Validity of Anglican Orders?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

A Church doesn't lose orders just for ordaining a homosexual. I think the Succession stopped when the Anglican Church changed the formula for ordination, am I not right?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 26 2004, 10:26 AM']






[/quote]
[quote]It does not defend, it rebels against corrections "FROM WHOM THEY LEARNED IT".[/quote] No. You are assuming the doctrines of the Roman Church about papal infallibility, etc, from the get-go. It defends the English Church from the baseless attacks of Rome. Perhaps, if Apostolicae Curae had not been full of so many hypocritical errors and condemned the Church of England for 'errors' in her ordinal which the Roman Church herself is guilty of, Rome might have a case. However, Saepuis Officio, I think, proves quite well that the [i]factual basis on which the Pope claims that English ordinations are invalid is false, and that, furthermore, if English ordinations are invalid for the reasons cited, then so are Roman ones[/i]. Blubbering on about the Popes authority isn't going to get us anywhere. Deal with the factual basis on which Apostolicae Curae declared English orders invalid, or else get stuffed and take your rhetoric elsewhere. Quite frankly, I've had it with it.

[quote]Orthodoxy's schism is irrelivant, they have not changed their way of ordaining... like the angelicans did.[/quote] Saepius Officio doesn't refer solely to Orthodoxy, though - it refers to the Oriental churches - i.e. the Churches of the East.

[quote]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).[/quote] Are their ordinations, therefore, invalid? I think not, otherwise the Old Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have invalid orders.

[quote]Are the angelican's loyal to what they learned from "whom they learned it"? The answer would be no.[/quote] What aren't we loyal to, exactly? Things that flatly contradict the Word of God? Of course not!

AND FOR THE LAST BLOODY TIME, SPELL "ANGLICAN" CORRECTLY! You sound like you have a grade 9 education, if that!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 26 2004, 03:14 PM'] [/quote]
[quote]A Church doesn't lose orders just for ordaining a homosexual.[/quote] Precisely - which is what I was saying. The invalidity of Anglican orders couldn't be on the basis of ordaining a homosexual bishop or priest.

[quote]I think the Succession stopped when the Anglican Church changed the formula for ordination, am I not right?[/quote] So Rome claims. However, as [i]Saepius Officio[/i] clearly proves, if Rome is right about this, she also shoots herself in the foot and declares her own ordinations invalid in the same breath.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 26 2004, 05:14 PM'] A Church doesn't lose orders just for ordaining a homosexual. I think the Succession stopped when the Anglican Church changed the formula for ordination, am I not right? [/quote]
You are right.

Icthus does not understand the orders or he wouldn't say that the Church shoots itself in it's foot. Icthus does not know what makes an order valid or not, therefore fails in his attempts to (yet again) prove the Catholic Church wrong. As we see a Bishop of the Church of England prove him wrong....


[quote name='Radio Replies. Vol. 1. #286']
How can you deny the Orders of the anglican bishops? They go back to the Bishops of the Reformation period.

There have been anglican bishops continuously since the reformation, but valid Orders have not been continuously handed on. Henry VIII began the Church of England in 1534. The Bishops who submitted to him were validly consecrated, and validity lasted until 1550. But in that year, under Edward VI, a great effort was made to protestantize still more the Church of England both in doctrine and in practice. The form of Ordination was deliberately changed, all reference to priesthood in the true Christian sense of the word being eliminated. This defective form utterly useless for the true ordination of priests, remained unchanged until 1662- 112 years later. then the mistake was realized and the form was corrected. But the correction was too late, for those whith correct Orders had died, and oly those who had been invalidly consecrated remained to hand on their pretended Orders. Not a few Anglicans have tried to make sure of Orders by re-ordination at the hands of schismatical Bishops. The Angelican Bishop Knox, writing in the National Review for September, 1925, said correctly, "The Pope refused absolutely to recognize our Anglican Orders on the ground that our Church does not ordain priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. In spite of attempts made by our Archbishop to conceal this defect, the Pope from his point of view was unquestionably right. It is true that certain priests of the Church of England offer so-called Masses, but as they were not ordained by the Church with the intention that they should offer the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, the Sacrament of their Ordination is for this purpose a failure. The Prayer Book and Ordinal are simply un-Catholic, since they show no sign of fulfilling the most important of all Catholic functions.


