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.
Whilst it is plain from the NT that our Lord instituted a Ministry for His Church, he did not leave us a definite form by which ordination was to be carried out. He has given us a form in the case of Baptism which must be in the name of the Holy Trinity and with water. He has also given us a form for the Eucharist which must be attended with the words of Institution and be celebrated with wheaten bread and grape wine.

The early Church was able to quickly establish a definite method of ordination, the essential features of which are the imposition of hands and appropriate prayer. Provided that in one place or another the intent of the rite is specified, all is done which is necessary according to the most ancient rites.

In the case of the Edwardine Ordinal, all the essential acts of consecration prescribed by the African Canons of the Fourth Council of Carthage were precisely complied with. There was considerable repetition in the Medieval Pontificals and ceremonies were added which provided pomp and dignity but did not add to the validity of the rite. If the Edwardine rite be rejected for its simplicity, then ordinations/consecrations of the first 1000 years of Christianity fall with it.

Rome has objected to the Edwardine Ordinal saying that the order conferred should be clearly determined. However, in the Sarum Pontifical for example, the office of Bishop is not specified in the actual words of Consecration. (The Sarum Pontifical was regarded as valid). It is not necessary therefore that this should be done simultaneously with the imposition of hands. There are ample passages in the English Ordinal which determine the order being conferred.

Another objection by Rome is that it is necessary (if it fails to mention priesthood) that the rite must allude to it by the power of offering sacrifice. However, the oldest ordination prayers such as those of the Hippolytean Canons and the Sacramentary of Serapion have no such explicit mention of offering sacrifice. Indeed, this was not originally part of the Roman Rite. So again, if the Edwardine Ordinal be rejected on these grounds and Anglican orders be declared null and void, so must many others in the early history of the Church. It is interesting to note, that when the 1559 Book of Common Prayer was officially translated into Latin in 1560 for use in universities, the word ‘priest’ was translated as ‘sacerdos’, implying a sacrificial priesthood.

Rome also says that the Church of England intended to create a different kind of ministry. However, if we read the preface of the English Ordinal, the aim of the Church of England was to continue in valid succession the three orders of the ministry as they had been received from the Apostle’s times by Episcopal consecration.

Cranmer’s doctrine has been called into question. However, the Church of England has never accorded to Cranmer that position which Lutheranism gives to Luther, Calvinism to Calvin or Zwinglianism to Zwingli. Cranmer is not personally a source of Anglican doctrine. This was made clear in Elizabeth’s reign. The convocation of 1559 rejected Cranmer’s teaching by passing five articles to be presented to Parliament. The first three are of particular note:
  1. That in the sacrament of the altar, by virtue of the words of Christ duly spoken by the priest is present realiter, under the kinds of bread and wine, the natural Body of Christ conceived of the Virgin Mary, and also His natural Blood.
  2. That after consecration there remains not the substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of God and Man.
  3. That in the mass is offered the true Body of Christ and His true Blood, a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.
 
Symphorian said:
Whilst it is plain from the NT that our Lord instituted a Ministry for His Church, he did not leave us a definite form by which ordination was to be carried out. He has given us a form in the case of Baptism which must be in the name of the Holy Trinity and with water. He has also given us a form for the Eucharist which must be attended with the words of Institution and be celebrated with wheaten bread and grape wine.

The early Church was able to quickly establish a definite method of ordination, the essential features of which are the imposition of hands and appropriate prayer. Provided that in one place or another the intent of the rite is specified, all is done which is necessary according to the most ancient rites.

In the case of the Edwardine Ordinal, all the essential acts of consecration prescribed by the African Canons of the Fourth Council of Carthage were precisely complied with. There was considerable repetition in the Medieval Pontificals and ceremonies were added which provided pomp and dignity but did not add to the validity of the rite. If the Edwardine rite be rejected for its simplicity, then ordinations/consecrations of the first 1000 years of Christianity fall with it.

Rome has objected to the Edwardine Ordinal saying that the order conferred should be clearly determined. However, in the Sarum Pontifical for example, the office of Bishop is not specified in the actual words of Consecration. (The Sarum Pontifical was regarded as valid). It is not necessary therefore that this should be done simultaneously with the imposition of hands. There are ample passages in the English Ordinal which determine the order being conferred.

