Validity of Anglican Orders?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 19 2004, 06:05 PM'] Not for long. Wait untill I take the place by storm. [/quote]
Let me know. I'll join you. We'll start a crusade. All I ask is one thing. Let me deal with McBrien. (No I won't hurt him).

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 19 2004, 06:51 PM'] Let me know. I'll join you. We'll start a crusade. All I ask is one thing. Let me deal with McBrien. (No I won't hurt him). [/quote]
Suuure you won't.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Hehe. Ironically, both Universities have a well-known orthodox Catholic professor:
Ralph McInery for Notre Dame
and...
Peter Kreeft for Boston College

I have (good) books by each of them.

[ICTHUS]

Funny how Ironmonk never responded to my calling him on his stupid rhetoric.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 08:41 PM'] Funny how Ironmonk never responded to my calling him on his stupid rhetoric. [/quote]
[b]St. Matt 16:18 [/b] "[color=red]And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and [b]the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.[/b][/color]"
[b]19 [/b][color=red]I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]"



Says it all. The Church which holds the Sacraments and the successor of Peter CANNOT leave itself.

Jesus is not wrong, and does not lie.


I do not answer you because you fail to pay attention to facts presented to what is being said, just as you fail to understand what I wrote in how what you cite is against the truth.

To say that the Council of Trent preached a different Gospel is to [b]show that you have not read it...[/b] nor do you comprehend the meanings of the words after numerous people here have tried to explain things to you.

Here it is AGAIN for about the 5th time:
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/trent.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/trent.asp[/url]


Hmmmm... the Church before the Council of Trent, before the Council of Carthage, Hippo, Ephesus, etc... taught and believed in...[list]
[*]The Real Presence
[*]Confession to a Priest
[*]Papal Authority
[*]Apostolic Succession
[*]Infallibility
[*]Holy Orders
[*]Holy Water
[*]Anointing of the sick
[*]permanence of marriage
[*]Purgatory
[*]Penance
[*]One Faith - One Church - One Group... aka Unity
[/list]If your group fails to have the above, then you sir, are in the group that left... that is all seen in Christian teachings for the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church IS THE ONLY group that looks like the group in 33 AD, 300 AD, 500 AD, 1500 AD, 2004 AD, and will continue well past 3000 AD if the second coming doesn't come before that.

End of Story.

[b]When you stop ignoring the facts, then I'll reply to the "points" that you attempt to make.[/b]

Edited October 21, 2004 by ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 20 2004, 09:05 PM'][b]St. Matt 16:18 [/b] "[color=red]And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and [b]the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.[/b][/color]"
[b]19    [/b][color=red]I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]"

Jesus is not wrong, and does not lie.


I do not answer you because you fail to pay attention to facts presented to what is being said, just as you fail to understand what I wrote in how what you cite is against the truth.

To say that the Council of Trent preached a different Gospel is to [b]show that you have not read it...[/b] nor do you comprehend the meanings of the words after numerous people here have tried to explain things to you.

Here it is AGAIN for about the 5th time:
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/trent.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/trent.asp[/url]


Hmmmm... the Church before the Council of Trent, before the Council of Carthage, Hippo, Ephesus, etc...  taught and believed in...[list]

[*]The Real Presence

[*]Confession to a Priest

[*]Papal Authority

[*]Apostolic Succession

[*]Infallibility

[*]Holy Orders

[*]Holy Water

[*]Anointing of the sick

[*]permanence of marriage

[*]Purgatory

[*]Penance

[*]One Faith - One Church - One Group... aka Unity

[/list]If your group fails to have the above, then you sir, are in the group that left... that is all seen in Christian teachings for the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church IS THE ONLY group that looks like the group in 33 AD, 300 AD, 500 AD, 1500 AD, 2004 AD, and will continue well past 3000 AD if the second coming doesn't come before that.

End of Story.

[b]When you stop ignoring the facts, then I'll reply to the "points" that you attempt to make.[/b][/quote]
Of course, you beg the question by assuming that the Catholic Church is the Church and that all the things you describe were what the Apostles taught in their letters.

In any case, Ironmonk, you have changed the subject, as you are wont to do. Let me bring you up to speed.

I said:

[quote]Y'all should read the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to "Apostolicae Curae", "Saepius Officio" [/quote] thedude asked "Why?" to which you responded

[quote]Don't you know?

Because it's anti-Catholic and if one does not have a firm understanding of Catholicism, then one might leave the Church when reading the nonsense of those who left the group (Acts 20:29-30).


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote] I doubt you even read the document. I responded with the following.

[quote]Ironmonk,

"Saepius Officio" is not anti-Catholic. In fact, the Primates who wrote it began with an extremely friendly greeting to the Pope and 'all the bishops of the catholic Church", a tone which is maintained throughout the document. There is no animosity inherent in it whatsoever - only sound argumentation.

