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.
codefro said:
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.
Click to expand...
He does? That sounds unusual. Generally he’s of the “We know we are, but we cannot know what others are” type. Do you have a reference/quote?
 
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.

THIS would make the whole issue a “Horse of A Different Color” especially since 1932, especially if ALL Anglican bishops received, at least conditionally, these ordinations from bishops of the Utrecht OCs and the bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church, both of whom have valid apostolic succession and holy orders.
IF today’s Anglican bishops, universally, were ordained by THESE validly ordained men, from the Utrecht OCs and the PNCC,
then they ARE, indeed, validly ordained. Since 1932.
Not when Apostolicae Curae was penned, however.
Peace,
Jaypeeto4
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
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.

THIS would make the whole issue a “Horse of A Different Color” especially since 1932, especially if ALL Anglican bishops received, at least conditionally, these ordinations from bishops of the Utrecht OCs and the bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church, both of whom have valid apostolic succession and holy orders.
IF today’s Anglican bishops, universally, were ordained by THESE validly ordained men, from the Utrecht OCs and the PNCC,
then they ARE, indeed, validly ordained. Since 1932.
Not when Apostolicae Curae was penned, however.
Peace,
Jaypeeto4
Click to expand...
This seems to be the logical case, with respect to the logic of Apostolicae Curae, and with respect to the impact of the OC/PNCC joint consecrations.

My own late rector was ordained by a bishop who was himself consecrated by another bishop who had at least one PNCC bishop involved in his consecration.

GKC
 
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.

C’mon Anna, I wasn’t talking about the beliefs described above.
Which by the way, are more than mere beliefs, they are dogmas.
One MUST believe them.

I’m talking about our subjective opinions.
There are otherwise-nice people out there who, STILL,
believe literally that the Earth is flat. I’m not kidding. They’re on the
Internet, and they are Dead Serious.
But the FACTS ARE, that the earth ISN’T flat.
That’s what I’m talking about.
I can “Believe” as I did for 30 awful years, that the early Christians were,
doctrinally speaking, Jehovah’s Witnesses.
And I “believed” it very much.
But I was dead wrong, because that “belief” did not, at all, square with
FACT, with REALITY. The early Christians were Catholic in doctrine and practice
and had never even heard of anything as convoluted and
ridiculous as modern-day Watchtowerism.
That’s what I’m talking about in contrasting subjective “beliefs” with objective “facts.”
Peace to you,
Jaypeeto4
 
Another problem with Anglican Apostolic Succession is that the protestants had successfully uprooted the Catholic Church and so couldn’t find the bishops necessary for the laying on of hands, and had to rely on some fairly dodgy clerics to ordain new “priests.”

So outside of the doctrinal questions there is a problem with the actual laying on of hands.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
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.

C’mon Anna, I wasn’t talking about the beliefs described above…

The early Christians were Catholic in doctrine and practice
and had never even heard of anything as convoluted and
ridiculous as modern-day Watchtowerism.
That’s what I’m talking about in contrasting subjective “beliefs” with objective “facts.”
Peace to you,
Jaypeeto4
Click to expand...
Anna did not post the bolded words above.

As for myself I’m not as well versed in non Catholic Christian thought as I’d like. But I’m not sure every non Catholic Christian would agree with your view about the early Christians or whether reform was needed later and I shall leave it at that. Peace to you as well and His blessings along your faith walk.
 
:clapping:
fhansen said:
Well, for one thing the EO and RC Churches trace their roots simultaneously back to the beginnings of Christianity; the Churches that split from each other were already established, IOW, not one splitting to form a new Church. The EO Church doesn’t trace apostolic succession through Rome IOW. And since the Bishops of the C of E split over doctrinal/dogmatic issues to begin with, they were not merely schismatic but in heresy as well.
Click to expand...
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
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.

THIS would make the whole issue a “Horse of A Different Color” especially since 1932, especially if ALL Anglican bishops received, at least conditionally, these ordinations from bishops of the Utrecht OCs and the bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church, both of whom have valid apostolic succession and holy orders.
IF today’s Anglican bishops, universally, were ordained by THESE validly ordained men, from the Utrecht OCs and the PNCC,
then they ARE, indeed, validly ordained. Since 1932.
Not when Apostolicae Curae was penned, however.
Peace,
Jaypeeto4
Click to expand...
Jay,

I know little of this issue and will probably in time absorb some information. Here is what I see. If there was no question about the validity of Anglican orders then we would see no need to seek validity avoiding the Catholic Church, since the validity issue would not need seeking of some source to create validity.
 
CopticChristian said:
Jay,

I know little of this issue and will probably in time absorb some information. Here is what I see. If there was no question about the validity of Anglican orders then we would see no need to seek validity avoiding the Catholic Church, since the validity issue would not need seeking of some source to create validity.
Click to expand...
Which was not the point of the Bonn Agreement. See Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, and Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II. The full inter-communion agreement between the OCs/Utrecht and the Anglicans had roots going back before Apostolicae Curae. An ecumenical thing.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Which was not the point of the Bonn Agreement. See Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, and Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II. The full inter-communion agreement between the OCs/Utrecht and the Anglicans had roots going back before Apostolicae Curae. An ecumenical thing.

