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

[Maryann_C]

May I ask if you have recieved the answer to your questions?

Clearly if I had received the answer to my question I think we would all deserve a peace prize !!
Since I am a mother and thus have a full time job I do not have as much time as I obviously needed to keep up with the discussion I started- my apologies. I think that obviously my question was not as redundant as I initially thought …OR is it? I thin kit is only finally Erich who has actually taken the route that I now would take having though about the issue a bit more and to me the logical route and the one that led me to the fullness of the faith in the first place and that is to ask “What did Jesus say”? and therefore as a level playing field we should look to scriptures! Symphorian tried to start making the point but with all due respect Symphorian…failed ,since you make a statement of fact siteing that it “is plain from the NT” but fail to quote the scripture and verse.

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.really?? He has given us a form in the case of Baptism which must be in the name of the Holy Trinity and with waterplease quote scripture. 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. quote scripture again please

The early Church was able to quickly establish a definite method of ordination, BUT the question is HOW ,WHY and by who’s authority? 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.

To answer my own question in part for now- the apostolic authority comes from Jesus ’ what you bind , I will bind’ etc !!! No one here has yet brought up the fact that Jesus said he would give Peter the Keys Mat 16 v 18&19 RSV was a direct reference to a handing on of authority to the prime minister which is handed on in succession as seen foreshadowed in the OT Isaiah 22 v 21 & 22 RSV . Jesus clearly instituted the handing on of His authority - authority He got in turn from the Father Mat 28 v 18 RSV ,so there must be a valid succession of that authority . So for those who would like to say "well I don’t really have to worry about weather or not my priest is validly ordained ( qualified) to impart the sacraments that Jesus instituted, I only have to believe or I only have to believe that they are validly ordained " I would recommend you do a bit more Bible study rather than so much study of historical machinations. Let us also not forget the the Jesus wanted His church to be ONE as the Father and Son are one in-fact this is what He prayed for to the Father John 17 v 20&21 and again mentions his glory ( authority) being passed on from the father to the son and to the apostles.v 22, 23 and on.

 

[Maryann_C]

To be honest many the arguments that have come forth in the last few pages have sounded to me more like the kind of ‘argument between monks’ that caused the protestant revolt in the first place…alas we are just as human as they were. God give us the grace to do YOUR will not ours.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

G,

All I did was ask a question. I made no assumption.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .To answer my own question in part for now- the apostolic authority comes from Jesus ’ what you bind , I will bind’ etc !!! No one here has yet brought up the fact that Jesus said he would give Peter the Keys Mat 16 v 18&19 RSV was a direct reference to a handing on of authority to the prime minister which is handed on in succession as seen foreshadowed in the OT Isaiah 22 v 21 & 22 RSV . Jesus clearly instituted the handing on of His authority - authority He got in turn from the Father Mat 28 v 18 RSV ,so there must be a valid succession of that authority . . . .

Maryann C,

Sadly, this is starting to feel like a “bait and switch”. . . . .If you wanted to discuss Peter/Keys/Papal authority, etc; why not be up front about it from the beginning. That would have saved me a lot of time and effort.

Anna

 

[grandfather]

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

Anna,

What did the bishops of England believe about the see of Peter in Rome prior to Henry VIII?

Did they recognize for centuries as Catholics that the pope was the visible head of the Church? Were they appointed with his approval? Did their vows profess obedience to him?

Were the first bishops in England sent there by Rome? Did Rome establish the English sees?

How did these ancient English churchmen interpret the scripture where Jesus gave the keys of His kingdom to Peter?

Do the Anglicans today agree with their own forebears?

If not, then the religion of the entire range of Anglican/Episcopalian bodies today, from liberal women bishops, to conservatives, is different from that of their own forebears. It is something that contradicts their patrimony. It is this novel thing that you defend.

We know Christ’s Church will endure until the end of time. There will be storms that threaten and batter, but Jesus began His public teaching from Peter’s boat and Peter’s boat will not be overwhelmed by any storm.

