M
Metamorphoo
Guest
The “Catholic” I mentioned is Roman Catholic–i.e., people in full communion with Rome. They are not schismatic Catholics.
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Fom the Anglican viewpoint, of course; from the RC viewpoint, given that presumption, and Apostolicae Curae, no. But Anglicans, even those who are reasonably well versed in the sad story of AC, are not necessarily impressed by it. And it was in 1896, under Leo XIII, that Anglican Orders were declared null and void.What do you mean by Catholic? Rome recognizes several skizmatic Catholic successions as “valid but irregular” if the petegree can be clearly documented as unbroken from Roman Orders. Personally, I have come to see no valid reason not to be under obedience to the Holy See but Holy Orders are a physical thing, conveyed physically by a valid Bishop to achieve an actual physical change of estate upon a man. Such a Priest or Deacon cannot function as a Sacremental Priest in the Roman Catholic Church, but is a Priest non the less. Should that irregular be accepted to sacremental office, his Orders are regularized. Thats not to say that many irregulars are not heterodox, many are and regretably I personally know many who have and are doing great harm outside the Church. But many are strict in their keeping to the Magestarium. I believe you mentioned Anglican Orders. They were declaired “completely null and utterly void” during the reign of Cromwell, which is not to say that valid orders might not have snuck back into their succession since, but no valid original Anglican Orders made it to the restoration of monarchy in England, which raises an interesting question. If the English Monarch must be anointed by a valid bishop, and Anglican Bishops are of questionable validity, has Englind had a King lo these many years?
The idea of valid episcopal lines being reintroduced into Anglicanism is an interesting one, and mainly considers the full inter-communion and joint consecrations begun between the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholcs of Utrecht, in 1932, and similar realtionships between Anglicans and the PNCC, starting in 1946.
GKC
*Anglicanus Catholicus *
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
o
**
So what? You expect all these things to be spelt out word for word? Do you realize how big the Bible would be? But actually it is all biblical. Did you ever read: Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. They explain it all!**
T
The_Preacher
Guest
Fom the Anglican viewpoint, of course; from the RC viewpoint, given that presumption, and Apostolicae Curae, no. But Anglicans, even those who are reasonably well versed in the sad story of AC, are not necessarily impressed by it. And it was in 1896, under Leo XIII, that Anglican Orders were declared null and void.
The idea of valid episcopal lines being reintroduced into Anglicanism is an interesting one, and mainly considers the full inter-communion and joint consecrations begun between the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholcs of Utrecht, in 1932, and similar realtionships between Anglicans and the PNCC, starting in 1946.
GKC
Actually it considers the fact that the Succession is a physical thing and hard to regulate. Slip a few real Bishops into English ordinations, as you mention in 1932 and they got it. As to elevating Bishops, that is another mater. I believe one of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches also have the Succession as they took their regular Bishops with them, which most Lutherans didn’t. Von Staupetz was only a Vicar General. Now as to fedelity to the teachings of the Fathers (strange, that’t the translation of the Didache isn’t it? but I mean far more), that’s another matter.
To all my friends: This is the annual day (which gets earlier each year) that I formally proclaim that I am sick of Christmas. :crying: Take back your Currier and Ives, and your Dickens who fabricated from whole cloth “Ye Old Fashoned Christmas” that never was. :nope: Take back your “Black Tuesday” :bowdown: that this year turned faital to a poor Walmart clerk :tsktsk: (For that matter take back Walmart all to gether.) And especially take back your Coca Cola Santaclause (was it Nash woh started it all with the Coke add?) :banghead: (Did you know that, encountering the hritic Arius, jolly old St. Nick said not a word but turned right to his work and cold cocked the jerk. :extrahappyScruge got it part right.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Doctrine of salvation falls outside the authority to bind and loose nor the keys we as disciples hold.
icoh2009.co.za/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=1507&news_id=12971&cat_id=537
G
GKC
Guest
GKC;4501334:
, no. But Anglicans, even those who are reasonably well versed in the sad story of AC, are not necessarily impressed by it. And it was in 1896, under Leo XIII, that Anglican Orders were declared null and void.
