When did the valid apostolic sucession of the Church of England loose it's validity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maryann_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Years ago my father had a friend who was diabetic. The friend told my father that his diabetes was cured by a miracle at some pentecostal service. He went into a coma and was dead two days later.

Twenty years ago I had a good friend who was diabetic. His church prayed for him to be healed. He was not and the leaders told him the reason for it was his lack of faith. All he had to do to be healed was believe he was healed and claim his miracle and as a statement of faith stop taking insulin. So he stopped taking insulin claiming his miracle. He got sicker and sicker and was dying. The nitwits who told him this finally came to his home at the behest of his frantic wife and told him to take his insulin. He told them he believed he was healed and refused. He went into a coma and was taken to the hospital where his life was saved.

Some years ago I was in a chatroom about the Eastern Church. One contributor was a woman Lutheran minister. For some reason she was attracted to the Eastern Christian spirituality.
She was outraged that Catholics would even question the validity of anyone’s claim of valid orders. She truly believed that at her services she validly confected the Eucharist.

Even Lutherans do not agree among themselves on Holy Orders, but Catholics should recognize hers. She appeared to be very sincere.

The point of all this is that what we believe about reality has no impact on reality. She could no more confect the Eucharist than I could, or Bozo the Clown.

So who does know, who does hold authentic Anglican teaching on Anglican priesthood? No one knows and probably no one does, because there is no authentic teaching. It is all over the board among the various claimants with no recignized voice of authority, no means of establishing authority and authoritative teaching.

This was inevitable.
 
grandfather said:
Years ago my father had a friend who was diabetic. The friend told my father that his diabetes was cured by a miracle at some pentecostal service. He went into a coma and was dead two days later.

Twenty years ago I had a good friend who was diabetic. His church prayed for him to be healed. He was not and the leaders told him the reason for it was his lack of faith. All he had to do to be healed was believe he was healed and claim his miracle and as a statement of faith stop taking insulin. So he stopped taking insulin claiming his miracle. He got sicker and sicker and was dying. The nitwits who told him this finally came to his home at the behest of his frantic wife and told him to take his insulin. He told them he believed he was healed and refused. He went into a coma and was taken to the hospital where his life was saved.

Some years ago I was in a chatroom about the Eastern Church. One contributor was a woman Lutheran minister. For some reason she was attracted to the Eastern Christian spirituality.
She was outraged that Catholics would even question the validity of anyone’s claim of valid orders. She truly believed that at her services she validly confected the Eucharist.

Even Lutherans do not agree among themselves on Holy Orders, but Catholics should recognize hers. She appeared to be very sincere.

The point of all this is that what we believe about reality has no impact on reality. She could no more confect the Eucharist than I could, or Bozo the Clown.

So who does know, who does hold authentic Anglican teaching on Anglican priesthood? No one knows and probably no one does, because there is no authentic teaching. It is all over the board among the various claimants with no recignized voice of authority, no means of establishing authority and authoritative teaching.

This was inevitable.
Click to expand...
We must be reading different threads.
 
GKC said:
I assume you missed my exchange with CopticChristian, on the inter-communion agreement with the Utrecht Old Catholics. I suggest reading it over. It’s back up there on p. 7 or so.

This is the sort of thing where it helps to know a little relevant history. As far as I can tell, you don’t.

As to Shori, etc, you and I are in agreement.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus
Click to expand...
We are indeed, but that is not relevant. Anglicans are not in agreement among themselves. There is no unity there.

Catholics suffered through the controversy of ordination of women. JPII settled the matter. It did not make those supporting priestesses go away. They are still out there, but there will never be women Catohlic priests. No pope will open the discussion ever again. It would be deliberately creating schism.

Shori is not going away. I’ve read some of her statements. Totally bizarre.

The fact that she was elected by Episcopalian hierarchy says she has tremendous support. Saner Anglicans may realize how far off track she is, but there is no way to get rid of her or silence her. She has a title recognized by probably the majority and they take her seriously.

So back to your question. Seriously, how does anyone know authoritative Anglican teaching?
To whom do you appeal? How confused have things become? Can men marry men?

Soime Anglicans, perhaps the majority, including their bishops say yes and these so called weddings take place. There is no means within the Anglican Communion to resolve any controversy.

You might not like the idea that the bishop or Rome is the visible head of the Church on earth, but there is authority. Catholics who do not like him can not get around the fact that there he is.
 
grandfather said:
We are indeed, but that is not relevant. Anglicans are not in agreement among themselves. There is no unity there.

