Why doesn't the Anglican Church have a valid sacrament of Holy Orders?

[catholic1seeks]

I have been Anglican for several years now and never have I heard even once that anyone in the Anglican church cares that Roman Catholics think that our Sacrements are invalid. To go one extra step, I also do not care in the least what the RCC says or thinks of our Sacrements. It matters not.

Yeah, Protestants tend to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. I guess its just a hobby.

(Obviously this question was directed to Catholics)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gailmac,

For the record, I’m most convincedly catholic. I just happen to be one who wants to understand principles behind doctrines. GKC disagrees with AC, I think it fairly reasoned. But we can have a respectful dialogue.

I certainly understand how emotions can run high when the subject turns to schism. But you simply must face up to the fact that if blood guilt disproves the authenticity of a church then BOTH catholic and Anglicans are waaaay up a creek with no paddle.

It would be nice and tidy of God had made all the people and leaders of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church spotless and perfect in all their behavior. It sure would be easiest that way to find her, wouldn’t it? You’ll need to ask HIM why the history of the Church is only LESS bloody and sinful than the history of garden variety unredeemed humanity.

If the Anglicans lost spostolic succession, it isn’t because of personal sin (i.e. murder), it is because they quit following the sacred Tradition for passing it on.

Very good points. But I think Gailmac is correct when it comes to the ruthless, bloodiness of Anglican history. Drawing and quartering Catholic priests, cutting them in half and torturing them before magistrates is appauling. And “Bloody” Mary Tudor is infamous in Anglican history but the reality is that far more Catholics were butchered under the Anglican regimes than under Mary.

You’re correct that Anglican illegitimacy as priests is tied to their beliefs and lack of proper form and intention rather than by their actions. The Catholic Church has had its share of bloodiness in Europe.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. If you look at Anglicanism, not its behavior, but its beliefs, you’ll see a church that condones homosexuality, female priests, is all over the place theologically, doesn’t know if it’s Catholic or Protestant, in some places actually performs divorce ceremonies, has divorced and remarried clergy, largely tolerates abortion and even partial birth abortion at times, and it has no authority. I have heard the excuse, “yeah, well my Church is not with the liberal Episcopal Church, we’re aligned with Zimbabwe or Adis Ababa or Cairo” lol…but that only points to the problem even deeper. The Anglican Church is polarized, broken, confused, and there is no real Anglican identity. The claim that lex orendi, lex credendi motto but they have so many varieties of expression of beliefs and so many don’t even stick to the Book of Common Prayer 39 Articles that one can scarcely figure out an Anglican ethos? They talk up the 39 Articles but then adore the Host and reserve it etc. The response always is, “well the 39 Articles aren’t binding.”

Right now here in California the liberal and lunatic Episcopal Church is suing the Diocese of San Joaquin that broke off and joined with the Southern Cone of Argentina. Last week the State of California sided with the liberal kookoo Episcopapagan Church and claimed that the ‘conservatives’ that broke off have to give their property back to the Episcopagans. My first reaction was to feel sorry for those conservatives who lost their property; it’s always sad to see liberal folks with neo-pagan sensibilities infused into a pseudo-Christian sect win over people with more traditional values. But after thinking it over, maybe God is doing these ‘conservatives’ a favor and many of them will wake up and return to Rome. These folks should be Catholic in the first place. Maybe losing the property will give them perspective and God’s pointing them back home…

The Anglican Church(es) are a mess. Their history is troubling enough. Beyond the blood and heresies they’ve fostered, I’d be more concerned about their lack of unity, chaos, theatrics, and pagan beliefs in 2009 than their troubling past.

 

[GKC]

Very good points. But I think Gailmac is correct when it comes to the ruthless, bloodiness of Anglican history. Drawing and quartering Catholic priests, cutting them in half and torturing them before magistrates is appauling. And “Bloody” Mary Tudor is infamous in Anglican history but the reality is that far more Catholics were butchered under the Anglican regimes than under Mary.

You’re correct that Anglican illegitimacy as priests is tied to their beliefs and lack of proper form and intention rather than by their actions. The Catholic Church has had its share of bloodiness in Europe.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. If you look at Anglicanism, not its behavior, but its beliefs, you’ll see a church that condones homosexuality, female priests, is all over the place theologically, doesn’t know if it’s Catholic or Protestant, in some places actually performs divorce ceremonies, has divorced and remarried clergy, largely tolerates abortion and even partial birth abortion at times, and it has no authority. I have heard the excuse, “yeah, well my Church is not with the liberal Episcopal Church, we’re aligned with Zimbabwe or Adis Ababa or Cairo” lol…but that only points to the problem even deeper. The Anglican Church is polarized, broken, confused, and there is no real Anglican identity. The claim that lex orendi, lex credendi motto but they have so many varieties of expression of beliefs and so many don’t even stick to the Book of Common Prayer 39 Articles that one can scarcely figure out an Anglican ethos? They talk up the 39 Articles but then adore the Host and reserve it etc. The response always is, “well the 39 Articles aren’t binding.”

