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

[CopticChristian]

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

G,

If validity is the issue then I see it this way…

I seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity.

I choose to seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity from those that claim that there is no validity.

I choose to seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity from other than those that claim that there is no validity.
Ok

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

seanman,

Very interesting quote.

I realize Catholics must submit to the teachings of the Catholic on the issue of Anglican Orders; but perhaps this thread will show that it is a complicated issue.

Anna

 

[GKC]

G,

If validity is the issue then I see it this way…

I seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity.

I choose to seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity from those that claim that there is no validity.

I choose to seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity from other than those that claim that there is no validity.
Ok

Which was what I thought. And assumes that Anglicans were, in fact, seeking validity, as the end, rather than a relationship of inter-communion. Which they were.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

G,

If validity is the issue then I see it this way…

I seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity.

I choose to seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity from those that claim that there is no validity.

I choose to seek validity of orders because there is a question of validity from other than those that claim that there is no validity.
Ok

To Coptic, Coptic, Coptic from Anna Anna Anna

You are making me dizzy.

I’m not actually worried about the Orders issue within Anglicanism.

The validity/invalidity of Anglican Orders is more of a Catholics-in-Communion-with-Rome issue, than an Anglican issue. IOW, I am not concerned by the CC declaring our Orders invalid.

It’s like another current thread entitled, “Protestants who call themselves “Catholic”…”. The CC acknowledges that Anglicans (and other Christians) are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. I have even seen Catholic arguments here that we, outside Communion with Rome, are Catholics and we just don’t realize it. Yet, Catholics are offended by our use of the word Catholic.

Peace,

Anna

Edited to Add:

There is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The CC is of course Jesus Christ.

With that said, Can you be saved without Baptism? The bible tells us that all must be Baptised in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Did you guys know that ANYONE who is Baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity is a part of the Catholic Church??

It is a true fact.

Although they are not Perfectly united they are united to the Catholic Church.

No one can be Baptised in the name of the Trinity and NOT be tied to the RCC.

Hows that for the truth.

Anyone who is baptised in the name of the Trinity is considered a part of his Church. So sorry, if you are Baptised in the name of the Trinity you are indeed part of the CC and welcome to the family

So, if we are part of the Catholic Church, why is there even an Orders issue.

 

[Skeptic92]

seanman,

Very interesting quote.

I realize Catholics must submit to the teachings of the Catholic on the issue of Anglican Orders; but perhaps this thread will show that it is a complicated issue.

Anna

I do believe that at the time of issuing Apostolicae Curae the orders within the Anglican Communion were null and void. However since then, complications have arisen, the Ordination Rite used has changed and would be considered valid as long as the Ordaining Bishop, is a valid minister and has the correct intent (of course assuming non-female ordination). Further to that there has been Orthodox and Old Catholic Bishops (valid ministers) have been ordaining within the Anglican, meaning that there is DEFINITELY valid Anglican Priests out there, but I would argue they are hardly the majority.

But sticking by Pope Leo’s statement to the letter (that 'Anglican orders are ‘completely and utterly null and void’) is just illogical, of course there are valid Priests out there. It would be stupid to try and claim there are not.

 

[GKC]

seanman,

Very interesting quote.

I realize Catholics must submit to the teachings of the Catholic on the issue of Anglican Orders; but perhaps this thread will show that it is a complicated issue.

Anna[/QUOaE]

Complicated. Hmmm.

What Cardinal Hume knew was what the Agreement of Bonn provided for. Joint consecrations, Anglicans with OCs.

A list of those Anglican bishops who had such episcopal lines in their consecrations, between 1932 and 1970, is found in Hughes book, Appendix II, cited.

 

[Anna_Scott]

seanman,

Very interesting quote.

I realize Catholics must submit to the teachings of the Catholic on the issue of Anglican Orders; but perhaps this thread will show that it is a complicated issue.

Anna

Complicated. Hmmm.

What Cardinal Hume knew was what the Agreement of Bonn provided for. Joint consecrations, Anglicans with OCs.

A list of those Anglican bishops who had such episcopal lines in their consecrations, between 1932 and 1970, is found in Hughes book, Appendix II, cited.

GKC,
I think we are on a different wave link.