Catholics suffered through the controversy of ordination of women. JPII settled the matter. It did not make those supporting priestesses go away. They are still out there, but there will never be women Catohlic priests. No pope will open the discussion ever again. It would be deliberately creating schism.

Shori is not going away. I’ve read some of her statements. Totally bizarre.

The fact that she was elected by Episcopalian hierarchy says she has tremendous support. Saner Anglicans may realize how far off track she is, but there is no way to get rid of her or silence her. She has a title recognized by probably the majority and they take her seriously.

So back to your question. Seriously, how does anyone know authoritative Anglican teaching?
To whom do you appeal? How confused have things become? Can men marry men?

Soime Anglicans, perhaps the majority, including their bishops say yes and these so called weddings take place. There is no means within the Anglican Communion to resolve any controversy.

You might not like the idea that the bishop or Rome is the visible head of the Church on earth, but there is authority. Catholics who do not like him can not get around the fact that there he is.
Click to expand...
The thread issue has been abandoned; and the mud slinging has started. You just lost my attention.
 
grandfather said:
We are indeed, but that is not relevant. Anglicans are not in agreement among themselves. There is no unity there.

Catholics suffered through the controversy of ordination of women. JPII settled the matter. It did not make those supporting priestesses go away. They are still out there, but there will never be women Catohlic priests. No pope will open the discussion ever again. It would be deliberately creating schism.

Shori is not going away. I’ve read some of her statements. Totally bizarre.

The fact that she was elected by Episcopalian hierarchy says she has tremendous support. Saner Anglicans may realize how far off track she is, but there is no way to get rid of her or silence her. She has a title recognized by probably the majority and they take her seriously.

So back to your question. Seriously, how does anyone know authoritative Anglican teaching?
To whom do you appeal? How confused have things become? Can men marry men?

Soime Anglicans, perhaps the majority, including their bishops say yes and these so called weddings take place. There is no means within the Anglican Communion to resolve any controversy.

You might not like the idea that the bishop or Rome is the visible head of the Church on earth, but there is authority. Catholics who do not like him can not get around the fact that there he is.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of this.

As to Anglican teaching, it will depend on whom you ask. Ask a traditionalist Anglican such as I’m, and you’ll get responses like Scripture, Tradition, the Creeds, and a varying number of Ecumenical Councils. And reason.

Ask some other Anglicans, and you may be told that yes, men can marry men.

To address the Anglican Communion, you need to speak with someone who is a member of it.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus.
 
GKC said:
But the magisterium has decided, re: Anglican orders.

Are you of the opinion the magisterium teaches objective error? Or that accepting the teachings, with the appropriate level of theological certainty, is optional? I refer you to *AD TUENDAM FIDEM */ John Paul II, and the Doctrinal Commentary on it.

As to the asserted Papal opinion, I doubt it, absent the citation. It’s the sort of thing I would have heard.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
Click to expand...
You’re misunderstanding me – the Magisterium certainly has the authority to decide, as they have done, that Anglican orders are invalid. I’m merely saying that to ask why this is so is not a very meaningful question. They are invalid because the Magisterium has so decided, and for no other reason. Beyond this, it is impossible to create a coherent case for why Anglican orders are invalid but Old Catholic orders are valid – many Anglican bishops are consecrated by OC bishops, and vice versa, and the form and intent is indistinguishable. This was not the case when Apostolicae curiae was promulgated, but it is now. Anglican orders are invalid because Apostolicae curiae says they’re invalid, not because of their form or intent.

Personally I think Rome would be well within their rights to declare Old Catholic orders invalid at this point, as their theology has become essentially identical to Anglican theology, inclusive of ordaining female bishops and other innovations. But, for the time being, they are still valid. As long as this is so, it is simply not possible to answer why Anglican orders are invalid but Old Catholic orders valid other than by answering that Apostolicae curiae so determines.
 
DhuAlQarnayn said:
You’re misunderstanding me – the Magisterium certainly has the authority to decide, as they have done, that Anglican orders are invalid. I’m merely saying that to ask why this is so is not a very meaningful question. They are invalid because the Magisterium has so decided, and for no other reason. Beyond this, it is impossible to create a coherent case for why Anglican orders are invalid but Old Catholic orders are valid – many Anglican bishops are consecrated by OC bishops, and vice versa, and the form and intent is indistinguishable. This was not the case when Apostolicae curiae was promulgated, but it is now. Anglican orders are invalid because Apostolicae curiae says they’re invalid, not because of their form or intent.

