Apostolic Succession

[Richard_I]

How does Episcopal authority of an Anglican differ from Roman Catholic authority.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The Catholic Church does not accept that the Anglican/Episcopal Church has valid Apostolic Succession. See Pope Leo XIII: Apostolicae Curae (1896)

 

[cmodrmac]

“The Catholic Church does not accept that the Anglican/Episcopal Church has valid Apostolic Succession. See Pope Leo XIII: Apostolicae Curae (1896”

this is the “because I said so response” -perfectly valid from the RC point of view

if one defines apostolic succession as the laying on of hands in an unbroken line -then the Anglicans have it

it is all in the definition

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“The Catholic Church does not accept that the Anglican/Episcopal Church has valid Apostolic Succession. See Pope Leo XIII: Apostolicae Curae (1896”

this is the “because I said so response” -perfectly valid from the RC point of view

if one defines apostolic succession as the laying on of hands in an unbroken line -then the Anglicans have it

it is all in the definition

You might have [matter] and [form]. But the [intent] breaks it as long as you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Picky_Picky]

You might have [matter] and [form]. But the [intent] breaks it as long as you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Is that the case? That’s not what Pope Leo argued. Does that apply in the East?

 

[GKC]

Is that the case? That’s not what Pope Leo argued. Does that apply in the East?

It is not the case, but it is a common error. The logic of Apostolicae Curae, as expressed in the letter, over Leo’s signature, in the words (primarily) of Monsignor Merry Raphael del Val, held that the Anglican apostolic succession was broken due to intertwined issues of sacramental form and sacramental intent (taken together). Technical details apply. But the idea of being in communion with Rome is not an issue, with respect to apostolic succession, in Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

 

[GKC]

“The Catholic Church does not accept that the Anglican/Episcopal Church has valid Apostolic Succession. See Pope Leo XIII: Apostolicae Curae (1896”

this is the “because I said so response” -perfectly valid from the RC point of view

if one defines apostolic succession as the laying on of hands in an unbroken line -then the Anglicans have it

it is all in the definition

It is in the definition, of what constitutes a validly confected sacrament (of orders, in this case, as to subject, minister, form, matter, and intent.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

It is not the case, but it is a common error. The logic of Apostolicae Curae, as expressed in the letter, over Leo’s signature, in the words (primarily) of Monsignor Merry Raphael del Val, held that the Anglican apostolic succession was broken due to intertwined issues of sacramental form and sacramental intent (taken together). Technical details apply. But the idea of being in communion with Rome is not an issue, with respect to apostolic succession, in Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

Would you care to employ me to lodge the first denial in the case of mistaken claims about Apostolicae Curae, awaiting your contribution in proper English? I am very cheap, you know.

 

[GKC]

Would you care to employ me to lodge the first denial in the case of mistaken claims about Apostolcae Curae, awaiting your contribution in proper English? I am very cheap, you know.

Is the charge by the post, or by the word?

My contribution will inevitably follow.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

The Penny Post.

 

[GKC]

The Penny Post.

Sounds affordable.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

You might have [matter] and [form]. But the [intent] breaks it as long as you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Hi Isaiah45_9. I would recommend explicitly stating that this is your own personal view (not official Catjolic position).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Isaiah45_9. I would recommend explicitly stating that this is your own personal view (not official Catjolic position).

Indeed, all my posts are (for the most part) my personal opinion, unless I quote directly from the source. As it normally is my practice. Not only that, but I am not a Catholic position official nor do I claim to represent such a title.

But thanks for the advice and joining the kicking party. I do know how to fight while on the ground, however .

From Apostolicae Curae:

*33. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament. *

I was wrong. It’s not only the [intent] that has problems but the [form] as well.

The very same document also states:

36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

I know of no Catholic [Official] document that says otherwise.

Perhaps someone can provide a reference.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is that the case? That’s not what Pope Leo argued. Does that apply in the East?

I was wrong.

It is my personal opinion that the Orders in the East are valid. But perhaps Peter J can correct me if I’m wrong

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Isaiah45_9. I would recommend explicitly stating that this is your own personal view (not official Catjolic position).

This is a subject I am interested in. Could you please link a source for the Official Catholic position?

Thanks in advance.

 

[GKC]

Indeed, all my posts are (for the most part) my personal opinion, unless I quote directly from the source. As it normally is my practice. Not only that, but I am not a Catholic position official nor do I claim to represent such a title.

But thanks for the advice and joining the kicking party. I do know how to fight while on the ground, however .

From Apostolicae Curae:

I was wrong. It’s not only the [intent] that has problems but the [form] as well.

The very same document also states:

I know of no Catholic [Official] document that says otherwise.

Perhaps someone can provide a reference.

If you mean an official RC document that says otherwise, with respect to Anglican orders, *Apostolicae Curae * is the official position. There is none other. But the point of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome ( as you suggested) has nothing to do with validity of orders or apostolic succession. Which is why certain Old Catholics, the PNCC, and the Orthodox are considered by Rome to possess apostolic succession.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you mean an official RC document that says otherwise, with respect to Anglican orders, *Apostolicae Curae * is the official position. There is none other. But the point of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome ( as you suggested) has nothing to do with validity of orders or apostolic succession. Which is why certain Old Catholics, the PNCC, and the Orthodox are considered by Rome to possess apostolic succession.

GKC

Thanks.

I’ve been going through my bookmarks and some material. But I remember reading the transition of Anglican/Episcopal Pastors into the Catholic Priesthood. Almost a “lateral transfer” for lack of a better word and having to do with succession.

I just can’t find it… Or maybe I remember wrong…

That being my personal mind, of course

 

[GKC]

Thanks.

I’ve been going through my bookmarks and some material. But I remember reading the transition of Anglican/Episcopal Pastors into the Catholic Priesthood. Almost a “lateral transfer” for lack of a better word and having to do with succession.

I just can’t find it… Or maybe I remember wrong…

That being my personal mind, of course

You’re very welcome.

Not sure what you might be referring to about transition of Anglican pastors (or priests, as many of us would say) into the Catholic priesthood, as a lateral transfer. With only two exceptions, since 1896, all Anglican priests who have become RC priests have been ordained absolutely, which is not what I would call a lateral transfer. Even the two who were ordained sub conditione could not be called such. No Anglican has been received in his orders, which sounds more like a lateral transfer.

Is this what you were referring to?

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Lutherans such as the Church of Sweden have also maintained apostolic succession and the Church of Rome has never called their orders invalid.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Isaiah45_9
You might have [matter] and [form]. But the [intent] breaks it as long as you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Hi Isaiah45_9. I would recommend explicitly stating that this is your own personal view (not official Catjolic position).

Indeed, all my posts are (for the most part) my personal opinion, unless I quote directly from the source. As it normally is my practice.

Cool.

But thanks for the advice …

You’re welcome. And thank you for listening to it.

and joining the kicking party.

Hmmm … I’m not so sure that’s something I want to do. Can you give me a bit more information about it first?

From Apostolicae Curae:

1. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

I was wrong. It’s not only the [intent] that has problems but the [form] as well.

The very same document also states:

1. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

That is, of course, what we Catholics believe, since it is what Apostolicae Curae said. But I’m not clear on how to get from there to your statement “But the [intent] breaks it as long as you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.” Perhaps you can help me with that part (preferably in a non-condescending way ).