as far as Anglican orders being valid or not...

[susanlo]

Here is his full quote: Remember he is writing to Christians, and he is not just talking about the Docetists, for he specifically says those who hold heterodox opinions, so in a way he is talking to all Christians through all the centuries, and what does he tell them to take note of, and why is he criticizing those who hold heterodox opinions? He criticizes them for specifically this: they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,

He is writing to the church at Smyrna where there were Docetists in the area. He is talking about this particular type of Gnostic heresy: “Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians].” and “For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body?” newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
He seems to be writing about this specific group through the letter. I find it hard to believe that for one section he shifted and didn’t talk about this heresy, but the heresy of denying transubstantiation - especially because as we have stated earlier in this post, no Christian was accused of being a heretic for denying the real presence for the first 1000 years. Did he for one brief section have a prophetic vision about a heresy that would come over a millennium later? But actually, those like Wycliffe who denied transubstantiation and later the Protestants who don’t believe in transubstantiation do not “abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer.” So it couldn’t be them either. Which Christians abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they deny transubstantiation? I am not aware of who this could be. I think it makes much more sense that those abstaining were the Gnostics who denied Jesus ever had a physical body and did not participate in communion.

part 2.And here is where the confusion comes in. The words symbol and figurative today, do not mean what it meant in the early Church, as attested to by two leading Protestant historians of the last century, notice that they both address specifically the points you brought up about Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Taken from this site: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num29.htm

First Kelly:

to be continued…

conclusion.

Now Stone:

So now we know from two leading Protestant scholars that the word figure in the early Church is not how we use figurative today, but more nearly to actual and distinctive nature. This now puts St. Augustine’s passage in a new light.

And this is easy to see that St. Augustine believes in the concept of transubstantiation, when he commands adoration of the Eucharist. Adoration is a form of worship. Unless St. Augustine believes the Eucharist has fully changed and become God, he would be commanding idolatry.

Perhaps the terms “symbol” and “figure” had different connotations at that time. I would think if the Greek word “symbol” or “figure” actually meant to transubstantiate, transform, or mutate then the translators should have used those words. But I imagine although the original cultural context was different, “symbol” and “figure” are the closest translations of these words.

 

[Duane1966]

He is writing to the church at Smyrna where there were Docetists in the area. He is talking about this particular type of Gnostic heresy: “Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians].” and “For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body?” newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
He seems to be writing about this specific group through the letter. I find it hard to believe that for one section he shifted and didn’t talk about this heresy, but the heresy of denying transubstantiation - especially because as we have stated earlier in this post, no Christian was accused of being a heretic for denying the real presence for the first 1000 years. Did he for one brief section have a prophetic vision about a heresy that would come over a millennium later? But actually, those like Wycliffe who denied transubstantiation and later the Protestants who don’t believe in transubstantiation do not “abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer.” So it couldn’t be them either. Which Christians abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they deny transubstantiation? I am not aware of who this could be. I think it makes much more sense that those abstaining were the Gnostics who denied Jesus ever had a physical body and did not participate in communion.

How would anyone know if someone is abstaining from prayer? There is only one way he could know this, and that is if the prayer he is talking about here is communal prayer, i.e. the Mass. Catholics have always viewed the Sacrifice of the Mass as the highest, most important prayer the Church has. He is criticizing them for two things. He criticizes them for skipping Mass. But why are they skipping Mass? Because they deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist!

I know several Protestants, and some fallen away Catholics, who say they can accept everything the Catholic Church teaches, except the doctrine of transubstantiation. If you ever listen to Catholic radio, several people, sometimes it is Catholics, have called in and said this is the doctrine they have the most problem with.

Obviously there were people who denied the concept, else why would St. Ignatius specifically warn the Smyrneans to take note of such people? Since some Christians did not believe Christ had a real body, and some believed that Christ was not divine, did that mean the Church accepted differing views?

Perhaps the terms “symbol” and “figure” had different connotations at that time. I would think if the Greek word “symbol” or “figure” actually meant to transubstantiate, transform, or mutate then the translators should have used those words.

It is probably too late to use the more exact meaning. Can you imagine the accusations that would be leveled of mistakes, or bias, at the translations from all points of the Christian spectrum? Look at all the websites that reject those letters of Ignatius as forgeries, because as Calvin put it, their contents are too Catholic to be genuine.

But I imagine although the original cultural context was different, “symbol” and “figure” are the closest translations of these words.

Not anymore. Kelly: "YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian’s vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of ‘to make PRESENT.’

Stone: "As regards the early Church it may be confidently stated that the notions suggested by words meaning ‘symbol’ would differ in important respects from those which like words would suggest to an ordinary Englishman or German of today. Dr. Harnack has stated a crucial difference with great clearness.

