episcopal priests

[Azygos]

If Protestants are baptized and believe in the basic fundamentals of Christianity then they are part of the Body of Christ which is the Catholic (Universal) Church (Unless they spiritually excommunicate themselves). This is why we call them our separated brethren. Is the Physical Church they attend Catholic? Absolutely NOT, because they do not have Valid Holy Orders (It is man-made, Not Of God). All Protestant denominations do not have Valid Holy Orders therefore the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist are Not Valid. They have tried to claim them Valid but the Catholic Church says they lost Validity in the Protestant Reformation as did all Protestant sects. Since the Catholic Church has put together a council and declared it so then it must be true, after all it is the pillar and foundation of the truth. I don’t see them reversing this decision, ever…

Protestants cannot (normally) receive complete sanctification outside of one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. They need confession and the Eucharist to achieve this. The Church Fathers were not kidding when they said there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (The Body of Christ). Although Protestants are partial members and they may enter heaven, it will not be because they are saved (achieved complete sanctification). It will be because they were sanctified in purgatory…

I suppose their are exceptions to this rule as a Protestant could baptize someone on their death bed making that person a Protestant worthy of heaven, thus skipping purgatory (See Matthew 20:1-16, helps to understand deathbed conversions). The problem with protestants sects is that they receive the grace needed for heaven when they are baptized but how do they maintain this free gift of grace? It is through the sacraments especially confession and the Eucharist, which are invalid in their physical church.

There is only One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Living God, Jesus Christ.

If you run into teachings that are hard for you to accept in the Catholic Faith because of your personal beliefs, just remember Jesus said only those who deny themselves and follow me can be my disciples. If you want Eternal Life and to have a Personal Relationship with the Creator of the Universe, Jesus Christ then you want the Catholic Church where you can receive Jesus Christ, Body, Soul, and Divinity in the Real Eucharist, with no doubts of it’s validity. It does not get any more Personal than that and it is so personal that if you receive it (the Eucharist, Jesus Christ) in a state of mortal sin you cast judgment down upon yourself (1 Cor. 11:27).

 

[Indifferently]

If Protestants are baptized and believe in the basic fundamentals of Christianity then they are part of the Body of Christ which is the Catholic (Universal) Church (Unless they spiritually excommunicate themselves). This is why we call them our separated brethren. Is the Physical Church they attend Catholic? Absolutely NOT, because they do not have Valid Holy Orders (It is man-made, Not Of God). All Protestant denominations do not have Valid Holy Orders therefore the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist are Not Valid. They have tried to claim them Valid but the Catholic Church says they lost Validity in the Protestant Reformation as did all Protestant sects. Since the Catholic Church has put together a council and declared it so then it must be true, after all it is the pillar and foundation of the truth. I don’t see them reversing this decision, ever…

Protestants cannot (normally) receive complete sanctification outside of one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. They need confession and the Eucharist to achieve this. The Church Fathers were not kidding when they said there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (The Body of Christ). Although Protestants are partial members and they may enter heaven, it will not be because they are saved (achieved complete sanctification). It will be because they were sanctified in purgatory…

I suppose their are exceptions to this rule as a Protestant could baptize someone on their death bed making that person a Protestant worthy of heaven, thus skipping purgatory (See Matthew 20:1-16, helps to understand deathbed conversions). The problem with protestants sects is that they receive the grace needed for heaven when they are baptized but how do they maintain this free gift of grace? It is through the sacraments especially confession and the Eucharist, which are invalid in their physical church.

There is only One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Living God, Jesus Christ.

If you run into teachings that are hard for you to accept in the Catholic Faith because of your personal beliefs, just remember Jesus said only those who deny themselves and follow me can be my disciples. If you want Eternal Life and to have a Personal Relationship with the Creator of the Universe, Jesus Christ then you want the Catholic Church where you can receive Jesus Christ, Body, Soul, and Divinity in the Real Eucharist, with no doubts of it’s validity. It does not get any more Personal than that and it is so personal that if you receive it (the Eucharist, Jesus Christ) in a state of mortal sin you cast judgment down upon yourself (1 Cor. 11:27).

Wow, you just blew my mind. I never knew any of this before. Better submit myself to the pope asap.

 

[Azygos]

Wow, you just blew my mind. I never knew any of this before. Better submit myself to the pope asap.

What is so wrong about submitting to the Authority established by Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe?

Matthew 23:1-3
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. 

Where does the New Authority come from?  The Chair of Peter of course.

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet **he founded a single chair [cathedra]**, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but** one Church and one chair**. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? **If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"** (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). 

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and** o**ne chair founded on Peter ****by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).*

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’ve seen it suggested that (assuming Anglican orders to have been previously invalid) this situation has not been altered by the Dutch Touch because succession passes only through the bishop presiding at the consecration, not through those bishops assisting. Is that generally accepted?

 

[manualman]

Beats me. I think GKC would have mentioned it by now if that were the case though.

I’m not qualified to answer, but the difference if probably found in the fine print of ordination rites. In the catholic tradition, is that considered the same as concelebration of the mass, in which ALL the priests participating are invovled in confecting the sacrament? Or is ordination to Holy Orders not practiced via concelebration, but merely allows other bishops to assist? See the difference? I’d expect things to hinge on that question.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yep, thanks, manualman. I’ve seen the idea I put expressed on various forum threads as though it were the truth. Forum posts don’t necessarily constitute the total truth (!) but any views wd be welcomed by me.

 

[GKC]

I’ve seen it suggested that (assuming Anglican orders to have been previously invalid) this situation has not been altered by the Dutch Touch because succession passes only through the bishop presiding at the consecration, not through those bishops assisting. Is that generally accepted?

