Apostolic Succession

[GKC]

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

I have often looked for a definitive statement from Rome, to that effect, with no success.

Would be pleased to see one.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

Something similar, yes. Lateral transfer is a horrible term for it, I just couldn’t come up with anything better.

I’m thinking it had to do with JPII… Google is just not cooperating or I’m not asking the right question…

I will talk to my Priest if I see him tomorrow. He was an Episcopal Priest before converting to Catholicism and becoming a Catholic Priest, he is married as well. And an awesome man of God too.

Cheers,

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

That’s me being sarcastic . A personality trend I struggle with.

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 ).

That is my understanding, but not based on AC only, I’m struggling on getting the documents where my understanding comes from. Like I told GKC, I might be more precise/or corrected if I get a chance to talk to my Priest tomorrow.

 

[GKC]

Something similar, yes. Lateral transfer is a horrible term for it, I just couldn’t come up with anything better.

I’m thinking it had to do with JPII… Google is just not cooperating or I’m not asking the right question…

I will talk to my Priest if I see him tomorrow. He was an Episcopal Priest before converting to Catholicism and becoming a Catholic Priest, he is married as well. And an awesome man of God too.

Cheers,

Are you thinking of the Pastoral Provision?

GKC

 

[GKC]

That’s me being sarcastic . A personality trend I struggle with.

That is my understanding, but not based on AC only, I’m struggling on getting the documents where my understanding comes from. Like I told GKC, I might be more precise/or corrected if I get a chance to talk to my Priest tomorrow.

I doubt strongly you will find anything supporting the idea that communion with Rome has anything to do with the judgement in Apostolicae Curae, valid sacramental intent, or possession of apostolic succession. It doesn’t work that way.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I doubt strongly you will find anything supporting the idea that communion with Rome has anything to do with the judgement in Apostolicae Curae, valid sacramental intent, or possession of apostolic succession. It doesn’t work that way.

GKC

Yes, the Pastoral Provision is one of the documents. Also another one about the Anglican Use in the Liturgy.

But I am probably confusing the terminology…

Thanks.

 

[GKC]

Yes, the Pastoral Provision is one of the documents. Also another one about the Anglican Use in the Liturgy.

But I am probably confusing the terminology…

Thanks.

You’re very welcome.

Recap:

Apostolicae Curae declared Anglican orders null and void for intertwined reasons of sacramental form and intent (technical stuff).

The Pastoral Provision, reacting to an increase of Anglicans in the US interested in Rome, following the Episcopal Church edging off the rails in the late 70s, made it easier for Anglican priests to become RC priests (inevitably by ordination absolute), by allowing married clergy, in what became known as the Anglican Use, with a liturgy based on the most recent Episcopal Prayer Book (mainly). Also made it easier for groups of Episcopalians to come in, and permitted diocesan bishops to organize parishes to use the Anglican Use liturgy (Book of Divine Worship).

By an evolutionary process, with lots of history in it, 30 years later came Anglicanorum Coetibus, establishing a personal Ordinariate to gather together Anglican Use parishes and such additional Anglicans who Rome had reason to expect might cross the river, roughly 5 years ago, in a diocesan like formation. This resulted in a more formalized and institutionalized Anglican Use structure within the RCC.

Lots of history covered in there. Bunch of details. Most not mentioned.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You’re very welcome.

Recap:

Apostolicae Curae declared Anglican orders null and void for intertwined reasons of sacramental form and intent (technical stuff).

The Pastoral Provision, reacting to an increase of Anglicans in the US interested in Rome, following the Episcopal Church edging off the rails in the late 70s, made it easier for Anglican priests to become RC priests (inevitably by ordination absolute), by allowing married clergy, in what became known as the Anglican Use, with a liturgy based on the most recent Episcopal Prayer Book (mainly). Also made it easier for groups of Episcopalians to come in, and permitted diocesan bishops to organize parishes to use the Anglican Use liturgy (Book of Divine Worship).

By an evolutionary process, with lots of history in it, 30 years later came Anglicanorum Coetibus, establishing a personal Ordinariate to gather together Anglican Use parishes and such additional Anglicans who Rome had reason to expect might cross the river, roughly 5 years ago, in a diocesan like formation. This resulted in a more formalized and institutionalized Anglican Use structure within the RCC.

Lots of history covered in there. Bunch of details. Most not mentioned.

