What gives a non-Catholic church apostolic succession?

[GKC]

Keren,
I don’t think your view is that of the Roman Catholic Church. GKC is correct in his interpretation and has studied the matter extensively. Orders have nothing to do with who murdered whom. You may want to read the Wiki articles for a better understanding of issues concerning Anglican orders, etc. Apostolic Succession is a fascinating subject and one that is viewed differently by RC’s and EO’s (as GKC notes).

Let me give you just one example. The Polish National Catholic Church USA (Old Catholics) have valid orders (according to Rome), are not under a Roman Catholic Bishop, can receive communion in an RC Church, and are not reordained when converting to the Roman Catholic Church. While all of this is true there is only limited intercommunion and so no RC should be receiving Communion or other sacraments in a PNCC Church unless they are in danger of death.

As to the issue of just why the RCC maintains that Anglicans have lost Apostolic Succession/valid orders, you’re right, of course, as a reading of *Apostolicae Curae *would show.

For a more detailed look, (here I go again), (then) Jesuit Fr. Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the RCC position, and RC Fr. John J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for a different look, and more detailed history.

And, of course, generalizing about Anglican priests and Mass, etc, is a chancy thing to do. As I have often shown.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Keren]

Thanks everyone, especially GKC, for your very helpful answers. Now can anyone tell me where I might find a list of all the churches whose orders the Catholic Church considers valid? (This is mere curiosity on my part; I have no intention of leaving the Barque of Peter!)

Keren
Tiber Swim Team, Class of 2002

 

[GKC]

Thanks everyone, especially GKC, for your very helpful answers. Now can anyone tell me where I might find a list of all the churches whose orders the Catholic Church considers valid? (This is mere curiosity on my part; I have no intention of leaving the Barque of Peter!)

Keren
Tiber Swim Team, Class of 2002

For my part, you are very welcome. As to the list you are looking for, I’ve seen such, but I wouldn’t try to address it. I hope someone will.

GKC

 

[RevDrNorth]

Thanks everyone, especially GKC, for your very helpful answers. Now can anyone tell me where I might find a list of all the churches whose orders the Catholic Church considers valid? (This is mere curiosity on my part; I have no intention of leaving the Barque of Peter!)

Keren
Tiber Swim Team, Class of 2002

I am not sure I have seen a list. I think (other than what I posted in terms of Canon 844 and reception of the eucharist), it is often on an individual basis. For instance, I have seen elsewhere where it has been mentioned that the Old Catholics (Utrecht) have valid apostolic succession and orders. Now, as you notice with Canon 844 that does not necessarily mean they can receive communion in an RC Church (no unity of purpose, etc where the PNCC has substantial unity in a way similar to the Eastern Orthodox).

In terms of the various “Old Catholic” groups in the US that trace their orders back through various Bishops that likely would be looked at individually (sometimes Priest by Priest). I have known of cases where this has happened even with a very liberal group that had valid succession and maintained it. A priest on the EWTN forum once replied that it was not in the interest of the RCC to give blanket approval to various schismatic groups (such as ICAB that has succession through Roman Catholic Bishop Costa). You can see the point. If Rome started giving credence to various US schismatics groups (even with valid orders and succession) it might encourage Catholics with an ax to grind (don’t want to get an annulment, want women priests, etc) to decide to patronize the schismatic churches. That is wrong from the RCC point that the Pope is the successor to Peter and head of the temporal church. Hence Fr. Pacwa’s comment I paraphrased elsewhere "don’t get so caught up in the issue of valid orders because a Catholic ought to be concerned simply with whether they are in communion with Rome or not.

