The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[GKC]

I have heard that some Anglicans have attempted to gain valid orders thru the Orthodox but I have never seen anything that says this indeed happened. Obviously anyone claiming such would have to provide evidentiary proof. As for the Old Catholics I am not sure that their orders are valid but I am sure they are illicit as is the case with any ordinations by a heretical bishop.

The Old Catholics of Utrecht were considered valid in their orders, at least until they started attempting to ordain women, of late. Which doesn’t affect their *status quo ante.
*
Of course they are illicit, but none the less valid, and capable of conveying valid orders. See Ott, p. 458.

GKC

 

[GKC]

When you say that Fr. Hughes was one of only two Anglican priests ordained sub conditione, after conversion. What exactly are you saying? I ask because I myself am aware of several former Anglican priests who have converted and have been ordained as Catholic priests.

Hughes and Leonard were former Anglican priests who, upon conversion , were ordained conditionally (sub conditione), in the sense of “if thou are not already a priest…” This is the same form as is used for a conditional Baptism, since, like Baptism, ordination imprints an indelible character and cannot be repeated. Which means that the RCC was saying, in these to cases, the fact of the invalidity of their Anglican orders was not known beyond doubt. Which is a considerable distance from Apostolicae Curae

No other case that has been made public is known of an Anglican priest who was not (in Rome’s eyes) ordained absolutely, not conditionally, as with any lay person.

I am always in search of any info on any such verified and identified cases, if any are claimed.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree generally with all you say here. Really a priest (sacerdos) is at the core a sacrificer. That is really what a priest is. The nature of the priesthood is and must be sacrificial. Standing in persona christi the priest offers the one sacrifice of Calvary once and for all re-presented on the altar. This is the fundamental nature of the priesthood. And the trouble with Anglicanism in my opinion is how Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and company saw the Mass as a memorial. I feel they misunderstood “anamnesis” as mere memorial, not a living memorial connected to the reality re-presented as Catholics see it. I agree with the Catholic view that the memorial anamnesis of the sacrifice is as the Jews saw it, living and a connection to the real, not just a looking back rememberance as Cranmer saw it. And my concerns with Anglicanism is not so much priestly validity but what is believed and what is taught about the sacrament. Receptionism, which Cranmer taught and ended up putting in the 39 Articles, Hooker’s dynamic receptionism, all this takes away the ex opere operato outlook on the consecration and the reality of the Sacrament and sticks too much of Christ in the heart of the believer. It takes away a piece of the priesthood and makes the communicant a sort of co-consecrator as his heart is the catalyst for the reality. I don’t buy that for a minute.

I don’t like the early Anglican beliefs on the sacraments at all. I believe they have valid orders but can understand why Catholics see them as illicit because the views of the sacrament and their unity is so tainted with modern toxicity and pride that the unitive aspect of the Eucharist is lost as well.

Anna,

I think perhaps part of the problem is that you come originally out of a faith tradition in which any believer could declare them selves a preacher (priest if you will), get up and start preaching (or perhaps start their own Church).

So that said, let me suggest this. Lets put aside the authority of the Church for just a minute, and lets go with this “valid priests do exist out side of the catholic church”. The first question becomes this, what is a priest?

In some traiditions (like your previous one), believers cling to the idea of the common priesthood. However as we should know, this idea is invalid. The Israeliest also had a common priesthood (this was declared in the OT), however when it came time to Sacrafice on the Alter, offer oblation and pray for the forgivness of sins (prefigures sacrament of reconciliation), it was only the levites who could do this was it not?

More over, we see in the New Testament a clear distinction between Bishops/Elders/Prybiterate and the Lay (as well as with the Priestly order, and Deacons). So what makes a priest, and what do they do?

I would argue what makes a preist is someone who had hands laid upon them by a successor of the Apostles (valid). And what they do is minister the sacraments, most particularly the Eucharist.

The next question is, how does one properly become one? Earlier in this thread you argued that you weren’t comfortable with Adoration, because you personally didn’t see any evidence in scripture of the Eucharist being taken out of a meal context. This tells me that you beleive that there is a certain proper order about the sacraments, in order to be valid they must be intituted (and even used) properly.

