When is Apostolic Succession Valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Something that also needs to be taken into account, one which I have never seen discussed is: unless the OC’s and PNCC’s ordained the recipients first to the priesthood, would they have essentially been trying to elevate one to the order of bishop, that was not a priest?

This is of course assuming that AC was true.
 
Duane1966 said:
Something that also needs to be taken into account, one which I have never seen discussed is: unless the OC’s and PNCC’s ordained the recipients first to the priesthood, would they have essentially been trying to elevate one to the order of bishop, that was not a priest?

This is of course assuming that AC was true.
Click to expand...
Per saltum consecration.
 
steve_b said:
I said #25

“Bottom line, that encyclical is saying, once lost, one can’t give what they no longer have”.
Click to expand...
Ok, I read it wrong. I read it as ‘can’t be given.’ My bad.

Having said that, the document says nothing of the future. It only says something about the situation in 1896, assuming that the Roman Catholic Church was right. I don’t think she was right in this decision, and we can see the arguments from this in the -article on Wikipedia**Apostolicae curae, particularly the arguments presented by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in Saepius officio and by Dom Gregory Dix, in The Question of Anglican Orders.

But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Pope Leo XIII rightly judged the situation in 1896, we cannot then say that the alleged situation couldn’t be remedied. And assuming there was something to be remedied, that happened when the Church of England used Old Catholic co-consecrators, per the Bonn Agreement. And, as we see in the Wikipedia-article mentioned, that was also the position of then Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Basil Cardinal Hume.

So even if the papal bull was right, it has become obsolete.
 
KjetilK said:
Ok, I read it wrong. I read it as ‘can’t be given.’ My bad.

Having said that, the document says nothing of the future. It only says something about the situation in 1896, assuming that the Roman Catholic Church was right. I don’t think she was right in this decision, and we can see the arguments from this in the Wikipedia-article on Apostolicae curae, particularly the arguments presented by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in Saepius officio and by Dom Gregory Dix, in The Question of Anglican Orders.

But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Pope Leo XIII rightly judged the situation in 1896, we cannot then say that the alleged situation couldn’t be remedied. And assuming there was something to be remedied, that happened when the Church of England used Old Catholic co-consecrators, per the Bonn Agreement. And, as we see in the Wikipedia-article mentioned, that was also the position of then Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Basil Cardinal Hume.

So even if the papal bull was right, it has become obsolete.
Click to expand...
I always include the works of Fr. J. J. Hughes, in the mix.

But I wonder what a formal statement from the RCC on the question might look like.
 
KjetilK said:
Ok, I read it wrong. I read it as ‘can’t be given.’ My bad.

Having said that, the document says nothing of the future. It only says something about the situation in 1896, assuming that the Roman Catholic Church was right. I don’t think she was right in this decision, and we can see the arguments from this in the Wikipedia-article on Apostolicae curae, particularly the arguments presented by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in Saepius officio and by Dom Gregory Dix, in The Question of Anglican Orders.

But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Pope Leo XIII rightly judged the situation in 1896, we cannot then say that the alleged situation couldn’t be remedied. And assuming there was something to be remedied, that happened when the Church of England used Old Catholic co-consecrators, per the Bonn Agreement. And, as we see in the Wikipedia-article mentioned, that was also the position of then Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Basil Cardinal Hume.

So even if the papal bull was right, it has become obsolete.
Click to expand...
Except, there is the *per saltum *question. So the situation may not be remedied.

Dr. Ernest Messenger more than adequately answers *Saepius Officio * in his two volume The reformation, the mass and the priesthood; a documented history with special reference to the question of Anglican orders.

There are flaws in Saepius Officio, which some Anglicans admit. I once posted a link to an article on here, where the author, an Angican, felt* Saepius Officio *was a poor response to AC.
 
Duane1966 said:
Except, there is the *per saltum *question. So the situation may not be remedied.

Dr. Ernest Messenger more than adequately answers *Saepius Officio * in his two volume The reformation, the mass and the priesthood; a documented history with special reference to the question of Anglican orders.

There are flaws in Saepius Officio, which some Anglicans admit. I once posted a link to an article on here where the author, an Angican, felt* Saepius Officio *was a poor response to AC.
Click to expand...
Or, possible, it may. I dunno.