The above is why even groups with valid orders (if they are not in communion with Rome) should only be utilized when in danger of death. With so many Roman Catholic Churches why would you need to seek out someone who is not RCC or Eastern Rite Catholic.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I am not sure I have seen a list. I think (other than what I posted in terms of Canon 844 and reception of the eucharist), it is often on an individual basis. For instance, I have seen elsewhere where it has been mentioned that the Old Catholics (Utrecht) have valid apostolic succession and orders. Now, as you notice with Canon 844 that does not necessarily mean they can receive communion in an RC Church (no unity of purpose, etc where the PNCC has substantial unity in a way similar to the Eastern Orthodox).

In terms of the various “Old Catholic” groups in the US that trace their orders back through various Bishops that likely would be looked at individually (sometimes Priest by Priest). I have known of cases where this has happened even with a very liberal group that had valid succession and maintained it. A priest on the EWTN forum once replied that it was not in the interest of the RCC to give blanket approval to various schismatic groups (such as ICAB that has succession through Roman Catholic Bishop Costa). You can see the point. If Rome started giving credence to various US schismatics groups (even with valid orders and succession) it might encourage Catholics with an ax to grind (don’t want to get an annulment, want women priests, etc) to decide to patronize the schismatic churches. That is wrong from the RCC point that the Pope is the successor to Peter and head of the temporal church. Hence Fr. Pacwa’s comment I paraphrased elsewhere "don’t get so caught up in the issue of valid orders because a Catholic ought to be concerned simply with whether they are in communion with Rome or not.

The above is why even groups with valid orders (if they are not in communion with Rome) should only be utilized when in danger of death. With so many Roman Catholic Churches why would you need to seek out someone who is not RCC or Eastern Rite Catholic.

I should add that canon 844 says:
*§2: Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. *

So (my bad) it is in more than just the case of death. However, it should not be the norm. The other things is that you would have to judge validity of orders and that is often difficult. In a practical sense, it would be unlikely that you would find an RCC Priest unavailable and certainly should be avoiding schismatic groups. But I guess if you were in an Auto accident and an ICAB, EO, Old Catholic priest approached you to give Holy Unction…that would seem to meet the above.

 

[RevDrNorth]

As noted above, while there may be various churches with valid orders. But if you are Catholic (Rome) then to seek out a sacrament from one of these churches would need to be a matter of unordinary circumstances such as danger of death, isolation and so on.

For instance, a Roman Catholic could not go to another Church with valid orders and plan out a wedding not to escape the consequences in wrong relationship with the RCC (see above posts in terms of Canon law).

As noted, I am not aware of a list of these churches and it sometimes takes a lot of research. For instance, the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht is recognized. Some groups who came to the Utrecht Union later also obtained valid orders. Two examples I saw of this were the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) & the Philippine Independent Catholic Church (PIC). Both obtained Old Catholic succession and are valid (PIC also has Episcopal which was its original succession after it was begun by schismatic RCC priests). PNCC can even receive communion in Roman Catholic Churches.

But would any Roman Catholic Bishop or Priest advise you to go to a PNCC Church or a PIC Church? Not likely as they are schismatic even if they have valid orders.

Then there are even some Anglicans with valid orders (from an RCC perspective) but how would the average Catholic know? For instance, I think I read that the Archbishop of Canterbury was consecrated by an Old Catholic Bishop. There are others

Again, as Father Pacwa noted, for the average Catholic don’t get so caught up int he valid order issue as much as whether they are in communion with Rome. For an RCC this is the final matter.

 

[GKC]

As noted above, while there may be various churches with valid orders. But if you are Catholic (Rome) then to seek out a sacrament from one of these churches would need to be a matter of unordinary circumstances such as danger of death, isolation and so on.

For instance, a Roman Catholic could not go to another Church with valid orders and plan out a wedding not to escape the consequences in wrong relationship with the RCC (see above posts in terms of Canon law).

As noted, I am not aware of a list of these churches and it sometimes takes a lot of research. For instance, the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht is recognized. Some groups who came to the Utrecht Union later also obtained valid orders. Two examples I saw of this were the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) & the Philippine Independent Catholic Church (PIC). Both obtained Old Catholic succession and are valid (PIC also has Episcopal which was its original succession after it was begun by schismatic RCC priests). PNCC can even receive communion in Roman Catholic Churches.