The Agnlican Church is in disarray. In England it is shriveled, and truly dying a sad painful death. Surely there are splinter groups here and there clinging to their old ways, but the main body, that Church whose visible ceremonial head is the royal family in England is lost. The reason is they denied the faith of their own forebears.

It is indeed a complicated history, and tragic.

If this organization is of the true Church then it will not die. Christ will rescue it and set it back on the right path and be with it until the end of time. Time will tell.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

What did the bishops of England believe about the see of Peter in Rome prior to Henry VIII?

Did they recognize for centuries as Catholics that the pope was the visible head of the Church? Were they appointed with his approval? Did their vows profess obedience to him?

Were the first bishops in England sent there by Rome? Did Rome establish the English sees?

How did these ancient English churchmen interpret the scripture where Jesus gave the keys of His kingdom to Peter?

Do the Anglicans today agree with their own forebears?

If not, then the religion of the entire range of Anglican/Episcopalian bodies today, from liberal women bishops, to conservatives, is different from that of their own forebears. It is something that contradicts their patrimony. It is this novel thing that you defend.

We know Christ’s Church will endure until the end of time. There will be storms that threaten and batter, but Jesus began His public teaching from Peter’s boat and Peter’s boat will not be overwhelmed by any storm.

The Agnlican Church is in disarray. In England it is shriveled, and truly dying a sad painful death. Surely there are splinter groups here and there clinging to their old ways, but the main body, that Church whose visible ceremonial head is the royal family in England is lost. The reason is they denied the faith of their own forebears.

It is indeed a complicated history, and tragic.

If this organization is of the true Church then it will not die. Christ will rescue it and set it back on the right path and be with it until the end of time. Time will tell.

grandfather,

I mistakenly thought this thread was actually about answering the question: When did the valid apostolic succession of the Church of England loose it’s validity?

 

[Anna_Scott]

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?

 

[Edmundus1581]

Maryann C,

Sadly, this is starting to feel like a “bait and switch”. . . . .If you wanted to discuss Peter/Keys/Papal authority, etc; why not be up front about it from the beginning. That would have saved me a lot of time and effort.

Anna

Exactly!

We can start with any apparently innocent question, such as “Why do we include Maccabees in the OT?”, and end up with “What I really wanted was Matt 16:18”. That is not how the RCC works in ecumunical dialog. We seek as much common ground as we can find in scripture and tradition, and try to understand historical and cultural aspects to our differences.

Anyway, it’s incorrect. The Anglican orders did not lose their valid apostolic succession because they left the fold of Rome, and the Pope has never said that they did. Validity does not come from submission to Peter, or union with the Catholic Church.

Which has been clearly explained and referenced many times over in this thread, by various people who we can thank for their scholarship and time.

Thankyou, Anna, for your contributions. I have read them with interest and found them informative. If I haven’t responded it’s because this is not a subject on which I like to enter into disagreement of any sort (except with hard-line Catholics…).

 

[grandfather]

grandfather,

I mistakenly thought this thread was actually about answering the question: When did the valid apostolic succession of the Church of England loose it’s validity?

That was the question wasn’t it. The answer then would be a date, rather than a discussion on whether it did ot not, wouldn’t it.

All these threads do have a way of wandering. Nevertheless, my questsions on what the forebears of today’s Anglicans believed are or should be important to you, unless you don’t care what they believed, or would rather not allow yourself to consider the questions and the ramifications.

I find the term continuing Anglican to be ironic. If apostolic succession has been broken and reestablished there, the faith has not, because early English Christians believed and acknowledged the pope as the visible head of the Church. He was deposed by a king whose usurped authority was recognized by apostate bishops who changed their loyatlies facing being drawn and quartered. They abandoned the faith of their forebears from whom they received it.

Now look at them.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Clearly if I had received the answer to my question I think we would all deserve a peace prize !!
…

It’s not nearly that complicated. The definitive answer, for a Catholic, can be found in the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae. On the Nullity of Anglican Orders (1896). This document has been the reference for this whole discussion. In it, Pope Leo XIII explains why Anglican orders are invalid, declaring, towards the end and after explanation of the relevant history and theology, “we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”.