Another objection by Rome is that it is necessary (if it fails to mention priesthood) that the rite must allude to it by the power of offering sacrifice. However, the oldest ordination prayers such as those of the Hippolytean Canons and the Sacramentary of Serapion have no such explicit mention of offering sacrifice. Indeed, this was not originally part of the Roman Rite. So again, if the Edwardine Ordinal be rejected on these grounds and Anglican orders be declared null and void, so must many others in the early history of the Church. It is interesting to note, that when the 1559 Book of Common Prayer was officially translated into Latin in 1560 for use in universities, the word ‘priest’ was translated as ‘sacerdos’, implying a sacrificial priesthood.

Rome also says that the Church of England intended to create a different kind of ministry. However, if we read the preface of the English Ordinal, the aim of the Church of England was to continue in valid succession the three orders of the ministry as they had been received from the Apostle’s times by Episcopal consecration.

Cranmer’s doctrine has been called into question. However, the Church of England has never accorded to Cranmer that position which Lutheranism gives to Luther, Calvinism to Calvin or Zwinglianism to Zwingli. Cranmer is not personally a source of Anglican doctrine. This was made clear in Elizabeth’s reign. The convocation of 1559 rejected Cranmer’s teaching by passing five articles to be presented to Parliament. The first three are of particular note:
  1. That in the sacrament of the altar, by virtue of the words of Christ duly spoken by the priest is present realiter, under the kinds of bread and wine, the natural Body of Christ conceived of the Virgin Mary, and also His natural Blood.
  2. That after consecration there remains not the substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of God and Man.
  3. That in the mass is offered the true Body of Christ and His true Blood, a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

But this point of Apostolicae Curae was that the Ordinal had been specifically written, at the point in time it was, by whom it was, to specifically exclude the concept of the sacrificial priesthood. Had the Pontificale Romanum been used, or even a preexisting rite which like the Ordinal, did not mention the power of the priesthood (the Mosarabic Rite,say, or those you mention) the logic of Apostolicae Curae would necessarily have been different.

*Saepius Officio * touches on some of this, as does Lula’s HOLY ORDERS, HOLY SACRAMENTS, but it is privately printed and not easy to find.

GKC
 
codefro said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Thank you,Codefro, Amen. Their orders are invalid. One can go back to the time of Saint Thomas More to see how serious the issue was. * To be Catholic is to be in full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.* Many call themselves “catholic” or “anglo-Catholic” socially, but are not in full communion with us…yet. Our Holy Father, through the Anglican Ordinariate, is working towards welcoming them home, and the fact that we are working towards this reconciliation means that we are yet on the journey. This is doctrinally serious, and not a mere case of calling oneself 'catholic."
Kathryn Ann
 
Kathryn_Ann said:
Thank you,Codefro, Amen. Their orders are invalid. One can go back to the time of Saint Thomas More to see how serious the issue was. * To be Catholic is to be in full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.* Many call themselves “catholic” or “anglo-Catholic” socially, but are not in full communion with us…yet. Our Holy Father, through the Anglican Ordinariate, is working towards welcoming them home, and the fact that we are working towards this reconciliation means that we are yet on the journey. This is doctrinally serious, and not a mere case of calling oneself 'catholic."
Kathryn Ann
Click to expand...
Amen. The real Anglican Catholics are the ones now serving or waiting to serve under the communion of the Holy Father.

“Peace”,

Codefro
 
Maryann_C said:
This may be a redundant question and the answer may be “as soon as they broke authority with Rome” but I have always wondered the following : IF apostolic succession comes through validly ordained Bishops with a traceable line back to the Apostles then why do we say that the Bishops in the Church of England are not validly ordained? Surely they can trace their line all the way back because when the Church of England split the Bishops who sided with the King of England were validly ordained or did they excommunicate themselves at that point and so nullify their ordination and the valid succession? Luther of course was different since he was not a Bishop. I have always wondered why the Eastern/Western Church split was called a schism but the C of E leaving Rome was considered a true split and made them ( those siding with the C of E) Protestants?
Click to expand...
I acknowledge the comprehensive answers to this from all respondents so far, but particularly GKC. I certainly have nothing to add to his responses. :clapping:

However, as far as I can see, no one has actually affirmed the truth of Maryann’s premise, namely that “apostolic succession comes through **validly **ordained Bishops with a traceable line back to the Apostles”. This premise is actually true, and thus Anglican orders did not become invalid when the C of E broke away from Rome, just as the Orthodox and Old Catholic orders did not become invalid, and those communities still have valid Apostolic succession. So, validity of orders and Episcopal consecration can be assumed until there is an objective reason that they have become invalid. Being outside communion with Rome does not, in itself, make these invalid.

