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

[TypesAndShadows]

defenderoftruth,

Many Anglicans do believe in the physical/material, as well as the spiritual, Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Many, disregarding the 39 Articles, have no objection to Transubstantiation . We yield to the Mystery of the Eucharist without a need to use Aristotle’s Metaphysics to explain how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, while still having the appearance of bread and wine.

Anna

I thought an Anglican vicar, in order to be ordained, had to assent to the 39 articles. Have I got that wrong?

 

[GKC]

It is worth noting that in Timothy Ware’s book on The Orthodox Church explains that even the Orthodox consider Anglican orders to be invalid as well.

Most Orthodox say the same thing about RC orders that they say about Anglican orders. Orthodox generally don’t comment on the idea of validity outside the true Church, as they see it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

From what I understand Bishops in England were excommunicated and therefore has no power to hold their office (i.e. their sees), thus apostolic succession ceased.

No, that wasn’t what happened.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I thought an Anglican vicar, in order to be ordained, had to assent to the 39 articles. Have I got that wrong?

Technically (and it’s true for any ordinand in the Church of England, not just parish priests who hold the position of a vicar), yes, per the Parliamentary Subscription Act of 1577. The Church of England is an Erastian institution, so Parliament gets to say things like that. But it is technical merely, and no one bothers with it. Else there would be no Anglo-Catholics in the CoE.

And remember that the term Anglican encompasses far more than the CoE. The Subscription Act, even technically, binds only ordinands of the CoE. Theoretically.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Technically (and it’s true for any ordinand in the Church of England, not just parish priests who hold the position of a vicar), yes, per the Parliamentary Subscription Act of 1577. The Church of England is an Erastian institution, so Parliament gets to say things like that. But it is technical merely, and no one bothers with it. Else there would be no Anglo-Catholics in the CoE.

And remember that the term Anglican encompasses far more than the CoE. The Subscription Act, even technically, binds only ordinands of the CoE. Theoretically.

GKC

Make that the Act of 1571.

Drat.

GKC

 

[codefro]

codefro,

Keep in mind that we, Anglicans, know that our orders are valid. The Catholic or Orthodox claim that they are invalid does not have an effect on us.

Think of it this way: If Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox declared Catholic Orders are invalid, would that cause you to believe your orders are invalid? I’m sure the answer would be no. You would still believe your Orders are valid.

Anna

No, but I would know the Anglicans have no authority to make such a claim. I was confirmed Anglican, and was discerning the ministry when I was convinced that Anglican orders were invalid. Many Anglicans are being convicted of the same truth more and more. the thing is Anglicans believe what they believe, just like any other Protestant group believes what they believe. There is no basis for it anywhere. If the same Christ-given magisterium who gave us the bible and the essential components of the faith say that Anglicans do not have valid orders, yet see other schismatic and non- schismatic groups to still have valid orders themselves (telling me it isn’t a decision made out of bitterness) then I believe them. Their decision isn’t a condemnation, but a warning at this point. Even JP II and Benedict XVI who desire church reconciliation above all things would have have reversed the encyclical if they felt it to be wrong, but they couldn’t. So if Anglicans claim to be Catholic, yet their separated brothers and sisters are trying to warn about invalid orders, well I took it pretty seriously. At first I though “Well the Catholic Church is just bitter”, but when I realized that the Orthodox are fairly unanimous on the decision as well, well I didn’t really have a leg to stand on other than “I have a right to believe what I want to believe.”

 

[CMatt25]

the thing is Anglicans believe what they believe, just like any other Protestant group believes what they believe.

Well true. Anyone believes what they believe. Christians for instance believe in a Creator God and in the NT story of Christ. Catholics go on to believe in Catholic interpretation of the Church, of Scripture, of ECFs and of history. Others believe something else. Perhaps they believe the Catholic Church got something wrong or strayed. This is not to say of course that everyone has the truth. But in the end they’re all called faiths. God bless you along your faith journey and peace.