However, to answer your particular question of when the CofE lost valid Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders, GKC summarised how Apostolicae Curae applies to that subject, in various posts, particularly #s4, 12 and 45. His posts are remarkably good for both accuracy and readability.

The answer, in the RCC’s opinion, is given in Apostolicae Curae, by Leo XIII. It is not perfectly clear at precisely what point it occurred, but the consensus is with the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559, using the Edwardine Ordinal. From that point, consecrations/ordinations were considered invalid, for a set of intertwined technical reasons.

GKC

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

And, in the most technical post in this thread, #12, GKC explains, from Apostolicae Curae, the “intertwined points of intent and form”. There is no single passage from this post I can extract here. It’s worth reading from beginning to end.

I acknowledge all the contributions to discussion on the subject, however I have selected these three posts as the answer to when Anglican orders became invalid, and why, referring as they do to Apostolicae Curae. Apologies if I have neglected other contributions.

For further reading, I recommend that you consult Apostolicae Curae and a Catholic commentary on it. If you find that GKC’s summaries are in any way incorrect, I am sure that he and the rest of use would be happy to be informed.

~ Edmundus

 

[GKC]

It’s not nearly that complicated. The definitive answer, for a Catholic, can be found in the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae. On the Nullity of Anglican Orders (1896). This document has been the reference for this whole discussion. In it, Pope Leo XIII explains why Anglican orders are invalid, declaring, towards the end and after explanation of the relevant history and theology, “we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”.

However, to answer your particular question of when the CofE lost valid Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders, GKC summarised how Apostolicae Curae applies to that subject, in various posts, particularly #s4, 12 and 45. His posts are remarkably good for both accuracy and readability.

And, in the most technical post in this thread, #12, GKC explains, from Apostolicae Curae, the “intertwined points of intent and form”. There is no single passage from this post I can extract here. It’s worth reading from beginning to end.

I acknowledge all the contributions to discussion on the subject, however I have selected these three posts as the answer to when Anglican orders became invalid, and why, referring as they do to Apostolicae Curae. Apologies if I have neglected other contributions.

For further reading, I recommend that you consult Apostolicae Curae and a Catholic commentary on it. If you find that GKC’s summaries are in any way incorrect, I am sure that he and the rest of use would be happy to be informed.

~ Edmundus

I certainly would.

And, believe it or not, the subject is more complicated than has been discussed so far.

GKC

 

[GKC]

G,

All I did was ask a question. I made no assumption.

My apologies. It looked like an assumption to me.

GKC

 

[Maryann_C]

Maryann C,

Sadly, this is starting to feel like a “bait and switch”. . . . .If you wanted to discuss Peter/Keys/Papal authority, etc; why not be up front about it from the beginning. That would have saved me a lot of time and effort.

Anna

Dear Anna , it was not my intent to bait and switch . Maryann is my given name I am completely open and never intend to be underhanded or secretive or ‘catch people out’ because I think that does nothing for this forum, the faith or my own soul. After all if I can not be honest and open when discussing my faith and the reasons for it, then what good am I as a Christian and a member of this forum. You can look at all of my posts and see that although I love a good debate (when I have the time) I am always completely open with my thoughts. MY OP was a musing that was exactly as I had stated . The partial answer I penned in the short time I had was simply my reasoning after reading all of the debate thus far. I thank you for your contribution to the debate it has helped me immensely in my reasoning.
Back to work

 

[marlo]

Maryann,

What ever the Anglican’s say or write, or trace the lineage, or received ordinations from a valid bishop. or defend that the intent and form is sufficient from what ever sources they may quote. The same rule stays, “That the Anglican Teaching about the priesthood is different from what the Catholic Church teaches” The best proof is that the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood and Episcopate is the FULL revelation of their invalid apostolic succession. It definitely shows that their teaching and faith is different from what the Apostles taught. Pope Leo XIII had it right.

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?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Exactly!

We can start with any apparently innocent question, such as “Why do we include Maccabees in the OT?”, and end up with “What I really wanted was Matt 16:18”. That is not how the RCC works in ecumunical dialog. We seek as much common ground as we can find in scripture and tradition, and try to understand historical and cultural aspects to our differences.