GKC
Click to expand...
G,

You direct me to something to illustrate that something is not the point. I am only pointing out what is being said as to gaining validity. Tell me what is the point of the Bonn Agreement as you have seen Moss, et al and Hughes Stewards…

Thank you
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
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.

C’mon Anna, I wasn’t talking about the beliefs described above.
Which by the way, are more than mere beliefs, they are dogmas.
One MUST believe them.

I’m talking about our subjective opinions.
There are otherwise-nice people out there who, STILL,
believe literally that the Earth is flat. I’m not kidding. They’re on the
Internet, and they are Dead Serious.
But the FACTS ARE, that the earth ISN’T flat.
That’s what I’m talking about.
I can “Believe” as I did for 30 awful years, that the early Christians were,
doctrinally speaking, Jehovah’s Witnesses.
And I “believed” it very much.
But I was dead wrong, because that “belief” did not, at all, square with
FACT, with REALITY. The early Christians were Catholic in doctrine and practice
and had never even heard of anything as convoluted and
ridiculous as modern-day Watchtowerism.
That’s what I’m talking about in contrasting subjective “beliefs” with objective “facts.”
Peace to you,
Jaypeeto4
Click to expand...
Jaypeeto4,

I did not post the bolded part of your post. 🙂

Anna
 
You all have been busy. 😃

There are some very passionate posts on this thread, and understandable so.

To my Catholic brethren; I will say that I respect your submission to the Magisterium. You are faithful Catholics, and I appreciate your witness.

I will also say, as a faithful Anglican, I do not need your approval of Anglican Orders.

I hope we are, above all else,* faithful Christians*.

I understand for Catholics, that means faithfulness to the Magisterium. I would not expect any less from you. 🙂

Peace and blessings to all,
Anna
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
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
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Anna_Scott said:
You all have been busy. 😃

There are some very passionate posts on this thread, and understandable so.

To my Catholic brethren; I will say that I respect your submission to the Magisterium. You are faithful Catholics, and I appreciate your witness.

I will also say, as a faithful Anglican, I do not need your approval of Anglican Orders.

I hope we are, above all else,* faithful Christians*.

I understand for Catholics, that means faithfulness to the Magisterium. I would not expect any less from you. 🙂

Peace and blessings to all,
Anna
Click to expand...
I try to limit my passionate posts to a Certain Subject, which is not this one.

GKC
 
CopticChristian said:
G,

You direct me to something to illustrate that something is not the point. I am only pointing out what is being said as to gaining validity. Tell me what is the point of the Bonn Agreement as you have seen Moss, et al and Hughes Stewards…

Thank you
Click to expand...
It was an agreement on full liturgical inter-communion. And had been being discussed, in various ways, for many years.

It is possible that I did not understand your sentence.

What signifies “If there was no question about the validity of Anglican orders then we would see no need to seek validity avoiding the Catholic Church, since the validity issue would not need seeking of some source to create validity.”

Unbundle it a little, if you will.

GKC
 
As an Anglican, I believe we have valid apostolic sucession.

As has already been stated, the “Saepius Officio” was a good response to the flaws in the "Apostolicae Curae.

However, it doesn’t end there, Anglican monk Gregory Dix wrote a fantastic defense on the validity of Anglican orders.

Catholic priest John Jay Hughes believed that the issue needed re-examined and Cardinal Basil Hume said (in 1978):

"I could not in practice dismiss all Anglican Orders as “null and void” because I know that a number of Anglican Bishops have in fact had the presence at their ordination of an Old Catholic or an Orthodox bishop, that is, somebody who, in the traditional theology of our Church, has been ordained according to a valid rite.

As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, I think it needs to look carefully again at Apostolicae Curae and its status. We need to discover whether the historical background upon which it was working and the argumentation upon which it was based is consonant with historical and theological truth as theologians and historians see it today."

Thus, the issue is not as simple as the Pope says so. Anglicans respect the Bishop of Rome, but we are not bound to his teachings and proclamations. As others have said, the issue is complicated.
 
seanman611 said:
As an Anglican, I believe we have valid apostolic sucession.

As has already been stated, the “Saepius Officio” was a good response to the flaws in the "Apostolicae Curae.

However, it doesn’t end there, Anglican monk Gregory Dix wrote a fantastic defense on the validity of Anglican orders.

Catholic priest John Jay Hughes believed that the issue needed re-examined and Cardinal Basil Hume said (in 1978):

"I could not in practice dismiss all Anglican Orders as “null and void” because I know that a number of Anglican Bishops have in fact had the presence at their ordination of an Old Catholic or an Orthodox bishop, that is, somebody who, in the traditional theology of our Church, has been ordained according to a valid rite.

As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, I think it needs to look carefully again at Apostolicae Curae and its status. We need to discover whether the historical background upon which it was working and the argumentation upon which it was based is consonant with historical and theological truth as theologians and historians see it today."

Thus, the issue is not as simple as the Pope says so. Anglicans respect the Bishop of Rome, but we are not bound to his teachings and proclamations. As others have said, the issue is complicated.
Click to expand...
Dix’s THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDERS:LETTERS TO A LAYMAN is a good, short and fast look at the issue. But Hughes’ 2 books, that I have cited before, are far and away the best on the subject that I have found.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top