S
spina1953
Guest
True but it continued for a long time afterwards and till the 500’s or so some of the emperors tried to make Arain beliefs going.
- Status
L
ltwin
Guest
Yes, but he remained emperor and his successors up until Julian the Apostate were all Arians or semi-Arians who persecuted and exiled orthodox bishops while they favored Arian bishops. In fact, one of Julian’s early reforms was allowing the return of orthodox bishops exiled by the three sons of Constantine. (While a seemingly noble gesture, many think this was simply a way to increase division among Christians.)
So, while its true that ecumenical councils Constantine presided over did not even favor his own theological position, the emperor’s influence was felt in other ways and he certainly did not feel bound by the rulings of a religious council when it came to who he favored and supported within the Church.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yes, but that is another matter. The claim to which I responded was that Constantine “was able to influence what was said and done in the councils.” If that were true, Arianism wouldn’t have been anathematised to the degree it was. Constantine did wield power outside the councils, as did his successors. But he did not have influence on “what was said and done in the councils.”
And that is what I replied to.
K
KjetilK
Guest
One big problem with this argument is that it proves too much, that it is, in other words, contradictory.
You try to defend the position of the Roman Catholic Church by stating that one cannot be Catholic and not be based in Rome, or in communion with Rome. Yet the Roman Catholic Church does acknowledge the catholicity of Orthodoxy, yet the Orthodox are ‘Catholics (not based in Rome).’
What makes Orthodoxy special?
You misunderstand, Randy. The Orthodox hold no greater sway than the western Patriarch. Its when they agree that it holds sway with me, personally. When both East and west agree on what the pope’s jurisdiction is, then I will accept it. Same with the councils.=Randy Carson;12759448]I have never understood your bellwether reliance upon the Orthodox to determine what you, a Lutheran, should accept as true. I don’t mean that you look at their beliefs and then accept them as your own, but you often say things like, “Well, maybe I will accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope when the Orthodox do.” What the heck?
But only for those in communion with the Pope.
Were Rome, Hippo or Carthage EVER universally considered ecumenical prior to the Schism?
Donkey dust.This is why I object to you and Kjetilk claiming to be “Catholic (not based in Rome)”; you can call yourselves whatever you like, of course, but when the Pope enters the room, we know you will both remain seated.
I may not kiss his ring, but I would definitely stand, because he is the Pope, he is the western patriarch, he is the Bishop of Rome.Jon
P
pablope
Guest
A
Abu
Guest
Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., before becoming a Catholic investigated the Orthodox. He writes:
“The Orthodox countered the standard Catholic reading of the New Testament’s Petrine texts with interpretations similar to those of Protestant scholars. And when it came to the witness of history, they claimed that Eastern recognition of the Bishop of Rome’s universal jurisdiction over all the local churches in the first thousand years was a reflection only of Rome’s high political status and human ecclesiastical law, rather than (as Catholics claim) a disposition of divine law issuing from Christ himself.
"Now, what does the Eastern Orthodox communion see as the agent of the infallibility it claims for itself? In fact, it recognizes only one of those forms of teaching mentioned above. Let us highlight this answer:
"Proposition 1: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of ecumenical councils.
However, does this mean that the Orthodox recognize the authority of all the same ecumenical councils that we Catholics recognize? Unfortunately not. While our separated Eastern brethren claim that, in principle, any ecumenical council between Pentecost and Judgment Day would enjoy the charism of being able to issue infallible dogmatic decrees, they in fact recognize as ecumenical only the first seven councils: those that took place in the first Christian millennium, before the rupture between East and West. Indeed, even though they claim theirs is the true Church, they have never, since that medieval split, attempted to convoke and celebrate any ecumenical council of their own.
“They have had to maintain that the participation in a given council of bishops representing the whole Church and the confirmation of their decrees by the Pope, while undoubtedly necessary, is still not sufficient to guarantee the true ecumenical status and infallibility of that council. For over and above the fulfilment of those conditions, it is also necessary (according to standard Orthodox ecclesiology of recent centuries) for the faithful as a whole in both East and West – not just the pope and bishops or even the entire clergy – to accept that council’s decrees as expressing the true faith.3”
rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html
No, while having a valid priesthood and sacraments therefore, the various Orthodox Churches go astray because of this lack of primacy and especially of infallibility – that there is no sure norm outside of the Catholic Church on many grave issues such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, remarriage, capital punishment, IVF, cloning, marriage only between the opposite sex, and many other modern problems - this fact results in uncertainty and confusion.