‘What we nowadays,’ he writes, 'understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which in some kind of way REALLY IS what it signifies…What we now call “symbol” is something wholly different from what was so called by the ancient Church.’ [HISTORY OF DOGMA, ii,144; iv,289]

 

[Contarini]

While I can find information regarding all the disagreements and the history of the Church of England, I cannot find information regarding the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the Anglican claim to apostolic succession. I suspect King Henry was involved in the “continuity”. Did bishops freely convert or were they coerced to ordain others against their will? Can anyone help?

GKC is the expert, but since he hasn’t weighed in yet:

No, Henry isn’t the problem. All the bishops under Henry had apostolic succession. And new bishops consecrated under Henry were valid too. The situation was very much like that of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church today: a national church separated from Rome for political reasons but still Catholic in doctrine and liturgy.

The break in continuity occurred under Henry’s son Edward, when a new liturgy, in English (the Book of Common Prayer) was authorized. The ordination liturgy omitted language speaking of the priest offering sacrifice. Hence, Pope Leo XIII argued in the 19th century, people using this liturgy were not intending to ordain Catholic priests.

 

[mattp0625]

GKC is the expert, but since he hasn’t weighed in yet:

No, Henry isn’t the problem. All the bishops under Henry had apostolic succession. And new bishops consecrated under Henry were valid too. The situation was very much like that of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church today: a national church separated from Rome for political reasons but still Catholic in doctrine and liturgy.

The break in continuity occurred under Henry’s son Edward, when a new liturgy, in English (the Book of Common Prayer) was authorized. The ordination liturgy omitted language speaking of the priest offering sacrifice. Hence, Pope Leo XIII argued in the 19th century, people using this liturgy were not intending to ordain Catholic priests.

Ok thank you.

What about those consecrations that were the result of coercion?

 

[total_Catholic]

The 39 Anglican articles of religion deny that the Mass itself is a sacrifice so I guess we’ve wasted a lot of time. LOL!

If Christ IS a priest forever according to the line of Melchizek then he CONSTANTLY offers Himself in the form of bread and wine. God is outside time and space so ALL time and space are in the present to Him. WOW!

Awesome!

 

[Novocastrian]

GKC is the expert, but since he hasn’t weighed in yet:

No, Henry isn’t the problem. All the bishops under Henry had apostolic succession. And new bishops consecrated under Henry were valid too. The situation was very much like that of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church today: a national church separated from Rome for political reasons but still Catholic in doctrine and liturgy.

The break in continuity occurred under Henry’s son Edward, when a new liturgy, in English (the Book of Common Prayer) was authorized. The ordination liturgy omitted language speaking of the priest offering sacrifice. Hence, Pope Leo XIII argued in the 19th century, people using this liturgy were not intending to ordain Catholic priests.

As a point of Anglican minutiae, Cranmer’s Ordinal isn’t quite part of the Prayer Book proper, though they are almost always published and bound together. Cranmer’s Ordinal was produced in 1550, a year after the first Prayer Book.

The Prayer Book retains a sacrificial language, as I’m sure you’re aware, though it’s a matter of major debate as to what extent it accords with (a) patristic and (b) mediaeval Catholic views of sacrifice.

 

[Novocastrian]

The 39 Anglican articles of religion deny that the Mass itself is a sacrifice so I guess we’ve wasted a lot of time. LOL!

If Christ IS a priest forever according to the line of Melchizek then he CONSTANTLY offers Himself in the form of bread and wine. God is outside time and space so ALL time and space are in the present to Him. WOW!

Awesome!

Article XXXI denies “the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” The Church of England doesn’t completely deny a sacrificial aspect to the Eucharist; indeed, the Prayer Book’s eucharistic canon includes explicitly sacrificial language.

With regards to your second paragraph, your argument doesn’t quite follow. To be an eternal priest does not necessarily mean offering an eternal sacrifice. It could involve making continual repeated sacrifices (which we all deny), or a single historic sacrifice (the historic Protestant option), which I guess you and I would both deny in its unqualified form.

An eternal subject can perform temporal actions if incarnate. We wouldn’t say that Christ is eternally dead; that would be to apply propositions proper to Christ’s human nature to his divine nature, rather than to a divine person possessing of a human nature. I.e. a divine person possessing a human nature died at Calvary; the divine nature itself cannot die.

 

[total_Catholic]

Article XXXI denies “the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” The Church of England doesn’t completely deny a sacrificial aspect to the Eucharist; indeed, the Prayer Book’s eucharistic canon includes explicitly sacrificial language.

With regards to your second paragraph, your argument doesn’t quite follow. To be an eternal priest does not necessarily mean offering an eternal sacrifice. It could involve making continual repeated sacrifices (which we all deny), or a single historic sacrifice (the historic Protestant option), which I guess you and I would both deny in its unqualified form.

