Hmmm
I think maybe the key to my lack of understanding is probably the history on Apolostic Succession within the early Church. Why are the Eastern Orthodox Churches considered to have a valid Succession but other liturgical Churches are not? I would think that if a group broke away from Rome then their Apostolic Succession would be considered no longer valid?
I guess mainly I’m asking: Why are the Eastern Orthodox Churches considered an exception? Why did they not lose their Apostolic Succession when they were no longer in Communion with the Pope? Why did other churches lose their succession when they broke away, such as the Anglican Communion?
Thanks again, just trying to dig into the roots of what is truly a valid Eucharist and therefore, what truly is the Real Presence of Jesus.
~Josh
Rome’s formal judgement on Anglican Orders, as expressed in
Apostolicae Curae, is based a finding, in Rome’s eyes, of two faults in the Anglican method of consecrating bishops (and, by extension, of ordaining priests) arising from the development and uise of the Edwardine Ordinal to replace the Roman Pontifical, in the 16th century. The subject is complicated, but it boils down to an assertion that the Anglican rite is faulty with respect to two of the points necessarty to confect a valid sacrament: form and intent. The two have to be considered together, since the form, in itself, is not faulty; rather it is considered so, in conjunction with intent and some other factors. As I said, it is complicated.
By the use of this rite, and by the assumed intent demonstrated in using it, the RCC judges that Anglican orders are null and void, and that Anglicanism has lost apostolic succession, for that reason. It is unable to convey it, due to a lack of a valid episcopacy/priesthood. Rome has no such opinion with respect to Orthodoxy.
Merely not being in communion with Rome has no affect on the validity of otherwise valid orders, nor on the ability to transmit them, and transmit the apostolic succession, other points being valid (matter, form, intent, minister). Thus, Orthodox orders are considered valid by Rome, and their eucharist, likewise. And other Churches such as the Old Catholics (Utrecht)and the Polish National Catholic Church are considered similarly. In the cases of Churches possessing valid orders, but not in communion with Rome, Rome makes the distinction that such orders are valid, but not licit. So, in Rome’s eyes, it is possible for a Church to possess valid orders and apostolic succession, without being in communion with Rome.
Anglicans and Orthodox have their own opinions on the subject, but for RCs, this is what matters.
GKC
*
Anglicanus Catholicus *