Of course the Orthodox Churches do not contain all the elements of the true faith – they explicitly have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
It is precisely because of infallibility, that the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *can be issued by an Apostolic Constitution as “a sure guide to faith and morals” for the whole Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Orthodox are not Catholics. That’s why their name is “Orthodox” and NOT Catholic.
838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
“It lacks little” but it does lack something.
Their holy orders are valid, their sacraments are valid, but they are in schism because they do not recognize the universal jurisdiction of the pope. There is no contradiction.
You are not in schism (which has to do with governance); Luther and his generation were the formal heretics. You are in material heresy (which has to do with the denial of doctrine…in this case, the papacy).
My suspicion is that despite the fact that you accept seven sacraments and, surprisingly for a Lutheran (IMO), you believe in transubstantiation which other Lutherans on this board would not accept, your orders are not valid.
Consequently, though you BELIEVE in transubstantiation and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, when you say the words of consecration, nothing happens. It is just bread and wine. Why? Because you were not ordained by a bishop who had valid orders himself. He couldn’t give you what he did not have.
When a Catholic priest says the words of consecration, there is ONLY the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and no bread or wine. Only the accidents of bread and wine remain.
So, I understand that you want to call yourself a Catholic, but your definition and the real definition of the word are very, very different.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The “Question” of Lutheran Orders
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/06/question-of-lutheran-orders.html
One of the bugaboos of advanced Catholic ecumenists is the widespread “misperception,” as they might put it, that the Council of Trent declared Lutheran orders to be invalid. Their ultimate goal is for the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation to officially declare themselves to be in full communion, without any reordinations of Lutheran ministers by Catholic bishops. They lament that too many Catholics still automatically assume the absence of true holy orders in the Lutheran church. So they are at pains to point out, and in fact correctly, that Trent did not declare Protestant orders to be invalid. It only said that those who were not “rightly” (rite ) ordained and not sent by canonical authority, are not lawful ministers of the Word and sacraments. Notice that the end of the passage does not conclude saying these men are not valid ministers. Rite in this passage does not have to refer to the sacramental validity of an ordination, but can signify its having been conferred in accord with the canons or with the authorization of a legitimate superior. Our modern enthusiasts for the validity of Lutheran orders conclude therefore that the ordinations conferred by early Lutheran leaders were at most illicit, without prejudice to their possible validity.
But another plank is needed in their argument for the validity of Lutheran orders, since generally it was at most simple priests (like Luther himself) who ordained pastors for “reformed” congregations. And so ecumenists have brought forth an old theological question as to whether a simple priest can validly ordain under certain circumstances. There are in fact some ambiguous texts from past centuries, including a famous letter from the Pope to an abbot in England, which on their face seem to imply precisely that. On the other hand, these rare texts can also be explained differently, since the word “ordain” can also signify something like an authoritative designation of someone for the office of the priesthood without implying that the same authority would sacramentally lay on hands. At any rate, some ecumenists think they have gotten the camel’s nose under the tent with this one: they argue that, in accord with the rare historical precedents as they see them, a simple priest can ordain in a situation of necessity, and that 16th century reformed congregations were in a state of necessity, having been condemned by Rome and the bishops. Oh yes, they admit, we Catholics officially see a defectus ordinis in Protestant ministries, but that does not have to be interpreted as invalidity, or so they claim.
It is difficult to see how this argument can be made with a straight face, since the alleged situation of necessity had been created by the “reformed” congregations themselves! And as for the fact that Trent did not declare Protestant orders invalid, this is irrelevant, since the same criteria under which Leo XIII later declared Anglican orders invalid apply equally to Lutheran and other Protestant orders. Anglican orders are invalid, taught Leo XIII, because the Anglican ordinal had cut out every reference to sacrifice and true priesthood in the traditional liturgy of ordination. The absence of such explicit language in a later rite formed by pruning the received rite is not the same thing as the possible absence of such language in the most primitive Catholic formulas of ordination, and thus it cannot be argued that Anglican orders are just as valid as orders conferred in the subapostolic and primitive age. This is because deliberately cutting out received references to sacrifice gave the Anglican ordination formulas a signification different from the signification of ancient liturgies in which sacrificial references surrounding the laying on of hands make it clear that a sacrificing priest is being “made” by the decisive words.