Personally I think Rome would be well within their rights to declare Old Catholic orders invalid at this point, as their theology has become essentially identical to Anglican theology, inclusive of ordaining female bishops and other innovations. But, for the time being, they are still valid. As long as this is so, it is simply not possible to answer why Anglican orders are invalid but Old Catholic orders valid other than by answering that Apostolicae curiae so determines.
Click to expand...
I could not say why OC orders, in those groups that are currently laying hands on women, are not questioned for validity of intent. The theological points of intent and form in Apostolicae Curae are not the entire story in that case; personalities, history and politics were also involved, but the theological reasoning is coherent, if not unassailable. But I have often stated that the question of the Dutch Touch would logically mean that (IAW Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA) valid/illicit episcopal lines would have been infused into Anglicanism regularly, beginning in 1932, long before the OCs began to run off the rails. I also often observe that the RCC has never commented on this, officially, to the best of my knowledge.

The reason why Anglican orders were declared invalid does not have anything to do with what happens in Anglicanism today, but (per AC) with what happened between (possibly) 1549-1559, to break valid Apostolic succession. Whatever the correctness of that judgment, no such judgment has been made on the current OC orders. Why, I do not know. But the ultimate sentence in your first para is opaque to me. Whether the judgement in 1896 was correct (I think not) is unrelated to whether the RCC has, or should have undertaken a similar judgment on the OCs, 100+ years later.

If you think that you are not required to affirm, with all the strictures that implies, that Anglican orders are null and void, as de fide, by virtue of it being taught by the magisterium, regardless of the question of the OCs, we need to get an RC in here to talk with you. It is not in my ball park.

GKC
 
All I am saying is that today, in terms of form, intent, and theology, Anglican episcopal ordinations and Old Catholic episcopal ordinations are utterly indistinguishable. They are often performed by the same people, even. And yet the position of the Catholic Church, which all Catholics are obligated to affirm, is that Anglican orders are invalid while Old Catholic orders are valid. The reason for this is simply the existence of AC. Arguing about form, intent, and what happened four hundred years ago is pointless. As a Catholic, one is not required to affirm that Anglican ordinations lack valid form, one is merely required to affirm that they are invalid, as per AC.

I’m not arguing against this conclusion (although I would be happy if the Vatican decided to reinvestigate the issue of Old Catholic orders), but I am saying that there is no way to logically separate the question of Anglican orders from the question of Old Catholic orders by talking about form and intent. The form and intent are the same, but one is valid and the other not.

(I should clarify that I’m talking exclusively about the Anglican Communion here, since I see that you are a member of a continuing Anglican church outside the Communion. I don’t even know exactly what Rome’s position towards the orders in these churches is, other than that the continuing Anglicans themselves don’t all agree about whether or not they have valid orders or if that’s even an important question.)
 
DhuAlQarnayn said:
All I am saying is that today, in terms of form, intent, and theology, Anglican episcopal ordinations and Old Catholic episcopal ordinations are utterly indistinguishable. They are often performed by the same people, even. And yet the position of the Catholic Church, which all Catholics are obligated to affirm, is that Anglican orders are invalid while Old Catholic orders are valid. The reason for this is simply the existence of AC. Arguing about form, intent, and what happened four hundred years ago is pointless. As a Catholic, one is not required to affirm that Anglican ordinations lack valid form, one is merely required to affirm that they are invalid, as per AC.

I’m not arguing against this conclusion (although I would be happy if the Vatican decided to reinvestigate the issue of Old Catholic orders), but I am saying that there is no way to logically separate the question of Anglican orders from the question of Old Catholic orders by talking about form and intent. The form and intent are the same, but one is valid and the other not.

(I should clarify that I’m talking exclusively about the Anglican Communion here, since I see that you are a member of a continuing Anglican church outside the Communion. I don’t even know exactly what Rome’s position towards the orders in these churches is, other than that the continuing Anglicans themselves don’t all agree about whether or not they have valid orders or if that’s even an important question.)
Click to expand...
*AC *doesn’t require a RC to affirm that the Anglican rite for consecration/ordination is invalid, as to form, but that it was invalid as to form, prior to 1662. And hence, combined with the invalid sacramental intent, as revealed, determinatio ex adiunctus, by the use of that form, broke the apostolic succession, 450 (more or less) years ago. Which would be true, (if true) whether the OCs had valid orders or not. The two questions are not related. You may have a point on the OCs (indeed, I’ve wondered, as I said before about the implications of the Dutch Touch, per Ott, and also about the issue of the current status of the OCs). But the question of whether Anglicanism lost apostolic succession is not related to whether the OCs have done so, 90 years later, or, if so, why they are getting a pass. It might speak to a lack of proper assessment of the OCs, or some form of hypocrisy; not for me to say. But it is a separate subject.