What I was trying to say is that the issue of Anglican Orders is not as simple as Apostolicae Curae. There is much more to the issue, as demonstrated by your posts, seanman611’s posts, etc.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I do believe that at the time of issuing Apostolicae Curae the orders within the Anglican Communion were null and void. However since then, complications have arisen, the Ordination Rite used has changed and would be considered valid as long as the Ordaining Bishop, is a valid minister and has the correct intent (of course assuming non-female ordination). Further to that there has been Orthodox and Old Catholic Bishops (valid ministers) have been ordaining within the Anglican, meaning that there is DEFINITELY valid Anglican Priests out there, but I would argue they are hardly the majority.

But sticking by Pope Leo’s statement to the letter (that 'Anglican orders are ‘completely and utterly null and void’) is just illogical, of course there are valid Priests out there. It would be stupid to try and claim there are not.

Skeptic92,

Interesting post. I appreciate your comments.
Anna

 

[Erich]

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

I’m a bit late to this thread, so this may have already been addressed, but actually it is not circular reasoning.

As Proving Inspiration puts it,

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Likewise, Rome doesn’t claim authority because it *claims *authority… it claims authority because it *has *authority.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m a bit late to this thread, so this may have already been addressed, but actually it is not circular reasoning.

As Proving Inspiration puts it,

Likewise, Rome doesn’t claim authority because it *claims *authority… it claims authority because it *has *authority.

And it has authority, because it claims authority.

Erich,

I appreciate your comments and will always weigh such points carefully.

I’ve had the authority discussion so many times in the last 3 years. If I were convinced the Pope has the authority he claims, I would head for Rome.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[GKC]

I do believe that at the time of issuing Apostolicae Curae the orders within the Anglican Communion were null and void. However since then, complications have arisen, the Ordination Rite used has changed and would be considered valid as long as the Ordaining Bishop, is a valid minister and has the correct intent (of course assuming non-female ordination). Further to that there has been Orthodox and Old Catholic Bishops (valid ministers) have been ordaining within the Anglican, meaning that there is DEFINITELY valid Anglican Priests out there, but I would argue they are hardly the majority.

But sticking by Pope Leo’s statement to the letter (that 'Anglican orders are ‘completely and utterly null and void’) is just illogical, of course there are valid Priests out there. It would be stupid to try and claim there are not.

It might be illogical; not for me to say. But them’s the rules. As noted in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, signed by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger (para 11).

And remember that the number of Anglican clergy affected is not directly limited to those Anglican bishops who had OC episcopal lines. These bishops continue to spread the valid/illicit OC lines as they consecrate/ordain, in due course. Assuming all other pertinent factors to be valid, of course.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC,
I think we are on a different wave link.

What I was trying to say is that the issue of Anglican Orders is not as simple as Apostolicae Curae. There is much more to the issue, as demonstrated by your posts, seanman611’s posts, etc.

Oops. I express myself poorly.

I salute your cogent reasoning. Not simple, it is.

GKC

 

[Erich]

And it has authority, because it claims authority.

It has authority because the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching ** authority.

Christ told Peter – and Peter alone – that “you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

Christ told Peter – and Peter alone – to “feed My lambs, tend My sheep, feed My sheep.”

Christ told Peter – and Peter alone – that “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

St. Paul wrote, in 1 Cor. 3:11, “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus,” and in Eph 2:20, “…built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner.”

St. John wrote, in Rev. 21:14, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I presume that at least on the *concept *of apostolic succession we can agree… St. Paul told St. Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2) – referring to the first four generations of apostolic succession (i.e. his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they will teach).

As for how quickly (or how slowly) you head to Rome, this link might help you decide

 

[CopticChristian]

Which was what I thought. And assumes that Anglicans were, in fact, seeking validity, as the end, rather than a relationship of inter-communion. Which they were.

GKC

Then if those that were not valid sought relationship as inter-communion why ask to have laying on of hands for validity if there was never a question of seeking such?

It appears that if for instance Baptism is declared invalid and there is no question in the mind of the Baptized then why through inter-communion get rebaptized?

 

[CopticChristian]

To Coptic, Coptic, Coptic from Anna Anna Anna

You are making me dizzy.

I’m not actually worried about the Orders issue within Anglicanism.

The validity/invalidity of Anglican Orders is more of a Catholics-in-Communion-with-Rome issue, than an Anglican issue. IOW, I am not concerned by the CC declaring our Orders invalid.

It’s like another current thread entitled, “Protestants who call themselves “Catholic”…”. The CC acknowledges that Anglicans (and other Christians) are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. I have even seen Catholic arguments here that we, outside Communion with Rome, are Catholics and we just don’t realize it. Yet, Catholics are offended by our use of the word Catholic.