 

[Maryann_C]

Well there is nothing like posting a question and then going to sleep obviously! Thanks to all who have weighed in. Guess I have a new reading list thanks GKC . This has been a question on the back of my mind for a while though not a serious concern but has come to the fore recently with the new Anglican rite ordinariate and the fact that I swam the Tiber the year before that was instituted. I did not receive much catechism when I was in the C of E but the loose bit I got was definitely of the Oxford movement I believe. On the issue of trans or Con substantiation ,to me as a a child there was no theology involved basically I was taught this IS Jesus . SO the next question that naturally follows from the apostolic succession one is ,since that is what I was taught and I believed that the host was infact Jesus needs to go in a new post I guess.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I thought an Anglican vicar, in order to be ordained, had to assent to the 39 articles. Have I got that wrong?

TypesAndShadows,

Originally, submission to the 39 Articles was required and assent was to be given according to the literal sense of the Articles.

However, the Lambeth Conference of 1968 recommended that assent to the Articles no longer be required of clergy, but that they be understood as an historic document—and the recommendation was adopted.
Link: lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-43.cfm

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

No, but I would know the Anglicans have no authority to make such a claim. I was confirmed Anglican, and was discerning the ministry when I was convinced that Anglican orders were invalid. Many Anglicans are being convicted of the same truth more and more. the thing is Anglicans believe what they believe, just like any other Protestant group believes what they believe. There is no basis for it anywhere. If the same Christ-given magisterium who gave us the bible and the essential components of the faith say that Anglicans do not have valid orders, yet see other schismatic and non- schismatic groups to still have valid orders themselves (telling me it isn’t a decision made out of bitterness) then I believe them. Their decision isn’t a condemnation, but a warning at this point. Even JP II and Benedict XVI who desire church reconciliation above all things would have have reversed the encyclical if they felt it to be wrong, but they couldn’t. So if Anglicans claim to be Catholic, yet their separated brothers and sisters are trying to warn about invalid orders, well I took it pretty seriously. At first I though “Well the Catholic Church is just bitter”, but when I realized that the Orthodox are fairly unanimous on the decision as well, well I didn’t really have a leg to stand on other than “I have a right to believe what I want to believe.”

codefro,
I respect your choice to enter Communion with Rome. However, I think you are presenting an oversimplification of the Holy Orders issue. The history of this issue is actually very complicated.

And again, you’re saying Anglicans have no right to claim valid Orders, does not mean our orders are invalid. It simply means the Catholic Church believes they are invalid, and you are entitled to hold that belief.

As for “Anglicans believing what they believe,” I would say that is true. We believe what we believe; and we do not believe any less, because of Rome’s point of view.

Rome has no right to tell Anglicans what to believe, just as Anglicans have no right to tell Catholics in Communion with Rome what to believe. That doesn’t mean we do not respect the Catholic faith. We are all brethren in Christ. We are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Peace,
Anna

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Thanks Anna and GKC for that clarification on the 39 Articles. That makes sense.

 

[GKC]

No, but I would know the Anglicans have no authority to make such a claim. I was confirmed Anglican, and was discerning the ministry when I was convinced that Anglican orders were invalid. Many Anglicans are being convicted of the same truth more and more. the thing is Anglicans believe what they believe, just like any other Protestant group believes what they believe. There is no basis for it anywhere. If the same Christ-given magisterium who gave us the bible and the essential components of the faith say that Anglicans do not have valid orders, yet see other schismatic and non- schismatic groups to still have valid orders themselves (telling me it isn’t a decision made out of bitterness) then I believe them. Their decision isn’t a condemnation, but a warning at this point. Even JP II and Benedict XVI who desire church reconciliation above all things would have have reversed the encyclical if they felt it to be wrong, but they couldn’t. So if Anglicans claim to be Catholic, yet their separated brothers and sisters are trying to warn about invalid orders, well I took it pretty seriously. At first I though “Well the Catholic Church is just bitter”, but when I realized that the Orthodox are fairly unanimous on the decision as well, well I didn’t really have a leg to stand on other than “I have a right to believe what I want to believe.”

I believe what I believe, re: Anglican orders, because I am familiar with the theological, personal, political and historic issues involved in Apostolicae Curae after many years of studying the matter (and the form and the intent).

The Orthodox, as has been mentioned, don’t look at the issue of validity quite in this way, but to the extent they do, they tend to group the Anglicans and the RCs together, as outside the true Ecclesia.