But would any Roman Catholic Bishop or Priest advise you to go to a PNCC Church or a PIC Church? Not likely as they are schismatic even if they have valid orders.

Then there are even some Anglicans with valid orders (from an RCC perspective) but how would the average Catholic know? For instance, I think I read that the Archbishop of Canterbury was consecrated by an Old Catholic Bishop. There are others

Again, as Father Pacwa noted, for the average Catholic don’t get so caught up int he valid order issue as much as whether they are in communion with Rome. For an RCC this is the final matter.

I agree with your basic point. But as to how many Anglicans now possess the Dutch Touch, likely more than not. Remember that the usual Anglican consecration calls for 3 co-consecrators. Which spread the lines around a lot, in the last 75+ years.

My own priest was ordained by a bishop who was himself consecrated by a bishop with PNCC lines. Probably you could randomly toss a brick at Lambeth and hit a prelate with the Dutch Touch.

GKC

 

[RevDrNorth]

I agree with your basic point. But as to how many Anglicans now possess the Dutch Touch, likely more than not. Remember that the usual Anglican consecration calls for 3 co-consecrators. Which spread the lines around a lot, in the last 75+ years.

My own priest was ordained by a bishop who was himself consecrated by a bishop with PNCC lines. Probably you could randomly toss a brick at Lambeth and hit a prelate with the Dutch Touch.

GKC

Very true and that is one of the reasons why it becomes harder to say that Anglican orders are not valid. As you note, many Anglican Communion (and Continuing Anglican) Bishops have valid orders (even from an RCC point of view) from Polish National Catholic, Philippine Independent Church, and other original Old Catholic groups (Union of Utrecht).

I think the WIkipedia article noted that even people like Basil Cardinal Hume questioned whether Anglican orders are really invalid. Leo of course was writing from the point of view of the 1800’s and reflecting back a couple of hundred years. He was not writing in light of the whole Old Catholic (Utrecht) issue and their intercommunion with the Anglican Communion and the transmission of orders which the RCC considers valid.

 

[GKC]

Very true and that is one of the reasons why it becomes harder to say that Anglican orders are not valid. As you note, many Anglican Communion (and Continuing Anglican) Bishops have valid orders (even from an RCC point of view) from Polish National Catholic, Philippine Independent Church, and other original Old Catholic groups (Union of Utrecht).

I think the WIkipedia article noted that even people like Basil Cardinal Hume questioned whether Anglican orders are really invalid. Leo of course was writing from the point of view of the 1800’s and reflecting back a couple of hundred years. He was not writing in light of the whole Old Catholic (Utrecht) issue and their intercommunion with the Anglican Communion and the transmission of orders which the RCC considers valid.

That is so. But certainly the official Anglican world isn’t helping to make the case these days.

GKC

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks for the correction. Can anyone tell me if the information on this site is acceptable?

bringyou.to/apologetics/a34.htm

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the correction. Can anyone tell me if the information on this site is acceptable?

bringyou.to/apologetics/a34.htm

In toto, and historically, no.

But to do a detailed reply, I’d have to have access to my books that are elsewhere. (I’m moving)

A couple of points:

Yes, it is usually the Matthew Parker ordination that is taken as the point at which the Anglican Apostolic Succession was lost (by the RCC). In fact, according to Clark, the faulty intent referenced in *Apostolicae Curae *has to be the intent of those who consecrated +Parker (by using the Ordinal). Parker is a bottleneck in Anglican episcopacy, though the statements about there being only one “real” bishop at the consecration are incorrect. +Barlow and +Hodgkin had been consecrated during Henry’s time, using the Roman Pontifical. +Scory and +Coverdale were consecrated by Pontifical bishops, using the first Ordinal of 1550. All laid hands on +Parker, in 1559. The minister(s) of the sacrament cannot be faulted; only form and intent, which are slighted in this writing.