GKC

Yes! That is one of the other documents. Thanks again.

 

[GKC]

Yes! That is one of the other documents. Thanks again.

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[commenter]

Between the “lateral transfer” of individuals, and “edging off the rails” of a denomination, this thread is already setting a mark for colorful language. I will keep reading, though I have nothing intelligent to add (a defect that has not stopped me from posting on other threads.)

 

[GKC]

Between the “lateral transfer” of individuals, and “edging off the rails” of a denomination, this thread is already setting a mark for colorful language. I will keep reading, though I have nothing intelligent to add (a defect that has not stopped me from posting on other threads.)

I was being restrained. I usually say a flaming train wreck.

GKC, chromatically expressive.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Between the “lateral transfer” of individuals, and “edging off the rails” of a denomination, this thread is already setting a mark for colorful language. I will keep reading, though I have nothing intelligent to add (a defect that has not stopped me from posting on other threads.)

There are times where funny trumps intelligence… This is one of those times

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I was being restrained. I usually say a flaming train wreck.

GKC, chromatically expressive.

Where is the line for that?

 

[GKC]

Where is the line for that?

Line for what?

GKC

 

[pablope]

Jun 28, '14, 10:21 am
cmodrmac cmodrmac is offline
Junior Member

Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 348
Religion: Episcopal .
Default Re: Apostolic Succession
“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 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

And I think because an Anglican ordinand makes on oath to the 39 articles, which are not compatible with Rome.

 

[GKC]

And I think because an Anglican ordinand makes on oath to the 39 articles, which are not compatible with Rome.

Not exactly. The Subscription Act of 1571, requiring assent to the Articles, while technically a sort of job requirement for a priest of the erastian CoE, is pretty much a dead article (so to speak). Otherwise, there would be no, and never would have been any, Anglo-Catholics in the CoE. And there are.

But no, the Articles have no role in the stated logic which underlies the RCC position on Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae. Form/intent. Nothing else.

GKC

 

[pablope]

Not exactly. The Subscription Act of 1571, requiring assent to the Articles, while technically a sort of job requirement for a priest of the erastian CoE, is pretty much a dead article (so to speak). Otherwise, there would be no, and never would have been any, Anglo-Catholics in the CoE. And there are.

But no, the Articles have no role in the stated logic which underlies the RCC position on Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae. Form/intent. Nothing else.

GKC

Thanks…and I would like your thoughts on this…since you are more well versed and well read, than anybody here I know, on this issue:

As you said, the AC states the orders and null and void based on form and intent. On the intent…isn’t it that the 39 articles go directly to the intent?

 

[GKC]

Thanks…and I would like your thoughts on this…since you are more well versed and well read, than anybody here I know, on this issue:

As you said, the AC states the orders and null and void based on form and intent. On the intent…isn’t it that the 39 articles go directly to the intent?

No. The intent relative to a valid sacrament is the sacramental intent, in the sacramental action. The required intent, in the action, is to do what the Church does (facere quod facit eccelsia), in that action.

The intent pertinent to the logic in Apostolicae Curae is not easy to determine, from the document itself. Clark, in ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION (a very good book to understand the RC position), considers 7 possible meanings of “intent” in the letter, settling on the intent of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, in 1559, as the only relevant one.

The Articles have nothing to do with the sacramental action, in the sense that
Apostolicae Curae was using, any more than the writing of a (supposedly) invalid form, in the Edwardine ordinal did; writing a liturgical rite is not itself a sacramental action. This is why I always refer to the intertwined issues of form and intent. Intent is, as AC points out, is an interior state, not directly observable. That is why if all other sacramental factors are valid and unexceptional, the intent is normally assumed to be valid also.

But if there is some other sacramental factor in the action which would permit or suggest the intent was not to do what the Church does, it can be used to permit a determinatio ex adiunctis, to allow a conclusion of an invalid sacramental intent. This was considered to be shown by the use of the Edwardine ordinal, with its supposedly invalid form. The invalidity of the form is determined not so much from its actual form, but from the circumstances in which it was constructed and used. But since that construction was not in itself a sacramental action, its use in the consecration of ++Parker was what was considered to reveal an invalid sacramental intent, by the use of a form in itself not truly exceptional (other forms having the same defect are considered by the RCC as capable of conveying valid orders). Hence they are intertwined.

Tricky.

GKC