The Anglican Communion and Apostolic Succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter xixxvmcm85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xixxvmcm85

Guest
I was told that the Catholic Church does not recognize the apostolic succession of the Anglican Communion. I’m curious as to why.

It would seem rather obvious to me that if the Bishops in 16th century England were valid Bishops when Catholic, then those same men, same Bishops would also have valid succession once King Henry XVII severed ties with the Catholic Church and started the Anglican Communion.

How is it that the Eastern Orthodox orders are considered valid but the Anglican orders are not?
 
I guess in essence I should be asking:

What makes the Anglican Communion heretical rather than schismatic like the Orthodox?

Thanks.
 
Joe_Brown said:
They dont have valid Apostolic Succession
Click to expand...
I think the OP is asking what make it invalid. It can’t just be invalid because it’s invalid. Here’s what wikipedia has to say on the topic (I’d wondered the same thing):
In the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIII stated in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae that the Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church’s consecrations are “absolutely invalid and utterly void” because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Roman_Catholic_judgments
 
Belloc_Fan said:
I think the OP is asking what make it invalid. It can’t just be invalid because it’s invalid. Here’s what wikipedia has to say on the topic (I’d wondered the same thing):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Roman_Catholic_judgments
Click to expand...
While accurate as far as it goes, with respect to the actual statements in Apostolicae Curae, this is incomplete. There were two intertwined factors that have to be considered together, in making that judgment. As stated in AC, the Anglican sacramental form of consecration was changed, in the Edwardine Ordinal, in a manner which was said to render it invalid. But this has to taken together with the concept of sacramental intent, since the form of the Ordinal did not differ from that of a number of rites which the RCC does recognize as conveying valid orders. Specifically, the sacramental intent of those who used that particular form, constructed when and by whom it was constructed, in the consecration of Archbishop Parker (as is usually stated), in 1559, was also considered to be invalid. Invalid intent and form together were the judgment.

The history, personalities, politics and theology of the whole affair make a sad story. And, of course, Anglicans do not accept what Raphael Merry del Val wrote, and Leo XIII signed, as “valid” one might say.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus, and another Belloc fan
 
Precision is crucial to understanding, but so is conciseness (concision? No, surely not)

Dumping some of the precision of the above posters to be concise, For a period of time after the schism, the Anglican bishops DID have apostolic succession. But then they drifted in a more protestant direction and began to suspect the idea of apostolic succession itself and the idea of Holy Orders being a Sacrament as catholics understand them. When a valid bishop loses faith in the sacrament of Holy Orders AND modifies the ordination rite for new bishops to one not recognizable to catholicism, the new bishop just isn’t a bishop. He’s just a man in a pointy hat and vestments. After a whole generation of this went by, all the validly ordained bishops died out and tru succession was lost. At that point, it no longer mattered that they corrected the problems in the ordination rite and returned to a more sacramental vision of Holy Orders: they had no genuine bishops left to perform the rite.

My apologies to the bluntness of the above to Anglicans. Obviously y’all have a rather different view of the above or you wouldn’t be Anglicans still. You think we’re wrong and we think you are, but I still learn a lot from your posts and appreciate your contributions. (Insert frothy beer mug here!)
 
manualman said:
Precision is crucial to understanding, but so is conciseness (concision? No, surely not)

Dumping some of the precision of the above posters to be concise, For a period of time after the schism, the Anglican bishops DID have apostolic succession. But then they drifted in a more protestant direction and began to suspect the idea of apostolic succession itself and the idea of Holy Orders being a Sacrament as catholics understand them. When a valid bishop loses faith in the sacrament of Holy Orders AND modifies the ordination rite for new bishops to one not recognizable to catholicism, the new bishop just isn’t a bishop. He’s just a man in a pointy hat and vestments. After a whole generation of this went by, all the validly ordained bishops died out and tru succession was lost. At that point, it no longer mattered that they corrected the problems in the ordination rite and returned to a more sacramental vision of Holy Orders: they had no genuine bishops left to perform the rite.

My apologies to the bluntness of the above to Anglicans. Obviously y’all have a rather different view of the above or you wouldn’t be Anglicans still. You think we’re wrong and we think you are, but I still learn a lot from your posts and appreciate your contributions. (Insert frothy beer mug here!)
Click to expand...
Thanks for your post.

