J
JohnPaul
Guest
A Protestant friend of mine says yes. I can’t see how they could, but thought it worth tossing out here for comments. Thanks in advance.
- Status
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Good question. I don’t think so, but I can see how they could claim it. Haven’t there always been bishops in England? After Henry VIII took over the church the bishops who did not leave the Catholic Church became Anglican and had successors? I would also like to see what others say!
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
The official position of the Anglican Communion is that, like us (Catholic) and the Orthodox Church, it is a full and distinct branch of the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” created by Christ. So I assume that they believe to have Apostolic succession.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Pope Leo XIII in his bull Apostolicae Curae finally, and definitively (for Roman Catholics) ruled that Anglican Orders are not valid, for intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. See Catholic Encycl. article: newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm
C
Chuck_H
Guest
To the best of my knowledge they do. This is based on the idea that Anglican priests have switched over to the RC (married priests) and have some parishes here and there. If this is wrong, anyone correct me.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
That’s true, but they must be ordained according to the RCC ritual as Anglican orders are considered null and void.
C
Chuck_H
Guest
“Pope Paul VI gave the Archbishop of Canterbury an Episcopal ring, and John Paul II gave Rowan Williams, the current incumbent, a pectoral cross, and kissed the ring of the Archbishop in their recent meeting together. These are symbols of ecclesiastical authority, and are not given to laymen dressed up in bishop’s costumes, which the declaration of Leo XIII would seem to imply to be the case with Anglican orders. These are gestures, and not words, yet they seem to indicate that the declaration of Leo may be open to reconsideration, and that covert recognition of Anglican orders does exist.”
religioustolerance.org/tony02.htm
Sorry this kind of tosses it up in the air. Pope Leo XIII denied them validity based not on succession, but on the idea that something had been left out of the ordination rite.
C
Chuck_H
Guest
Probably to make up for whatever was left out of the ordination rite. It doesn’t seem that they would consider the whole order as null and void since then a converting Anglican priest would simply be a lay person who would have to go through the whole nine yards. Not to denigrate the sacrament, but maybe the re-ordination is a swearing of obedience and solidarity with his new Bishop?
J
JohnPaul
Guest
Doesn’t the fact that Anglicans have flip-flopped on moral issues (eg contraception) show that they cannot have apostolic succession since its purpose would be to safeguard the truth of the apostles?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Those gestures could be merely conciliatory and trust building symbols, but I don’t see how things could have changed for the better in the meantime. Since those days, Anglicans have been ordaining gays and women. If anything Anglican orders are more at odds than ever with Roman Catholic doctrine. Anglicans themselves are in disagreement about whose orders are valid or not within their own communion. The liberal Episcopalians in the US are becoming ever more syncretistic and Unitarian in their beliefs, while the more Catholic Episcopalians and Anglicans hold aloof from them.
- Status