An eternal subject can perform temporal actions if incarnate. We wouldn’t say that Christ is eternally dead; that would be to apply propositions proper to Christ’s human nature to his divine nature, rather than to a divine person possessing of a human nature. I.e. a divine person possessing a human nature died at Calvary; the divine nature itself cannot die.

If Christ is in the Holy of Holies, as Hebrews declares, making intercession for us, he is doing it through the Sacrifice of the Mass via the Eucharist. God has always demanded a blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins and at the moment of the prayer of consecration, the blood and wine HAVE BECOME the true body and blood of Jesus offered by the priest as in persona Christi Himself. The Edwardinal Rite eliminated any words of the priest having sacerdotal power which the ancient undivided church always made mention of. Peace.

 

[Contarini]

Ok thank you.

What about those consecrations that were the result of coercion?

I’m not sure. Which consecrations do you have in mind?

 

[mattp0625]

I’m not sure. Which consecrations do you have in mind?

King Henry used the threat of force to coerce bishops into ordaining who ever he wanted.

He also passed a law (in parliament) making it illegal to reject his will in this matter.

So- does the use of force result in illicit ordination? Are they ordinations at all?

 

[Padres1969]

King Henry used the threat of force to coerce bishops into ordaining who ever he wanted.

He also passed a law (in parliament) making it illegal to reject his will in this matter.

So- does the use of force result in illicit ordination? Are they ordinations at all?

Well to be fair the French church had some restrictions in place that were similar to the English approval laws. They just didn’t break away from Rome during the era they had them.

 

[mattp0625]

Well to be fair the French church had some restrictions in place that were similar to the English approval laws. They just didn’t break away from Rome during the era they had them.

King Henry did break the Church of England from Rome in addition to the laws

 

[commenter]

GKC is the expert, but since he hasn’t weighed in yet:

No, Henry isn’t the problem. All the bishops under Henry had apostolic succession. And new bishops consecrated under Henry were valid too. The situation was very much like that of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church today: a national church separated from Rome for political reasons but still Catholic in doctrine and liturgy.

The break in continuity occurred under Henry’s son Edward, when a new liturgy, in English (the Book of Common Prayer) was authorized. The ordination liturgy omitted language speaking of the priest offering sacrifice. Hence, Pope Leo XIII argued** in the **19th century, people using this liturgy were not intending to ordain Catholic priests.

The Chinese Patriotic Church does not accept some Catholic doctrine, especially regarding the nature of the Church itself. So it is not “still Catholic” in doctrine, though it agrees with most things; (most Protestants also believe most of what the Catholic Church teaches).

You are correct that Pope Leo’s argument was “in the 19th century”. But I assume you weren’t implying this position was born then. Catholics in earlier centuries also didn’t believe Anglicans had true clergy. The question came up more explicitly, and needed to be clarified more explicitly, in Leo’s time, because there were increasing contacts and discussions among Catholics, Anglicans, and others in England. A more detailed investigation and explanation because of new social circumstances was needed.

 

[Peter_J]

I want it to be harmoniously in tune with other musicians in the orchestra, aware of the existence of the others he is playing with. He appears to be missing most of the strings on his instrument so he constantly plays only the three same notes over and over which rise only to fade into oblivion like steam without meshing with the efforts of the others. Then it seems like he is unaware that he is alone, playing the only notes he knows repitiously. But, unfortunately, he is so wrapped up in his own performance he doesn’t realize the others have finished the song, packed up their instruments and went home.

Protestants are so judgmental.

 

[Peter_J]

.

 

[total_Catholic]

If Christ is in the Holy of Holies, as Hebrews declares, making intercession for us, he is doing it through the Sacrifice of the Mass via the Eucharist. God has always demanded a blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins and at the moment of the prayer of consecration, the blood and wine HAVE BECOME the true body and blood of Jesus offered by the priest as in persona Christi Himself. The Edwardinal Rite eliminated any words of the priest having sacerdotal power which the ancient undivided church always made mention of. Peace.

Of course, Holy Writ also states God is more pleased with Mercy than with Sacrifice. Sorry if I sounded smug. I have BEGGED to be banned but the Mods refuse to. Wish they would. I have issues, deep, deep issues.

 

[MichaelP3]

Yep.

Or I once heard someone remark if Henry requested an annulment today due to the changes in the procedure he would have probably received one.

 

[mattp0625]

Yep.

Or I once heard someone remark if Henry requested an annulment today due to the changes in the procedure he would have probably received one.

That is not true. He just wanted out. One cannot obtain an annulment just because you want a new wife. Infidelity would have been an issue to the process