Rome’s position on the Continuum would be the same as for any Anglican:invalid. Though the best informed RC layman I know on this subject, a friend of mine, makes a good case for validity within the Continuum, at least selectively.

I know of no Continuing Anglicans who question the validity, or importance, of their orders. It is true that I do not know all Continuers, and that those I do know are in the more Anglo-Catholic jurisdictions. Considering that Anglicans are a motley crew, who knows?

This is an unusual tack for a discussion on this subject, which I’ve not run across in many years of expounding on it. I would solicit additional RC participants. It is unseemly for the only counter arguments to be coming from an Anglican.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I agree with much of this.

As to Anglican teaching, it will depend on whom you ask. Ask a traditionalist Anglican such as I’m, and you’ll get responses like Scripture, Tradition, the Creeds, and a varying number of Ecumenical Councils. And reason.

Ask some other Anglicans, and you may be told that yes, men can marry men.
Click to expand...
Of course we agree. You and I and the pope agree on all the particular issues I would bet. No, men can not marry men, etc., absolutely not. We are traditionalists in that sense.

Relying on scripture, tradition, creeds, councils and reason is all good, but it does not maintain unity. The Schorri wing claims authority. They have seized the palace. They run around in mitres and robes and claim authority and titles. Their authority is recognized by most. Robinson is wildly popular among his looney flock.

So your only option is to separate yourself from them, which is really saying you are not of the same religion (and you definitely are not) while all claiming Anglicanicity, as well as some association with Catholicism. There needs to be terminology to explain who is who, Continuing Anglican, Anglican Communion, Traditional Anglican Communion, Anglo-Catholic.

Will the real Anglican please stand up? Everyone stands.

There is no visible head, although Shorri was elected as the leader of Episcopalians here. The guy in Canterbury has some position of eminence, but in name only, kind of like a figurehead with no real authority, same as the queen. It is all make believe, a facade.
To address the Anglican Communion, you need to speak with someone who is a member of it.
Click to expand...
GKC
Click to expand...
posterus traditus Anglicanus.
Click to expand...
I am speaking to members of the Anglican Communion. The answers to questions depends on who is asked. I agree with your answers. You are the one with the right answers and so is Anna S. It does not matter that you or we have the right answers. The pope agrees with you. God agrees with you. It does not matter. The only option is more division, divorce, rending and helplessness to stop it.

Why?

The means or mechanism to resolve disputes is not there. It is missing. We need some supreme authority, the prime minister entrusted with the keys of the kingdom, put in charge by the King until the King returns, the one the true Anglo-Catholics, Bede, Augustine of Canterbury, Anselm recognized.

There were doctrinal disputes and challenges to authority even while the apostles were alive. There always will be. When John wrote to test every spirit by making them confess Jesus Christ came in the flesh he was resolving heresy authoritatively with authority given him by Jesus to teach in His name. At least then they were wrestling with difficult issues. It seems inconceivable that people could go so far off track that they no longer understand men marry women, but they have. How can they not see how absurd they have become? It is total blindness, but maintaining the trappings of religion.

You surely know this, but unless there is something you or someone within Anglicanism can do to stop it, being right doesn’t help stop the destruction. With the destruction of religion comes the destruction of the civilization religion has built. It is happening before our eyes as a result of a house divided.
 
Anna_Scott said:
The thread issue has been abandoned; and the mud slinging has started. You just lost my attention.
Click to expand...
Truly you mischaracterize my intent. Although it is understandable that someone might fail to distinguish between mud slinging and ranting, please note they are not the same.

Mudslinging is from malice. Ranting is from frustration, but also good will, at least in my case.

I am asking honest hard questions to challenge you not offend you.

Please consider this. Start with the assumption that Anglican orders are valid. GKC has spent years studying the nuances and complexity of the question. But let it be resolved. Anglican orders or at least some and maybe most of them are valid.

The question is moot, because in the meantime the house is burning to the ground. It is like checking for a validly issued building permit while the kitchen is on fire. You have a valid permit amidst the ashes. All are satisfied the marriage license was properly issued and the divorce is finalized.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can not put Anglicanism back together again. No mudlsinging intended. Humpty Dumpty is totally irreversibly smashed to pieces.