So even if we were to grant that validly ordained priests who joined Luther’s movement had the power to ordain priests, we would still need to examine the words and rites they employed, and if they had the same anti-sacerdotal signification as the Anglican ordinal, then the ordinations were pseudo-ordinations.
So let us consider the 16th century ordination liturgies of the “highest” of “high-church” Protestants, those of Norway and Sweden. It has become received wisdom in some circles, and not only among Swedish Lutherans themselves, that the Lutheran Church of Sweden has apostolic succession. During the first years of the Reformation in Sweden, a validly ordained bishop continued ordaining after the split with Rome. But on the issue of the elimination of all sacrificial language, the reformed ordinals of Norway and Sweden were no different from their Anglican counterparts.
Conclusion: the orders of even “high-church” Lutheran pastors and bishops must be held invalid in virtue of the same principles Leo XIII applied to Anglicans.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/06/question-of-lutheran-orders.html
One of the bugaboos of advanced Catholic ecumenists is the widespread “misperception,” as they might put it, that the Council of Trent declared Lutheran orders to be invalid. Their ultimate goal is for the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation to officially declare themselves to be in full communion, without any reordinations of Lutheran ministers by Catholic bishops. They lament that too many Catholics still automatically assume the absence of true holy orders in the Lutheran church. So they are at pains to point out, and in fact correctly, that Trent did not declare Protestant orders to be invalid. It only said that those who were not “rightly” (rite ) ordained and not sent by canonical authority, are not lawful ministers of the Word and sacraments. Notice that the end of the passage does not conclude saying these men are not valid ministers. Rite in this passage does not have to refer to the sacramental validity of an ordination, but can signify its having been conferred in accord with the canons or with the authorization of a legitimate superior. Our modern enthusiasts for the validity of Lutheran orders conclude therefore that the ordinations conferred by early Lutheran leaders were at most illicit, without prejudice to their possible validity.
But another plank is needed in their argument for the validity of Lutheran orders, since generally it was at most simple priests (like Luther himself) who ordained pastors for “reformed” congregations. And so ecumenists have brought forth an old theological question as to whether a simple priest can validly ordain under certain circumstances. There are in fact some ambiguous texts from past centuries, including a famous letter from the Pope to an abbot in England, which on their face seem to imply precisely that. On the other hand, these rare texts can also be explained differently, since the word “ordain” can also signify something like an authoritative designation of someone for the office of the priesthood without implying that the same authority would sacramentally lay on hands. At any rate, some ecumenists think they have gotten the camel’s nose under the tent with this one: they argue that, in accord with the rare historical precedents as they see them, a simple priest can ordain in a situation of necessity, and that 16th century reformed congregations were in a state of necessity, having been condemned by Rome and the bishops. Oh yes, they admit, we Catholics officially see a defectus ordinis in Protestant ministries, but that does not have to be interpreted as invalidity, or so they claim.
It is difficult to see how this argument can be made with a straight face, since the alleged situation of necessity had been created by the “reformed” congregations themselves! And as for the fact that Trent did not declare Protestant orders invalid, this is irrelevant, since the same criteria under which Leo XIII later declared Anglican orders invalid apply equally to Lutheran and other Protestant orders. Anglican orders are invalid, taught Leo XIII, because the Anglican ordinal had cut out every reference to sacrifice and true priesthood in the traditional liturgy of ordination. The absence of such explicit language in a later rite formed by pruning the received rite is not the same thing as the possible absence of such language in the most primitive Catholic formulas of ordination, and thus it cannot be argued that Anglican orders are just as valid as orders conferred in the subapostolic and primitive age. This is because deliberately cutting out received references to sacrifice gave the Anglican ordination formulas a signification different from the signification of ancient liturgies in which sacrificial references surrounding the laying on of hands make it clear that a sacrificing priest is being “made” by the decisive words.
