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

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

ReallyNice:

I see two problems - The Edwardine Ordinal of 1551 was declared Invalid by reason of Defect in form (in this case, the Substantial Reasoning & Intent behind the words and actions in the Ordinal - What made the Ordinal what it was). Although the BCP Ordinal of 1662 was probably Valid, the Damage (No Valid Bishops to act as Consecrators) was already done. Although many anglican Bishops received Valid Orders as a Result of the “Dutch Touch” from WW 1 to 1975, PECUSA and then the rest pf the Anglican Communion worldwide invaliated their own Orders by trying to ordain women priests & women Bishops from 1975 to the present day.
You see, there are 3 things necessary for Valid Orders -

1. Valid Matter - a male who can act “in persona Christi” and Stand in the Place of Christ, the Bridegroom, during the Consecration;
2. The Intent to do what the Church does - Create a Priest who will offer Sacrifice and forgive Sins in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ; and.
3. A Valid Ordinal which properly commissions Priests to Offer Sacrifice to God the Father for the Church and the world in the name of Jesus, and a Bishops to serve as Successors to the Apostles and as Shepherds of Souls…

It seems that the Continuing Anglicans and those Anglicans being reunited with the Catholic Church have Valid Orders - They have not endangered their Orders by ordaining women priests or by trying to not do what the Catholic Church does, and they have used an Ordinal which is effectively an English translation of the pre-Vat. 2 Catholic Ordinal. The Catholic Church also has many Churches in union with it (i.e., Maronite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Greek Catholics, etc. - 22 different Churches in Union with the Pope), some with Divine Liturgies which date from before the 3rd Century…

In Him, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

The deliberate construction of a form, at that time, by those people (remember how much you get agitated about Bucer?) and the use of such a form, so constructed, was taken as positive intent not to do what the Church does: consecrate a sacrificing priesthood. It is likely that the logic would not have been applicable, had the Pontificale been used, or even if one of the older, pre-existing forms that also have that “defect” been used, such as the Ordinal of St. Hippolytus, or the formulary of St.Serapion. Clark addresses this idea, and makes the argument I am setting forth here. If one looks at the older rites and looks at them in their historical context, one has no doubt that they did not intend to specifically exclude the sacrificial priesthood. The context of the times provides a contextual determinatio ex adiunctus. The earlier rites have a context which permits a determination of a valid intent, in their use. The Edwardine Ordinal, does not (think Cranmer, Melancthon, Bucer). To use such a construct in that context provides a contextual determination of the intent of the sacramental action; specifically not to do what the Church does.

Intent, in the sacramental action, is simple to attribute, impossible to determine. So, as long as form, matter, etc, are valid, reflect what the Church does, the Church assumes the intent is the same. Otherwise, one would never know if one had received a validly confected Eucharist. But if the form is not valid, and its use suggests a contextual look inside the intent, then the intent can be determined to be invalid.

Yes, Saepius Officio used that line of defense. It doesn’t meet the objection fully.

GKC

GKC -

Recall that when Pope Leo used the term “Form” he didn’t use it as we might use it… He meant the entire MINDSET that produced the Edwardine Ordinal - The “Black Rubrics”, the 29 Articles of Religion, The Denial by the Clergy of Transubstantiation - the Substantial Change of the Nature of the the Bread and Wine into Christ’s Body and Blood which was described by King Henry VIII himself in his Defense of the 7 Sacraments. While the Early Church may not have used he term Transubstantiation, their actions in risking their lives to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, and in refusing to allow the Body of our Lord to fall into unconsecrated hands or onto the ground, indicates that they believed in it. This is the exact opposite the actions of Henry’s thugs (and of many Puritans) who regularly broke into churches, tore the Tabernacle from the walls where our Lord himself was in repose, and threw Him on the ground in acts of sacrilege.

GKC, we both know that the Early Church passed most of its instructions to all believers in the form of Mystagogia, or teaching about the Mysteries, which almost all Baptized Christians received in the years after Baptism… They ALL knew what the Bishop & his priests were doing at the Altar - They all knew what they were participating in, and they all knew they were risking death to do it and to receive “The Medicine of Immortality”.

