Validity of Anglican Orders?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 17 2004, 10:36 AM'] no, Apostolicae Curae binds because it declares that the Anglicans do not have valid apostolic succession.

Quo Primum is not binding because it declares to everyone: USE THIS MASS, stop changing everything even if your a bishop.

can you not tell the difference between a matter of discipline and a matter of doctrine? it's very simple.

notice polar bear showed some other things that used the same language but were matters of discipline that could be changed. [/quote]
Could it not be argued (for the sake of argument) that Apostolicae Curae was diciplinary as well in that it was assessing the form used as an invalid form. But could not Rome adopt the same form? Could it then be said that the argument made by Pope Leo would no longer be applicable?

[Guest Aluigi]

I don't think Rome could adopt a form of Holy Orders that includes denounciation of the Pope..... it's a doctrinal thing: they do not have valid Holy Orders.

The disbanding of the Jesuits and the promuglation of the form of the Roman Brevairy used such language so as to stop bishops from the time from altering stuff without the approval of Rome. The statement about Anglican Holy Orders being invalid was apples to those oranges. It's a matter of the need for Apostolic Succession. The anglican priests were not ordained correctly by successors to the Apostles, and thus are not true priests.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 17 2004, 01:19 PM'] I don't think Rome could adopt a form of Holy Orders that includes denounciation of the Pope..... it's a doctrinal thing: they do not have valid Holy Orders.

The disbanding of the Jesuits and the promuglation of the form of the Roman Brevairy used such language so as to stop bishops from the time from altering stuff without the approval of Rome. The statement about Anglican Holy Orders being invalid was apples to those oranges. It's a matter of the need for Apostolic Succession. The anglican priests were not ordained correctly by successors to the Apostles, and thus are not true priests. [/quote]
The Anglican holy orders denounce the Pope? Where?

[Guest Aluigi]

I heard that somewhere.. at least they did that when they first broke off... anyway, maybe i'm wrong. i guess i should look into that.

btw, you changed your sig! now we don't match! (lol, urs usta say Ecclesia Romana Semper Apostata Est so I put in mine Ecclesia Romana Semper Apostolica Est! )

[Guest Aluigi]

I can't figure out where I heard that... So I guess I'm wrong. I just remember someone saying something in regards to the Anglican Holy Orders mentioning something against the "tyrant of Rome" or some crazy thing like that. maybe I'm just going crazy

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 17 2004, 02:19 PM'] I don't think Rome could adopt a form of Holy Orders that includes denounciation of the Pope..... it's a doctrinal thing: they do not have valid Holy Orders.

The disbanding of the Jesuits and the promuglation of the form of the Roman Brevairy used such language so as to stop bishops from the time from altering stuff without the approval of Rome.  The statement about Anglican Holy Orders being invalid was apples to those oranges.  It's a matter of the need for Apostolic Succession.  The anglican priests were not ordained correctly by successors to the Apostles, and thus are not true priests. [/quote]
I agree with you for the most part, especially on the issue of Anglican ordination. I gave did a presentation once on that very issue.

Unfortunately, there are some in Rome (especially Cardinal Kasper) who do not agree and who think the judgment in Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo needs to be re-evaluated.
I do believe there are cases where there has been declaration of invalidity that was overturned, though I think they would have no grounds on which to overturn this.

A denunciation of the Pope in an ordination ritual, even if it was there, would not invalidate it. What invalidates it is that they have a deficient form which is "informed" by a deficient intention. The form used by the Anglicans does express the intention of conferring the power "of consecrating and of offering the true body and blood of the Lord" in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (to quote Leo, quoting Trent.)

Edited October 18, 2004 by popestpiusx

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Didn't the Anglicans themselves try to correct their Apostolic Succession problems when they got some bishops reordained by Old Catholics and Orthodox (which doesn't matter unless ALL the priests were reordained)? The claim that the Anglicans have had Apostolic Succession is one that not even the Anglican Communion would accept.

And "ordaining" women would effectively break the chain.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 18 2004, 04:06 PM'] Didn't the Anglicans themselves try to correct their Apostolic Succession problems when they got some bishops reordained by Old Catholics and Orthodox (which doesn't matter unless ALL the priests were reordained)? The claim that the Anglicans have had Apostolic Succession is one that not even the Anglican Communion would accept.

And "ordaining" women would effectively break the chain. [/quote]
There have been situations where this took place, in which case, they would be able to say a valid Mass so long as the other prerequisites are met, but this is not widespread. As a whole the Anglican Communion does claim to have retained Apostlic Succession. But they define it differently. They define it the same way that Cardinal Kasper does, which is heretical.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Cardinal Kasper?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 18 2004, 07:55 PM'] Cardinal Kasper? [/quote]
[url="http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/kasper_biographyl.htm"]http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/kasper_biographyl.htm[/url]

[popestpiusx]

Here is an except from one of his articles (I posted this in another thread as well):

There has been substantial progress between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. Agreement on priesthood and Eucharist was already achieved in the first phase of ARCIC. We also agreed upon the episcopal structure of Church ministry. In the meantime most of the churches have acknowledged that episcope (oversight) is constitutive for the church, and indeed that some form of episcope can be found in every church. But Protestants on the one hand, and Catholics and Orthodox together with Anglicans on the other hand, differ on the question of whether such episcope must be carried out by an episcopos who stands in historic apostolic succession. Protestants see here space for a variety of forms of episcope which, being equivalent, can be reciprocally recognised; for them the episcopate in historic apostolic succession is only one possible form, and is at its best a sign for the bene esse of the Church, but not for her esse. Some Lutheran churches opened themselves to the Anglican view in recent years in agreements such as the Porvoo Statement (1992) or Called to Common Mission (2001), but they did so not without resistance from other Lutherans and especially Reformed churches. How can we overcome this problem?

[b]As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co–opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.

To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.

This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of an other Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.

It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re–evaluation of Apostolicae curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life and shared apostolic mission. [/b]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Boston College? Could have guessed. That does look phishy.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 18 2004, 09:38 PM'] Boston College? Could have guessed. [/quote]
We must painfully admit that ND is hardly better in that regard.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 16 2004, 01:40 AM'] Incidentally, that guy on the left of ironmonk's signature picture almost looks like a KKK member. Anyone else notice that? Perhaps I just have a perverted mind. But anyway, go back on with your conversation. [/quote]
You said it yourself - "perhaps" you are right.

He looks nothing like a kkk member, only someone who was around kkk a lot would think such things because he looks like a monk - because he is a monk.

Do you actually think that you bring enlightening insights to discussions?

Thank you for your permission to go back to the conversation... I don't know if anyone would have thought to go back to the conversation without your allowing of it.


You should think long and hard about what your going to say/write before you insinuate that someone is an ignorant bigot.


Here are kkk:

[img]http://www.law.du.edu/jenkins/images/kkk.gif[/img]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 18 2004, 10:53 PM'] We must painfully admit that ND is hardly better in that regard. [/quote]
Not for long. Wait untill I take the place by storm.