Just adding the above emphasis to the other side of the question, namely affirming that in breaking with Rome the Church of England did not immediately lose Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders, and did not necessarily do so, even after centuries.

Apostolicae Curae thus addresses the objective historical and theological reasons that the orders and consecrations became invalid, as already described in this thread.

(And, apologies if I am repeating someone else’s post).
 
GKC said:
Worked like this.

Apostolicae Curae found two related objections to the validity of Anglican orders, from the point the supposed invalid form on the Edwardine Ordinal was used. The form of the consecration/ordination rite was judged invalid, due to not mentioning the power of the priesthood to offer the sacrificial Mass. But this was not uncommon, in liturgical rites which the RCC does recognize as validly conveying valid orders, other things being equally valid (Saepius Officio mentioned this). So the question of valid intent was intertwined with that of the liturgical form.

Valid sacramental intent is, as *Apostolicae Curae * says, an interior condition of the sacramental minister, and not necessarily subject to positive examination or judgment. The minimum required for valid sacramental intent is for the minister to intend facere quod facit eccelesia, to intend to do what the Church intends, in the action. Since intent is interior, valid intent is normally assumed, if all other aspects of the sacramental action (minister, form, matter, subject) are themselves demonstrably valid. However, if there is some external aspect that permits a judgment of the intent, permitting a determinatio ex adiunctis, that may permit a judgment of invalid intent. In the logic of Apostolicae Curae, that was the use of the Ordinal. Given the circumstances in which the Ordinal was written, and by whom, it was assumed that the intent of anyone who used that form sacramentally was (by determinatio ex adiunctis) considered sacramentally invalid. Thus, through the joined questions of form and intent, each leading to a determination of invalidity, the orders were declared invalid. Had the Ordinal not been written, and the Pontificale Romanum continued in use, the logic of AC would have been necessarily different. Not that the Orders would have been declared valid, necessarily, but some other point might have served.

The supposed defective form in the Ordinal was cured, in the 1662 revision to the Ordinal, for reasons unrelated to this question. The logic of the Dutch touch, then, would be that the form is now not what it was, and one might logically assume that OC bishops, validly though illicitly consecrated, would convey valid though illicit orders to Anglican bishops, who would transmit them in turn. Logically, that is. I am not aware of any formal, official RC pronouncement on that. But it is quite clear, in the statements of the first OC joint consecrators, that their intent was sacramentally valid.

It is a long, sad story, involving theology, history, politics and personalities. Much of history is like that.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...
:sad_yes: yes, a long and sad story.
 
Edmundus1581 said:
I acknowledge the comprehensive answers to this from all respondents so far, but particularly GKC. I certainly have nothing to add to his responses. :clapping:

However, as far as I can see, no one has actually affirmed the truth of Maryann’s premise, namely that “apostolic succession comes through **validly **ordained Bishops with a traceable line back to the Apostles”. This premise is actually true, and thus Anglican orders did not become invalid when the C of E broke away from Rome, just as the Orthodox and Old Catholic orders did not become invalid, and those communities still have valid Apostolic succession. So, validity of orders and Episcopal consecration can be assumed until there is an objective reason that they have become invalid. Being outside communion with Rome does not, in itself, make these invalid.

Just adding the above emphasis to the other side of the question, namely affirming that in breaking with Rome the Church of England did not immediately lose Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders, and did not necessarily do so, even after centuries.

Apostolicae Curae thus addresses the objective historical and theological reasons that the orders and consecrations became invalid, as already described in this thread.

(And, apologies if I am repeating someone else’s post).
Click to expand...
Correct, though they would have to be considered illicit, from the beginning. But Apostolicae Curae says succession was eventually lost, for the intertwined points of intent and form, hence validity itself was lost, eventually, between 1559 and 1662, logically. All RCs should affirm that, with the appropriate level of theological certainty.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
 
**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.**

With all due respect, despite what you think you “know,”
your orders are NOT valid.
It doesn’t matter what you, or I , or Catholics, or Orthodox, “believe” about our Orders
and their validity. That’s a matter of pride, frankly, and has no place in the discussion.
One’s beliefs, without facts to back them up, are worthless.
I’m being objective here. Beliefs are no more valid than mere feelings.
To be accurate, they have to be based on FACT.