Pope Leo knew none of these was the case with the Edwardine Ordinal. so it he had to judge the Ordinal not just on the words, but on the actions and the stated Intent of those who produced it, along with the opinions about the Eucharist, Ecclesiology and Priestly Orders which Cramner & those who produced the Ordinal & their closest friends & colleagues expressed…

In a way, Pope Leo was much more subtle on this issue than we give him credit for. Because with the way he wrote his Papal Bull, there was a way for the Rupture in Anglican Orders to be undone… I am in the camp that believes the Anglican Communion had largely repaired the Rupture when PECUSA started Ordaining women Priests & Bishops & rendering the Orders of all Churches in Union of PECUSA Null and Void as soon as they recognized PECUSA Orders…
Good MANE,
Your Brother & Servant, Michael

 

[GKC]

GKC -

Recall that when Pope Leo used the term “Form” he didn’t use it as we might use it… He meant the entire MINDSET that produced the Edwardine Ordinal - The “Black Rubrics”, the 29 Articles of Religion, The Denial by the Clergy of Transubstantiation - the Substantial Change of the Nature of the the Bread and Wine into Christ’s Body and Blood which was described by King Henry VIII himself in his Defense of the 7 Sacraments. While the Early Church may not have used he term Transubstantiation, their actions in risking their lives to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, and in refusing to allow the Body of our Lord to fall into unconsecrated hands or onto the ground, indicates that they believed in it. This is the exact opposite the actions of Henry’s thugs (and of many Puritans) who regularly broke into churches, tore the Tabernacle from the walls where our Lord himself was in repose, and threw Him on the ground in acts of sacrilege.

GKC, we both know that the Early Church passed most of its instructions to all believers in the form of Mystagogia, or teaching about the Mysteries, which almost all Baptized Christians received in the years after Baptism… They ALL knew what the Bishop & his priests were doing at the Altar - They all knew what they were participating in, and they all knew they were risking death to do it and to receive “The Medicine of Immortality”.

Pope Leo knew none of these was the case with the Edwardine Ordinal. so it he had to judge the Ordinal not just on the words, but on the actions and the stated Intent of those who produced it, along with the opinions about the Eucharist, Ecclesiology and Priestly Orders which Cramner & those who produced the Ordinal & their closest friends & colleagues expressed…

In a way, Pope Leo was much more subtle on this issue than we give him credit for. Because with the way he wrote his Papal Bull, there was a way for the Rupture in Anglican Orders to be undone… I am in the camp that believes the Anglican Communion had largely repaired the Rupture when PECUSA started Ordaining women Priests & Bishops & rendering the Orders of all Churches in Union of PECUSA Null and Void as soon as they recognized PECUSA Orders…
Good MANE,
Your Brother & Servant, Michael

This sort of suggests a couple of things. As that I don’t understand the use of “form” (defectus formae) in the sacramental sense, or that I’m not aware of the concept of the nativa indoles ac spiritus of the Ordinal, or of what was presumed, via a resort to determinatio ex adiunctis, to be the intent of the authors of the form, which rendered the word themselves, capable of the RC interpretation, to be otherwise, in the judgment of the Bull, and of the inter-relationship of these factors, all of which must be considered together. I sorry that I’ve given such an erroneous impression. I’ve certainly tried, over the years, to give a different one. Makes me stop and think.

On a couple of the other points, I think the “29” is a typo, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum attributed to Henry, was of unknown authorship, though Hank certainly contributed, likely the first 1 or 2 chapters, it’s unlikely that any thugs doing such things were doing them under Henry, given the Six Articles, and what Leo knew with respect to the Ordinal was a result of what the commission concluded and presented to the Cardinals and him, Thursday 16 July, 1896, in a 2 1/2 hour meeting. Leo, though intrigued with the English, was not particularly knowledgeable of them. And on the concept of intent, I do, again, suggest a reading of Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the best treatment of what was assumed to be going on, that I know of, from a RC viewpoint.

And I am uncertain, given the language that concludes the Bull, how one would reach the conclusion that there is a way for the rupture to be undone, short of absolute ordination of Anglican priests, after submission. Subtlety is not the word that comes to mind, first. Not much wiggle room there, and the two known sub conditione ordinations seem to be to be skirting the conclusion of the judgment.

But mostly I regret my apparent failure to communicate. Makes the process seem futile.

