Protestant Communion?

[Graceful_Lamb]

GKC has spoken. (posted as needed…)

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I Since the Catholic Church does not believe that Protestant denominations have Apostolic succession, then why does the Catholic Church consider their baptisms valid? It would seem that the Catholic church’s Nicene creed: “…We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins…” is contradictory. If the Protestants don’t have Apostolic succession, then why does any of it count to the Catholic church?

Can someone answer my above questions, please.

 

[chesterlab]

I don’t know who GKC is but I have a question what does the Dutch touch mean?

 

[GKC]

I don’t know who GKC is but I have a question what does the Dutch touch mean?

GKC is the one who often explains what the Dutch touch means. He will do so here, briefly.

Based on around 50-60 years of talking back and forth, the Anglicans and the Old Catholics/Utrecht, established a formal program of inter-communion, following the Agreement of Bonn, in 1932. This agreement provided for, among other things, joint consecrations of Old Dutch and Anglican bishops. Which began in 1932.

The Dutch Touch refers to a theoretical possibility resulting from the participation of OC bishops,in consecrating Anglican bishops. Per Ott (FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458), a schismatic (among other things) bishop, possessing valid holy orders, validly conveys valid, though illicit, holy orders, assuming all other sacramental factors are valid. The Old Catholics were, and in some cases are still, considered by the RCC to possess valid/illicit orders (since they were not in communion with Rome). Hence, assuming all other factors were valid, Anglicans so jointly consecrated possessed the same orders. Which they would then further propagate, in consecrating/ordaining, themselves. Thus the Dutch Touch raises the question of what impact this might have on Anglican orders, following Ott. No comment on this is known, from the RCC. Hence, one wonders. But one does not assume. If one is GKC.

 

[pablope]

pablope;13200256:

I do not know if the Catholic bishops had the permission of the Bishop of Rome to do so. It could be considered in disobedience to the Bishop of Rome, if they did it on their own.

As for acknowledging the successor of Peter, I am not Catholic. Therefore, I do not have to recognize anything Catholic, if I do not choose to.

Well then…since you do not acknowledge the bishop of Rome in your attmpt for a line of siccession from him, that means the line of succession has been broken.

It was actially broken a longtime ago…after Henry 8th’s actions as impetus.

 

[GKC]

Graceful_Lamb;13200311:

Well then…since you do not acknowledge the bishop of Rome in your attmpt for a line of siccession from him, that means the line of succession has been broken.

It was actially broken a longtime ago…after Henry 8th’s actions as impetus.

It is usually traced to a particular point in time: ++Parker’s consecration as Archbishop of Canterbury/1559. Apostolicae Curae does not make it perfectly clear, but that is the usual consensus.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

GKC is the one who often explains what the Dutch touch means. He will do so here, briefly.

Based on around 50-60 years of talking back and forth, the Anglicans and the Old Catholics/Utrecht, established a formal program of inter-communion, following the Agreement of Bonn, in 1932. This agreement provided for, among other things, joint consecrations of Old Dutch and Anglican bishops. Which began in 1932.

The Dutch Touch refers to a theoretical possibility resulting from the participation of OC bishops,in consecrating Anglican bishops. Per Ott (FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458), a schismatic (among other things) bishop, possessing valid holy orders, validly conveys valid, though illicit, holy orders, assuming all other sacramental factors are valid. The Old Catholics were, and in some cases are still, considered by the RCC to possess valid/illicit orders (since they were not in communion with Rome). Hence, assuming all other factors were valid, Anglicans so jointly consecrated possessed the same orders. Which they would then further propagate, in consecrating/ordaining, themselves. Thus the Dutch Touch raises the question of what impact this might have on Anglican orders, following Ott. No comment on this is known, from the RCC. Hence, one wonders. But one does not assume. If one is GKC.

Thank you for explaining Dutch Touch.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Graceful_Lamb;13200311:

Well then…since you do not acknowledge the bishop of Rome in your attmpt for a line of siccession from him, that means the line of succession has been broken.

It was actially broken a longtime ago…after Henry 8th’s actions as impetus.

First you said that if I recognize Peter as the head of the church, then I should be in communion, and am not currently. So, I said that I don’t recognize that and then you said the line of succession was already broken because of my opinion. Seems like no matter what I say, you have something to counter it with.