So I would ask this for starters, can you acknowlege that there must be some distinction between the priesthood and lay. There must be a certain proper order about how one goes about becoming a priest, and with out that proper order one can not be a priest, and there for can not do what a priest does.

God bless,

 

[RobBahoura]

Church Year Established Founder Where Established

Catholic Jesus Christ Jerusalem

Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic
Bishops Constantinople

Lutheran 517 Martin Luther Germany

They either had to be Catholic or Orthodox no QUESTION the prodestants came out in 517 way after church fathers.

 

[crazzeto]

I agree generally with all you say here. Really a priest (sacerdos) is at the core a sacrificer. That is really what a priest is. The nature of the priesthood is and must be sacrificial. Standing in persona christi the priest offers the one sacrifice of Calvary once and for all re-presented on the altar. This is the fundamental nature of the priesthood. And the trouble with Anglicanism in my opinion is how Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and company saw the Mass as a memorial. I feel they misunderstood “anamnesis” as mere memorial, not a living memorial connected to the reality re-presented as Catholics see it. I agree with the Catholic view that the memorial anamnesis of the sacrifice is as the Jews saw it, living and a connection to the real, not just a looking back rememberance as Cranmer saw it. And my concerns with Anglicanism is not so much priestly validity but what is believed and what is taught about the sacrament. Receptionism, which Cranmer taught and ended up putting in the 39 Articles, Hooker’s dynamic receptionism, all this takes away the ex opere operato outlook on the consecration and the reality of the Sacrament and sticks too much of Christ in the heart of the believer. It takes away a piece of the priesthood and makes the communicant a sort of co-consecrator as his heart is the catalyst for the reality. I don’t buy that for a minute.

I don’t like the early Anglican beliefs on the sacraments at all. I believe they have valid orders but can understand why Catholics see them as illicit because the views of the sacrament and their unity is so tainted with modern toxicity and pride that the unitive aspect of the Eucharist is lost as well.

Argh, that’s it… I’m going to have to read more about the Apostolicae Cuare. I’ve read some, but enough to know that while this view is somewhat on target, it misses certain other aspects i.e. the ordination of priests and bishops it’s self…

You guys have me reading more than I ever have in my life previously

 

[GKC]

I agree generally with all you say here. Really a priest (sacerdos) is at the core a sacrificer. That is really what a priest is. The nature of the priesthood is and must be sacrificial. Standing in persona christi the priest offers the one sacrifice of Calvary once and for all re-presented on the altar. This is the fundamental nature of the priesthood. And the trouble with Anglicanism in my opinion is how Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and company saw the Mass as a memorial. I feel they misunderstood “anamnesis” as mere memorial, not a living memorial connected to the reality re-presented as Catholics see it. I agree with the Catholic view that the memorial anamnesis of the sacrifice is as the Jews saw it, living and a connection to the real, not just a looking back rememberance as Cranmer saw it. And my concerns with Anglicanism is not so much priestly validity but what is believed and what is taught about the sacrament. Receptionism, which Cranmer taught and ended up putting in the 39 Articles, Hooker’s dynamic receptionism, all this takes away the ex opere operato outlook on the consecration and the reality of the Sacrament and sticks too much of Christ in the heart of the believer. It takes away a piece of the priesthood and makes the communicant a sort of co-consecrator as his heart is the catalyst for the reality. I don’t buy that for a minute.

I don’t like the early Anglican beliefs on the sacraments at all. I believe they have valid orders but can understand why Catholics see them as illicit because the views of the sacrament and their unity is so tainted with modern toxicity and pride that the unitive aspect of the Eucharist is lost as well.

I don’t like the early Anglican views (some of them) either. Which is why I don’t affirm them, not being a Cranmerian or Ridleyian, but an Anglican. Neither does anyone I know in my parish. Beyond that, it’s a tossup.

Yes. Re-presented, made present in time at the intersection of eternity and history, the one very same sacrifice. As my late priest taught in our catechesis course.

GKC

 

[KathleenGee]

Back to being simple minded…

We have to make an act of faith that people in the bible – the patriarchs, prophets, kings, the people of God got their authority to be the inspired works from God Himself.

Now with those who were chosen by Christ, the bishops who were chosen by the Apostles and so on down, these all redeemed by Christ, heard the Good News…Christ Himself changing linear time…

Well what is the difference between the writers of the Bible and those consecrated to be administrators of Christ’s Church??

