O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
I have read the document before AND it lacks credible evidence to declare that Anglicans are not in AS. Would you please show something to the contrary if you do not agree?
- Status
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
Catholics must accept it as a declaration of the magisterium. I on the other hand do not have to accept it and I do not accept it.
M
Matopos
Guest
Fair enough, but we can only help you if you get more specific.
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
Well, I’m asking for something credible in the decree that solidly shows where and how Anglicans are not to be considered in Apostoilic Succession. My point was that Catholics must accept the decree not matter how sketchy or just plain lacking of evidence it truly is, but I am not in the same position.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I agree although it’s possible someone has been directed/strongly suggested to leave it blank.
M
markomalley
Guest
Actually, you’ve got it 100% backwards. Apostolic Succession is something that needs to be proven.
Neither Holy Orthodoxy nor the Catholic Church accepts Anglican orders as being valid. No valid orders, no apostolic succession.
Therefore, the case is not proven. Pope Leo XIII did them a tremendous favor by writing Apostolicae Curae as he did. He elucidated in great detail what the problems were at that time (of course, the scandal of attempted ordinations with females makes recognition of Anglican orders utterly impossible now, but that wasn’t a problem back then).
If you wish for Catholics to accept your assertion that the Holy Father was in error, you will need to conclusively demonstrate that assertion.
So your task is not to say “I don’t accept his statement” – your task is to prove it wrong. If you want me (or any other Catholic) to acknowledge the validity of Anglican orders, the task is not to assert it, the task is to prove it.
In other words, the ball remains in your court.
L
liturgyluver
Guest
To be fair the document does set out the reasons for the declaration - essentially, and briefly, the Ordination rite introduced under the Prayer book of 1549 (and in use until 1662) was defective in form and intent because it was alleged that the office being conferred was not specifically said at the point of the laying on of hands.
There is a separate argument as to whether that interpretation is correct. Like others I have read widely on this issue, and think the argument presented is weak.
The ordination service is called “The form of ordering of priests” so it quite clear what grade of ministry is being conferred. Also the omission of the words “Receive authority to offer sacrifices to God…” reverted the rite in the prayer book to a primitive service that had been in use in the Catholic church.
As others have said the arguments are now academic since the ordination of women, but I think this is an interesting topic to discuss.
G
GKC
Guest
I think so, too.
This is close, but not quite accurate. The condemnation of Anglican orders in AC rests on the finding of invalidity of the form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and invalidity of intent, and the two are intertwined. The form in itself is not exceptional, it is possible to point to a number of ordination rites which have the same supposed defect, which the RCC considers valid, for conveying the sacrament validly. Therefore, question of intent must also be considered. But the intent is not that of the rite itself; sacramental intent inheres in the minister (or subject) of the sacramental action.
Intent is also interior, as AC observes. The minimum sacramental intent necessary to validly confect a sacrament is facere quod facit ecclesia. This is normally assumed to be the case, as long as all other valid sacramental factors are present. Thus valid intent is assumed if form, minister, etc, are demonstrably valid. Unless there is something that permits a judgement of the interior sacramental intent, a *determinatio ex adiunctis
*.
As noted, the form itself is not exceptional. But the judgment lies not so much on the defect, as how the defect arose. The Edwardine Ordinal was constructed by specific individuals, at a specific point in history. It was concluded that the omission of the mention of the power of offering the consecrated sacrifice was a deliberate omission of the essence of the priesthood, for theological reasons, and that the use of that particular form, composed by those particular persons, at that time, constituted evidence of invalid intent, by determinatio ex adiunctis.
A question does arise as to precisely whose intent is being considered, in AC. Clark, in the best book I know of explicating the RC side of the issue (ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) concludes it was the defect of sacramental intention in the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, in 1559. I recommend Clark’s book for those interested in the RC position. For the best exposition of the Anglican side (done by a most interesting RC priest), Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, the former for the history of this sad case, the latter for the theology.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
H
Hesychios
Guest
No disrespect meant to anyone, or any position, but I think the entire concept of apostolic succession has become distorted.
It needs to be seriously reviewed by everyone.
It needs to be seriously reviewed by everyone.
M
Matopos
Guest
Can you elaborate?
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
I still say that it’s semantics and a serious lack of credible reasons and evidence. As far a women’s ordination goes, the majority of the churches in the AC do not recognize women’s ordination to this day so I believe that’s a moot point.
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
QUOTE=Hesychios;8763533]No disrespect meant to anyone, or any position, but I think the entire concept of apostolic succession has become distorted.
It needs to be seriously reviewed by everyone.
I totally agree.
It needs to be seriously reviewed by everyone.
I totally agree.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I can try, but I am a little short of time at present so this post will be brief.
But it really needs to be a book.
In the early Patristic age the argument was made that bishops could trace their foundations to the work of certain Apostles, thus St Irenaeus of Lyons (for one famous example) could point out that the church of Rome and the churches of Asia had this type of origin over and against some ‘other’. That ‘other’ was any of numerous heretical groups, mainly gnostic in one form or another.
Why was this important? Was it some kind of institutional seal of approval? Well yes, but the reason was the teaching. It was important to prove that the teaching of these bishops in his day was the same as the teaching of the Apostles in their day! What they needed and wanted was consistency.
Otherwise, there were probably a lot heresiarchs around the late Roman world who could claim that they had Apostolic succession too. The difference was the stability of their teaching, and the indisputable fact that other such centers of Apostolic succession agreed with them going back to the beginning, they all agreed with one another.
They weren’t arguing that they all had Apostolic succession and that was all they needed. What they were arguing was that their teaching was trustworthy. It was authentic teaching, and the Apostolic succession was one way to tell, like a sign of authenticity.
Christian early history has many accounts of bishops visiting a church in some remote place and discovering heretical books there. That was their job, find out that kind of thing and make corrections (in those days it wasn’t as easy as looking at the bookshelf and reading the bindings, they pulled these scrolls and codices out and read them).
Another element of this was that it was ‘churches’ the Apostles founded, in other words communities and clergy, a complete package. It wasn’t like the Apostles were just placing chairs in temples and saying “the man that sits here is my guy, my job is done”. They were communities of Christians, responsible for one another, worshiping together and choosing their bishops when the predecessor passed on. The ‘office’ was passing through the community to a man, then through the community to the next man. That was the ordinary means of succession.
Bishops were not supposed to move around from See to See either, they were supposed to stay put until the breath left them. This is in stark contrast to the role of an Apostle (one who is sent).
The reason it required three bishops in the early church to consecrate another bishop was more a quality check. It was a control mechanism.
What we have today has stood all that on it’s head. We are saying that if the person had laying on of the hands, he is a bishop no matter what he believes, regardless of character, whether he even has a flock (or community) to serve. And then we compound this and say now he can make another, and that third one can make another etc.
And we are supposed to allow people to partake because their bishop has ‘Apostolic succession’? If the ‘bishop’ is no good what can we really say about the flock? How can we know since that ‘bishop’ is on the outside looking in?
Someone we never met and do not know can make bishops out of atheists and people of perverse dispositions who would presumably have ‘Apostolic succession’. This is why there are vagantes, this is why we are having this discussion right now about ‘who has it’ and ‘who doesn’t’, as if that subject can be separated from the teaching and the shepherding.
We are looking at this as if the laying on of hands is magical instead of sacramental.
- Status