Saepius officio is light on the consideration of the issue of intent…But worth reading

Messenger’s is one of the few major books on the subject I don’t own. Hughes, in his ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID treats the work roughly. I go with Hughes

Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best treatment of the subject,explicating the Bull traditionally. Hughes’ take is better, in both his title cited above and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD. IMO.
 
GKC said:
Or, possible, it may. I dunno.

Saepius officio is light on the consideration of the issue of intent…But worth reading

Messenger’s is one of the few major books on the subject I don’t own. Hughes, in his ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID treats the work roughly. **I go with Hughes
**
Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best treatment of the subject,explicating the Bull traditionally. Hughes’ take is better, in both his title cited above and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD. IMO.
Click to expand...
I know you do. I always find when I take one source over another without actually reading both sources, that I regret doing so.
 
It’s interesting how on this and other threads the Old Catholics are said to have valid apostolic succession. I’m curious how such succession applies to ordained women…or ordained active homosexuals…or those they, in turn, ordain?
I ask this because most Old Catholic churches I know of ordain, and often consecrate, both women and active homosexuals.
 
Faithdancer said:
It’s interesting how on this and other threads the Old Catholics are said to have valid apostolic succession. I’m curious how such succession applies to ordained women…or ordained active homosexuals…or those they, in turn, ordain?
I ask this because most Old Catholic churches I know of ordain, and often consecrate, both women and active homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Such (females) doesn’t work, validly. Invalid subject/recipient.

The OCs/Utrecht are now in that situation, yes.

As to homosexual, seems like a more touchy subject. But possibly invalid sacramental intent.
 
KjetilK said:
Ok, I read it wrong. I read it as ‘can’t be given.’ My bad.

Having said that, the document says nothing of the future. It only says something about the situation in 1896, assuming that the Roman Catholic Church was right. I don’t think she was right in this decision, and we can see the arguments from this in the [Wikipedia (Apostolicae curae - Wikipedia)-article on Apostolicae curae, particularly the arguments presented by [the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in Saepius officio (Apostolicae curae - Wikipedia) and by [Dom Gregory Dix, in The Question of Anglican Orders (Apostolicae curae - Wikipedia).
Click to expand...
(links operational)

    • Here’s why I stay away from Wiki.
    • “edit” appears 20 times in that article + footnotes. And anybody can edit a Wiki article
    • Disclaimers , read what it says. They don’t stand up for anything.
    • It doesn’t mean everything is suspect as a result, but who does the checking?
    1. The pope explained why he is correct in that decision.
    So the next question, is it still that way today?

    I would suggest, Let’s think of this in another context. Who created the sacrament of “Holy Orders”? The Church? No. It was Jesus. What was His will for His apostles ordaining them?

    Jn 17:
    11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one.c] 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. 20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, *that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. *25 O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. 26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

    What if one leaves Peter? What if 6 leave Peter? They who leave, automatically violate Our Lord’s priestly prayer of unity for those He ordains. IOW, Satan won over THEM who leave the unity Jesus wills… That unity is not just some loose bond. It’s not a sort of one…ish, that requires mental gymnastics to justify. Jesus says it is to be perfectly one as Jesus and the Father are one. It’s to be visible also that the world can see and know that Jesus is in control.

    What are the consequences for division, is the next question one has to ask. Scripture says for those who do it, It’s cataclysmic for their soul. Whether, it’s called division, schism, heresy, dissension in the English translation, etc etc, it’s disastrous for the soul who is in it and remains in it.

    (* links to Greek words are operational*

    Division / dissension διχοστασίας ] found in Rm 16:17, & Gal 5:20. The consequences? (Gal 5:21] “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ IOW they go to hell when they die in that sin.

    Schism σχίσματα , bibleapps.com/greek/4978.htm = schism (division) Ref: Clement of Rome.(Strong’s) shows a rent took place in Corinth which any kind of division is condemned, but when it is from the pope it is schism

    Heresy / divisive. αἱρετικὸν ] Titus 3:10-11, In Context disposed to form sects, heresies, etc. The consequences? After warning one once or twice, have nothing more to do with them, They are perverted, ind in serious sin, That person is self condemned.
    K:
    assuming there was something to be remedied, that happened when the Church of England used Old Catholic co-consecrators,
    So even if the papal bull was right, it has become obsolete.
    Click to expand...
    Is that going to be your answer to Jesus someday?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top