Provoo Communion Validates Anglican Orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvangelCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EvangelCatholic

Guest
Aside from Germany, Lutheran monarchies followed the bishops without the political upheaval the Church of England experienced.

**"What made the Church of Sweden an evangelical-catholic church was to Archbishop Söderblom the fact that the Reformation in Sweden was a ‘church improvement’ and a ‘process of purification’ which did not create a new church. As a national church, the Church of Sweden succeeded in bringing together medieval Swedish tradition with the rediscovery of the gospel which the Reformation brought with it. Archbishop Söderblom included the historic episcopate in the tradition-transmitting elements. The Church of Sweden was, according to Söderblom, in an even higher degree than the Anglican Church a via media. —Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostol...lic_succession **

Any thoughts?
 
Sounds like wishfull thinking on the “Arch Bishops” part. It’s stil a man made church and not the one founded and commisioned by Christ. Teaches heresy and error.
 
This was the start of Church & State where everyone was assumed Lutheran and assigned a parish. Children baptized and Ist Communion in high numbers even today. I am astonished by the high numbers of young adult confirmations in Finland .
 
The larger question I do not see asked, and reasonably so because this is a Roman Catholic site, is what about the Succession of the early Popes and bishops. Here is a link showing the dates of the Popes form Catholic Answers. The dates of several are “circa” xx. My question is, since the Papal Bull was so emphatic that Anglican Orders are not valid because of proper intent and form, how can anyone be sure the “intent and form” was appropriate when the dates of office are not even known for sure?

Just a thought I’ve been curious about for a while.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
The larger question I do not see asked, and reasonably so because this is a Roman Catholic site, is what about the Succession of the early Popes and bishops. Here is a link showing the dates of the Popes form Catholic Answers. The dates of several are “circa” xx. My question is, since the Papal Bull was so emphatic that Anglican Orders are not valid because of proper intent and form, how can anyone be sure the “intent and form” was appropriate when the dates of office are not even known for sure?

Just a thought I’ve been curious about for a while.
Click to expand...
If you are asking what was the grounds for the assertion in Apostolicae Curae that invalid intent and invalid form rendered the Anglican orders invalid, post roughly 1559, I might can help. It’s a long time hobby of mine. But I do not understand your reference to (Papal?) dates.

GKC
 
ChurchSoldier said:
The larger question I do not see asked, and reasonably so because this is a Roman Catholic site, is what about the Succession of the early Popes and bishops. Here is a link showing the dates of the Popes form Catholic Answers. The dates of several are “circa” xx. My question is, since the Papal Bull was so emphatic that Anglican Orders are not valid because of proper intent and form, how can anyone be sure the “intent and form” was appropriate when the dates of office are not even known for sure?

Just a thought I’ve been curious about for a while.
Click to expand...
We know the Anglican Orders are invalid because we know the proper intent and form was not observed. I’m not sure if we can know that the early orders were valid, but it seems by all accounts that they held the same beliefs and without reason to doubt that they had proper intents and forms it’s just something I assume true unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

After all, Apostolicae Curae says:
But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross”
Click to expand...
and again:
For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
Click to expand...
We know the earliest Catholics believed in a sacrificing priesthood, so I think we would be justified in thinking that they knew what they were doing.
 
albertus_magnus said:
We know the Anglican Orders are invalid because we know the proper intent and form was not observed. I’m not sure if we can know that the early orders were valid, but it seems by all accounts that they held the same beliefs and without reason to doubt that they had proper intents and forms it’s just something I assume true unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

After all, Apostolicae Curae says:

and again:

We know the earliest Catholics believed in a sacrificing priesthood, so I think we would be justified in thinking that they knew what they were doing.
Click to expand...
I suspect the question relates to a lack of knowledge as to the unbroken Apostolic Succession, due to lack of specific information on early Popes, in the RCC generally. I could be wrong.

GKC
 
Unbroken Lutheran primates. North Americans embracing apostolic succession from Sweden, Finland, etc
 
Polycarp1 said:
Sounds like wishfull thinking on the “Arch Bishops” part. It’s stil a man made church and not the one founded and commisioned by Christ. Teaches heresy and error.
Click to expand...
I don’t suppose you work for PBS?
 
ChurchSoldier said:
The larger question I do not see asked, and reasonably so because this is a Roman Catholic site, is what about the Succession of the early Popes and bishops. Here is a link showing the dates of the Popes form Catholic Answers. The dates of several are “circa” xx. My question is, since the Papal Bull was so emphatic that Anglican Orders are not valid because of proper intent and form, how can anyone be sure the “intent and form” was appropriate when the dates of office are not even known for sure?

Just a thought I’ve been curious about for a while.
Click to expand...
Well, for one thing we should avoid equating Catholicism with catholic.com.

But concerning your specific question about dates, perhaps you should be asking, Do we know the date of Christ’s baptism in the Jordan River?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Unbroken Lutheran primates. North Americans embracing apostolic succession from Sweden, Finland, etc
Click to expand...
There may be many things held in common belief between Lutherans and Catholics, but this is not one of them.

Wasn’t it Luther himself that rejected Rome?

Wasn’t he subsequently deemed a schismatic and expelled from the Catholic Church (that he rejected) along with all who followed him?
 
There is a territorial aspect to the Reformation that most of northern Europe is Lutheran or Anglican contrary to Mediterranean Catholic countries.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
There is a territorial aspect to the Reformation that most of northern Europe is Lutheran or Anglican contrary to Mediterranean Catholic countries.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Lutheran Princes, Dukes, and other lords waged quite a war on Catholics and the Church when they followed Martin Luther’s ideas.

It was quite an opportunity for them to gain power, wealth, and control over church matters.

It was also quite a bloody period of persecution of Catholics, if not outright extermination of them. Sadly, at a time when the Turkish and Muslim powers were rising in the east.

Then there was the hunting down and killing of all things and people Catholic, especially the priests, in England after Henry and his daughter Elizabeth…
 
Michael57 said:
Yes, the Lutheran Princes, Dukes, and other lords waged quite a war on Catholics and the Church when they followed Martin Luther’s ideas.

It was quite an opportunity for them to gain power, wealth, and control over church matters.

It was also quite a bloody period of persecution of Catholics, if not outright extermination of them. Sadly, at a time when the Turkish and Muslim powers were rising in the east.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, Lutherans were ruthless and several years ago formally asked forgiveness in murdering Anabaptists. Those were hysterical Christians killing and torturing one another like Shia and Sunni do today.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Oh yes, Lutherans were ruthless and several years ago formally asked forgiveness in murdering Anabaptists. Those were hysterical Christians killing and torturing one another like Shia and Sunni do today.
Click to expand...
I think that much of the killing had as much to do with consolidation of power by earthly princes as it did with theology. Luther’s followers got a wee bit out of control. King Henry’s too as I noted in my edited post.
 
Michael57 said:
I think that much of the killing had as much to do with consolidation of power by earthly princes as it did with theology. Luther’s followers got a wee bit out of control. King Henry’s too as I noted in my edited post.
Click to expand...
Some truth to that. It was common, in the day.

GKC
 
Michael57 said:
There may be many things held in common belief between Lutherans and Catholics, but this is not one of them.

Wasn’t it Luther himself that rejected Rome?

Wasn’t he subsequently deemed a schismatic and expelled from the Catholic Church (that he rejected) along with all who followed him?
Click to expand...
We would contend the events were reversed, and that any rejection of Rome was a rejection of the corruption and abuses of the time.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top