Right now here in California the liberal and lunatic Episcopal Church is suing the Diocese of San Joaquin that broke off and joined with the Southern Cone of Argentina. Last week the State of California sided with the liberal kookoo Episcopapagan Church and claimed that the ‘conservatives’ that broke off have to give their property back to the Episcopagans. My first reaction was to feel sorry for those conservatives who lost their property; it’s always sad to see liberal folks with neo-pagan sensibilities infused into a pseudo-Christian sect win over people with more traditional values. But after thinking it over, maybe God is doing these ‘conservatives’ a favor and many of them will wake up and return to Rome. These folks should be Catholic in the first place. Maybe losing the property will give them perspective and God’s pointing them back home…

The Anglican Church(es) are a mess. Their history is troubling enough. Beyond the blood and heresies they’ve fostered, I’d be more concerned about their lack of unity, chaos, theatrics, and pagan beliefs in 2009 than their troubling past.

Heck, I was concerned about that 10 years ago. It’s why I’m a traditional Anglican.

Another category for the list.

And since the Articles aren’t binding, save on ordinands of the CoE (or anyone who wants to affirm them), what they say, in themselves, is meaningless, for most Anglicans. And has been since the CoE bgan to shed self-governing jurisdictions, back in the nineteenth century.

GKC

 

[grampben]

Dear GKC and Manualman - I’m sitting at a table holding a hand of cards. Two are aces and the rest are stinko. Do you think if I stare at the stinko cards in my hand long enough they might turn into aces?

What you guys are ignoring is the 250 years (and then some) of blood split by the Anglican/Episcopalian “church.” Please don’t even think there are valid orders in the Anglican “church.” The murderous rampage and the sacking of the Church done throughout England, etc. during that time speaks more eloquently then any of you well-educated dolts can. Martyrs blood! That’s what the Anglican church had it’s start in. Perhaps you both need to check the history of your supposed church a little better. There you will find the facts about your bloody past. Perhaps you can get some of your revisionists to work out that little blot in the past of your “church” but that’s an awful lot of blood to revise away. Reeeeeally, indeed! I’ll pray for you guys to Sts. Thomas More and Bp. John Fisher and let them take it from there. Maybe they’ll help you see the real history of the Church.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. One other point to ponder - you shall know them by their works…ring any bells?

What a distorted view of history!
Thomas More was executed by Henry VIII because he saw him as a traitor (I think). Henry was by no means an anglican, and was an ungodly man. Thomas Cranmer made anglicanism anglicanism. More wasn’t killed for religious reasons, unlike the three bishops I mentioned.

Those rotten protestants, like Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley allowing themselves to be martyred at the stake during the re-catholisation of England.
You really think catholics were innocent in this?

 

[grampben]

The Anglican Church(es) are a mess. Their history is troubling enough. Beyond the blood and heresies they’ve fostered, I’d be more concerned about their lack of unity, chaos, theatrics, and pagan beliefs in 2009 than their troubling past.

And we ignore the blood spilled in the name of catholicism?

 

[GKC]

What a distorted view of history!
Thomas More was executed by Henry VIII because he saw him as a traitor (I think). Henry was by no means an anglican, and was an ungodly man. Thomas Cranmer made anglicanism anglicanism. More wasn’t killed for religious reasons, unlike the three bishops I mentioned.

Those rotten protestants, like Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley allowing themselves to be martyred at the stake during the re-catholisation of England.
You really think catholics were innocent in this?

It is pointless to point to states, or rulers who killed enemies, in unpleasant ways, in the 16th century, as if it makes a point of distinction. Everyone did it. RCs, Anglicans, Continental reformers. It was how the world worked, at the time. And the number that were killed, in the troublesome times, was mainly a function of how long a given power ruled. Mary wasn’t around as long as Elizabeth, Edward and James. In sum, she killed fewer.

Henry was the definiton of an Anglican. But he wasn’t a particularly reformed one, true, though in his later life he played around with Lutheran ideas, for political reasons.

There is no “innocent”, when it came to how rulers sought to keep their seats in those times. Though there were a good deal of innocents who suffered for it, of all types.

GKC

 

[grampben]

It is pointless to point to states, or rulers who killed enemies, in unpleasant ways, in the 16th century, as if it makes a point of distinction. Everyone did it. RCs, Anglicans, Continental reformers. It was how the world worked, at the time. And the number that were killed, in the troublesome times, was mainly a function of how long a given power ruled. Mary wasn’t around as long as Elizabeth, Edward and James. In sum, she killed fewer.

Henry was the definiton of an Anglican. But he wasn’t a particularly reformed one, true, though in his later life he played around with Lutheran ideas, for political reasons.

There is no “innocent”, when it came to how rulers sought to keep their seats in those times. Though there were a good deal of innocents who suffered for it, of all types.

GKC

So true, it just angers me when people only tell one side.

 

[GKC]

So true, it just angers me when people only tell one side.

I agree.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Henry was by no means an anglican, and was an ungodly man. Thomas Cranmer made anglicanism anglicanism.