Ironmonk, your rhetoric is nonsensical. How dare you call something nonsense having not even read it?

Incidentally, it was Rome who 'left the group' at the Council of Trent by preaching another Gospel (Galatians 1) and declaring it irreformable, to boot.

For anyone who wants a clear understanding of why the English Church's orders are in fact valid, "Saepius Officio" can be read here. [/quote] I refuted your claim that Saepius Officio was anti-Roman Catholic. It's pro-English Church, but not anti-Romanist.

Incidentally, part of the reason why I am so hostile here is because of you. You spout all this garbage, calling what we write in defense of ourselves 'nonsense' [i]not even having read it[/i] or trying to respond to it.

[b]Sola Gratia ~ Sola Fide ~ Sola Scriptura ~ Solus Christus ~ Soli Deo Gloria[/b]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 22 2004, 02:27 PM'] Of course, you beg the question by assuming that the Catholic Church is the Church and that all the things you describe were what the Apostles taught in their letters.

In any case, Ironmonk, you have changed the subject, as you are wont to do. Let me bring you up to speed.

I said:

thedude asked "Why?" to which you responded

I doubt you even read the document. I responded with the following.

I refuted your claim that Saepius Officio was anti-Roman Catholic. It's pro-English Church, but not anti-Romanist.

Incidentally, part of the reason why I am so hostile here is because of you. You spout all this garbage, calling what we write in defense of ourselves 'nonsense' [i]not even having read it[/i] or trying to respond to it.

[b]Sola Gratia ~ Sola Fide ~ Sola Scriptura ~ Solus Christus ~ Soli Deo Gloria[/b] [/quote]
Funny how you fail to read trent.

I was correct when I said it was anti-Catholic.

It is a statement against Papal Authority, if you cannot see that, then you've proved my point that you do not understand what you read.

Maybe you should have read saepius officio?

[quote name='"saepius officio"']The answer to these harsh and inconsiderate words has already been partly made when we gave the warning that he who interprets the acts of our Church by mere conjecture and takes it upon himself to issue a new decree as to what is necessary in the form of Order, condemning our lawful bishops in their government of the Church in the XVIth century by a standard which they never knew, is entering on a slippery and dangerous path. The liberty of national Churches to reform their own rites may not thus be removed at the pleasure of Rome. For, as we shall show in part later, there is certainly no one "catholic rite," but even the forms approved by the Roman Church vary much from one another. [/quote]

The bottom line is that the Angelican orders are NOT valid.

About sixteen years after the Angelican group when into schism, they changed the rite. What makes it anti-Catholic is not that it varies, but it varies WITHOUT approval.

Rites that do vary and are Catholic have ALL been approved by the Successor of Peter.

[quote name='"saepius officio"']the church of Rome herself has an invalid priesthood, [/quote]

Saying the Church of Rome has an invalid priesthood is not anti-Catholic?

hmmm... let's look at this with a little logic... to be "anti" anything one must attack or give negative criticism to that which the thing one is "anti" about. Saying that the Office of Peter, established by Christ is invalid is VERY anti-Catholic.

The funniest thing about this statement is we must first ask ourselves, by what authority does the Angelican Church speak? Hmmm... they originaly where Catholic, soooo that has to mean that they get their authority about Scripture and Faith from the Catholic Church "FROM WHOM THEY LEARNED IT"... So, saying that the Catholic Church, Office of Peter has invalid orders says that they too are invalid.

Unless the Angelican Church can trace their succession to the Apostles without going into the Catholic Church, then the Angelicans have proven themselves wrong.


The matter is at an end. If you stop going off half-cocked, you might learn something. Just as you have emailed me numerous times about Church teachings, and I've clearly shown you where they where and explained them, you never had a rebutal, but now you deny them and cannot say why you deny them.

When you can show you pay attention to the facts, then I'll start replying again. Pride is a deadly sin ya know... it keeps you from Christ. See, the arguements that I use are not mine... they are the Churches, the Church is always right.

The truth speaks for itself, and the Catholic Church is the Truth.

God Bless.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 23 2004, 07:02 PM'] I was correct when I said it was anti-Catholic.

Maybe you should have read saepius officio?



Saying the Church of Rome has an invalid priesthood is not anti-Catholic?












[/quote]
[quote]I was correct when I said it was anti-Catholic.[/quote] No, you weren't, you and your 'church' just can't stand up to criticism, so you cry 'anti-Catholic' whenever anyone says anything negative about Rome.

[quote]It is a statement against Papal Authority, if you cannot see that, then you've proved my point that you do not understand what you read.[/quote] It is an argument that the Roman Bishop has overstepped and abused his authority, yes. It is not [i]against[/i] papal authority.

