K
KjetilK
Guest
Are you sue they do that? I’m not so certain.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Tomster
Guest
Apostolic succession requires something more than valid ordination. We may admit not only the fact, but also the validity of a bishop’s consecration, and yet deny him, even when validly consecrated, any participation in the divine commission given by Christ to His Apostles, any claim to Apostolic succession. Valid ordination is essential to, but insufficient for, legitimate succession. In the whole history of the Christian Church, there is nothing more evident than this, that when a bishop or a priest, or bishops and priests, revolted against ecclesiastical authority, or contumaciously erred against faith, they were silenced, suspended, deprived of their faculties, deposed from their sees. The Church, which had commissioned them and given them authority, jurisdiction, a right to teach, and assigned them a mission in which to exercise their ministry, simply revoked their commission, recalled her grant of powers, and annulled all license to act for her, in her name, or by her authority.Seems to be a couple of theoretical issues with your view. Possibly.
Again, per Ott, valid/illicit bishops exercising their episcopal functions confer valid/illict orders (in this sacramental instance). This specifically includes schismatic bishops, i.e., the OCs.
Whether Anglicans, in 1932, possessed valid/illicit orders at the time the joint IC/Anglican episcopal Consecrations were commenced, is not (ISTM) relevant. The stated intent of the OCs was to confer fully the valid (and, in Rome’s eye, illicit) orders possessed by the OCs to the candidates being consecrated, which, per Ott, is within their power. And also to mingle those orders with the Anglican Orders, whatever their status might be (in Rome’s eyes, null and void). The question remains: what does Rome specifically say about that action? Not what you or I might say, but what, per Ott, Rome might say, formally. I’ve wondered for years.
GKC
Thus she acted towards the validly ordained and rightly consecrated heretical Donatist, Eutychian and Arian bishops; and who among our orthodox Anglicans or Episcopalians recognize such excommunicated, deposed and deprived heretical bishops as successors of the Apostles. She holds the same principles today; schismatical and heretical bishops such as the bishops of the Greek Church, the Jansenist bishops of Holland, and Reinkens, the itinerant Old Catholic bishop of Germany even if validly ordained, have no share in the Apostolic commission, have no jurisdiction, they are not sent, and how will they preach? They are thus cut off from communion with the Church, broken off from the chain of Apostolic succession. Again, it is equally certain, and the history of the Church from the days of the Apostles bears witness, that bishops appealed in proof of their legitimacy, their right and authority to take and hold and govern their respective sees to the See of Rome, the See of Peter, because from the very beginning of the Church the bishops of the whole Christian world acknowledged the primacy of the See of Peter, the universal jurisdiction and supreme authority of the successors of Peter, whom Christ Himself commissioned to feed and govern his whole flock. This primacy of jurisdiction was necessary to maintain in unity in faith, a Church destined to spread over and embrace the habitable globe. This supreme authority vested in the Apostolic See, not by the canons, but by the Lord Jesus Himself in founding His Church, the bishops in every age admitted all are subject to the keys of Peter, kings and people, prelates and priests; we own it with joy, for we love unity, and glory in obedience.
T
Tomster
Guest
Here is an example of what I mentioned in my response to your post.Seems to be a couple of theoretical issues with your view. Possibly.
Again, per Ott, valid/illicit bishops exercising their episcopal functions confer valid/illict orders (in this sacramental instance). This specifically includes schismatic bishops, i.e., the OCs.
Whether Anglicans, in 1932, possessed valid/illicit orders at the time the joint IC/Anglican episcopal Consecrations were commenced, is not (ISTM) relevant. The stated intent of the OCs was to confer fully the valid (and, in Rome’s eye, illicit) orders possessed by the OCs to the candidates being consecrated, which, per Ott, is within their power. And also to mingle those orders with the Anglican Orders, whatever their status might be (in Rome’s eyes, null and void). The question remains: what does Rome specifically say about that action? Not what you or I might say, but what, per Ott, Rome might say, formally. I’ve wondered for years.
