a determination to the contrary (like trying to consecrate rice wine and rice cakes), or form, (like “Hey God, get down here”), the intent is taken to be to do what the Church does, and the intent is valid. But if there is use of an invalid form (like baptizing in the name of Odin, Zeus and Obama) or invalid matter, intent is taken to follow these invalid aspects and be in itself invalid.
What I am saying is that this is what Rome is saying. What I think myself is far more complicated and subtle and I’ve not even mentioned it.
You think you’re working at a disadvantage. I’m working on 4 bourbons and cokes.
GKC
**Ok, now I’m going to do my best to understand this bad-boy…
So you’re saying that the Catholic Church would never have questioned the intent of a group using the earlier ordinals because in those earlier days there was an implicit sacrificial character to the office of the priesthood anyway, it was understood as a given and didn’t need to be explicitly laid-out in an ordinal.
But in the time of “those people” Bucer and Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and company, there was an explicit sentiment by all that the priesthood was NOT sacrificial but more of a memorial function so the same level of trust or leniency with the verbage that one might have given the earlier ordinals in medievel times would not be granted to these guys because of their protestant teachings at the time. So the intent is anti-sacrificial and defective for its time due to the sentiment and teachings of the group involved at the time. Is that what you’re saying?
So is your thesis, if I understand you correctly, that intent is so difficult to ascertain from the consecrators and people of that age that you just assume that the intent is the same as the form/matter? So your thesis is that the Church of England did have a valid transmission of orders, absolutely, because to try to assume to know their intent would leave a Donatist slant to the ordinations? It would try to get into the heads of the consecrators and participants, something one could never due, and it leaves too much assumption to the intent because of the protestant leanings of the day? You’re saying that the consecrations were valid and disagreeing with the Pope…right?
Forgive my comprehension skills today. I’m working on 0.0001% of my brain LOL!
**
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
ImReallyNice,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.
Welcome to the forums! You started with one of the most complex questions, and one that has been debated for centuries. Aside from the Apostolic Succession issue is the issue of what the primacy of Peter actually means. Catholics will tell you straight up that Anglicans do not have “valid orders” and therefore do not have “valid” Sacraments. Some Anglicans say there was an infusion of “valid orders” into the Anglican Church at points in history.
I am currently reading (more like studying) “The Primacy of Peter,” which is written from the Eastern Orthodox point of view.
Episcopal Churches have a wide variation in beliefs from one Diocese to another, and even from one Parish to another. I’m attending a very conservative Episcopal Church, but will not move forward to Confirmation, because of the liberal swing in leadership. The Anglican Church has a rather “colorful” beginning, including a famous divorce.
There is a huge issue regarding whether the primacy of Peter is based on Peter’s confession, and if that confession must continue in a physical Apostolic line. It’s complicated.
I haven’t read enough to contribute or even argue the issues. I am working on reading books from Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican perspectives regarding the primacy of Peter and Apostolic Succession.
Guess I wasn’t any help at all.
Anna
G
GKC
Guest
“famous divorce”.
No. Decree of nullity.
Have I ever mentioned that Henry’s Great Matter, the system of impediments and dispensations in the 16th century, is a hobby of mine?
GKC
No. Decree of nullity.
Have I ever mentioned that Henry’s Great Matter, the system of impediments and dispensations in the 16th century, is a hobby of mine?
GKC
ImReallyNice,
Welcome to the forums. You started with one of the most complex questions, and one that has been debated for centuries. Aside from the Apostolic Succession issue is the issue of what the primacy of Peter actually means. Catholics will tell you straight up that Anglicans do not have “valid orders” and therefore do not have valid Sacraments. Some Some Anglicans say there was an infusion of “valid orders” into the Anglican Church at points in history.
I am currently reading (more like studying) “The Primacy of Peter,” which is written from the Eastern Orthodox pointen of view.
Episcopal Churches have a wide variation in beliefs from one Diocese to another, and even from one Parish to another. I’m attending a very conservative Episcopal Church, but will not move forward to Confirmation, because of the liberal swing in leadership. The Anglican Church has a rather “colorful” beginning, including a famous divorce.
