Holy Orders question

[Junebug999]

This question is for Catholics – I was in a recent debate among Catholic friends…Does the Church of England and/or the Episcopalian Church in America have Holy Orders that give them the priestly authority to conduct Eucharistic service, meaning that the bread/wine is changed to the Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord?

I might owe my friend Bob lunch over the answer to this one, but I think only the CC and the Eastern Rite Churches have this authority>?

 

[CentralFLJames]

This question is for Catholics – I was in a recent debate among Catholic friends…Does the Church of England and/or the Episcopalian Church in America have Holy Orders that give them the priestly authority to conduct Eucharistic service, meaning that the bread/wine is changed to the Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord?

I might owe my friend Bob lunch over the answer to this one, but I think only the CC and the Eastern Rite Churches have this authority>?

The Anglicans think they do and I imagine the same goes for the Episcopalians. The truth is there are a number of problems with this:

1. They don’t have a consistent and orthodox view of exactly what it is that they are consecrating in their liturgical services since any Anglican is free to believe in real-presence (consubstantated form) or symbolic presence or just a generic “mystery”.
2. They do not have a valid apostolic authority and priesthood. They lost the apostolic succession when Henry VIII and his successors “fired” or murdered all the Catholic Bishops and changed the ordinal rites to “Protestantize” them (under Henry’s young impetuous son King Edward who hated Catholics). Thus they are no longer Melchizedekian priests and are no more than secular-ministers wearing gowns and priestly attire and have no way to ordain their replacements – much less the spiritual authority to effect the sacraments (except for baptism and witnessing marriages).

As for #2 there is some interesting history here. The Anglicans assert that a few old ex-Catholic bishops were compelled to ordain the new Anglican bishops selected by the English crown (lackeys/puppets who swore allegiance to gain the position). But The Catholic Church has never accepted it. We claim lack of communion and total estrangement of these “king appointed” bishops with the rest of the Catholic Bishops AND the blatant and disobedient Protestantizing of the ordinal rites invalidated even a forced or compelled blessing by the deposed original Catholic Bishops. These 3 bishops were compelled out of patriotism or forced through intimidation to cooperate against the wishes of The Catholic Church to convey their authority to the Protestant-Anglican bishops but that is NOT a valid spiritual context for ordination. There is an interesting history called the Nags Head Tavern ordination where there are accounts or fables of the new first non-Catholic Anglican bishop of Canterbury being ordained in a pub when someone placed a bible on his head and proclaimed him bishop while toasting it over drinks.

Anglicans in the 1960s tried to revise their ordination rites to something less Protestant and closer to the apostolic rites the Catholics have used then attempted to re-gain their apostolic authority by getting the Old Catholics to conditionally ordain them again (conditional ordination is used to prevent a sacrilege against double ordination if God holds the prior questionable orders valid). But the Old Catholics are refuting their involvement and are afraid of losing their apostolic succession themselves. The Old Catholics were a small independent sect of apostolic bishops that the Catholic Catholic Church recognizes as valid but who are not really in communion with the Catholic Church. Further, Anglicans & Protestants have further distanced themselves from the apostolic succession by openly ordaining homosexual and female bishops which is an affront to the authority and we are taking this as sign that they definately do not have a valid apostolic spiritual authority and are under now under God’s disfavor if not His wrath.

So the bottom line is the Anglicans do not have a priestly apostolic authority and do not really have what we call “a church”. They are an ecclesial community with a secular priesthood that means nothing spiritually; little more than a secular moral club with some Christian traditions and values. If not for baptism we could scarcely call them Christian anymore.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Here is a link to Pope Leo XIII’s famous encyclical Apostolicae Curae – On the Nullity of Anglican Orders proclaiming Anglican orders absolutely null and utterly void.
Highlights from Apostolicae Curae:

15 The authority of Julius m, and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardian rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic rite even in Rome.

1. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
2. We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

It’s crackers and grape-juice during service and the left overs are bird food. Anglicans themselves tacitly admit it as such since Anglicans and Episcopalians don’t even have a tabernacle to store “consecrated” symbols of their faith and don’t keep leftovers. It is therefor self asserting itself as a symbolic priesthood…

James

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

This question is for Catholics – I was in a recent debate among Catholic friends…Does the Church of England and/or the Episcopalian Church in America have Holy Orders that give them the priestly authority to conduct Eucharistic service, meaning that the bread/wine is changed to the Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord?

I might owe my friend Bob lunch over the answer to this one, but I think only the CC and the Eastern Rite Churches have this authority>?

The answer is no, based on:

Apostolicae Curae
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII
September 18, 1896.

 

[Junebug999]

WOW — you have given me so much to study and learn about. Thank you! Now, this is the viewpoint I have had also – I just didn’t know all the whys and wherefores!

I’m sitting here and watching Journey Home, and this ex-Methdist minister is saying, "It’s all about Eucharist – Eucharist is at the center of the difference between THE Church as opposed to A Church. It just makes me joyful and happy all over remembering last Saturday night when I was brought into full fellowship with THE Church.

I’ll print this out and study this. Thank you so much for your time. I have noticed both of you work hard on these forums to spread the Truth of Christ and the Truth of the Church (and to help people with misconceptions about the Church.) I thank God for you!

I’ll also be printing it out for Bob! And…he owes ME LUNCH!!! (I’ll try not to gloat )