GKC
By the Pope’s authority, Augustine, a priest and monk, with his monk companions, goes to evangelize the Saxons; by command of the same Pope Gregory, Augustine was consecrated a bishop by Virgilius, the primate of Arles, but Virgilius had no authority to send him to England, he [Virgilius] could give him no jurisdiction over that island. Virgilius could only do what every validly ordained bishop can do today, confer the episcopal powers of order, but not of jurisdiction; only the Pope could assign a mission, impart jurisdiction or authority to exercise those powers, within a given territory.
Pope Gregory, not Vergilius, constituted Augustine archbishop of London, sending him the pallium, authorizing him to consecrate twelve suffragans.
If ever you have watched an episcopal consecration on EWTN you would have seen the Pope’s legate reading out loud the Pope’s letter granting the new bishop jurisdiction.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
G
GKC
Guest
Not all that much, no. You still are dealing with liceity,not authority. Every schismatic bishop encompassed by Ott’s statement is in the same situation. Yet valid/illicit orders continue to be transmitted in and by those episcopal lines. No one is claiming the orders in the case of the Dutch Touch would be lawful, in Rome’s eyes. Merely valid. Or not, if there is a contrary interpretation of what Ott is declaring. Which is what I continue to wonder.Here is an example of what I mentioned in my response to your post.
By the Pope’s authority, Augustine, a priest and monk, with his monk companions, goes to evangelize the Saxons; by command of the same Pope Gregory, Augustine was consecrated a bishop by Virgilius, the primate of Arles, but Virgilius had no authority to send him to England, he [Virgilius] could give him no jurisdiction over that island. Virgilius could only do what every validly ordained bishop can do today, confer the episcopal powers of order, but not of jurisdiction; only the Pope could assign a mission, impart jurisdiction or authority to exercise those powers, within a given territory.
Pope Gregory, not Vergilius, constituted Augustine archbishop of London, sending him the pallium, authorizing him to consecrate twelve suffragans.
If ever you have watched an episcopal consecration on EWTN you would have seen the Pope’s legate reading out loud the Pope’s letter granting the new bishop jurisdiction.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Same comment as the prior comment. And a repetition of a curiosity about a formal RCC statement, not one from the Bishop of Buffalo, 16 years before Apostolicae Curae.Apostolic succession requires something more than valid ordination. We may admit not only the fact, but also the validity of a bishop’s consecration, and yet deny him, even when validly consecrated, any participation in the divine commission given by Christ to His Apostles, any claim to Apostolic succession. Valid ordination is essential to, but insufficient for, legitimate succession. In the whole history of the Christian Church, there is nothing more evident than this, that when a bishop or a priest, or bishops and priests, revolted against ecclesiastical authority, or contumaciously erred against faith, they were silenced, suspended, deprived of their faculties, deposed from their sees. The Church, which had commissioned them and given them authority, jurisdiction, a right to teach, and assigned them a mission in which to exercise their ministry, simply revoked their commission, recalled her grant of powers, and annulled all license to act for her, in her name, or by her authority.
Thus she acted towards the validly ordained and rightly consecrated heretical Donatist, Eutychian and Arian bishops; and who among our orthodox Anglicans or Episcopalians recognize such excommunicated, deposed and deprived heretical bishops as successors of the Apostles. She holds the same principles today; schismatical and heretical bishops such as the bishops of the Greek Church, the Jansenist bishops of Holland, and Reinkens, the itinerant Old Catholic bishop of Germany even if validly ordained, have no share in the Apostolic commission, have no jurisdiction, they are not sent, and how will they preach? They are thus cut off from communion with the Church, broken off from the chain of Apostolic succession. Again, it is equally certain, and the history of the Church from the days of the Apostles bears witness, that bishops appealed in proof of their legitimacy, their right and authority to take and hold and govern their respective sees to the See of Rome, the See of Peter, because from the very beginning of the Church the bishops of the whole Christian world acknowledged the primacy of the See of Peter, the universal jurisdiction and supreme authority of the successors of Peter, whom Christ Himself commissioned to feed and govern his whole flock. This primacy of jurisdiction was necessary to maintain in unity in faith, a Church destined to spread over and embrace the habitable globe. This supreme authority vested in the Apostolic See, not by the canons, but by the Lord Jesus Himself in founding His Church, the bishops in every age admitted all are subject to the keys of Peter, kings and people, prelates and priests; we own it with joy, for we love unity, and glory in obedience.
