Does Anglicanism have apostolic authority?

[JD27076]

I saw Fr. Jeffery on youtube say that they do have apostolic authority, yet on New Advent, it states they do not.

So which is it? I believe that when Archbishop Matthew (Maybe?) was appointed the Vicar of the Anglican Church, wasn’t their much question over who validly consecrated him?

I also heard that Henry VIII also appointed a lay person to be the archbishop… But I do not know which is true or not…

Do any of you fellas have any responses to this question?

Thanks!!

 

[LoyalViews]

No, Anglicanism has no apostolic authority because it has no apostolic succession, nor valid orders, invalid sacraments too.

Some priests and bishops have converted from the “Old Catholic Church” into Anglicanism. Now, most of those do have valid orders…perhaps these have more of an apostolic authority, but still they’re not in communion with the Successor of St Peter.

 

[triumphguy]

The Anglicans brought back Apostolic succession by using Bishops from the Old Catholic and the Polish National Church during consecrations of Bishops in the 1960s.

Whether that means women who are ordained validly received the sacrament is another question.

 

[R_C]

The Anglicans brought back Apostolic succession by using Bishops from the Old Catholic and the Polish National Church during consecrations of Bishops in the 1960s.

Whether that means women who are ordained validly received the sacrament is another question.

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis we are taught beyond discussion that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”. We cannot consider the Sacrament valid when given to a woman.

As for the former statement, any official document of the Catholic Church on this matter would be interesting…I was still back at the Apostolicae Curae declaring all Anglican ordinations to be absolutely null and utterly void…and this 1998 document of Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) states:

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: …] the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …]

 

[triumphguy]

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis we are taught beyond discussion that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”. We cannot consider the Sacrament valid when given to a woman.

As for the former statement, any official document of the Catholic Church on this matter would be interesting…I was still back at the Apostolicae Curae declaring all Anglican ordinations to be absolutely null and utterly void…and this 1998 document of Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) states:

Just wondering: Was Pope Leo XIII before or after the 1960s?

 

[R_C]

Just wondering: Was Pope Leo XIII before or after the 1960s?

Before (1896), and that is what motivated my question: the Church still considers the Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations as “a truth to be held definitively” (as per the quoted 1998 document).

 

[triumphguy]

Before (1896), and that is what motivated my question: the Church still considers the Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations as “a truth to be held definitively” (as per the quoted 1998 document).

A historical truth held definitively.

The thing about history is that it changes as time goes by.

At the time of Leo XIII it was true.

Is it true now?

 

[Gorgias]

well, hold on a second, triumphguy – it seems that there are two separate things being discussed here!

First, whether there is apostolic authority in the Anglican church, and second, the validity of “Anglican ordinations”. I would assert that they are not one and the same thing.

You say that there is apostolic authority in the Anglican church, due to ordinations in the 1960s. Can you give some more info on this? (This is something I hadn’t ever heard about.) Are you saying that all bishops in the Anglican church are validly ordained? Are you saying that all bishops in the Anglican church were ordained by validly ordained bishops? Or are you saying that some were ordained in such a way? Finally, are you saying that these ordinations in the 60s have some effect on later ordinations?

Second, the general validity of Anglican ordinations… but let me understand what you’re saying in response to my first set of questions before attempting another barrage from me…

Blessings,

G.

 

[marlo]

Let just assume that they were consecrated by Valid Bishops, but the Theology of the Anglican Church regarding the priesthood is different from what the Catholic Church teaches, the doubt was clear as the Anglicans consecrated women to the priesthood and even Episcopate. Their Theology is doubtful and therefore they do not have Valid Apostolic succession

The Anglicans brought back Apostolic succession by using Bishops from the Old Catholic and the Polish National Church during consecrations of Bishops in the 1960s.

Whether that means women who are ordained validly received the sacrament is another question.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

The Anglicans brought back Apostolic succession by using Bishops from the Old Catholic and the Polish National Church during consecrations of Bishops in the 1960s.

Whether that means women who are ordained validly received the sacrament is another question.

Wouldn’t their apostolic succession end with them? Since they do not have the authority to pass that line on without the say so of their Bishop. And that Bishop can’t consecrate anyone with permission from Rome. Or the equivalent in other rites?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Whether that means women who are ordained validly received the sacrament is another question.

I think we discussed previously that there may be a difference between valid and licit ordinations. A bit like the SSPX.

 

[Gorgias]

Wouldn’t their apostolic succession end with them? Since they do not have the authority to pass that line on without the say so of their Bishop. And that Bishop can’t consecrate anyone with permission from Rome. Or the equivalent in other rites?

This is part of what I was hoping to get at. But, without triumphguy’s participation, we can’t know what he had in mind…

 

[marlo]

No, A valid bishop, (not Anglican Bishop) has full authority to pass on the apostolic priestly line, the problem is when A Bishop creates a schism and disobeyed Rome, that is, consecrating without the Pope’s approval, they automatically gets excommunicated. Their sacraments are “Valid but Illicit”. Anyone who knows their canonical status and shared communion with them becomes excommunicated too. However, those who are born in their church receives no excommunication but valid sacraments because its not their fault but the schismatic founders fault.

Wouldn’t their apostolic succession end with them? Since they do not have the authority to pass that line on without the say so of their Bishop. And that Bishop can’t consecrate anyone with permission from Rome. Or the equivalent in other rites?

 

[R_C]

Let just assume that they were consecrated by Valid Bishops, but the Theology of the Anglican Church regarding the priesthood is different

If their understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is different from that of Sacred Tradition, then it is necessarily erroneous.

As others pointed out, if validly ordained bishops have conferred the Sacrament upon some (or all) of their presbyters or bishops, this may be illicit but it would still be valid, because the Sacraments don’t depend on the giver or the receiver, they act ex opere operato.

 

[Contarini]

I saw Fr. Jeffery on youtube say that they do have apostolic authority, yet on New Advent, it states they do not.

So which is it? I believe that when Archbishop Matthew (Maybe?) was appointed the Vicar of the Anglican Church, wasn’t their much question over who validly consecrated him?

Matthew Parker, and the word is Archbishop, not Vicar!

There were Catholic polemicists who claimed that he was consecrated irregularly in a tavern, but I think there’s little question today that he was in fact consecrated (wherever it happened) by people who were themselves valid bishops.

The reason the Vatican rejected the validity of Anglican orders in the 19th century (a position that has never been overruled, and was in fact judged to be infallible by the CDF in the notification to Ad Tuendam Fidem) is primarily that the liturgy used had been modified in ways that specifically rejected a Catholic theology of the priesthood and the episcopate. Hence, the argument goes, those who consecrated Parker did not intend to make a Catholic bishop.

My main problem with this argument is that it’s not the logic Catholics apply to baptism.

I also heard that Henry VIII also appointed a lay person to be the archbishop

Thomas Cranmer was validly consecrated as archbishop–there’s no doubt about that. The validity question only becomes an issue under Elizabeth, though the liturgy that causes the question was drawn up under Edward.

Edwin

 

[Gorgias]

Hence, the argument goes, those who consecrated Parker did not intend to make a Catholic bishop.

My main problem with this argument is that it’s not the logic Catholics apply to baptism.

Hmm. How so? If I baptize someone, but without the intent to validly baptize a Christian, then the baptism is invalid. On the face of it, the logic seems identical. Can you expand on your reasoning here?

Thanks!