GKC

 

[GKC]

ReallyNice:

I see two problems - The Edwardine Ordinal of 1551 was declared Invalid by reason of Defect in form (in this case, the Substantial Reasoning & Intent behind the words and actions in the Ordinal - What made the Ordinal what it was). Although the BCP Ordinal of 1662 was probably Valid, the Damage (No Valid Bishops to act as Consecrators) was already done. Although many anglican Bishops received Valid Orders as a Result of the “Dutch Touch” from WW 1 to 1975, PECUSA and then the rest pf the Anglican Communion worldwide invaliated their own Orders by trying to ordain women priests & women Bishops from 1975 to the present day.
You see, there are 3 things necessary for Valid Orders -

1. Valid Matter - a male who can act “in persona Christi” and Stand in the Place of Christ, the Bridegroom, during the Consecration;
2. The Intent to do what the Church does - Create a Priest who will offer Sacrifice and forgive Sins in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ; and.
3. A Valid Ordinal which properly commissions Priests to Offer Sacrifice to God the Father for the Church and the world in the name of Jesus, and a Bishops to serve as Successors to the Apostles and as Shepherds of Souls…

It seems that the Continuing Anglicans and those Anglicans being reunited with the Catholic Church have Valid Orders - They have not endangered their Orders by ordaining women priests or by trying to not do what the Catholic Church does, and they have used an Ordinal which is effectively an English translation of the pre-Vat. 2 Catholic Ordinal. The Catholic Church also has many Churches in union with it (i.e., Maronite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Greek Catholics, etc. - 22 different Churches in Union with the Pope), some with Divine Liturgies which date from before the 3rd Century…

In Him, Michael

There is a fourth requirement for a valid sacrament (that is, for the orders to be validlly transmitted: a valid minister.

Trying to ordain a woman to Holy Orders would not invalidate anyone’s orders, themselves. It would result in an invalid sacrament. A validly ordained bishop (for example) retains valid orders even if heretical. See Ott, p. 458.

The ordinal used most in of Anglicanism is based on that same 1662 form as printed in that Book of Common Prayer. It is not a translation of the Pontificale Romanum as was used from 1596 to 1968, though it certainly is closer to it than the revised *Pontificale Romanum * (1968). In fact, a comparison of the 3 forms is very instructive.

GKC

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hi Johnny. I appreciate the post. I don’t think the various strains of Anglicanism can be considered catholic from a Roman or Orthodox point of view ever even if they have more incense than the Temple of Karnak. The reason being they came from the same sour Protestant source in the 16th century and went hundreds of years as a protestant institution. What is Catholic? I think we need to come to a common definition of the term. When you say the more conservative stripes of Anglicanism have not broken off too far, what do you mean? Too far from what? My observation is that ACNA “conservative” Anglicans are mostly differentiated from Episcopalians because they are hostile to gay “marriage” and are anti-abortion (both laudable traits mind you!) Apart from that they permit divorce and remarriage, are very tolerant of the heresy of women’s ordination, and they’re drifting toward the TEC direction. Continuing Anglicans, like GKC’s church, they’re closer to a Catholic mode of worship and yet come from the same roots as the others.

I was speaking more from perspective of worship. Anglican Christianity is very sacramental, at in the high church and liturgical traditions. I have not been part of low church/evangelical Anglicanism, so I cannot speak there. From being part of various churches and attending services-I have been a part of Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal and Catholic Churches, and now Anglican, I can say that Anglicans and Lutherans maintain the greatest amount of pre-reformation tradition in their worship among any Protestants.

Of course, I know that is a seperate issue of the validity of Anglican orders. As for all else that is being discussed, the Orthodox have a differing position from the RCC on divorce and remarriage. I do think that divorce is an evil that needs to be stopped, but that does that have to do with Anglican orders? Women’s ordination is probably more germaine to the topic, but its not some great moral evil. There are many great people I know what support women’s ordination, but they do not come from traditions that have a priesthood.

I guess my point of my rant (yes that is what it was LOL) is that any Christian institution is not perfect. Some claim to be in their teachings, but they are not. Catholicism is a wonderful institution, and is a great source of Christian tradition, but its flawed. It almost sounded to me like you were speaking of certain things, such as women’s ordination, like it was some kind of moral evil, which made Anglican orders suspect. My point is that the RCC hierarchy is not free of great moral evil-I guess that was my point about the pedophilia, and has ordained homosexuals, though not openly gay, to the priesthood for years.

