Visiting other churchs

[JamesTheJust]

This is true, but I was trying to stress the fact that, though Bishops may be Successors of the Apostles, they must be in communion with the Vicar of Christ to exercise canonical authority. Hence why the EO, OO, and IC Bishops have no canonical authority.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I said “canonical authority”, i.e, authority within our Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[billcu1]

When I said apostolic succession I meant that the priests could forgive sins. I don’t know of Lutheran or Episcopal priests/bishops that can do that.

 

[JamesTheJust]

When I said apostolic succession I meant that the priests could forgive sins. I don’t know of Lutheran or Episcopal priests/bishops that can do that.

Neither the Lutherans nor the Episcopalians have apostolic succession today.

The Church maintains that the Anglican Communion retained valid Orders from the time of its invention in 1534, but later forefitted them due to lack of proper form and intent. Pope Leo XIII formally declared Anglican orders invalid in 1896, in his letter Apostolicae Curae (but said that the orders had been invalid since sometime during the 16th century).

Valid apostolic succession is not the same as valid Holy Orders (though it is necessary for valid Holy Orders). In order for a Sacrament to be valid, it must have valid minister, subject, form, matter, and intent. If any one of these five elements are not valid, no Sacrament can occur. Anglican orders were found to be defective in form and intent. Valid succession is required for the validity of the minister (the consecrating Bishop), but the minister (even if he is a valid Bishop) does not validly ordain unless the other four elements are also valid. So the Anglican Church has valid succession - but it is a succession of laypeople laying hands on laypeople. No ordinations are taking place.