Could you provide me with some names of particular Bishops where the succession was lost, the dates when such occurred, or maybe a link to some historical source documenting the shift in belief and practice of Holy Orders in the Anglican Communion? This is all so interesting.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Thanks for your post.

Could you provide me with some names of particular Bishops where the succession was lost, the dates when such occurred, or maybe a link to some historical source documenting the shift in belief and practice of Holy Orders in the Anglican Communion? This is all so interesting.
Click to expand...
Here’s the best link I can give you.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

It’s the document referred to above. Amazing what you can grab off the internet nowadays…
 
manualman said:
Precision is crucial to understanding, but so is conciseness (concision? No, surely not)

Dumping some of the precision of the above posters to be concise, For a period of time after the schism, the Anglican bishops DID have apostolic succession. But then they drifted in a more protestant direction and began to suspect the idea of apostolic succession itself and the idea of Holy Orders being a Sacrament as catholics understand them. When a valid bishop loses faith in the sacrament of Holy Orders AND modifies the ordination rite for new bishops to one not recognizable to catholicism, the new bishop just isn’t a bishop. He’s just a man in a pointy hat and vestments. After a whole generation of this went by, all the validly ordained bishops died out and tru succession was lost. At that point, it no longer mattered that they corrected the problems in the ordination rite and returned to a more sacramental vision of Holy Orders: they had no genuine bishops left to perform the rite.

My apologies to the bluntness of the above to Anglicans. Obviously y’all have a rather different view of the above or you wouldn’t be Anglicans still. You think we’re wrong and we think you are, but I still learn a lot from your posts and appreciate your contributions. (Insert frothy beer mug here!)
Click to expand...
Thanks, for my part. After studying the history of Apostolicae Curae for around 10 years, I hope I have a point to contribute, from time to ime.

No, Anglicans don’t accept AC, but RCs certainly should affirm it.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Thanks for your post.

Could you provide me with some names of particular Bishops where the succession was lost, the dates when such occurred, or maybe a link to some historical source documenting the shift in belief and practice of Holy Orders in the Anglican Communion? This is all so interesting.
Click to expand...
The best book on the subject of Apostolicae Curae, from the RC standpoint, is ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, by (then Jeusit Fr.) Francis Calrk. The best exposition of the history of what actually occurred in this sad affair is Fr. John L. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. Fr. Hughes also wrote the best exposition of the possible Anglican case against Apostolicae Curae, STEWARDS OF THE LORD. Fr. Hughes, a former Anglican priest and convert to the RCC, is a very interesting person, being the first Anglican priest to be ordained a RC priest, not absolutely, but* sub conditione*. I always recommend his and Clark’s books, on this topic.

For a point in time that the succession was broken, one can do no better that take Clark’s view (which, in turn, is based on one of seven possible meanings of the term “intent” as used in Apostolicae Curae), and date it from the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559, as Elizabeth I’s Archbishop of CAnterbury. +Parker was a sort of bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy.

As to the possible shifts in Anglican belief, that is taken as demonstrated by the construction of the form of consecration in the Edwardine Ordinal, as of around 1549. Though the form has to be considered together with the sacramental intent, (in Clark’s definitive view) of the consecrators of +Parker.

Anglicans have a different view of the matter. So to speak.

You have a link, above, to Apostolicae Curae. Here’s the official reply of the Anglican Archbishops, *Saepius Officio.
*

anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf

But to really get into this, the internet simply is inadequate. I’ve been collecting books on it for years.

GKC
 
Joe_Brown said:
They dont have valid Apostolic Succession
Click to expand...
Yes and No.

From a Roman Catholic Perspective…no.

From the perspective of logic, history and reality many Anglicans do have valid succession. Leo XIII wrote before the infusion of Old Catholic/PNCC lines in the 20th century (both of which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as having valid succession) fixed the issue of succession for many Anglicans even if you buy the debatable premise that it was broken. It is debatable for many reasons and even if there was defect in the ordinal, it was fixed centuries ago. The infusion of Old Catholic/PNCC lines in the mid 20th century just added validity.