I personally feel closer to Orthodoxy, but cannot get past the infallible church position it holds. Anglican Christianity does have its flaws. Not one can honestly say it does not. I currently attend an Episocpal Church, and it is a great community. Its very grounded and I do not hear alot of endorsement of the liberal stuff spewed out of the leadership.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with mostly everything you said here. I agree that no church is perfect; that’s for sure! The reason I mentioned women’s ordination, gay ‘marriage,’ divorce/remarriage and the rest of that stuff is because it’s what much (not all!) of the Anglican Communion is either moving toward or already endorses. The Global South African conservative Anglicans love to brag about how traditional and conservative they are as they judge the American Church, etc. and yet they (the Africans) by and large ordain women. This is a terrible departure from tradition and the sacramental life. It’s sinful and absurd and a further impediment toward reunion with Rome and the East. You will hear plenty of anti-gay rants and anti-abortion talk in ACNA but what about divorce and what about W.O.?

My point in bringing these things up is not to question the authenticity of orders but rather to point out how churches that departed from Rome like Anglicans, the Old Catholics, etc. all have gone down a liberal path to some degree and the ones that don’t, like continuing Anglicans, live in a small microcosm. It’s just an observation. Departing from Orthodoxy or Catholicism seems to lend itself well to liberal, heterodox thinking. The ELCA Lutherans and even some LCMS are awfully liberal or on their way to being so.

I was speaking more from perspective of worship. Anglican Christianity is very sacramental, at in the high church and liturgical traditions. I have not been part of low church/evangelical Anglicanism, so I cannot speak there. From being part of various churches and attending services-I have been a part of Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal and Catholic Churches, and now Anglican, I can say that Anglicans and Lutherans maintain the greatest amount of pre-reformation tradition in their worship among any Protestants.

Of course, I know that is a seperate issue of the validity of Anglican orders. As for all else that is being discussed, the Orthodox have a differing position from the RCC on divorce and remarriage. I do think that divorce is an evil that needs to be stopped, but that does that have to do with Anglican orders? Women’s ordination is probably more germaine to the topic, but its not some great moral evil. There are many great people I know what support women’s ordination, but they do not come from traditions that have a priesthood.

I guess my point of my rant (yes that is what it was LOL) is that any Christian institution is not perfect. Some claim to be in their teachings, but they are not. Catholicism is a wonderful institution, and is a great source of Christian tradition, but its flawed. It almost sounded to me like you were speaking of certain things, such as women’s ordination, like it was some kind of moral evil, which made Anglican orders suspect. My point is that the RCC hierarchy is not free of great moral evil-I guess that was my point about the pedophilia, and has ordained homosexuals, though not openly gay, to the priesthood for years.

I personally feel closer to Orthodoxy, but cannot get past the infallible church position it holds. Anglican Christianity does have its flaws. Not one can honestly say it does not. I currently attend an Episocpal Church, and it is a great community. Its very grounded and I do not hear alot of endorsement of the liberal stuff spewed out of the leadership.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your daughter has rubbed off too much on you. What a waste to be an Anglican and be this in love with Latin! You’re a Roman Catholic in cognito! LOL

This sort of suggests a couple of things. As that I don’t understand the use of “form” (defectus formae) in the sacramental sense, or that I’m not aware of the concept of the nativa indoles ac spiritus of the Ordinal, or of what was presumed, via a resort to determinatio ex adiunctis, to be the intent of the authors of the form, which rendered the word themselves, capable of the RC interpretation, to be otherwise, in the judgment of the Bull, and of the inter-relationship of these factors, all of which must be considered together. I sorry that I’ve given such an erroneous impression. I’ve certainly tried, over the years, to give a different one. Makes me stop and think.

On a couple of the other points, I think the “29” is a typo, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum attributed to Henry, was of unknown authorship, though Hank certainly contributed, likely the first 1 or 2 chapters, it’s unlikely that any thugs doing such things were doing them under Henry, given the Six Articles, and what Leo knew with respect to the Ordinal was a result of what the commission concluded and presented to the Cardinals and him, Thursday 16 July, 1896, in a 2 1/2 hour meeting. Leo, though intrigued with the English, was not particularly knowledgeable of them. And on the concept of intent, I do, again, suggest a reading of Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the best treatment of what was assumed to be going on, that I know of, from a RC viewpoint.

And I am uncertain, given the language that concludes the Bull, how one would reach the conclusion that there is a way for the rupture to be undone, short of absolute ordination of Anglican priests, after submission. Subtlety is not the word that comes to mind, first. Not much wiggle room there, and the two known ]sub conditione

ordinations seem to be to be skirting the conclusion of the judgment.

But mostly I regret my apparent failure to communicate. Makes the process seem futile.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Your daughter has rubbed off too much on you. What a waste to be an Anglican and be this in love with Latin! You’re a Roman Catholic in cognito! LOL

In pectore, forsan.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What’s the Latin for “huh?”