So even if we were to grant that validly ordained priests who joined Luther’s movement had the power to ordain priests, we would still need to examine the words and rites they employed, and if they had the same anti-sacerdotal signification as the Anglican ordinal, then the ordinations were pseudo-ordinations.
So let us consider the 16th century ordination liturgies of the “highest” of “high-church” Protestants, those of Norway and Sweden. It has become received wisdom in some circles, and not only among Swedish Lutherans themselves, that the Lutheran Church of Sweden has apostolic succession. During the first years of the Reformation in Sweden, a validly ordained bishop continued ordaining after the split with Rome. But on the issue of the elimination of all sacrificial language, the reformed ordinals of Norway and Sweden were no different from their Anglican counterparts.
Conclusion: the orders of even “high-church” Lutheran pastors and bishops must be held invalid in virtue of the same principles Leo XIII applied to Anglicans.
K
KjetilK
Guest
That is wrong. The name is actually 'the Orthodox Catholic Church of [insert nation or something similar], but mostly people just say ‘Orthodox.’
Well, since you do not know the bishop in question I cannot see how you can make that judgement. The bishop who ordained me was consecrated in 2009. He was consecrated by an Anglican co-consecrator (Church of England). The bishops of the Church of England got ‘back’ their validity in the 1930s. See here for my points. A summary: According to the Roman Catholic Church the Church of England lost valid episcopal orders due to a faulty ordinal (more on that below). Those orders were regained validly through the ‘dutch touch’ in the 1930s, and in the 1990s this was passed on to the bishops of the Church of Norway (partly because of the Porvoo agreement). This includes the bishop who ordained me last year. He was consecrated by the Norwegian chief bishop, along with an Anglican co-consecrator in 2009.
So since I have valid orders, ‘something’ DOES happen.
A tip for the future: To pointificate on a document - in this case Apostolicae Curae - you need to actually read it. The condemnation of the Anglican ordinal was not that it did not contain direct references to sacrifice - i.e. the handing over of the chalice and paten with the following words, “Take authority to offer in the church the sacrifice for the living and the dead” (the traditio instrumentorum). The condemnation was because the Anglican ordinal - in the first part of the 17th century, not the 19th - contained an explicit denial of the sacrificial nature. Such a denial have never been a part of any Scandinavian ordinal, and the traditio instrumentorum is not required for a valid ordination, according to Roman Catholic doctrine. As Pope Pius XII wrote, in the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (November 30, 1947), emphasis added:
Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Bingo. They call themselves “Orthodox”. You call yourself “Lutheran”. I call myself “Catholic”. Words mean things.
Maybe. But this is a double-edged sword it seems to me. What you are admitting here is that there is such a thing as valid ordination that only certain people can pass on to others. I agree with this.
But your admission also suggests that there are those who evaluate things like this and determine that yes, this ordination is valid and no, this one is not. Who are those people? And if they are able to judge ordination, are they not also able to judge who is “Catholic” and who merely calls himself “Catholic”?
First, I admire your desire. Second, I hope you are correct. Third, I will wait until the Catholic Church (based in Rome) renders a decision.
You’re sure that I didn’t? That Dutch Touch really did bestow charisms upon you!
I believe you’re saying here that since you never denied those things which the Anglicans denied. So, the only real impediment was consecration by a validly consecrated bishop.
And you say this has been corrected.
I’m all for correcting deficiencies where they exist, but I wonder how your grandparents, also Lutheran presumably, would feel knowing that the Eucharist they received prior to the reintroduction of valid ordination by the Dutch Touch was not really valid.
This seems to be a messy situation.
K
KjetilK
Guest
No, they call themselves Catholic - ‘Orthodox Catholic’ - just like you call yourself ‘Roman Catholic’ - according to Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis. Here he uses it do distinguish between those Churches who are, and those who aren’t, in communion with Rome. Not that this icludes the eastern rites.
Yes, that is, and has always been, Lutheran teaching. From XIVConfessio Augustana: “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called [Lt. *rite vocastus].”
According to Arthur Carl Piepkorn, rite (in rite vocastus) “implies in the normal terminology of the 16th century a formal ordination as something over and above a mere calling.” (Piepkorn, “The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church,” in The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, ed. Michael P. Plekon & William S. Wiecher (Delhi, NY: Americal Lutheran Publicity Bureau Books 1993): 62.)