The idea of valid episcopal lines being reintroduced into Anglicanism is an interesting one, and mainly considers the full inter-communion and joint consecrations begun between the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholcs of Utrecht, in 1932, and similar realtionships between Anglicans and the PNCC, starting in 1946.
GKC
Actually it considers the fact that the Succession is a physical thing and hard to regulate. Slip a few real Bishops into English ordinations, as you mention in 1932 and they got it. As to elevating Bishops, that is another mater. I believe one of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches also have the Succession as they took their regular Bishops with them, which most Lutherans didn’t. Von Staupetz was only a Vicar General. Now as to fedelity to the teachings of the Fathers (strange, that’t the translation of the Didache isn’t it? but I mean far more), that’s another matter.
To all my friends: This is the annual day (which gets earlier each year) that I formally proclaim that I am sick of Christmas. :crying: Take back your Currier and Ives, and your Dickens who fabricated from whole cloth “Ye Old Fashoned Christmas” that never was. :nope: Take back your “Black Tuesday” :bowdown: that this year turned faital to a poor Walmart clerk :tsktsk: (For that matter take back Walmart all to gether.) And especially take back your Coca Cola Santaclause (was it Nash woh started it all with the Coke add?) :banghead: (Did you know that, encountering the hritic Arius, jolly old St. Nick said not a word but turned right to his work and cold cocked the jerk. :extrahappy
As to the transmission of apostolic succession, I understand and agree with your statement, though an Orthodox, who follows not the Augustinian theory but the Cyprianic, would disagree. Since the RCC recognises the validity of orders of both the Old Catholics (at that time) and the PNCC, there’re your “few bishops”. The Dutch Touch is very widespread in Anglicanism by this time; my own rector was ordained by a bishop whose consecrator included a PNCC bishop, in 1962.
It was primarily Sweden that retained the apostolic succession.
Not Nash; you’re thinking of Sundblom.
And of course it’s only Advent.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
S
steve_b
Guest
I don’t disagree, given the keys YOU hold, i.e. house keys, car keys, locker key, safety deposit box key etc etc etc.
But then THOSE are not the keys we’re talking about
D
DebChris
Guest
I would not know where to begin in tracing the apostolic lineage of a particular priest. I have no idea who Wayne Booshada is.
What I do know is that the early reformers, such as Luther, were validly ordained priests. It was Menno Simons who united the Anabaptists in Holland. Technically speaking, a person with the ability to trace the genealogy could trace many of today’s non-Catholic ministers through apostolic lineage.
I do not say all because I personally know individuals who, in good faith, have started their own churches believing that they were genuinely called to do so. Generally they are members of churches who speak against mainline churches. What is lacking in the establishment of these new churches is required discernment. The result is a continued splintering of the Body of Christ. These newly established churches may result from a disagreement with the pastor of the church to which the person belonged. They result at times with the blessing of the person’s pastor, but no real laying on of hands. It is merely a personal and not a communal decision. None of these churches have been tested in the very real fires of persecution. Our strength as Christians does not come from our divisions. Our strength comes through the unity of community. Our strength comes from God.
Scripture tells Timothy not to lay hands too quickly. The person who wants to become a priest or join a religious community undergoes a genuine two-way discernment. The community and the individual discern in tandem regarding a genuine calling to the priesthood or religious life.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I did think that. Also, I was thinking about Nestorius. He was a heretical bishop so tracing apostolic lineage in that case does not make a difference.
Separate churches remain invalid by the simple fact of them being separate although I am not quite sure if I am right about that.
Thanks so much for your response. And the points your raised are excellent!
M
Metamorphoo
Guest
Wayne Boosahda is the current head of the Communion of Convergence Churches (CCC).
Whatever you may personally think, however, the fact remains that my former pastor has been called upon by an RCC bishop to administer communion to Roman Catholics when no RCC priest was available to do so. Although the circumstances were admittedly extenuating, I cannot imagine that the RCC would ever INITIATE such a request if my former pastor’s “pedigree” (I hate that term–it sounds so snobbish–but it works) was considered invalid in its eyes, and/or the theology of the CCC with regard to communion posed a serious impediment from an RCC standpoint.