In pectore, forsan.

GKC

 

[GKC]

what’s the latin for “huh?”

“?”

gkc

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your wife should get a free indulgence for putting up with you if you’re this snarky and smarty pants to her!

“?”

gkc

 

[GKC]

Your wife should get a free indulgence for putting up with you if you’re this snarky and smarty pants to her!

For 42 years.

And she collects books.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Is she an anglophile and theology and history buff like her hubby? My wife is not into reading unless it’s biology, microbiology, physiology or something nurse-related that she LOVES. For her church is simple. She likes the folks at St. Paul’s, likes the liturgy better, likes the fellowship, and comes out feeling closer to God. So for Kate, it’s easy—go Anglican. I’m the one who struggles with these issues so much! She’s simpler, and sometimes I think the simpler the better. My mom and dad got married in 1972. So they’re in your league marriage-wise with regard to longetivity. Baby-boomers. I’m so “lucky” to be with Generation X. Yipee LOL

For 42 years.

And she collects books.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Is she an anglophile and theology and history buff like her hubby? My wife is not into reading unless it’s biology, microbiology, physiology or something nurse-related that she LOVES. For her church is simple. She likes the folks at St. Paul’s, likes the liturgy better, likes the fellowship, and comes out feeling closer to God. So for Kate, it’s easy—go Anglican. I’m the one who struggles with these issues so much! She’s simpler, and sometimes I think the simpler the better. My mom and dad got married in 1972. So they’re in your league marriage-wise with regard to longetivity. Baby-boomers. I’m so “lucky” to be with Generation X. Yipee LOL

She is something of an Anglophile, not overly so. She was my authority on most of the European Royal Houses. Her current collecting is Middle East, esp. as impacted by the West, historically. Winston Churchill, some aspects of WWI and WWII, castles, fortifications, and large holes in the ground, like the Grand Canyon. She collects medieval mysteries, and some selected adventure and science fiction. Many of these, like my parallels, tending to be signed.

But in all things,her holdings are comparatively modest. Comparatively.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

Your wife should get a free indulgence for putting up with you if you’re this snarky and smarty pants to her!

For 42 years.

And she collects books.

GKC

Is she an anglophile and theology and history buff like her hubby? My wife is not into reading unless it’s biology, microbiology, physiology or something nurse-related that she LOVES. For her church is simple. She likes the folks at St. Paul’s, likes the liturgy better, likes the fellowship, and comes out feeling closer to God. So for Kate, it’s easy—go Anglican. I’m the one who struggles with these issues so much! She’s simpler, and sometimes I think the simpler the better. My mom and dad got married in 1972. So they’re in your league marriage-wise with regard to longetivity. Baby-boomers. I’m so “lucky” to be with Generation X. Yipee LOL

She is something of an Anglophile, not overly so. She was my authority on most of the European Royal Houses. Her current collecting is Middle East, esp. as impacted by the West, historically. Winston Churchill, some aspects of WWI and WWII, castles, fortifications, and large holes in the ground, like the Grand Canyon. She collects medieval mysteries, and some selected adventure and science fiction. Many of these, like my parallels, tending to be signed.

But in all things,her holdings are comparatively modest. Comparatively.

GKC

At the end of a difficult day, the two of you can always make me laugh.

Anna

 

[GKC]

At the end of a difficult day, the two of you can always make me laugh.

Anna

Thank you, ma’am. We do try.

GKC

 

[ImReallyNice]

To get the bottom of it, I was just wondering if the bishops of the CofE traced back to the apostles and if the host really does change.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thank you, ma’am. We do try.

GKC

I don’t think either of you really have to try.

I needed something lighthearted. I’m getting irritated on another thread: How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct? Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6966239&posted=1#post6966239

 

[ImReallyNice]

I enrolled in a class at the local cathedral called Anglicanism 101…and it’s talking a lot about church history.

 

[GKC]

To get the bottom of it, I was just wondering if the bishops of the CofE traced back to the apostles and if the host really does change.

The bishops of the CoE traced back to the apostles in the same sense that the bishops of the RCC did. Before around 1550 or so, they were the same bishops. After that, the question becomes did the CoE keep the apostolic succession. Anglicans say yes. But before that, it’s the same bishops, back to the apostles.

As to whether the bread and wine change, depends on who you ask.

GKC