Another random point: Edward did not “change” all sacraments. What I think is meant is that loss of the Apostolic Succession rendered all sacraments except marriage and baptism (for which the minister need not be in orders), null and void.

His comments about a “Nestorian” infusion is blathering, but I’d need my books on vagantes to address it. Anglicans don’t trace anything to Vialette or Henry or whoever he is referring to (don’t hold me to the names; I need my copies of Episcopi Vagantes or BISHOPS AT LARGE).

To claim that “protestant ministers” were installed, after Henry, is to assume what has to be demonstrated.

Far down the article, reference is made to the PNCC participation in joint consecration starting in 1946. No mention of the OCs, starting in 1932. But there is a large error in his logic. He seems to think that the only way the PNCC (or OC) line would propagate would be by the continuing and omnipresent participation of PNCC(or OC) bishops. Not so; each Anglican bishop for whom a PNCC (OC) bishop was a co-consecrator would thus possess the Apostolic lines and would transmit them to those they consecrated. And so forth. That’s what Apostolic Succession is about. And he seems to misunderstand just what it would take to lose that.

This is a quick and dirty. I might be able to retrieve my reference material, to add to it, but if I keep that up, I’ll never get out of this house.

In sum, the gentleman know less than he seems to, proves less than he asserts. He needs to read ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, at least.

I agree with a few of his points.

In haste,

GKC

 

[peary]

They can indeed receive communion. See link below from the Boston Archdiocese (Roman Catholic):

The Pastoral Guidelines concerning admission of Polish National Catholics to sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church (Canon 844)

In the course of the Polish National Catholic-Roman Catholic dialogue, “it seemed clear to the Roman Catholic participants on the basis of the evidence that the bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church are validly ordained bishops in apostolic succession.” In light of this the National Conference of Catholic Bishops inquired whether in the judgment of the Apostolic See the canon cited would apply to the Polish National Catholic Church. In due course, Cardinal Edward I. Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sent a reply in behalf of the Holy See, saying “there are sufficient reasons to respond affirmatively to the request.”

rcab.org/EandI/polishNationalCatholics.html

There are caveats so you need to read through the whole thing (eg can’t be ex RC who were under sanction and then became PNCC).

Also this may help from adoremus.org/CommGuide.html but they are quoting the National Council of Bishops Guidelines:
*
Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 Section 3).*

**…Concrete steps have been taken. In response to an inquiry from the Archbishop of Baltimore, His Excellency William Keeler, then President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, His Eminence Edward Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated in 1993 that members of the Polish National Catholic Church in the United States and Canada may receive the sacraments of Penance, Holy Communion and Anointing of the Sick from Roman Catholic priests if they ask for them on their own, are properly disposed and not otherwise excluded from the sacraments in line with the provisions of canon 844 §3 of The Code of Canon Law. This was followed in 1996 by a letter by Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb, the Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, to the bishops of the United States spelling out in more detail the conditions under which Polish National Catholics may receive the aforementioned sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1998 the Polish National Catholic Church issued Guidelines for the Reception by Polish National Catholics of Sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. Canon 844 §2 of The Code of Canon Law also specifies conditions under which Roman Catholics may receive the sacraments in the Polish National Catholic Church. **

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-103.shtml

 

[RevDrNorth]

In toto, and historically, no.

But to do a detailed reply, I’d have to have access to my books that are elsewhere. (I’m moving)

A couple of points:

Yes, it is usually the Matthew Parker ordination that is taken as the point at which the Anglican Apostolic Succession was lost (by the RCC). In fact, according to Clark, the faulty intent referenced in *Apostolicae Curae *has to be the intent of those who consecrated +Parker (by using the Ordinal). Parker is a bottleneck in Anglican episcopacy, though the statements about there being only one “real” bishop at the consecration are incorrect. +Barlow and +Hodgkin had been consecrated during Henry’s time, using the Roman Pontifical. +Scory and +Coverdale were consecrated by Pontifical bishops, using the first Ordinal of 1550. All laid hands on +Parker, in 1559. The minister(s) of the sacrament cannot be faulted; only form and intent, which are slighted in this writing.