Peace,

Anna

Edited to Add:

**
So, if we are part of the Catholic Church, why is there even an Orders issue.**

Pen Name Anna,

If you have not noticed that is the question of the OP and I am just throwing in my questions.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Off topic digression. This is just a comment on the article which was brought into the discussion.

…
As Proving Inspiration puts it,
…

Thankyou, Erich, that is a most wonderful resource!

This argument is central to my faith in the resurrection…

Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection.

When I was a young non-believer I rejected that argument out-of-hand, but since then I learned much more of human nature.

I would add the following, in support of the observation on human nature:

• The people who died for Christ were Jews, who had been inculcated, over 1300 years, with obedience to the The Law and The Prophets. It would be inconceivable for them to knowingly tell lies which would result in them being expelled from their own religion and people. As St Paul said “Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, …If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.”. [1 Cor 15 - 19]

Maybe one nut-case would, but not twelve, and more, sane people, who valued their lives and religion.

• When they proclaimed the resurrection of Christ they also proclaimed his message, and his message is not one which brings material advantage in this life, on the contrary, it challenges us and calls us to self-denial: “Take up your cross!”, “Forgive your brother from the heart”, “If a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery”. One of the repeated marks of false prophets is that they offer a strong spiritual vision, accompanied with a moral laxity, with the “prophets” themselves being the chief beneficiaries. The celibate clergy is a very powerful witness to following Christ for His own sake.
• When I look at my own life, I see that every false spiritual experience was, in some way, connected with a desire for immediate gratification, particularly: love, sex, or escape from work. (in all of which I was spectacularly unsuccessful - thank God!)

As a final comment on the linked article, I would add that it is succinct and coherent. I thought that your extract was from a book, but in fact it’s a web article which is tightly argued and moderate length.

 

[GKC]

Then if those that were not valid sought relationship as inter-communion why ask to have laying on of hands for validity if there was never a question of seeking such?

It appears that if for instance Baptism is declared invalid and there is no question in the mind of the Baptized then why through inter-communion get rebaptized?

Who do you think were “not valid”? Whoever it might be, the Anglicans would not have agreed with you.

I think I see part of your problem. There were no question of “re-consecrations” or “re-ordinations”, any more than an idea of "re-baptizing: This is not an instance of sub-conditione, it’s a case of consecrations, ab initio, raising a priest to the episcopacy, ordaining a priest or deacon, etc. Anglicans are quite aware that a valid ordination imparts an indelible character, as does a valid baptism, and is not repeatable. No one was asking to be “re-ordained/re-consecrated”. The Anglican candidates in question were being given the appropriate order. The communion partner bishops were participating. When George Francis Graham-Brown was consecrated (jointly) as Bishop of Jerusalem on 24 June 1932 (first one I know of), he was not being “re” anything. He was being raised to the episcopacy.

The agreement stated that each accepted fully the validity of the orders and hence the sacraments of the other. And if there was a joint consecration (it was not something that was going to happen every time) each would participate in the others rite. And of there was a joint Mass, each would accept the validity of the clergy of the other, co-celebrating.

Logically, each could have heard the confessions of the other, married the other, etc, though I know nothing of these details.

You began with an erroneous assumption. Anglicans, as a Church, didn’t think their orders were invalid (you have heard this here before). Or, if any did, they went to Rome. It certainly happened.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pen Name Anna,

If you have not noticed that is the question of the OP and I am just throwing in my questions.

Coptic,
Yes, and I said that with a wink.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pen Name Anna,

If you have not noticed that is the question of the OP and I am just throwing in my questions.

Did you notice I changed my signature and put “pen name” in parentheses? I did that just for you Coptic, Coptic, Coptic.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

It has authority because the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching ** authority.

Christ told Peter – and Peter alone – that “you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

Christ told Peter – and Peter alone – to “feed My lambs, tend My sheep, feed My sheep.”

Christ told Peter – and Peter alone – that “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

St. Paul wrote, in 1 Cor. 3:11, “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus,” and in Eph 2:20, “…built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner.”

St. John wrote, in Rev. 21:14, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I presume that at least on the *concept *of apostolic succession we can agree… St. Paul told St. Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2) – referring to the first four generations of apostolic succession (i.e. his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they will teach).

As for how quickly (or how slowly) you head to Rome, this link might help you decide

Erich,

I appreciate all you wrote; but as I said, I’ve had this discussion many times.

Peace and blessings,
Anna