As always, I recognize your affirmation of what the *magisterium * teaches, as what you should, indeed, affirm.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Well there is nothing like posting a question and then going to sleep obviously! Thanks to all who have weighed in. Guess I have a new reading list thanks GKC . This has been a question on the back of my mind for a while though not a serious concern but has come to the fore recently with the new Anglican rite ordinariate and the fact that I swam the Tiber the year before that was instituted. I did not receive much catechism when I was in the C of E but the loose bit I got was definitely of the Oxford movement I believe. On the issue of trans or Con substantiation ,to me as a a child there was no theology involved basically I was taught this IS Jesus . SO the next question that naturally follows from the apostolic succession one is ,since that is what I was taught and I believed that the host was infact Jesus needs to go in a new post I guess.

You are very welcome, for my part. If you would like more titles, just ask.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

Besides having an Episcopal priest tell me it is precisely because they believe they have Apostolic succession, that a confirmed Catholic need only to be received into TEC and not re-confirmed, I’ve had another, a former Roman priest, explain the Eucharist in TEC to me in much the same way you did Anna. He said Episcopalians truly believe Jesus’s body and blood are present and when the Episcopal Eucharistic minister says, "The Body of Christ, the bread of heaven and the Blood of Christ, the cup of salvation, the response is “Amen”. Which of course means “I believe”. He said they just don’t have an elaborate doctrine saying how the mystery occurs. Only that it does. But all that aside he said no one is interrogating anyone when they come forward so anyone who feels so called to receive is welcome. It’s one of the things I most like about TEC.

Exactly right.

Those are the words spoken; and upon receiving, I say “Amen” and make the Sign of the Cross.

Catholics are Received rather than Confirmed. Our Communion is open to them; but their Communion is closed to us. We’ve Received quite a few Catholics in our Episcopal Parish. There has been much discussion on the forums about Anglicans leaving to enter Communion with Rome. People tend to forget Catholics are leaving Rome to enter the Anglican Church.

That’s a good point. You believe your orders are valid. Catholics and Orthodox do not. And visa versa if you declared theirs invalid, they would still believe theirs were valid. I suppose that’s all a part of what it means to have faith. Peace.

Well, as others have said, it is circular reasoning. Rome claims authority, because they claim authority.

Anna

 

[GKC]

TypesAndShadows,

Originally, submission to the 39 Articles was required and assent was to be given according to the literal sense of the Articles.

However, the Lambeth Conference of 1968 recommended that assent to the Articles no longer be required of clergy, but that they be understood as an historic document—and the recommendation was adopted.
Link: lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-43.cfm

Anna

That gets bookmarked.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

TypesAndShadows,

Originally, submission to the 39 Articles was required and assent was to be given according to the literal sense of the Articles.

However, the Lambeth Conference of 1968 recommended that assent to the Articles no longer be required of clergy, but that they be understood as an historic document—and the recommendation was adopted.
Link: lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-43.cfm

Anna

GKC,
Do you have anything to add about the 39 Articles?

I believe what I believe, re: Anglican orders, because I am familiar with the theological, personal, political and historic issues involved in Apostolicae Curae after many years of studying the matter (and the form and the intent).

The Orthodox, as has been mentioned, don’t look at the issue of validity quite in this way, but to the extent they do, they tend to group the Anglicans and the RCs together, as outside the true Ecclesia.

As always, I recognize your affirmation of what the *magisterium * teaches, as what you should, indeed, affirm.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Well said, as always.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

That gets bookmarked.

GKC

GKC,
I just posted, asking if you had anything to add to that. I bookmarked it too.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks Anna and GKC for that clarification on the 39 Articles. That makes sense.

Glad it makes send to somebody.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks Anna and GKC for that clarification on the 39 Articles. That makes sense.

Also, the role of the 39 Articles is very much tied to that Anglican pendulum that swings between Catholicism and Protestantism. The degree in either direction has historically been in flux.

Anna

 

[GKC]

GKC,
I just posted, asking if you had anything to add to that. I bookmarked it too.

Anna

I note that it is Lambeth, and Lambeth could not nullify the Parliamentary Act of 1571, for the CoE. But something else might have.

And it recommends that the Articles be considered as historic, which is what the TEC 79 Book treated them as.

It is still possible for a given province to set up a mandatory position on the Articles, but except for an African one I can’t recall, I don’t know of any that have done so. Anglicans may affirm, deny, or partially affirm, or ignore them. Of course, to ignore a large portion of them is to ignore historic Trinitarian Christianity.

GKC