Another random point: Edward did not “change” all sacraments. What I think is meant is that loss of the Apostolic Succession rendered all sacraments except marriage and baptism (for which the minister need not be in orders), null and void.

His comments about a “Nestorian” infusion is blathering, but I’d need my books on vagantes to address it. Anglicans don’t trace anything to Vialette or Henry or whoever he is referring to (don’t hold me to the names; I need my copies of Episcopi Vagantes or BISHOPS AT LARGE).

To claim that “protestant ministers” were installed, after Henry, is to assume what has to be demonstrated.

Far down the article, reference is made to the PNCC participation in joint consecration starting in 1946. No mention of the OCs, starting in 1932. But there is a large error in his logic. He seems to think that the only way the PNCC (or OC) line would propagate would be by the continuing and omnipresent participation of PNCC(or OC) bishops. Not so; each Anglican bishop for whom a PNCC (OC) bishop was a co-consecrator would thus possess the Apostolic lines and would transmit them to those they consecrated. And so forth. That’s what Apostolic Succession is about. And he seems to misunderstand just what it would take to lose that.

This is a quick and dirty. I might be able to retrieve my reference material, to add to it, but if I keep that up, I’ll never get out of this house.

In sum, the gentleman know less than he seems to, proves less than he asserts. He needs to read ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, at least.

I agree with a few of his points.

In haste,

GKC

Yes! It is just a fascinating subject. You are (of course) correct about the consecration and transmission of succession. If an Old Catholic Bishop (Utrecht) Bishop is involved in the consecration it gives the Bishop valid succession and the Priests ordained valid orders. This causing some Anglican Communion Bishops to have valid orders (such as the AB of Canterbury).

I just read an interesting discussion by William Tighe (who I understand is a Catholic scholar in the area of Anglicanism). He noted that a number of Continuing Anglican Churches have valid succession through Albert Chambers because he had a consecrator from the Polish National Catholic Church as a co consecrator in 1962. This supports GKC’s contention.

Of further interest in the case of the Traditional Anglican Communion(TAC) apparently (also from Tighe) was that Bishops of TAC had to submit dossiers regarding their personal life in the case of divorced and remarried Bishops and be willing to resign if necessary.

I am sure the whole TAC issue is causing much discussion in the Vatican. Apparently, the Pope favors the reunion and certainly there is a possibility of attracting more disgruntled Anglicans by doing so. More liberal Cardinals like Kasper do not (according to Bloggers) and in his case he is more favorably disposed to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Fascinating…instead of “Everbody Loves Raymond”…we have “Everbody Loves Rome”. Stay tuned

 

[GKC]

Yes! It is just a fascinating subject. You are (of course) correct about the consecration and transmission of succession. If an Old Catholic Bishop (Utrecht) Bishop is involved in the consecration it gives the Bishop valid succession and the Priests ordained valid orders. This causing some Anglican Communion Bishops to have valid orders (such as the AB of Canterbury).

I just read an interesting discussion by William Tighe (who I understand is a Catholic scholar in the area of Anglicanism). He noted that a number of Continuing Anglican Churches have valid succession through Albert Chambers because he had a consecrator from the Polish National Catholic Church as a co consecrator in 1962. This supports GKC’s contention.

Of further interest in the case of the Traditional Anglican Communion(TAC) apparently (also from Tighe) was that Bishops of TAC had to submit dossiers regarding their personal life in the case of divorced and remarried Bishops and be willing to resign if necessary.