GKC
K
KjetilK
Guest
To repeat myself. It is hard to discuss with a person who pontificates on the positions of other Churches when he doesn’t even know the position of his own Church.
B
boar2roar
Guest
If I had pick a group of a people who could quote the bible on the spot it would be them.Are you sue they do that? I’m not so certain.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Certain select parts, perhaps.If I had pick a group of a people who could quote the bible on the spot it would be them.
T
Tomster
Guest
Way to go research man! From the Catholic point of view, though, the good bishop’s analysis was spot on.Same comment as the prior comment. And a repetition of a curiosity about a formal RCC statement, not one from the Bishop of Buffalo, 16 years before Apostolicae Curae.
GKC
T
Tomster
Guest
In regards to Ott, pages 338 through 346 should assist you in your inquiryNot all that much, no. You still are dealing with liceity,not authority. Every schismatic bishop encompassed by Ott’s statement is in the same situation. Yet valid/illicit orders continue to be transmitted in and by those episcopal lines. No one is claiming the orders in the case of the Dutch Touch would be lawful, in Rome’s eyes. Merely valid. Or not, if there is a contrary interpretation of what Ott is declaring. Which is what I continue to wonder.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Since I’m reasonably familiar with the section on the seven sacraments (including the discussion of intent), I doubt that it would, as to the point on p. 458. P. 458 assumes that all other sacramental factors are valid. Which, in the case of the question of the Dutch Touch, would require demonstration of some invalid sacramental factor in the conferring of episcopal orders, to militate against the dispensing of the sacrament validly. And doubtless a formal statement, officially, from Rome, on the question would address that. Which I am still curious about.In regards to Ott, pages 338 through 346 should assist you in your inquiry
GKC.
.
G
GKC
Guest
The subject has interested me for around 15 years. I got a small library on the matter (and the form, and the intent).Way to go research man! From the Catholic point of view, though, the good bishop’s analysis was spot on.
GKC
T
Tomster
Guest
My own personal inquiry has lead me to the 1977 “Book of Common Prayer”. I am not sure if you accept this version or not. It is my understanding that some Anglicans do and some do not.Not all that much, no. You still are dealing with liceity,not authority. Every schismatic bishop encompassed by Ott’s statement is in the same situation. Yet valid/illicit orders continue to be transmitted in and by those episcopal lines. No one is claiming the orders in the case of the Dutch Touch would be lawful, in Rome’s eyes. Merely valid. Or not, if there is a contrary interpretation of what Ott is declaring. Which is what I continue to wonder.
GKC
Having said that, in the section devoted to the Articles of Religion, Article XXVII contains this sentence, “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England”. Interesting to say the least. Obviously the framers of this Article considered it very important to make this statement and equally important, by making this statement, they implicitly wished to show that jurisdiction in the Church of England existed and was important. The question that remains to be answered is where is that specific jurisdiction in Anglicanism? The Articles do not immediately and specifically say. I think one can logically assume that Henry VIII did in fact try to fill the void. History does confirm this. But, by doing so, Henry seriously erred. One cannot usurp Christ’s words. The right to supreme, spiritual jurisdiction over the Church was given to Peter, not Caesar. Christ never intended the Church He instituted to be ruled by secular authorities. Hence, sadly, Henry fell into schism by breaking unity with Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.
As we both know, from schism it’s only a hop, step and a jump to heresy. From Henry’s schism the Edwardian Reformers declared their conscientious opposition to the Sacrifice of the Mass. Without going into their statements which I am sure you are well aware of, the names of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Holebeach, Taylor, Coverdale and Ferrar come to mind. These Reformers had accurate knowledge of the authorized Catholic teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and of how it was presented by their contemporary opponents. They all rejected this knowledge and embraced not only Henry’s schism but fell into heresy. The sacrificing priesthood that Christ gave us was lost
What was left was instead of seven sacraments their were now only two, baptism and the eucharist as understood by the Reformers, transubstantiation was denied and equally important Holy Orders as a sacrament was denied.