I think some times it all gets down to ‘authority’.

I don’t think Church ecclesiastics who stumble their way in darkness every generation to proclaim the Good News are any different than those who came before them in the Old Testament. Christ said He would never abandon us. And I would think He would have to use broken humanity to run His church…but with the help of the Holy Spirit.

The problem is ecclesiastics not being faithful to what they were taught and not drawing on the Lord for His strength, but depending on their own…which leads to compromise and failure. And the Old Testament and plenty of these failures as well.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know apostolicae curae and the validity of Anglican orders is a real interest of yours, GKC, and it can be debated till infinity but I think these types of discussions have a real downside. They’re so focused on technicalities, on forms and intentions, on procedure and rules and conditions. They are so intellectual and procedural and almost lawerly that it takes one away from the big picture of CHURCH. Is a Church merely a Church based on apostolic succession and some valid sacraments or is unity, moral coherence and objective morality, a teaching authority, unity, theology, and historicity all just as important? I might sound like Cyprian but it seems anyone could be ordained in the Catholic priesthood or Orthodoxy and then run off and start a church in a barn somewhere with the chickens and hold Mass for some farmers and preach and teach anything he wants and is it a Church? A few bishops and priests can bail and start a church but is it a church? Is sacramental validity all that’s required and is this what Christ intended?

We have Old Catholics, Anglicans of 10,000 different stripes, some Lutherans from Sweden etc. and a bunch of other rogues with valid lines but is Christianity just a geneaology? Our discussions in here tend to reduce the Church of Christ just down to geneaology. If Anglicans can prove they came off the family tree at some point as a cousin, they’re valid, etc.? What troubles me is this idea itself, that geneaology makes Christianity. It seems like Church is more than just sacraments, it’s about truth and authority and moral guidance. It’s about theology, unity of mind, and being able to teach authoritatively good from evil. I’m not in agreement with Cyprian that a priest with valid orders, upon leaving the Church, loses them, but I do wonder what’s the point? Is tracing all this lineage worth our time when all the moral teaching, theology, and truth diverging in 20 different directions?

I guess what I’m saying, from a view of Anglicanism, is what good has apostolic succession done the Anglican Church overall saying apostolicae curae was wrong? We have women bishops, women priests, actively open gay clergy, guys like Stott and Packer who don’t even believe in the priesthood! (and they’re huge names in Anglicanism!) and openly endorse Calvinist confessional doctrines and yet we also have Oxford types who are more Catholic than the pope in liturgy but don’t go to confession, etc.? There is so much confusion, chaos, bishops and priests suing one another, venom, guys like David Virtue spending all day every day drudging up stories about how the TEC is evil and apostate while TEC spends its time creating a secular cult that rubber stamps the far Left. We have an impotent ABC from a long line of weak and impotent ABC’s. We have one parish reserving the Host and having benediction and down the street another Anglican parish believing in receptionism and feeding the Eucharist to doves? There is no coherence. So the debate, and I mean this respectfully for sure (!!!) isn’t a necessarily meaningful one in the face of all this baggage and insanity? Do valid orders constitute a valid Church?

I wish we could all address that more than lineage and geneaologies as I myself have done so frequently. I’m beginning to question my own reasoning when I do so?

Hughes and Leonard were former Anglican priests who, upon conversion , were ordained conditionally (sub conditione), in the sense of “if thou are not already a priest…” This is the same form as is used for a conditional Baptism, since, like Baptism, ordination imprints an indelible character and cannot be repeated. Which means that the RCC was saying, in these to cases, the fact of the invalidity of their Anglican orders was not known beyond doubt. Which is a considerable distance from Apostolicae Curae

No other case that has been made public is known of an Anglican priest who was not (in Rome’s eyes) ordained absolutely, not conditionally, as with any lay person.

I am always in search of any info on any such verified and identified cases, if any are claimed.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Argh, that’s it… I’m going to have to read more about the Apostolicae Cuare. I’ve read some, but enough to know that while this view is somewhat on target, it misses certain other aspects i.e. the ordination of priests and bishops it’s self…

You guys have me reading more than I ever have in my life previously

The connection between what gurney said, and Apostolicae Curare is in the supposed invalid intent in using a form of ordination/consecration that was constructed without a reference to the sacrificing authority of the priest.