The Church has four marks. She is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. We need all four. Being apostolic is not enough. The house built on the rock survives the storm.

Saner Anglicans can try to pick up their broken pieces, the wood and straw and rebuild, go off and form a separate branch or version. They might also flee to the house standing where the huffing and puffing wolf gets foiled and cooked.

Our mission is not simply to survive the storm Anna. The assignment from God to His Church is to assault and tear down the gates of hell. We will not be able to do it divided. The house divided surely will fall.

I know I should not rant.
 
My Dear Anna , The mud slinging started I believe when you accused me of bait and switch but I accept your apology because as you said I can take the thread where I would like since I started it.
My grasp of the English language is quite good thank you and I would say that the destruction of the unity of the Church ( body of Christ, the oneness of which after all is what JESUS prayed for ) IS in fact THE plot…do you not agree? My reading recommendation is Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis for starters.

To those who say that to answer my OP in truth requires a date, I suppose the way I worded it would mean yes , my apologies the intent was as posters like GKC read it ; at what point , who made the decision and why.
One of the recent posters in the last few pages ( I was unable to multi quote for some reason) made a very valid point and that was that the Pope had declared the form invalid rather than the succession per se. This makes sense since it is possible for a Catholic mass to be invalid if the correct form is not used.

My point about the ‘peace prize’ still stands , clearly the answer depends on which side one stands but ultimately GKC as a Catholic ( if you notice my journey started as a Lutheran, I was Baptised - in England I might add at the Royal Academy Sandhurst Memorial chapel when I was 21 and I entered the fulness of the faith officially 3 years ago after MUCH soul searching) I suppose I DO have MY answer thank you. This question was never an ‘issue’ for me and was never a reason for my coming home it has just - as my OP stated- been on the back of my mind and was a curiosity.
I am with Edmunds however and I respectfully request that those who would like to continue this new line of discussion to please start your own thread so that this discussion can remain up for others to read and benefit from because there is alot of good information here especially earlier on.
Perhaps I need to know how to close the discussion so that it does not get removed.

Thanks to all for your contributions.🙂
 
Please note this from Forum rules:

DISCUSSION FORUMS
  1. Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.
 
Maryann_C said:
My Dear Anna , The mud slinging started I believe when you accused me of bait and switch but I accept your apology because as you said I can take the thread where I would like since I started it.
My grasp of the English language is quite good thank you and I would say that the destruction of the unity of the Church ( body of Christ, the oneness of which after all is what JESUS prayed for ) IS in fact THE plot…do you not agree? My reading recommendation is Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis for starters.

To those who say that to answer my OP in truth requires a date, I suppose the way I worded it would mean yes , my apologies the intent was as posters like GKC read it ; at what point , who made the decision and why.
One of the recent posters in the last few pages ( I was unable to multi quote for some reason) made a very valid point and that was that the Pope had declared the form invalid rather than the succession per se. This makes sense since it is possible for a Catholic mass to be invalid if the correct form is not used.

My point about the ‘peace prize’ still stands , clearly the answer depends on which side one stands but ultimately GKC as a Catholic ( if you notice my journey started as a Lutheran, I was Baptised - in England I might add at the Royal Academy Sandhurst Memorial chapel when I was 21 and I entered the fulness of the faith officially 3 years ago after MUCH soul searching) I suppose I DO have MY answer thank you. This question was never an ‘issue’ for me and was never a reason for my coming home it has just - as my OP stated- been on the back of my mind and was a curiosity.
I am with Edmunds however and I respectfully request that those who would like to continue this new line of discussion to please start your own thread so that this discussion can remain up for others to read and benefit from because there is alot of good information here especially earlier on.
Perhaps I need to know how to close the discussion so that it does not get removed.

Thanks to all for your contributions.🙂
Click to expand...
Then I’ll sign off with a comment or two on this post. Threads can certainly outlive their usefulness…

Apostolicae Curae declared the Ordinal form for consecration/ordination invalid, which, when coupled with the declared invalidity of sacramental intent, means the succession was broken, lost, roughly mid 1500s. If that is what you mean by invalid succession, then yes, that’s what AC claims. The succession is gone.

I’m not sure what you mean by declaring me a Catholic, but it is appreciated. I agree. But I doubt most RCs would.

Pax.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus (and Lewis and Chesterton collector for over 47 years)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top