Until the activities leading up to and including the publication of the Edwardine Ordinal,
all English Orders, even after the breakaway, were still valid.
BUT. And this is BIG. The English theologians of that time had adopted the protestant views, from the mainland, regarding the ordained ministry, the bishops and priests. They believed that these men were not true, actual priests with the ability to confect thru the holy Spirit the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ on the altar, nor could they, actually, forgive sins in Christ’s name and absolve the sinner of them. The “Reconciliation of a Penitent” ritual in the Book of Common Prayer, is not the same thing as the Sacrament of Confession. The Theologians in England, of the time, denied and rejected all of these orthodox meanings and intentions and purposes of Ordination, and these denials were the basis of the New (then new, that is) Edwardine Ordinal. Thus, upon it’s implementation,
it is pure fact, the Apostolic Succession was BROKEN, permanently.
Anglican Orders, in general***, are NOT valid. No matter how angry it makes an Anglican to hear that, it is still true. It is stated for the sake of truth, not to hurt anyone’s feelings.

***There ARE validly ordained Anglican and American “Episcopalian” priests.
…These are men who went also to Eastern Orthodox or “Old Catholic” bishops,
…who DO have valid apostolic successions, and had themselves conditionally ordained
…by these men who DO HAVE the ability to pass on what they, in fact, do HAVE.
…A person without this valid Apostolic succession CANNOT, NOT EVER, pass it on.
…Presbyterians and others ALSO rejected the same teachings that the
…English rejected. That too, is when and how they lost THEIR valid apostolic
…succession. They didn’t lose it merely because they “broke with Rome.”
…They lost it later.
…As with the English, same thing.
…The big big difference is that the C.O.E. kept all the rituals, all the ceremonial garments,
…all the incense, all the holy water fonts, a pretty Liturgical ceremony, and other
…things, which look very much Catholic/Orthodox.
…But the meaning behind them was rejected, not by YOU, but by those men,
…and those men, NOT YOU, caused the Anglican Orders to LOSE their validity.
…If the Anglicans as a group, ever officially re-accept ALL of the sacerdotal
…purposes of Ordination, and have themselves, ALL, from bishops to priests,
…conditionally reordained by E.O,. or Old Catholic, or by Roman Catholic,
…bishops, then, and only then, will Anglican orders become, across the board,
…valid once again.
Without all that, despite all protestations and arguments to the contrary,
they are, factually, Not Valid.
You have, as a baptized anglican Christian, a RIGHT to a VALID, GENUINE Eucharist.
Please do not sell yourself short by receving what looks like the real thing but isn’t.
God love you.
 
Maryann_C said:
This may be a redundant question and the answer may be “as soon as they broke authority with Rome” but I have always wondered the following : IF apostolic succession comes through validly ordained Bishops with a traceable line back to the Apostles then why do we say that the Bishops in the Church of England are not validly ordained? Surely they can trace their line all the way back because when the Church of England split the Bishops who sided with the King of England were validly ordained or did they excommunicate themselves at that point and so nullify their ordination and the valid succession? Luther of course was different since he was not a Bishop. I have always wondered why the Eastern/Western Church split was called a schism but the C of E leaving Rome was considered a true split and made them ( those siding with the C of E) Protestants?
Click to expand...
May I ask if you have recieved the answer to your questions?
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
**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.**

With all due respect, despite what you think you “know,”
your orders are NOT valid.
It doesn’t matter what you, or I , or Catholics, or Orthodox, “believe” about our Orders
and their validity. That’s a matter of pride, frankly, and has no place in the discussion.
One’s beliefs, without facts to back them up, are worthless.
I’m being objective here. Beliefs are no more valid than mere feelings.
To be accurate, they have to be based on FACT.

Until the activities leading up to and including the publication of the Edwardine Ordinal,
all English Orders, even after the breakaway, were still valid.
BUT. And this is BIG. The English theologians of that time had adopted the protestant views, from the mainland, regarding the ordained ministry, the bishops and priests. They believed that these men were not true, actual priests with the ability to confect thru the holy Spirit the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ on the altar, nor could they, actually, forgive sins in Christ’s name and absolve the sinner of them. The “Reconciliation of a Penitent” ritual in the Book of Common Prayer, is not the same thing as the Sacrament of Confession. The Theologians in England, of the time, denied and rejected all of these orthodox meanings and intentions and purposes of Ordination, and these denials were the basis of the New (then new, that is) Edwardine Ordinal. Thus, upon it’s implementation,
it is pure fact, the Apostolic Succession was BROKEN, permanently.
Anglican Orders, in general***, are NOT valid. No matter how angry it makes an Anglican to hear that, it is still true. It is stated for the sake of truth, not to hurt anyone’s feelings.