[quote]The bottom line is that the Angelican orders are NOT valid.[/quote] Begging the question. You assume from the get-go what you set out to prove - however, Saepius Officio provides an adequate antithesis to your position.

[quote]Saying the Church of Rome has an invalid priesthood is not anti-Catholic?[/quote] That is not what the venerable Archbishops were saying. You failed to show the context of the statement.

[quote name='Saepius Officio']But let the Romans consider now not once or twice what judgment they will pronounce upon their own Fathers, whose ordinations we have described above. For if the Pope shall by a new decree declare our Fathers of two hundred and fifty years ago wrongly ordained, there is nothing to hinder the inevitable sentence that by the same law all who have been similarly ordained have received no orders. And if our Fathers, who used in 1550 and 1552 forms which as he says are null, were altogether unable to reform them in 1662, his own Fathers come under the self-same law. And if Hippolytus and Victor and Leo and Gelasius and Gregory have some of them said too little in their rites about the priesthood and the high priesthood, and nothing about the power of offering the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, [b]the church of Rome herself has an invalid priesthood, and the reformers of the Sacramentaries, no matter what their names, could do nothing to remedy her rites[/b]. "For as the Hierarchy (to use the Pope's words) had become extinct on account of the nullity of the form, there remained no power of ordaining." And if the Ordinal "was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient, since no change has taken place.[1] In vain those who from the [VIth and XIth centuries] have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, [and power of remitting and retaining sins], have made some additions to the Ordinal." Thus in overthrowing our orders, he overthrows all his own, and pronounces sentence on his own Church. Eugenius IVth indeed brought his Church into great peril of nullity when he taught a new matter and a new form of Order and left the real without a word. For no one knows how many ordinations may have been made, according to his teaching, without any laying on of hands or appropriate form. Pope Leo demands a form unknown to previous Bishops of Rome, and an intention which is defective in the catechisms of the Oriental Church. [/quote] The Primates who wrote the letter were simply applying Rome's own standards in her judgement against them, to their own ordinations "For by the standard by which ye judged, ye shall be judged". One of the grounds upon which Rome said that Canterbury's ordinations were invalid was that they made no mention of offering the sacrifice of the altar. The venerable Primates who responded, therefore, held Rome to her own standard of judgement in saying, in effect, if you apply this criterion to our ordinal to say that our orders are null and void, then so are yours. As he says...

[quote][b]Thus in overthrowing our orders, he overthrows all his own[/b], and pronounces sentence on his own Church. Eugenius IVth indeed brought his Church into great peril of nullity when he taught a new matter and a new form of Order and left the real without a word. For no one knows how many ordinations may have been made, according to his teaching, without any laying on of hands or appropriate form. Pope Leo demands a form unknown to previous Bishops of Rome, and an intention which is defective in the catechisms of the Oriental Church[/quote] IronMonk, you have been shown the fool. You have attempted to lie by taking a statement out of context and trying to prove something that wasn't in the text. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[quote]hmmm... let's look at this with a little logic... to be "anti" anything one must attack or give negative criticism to that which the thing one is "anti" about. Saying that the Office of Peter, established by Christ is invalid is VERY anti-Catholic. [/quote] There is a difference between defending oneself and taking the offensive. I maintain that the English Primates were doing the former. If you had bothered to read the above statement in context, you would have seen that the English Church was [i]not saying that the Church of Rome's ordinations were invalid[/i], only that by[i] the criterion by which she judged the English Church's ordinations to be invalid, she judged her own ordinations to be invalid simultaneously. [/i]

[quote]The funniest thing about this statement is we must first ask ourselves, by what authority does the Angelican Church speak?[/quote] They speak from the authority of their episcopacy, defending themselves against the attacks of a brother bishop who attacked the validity of their bishophrics and ordinations.

[quote]Hmmm... they originaly where Catholic, soooo that has to mean that they get their authority about Scripture and Faith from the Catholic Church "FROM WHOM THEY LEARNED IT"... So, saying that the Catholic Church, Office of Peter has invalid orders says that they too are invalid. [/quote] That is not what they said, as shown above.

[quote]The matter is at an end.[/quote] No, it's not, and I showed you why above. [quote] If you stop going off half-cocked, you might learn something. Just as you have emailed me numerous times about Church teachings, and I've clearly shown you where they where and explained them, you never had a rebutal, but now you deny them and cannot say why you deny them.[/quote] Ask me about something, and I'll tell you if I deny it and why.

[quote]When you can show you pay attention to the facts, then I'll start replying again. Pride is a deadly sin ya know...[/quote] And so the pot calls the kettle black.

[quote]it keeps you from Christ.[/quote] The false Gospel of the Roman Church keeps you from Christ. Now that the insults are over, can we get to the substantiative issues?