I’ve given my suggestions for the best reading: Clark on the RC side, Hughes on the Anglican. On this particular point, Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD is essential…

GKC

 

[GKC]

I know apostolicae curae and the validity of Anglican orders is a real interest of yours, GKC, and it can be debated till infinity but I think these types of discussions have a real downside. They’re so focused on technicalities, on forms and intentions, on procedure and rules and conditions. They are so intellectual and procedural and almost lawerly that it takes one away from the big picture of CHURCH. Is a Church merely a Church based on apostolic succession and some valid sacraments or is unity, moral coherence and objective morality, a teaching authority, unity, theology, and historicity all just as important? I might sound like Cyprian but it seems anyone could be ordained in the Catholic priesthood or Orthodoxy and then run off and start a church in a barn somewhere with the chickens and hold Mass for some farmers and preach and teach anything he wants and is it a Church? A few bishops and priests can bail and start a church but is it a church? Is sacramental validity all that’s required and is this what Christ intended?

We have Old Catholics, Anglicans of 10,000 different stripes, some Lutherans from Sweden etc. and a bunch of other rogues with valid lines but is Christianity just a geneaology? Our discussions in here tend to reduce the Church of Christ just down to geneaology. If Anglicans can prove they came off the family tree at some point as a cousin, they’re valid, etc.? What troubles me is this idea itself, that geneaology makes Christianity. It seems like Church is more than just sacraments, it’s about truth and authority and moral guidance. It’s about theology, unity of mind, and being able to teach authoritatively good from evil. I’m not in agreement with Cyprian that a priest with valid orders, upon leaving the Church, loses them, but I do wonder what’s the point? Is tracing all this lineage worth our time when all the moral teaching, theology, and truth diverging in 20 different directions?

I guess what I’m saying, from a view of Anglicanism, is what good has apostolic succession done the Anglican Church overall saying apostolicae curae was wrong? We have women bishops, women priests, actively open gay clergy, guys like Stott and Packer who don’t even believe in the priesthood! (and they’re huge names in Anglicanism!) and openly endorse Calvinist confessional doctrines and yet we also have Oxford types who are more Catholic than the pope in liturgy but don’t go to confession, etc.? There is so much confusion, chaos, bishops and priests suing one another, venom, guys like David Virtue spending all day every day drudging up stories about how the TEC is evil and apostate while TEC spends its time creating a secular cult that rubber stamps the far Left. We have an impotent ABC from a long line of weak and impotent ABC’s. We have one parish reserving the Host and having benediction and down the street another Anglican parish believing in receptionism and feeding the Eucharist to doves? There is no coherence. So the debate, and I mean this respectfully for sure (!!!) isn’t a necessarily meaningful one in the face of all this baggage and insanity? Do valid orders constitute a valid Church?

I wish we could all address that more than lineage and geneaologies as I myself have done so frequently. I’m beginning to question my own reasoning when I do so?

Apostolicae Curae is nothing but technical detail. I doubt we are going to get away from it.

Valid orders, from valid ministers in Apostolic succession is all I can hope for at this point in history. If it were otherwise, I’d look into it. But, as far as I can tell, from my study, I’ve got that. Now I have to tend our little corner of the world. Best I can do. I wish you well.

Meanwhile someone paid off our church mortgage. Yay!.

GKC

 

[KathleenGee]

That work is indeed technical and can make somebody outside think it is a man made church. This is a great work, but it also shows the painstaking care needed in the Catholic Church that the integrity of the sacraments are maintained, down to the minutest detail…and how this same endeavor is applied as well to other disciplines within the Church.

And it is all the grace of the Holy Spirit…working through men.

Once a person accepts the universal and apostolic faith, they then can see that the Holy Spirit is truly at center and that the Church is not man made but Mystical.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As old as your parish is, I’m suprised it had a mortage? And whoever paid it off kept it anonymous? Wow, what a Christian act of humility and charity that is!

Apostolicae Curae is nothing but technical detail. I doubt we are going to get away from it.

Valid orders, from valid ministers in Apostolic succession is all I can hope for at this point in history. If it were otherwise, I’d look into it. But, as far as I can tell, from my study, I’ve got that. Now I have to tend our little corner of the world. Best I can do. I wish you well.

