I'm going out on a limb here... (the contrarian argument)

[jmgi1957]

Answer this then, Did the Apostles and Paul consider themselves infallible in the preaching of the Gospel and Tradition?

 

[Frankie65]

It is not error when it is the Church making the definition. There is error possible when mere men make decisions. But the Catholic Church as an institution formed by Christ is unassailable by error and cannot make error. Like Christ was unassailable by sin

In this case humility does not come into it. Fact is fact. Truth is Truth. Objective

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Well that opens up a pandora’s box.

Does that make teaching error ok? And if so, how much of it? And who determines how much is ok and by what authority do they do so?

 

[GKMotley]

There is the Anglican Continuum, outside the Anglican Communion, which, among other orthodox things, doesn’t attempt to ordain females.

 

[GKMotley]

It is the RCC position, as basically expressed in Apostolic Curae, that Anglicans do not possess Apostolic Succession.

 

[GKMotley]

You are correct. RCs must affirm the judgement of Apostolicae Curae. Anglicans may take another approach.

And the long and sad story of what led to Apostolicae Curae involves a good deal of history, theology, personalities, and, yes, politics.

 

[Crocus]

Apostolicae curae seems to give a different reason from what I understood the reason to be

What is the reason given by AC (that Anglican orders are invalid), and how is that different from your understanding? Did AC change your understanding at all?

 

[Kullervo]

Apostolic succession is important.

 

[steve-b]

A few weeks back I laid out a position here that essentially stated that Christ meant to found only one church and the only church that can lay claim to that history is the RC one.

I also noted that …[snip for space]

Just a few thoughts

by giving Peter the keys of the kingdom, Jesus put Peter in charge. Then saying to Peter, , not even the gates of Hell would prevail against this Church He builds on Peter. So we know it won’t fail

besides, Scripture describes disastrous consequences for one(s) who divide and remain divided from His Church.

For example,

Whether dissension or division is one’s translation in the following texts, the Greek word is the same. διχοστασίαι, That same Greek word is used in both the following passages

Rm 16:17-21 AND Gal5:19-21

AND​

The consequences for division from His Church?

(Gal 5:21] “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ IOW Paul is teaching, one goes to hell when they die in that sin.

JohnStrachan:

In my church - the Anglican church - we recite the same creeds as the RC’s, we have eucharist, sacraments,

[snip for space]

why would the Holy Spirit be any less of an authority in my church then the RC church.

the Catholic Church says the Anglicans don’t have valid orders.

AND​

Re: what the HS teaches, Jesus said HERE

IOW

✓ since the HS doesn’t speak on His own, nor will He contradict Jesus, , the HS isn’t going to influence or teach anyone no matter who it is, to be outside the one and only Church Jesus established.

✓ The HS isn’t behind all the 10’s of thousands of sects/divisions/denominations etc we see. THAT Division is from Satan.
JohnSrachan:

I’m left uncertain then, that Christ meant to found a church that looks like the RC church.

THEN one would ask​

If Jesus builds on Peter His one Church and says the gates of hell won’t prevail against it, and it did prevail, What else did Jesus promise that won’t happen?

Re: Protestantism​

While doing his homework, on why all the divisions he saw, John Henry Newman, while still Anglican, found the following

"To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant"

He also said

"The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this".

Both quotes from: paragraph 5

he became Catholic after this.

 

[snarflemike]

What is the reason given by AC (that Anglican orders are invalid), and how is that different from your understanding? Did AC change your understanding at all?

Well, the end result is that (according to AC) Anglicans have no apostolic succession, but it is because the intentions of the original Catholic->Anglican bishops, or their successors, did not have the proper intention when conferring holy orders, so at some point the Anglicans who thought they were receiving holy orders were not in fact receiving them. It is similar to the way that a priest may confect an invalid Eucharist if he does not have the proper intention to confect the Eucharist.

 

[GKMotley]

It is an intertwining of the sacramental form, for orders, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and the presumed intent of those using such a form. Both judgements go together.

 

[steve-b]

Crocus:

What is the reason given by AC (that Anglican orders are invalid), and how is that different from your understanding? Did AC change your understanding at all?

Well, the end result is that (according to AC) Anglicans have no apostolic succession, but it is because the intentions of the original Catholic->Anglican bishops,, or their successors, did not have the proper intention when conferring holy orders, so at some point the Anglicans who thought they were receiving holy orders were not in fact receiving them. It is similar to the way that a priest may confect an invalid Eucharist if he does not have the proper intention to confect the Eucharist.