But the evaluations have to do with facts, not with the situation in 1896. Four things are necessary for any valid sacrament: Valid minister (in this case a bishop); valid intent (to do what the Church does, facere quod facit ecclesia); valid form (which in this case do not mean a specific ‘sacrificial part,’ i.e. the traditio instrumentorum); and valid matter (in this case a baptised male).
Why do you have to wait before Rome makes a decision. Does Rome make decisions on everything? Are you not claiming that I must prove a negative?
Well, it sure didn’t seem that you had read it, ir you wouldn’t have made the claim you did.
That is exactly what I’m saying.
And this is one of the reasons why I insist that we should always look at each particular Church - or each communion of Churches - separately. That some American or German Lutheran do not agree with what I have laid out, or rejects it altogether, have absolutely no bearing on the validity of my orders, or any other orders confected by the bishops of my Church (the Church of Norway). We are not judged on the intent of others.
And the sacrificial intent, though not explicit in our ordinals (which is not required anyway), can be inferred from the fact that we are in communion with the Church of England. In the 1979 Elucidation of the statement on ministry and ordination in the documents from the Anglican-Catholic dialogue (ARCIC), we read:
[The] ordained ministry is called priestly principally because it has a particular sacramental relationship with Christ as High Priest. At the eucharist Christ’s people do what he commanded in memory of himself and Christ unites them. sacramentally with himself in his self-offering. But in this action it is only the ordained minister who presides at the eucharist, in which, in the name of Christ and on behalf of his Church, he recites the narrative of the institution of the Last Supper, and invokes the Holy Spirit upon the gifts.
Read more in Consecrated Women? A Contribution to the Women Bishops Debate, ed., Jonathan Baker (Norwich: Canterbury Press 2004): 56-57 (cf. 48-58).
Or read what the American Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue affirms, that “only a validly ordained priest can be the minister who, in the person of Christ, brings into being the sacrament of the Eucharist and offers sacramentally the redemptive sacrifice of Christ which God offers us,” and that “in the light of these five affirmations [the American Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue] records its conclusions that the eucharist as sacrifice is not an issue that divides our two Churches” (emphasis added).
See Five Affirmations on the Eucharist as Sacrifice, issued by the Anglican–Roman Catholic Dialogue in the United States of America, January 6, 1994.
So we can conclude that though there is no explicit sacrificial element (like the traditio instrumentorum) in the ordinals of the Church of Norway, sacrificial intent can be inferred from our communion with the Church of England. I know a few Norwegian Lutherans who want to abolish, or leave, the Porvoo Communion for just this reason. They conclude, quite rightly, that it involves a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist and the priesthood.
P
pablope
Guest
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh. So, the book I have on my shelf is actually called the “Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church” and not simply “Catechism of the Catholic Church”…I wonder if that was a typo.
We agree on these points.
No, I’m claiming that you must prove a positive; namely, you must prove that your ordination met all four of the conditions you just named above. Catholic priests and bishops need to be able to prove the same four positive things, too, so you’re not being mistreated in this regard.
As for waiting for Rome, well, I defer to their expertise and access to historical data to which I am not privy. If they say you’re a priest, you’re a priest. If not…
Yes. I know. And this is a stunning admission. For over 400 years, the Lutherans in Norway may NOT have actually received a valid Eucharist. The “correction” of 1930 makes this appear to be all the more probable because important people decided that either A) the “Dutch Touch” was a necessity or B) that it was worth doing “just in case”.
The only way this isn’t huge is if the Lutherans in Norway believed that they were receiving a symbolic Eucharist prior to 1930 and wanted the real thing after that time. Otherwise, they were being misled by their pastors into believing something that simply wasn’t true for four centuries.
I’m still shaking my head over this. In 1930, Norwegian Lutherans admitted to themselves and the world that their priests might not be validly ordained. They didn’t have “it”. They admitted “it” was important, and they wanted “it”. The Catholics had “it”, the Catholics have always had “it”, but they couldn’t get “it” from the Catholics. They had to find someone else who would give “it” to them. They found the Dutch had “it” and the Dutch would give “it” to them. Now, the Norwegian Lutherans have “it” and they have joined the club of those who have “it” without being Catholic even though Catholics are where “it” came from in the first place.
