Some Lutheran Churches in Europe claim AS. The confessions state that, while it is desirable and important, AS is not necessary for validity of orders and sacraments.
Jon
At what point do we not consider certain Protestant churches as legitimate?
- Status
Jon
C
Contarini
Guest
You’re confusing having apostolic succession with claiming to be the one true Church.
Anglicans (at least some of us) claim apostolic succession, but not to be the one true Church.
Some Lutherans have historically made such a claim, not on the basis of apostolic succession but on the basis of their (allegedly) correct doctrine.
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
Which is precisely what a RC should affirm.
Anglicans have a different position.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Guanaphore answered this:It is said there are over 30,000 Protestant religions in the world. Do we consider all of the members of these churches as real Christians? If we don’t, where is the line we draw to determine what is a real Christian Church and what is not? Thanks!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8245574#post8245574
It would appear that we have real Christians and ecclesial communities based on this answer.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Words, words, words.
The Church is the Body of Christ. The Church is the Bride of Christ. No arguments here, huh?
The Church is God’s. The Bible is the product of the Church or was birthed by the Church. The Church is human and divine and since Christ is human/divine it would make sense that The Body of Christ the Church is human/divine. The humanity at the behest of the divinity produced, birthed the Bible.
Does this sound better?
R
rturner76
Guest
Are you speaking of fact or opinion? Because eastern orth. Made less changes then Romans so aren’t they the real authority/more original?
N
Nicea325
Guest
What less changes did the EO make than RC?
R
rturner76
Guest
From what I understand, Rome has had a lot more ecumenical counsels which would indicate to me there has been more changes made in Rome.
I am no expert and I’m not trying to flame the thread, just a questioner
I am no expert and I’m not trying to flame the thread, just a questioner
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I am no expert either. I like to think of parallels. None of these parallels fully explain the situation.
Imagine twins. One twin stays in the town where they grew up and never experiences anything but the town they grew up in. The other twin travels the world, learns 5 languages, learns to swim, dance and all sorts of other things. The first twin could have done that however did not. If the twins get together they can talk of their experiences. The twin that travelled can see what life would have been like had she stayed in the town sort of frozen in time.
Imagine that the Orthodox did not develop doctrine but could have but rather are an example of the Church frozen in time from year 1000 or so. Have you seen the garments and hats they wear. I kinda like them. They have not changed since then. Imagine that the Church that did not stay frozen in time developed doctrine that the Orthodox could have had the split not occurred and nothing is stopping the Orthodox from developing doctrine now as I understand it, within the confines of the OHCAC and the deposit of Faith.
I am not sure if this sheds any light on what you see as adding. It is development not change that you are referring to.
crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1048/Development_of_Doctrine_Vincent_of_Lerins.html
This website explains development better than I did.
G
GKC
Guest
R
rturner76
Guest
Are Anglicans considered protestants? Are they considered legitimate? I know at one point, because the bishops were legitimate, they were right? Then the next generation of bishops or the next Archbishop would have not been. Do they talk about this stuff in RCIA? I start in a couple of weeks
G
GKC
Guest
Google Apostolicae Curae. That will give you the RCC position on Anglicans and apostolic succession.
Whether Anglicans are considered protestants depends a lot on who is doing the considering.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
C
Contarini
Guest
Depends on your definition. Our separation from Rome was certainly part of the breaking apart of the Western Church in the sixteenth century, and our 39 Articles are pretty clearly Protestant in their theology. However, because our version of Protestantism was fairly moderate, and because we have a wide range of doctrinal diversity, it is quite possible to be an Anglican without believing in any distinctively Protestant doctrine (in other words, one can be an Anglican and believe in the things that Catholics and Orthodox have in common over against Protestants–and many do).
We are considered “legitimate” by Rome in the same way that other Protestants are–our baptisms are presumed valid (though at one time Rome was more dubious a out this) but our apostolic succession (and hence our Eucharists, ordinations, and sacramental absolutions) are not considered valid.
Since Rome made this determination in the late 19th century, bishops with apostolic succession have been involved in many Anglican consecrations, complicating the picture a bit. I refer you to GKC for more details.
Right. Under Henry, and even to a great extent under Edward, we certainly had apostolic succession.
Under Edward VI, a Protestant liturgy was adopted–and in the case of the rite of ordination, Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century determined that the liturgy was defective in such a manner as to cause further ordinations to be invalid.
It would depend on your RCIA program. I wouldn’t think it would generally be at the top of the agenda.
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
“Since Rome made this determination in the late 19th century, bishops with apostolic succession have been involved in many Anglican consecrations, complicating the picture a bit. I refer you to GKC for more details.”
It’s a possibly pertinent and (as you note) complicating factor. Bishops from the Old Catholics-Utrecht, beginning in 1932 and the PNCC, starting in 1946, have been routinely involved in joint consecrations of Anglican bishops. Which might be pertinent, or might not. Rome has not made it clear how it views this point.
GKC
It’s a possibly pertinent and (as you note) complicating factor. Bishops from the Old Catholics-Utrecht, beginning in 1932 and the PNCC, starting in 1946, have been routinely involved in joint consecrations of Anglican bishops. Which might be pertinent, or might not. Rome has not made it clear how it views this point.
GKC
S
SteveVH
Guest
I would serriously doubt that this would be covered in RCIA, though it could come up in some side discussion. RCIA teachers are not required to have a great background in the details of the formation of the Anglican Church anyway . RCIA focuses on the Catholic faith and will not dwell on any particular ecclesial community outside of the Church.
Just a word of advice. RCIA programs are only as good as those teaching them. This is a pet peeve of mine in my own parish and believe it or not I just had this discussion with my priest last night. Ours is lacking in depth, in my opinion, and our RCIA candidates are getting short changed. The person in charge of our RCIA program is very sincere, just not very informed. If you don’t feel you are getting the information you need, do not hesitate to inform the priest. Ask questions and keep asking until you get the answers.
C
Calgar
Guest
No, not really. The Bible is the inerrant word of God, yes?Words, words, words.
The Church is God’s. The Bible is the product of the Church.
Does this sound better?
The Bible was written by God using men. To hear what appears to be an earthly organization claiming credit for God’s work is troublesome.
- Status