Now, you may ask, why have I said all of this?
I find it really mind boggling to see minsters of different confessional backgrounds going through a tortuous and contorted exercise in their attempt to receive valid and licit orders. The process they go through is contradictory to say the least. Here we have ministers of a certain ecclesial communion and carrying the weight of their own confessional statements going to other ecclesial communions with their own specific, and at times differing confessional statements, trying to receive valid and licit orders so that they may go back to their own communions to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass, a rite which their own communion denies.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
If your last paragraph represented reality your conclusions might be more understandable. But, at least as far as the Church of England is concerned, she is confident that her orders are valid and their exercise licit. The view of your church on the matter as stated in the last century is naturally of intellectual interest, but it has no practical effect except to impede ecumenism and make more difficult the path of those few Anglican priests who wish to minister as priests of your church. Similarly it would be interesting to read a definitive statement of how Rome regards the impact, if any, of Old Catholic lines on Anglican orders. But just interesting, not needed to enable Anglican priests to perform the functions for which they have been ordained.My own personal inquiry has lead me to the 1977 “Book of Common Prayer”. I am not sure if you accept this version or not. It is my understanding that some Anglicans do and some do not.
Having said that, in the section devoted to the Articles of Religion, Article XXVII contains this sentence, “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England”. Interesting to say the least. Obviously the framers of this Article considered it very important to make this statement and equally important, by making this statement, they implicitly wished to show that jurisdiction in the Church of England existed and was important. The question that remains to be answered is where is that specific jurisdiction in Anglicanism? The Articles do not immediately and specifically say. I think one can logically assume that Henry VIII did in fact try to fill the void. History does confirm this. But, by doing so, Henry seriously erred. One cannot usurp Christ’s words. The right to supreme, spiritual jurisdiction over the Church was given to Peter, not Caesar. Christ never intended the Church He instituted to be ruled by secular authorities. Hence, sadly, Henry fell into schism by breaking unity with Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.
As we both know, from schism it’s only a hop, step and a jump to heresy. From Henry’s schism the Edwardian Reformers declared their conscientious opposition to the Sacrifice of the Mass. Without going into their statements which I am sure you are well aware of, the names of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Holebeach, Taylor, Coverdale and Ferrar come to mind. These Reformers had accurate knowledge of the authorized Catholic teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and of how it was presented by their contemporary opponents. They all rejected this knowledge and embraced not only Henry’s schism but fell into heresy. The sacrificing priesthood that Christ gave us was lost
What was left was instead of seven sacraments their were now only two, baptism and the eucharist as understood by the Reformers, transubstantiation was denied and equally important Holy Orders as a sacrament was denied.
Now, you may ask, why have I said all of this?
I find it really mind boggling to see minsters of different confessional backgrounds going through a tortuous and contorted exercise in their attempt to receive valid and licit orders. The process they go through is contradictory to say the least. Here we have ministers of a certain ecclesial communion and carrying the weight of their own confessional statements going to other ecclesial communions with their own specific, and at times differing confessional statements, trying to receive valid and licit orders so that they may go back to their own communions to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass, a rite which their own communion denies.
T
Tomster
Guest
A suggestion. An excellent volume for your library would be “The Defence of the Priesthood” by St. John Fisher with an introduction by Stanley L. Jaki.The subject has interested me for around 15 years. I got a small library on the matter (and the form, and the intent).
GKC
Jaki’s introduction is smashing and the appendix contains Fisher’s famous “Sermon against Luther”. The “Sermon” has been transcribed into modern English by Dr. Anne Barbeau Gardiner.
Perhaps you will get a clearer understanding of the Catholic teachings regarding jurisdiction, valid/licit orders, etc.,
T
Tomster
Guest
Well, from strictly the Catholic position, Anglican ministers are laymen, and sometimes women, wearing clerical garb.If your last paragraph represented reality your conclusions might be more understandable. But, at least as far as the Church of England is concerned, she is confident that her orders are valid and their exercise licit. The view of your church on the matter as stated in the last century is naturally of intellectual interest, but it has no practical value except to impede ecumenism and make more difficult the path of those few Anglican priests who wish to minister as priests of your church. Similarly it would be interesting to read a definitive statement of how Rome regards the impact, if any, of Old Catholic lines on Anglican orders. But just interesting, not needed to enable Anglican priests to perform the functions for which they have been ordained.