Anyway, it’s incorrect. The Anglican orders did not lose their valid apostolic succession because they left the fold of Rome, and the Pope has never said that they did. Validity does not come from submission to Peter, or union with the Catholic Church.

Which has been clearly explained and referenced many times over in this thread, by various people who we can thank for their scholarship and time.

Thankyou, Anna, for your contributions. I have read them with interest and found them informative. If I haven’t responded it’s because this is not a subject on which I like to enter into disagreement of any sort (except with hard-line Catholics…).

Edmundus1581,

Thank you for understanding.

Anna

 

[GKC]

Maryann,

What ever the Anglican’s say or write, or trace the lineage, or received ordinations from a valid bishop. or defend that the intent and form is sufficient from what ever sources they may quote. The same rule stays, “That the Anglican Teaching about the priesthood is different from what the Catholic Church teaches” The best proof is that the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood and Episcopate is the FULL revelation of their invalid apostolic succession. It definitely shows that their teaching and faith is different from what the Apostles taught. Pope Leo XIII had it right.

Where might one find an authoritative and binding Anglican teaching about the priesthood?

Some (many) Anglicans agree with you that baptized males, of a certain age, are the only valid subjects to receive orders. Some of us have left the official Anglican Churches over it. But if one believes that leaven bread is a valid host for confecting the Eucharist, it does not mean that they have a different concept of the Eucharist, necessarily.

The Old Catholics of Utrecht, of late, have started laying hands on women. Does not affect the status of their apostolic succession, in itself.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[Anna_Scott]

I added bold, blue type:

Clearly if I had received the answer to my question I think we would all deserve a peace prize !!
Since I am a mother and thus have a full time job I do not have as much time as I obviously needed to keep up with the discussion I started- my apologies. I think that obviously my question was not as redundant as I initially thought …OR is it? I thin kit is only finally Erich who has actually taken the route that I now would take having though about the issue a bit more and to me the logical route and the one that led me to the fullness of the faith in the first place and that is to ask **“What did Jesus say”? and therefore as a level playing field we should look to scriptures! **Symphorian tried to start making the point but with all due respect Symphorian…failed ,since you make a statement of fact siteing that it “is plain from the NT” but fail to quote the scripture and verse.

To answer my own question in part for now- the apostolic authority comes from Jesus ’ what you bind , I will bind’ etc !!! No one here has yet brought up the fact that Jesus said he would give Peter the Keys Mat 16 v 18&19 RSV was a direct reference to a handing on of authority to the prime minister which is handed on in succession as seen foreshadowed in the OT Isaiah 22 v 21 & 22 RSV . Jesus clearly instituted the handing on of His authority - authority He got in turn from the Father Mat 28 v 18 RSV ,so there must be a valid succession of that authority . So for those who would like to say "well I don’t really have to worry about weather or not my priest is validly ordained ( qualified) to impart the sacraments that Jesus instituted, I only have to believe or I only have to believe that they are validly ordained "** I would recommend you do a bit more Bible study rather than so much study of historical machinations.** Let us also not forget the the Jesus wanted His church to be ONE as the Father and Son are one in-fact this is what He prayed for to the Father John 17 v 20&21 and again mentions his glory ( authority) being passed on from the father to the son and to the apostles.v 22, 23 and on.

Maryann C,

Sadly, this is starting to feel like a “bait and switch”. . . . .If you wanted to discuss Peter/Keys/Papal authority, etc; why not be up front about it from the beginning. That would have saved me a lot of time and effort.

Anna

Dear Anna , it was not my intent to bait and switch . Maryann is my given name I am completely open and never intend to be underhanded or secretive or ‘catch people out’ because I think that does nothing for this forum, the faith or my own soul. After all if I can not be honest and open when discussing my faith and the reasons for it, then what good am I as a Christian and a member of this forum. You can look at all of my posts and see that although I love a good debate (when I have the time) I am always completely open with my thoughts. MY OP was a musing that was exactly as I had stated . The partial answer I penned in the short time I had was simply my reasoning after reading all of the debate thus far. I thank you for your contribution to the debate it has helped me immensely in my reasoning.
Back to work

Maryann C,
This is a Catholic forum and I would expect you to defend your faith. You started this thread, so you are free to take the discussion in any direction you choose.