Exactly when was the Apostolic succession broken?

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

pablope;13200372:

It is usually traced to a particular point in time: ++Parker’s consecration as Archbishop of Canterbury/1559. Apostolicae Curae

does not make it perfectly clear, but that is the usual consensus.Consensus? Is it written anywhere when the Apostolic succession was broken? Is there a definitive answer to this?

 

[chesterlab]

Thanks for the def of the Dutch touch. In my days of studying cults from the Protestant perpective, the old Catholic Church, if I remember correctly, was/is a catholic cult.

I know also, and this is not heretical or cultic, that the Swedish Lutherans and the AOC have been long working on a union between both groups. The Swedish Lutheran church is much more Anglican than Lutheran and the AOC often visits Upsalla and the two denominations are rather close.

 

[GKC]

GKC;13200380:

Consensus? Is it written anywhere when the Apostolic succession was broken? Is there a definitive answer to this?

Consensus means consensus of those scholars who wonder about such things, in interpreting* Apostolicae Curae*. For the RCC, it occurred sometime subsequent to the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal’s form for ordaining/consecrating, post 1552, and is usually taken to be definitive at the consecration of ++Parker, by those folks who wonder about such details. Parker formed a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy. But, in general, any use of the Edwardine Ordinal, in its original form, constituted an invalid form and invalid intent, with respect to the valid confecting of the sacrament of orders, and all such were null and void. This broke the apostolic succession, since all Anglican consecrations/ordinations used that form, prior to the revision in 1662. According to Apostolicae Curae, promulgated in 1896. Which, you will recall, you are not required to affirm. RCs are.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for explaining Dutch Touch.

You are very welcome.

It is more complicated than that, as you might guess.

 

[GKC]

Can someone answer my above questions, please.

I am not sure if anyone did, but here’s my go at it.

Baptism does not require valid holy orders to confect, validly. The minister of the sacrament of baptism can be anyone, including an atheist, or what have you, who has the valid sacramental intent (to do what the Church does, in that sacrament, even if that individual does not believe it), uses valid form (name of the Trinity) and valid matter (water). A valid subject (human, not previously validly baptized) is assumed.

Apostolic succession for the minister not required.

 

[chesterlab]

So now I will take up the challenge to research it further

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the def of the Dutch touch. In my days of studying cults from the Protestant perpective, the old Catholic Church, if I remember correctly, was/is a catholic cult.

I know also, and this is not heretical or cultic, that the Swedish Lutherans and the AOC have been long working on a union between both groups. The Swedish Lutheran church is much more Anglican than Lutheran and the AOC often visits Upsalla and the two denominations are rather close.

No, it was a schism, of valid RCs. Who retained, per the RCC, valid orders.

 

[GKC]

So now I will take up the challenge to research it further

Research what? I might can suggest something.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I am not sure if anyone did, but here’s my go at it.

Baptism does not require valid holy orders to confect, validly. The minister of the sacrament of baptism can be anyone, including an atheist, or what have you, who has the valid sacramental intent (to do what the Church does, in that sacrament, even if that individual does not believe it, uses valid form (name of the Trinity) and valid matter (water). A valid subject (human, not previously validly baptized) is assumed.

Apostolic succession for the minister not required.

Thank you, GKC, for answering my questions. I will also research it further.

 

[GKC]

Thank you, GKC, for answering my questions. I will also research it further.

Go for it. Learning stuff is always good.

 

[KjetilK]

Elizium,here is an article on the western and eastern church by the Catholic World Report. Pope JP II was the first one to say that the eastern church is the “other lung of the church.” I am providing the link here. catholicworldreport.com/Item/1539/both_lungs.aspx

And here is an article from Catholic On line, which quotes Pope Francis referring to the “two lungs” of the church. catholic.org/news/international/europe/story.php?id=50211

I saw him in a live interview commenting on the eastern church being the other lung, but I can’t find that at the moment. The two articles above should provide you with all the proof you need.

Yes, ‘Eastern,’ not ‘Orthodox.’

 

[chesterlab]

I research everything. Anything anyone tells me, I make sure I research it to make sure it is what it has been purported to be. Sorry, that comes from 21 years of being a legal assistant and my Ukrainian dad’s advice “believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see”.