Meanwhile someone paid off our church mortgage. Yay!.

GKC

 

[GKC]

As old as your parish is, I’m suprised it had a mortage? And whoever paid it off kept it anonymous? Wow, what a Christian act of humility and charity that is!

The building is only roughly 25+ years old. The parish built it.

And yes, anonymous.

This helps a lot. Now for a new roof. I expect a fund drive.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The whole Anglican Communion needs a proverbial new roof. It’s caving in!

The building is only roughly 25+ years old. The parish built it.

And yes, anonymous.

This helps a lot. Now for a new roof. I expect a fund drive.

GKC

 

[GKC]

The whole Anglican Communion needs a proverbial new roof. It’s caving in!

We’re still dry.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Things seem pretty dang damp to me overall LOL…TEC is drenched in a monsoon! ACNA has a sponge bath soon to be a torrent I’m sad to say…W.O. being the tsunami wave

We’re still dry.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Things seem pretty dang damp to me overall LOL…TEC is drenched in a monsoon! ACNA has a sponge bath soon to be a torrent I’m sad to say…W.O. being the tsunami wave

Well we can seat around 220 or so, per Mass. Send 'em over.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure you want most Episcopal refugees to come to your parish. Look at ACNA. It’s really just The Episcopal Church 2.0 without gays and abortion. The liberal values and pridefulness is there in spades, W.O., divorce and remarriage, disfunction between bishops, incoherence, evangelical vs. catholic, all the joys of TEC… Episcopal refugees, unless it’s from Mark Lawrence Land, for the most part will only serve to liberalize (new verb? ) your parish. Be careful whatcha wish for!

Well we can seat around 220 or so, per Mass. Send 'em over.

GKC

 

[Dokimas]

I’ve had this question stuck in my craw for some time now. I’ve sought the answer at CRAM (that’s not a typo, by the way, I have decided to render that name as such due to a recent, messy falling-out with the moderators there regarding their objectivity: I asked for it, and they penalized me for doing so), but none of the seething malcontents or even the rare reasonable human beings who tarry there could give me any answer at all, really.
Here it is:

Often noncatholics will try to parry any assumption on our part that the early Church was actually Catholic by declaring that they were “catholic” (note the lower case ‘c’) as opposed to “Roman Catholic”. What strikes me as odd is that even if one makes a case that the earliest Christians weren’t Catholic, one must deal with the fact that they certainly don’t resemble anything else which exists in modernity (save the Orthodox, but that’s another can of worms altogether). It seems to be an attempt to argue against Catholicism using standards which cannot be met by the arguer, but, like I said, I could never get a rational response out of anyone.

What say you?

Christian - or Followers of Jesus the Christ

 

[inkaneer]

There have been two who were received, and ordained sub conditione, J. J. Hughes and Graham Leonard, neither who had any connection with Othodoxy. If anyone knows of an Anglican priest who was received in his orders, I would greatly appreciate the details.

GKC

Well I was not familiar with the term sub conditione so I googled it and found only one reference to it and that on an “Old Catholic” website. It was defined thusly:

“*Sub Conditione *consecration is a procedure in which two already consecrated bishops consecrate each other, thereby sharing their apostolic lines. In that way, each of their churches recognizes without question the apostolic succession of the other. This has been used, for example, to remove doubts about the validity of Anglican and Episcopalian successions by adding the universally recognized Old Catholic line.”

That last sentence I question as to its veracity as I don’t think a heretical bishop’s ordinations would be recognized by the Catholic Church. The four bishops consecrated by Bishop Le Lefebvre in 1988 were excommunicated immediately upon their ordination. That excommunication was lifted in 2008 only after the four bishops wrote to the pope and promised:

“…we are always firmly determined in the will to remain Catholic and to put all of our energy to the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept Her teachings with filial spirit. We firmly believe in the Primacy of Peter and his prerogatives, and because of that we suffer greatly by the current situation.”

This was for a schismatic faction not a heretical one as the Old Catholics are.

While doing some rather basic research on this I found that the claims to Apostolic Succession have spread to Baptists in the form of the CAC (Celtic Anabaptist Communion). This one is almost laughable as the minister claims that distance is no problem to the laying on of hands. And here all along I thought you had to be within arms length.