Validity of Holy Orders in the Tradiational Anglican Communion ?

[aussie_melkite]

well I disagree with the Church on saying that Anglican (paticulary High Church/Anglo-Catholic) are Invalid…Its Clear that Anglicans have always miantinaed the threefold ministry of Bishops, Priests and Decons…and whilst the Edwardian Ordinal maybe be faulty by Roman Standards its not Faulty by the Standards of many of the Churche’s of the East…and even if it was by some chance; the Revised Ordinal plus the “Dutch Touch” by Old Catholics would in fact breath Valid Apostolic Succession back into the Anglican Church…

Saying that Anglicans (and in paticular more Catholic Minded Anglicans such as the TAC) have no valid Sacraments is as biased and as historicaly inacurate as those Radical members of the Eastern Orthodox Church who maintian that Romans have no valid Sacraments either.

…and frankly if Anglican Sacraments are invlaid then we’d also have to question the validity of the Roman Church’s Scaraments since Vatican II…cause alot of the changes Anglicans Made have found their way into the New Mass, and the Ordinations.

 

[aussie_melkite]

While there are indeed many things about the TAC/CC Movement that seem “catholic” and have “catholic” trappings and window dressings, if you will, they lack the KEY of the Catholic Faith which is acceptance of and submission to the office of the Papacy as the source of Unity AND Authority. The readings of the Fathers (specifically Cyprian, Clement, Ignatius and Ireneaus) seem to be clear to me on this.
,

and Whilst I agree with you on the Importance of the Pope…I dont believe that one needs to be in union with him to Catholic…I dont belive that he is the Key to being Catholic…rather that Catholic belief, and Catholic worship and the Presence of a Valid Bishop are in fact the Keys to being Catholic…
I believe that All Churchs SHOULD be in union with the Pope and that he is the center of Unity…but that as an Unfourtuanly consequnce of History there are many churches who have found themselves out of communion with him…and I dont believe he alone can dertime who is Catholic and who is not…rather a Oecumenical Council of the ENTIRE UNIVERSAL CHURCH can detimine that…and there hasent been one of those since the the seventh council (the remaining councils I belive are only Local Councils of the Latin church…and whilst are importnat are not binding on Catholics who are non-roman)

 

[mgrfin]

…and frankly if Anglican Sacraments are invlaid then we’d also have to question the validity of the Roman Church’s Scaraments since Vatican II…cause alot of the changes Anglicans Made have found their way into the New Mass, and the Ordinations.

Tell us what changes have found their way into Roman Catholic rite of priestly ordinations.

In particular, changes (I say there haven’t been any) in the matter and form of priestly ordination since, whenever date you’d like to pick.

Throw in, if you wish, changes of matter and form found in the Sacrifice of the Mass relative to the matter and form of the Eucharist (The Consecration).

Thanks,

peace

 

[JoyforCatholic]

and Whilst I agree with you on the Importance of the Pope…I dont believe that one needs to be in union with him to Catholic…I dont belive that he is the Key to being Catholic…rather that Catholic belief, and Catholic worship and the Presence of a Valid Bishop are in fact the Keys to being Catholic…
I believe that All Churchs SHOULD be in union with the Pope and that he is the center of Unity…but that as an Unfourtuanly consequnce of History there are many churches who have found themselves out of communion with him…and I dont believe he alone can dertime who is Catholic and who is not…rather a Oecumenical Council of the ENTIRE UNIVERSAL CHURCH can detimine that…and there hasent been one of those since the the seventh council (the remaining councils I belive are only Local Councils of the Latin church…and whilst are importnat are not binding on Catholics who are non-roman)

Aussie-- Ok, I’m at a loss here – at one point you say one need not have the Pope to be Catholic but yet you say all churches SHOULD be in union with him? Which is it?

It is clear from the writings of early Church Fathers, Clement, Cyprian, Ignatius and Ireaneus that the Sucessor to Peter holds a special pre-eminence among the Episcopacy. He is not merely a “Senior Bishop” or a “neutred figurehead” as the Anglican Communion has done with the Abp. of Canterbury. He is a Real instrument for unity and as the Vicar of the Son of God on Earth, he has a special charism from the Holy Spirit (his office that is).

One can disagree and say what “they think” it means to be Catholic but the Fathers of the Church have defined it for us in antiquity and that definition is for all posterity.

To sum it up-- you can’t be Catholic without the Pope. It’s just that simple. This was one of the harder things for me, a former Continuing “church” Anglican to accept however once I realized what the Fathers held, the rest as they say, was “cream cheese”.

In Christ the Lord,

 

[aussie_melkite]

To sum it up-- you can’t be Catholic without the Pope. It’s just that simple. This was one of the harder things for me, a former Continuing “church” Anglican to accept however once I realized what the Fathers held, the rest as they say, was “cream cheese”.

Sorry dont belive that.
for too Long now the words “Roman” and the words “Catholic” have been intermixed…there was a time before the Roman Church was the only standard by which one was considered a Catholic…take the Orthodox Church for example…they are just as much Catholic as the Romans are; and they too belive that the Pope has a unique Role and a Primacy of honor amoungst Bishops.

Unfourtunly due to the great Schism some Orthodox Churches in the East took the extreme action of downplaying the Popes authority…whist the west took the extreme Reaction of making “union with the Pope” the standard for Catholicism.

Truth be known Catholics can quote many Bishops and Doctors to back up their points of view about the Papacy; and likewise the Orthoodx Church can quote Bishops and Doctors to back up their claims.

I stand firmly in the Middle of both views…not wishing to downplay the importance of the pope’s in early christianity but not seeking to elevate him beyond what the Early Christian Fathers taught either.

now in regurd to the Anglican church (and in Paticular the TAC and other Continuing Churches) I dont believe the Broad and High Anglican Church is Protestant (though the Low Church is)…I admit that some of her tachings have not been “Roman” but i cant find any evidence that she has taught against the Beliefs of Early Catholicism. she has mainted that she belives in the seven Eucmenical Councils of the Undived Church. She has always mainted the Threefold mististry of Bishops, Priests and Decons, She has never stoped Anglicans from Praying for the Dead. and whist denying the Roman Doctrine of Transubstantion (a belief that I perosnaly subscribe to) she has never denied the Belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist…that to me makes her Catholic, admittly not Roman Catholic but Catholic never the less.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

As this is the Liturgy & Sacraments forum, the discussions here center on Catholic Sacraments & Liturgy – this thread has been allowed for informational purposes. However it now has sidetracked itself into other areas which really need to be addressed in the Apologetics Forum.

It may be helpful for some to review:
Post #1-Choosing Your Forum Wisely
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17511