***There ARE validly ordained Anglican and American “Episcopalian” priests.
…These are men who went also to Eastern Orthodox or “Old Catholic” bishops,
…who DO have valid apostolic successions, and had themselves conditionally ordained
…by these men who DO HAVE the ability to pass on what they, in fact, do HAVE.
…A person without this valid Apostolic succession CANNOT, NOT EVER, pass it on.
…Presbyterians and others ALSO rejected the same teachings that the
…English rejected. That too, is when and how they lost THEIR valid apostolic
…succession. They didn’t lose it merely because they “broke with Rome.”
…They lost it later.
…As with the English, same thing.
…The big big difference is that the C.O.E. kept all the rituals, all the ceremonial garments,
…all the incense, all the holy water fonts, a pretty Liturgical ceremony, and other
…things, which look very much Catholic/Orthodox.
…But the meaning behind them was rejected, not by YOU, but by those men,
…and those men, NOT YOU, caused the Anglican Orders to LOSE their validity.
…If the Anglicans as a group, ever officially re-accept ALL of the sacerdotal
…purposes of Ordination, and have themselves, ALL, from bishops to priests,
…conditionally reordained by E.O,. or Old Catholic, or by Roman Catholic,
…bishops, then, and only then, will Anglican orders become, across the board,
…valid once again.
Without all that, despite all protestations and arguments to the contrary,
they are, factually, Not Valid.
You have, as a baptized anglican Christian, a RIGHT to a VALID, GENUINE Eucharist.
Please do not sell yourself short by receving what looks like the real thing but isn’t.
God love you.
Click to expand...
As you will understand, Anglicans might have a different opinion. Given that I’ve been studying the history of Apostolicae Curae for over 12 years, my opinion, such as it is, is informed (in my opinion).

You misunderstand a point with respect to the Dutch Touch. It was not individual priests who went to OCs for ordination (I am not aware of any approach to Orthodox, outside of to some *vagantes *. Anglicans and the Utrecht OCs entered into full communion, after the agreement of Bonn in 1931, and started joint consecrations to the episcopacy in 1932. (the same became true with respect to Anglicans and the PNCC, in 1946). This, logically, infused the valid/illicit OC/PNCC episcopal lines into Anglicanism, which were then propagated as the Anglican bishops performed consecrations and ordinations, in due course. This is the essence of the Dutch Touch.

As I have said, I am not aware of any formal RC statement on this, but IAW the logic in Ott, this would be what the Dutch Touch means. I refer you to Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II, or Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT.

As always, I certainly expect you to affirm what the RCC teaches on the matter.

GKC
 
But this point of Apostolicae Curae was that the Ordinal had been specifically written, at the point in time it was, by whom it was, to specifically exclude the concept of the sacrificial priesthood. Had the Pontificale Romanum been used, or even a preexisting rite which like the Ordinal, did not mention the power of the priesthood (the Mosarabic Rite,say, or those you mention) the logic of Apostolicae Curae would necessarily have been different.

Very well said, GKC, excellent points. My point exactly. The Ed. Ordinal was implemented explicitly to reject the SACERDOTAL nature of the ordained episcopate and priesthood. As for those who later disagreed with these denials, even so,
you CANNOT pass on (by ordaining) to others what YOU YOURSELF DO NOT HAVE.
I.e.,
all my belief in the world in the sacerdotal nature of the episcopate and priesthood,
and I do believe it all, 200% so, does not, not, not give me the ability to henceforth pass it on because, even though I do believe it, I myself, personally, have not been validly ordained. I cannot pass on what I do not as yet personally possess, it’s that simple.

As for Rome’s claim to authority being subjective and circular reasoning, or,
as one poster put it,
ROME HAS AUTHORITY BECAUSE ROME CLAIMS (to have) AUTHORITY,
that is nonsense.
Rome has authority OBJECTIVELY speaking, and not based on subjective views.
This is easily verifiable by research into what the earliest, apostolically taught christians, believed about the church, the authority of the episcopate, the authority of Peter WITHIN that episcopate, and the place of Rome as the place from which PETER’s authority flowed, and this even AFTER Peter himself had died.