In addition to the question you raised re Apostolic Succession, you must determine whether or not one needs “valid orders,” in order to have valid Sacraments (Catholics say you must.) There is a huge issue regarding whether the primacy of Peter is based on Peter’s confession, and if that confession must continue in a physical Apostolic line. It’s complicated.
I haven’t read enough to contribute or even argue the issues. I am working on reading books from Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican perspectives regarding the primacy of Peter and Apostolic Succession.
Guess I wasn’t any help at all.
Anna
G
GKC
Guest
It’s a hobby, at least.I can relate, I’ve spent much time studying subjects that I don’t agree with, and that ultimately don’t have much importance.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Yes. But there are a lot that are. Most never come up on here.GKC,
You responded before I could correct my post and remove the repetitions. I’m really tired.
Anyway, GKC, is there any topic that is not a hobby of yours?
Anna
GKC
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The first sentence had me truly chuckling! Give me a break! LOL…I never thought you were making the case for A.C., I figured you were doing a devil’s advocate to try and properly explain their opinion. I wanted to make sure that you weren’t in agreement with their methods, not necessarily their conclusions. Anyhoo…
Some considerations I have is the intent, yes. I think the Reformers were Calvinists, pure and simple. Cranmer’s posse was just plain Protestant. I am disturbed to see that Cranmer went from a transubstantiationist (is that even a word? LOL) to an “in and under” Lutheran type understanding to a Calvinist spiritual something or other and then finally an almost Zwinglian minimalist what’s-the-point Eucharist theology. And he wasn’t alone. The Protestant camp ran the show in those days, from my readings of history. And things like the Black Rubrics and the “hocus pocus” mockeries of hoc est corpus meum and the smashing of altars in exchange for cheesy wooden communion “tables” as well as the destruction of so much beauty, iconoclasm, you name it, all these considerations make me not a fan of Cranmer. I can see, at least, how Leo would gather an intent to morph the priesthood into more of a memorialist type approach to the anamnesis terminology rather than a sacrificial priesthood. It does taint their views and possibly the intent as well. So could Leo be right? Well, I suppose the intellectual acumen and inspiration of Pope Leo XIII probably is a touch higher than Jim and Scott’s LOL…but hey, who knows…
To your other point, I wouldn’t recommend baptism in the name of Odin or Thor. Get your head out of those Marvel comics! Your head is in the Wicker Man right now! 
As far as your statement “What I think myself is far more complicated and subtle and I’ve not even mentioned it,” I WISH YOU WOULD. One thing I always like about a GKC post is that they are usually very charitable, historical, calm, and not very opinionated. They’re more just looking at the facts BUT it would be nice to hear a little opinion and fire in the belly just let us know your thoughts post just here and there!
And please don’t tell me you were serious about your beverage choices. If so, we won’t be hearing many more GKC posts at that rate! Cardiac arrest time! Knock off the booze and soda, GKC!
Some considerations I have is the intent, yes. I think the Reformers were Calvinists, pure and simple. Cranmer’s posse was just plain Protestant. I am disturbed to see that Cranmer went from a transubstantiationist (is that even a word? LOL) to an “in and under” Lutheran type understanding to a Calvinist spiritual something or other and then finally an almost Zwinglian minimalist what’s-the-point Eucharist theology. And he wasn’t alone. The Protestant camp ran the show in those days, from my readings of history. And things like the Black Rubrics and the “hocus pocus” mockeries of hoc est corpus meum and the smashing of altars in exchange for cheesy wooden communion “tables” as well as the destruction of so much beauty, iconoclasm, you name it, all these considerations make me not a fan of Cranmer. I can see, at least, how Leo would gather an intent to morph the priesthood into more of a memorialist type approach to the anamnesis terminology rather than a sacrificial priesthood. It does taint their views and possibly the intent as well. So could Leo be right? Well, I suppose the intellectual acumen and inspiration of Pope Leo XIII probably is a touch higher than Jim and Scott’s LOL…but hey, who knows…
To your other point, I wouldn’t recommend baptism in the name of Odin or Thor. Get your head out of those Marvel comics!
