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

[Anna_Scott]

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

Edmundus,

You have selectively quoted GKC in a way that makes it appear that he agrees with the Catholic position regarding the “invalidity” of Anglican Orders, when that is not the case.

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

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

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

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

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Edmundus,

You have selectively quoted GKC in a way that makes it appear that he agrees with the Catholic position regarding the “invalidity” of Anglican Orders, when that is not the case.

But another way of looking at it is that I understand Apostolicae Curae, which I think I do.

You are correct in that I don’t agree with it. But I expect a RC to do so, and have no problem with being quoted on what the RCC teaching on it is.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[codefro]

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.

Speaking as an former Continuing Anglican, the outlook of the Anglican Communion is very negative and hostile. More and more Anglicans are breaking away in the United States to form Continuing Anglican bodies or join the personal Ordinariate under the Holy Father. The problem with the Continuing Anglicans is that they are all battling with each other over jurisdiction and now Africa is coming over to the US to plant new emerging Anglican-ish churches (which btw it is already falling apart sooner than it can get its feet on the ground). The ACC and ACNA are very hostile to these missions and to the Anglican Communion. The problem now with the EPISCOPAL Church is that they have forsaken the Gospel and no longer care about the truth of the word of our Lord. That is a generalization, but a fair one as the Archbishop of the US in the Episcopal Church is making that quite apparent. Not to mention, them suing breakaway congregations to get the buildings back. I visited Anglican Churches who were in the midst of fighting to keep their property, and they would send all types of settlements to the Episcopal Church in large sums of money, but nothing that would appease them as they continue the lawsuits. It is really sad. If that isn’t division, then we need to redefine it. Anyways, sorry for the sidetrack. It seems that the eucharist conversation is becoming a bunch of repetition, so thought I would partake of this other conversation forming.

 

[GKC]

Speaking as an former Continuing Anglican, the outlook of the Anglican Communion is very negative and hostile. More and more Anglicans are breaking away in the United States to form Continuing Anglican bodies or join the personal Ordinariate under the Holy Father. The problem with the Continuing Anglicans is that they are all battling with each other over jurisdiction and now Africa is coming over to the US to plant new emerging Anglican-ish churches (which btw it is already falling apart sooner than it can get its feet on the ground). The ACC and ACNA are very hostile to these missions and to the Anglican Communion. The problem now with the EPISCOPAL Church is that they have forsaken the Gospel and no longer care about the truth of the word of our Lord. That is a generalization, but a fair one as the Archbishop of the US in the Episcopal Church is making that quite apparent. Not to mention, them suing breakaway congregations to get the buildings back. I visited Anglican Churches who were in the midst of fighting to keep their property, and they would send all types of settlements to the Episcopal Church in large sums of money, but nothing that would appease them as they continue the lawsuits. It is really sad. If that isn’t division, then we need to redefine it. Anyways, sorry for the sidetrack. It seems that the eucharist conversation is becoming a bunch of repetition, so thought I would partake of this other conversation forming.

Sad it is.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicaus

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

When the Vatican declared Anglican orders to be invalid, it was not at all clear that the proper form or intent existed. A large segment of the Anglican communion opposed the very idea of apostolic succession, and many of their bishops had not been properly established in any lineage.

Since that time, the Anglican communion has become much more catholic on this issue. They use the same form for episcopal ordination as the Catholic Church, and they are in full communion with the Union of Utrecht, which Rome recognizes as a valid episcopal body. Every Anglican bishop practicing today has been validly ordained according to these considerations (except for the female bishops, of course, and any male bishops who have been ordained exclusively by female bishops, although I don’t believe there are any of those at the moment).

The position of the Vatican, however, remains unchanged in that Anglican orders are still considered invalid. From a logical standpoint this is really pretty untenable, since Old Catholic and PNCC orders are valid and Anglicans, Old Catholics and members of the PNCC all ordain each other and from a functional standpoint there’s no difference between one and the other. I believe Pope John Paul II (I don’t have a citation, working off of vague memory) said something like the continued invalidity of Anglican orders is simply a point of faith, with no deeper rational explanation.

There have been some rumors recently that the Vatican is reconsidering its position on the validity of Old Catholic orders, and those of smaller Western schismatic churches like the Ecumenical Catholic Church. If these were to be declared invalid, it would follow that Anglican orders are invalid as well. This has not yet happened, however, and for the moment the situation remains something of a conundrum, at least from a Catholic standpoint.