My response is “No”, AFAIK. But if that were the case, in the RCC, a quick comment would put an end to the speculation. And in the case of Hughes and Leonard, it was assumed that their Dutch Touch lines played a part in their sub conditione ordinations. And I do recall some comments in such venues as this as to the fact that the additional consecrators common in the RCC assured that no possibility of invalid consecrations could occur.

Who knows?

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yep, I sort of assumed that’s what the assisting bishops were there for. Perhaps I’ve a red herring on my line. I’ll see if I can track my herring down.

 

[GKC]

Yep, I sort of assumed that’s what the assisting bishops were there for. Perhaps I’ve a red herring on my line. I’ll see if I can track my herring down.

If you catch it, report on what it all means.

Me, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard reference to co-consecrators, meaning they’re not just bookends.

But who knows?

GKC

 

[CatholicServant]

You are very welcome. The subject has been a hobby of mine for around 10 years ( I got a lot of those, requiring buying books, which is what I mainly do with my time) and I do try to give a level account of the story. Which is complicated, beyond the theology involved. A long, sad story.

And, of course, I might get something wrong, don’t forget.

GKC

Oh, and let me correct a typo in the post of mine above. The acronym should be IAW (in accordance with). That and IOW are both remnants of my Air Force career.

Hi GKC,

Thank you for all of the information - I was wondering if you read Sir Joseph Pope’s book, “Why I Became a Catholic,” and if so, what your thoughts were regarding his research on the break of apostolic succession in the Anglican Church. I read it years ago, but if memory serves, he found through research that the succession was broken when a validly ordained Bishop (though he left the Catholic Church - might have been Cramner) did not perform the laying of hands during ordination (Sir Joseph Pope thought it was due to Cramner’s animosity with Rome).

God Bless.

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC,

Thank you for all of the information - I was wondering if you read Sir Joseph Pope’s book, “Why I Became a Catholic,” and if so, what your thoughts were regarding his research on the break of apostolic succession in the Anglican Church. I read it years ago, but if memory serves, he found through research that the succession was broken when a validly ordained Bishop (though he left the Catholic Church - might have been Cramner) did not perform the laying of hands during ordination (Sir Joseph Pope thought it was due to Cramner’s animosity with Rome).

God Bless.

No, I am not familiar with Sir Joseph, or his book. But I am familiar with the history of the subject, as related to Apostolicae Curae, and Anglican orders, and nothing like this is either true (AFAIK), or pertinent.

OTOH, it’s cheap and in print and I didn’t order any books today, while at the book store. I hate not having a book on order. I’ll order this one next.

GKC

 

[CatholicServant]

No, I am not familiar with Sir Joseph, or his book. But I am familiar with the history of the subject, as related to Apostolicae Curae, and Anglican orders, and nothing like this is either true (AFAIK), or pertinent.

OTOH, it’s cheap and in print and I didn’t order any books today, while at the book store. I hate not having a book on order. I’ll order this one next.

GKC

It’s proper English and a good read. Let me know what you think if you don’t mind. Have a nice weekend.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Here’s one herring, although it’s just a bald, somewhat ill-mannered, assertion, without supporting evidence:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=512613

Fr Hunwicke nods in the direction of the theory by emphasising that the Touch was to be by an Old Catholic bishop acting not as assisting bishop but as “equal principal consecrator”:

liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/anglicans-submit-to-apostolicae-curae.html

Others also refer to co-consecrations (I’m not sure whether this also means with equal principal consecrators) as though, perhaps, this was necessary:

anglicancontinuum.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/dutch-touch.html

The implication of the theory, of course, is that anyone who had received the Dutch Touch through an equal principal consecrator could only pass it on through being an equal consecrator himself. Otherwise, with only one principal consecrator, a mingling of succession lines would be impossible and each bishop would have only one line of succession passing through the ages unchanged like mitochondrial dna,and dating back in each case, in theory, to an individual apostle.

 

[Indifferently]

Hunwicke was never much of an Anglican anyway. Anglo-Papalist perhaps, but now he’s finally gone to his actual home, and the English RC hierarchy still don’t like him, to the extent that his blog comments are moderated into oblivion lest one of his interlocutors says something naughty about dear Vincent or any other bishop.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, yes, and the attitude of Ordinariate priests to their former Anglican orders is always interesting …

But he has taken an interest in the curious doings of the Dutch Touch.

 

[GKC]

Here’s one herring, although it’s just a bald, somewhat ill-mannered, assertion, without supporting evidence:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=512613

Fr Hunwicke nods in the direction of the theory by emphasising that the Touch was to be by an Old Catholic bishop acting not as assisting bishop but as “equal principal consecrator”:

liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/anglicans-submit-to-apostolicae-curae.html

Others also refer to co-consecrations (I’m not sure whether this also means with equal principal consecrators) as though, perhaps, this was necessary:

anglicancontinuum.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/dutch-touch.html

The implication of the theory, of course, is that anyone who had received the Dutch Touch through an equal principal consecrator could only pass it on through being an equal consecrator himself. Otherwise, with only one principal consecrator, a mingling of succession lines would be impossible and each bishop would have only one line of succession passing through the ages unchanged like mitochondrial dna,and dating back in each case, in theory, to an individual apostle.

I’ve read Fr. Hunwicke before on that. In the Anglican mode (I am open to correction), all bishops are equal co-consecrators. In the case of the OC co-consecrators, Hughes states that they were, in fact, co-consecrators. The statement of the Bishop of Haarlem at the first such co-consecration states clearly that he intends to consecrate, and pass the fullness of the Catholic order, which he possessed, in mingling “the two streams of the episcopal succession which has come down from the Apostles, namely that derived through the bishops of the Old Catholic Church and that which has come down through the Anglican hierarchy until the present time” (1932). Hughes may be saying the same thing as Hunwicke,

Still a lot of supposition.

GKC