I am sure the whole TAC issue is causing much discussion in the Vatican. Apparently, the Pope favors the reunion and certainly there is a possibility of attracting more disgruntled Anglicans by doing so. More liberal Cardinals like Kasper do not (according to Bloggers) and in his case he is more favorably disposed to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Fascinating…instead of “Everbody Loves Raymond”…we have “Everbody Loves Rome”. Stay tuned

+Chambers brought the Apostolic Succession to the original 4 bishops consecrated at the formation of the Anglican Church of North America, in 1978, the origin of the Continuing Anglican movement, following the St. Louis meeting. One of those 4 was +Robert Morse. Who ordained my rector.

Tighe, who I think is now Antiochian or maybe Orthodox (I’m not sure), spoke at one of my parishe’s diocesan banquets, years back.

GKC

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Those churches with valid ordination of bishops, whether in union with Rome or not, have valid apostolic succession. This comes from the power and authority of the bishop to confer holy orders. It does not mean they are not schismatic, because they are, if not in union with Rome. This is what happened to many orthodox churches who do not recognize Rome. They have valid apostolic succession and sacraments. Per the Catholic Catechism, we cannot hold those individuals born into this faith responsible, and yes, they can be saved. The same with most Protestant denominations. Those that do not have apostolic succession. can have valid baptism, and sacramental marriages. This is because as Catholics, we believe it is the couple that bestows the sacrament on each other. All the deacon or priest does is act as the official witness of the Church. Those who convert, and seek to remarry if divorced, have to go through the marriage tribunal for an annulment. I have participated in some of these cases at the tribunal.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Channy]

I am actually working twords my ordination as an Old Catholic Decon right now. I am studing liturgies and attending an Anglican, not episcpalian church. I was a protestant minister who worked with Baptists, Pentecostals, and other independent Churches. The issue around valid orders and the eucharist is what eventually drew me to the IOCCA. I hope to in due time be ordained as a priest and eventually start a parish where I live. There are currently no catholic parishes of any type, even the Anglican church is almost an hour away. The only RC is about 45 min.

In regard to Angilcan Orders, the Romanian Orthodox Church on March 20th 1936 stated that the original AS was not violated and that the old Anglican Orders were valid. This of course is not as important to RCs, but it is a point that had not been brought up. What about the Holy Orders that are recognized by Churches with recognized orders? Such as RO recognizing Anglican orders or OC asserting that the original Edwardine missal was valid in form? Just food for thought.

I say all this as a student of Catholicism and a lover of Church unity. How can I be sure of the orders I am going to receive. All my research on American Old Catholics supports the validity of the IOCCA. The quoted line of succession seems historically accurate. I am satisfied with what i have found or I would not be at he point I am at, but a wise man listens to wise men. Can anyone give me guidance before my ordination?

 

[nsper7]

In some ways, the argument over how the Roman Catholic Church views Anglican Holy Orders seems fairly pointless. Pope Leo XIII issued the Apostolicae Curae which deemed, from a RC perspective, Anglican Orders invalid. For any Roman Catholic theo-historians out there, was the bull issued dogmatically/infallibly?

Obviously, the Anglican Communion is not going to agree with Pope Leo’s declaration is correct anymore than the Roman Catholic Church would agree with a declaration by the Archbishop of Canterbury that Roman Catholic Holy Orders are invalid.

Now, someone brought up the issues of the US Episcopal Church. As someone earlier mentioned, the theologically ‘out there’ bishops, like Spong, would still posses AS unless they were deposed. In terms of women and AS, even if one takes the Apostle Paul’s words literalistically (i.e. ignoring linguistics, context and other passages by Paul or others on the topic), never is it said that women cannot pass on Apostolic Succession (in fact, according to the Christian Think-Tank, Paul called Junias in Romans 16:7 an Apostle and several ECFs, including John Chrysostom and Origen agreed Junias is feminine and one of the earliest piece of manuscript of Paul’s letter, which preserved accents, showed Junias as a feminine name) or ‘lay on of hands’. And, of course, it seems odd to argue the exact specifics of the liturgy for consecration since little is given in Scripture.