Your head is in the Wicker Man right now! As far as your statement “What I think myself is far more complicated and subtle and I’ve not even mentioned it,” I WISH YOU WOULD. One thing I always like about a GKC post is that they are usually very charitable, historical, calm, and not very opinionated. They’re more just looking at the facts BUT it would be nice to hear a little opinion and fire in the belly just let us know your thoughts post just here and there!
And please don’t tell me you were serious about your beverage choices. If so, we won’t be hearing many more GKC posts at that rate! Cardiac arrest time!
Knock off the booze and soda, GKC!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Yes. The guy knows NOTHING about muscle cars, sports cars, doesn’t like Dune, doesn’t know jack q. squat about sports (especially baseball), and he hates most television, especially after 1975 or so. He’s very picky and he loves to correct people about things like “divorce” vs. “declaration of nullity” but for some reason, we all love him!
I get on here every single day and read “apostolicae curae is a hobby of mine” and “Anglicans are a motley crew” and “Anglicans are a diverse crowd” etc. If I didn’t see those daily quotes, I’d be lost!
I’m pretty sure GKC doesn’t like tofu, Pierce Brosnan, or studying hippie communes of the 1960’s as well. He might be into Hungarian Cabinet-making though!
I get on here every single day and read “apostolicae curae is a hobby of mine” and “Anglicans are a motley crew” and “Anglicans are a diverse crowd” etc. If I didn’t see those daily quotes, I’d be lost!
I’m pretty sure GKC doesn’t like tofu, Pierce Brosnan, or studying hippie communes of the 1960’s as well. He might be into Hungarian Cabinet-making though!
GKC,
Anyway, GKC, is there any topic that is not a hobby of yours?
Anna
G
GKC
Guest
This is mostly correct.Yes. The guy knows NOTHING about muscle cars, sports cars, doesn’t like Dune, doesn’t know jack q. squat about sports (especially baseball), and he hates most television, especially after 1975 or so. He’s very picky and he loves to correct people about things like “divorce” vs. “declaration of nullity” but for some reason, we all love him!
I get on here every single day and read “apostolicae curae is a hobby of mine” and “Anglicans are a motley crew” and “Anglicans are a diverse crowd” etc. If I didn’t see those daily quotes, I’d be lost!
I’m pretty sure GKC doesn’t like tofu, Pierce Brosnan, or studying hippie communes of the 1960’s as well. He might be into Hungarian Cabinet-making though!
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Yes. But remember, it doesn’t matter a hoot what Cranmer thought. The intent in question is the intent of the 4 consecrators of Parker. The intent is always in the sacramental action, and writing a Ordinal is not a sacramental action. The question is, is using a particular Ordinal in the sacrament a marker of intent.
As to what I think, it’s long and complicated and I will need to sober up. I’m going to go read a story written by a friend of mine, in the meanwhile.
GKC
As to what I think, it’s long and complicated and I will need to sober up. I’m going to go read a story written by a friend of mine, in the meanwhile.
GKC
The first sentence had me truly chuckling! Give me a break! LOL…I never thought you were making the case for A.C., I figured you were doing a devil’s advocate to try and properly explain their opinion. I wanted to make sure that you weren’t in agreement with their methods, not necessarily their conclusions. Anyhoo…
Some considerations I have is the intent, yes. I think the Reformers were Calvinists, pure and simple. Cranmer’s posse was just plain Protestant. I am disturbed to see that Cranmer went from a transubstantiationist (is that even a word? LOL) to an “in and under” Lutheran type understanding to a Calvinist spiritual something or other and then finally an almost Zwinglian minimalist what’s-the-point Eucharist theology. And he wasn’t alone. The Protestant camp ran the show in those days, from my readings of history. And things like the Black Rubrics and the “hocus pocus” mockeries of hoc est corpus meum and the smashing of altars in exchange for cheesy wooden communion “tables” as well as the destruction of so much beauty, iconoclasm, you name it, all these considerations make me not a fan of Cranmer. I can see, at least, how Leo would gather an intent to morph the priesthood into more of a memorialist type approach to the anamnesis terminology rather than a sacrificial priesthood. It does taint their views and possibly the intent as well. So could Leo be right? Well, I suppose the intellectual acumen and inspiration of Pope Leo XIII probably is a touch higher than Jim and Scott’s LOL…but hey, who knows…
To your other point, I wouldn’t recommend baptism in the name of Odin or Thor. Get your head out of those Marvel comics!