 

[GKC]

When the Vatican declared Anglican orders to be invalid, it was not at all clear that the proper form or intent existed. A large segment of the Anglican communion opposed the very idea of apostolic succession, and many of their bishops had not been properly established in any lineage.

Since that time, the Anglican communion has become much more catholic on this issue. They use the same form for episcopal ordination as the Catholic Church, and they are in full communion with the Union of Utrecht, which Rome recognizes as a valid episcopal body. Every Anglican bishop practicing today has been validly ordained according to these considerations (except for the female bishops, of course, and any male bishops who have been ordained exclusively by female bishops, although I don’t believe there are any of those at the moment).

The position of the Vatican, however, remains unchanged in that Anglican orders are still considered invalid. From a logical standpoint this is really pretty untenable, since Old Catholic and PNCC orders are valid and Anglicans, Old Catholics and members of the PNCC all ordain each other and from a functional standpoint there’s no difference between one and the other. I believe Pope John Paul II (I don’t have a citation, working off of vague memory) said something like the continued invalidity of Anglican orders is simply a point of faith, with no deeper rational explanation.

There have been some rumors recently that the Vatican is reconsidering its position on the validity of Old Catholic orders, and those of smaller Western schismatic churches like the Ecumenical Catholic Church. If these were to be declared invalid, it would follow that Anglican orders are invalid as well. This has not yet happened, however, and for the moment the situation remains something of a conundrum, at least from a Catholic standpoint.

The first para is historically inaccurate. So is the last para.

For RCs, the situation is not a conundrum. Apostolicae Curae rules.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Edmundus1581]

Edmundus,

You have selectively quoted GKC in a way that makes it appear that he agrees with the Catholic position regarding the “invalidity” of Anglican Orders, when that is not the case.

It’s OK with GKC (see previous page), so I’ll leave it there, unless you think a personal response from me is in order.

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

Apostolicae curiae rules, but there is no logical reason why it should other than that this is what has been decided by the Magisterium. If one were seeking today to determine the validity of Anglican orders, in the absence of that document, one would have to conclude them valid. That they are invalid is simply a point of faith. As I said, I believe the pope has explicitly said as much, although I don’t have a citation.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thankyou all! I have nothing to add, unless to answer an objection to my own posts. However, at the end of 9 pages and some interesting discussion, I can’t leave without a “thankyou” for your posts and for the things I’ve learned here.

I will say a pray for you all, and for the unity of Christ’s Church.

Edmundus.

 

[GKC]

Apostolicae curiae rules, but there is no logical reason why it should other than that this is what has been decided by the Magisterium. If one were seeking today to determine the validity of Anglican orders, in the absence of that document, one would have to conclude them valid. That they are invalid is simply a point of faith. As I said, I believe the pope has explicitly said as much, although I don’t have a citation.

But the magisterium has decided, re: Anglican orders.

Are you of the opinion the magisterium teaches objective error? Or that accepting the teachings, with the appropriate level of theological certainty, is optional? I refer you to *AD TUENDAM FIDEM */ John Paul II, and the Doctrinal Commentary on it.

As to the asserted Papal opinion, I doubt it, absent the citation. It’s the sort of thing I would have heard.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Anna_Scott]

Edmundus,

You have selectively quoted GKC in a way that makes it appear that he agrees with the Catholic position regarding the “invalidity” of Anglican Orders, when that is not the case.

But another way of looking at it is that I understand Apostolicae Curae, which I think I do.

You are correct in that I don’t agree with it. But I expect a RC to do so, and have no problem with being quoted on what the RCC teaching on it is.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

GKC,

And that is precisely the way I understood your posts about Apostolicae Curae. You understand it very well; you explained it very well. However, the way Edmundus selectively quoted your posts, it appeared as if you agree with Apostolicae Curae—which is not the case. That was my point.

I understand that Catholics must accept Apostolicae Curae. That is part of being a faithful Catholic. So, I do not expect Catholics to agree that Anglican Orders are valid. Regardless of what evidence is presented to the contrary; Catholics do not have the freedom of “religious mind and will” to disagree with Apostolicae Curae.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thankyou all! I have nothing to add, unless to answer an objection to my own posts. However, at the end of 9 pages and some interesting discussion, I can’t leave without a “thankyou” for your posts and for the things I’ve learned here.

I will say a pray for you all, and for the unity of Christ’s Church.