T
The_Preacher
Guest
Appostolic Successions of individual priests and deacons read like the Geneology of Jesus in the Gospel. They are precious to the Ordained and the validity of such is the provinance of the Congregation for the Doctern of the Faith, aka the Holy Inqusition in Rome, from whence his Holyness Pope Benedict came. Like Baptism, which if in the Trinitarian format and with water is valid no matter who performes it, even a Unitarian or a Wicken, and is into the one Holy (Roman) Catholic Church. It is a physical change which cannot be undone. Remember: Sacrements are not symbolic; they litterly do exactly what they say they do. There is still the question of the fidelity of the Baptized or Ordained to their estate. Judgement for the First (royal) and Second (clarical) estates remains far more severe than for the Third (lay) estate, even if renounced. The break between Rome and Constantinople is as I understand it so early and at so high a level that there is no question as to the Successions, at least at my pay grade (to coin a popular expression).
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**
Who died and appointed you pope?
You don’t make the laws Jesus and His Father does! Sorry!**
B
benedictus2
Guest
So do you think the Convergence Churches priests are validly ordained? Can you check the my Metamorphoos posts re this and my question to Deb whether what metamorphoo says is correct?
I’ve check convergence churches and they were founded in 1973. Looks to anglicanism for liturgy but is sepearate from anglicans.
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**Hi The Preacher,
I understand what you said. I follow your logic. I agree the Sacraments are not just symbolic. I agree that even not realizing it protestants are Catholic by their baptism even if they follow our teachings with a lot of error. We know that Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders leaves a indeliable mark on the soul. But do you believe that a fallen-away “ordained” priest can still change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? Could Protestant ministers, just because they recite the Eucharistic prayers, bring Jesus physically into their communion? **
H
Hisalone
Guest
Are you aware that binding and loosing are Jewish terms?**
Who died and appointed you pope?
Can the pope himself just make stuff up?
B
benedictus2
Guest
Your point being???
Go to this link. This should binding and losing and keys in the context of Matthew 16 and the old testament.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
T
The_Preacher
Guest
Frankly, that’s above my “pay grade” and the questions posed honestly frighten me. Not that you ask them, but the seriousness of the issue. It is however the historic finding of the of the Magesterium of the Church that: “The validity of the Sacrement does not depend upon the worthyness of the priest.” The issue at the time being the validity of the Baptisms of those Baptized by appostates. As to it’s application here, again I say that’s above my “pay grade.”**Hi The Preacher,
I understand what you said. I follow your logic. I agree the Sacraments are not just symbolic. I agree that even not realizing it protestants are Catholic by their baptism even if they follow our teachings with a lot of error. We know that Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders leaves a indeliable mark on the soul. But do you believe that a fallen-away “ordained” priest can still change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? Could Protestant ministers, just because they recite the Eucharistic prayers, bring Jesus physically into their communion? **
H
Hisalone
Guest
Did you read my link?
Do you expect me to read a 10000 word article?
If Hahn is the best you have Ill pass.
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**Are you aware that we Catholics follow Jesus?
He told our church to do the binding and loosing. We are follower of the Catholic Church. I actually laughed when I followed your link and went to the Messianic Good News,a non-profit organisation, founded in 1950 .
My church was founded 2,000 years ago by Jesus Himself! . I “quoted” Him and you refer me to a moderrn site in rebuttle.
I knew binding and loosing were jewish terms. Jesus was Jewish, my friend! You are too precious for words! **
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**
Hi The Preacher,
They actually frighten me for the same reasons. I also was familiar with the findings of the Magesterium reference the validity of the Sacraments. But considered that to only refer to a priest being in a state of grace or not! I know that this matter came up with the priest sex scandles about the priest’s ability to perform his priestly duties not being effected by his personal worthyness.
I consider myself an informed Catholic but have never read anything about these exact subjects. I know about ex-communication and its effects. But as we agree Sacraments are not just symbols. But many Protestants do believe that the sacraments are just symbols, many of them don’t even have the seven. So for them are they just symbols? Are they valid for them even the ones they don’t think are sacraments? Why is my head hurting?
I am just going to become like a little child
trusting that my “parent” the RCC knows the truth! 
I think all these questions are only answerable at God’s paygrade!
**- Status