When Pope Benedict affirms Leo’s statement he is affirming something outdated by changes in history and reality that took place in the 20th century.

However…if you are a Roman Catholic the issue of logic, reality or history is irrelevant. All you need to be concerned with is the Church’s official position…PERIOD.

As for Anglicans being heretical, there are some I would classify that way but others even within the Communion who are highly orthodox.

Remember it is all perspective. To the Eastern Orthodox it is the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Catholic Church (which from their perspective is the EO). They have an issue with validity of Roman Catholic succession because of the way they interpret it AND an issue with Roman Catholic innovations to the faith. Recall that a Russian theologian noted that the Pope WAS the first Protestant.

Each side can have all of those lovely perspectives as long as we treat one another with respect.
 
While most Anglican clergy are likely possessed of the Dutch Touch, and logically should thus possess valid/illicit orders, according to ROme, officially the RCC has not commented on the issue. And that being the case, I usually only do so, in discussing Anglican orders, when it is directly brought up. I don’t fault a RC for affirming what the RCC requires to be affirmed. And , in the end, one would have to also consider the form, matter and intent (all of which I think are no problem).

GKC
RevDrNorth said:
Yes and No.

From a Roman Catholic Perspective…no.

From the perspective of logic, history and reality many Anglicans do have valid succession. Leo XIII wrote before the infusion of Old Catholic/PNCC lines in the 20th century (both of which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as having valid succession) fixed the issue of succession for many Anglicans even if you buy the debatable premise that it was broken. It is debatable for many reasons and even if there was defect in the ordinal, it was fixed centuries ago. The infusion of Old Catholic/PNCC lines in the mid 20th century just added validity.

When Pope Benedict affirms Leo’s statement he is affirming something outdated by changes in history and reality that took place in the 20th century.

However…if you are a Roman Catholic the issue of logic, reality or history is irrelevant. All you need to be concerned with is the Church’s official position…PERIOD.

As for Anglicans being heretical, there are some I would classify that way but others even within the Communion who are highly orthodox.

Remember it is all perspective. To the Eastern Orthodox it is the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Catholic Church (which from their perspective is the EO). They have an issue with validity of Roman Catholic succession because of the way they interpret it AND an issue with Roman Catholic innovations to the faith. Recall that a Russian theologian noted that the Pope WAS the first Protestant.

Each side can have all of those lovely perspectives as long as we treat one another with respect.
Click to expand...
 
Eleve said:
Does the RCC also dispute AS by way of the Old Catholic Churches?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has not spoken on this matter. These efforts came after AC and haven’t formally been ruled upon to the best of my knowledge.

But I do find it strange that Anglicans generally object to AC, but at the same time, seem to give it credence by going out and finding rogue bishops not suffering from the problems listed in AC to convalidate their ordinations.

Do y’all have confidence in your position or not? If you do, why seek non-Anglicans out to help with ordinations if not to address the loss of AS?
 
manualman said:
The Catholic Church has not spoken on this matter. These efforts came after AC and haven’t formally been ruled upon to the best of my knowledge.

But I do find it strange that Anglicans generally object to AC, but at the same time, seem to give it credence by going out and finding rogue bishops not suffering from the problems listed in AC to convalidate their ordinations.

Do y’all have confidence in your position or not? If you do, why seek non-Anglicans out to help with ordinations if not to address the loss of AS?
Click to expand...
Your history is deficient. Again, I recommend Hughes’ books.

The joint consecrations, starting in 1932, with the OCs, were a result of discussions begun, with the aim of establishing full intercommunion with the OCs of Utrecht, following the 1930 Lambeth Conference. Joint consecrations were a fall-out of that.

I also recommend Fr. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT. on this whole process, and the Bonn Agreement on intercommunion.

Generally, Anglicans who are concerned about AC move across the river. Or perhaps, the other river. Those who remain are not convinced.

GKC.
 
i have always wondered if there were any priests or bishops who were ordained by someone who was considered an anti-Pope and how that worked.

wouldn’t their orders also have been null and void?
 
Wouldn’t the anti-Pope still be a bishop, with the power to perform valid (if illicit) consecrations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top