Edmundus.

Edmundus,

That is an important prayer.

Peace,
Anna

 

[cmodrmac]

I believe it was settled at least by the Pope at the end of the 19th century (Pope Leo) when he declared Anglican Orders to be “null and void” -he made the point on the form of the Ordinations per se (the liturgical content)-one can not argue with the chronological valid succession of Anglican Orders-but the Pope stated the content of the ceremony (the words) were not valid-

Of course the Anglicans feel their Orders are perfectly valid and the Orthodox I believe also feel they are valid-

It became more complicated with the Ordination of women in some branches of the Anglican Communion-

I guess it depends which pair of glasses you are looking thru

 

[GKC]

I believe it was settled at least by the Pope at the end of the 19th century (Pope Leo) when he declared Anglican Orders to be “null and void” -he made the point on the form of the Ordinations per se (the liturgical content)-one can not argue with the chronological valid succession of Anglican Orders-but the Pope stated the content of the ceremony (the words) were not valid-

Of course the Anglicans feel their Orders are perfectly valid and the Orthodox I believe also feel they are valid-

It became more complicated with the Ordination of women in some branches of the Anglican Communion-

I guess it depends which pair of glasses you are looking thru

Much of this is accurate. But it is indeed complicated. More detail may be found in this thread, if you look for it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC,

And that is precisely the way I understood your posts about Apostolicae Curae. You understand it very well; you explained it very well. However, the way Edmundus selectively quoted your posts, it appeared as if you agree with Apostolicae Curae—which is not the case. That was my point.

I understand that Catholics must accept Apostolicae Curae. That is part of being a faithful Catholic. So, I do not expect Catholics to agree that Anglican Orders are valid. Regardless of what evidence is presented to the contrary; Catholics do not have the freedom of “religious mind and will” to disagree with Apostolicae Curae.

Anna

But to be cited as correct, as to fact, is sort of complimentary.

You wouldn’t believe how often I get challenged on the facts. Or maybe you would.

GKC

 

[grandfather]

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

posterus traditus Anglicanus

Really good point.

Where might one find authoritative Anglican teaching on abortion, sexual morality, gay marriage, divorce and remarriage, or anything else? Does Canterbury authenticate Anglican teaching? Where is the authority? Who is it?

What we do know about the Anglican priesthood, as affirmed by Anglicans themselves in going to the Orthodox or Old Catholics to reestablish validity of their orders, is that they must have taken the pope’s declaration on invalidity seriously and tried to fix it. They may deny the pope’s authority, but he apparently got through to them. If they believed their orders were valid all along there would have been no problem to remedy, vis a vis, the Dutch touch, a kind of irreverant term.

Next, they will realize how bizarre a turn they have taken. How then are they going to remedy women bishops and priests, Shori and Robinson, et al? At some point the farce is laid bare isn’t it?

 

[grandfather]

Apostolicae curiae rules, but there is no logical reason why it should other than that this is what has been decided by the Magisterium. If one were seeking today to determine the validity of Anglican orders, in the absence of that document, one would have to conclude them valid. That they are invalid is simply a point of faith. As I said, I believe the pope has explicitly said as much, although I don’t have a citation.

So the oders of their women priests and bishops are valid?

 

[GKC]

So the oders of their women priests and bishops are valid?

Not even DhuAlQarnayn said that.

GKC

 

[GKC]

What we do know about the Anglican priesthood, as affirmed by Anglicans themselves in going to the Orthodox or Old Catholics to reestablish validity of their orders, is that they must have taken the pope’s declaration on invalidity seriously and tried to fix it. They may deny the pope’s authority, but he apparently got through to them. If they believed their orders were valid all along there would have been no problem to remedy, vis a vis, the Dutch touch, a kind of irreverant term.

Next, they will realize how bizarre a turn they have taken. How then are they going to remedy women bishops and priests, Shori and Robinson, et al? At some point the farce is laid bare isn’t it?

I assume you missed my exchange with CopticChristian, on the inter-communion agreement with the Utrecht Old Catholics. I suggest reading it over. It’s back up there on p. 7 or so.

This is the sort of thing where it helps to know a little relevant history. As far as I can tell, you don’t.

As to Shori, etc, you and I are in agreement.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[Anna_Scott]

But to be cited as correct, as to fact, is sort of complimentary.

You wouldn’t believe how often I get challenged on the facts. Or maybe you would.

GKC

I would.