If the form is corrupted then the sacrament doesn’t take place

Example

Newman, after converting to Catholicism, from Anglican, he was later ordained by the Catholic Church… As this article mentions . It’s argued, that if Newman already thought he was already validly ordained, (after alll the study he did to come into the Church) he would have argued against being ordained by the Catholic Church. The fact he didn’t argue suggests he knew why he was ordained in the Catholic Church

 

[GKMotley]

It’s form and intent intertwined. There are Rites which use a form no different from the Edwardine Ordinal, on the specific point, which are accepted by the RCC as conferring orders validly. It was the form. combined with the judgement of the intent, as not facere quod facit ecclesia that was the reason given fir the judgement.

 

[steve-b]

It’s form and intent intertwined.

No argument there.

GKMotley:

There are Rites which use a form no different from the Edwardine Ordinal, on the specific point, which are accepted by the RCC as conferring orders validly. It was the form. combined with the judgement of the intent, as not facere quod facit ecclesia that was the reason given fir the judgement.

"The Bull takes note of the fact that in 1662 the form introduced in the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 had added to it the words: “for the office and work of a priest”, etc. But it observes that this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal; and, moreover, as the hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining. " FROM: Apostolicae Curae | Catholic Answers

 

[GKMotley]

And the Bull is incorrect, on that point/assumption. The change came in an argument between the CoE and the Church of Scotland, not a belated recognition of anything.

 

[steve-b]

And the Bull is incorrect, on that point/assumption. The change came in an argument between the CoE and the Church of Scotland, not a belated recognition of anything.

If it was incorrect, please show me where the Catholic Church then disqualifies AC in the argument…

 

[GKMotley]

Why would they do that? The point is not pertinent to the judgement.

 

[steve-b]

Why would they do that? The point is not pertinent to the judgement.

Then why say AC is incorrect?

The article I posted went through the history AND a re look at AC to see if perhaps anything new could be considered for the Anglican argument. As the article showed, everything was considered again.

AND​

The decision was the same

“The Pope goes on to state how the Anglican Ordinal had been adapted to the errors of the Reformers, so that thus vitiated it could not be used to confer valid orders, nor could it later be purged of this original defect, chiefly because the words used in it had a meaning entirely different from what would be required to confer the Sacrament. The force of this argument, which is clear to Anglicans themselves, may be applied also to the prayer “Almighty God, Giver of all good things” at the beginning of the rite. Not only is the proper form for the sacrament lacking in the Anglican Ordinal; the intention is also lacking. Although the Church does not judge what is in the mind of the minister, she must pass judgment on what appears in the external rite. Now to confer a sacrament one must have the intention of doing what the Church intends. If a rite be so changed that it is no longer acknowledged by the Church as valid, it is clear that it cannot be administered with the proper intention. He concludes by explaining how carefully and how prudently this matter has been examined by the Apostolic See, how those who examined it with him were agreed that the question had already been settled, but that it might be reconsidered and decided in the light of the latest controversies over the question. He then declares that ordinations conducted with the Anglican rite are null and void, and implores those who are not of the Church and who seek orders to return to the one sheepfold of Christ, where they will find the true aids for salvation. He also invites those who are the ministers of religion in their various congregations to be reconciled to the Church, assuring them of his sympathy in their spiritual struggles, and of the joy of all the faithful when so earnest and so disinterested men as they are embrace the faith. The Bull concludes with the usual declaration of the authority of this Apostolic letter” From: Apostolicae Curae | Catholic Answers

 

[GKMotley]

AC is incorrect as to why the 1662 changes were made. Had nothing to do with a recognition that the form was inadequate. Had to do with an issue between the CoE and the Church of Scotland, on the nature of the Episcopacy.

Joe (whom you will remember) noted that error in a footnote to one of his scholarly essays. It is generally well known.

 

[steve-b]

AC is incorrect as to why the 1662 changes were made. Had nothing to do with a recognition that the form was inadequate. Had to do with an issue between the CoE and the Church of Scotland, on the nature of the Episcopacy.

Joe (whom you will remember) noted that error in a footnote to one of his scholarly essays. It is generally well known.

Yet, Here’s another article that doesn’t back away from the ruling Anglican Orders | Catholic Answers

There is no conditional ordination (just in case one is already validly ordained ) for Anglican priests who come over to the Catholic Church and want to continue as a priest or move up the ladder. Ordination is unconditional ordination. As in it is not recognized they were validly ordained before.

Further:​

To that point of ordination

see Q: 12 Here pastoral provision for Anglicans coming over to the Catholic Church priesthood.