[quote] See, the arguements that I use are not mine... they are the Churches, the Church is always right. [/quote] So the true Church that Jesus established uses put-downs, insults, rhetoric, and taking statements out of context? Hmmm, interesting.

[quote]Unless the Angelican Church can trace their succession to the Apostles without going into the Catholic Church, then the Angelicans have proven themselves wrong.[/quote] We don't need to. Our orders are valid, and yes, we can trace them back the Apostles.

[quote]The truth speaks for itself, and the Catholic Church is the Truth.[/quote] Yes, it is, as we teach.

[quote name='The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion']XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.[/quote] However, the catholic Church outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation [b]does not inhere in the Church of Rome. [/b]

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Icthus I thought you were done with us.....

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Female "orders" are untracable.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 25 2004, 08:07 AM'] Female "orders" are untracable. [/quote]
You can't trace what doesn't exist.

[ironmonk]

You're wrong icthus.

[quote name='icthus']XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.[/quote]

If this was so, then where is it preached the prior 1600 years?

If this was so, then how can the Church be guided in all truth?

If this was so, then how do they know what the "pure Word of God is preached"?


To many unanswered VERY important questions, that the angelicans do not have the answers to.

The document criticizes the Church is anti-Catholic.

The angelican church got its authority from the Catholic Church. They cannot have authority over whom they received authority to teach from. The anglican church left the group... refer to Acts 20:29-30.

[b]Authority of the Pope - Taught since the 1st Century:[/b]

St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 21:15
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."




Pope Clement I



"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


Hermas



"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).


Ignatius of Antioch



"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).


Dionysius of Corinth



"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).


The Martyrs of Lyons



"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).


Irenaeus



"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).


Eusebius of Caesarea



"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).


Cyprian of Carthage



"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).


Firmilian



"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).


Pope Julius I



"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).


Council of Sardica



"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"[I]f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).


Optatus of Milevus



"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Council of Constantinople I



"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome" (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).


Pope Damasus I



"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Synod of Ambrose



"We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you" (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).


Jerome



"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).


Augustine



"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).


Pope Innocent I



"If cases of greater importance are to be heard [at a council], they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See" (Letters 2:3:6 [A.D. 408]).

"In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . ." (ibid., 29:1).


Pope Celestine I



"We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]" (Letters 17 [A.D. 431]).


Council of Ephesus



"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).


Pope Leo I



"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445]).

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (ibid., 110).

"If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).


Peter Chrysologus



"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).


Council of Chalcedon



"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).


Pope Gregory I



"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).




[b]
Yes, the matter is at an end... unless you can show us some correction from writings prior to 1500 AD.[/b]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote]The document criticizes the Church is anti-Catholic.[/quote] For the last freaking time, it does not criticize the Roman Catholic Church! It merely defends the Church of England from the baseless and hypocritical attacks of the Church of Rome!

By the way, I am calling in a friend of mine who is much better versed in the subject of Anglican holy orders than I am. God willing, he comes.

Also, I would appreciate it if you would at least do us the courtesy of spelling "Anglican" correctly.

Edited October 25, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

Ironmonk, I would point out that if the reception of Papal authority is necessary for vaild orders after a schism , then you've got to deal with the Old Catholics and the whole body of the Eastern Orthodoxy, both of whom do not recognize the universal jurisdiction of the Pope and retain orders. The question, instead, relies on the language of the Anglican Ordinal, and whether the language confers episcopal orders or not. "Authority" talk is a red herring, as is talk of ordaining homosexuals (if a church loses orders because of that, where does that leave Rome?), women, and "druids" (a reference to Abp. Rowan, who was made a "druid" shortly before his translation to Cantebury; what they don't tell you is that "druidism" he is a part of is actually a literary society of Wales. Rather like saying it's bad to have a Pulitzer Prize winner as an Abp.).

Also, my friend declined the invitation because his duties as a youth minister are keeping him pretty busy as it stands, and he thinks that, to quote "because the argument has really degenerated and no one on the other side seems willing to actually address the issue(s) at hand" (no, it's not Broccolifish, aka Aaron, its someone else)

Edited October 26, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ironmonk]

[quote]For the last freaking time, it does not criticize the Roman Catholic Church! It merely defends the Church of England from the baseless and hypocritical attacks of the Church of Rome![/quote]

It does not defend, it rebels against corrections "FROM WHOM THEY LEARNED IT".

It is anti-Catholic.

Orthodoxy's schism is irrelivant, they have not changed their way of ordaining... like the angelicans did.

EVERY Church that went into Schism at one time recognized the authority of the Pope... they all had bishops/patriarchs that were loyal to the Pope at one time... therefore they fail when they reject the authority of the Successor of Peter (Feed My Sheep).

Are the angelican's loyal to what they learned from "whom they learned it"? The answer would be no.


see: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=2684"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=2684[/url]



God Bless,
ironmonk