If you prefer to look to Scripture to answer your question: When did the valid apostolic sucession of the Church of England loose it’s validity?–that is your choice. However, that would take Apostolicae Curae off the table of discussion (it would seem so anyway.) Also, this approach would dismiss all Anglican posts involving our history.

As to your recommendation to “do a bit more Bible study rather than so much study of historical machinations”; are you referring to Anglican history here? B]Machination is by definition a crafty scheme or cunning design for the accomplishment of a sinister end. So, I’m somewhat taken back by your choice of this word.

Peace,
Anna

 

[liturgyluver]

.

The Agnlican Church is in disarray. In England it is shriveled, and truly dying a sad painful death. Surely there are splinter groups here and there clinging to their old ways, but the main body, that Church whose visible ceremonial head is the royal family in England is lost. The reason is they denied the faith of their own forebears.

Sorry to go off topic but as someone who actualy lives in England, I think this is a complete exaggeration. The Church of England has actually declined at a slower rate than the Catholic church since 1990. I have lived in many parts of the UK and had the privilige to work with many thriving Church of England congregations through the “Churches together” ecumneical programme. Yes there are differences in doctrine over women priests (there are not yet women Bishops in the Church of England) but it’s important to remember that this doesn’t affect the worship at the average Church of England Parish which still execute great liturgies very beautifully. People often compare congregation size at Catholic churches with CofE ones but that’s like comparing Apples and Pears - there are 5 CofE churches for every 1 catholic one, and they have no shortage of priests - unlike us.

 

[GKC]

I added bold, blue type:

Maryann C,
This is a Catholic forum and I would expect you to defend your faith. You started this thread, so you are free to take the discussion in any direction you choose.

If you prefer to look to Scripture to answer your question: When did the valid apostolic sucession of the Church of England loose it’s validity?–that is your choice. However, that would take Apostolicae Curae off the table of discussion (it would seem so anyway.) Also, this approach would dismiss all Anglican posts involving our history.

As to your recommendation to “do a bit more Bible study rather than so much study of historical machinations”; are you referring to Anglican history here? B]Machination

is by definition a crafty scheme or cunning design for the accomplishment of a sinister end. So, I’m somewhat taken back by your choice of this word.

Peace,
Anna

Me, I like history. Friend named Newman once made a good observation about it.

GKC

 

[Symphorian]

Sorry to go off topic but as someone who actualy lives in England, I think this is a complete exaggeration. The Church of England has actually declined at a slower rate than the Catholic church since 1990. I have lived in many parts of the UK and had the privilige to work with many thriving Church of England congregations through the “Churches together” ecumneical programme. Yes there are differences in doctrine over women priests (there are not yet women Bishops in the Church of England) but it’s important to remember that this doesn’t affect the worship at the average Church of England Parish which still execute great liturgies very beautifully. People often compare congregation size at Catholic churches with CofE ones but that’s like comparing Apples and Pears - there are 5 CofE churches for every 1 catholic one, and they have no shortage of priests - unlike us.

Thankyou liturgyluver.

To keep of topic for a bit longer, declining numbers go across the board. In my small town, a Catholic church and two Methodist Chapels have closed in recent years. We are involved in the Churches Together ecumenical programme and have a warm relationship with the local Catholic and Methodist/URC congregations and have regular interaction. Recently we hosted the Catholic congregation to Evensong at which the Catholic Priest gave the homily. During Lent we attended the Catholic church for Stations and the Methodist church for Tenebrae.

In our Diocese there are a few instances of Catholic Priests celebrating Mass at Anglican churches (for Catholics). This has been going on for around 30 years. There does seem to be a shortage of Catholic clergy locally. The Ordinariate Priest has been made Priest in Charge of a regular parish as well as looking after the Ordinariate group.