G
GKC
Guest
As do many folk, you misunderstand what the Articles are. They are in no sense an Anglican confession, nor are they necessarily binding on any Anglican, save, in a technical sense. on clergy in the Church of England, per the Parliamentary Act of Subscription/1571. This is one reason why, in the American 1977 book you are looking at, the Articles are found in a section on historical documents. Which is what they are, religion as statecraft; how the Elizabethan Church chose to deal with circumstances in that day and time. As you note, not all Anglicans look to the 1977 book. Not all Anglicans look to the Articles, either (though you and any Trinitarian Christian would not have an issue with many of them).My own personal inquiry has lead me to the 1977 “Book of Common Prayer”. I am not sure if you accept this version or not. It is my understanding that some Anglicans do and some do not.
Having said that, in the section devoted to the Articles of Religion, Article XXVII contains this sentence, “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England”. Interesting to say the least. Obviously the framers of this Article considered it very important to make this statement and equally important, by making this statement, they implicitly wished to show that jurisdiction in the Church of England existed and was important. The question that remains to be answered is where is that specific jurisdiction in Anglicanism? The Articles do not immediately and specifically say. I think one can logically assume that Henry VIII did in fact try to fill the void. History does confirm this. But, by doing so, Henry seriously erred. One cannot usurp Christ’s words. The right to supreme, spiritual jurisdiction over the Church was given to Peter, not Caesar. Christ never intended the Church He instituted to be ruled by secular authorities. Hence, sadly, Henry fell into schism by breaking unity with Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.
As we both know, from schism it’s only a hop, step and a jump to heresy. From Henry’s schism the Edwardian Reformers declared their conscientious opposition to the Sacrifice of the Mass. Without going into their statements which I am sure you are well aware of, the names of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Holebeach, Taylor, Coverdale and Ferrar come to mind. These Reformers had accurate knowledge of the authorized Catholic teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and of how it was presented by their contemporary opponents. They all rejected this knowledge and embraced not only Henry’s schism but fell into heresy. The sacrificing priesthood that Christ gave us was lost
What was left was instead of seven sacraments their were now only two, baptism and the eucharist as understood by the Reformers, transubstantiation was denied and equally important Holy Orders as a sacrament was denied.
Now, you may ask, why have I said all of this?
I find it really mind boggling to see minsters of different confessional backgrounds going through a tortuous and contorted exercise in their attempt to receive valid and licit orders. The process they go through is contradictory to say the least. Here we have ministers of a certain ecclesial communion and carrying the weight of their own confessional statements going to other ecclesial communions with their own specific, and at times differing confessional statements, trying to receive valid and licit orders so that they may go back to their own communions to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass, a rite which their own communion denies.
Anglicans do make a distinction amongst the seven sacraments, but that distinction in itself varies. What the Articles state is not usually disputed, and two of the seven are referred to as Dominical, established in their form by Our Lord. But, amongst Anglicans, generally (not exhaustively), one finds an acceptance of seven. However, one must never make generalizations about Anglicans, of course, as we all know.
You also misunderstand the Act of Bonn, which traces its roots back to the 1870s, for full inter-communion between the Old Catholics/Utrecht, and Anglicanism, years before Apostolicae curae. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT is suggested for background.
GKC
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well, from strictly the Anglican position, that is sad, but, you know, so what?Well, from strictly the Catholic position, Anglican ministers are laymen, and sometimes women, wearing clerical garb.
G
GKC
Guest
Makes for a lot of posts, sometimes.Well, from strictly the Anglican position, that is sad, but, you know, so what?
GKC
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
True. There is that to be said for it.Makes for a lot of posts, sometimes.
GKC
Your sang froid in the face of provocation puts me to shame. The advice on reading matter you must find particularly helpful.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.