 

[GKC]

In some ways, the argument over how the Roman Catholic Church views Anglican Holy Orders seems fairly pointless. Pope Leo XIII issued the Apostolicae Curae which deemed, from a RC perspective, Anglican Orders invalid. For any Roman Catholic theo-historians out there, was the bull issued dogmatically/infallibly?

Obviously, the Anglican Communion is not going to agree with Pope Leo’s declaration is correct anymore than the Roman Catholic Church would agree with a declaration by the Archbishop of Canterbury that Roman Catholic Holy Orders are invalid.

Now, someone brought up the issues of the US Episcopal Church. As someone earlier mentioned, the theologically ‘out there’ bishops, like Spong, would still posses AS unless they were deposed. In terms of women and AS, even if one takes the Apostle Paul’s words literalistically (i.e. ignoring linguistics, context and other passages by Paul or others on the topic), never is it said that women cannot pass on Apostolic Succession (in fact, according to the Christian Think-Tank, Paul called Junias in Romans 16:7 an Apostle and several ECFs, including John Chrysostom and Origen agreed Junias is feminine and one of the earliest piece of manuscript of Paul’s letter, which preserved accents, showed Junias as a feminine name) or ‘lay on of hands’. And, of course, it seems odd to argue the exact specifics of the liturgy for consecration since little is given in Scripture.

Parts of this are correct.

AC as not an ex cathedra statement of doctrine. But, as then Cardinal Ratzinger noted a few years ago (he was talking about another matter specifically, IIRC, female ordination), all RCs are to hold to the finding of AC, as de fide. IOW, yes, it is to be treated as infallible.

A deposed bishop still possesses Apostolic Succession. He, if inhibited, degraded or laicized, couldn’t transmit it, but the mark is indelible. Like baptism. Sacraments are a lot alike.

It is generally accepted that there was a form of the diaconate in the early church to which females were permitted, but not as a form of Holy Orders. And the details of the liturgy are to ensure that Apostolic Succession is, indeed, transmitted, by ensuring proper form, intent and matter; matter being a baptised and confirmed Christian male of suitable age. Just as in the sacrament of marriage matter requires a certain division of the sexes to be valid. And as in baptism, certain words and actions convey the sacrament. No, it’s not in scripture. As Catholics know, not everything is.

GKC

 

[GKC]

double post.

 

[GKC]

I am actually working twords my ordination as an Old Catholic Decon right now. I am studing liturgies and attending an Anglican, not episcpalian church. I was a protestant minister who worked with Baptists, Pentecostals, and other independent Churches. The issue around valid orders and the eucharist is what eventually drew me to the IOCCA. I hope to in due time be ordained as a priest and eventually start a parish where I live. There are currently no catholic parishes of any type, even the Anglican church is almost an hour away. The only RC is about 45 min.

In regard to Angilcan Orders, the Romanian Orthodox Church on March 20th 1936 stated that the original AS was not violated and that the old Anglican Orders were valid. This of course is not as important to RCs, but it is a point that had not been brought up. What about the Holy Orders that are recognized by Churches with recognized orders? Such as RO recognizing Anglican orders or OC asserting that the original Edwardine missal was valid in form? Just food for thought.

I say all this as a student of Catholicism and a lover of Church unity. How can I be sure of the orders I am going to receive. All my research on American Old Catholics supports the validity of the IOCCA. The quoted line of succession seems historically accurate. I am satisfied with what i have found or I would not be at he point I am at, but a wise man listens to wise men. Can anyone give me guidance before my ordination?

I certainly agree that Anglican orders are valid, and OC orders, not involving females in the succession, or from more esoteric vagantes, are likewise. But I don’t know how to make certainty certain, in your mind ( I suspect there are some RC here who might have a suggestion. All I can say is that if you are not certain, yourself, you are not on the right path.

GKC