Does anyone besides me think there’s something not quite right about this?
Actually, this is not true. If the Catholic Church (you know, the one with the big Church and the direct successor of Peter in Rome) says that your consecration is invalid, then it does not matter what you or anyone else says.
Unless you’re totally okay with me claiming to be Norwegian despite the fact that I have never been within three time zones of the place. At which point, anyone can be permitted to claim anything they want and no one has the right to call them out.
Thanks…I’m not THAT interested in this topic. However, aligning yourself with the Anglicans who do not have valid orders seems to be a poor public relations move.
Kjetilk-
I’m going to wrap up my participation in this thread with this: I’m very happy that you are in doctrinal agreement with many of the things that Catholics believe, and I would be happy to see all Lutherans, indeed all Christians re-united and in full communion with the Royal Steward of our Divine King, the Bishop of Rome.
I suspect that the Catholic Church will be willing to concede on a few points of disagreement regarding sola fide and sola gratia, etc, but barring acceptance of the primacy and supremacy of the Rock upon which the Church of Christ was built, we may not ever see the rift caused by Martin Luther healed.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
One other question: What do you say to other Lutherans around the world whose pastors have not got “it” yet claim vigorously that they do?
This must make for some very uncomfortable meetings at the lodge.
This must make for some very uncomfortable meetings at the lodge.
K
KjetilK
Guest
You are of course free to ignore my point, that although people often just call it ‘the Catholic Church,’ the full name is ‘the Roman Catholic Church’ - as noted by pope Pius XII, in Humani generis.
Well, I have provided this: My bishop is validly ordained with an Anglican co-consecrator (since Anglicans regained their orders, following the logic of Apostolicae Curae, in the 1930s). The intent was, following the theology of the churches of the Porvoo Communion, that I should teach and administer the sacraments (incuding offering). The form was the form of the Church of Norway which does not include a rejection of sacrfice. And I am a baptised male.
If not, they are ignoring the logic of Apostolicae Curae.
Or maybe it was a realisation that succession was needed? You don’t have to assume bad motifs just for the hell of it. Or maybe they didn’t agree, but let themselves be consecrated into the succession for the sake of ecumenism.
Try this link.
I’m assuming you think we live in the 19th century. Can you explain why a judgement from 1896 can extend into the future? In the 1930s, Anglican bishops were consecrated by a valid bishop (+van Vlijmen, OC Bishop of Haarlem as con-consecrator with +Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury), with valid intent (“to impart the same episcopal character which…we bishops of the Old Catholic Church possess, that is, the fullness of the priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same, in the precise sense in which the fullness of the priesthood has been understood everywhere, always, and by all”*), with a valid form (the Anglican ordinal which hasn’t included a rejection of the sacrificial character of the priesthood since, IIRC, sometime in the 17th century), and with valid matter (a baptised male). What was intended, then, was to impart on the ordinand in question ‘the fullness of the priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same’ as that is understood in Catholic churches (‘everywhere, always, and by all’). This clearly included the ‘sacrificial part’ of the episcopal office. This consecration, then, reintroduced apostolic succession to the Church of England (or at least reintroduced it in such a way that Roman Catholics couldn’t disagree with it without conflating validity and liceity).
This should logically imply validity, but not necessarily liceity (in the eyes of Rome). We ought to remember that validity and liceity is not the same thing. Following the logic of what makes a sacrament valid, one cannot deny Anglican orders as a whole at the moment.
Note that I’m not saying that they actually had invalid orders. I am arguing from the Roman Catholic perspective.
- Quoted from Appendix II, footnote 3, in Fr. John J. Hughes’ Stewards of the Lord (emphasis in original).
That we cannot ignore truth.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thanks for all your thoughtful replies.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Don’t be silly! Of course I would stand.I you can call yourselves whatever you like, of course, but when the Pope enters the room, we know you will both remain seated.
(it’s hard to run away from the anti-christ when you’re seated)
…
( I really hope this isn’t what Catholic think us confessional Lutherans are like - I’d honestly stand, and if I had the joyous opportunity to meet the Pope, I would properly greet him in the traditional way.)
- Status