As far as your statement “What I think myself is far more complicated and subtle and I’ve not even mentioned it,” I WISH YOU WOULD. One thing I always like about a GKC post is that they are usually very charitable, historical, calm, and not very opinionated. They’re more just looking at the facts BUT it would be nice to hear a little opinion and fire in the belly just let us know your thoughts post just here and there!
And please don’t tell me you were serious about your beverage choices. If so, we won’t be hearing many more GKC posts at that rate! Cardiac arrest time!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I know one needn’t give a “hoot” about Cranmer LOL…and I know it’s the consecrators’ intents, but I am merely pointing out Cranmer and his cronies as a good sample of the sentiment of that era. Cranmer had a far-reaching influence as did his iconoclastic buddies. I’m simply pointing out the sentiment of the day as a possible influence and intent by the 4 consecrators, influenced by the contemporary views of a Cranmer type.
And I am looking forward to your “take” on it all, preferably when you’re not intoxicated, Jim. I like sober, lucid explanations. When you start to tie too many on you start using vocabulary like “hoot.” However, I prefer drunken “Hoot” Jim to the Latin sober one LOL…really, cut the Latin! LOL…what are you, an anglo-papist!? LOL
What induced you to get so shnockered with liquor tonight anyway? LOL…Is it Bill Buckley’s birthday today and you’re pouring some out on the carpet in memoriam?
And I am looking forward to your “take” on it all, preferably when you’re not intoxicated, Jim. I like sober, lucid explanations. When you start to tie too many on you start using vocabulary like “hoot.” However, I prefer drunken “Hoot” Jim to the Latin sober one LOL…really, cut the Latin! LOL…what are you, an anglo-papist!? LOL
What induced you to get so shnockered with liquor tonight anyway? LOL…Is it Bill Buckley’s birthday today and you’re pouring some out on the carpet in memoriam?
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Oh. . . . Guess everyone signed off for the night. Hello. Anyone??
Guess I’ll sign off too.
Guess I’ll sign off too.
B
benidict
Guest
hi Anna! im up! lol! of course im on the other side of the world. getting real tired of eating chicken too. hope all is well with youOh. . . . Guess everyone signed off for the night. Hello. Anyone??
Guess I’ll sign off too.
Peace :coolinoff: oh yes, and im going to stick my head in a snowbank first chance i get…lol! might take me a couple years yet.
S
Sam_777
Guest
You really live in Iraq?:flowers: hi Anna! im up! lol! of course im on the other side of the world. getting real tired of eating chicken too. hope all is well with you
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Hey Benidict,hi Anna! im up! lol! of course im on the other side of the world. getting real tired of eating chicken too. hope all is well with you
You must have signed on after I signed out. lol. Should I pray for snow?
I pray God’s peace and protection for you, Soldier Benedict,
Anna
P
Padrej
Guest
Yes. The guy knows NOTHING about muscle cars, sports cars, doesn’t like Dune, doesn’t know jack q. squat about sports (especially baseball), and he hates most television, especially after 1975 or so. He’s very picky and he loves to correct people about things like “divorce” vs. “declaration of nullity” but for some reason, we all love him!
I get on here every single day and read “apostolicae curae is a hobby of mine” and “Anglicans are a motley crew” and “Anglicans are a diverse crowd” etc. If I didn’t see those daily quotes, I’d be lost!
I’m pretty sure GKC doesn’t like tofu, Pierce Brosnan, or studying hippie communes of the 1960’s as well. He might be into Hungarian Cabinet-making though!
Maybe you should start a thread on the theology of baseball and cars. Lets not forget the Coke and Potato chip communion of the hippie movement. Do you think GKC would participate on a thread like this?
P
Padrej
Guest
Been praying for you! Don’t forget to duck at the right time.hi Anna! im up! lol! of course im on the other side of the world. getting real tired of eating chicken too. hope all is well with you
G
GKC
Guest
I’ve got that scheduled to be written on the Greek calends.Hey GKC,
When do we get to read your book on this subject?
GKC
- Status