Whether or not Henry was an “Anglican” is, ultimately, a semantics question, I guess. But as I recall, the English bishops who broke away from Rome all acknowledged Henry as their head; that’s certainly says something, don’t you think?

 

[SIA]

Whether or not Henry was an “Anglican” is, ultimately, a semantics question, I guess. But as I recall, the English bishops who broke away from Rome all acknowledged Henry as their head; that’s certainly says something, don’t you think?

It speaks to the fact that the CoE is the state church of England.

 

[Steven_John]

where i live we all serve side by side with not living the bloody past.

Priests from more than just the two denominations work together, at times pray at masses in each others building.

They refer to each other as “my brother priest”.

Praise be to God for he gave us Jesus (pbwh) to bring us to unity.

 

[GKC]

where i live we all serve side by side with not living the bloody past.

Priests from more than just the two denominations work together, at times pray at masses in each others building.

They refer to each other as “my brother priest”.

Praise be to God for he gave us Jesus (pbwh) to bring us to unity.

Sounds reasonable to me.

GKC

 

[ac_claire]

Over at www.keepthefaith.org you can download a talk (it’s maybe $1 or something like that) called The Problem With Anglican Orders by Michael Davies. I listened to it just last week and it goes into all of this…the who, what, when, where and whys of the history of Anglican holy orders and exactly why they’re invalid. Being that they are “holy orders” and they’re invalid, one could argue that there really isn’t any such thing as Anglican orders.

But anyhow, it’s a good talk.

 

[GKC]

Over at www.keepthefaith.org you can download a talk (it’s maybe $1 or something like that) called The Problem With Anglican Orders by Michael Davies. I listened to it just last week and it goes into all of this…the who, what, when, where and whys of the history of Anglican holy orders and exactly why they’re invalid. Being that they are “holy orders” and they’re invalid, one could argue that there really isn’t any such thing as Anglican orders.

But anyhow, it’s a good talk.

And you can start by googling Apostolicae Curae. And then there are a lot of books to be read on the subject. I’ve got Davies’

GKC

 

[Steven_John]

This is a little off beat as you are talking about a documented kinda “legal” understanding (also please understand i am not well educated.)

I look at things from a very simple and more spiritual understanding.

This left me thinking about who Gods people are?

For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

If God can do this what can he do through a priest with a heart devoted to Him?

 

[manualman]

Gailmac,

You need to learn to keep different posters separate (or be sure you comprehend posts before loading the guns). Let me be totally clear here. I’m a Polish-American latin Rite Catholic and have been since my infant baptism. Not an Anglican bone in my body or thought in my brain.

But just because I personally don’t find the Anglican arguments convincing doesn’t mean that I or any good catholic needs to disrepect Anglicans who hold them.

There are totally true stories of personal papal sin that would make you vomit, but it doesn’t negate the ligitmacy of the papacy or terminate the apostolic succession he holds.

I don’t follow your Judas line of thinking, but he certainly continued to be an authentic one of the 12 right up to his death, traitor or not. You don’t think Jesus was surprised by the betrayal, do you?

 

[emeraldcoast]

where i live we all serve side by side with not living the bloody past.

Priests from more than just the two denominations work together, at times pray at masses in each others building.

They refer to each other as “my brother priest”.

Praise be to God for he gave us Jesus (pbwh) to bring us to unity.

God Bless!

 

[chris_molter]

where i live we all serve side by side with not living the bloody past.

Priests from more than just the two denominations work together, at times pray at masses in each others building.

They refer to each other as “my brother priest”.

Praise be to God for he gave us Jesus (pbwh) to bring us to unity.

It’s not that simple. Catholics believe what they believe for a number of reasons. And we think those reasons actually matter in the grand scheme of things. It’s just not possible to plug our ears and pretend that black is white or that something is there when it really isn’t.

Yes, we must work towards unity, but not at the cost of truth.

 

[GKC]

It’s not that simple. Catholics believe what they believe for a number of reasons. And we think those reasons actually matter in the grand scheme of things. It’s just not possible to plug our ears and pretend that black is white or that something is there when it really isn’t.

Yes, we must work towards unity, but not at the cost of truth.

Also sounds reasonable to me.

GKC

 

[Steven_John]

It’s not that simple. Catholics believe what they believe for a number of reasons. And we think those reasons actually matter in the grand scheme of things. It’s just not possible to plug our ears and pretend that black is white or that something is there when it really isn’t.

Yes, we must work towards unity, but not at the cost of truth.

I respect for some it is not that simple and have learned much from this thread.

But what i stated is the truth of what i witnessed. I trust the Catholic priest spoke the truth of his heart.

For me me personally for God all things are possible.

He can turn rocks into descendants of Abraham (pbwh) this suggests to me that He can do much through a pious heart regardless to an ordination issue.

As men we make things complex, i guess the why is only really understood by people well schooled and well studied but where does that leave those who are simple like children, empty of mans scholarly teaching seeking and embracing the simple truth.

We are all brothers.

May God bless us all as we submit and share in all levels of education.