Please, everyone, please understand where I am “coming from” in all this:
This stuff is not some prideful matter of argumentation for me.
I don’t enjoy debating it, nor do I do so in order to “beat somebody” in an argument.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I have no pride in this matter.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS :
I was raised in a ferociously antiCatholic CULT, and from tiny childhood imbibed ALL the extremely destructive (mentally, socially, psychologically, religiously and yes, even job and income-wise) beliefs of this cult religion which, like all non Catholic groups, claimed to be the Original Christian faith.
This is NOT, NOT, NOT some “academic” exercise for me.
To find out that I had “BEEN HAD,” and to heal after all that brainwashing,
I had to go back and DIG, DIG, DIG into what the REAL Original Faith actually was. This was and is NO mere prideful intellectual exercise for me, nor a matter of I’m right, your wrong, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaaaah nyaah!!!
It is, mentally and spiritually, and for my sanity’s sake, a matter of Life and Death.
Literally.
And when I find out, for sure, as I have, what the Original was,
I cannot STAND IT, deep inside, when I see people, good people, being deceived by falsehoods about true, apostolic Christianity. I care not one whit for national pride,
“traditional” beliefs against the papacy, whether by protestants or by the orthodox, none of those things matter to me. I am not interested in flattering people. I hate seeing people being deceived, good people, about such vital and holy matters.
Even if momma and daddy, whom you adore, passed your faith on to you. If it is mistaken, it is still mistaken (on some points) even if momma and daddy are now high ranking saints in heaven.
Pride should play NO ROLE in these discussions, nor should SUBJECTIVE beliefs, nor stubborn-ness.
I was brainwashed by a cult that exists today PRECISELY BECAUSE of two main things:
(1) a schism occured in 1054 A.D. that was “gotten away with” and because
(2) a massive rebellion, based largely on lies and private interpretations with no authority
…at all except the prideful assertions of personal accuracy by the ones
…doing the rebelling, occured in the 16th century and was “gotten away with.”
I know that that will offend many people, but it is the truth.
If THAT had not happened, and been “gotten away with,” there would BE NO
vast volumes of antiCatholic propaganda (which these rebels originated) for later cult-founders to use (and believe me, they use that false propaganda to the HILT).
If (1) and (2) had not happened and not been “gotten away with,” it is pure fact that
me, and millions of others, would NOT have had our minds wrecked, our psyches violated, our spirituality DESTROYED for DECADES, and the cults whosse teachings destroyed us, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, extreme anti-Catholic fundies, and others, WOULD NOT EXIST TODAY.
That, dear beloved people, both Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant,
is why I am very emphatic, even to some kind of offensive, in my posts.
They are not meant to offend. But I am direct. I cannot afford, after all the lasting harm done to me (and millions like me, many of whom are still trapped in those cults and are also nice, well-meaning people) to be less than firm and emphatic. I have done my homework about what IS the true faith. I have done it. I have no agenda other than to survive. I make no money from my views or from spreading them. They aren’t my mere “views,” either.
I have to be firm. After 30 years of hell and permanent damage that continues to this day,
I will not back down when I know a certain position is erroneous. I dare not do so.
God love all of you, and may he richly bless you in this life and the next.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
One’s beliefs, without facts to back them up, are worthless.
I’m being objective here. Beliefs are no more valid than mere feelings.
Click to expand...
Except even Catholics have to first believe in God and also in the Good Friday and Easter NT story for instance before you get to the apostolic succession part. Without belief, you have no “facts”. I don’t think you or any of us who believe in God and His Son and Savior Jesus Christ would call it worthless to believe.
 
Anglicans do not accept the concept that the Ordinal possesses a native character and spirit (nativa indoles ac spiritus), from the beliefs of the authors, which renders it incapable of conveying the sacrament validly, in spite of not differing from pre-exisiting rites, in the pertinent details. The valid intent required in the sacramental action is that of the celebrant/minister, not the author of the Ordinal. Apostolicae Curae assumes that such intent (of the minister) is discernible, determinatio ex adiunctus, by the use of the Ordinal. So Rome teaches, so you should affirm.

Anglicans may differ with that opinion. And do.

We are unlikely to get much further with this discussion.

Your faith in your faith is admirable.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
GKC said:
…
All RCs should affirm that, with the appropriate level of theological certainty.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
Click to expand...
I am guessing that you are not a Roman Catholic, however it seems to me that you have a very good understanding of authority in RCC! 🙂
 
Edmundus1581 said:
I am guessing that you are not a Roman Catholic, however it seems to me that you have a very good understanding of authority in RCC! 🙂
Click to expand...
Yep and thank you. I do read my Ott, etc.

And have been interested in the RC/Anglican thingy for about 45 years. Been collecting books in the area about that long. Other areas, longer.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top