[/quote]


Nothing is finer than standing on the vantage ground of truth.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 26 2004, 08:25 PM']
[/quote]
[quote]Icthus does not understand the orders or he wouldn't say that the Church shoots itself in it's foot. [/quote] What don't I know? Where has Saepius Officio erred in saying that Rome, in effect, shoots itself in the foot? Why has Rome never issued a reply to Saepius Officio?

[quote]Icthus does not know what makes an order valid or not, therefore fails in his attempts to (yet again) prove the Catholic Church wrong. [/quote] Let me take a stab at it.

I would assume that the three criterion for a proper sacrament would be required:

Proper form, proper matter, and proper intent?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 27 2004, 06:18 PM'] I would assume that the three criterion for a proper sacrament would be required: [/quote]
That is your problem... you assume far too much without study.


Learn, don't guess.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 27 2004, 09:39 PM'] That is your problem... you assume far too much without study.


Learn, don't guess.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Well, if not the things I listed, then what?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 28 2004, 06:24 PM'] Well, if not the things I listed, then what? [/quote]
Don't be lazy... take time to search, read, meditate, and learn....

[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/priesthood.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/priesthood.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/pope.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/pope.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

All, please don't answer the question, let him find it... If you wish to answer it, please PM me before you do, I would like to point something out before you do.

GB & PC

Edited October 29, 2004 by ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 28 2004, 09:40 PM'] Don't be lazy... take time to search, read, meditate, and learn....

[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/priesthood.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/priesthood.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/pope.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/pope.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

All, please don't answer the question, let him find it... If you wish to answer it, please PM me before you do, I would like to point something out before you do.

GB & PC [/quote]
Ironmonk, you seek to patronize me with one of your incessant document dumps. It's really getting annoying. Now, [i]if[/i] the criterion for valid ordination that I presented (remember, I was an ardent defender of the Roman Catholic Church at one point, as evidenced by posts in the Theology forum on [url="http://www.christianguitar.org/forums"]http://www.christianguitar.org/forums[/url] up to about three months ago - those were the things I learned, from RCIA, reading Catholic Church apologetics material, etc) then [b]stop playing these stupid bloody games[/b] and tell me where I went wrong. Then maybe we can talk on equal terms.

[Apotheoun]

I recommend reading the book, "Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention," by Francis Clark.

God bless,
Todd

[Paladin D]

KKK uniforms make great Halloween costumes.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 13 2004, 11:48 PM'] Ironmonk, you seek to patronize me with one of your incessant document dumps. It's really getting annoying. Now, [i]if[/i] the criterion for valid ordination that I presented (remember, I was an ardent defender of the Roman Catholic Church at one point, as evidenced by posts in the Theology forum on [url="http://www.christianguitar.org/forums"]http://www.christianguitar.org/forums[/url] up to about three months ago - those were the things I learned, from RCIA, reading Catholic Church apologetics material, etc) then [b]stop playing these stupid bloody games[/b] and tell me where I went wrong. Then maybe we can talk on equal terms. [/quote]
I'm not playing games.

What is happening is that you are not paying attention to the details and thinking about what you read.


From one of my above posts:

[quote]The Angelican Bishop Knox, writing in the National Review for September, 1925, said correctly, "The Pope refused absolutely to recognize our Anglican Orders on the ground that our Church does not ordain priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. In spite of attempts made by our Archbishop to conceal this defect, the Pope from his point of view was unquestionably right. It is true that certain priests of the Church of England offer so-called Masses, but as they were not ordained by the Church with the intention that they should offer the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, the Sacrament of their Ordination is for this purpose a failure. The Prayer Book and Ordinal are simply un-Catholic, since they show no sign of fulfilling the most important of all Catholic functions.[/quote]



Study. Think about what you studied. Review. Think and learn. Have patience.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 14 2004, 04:19 AM'] I'm not playing games.

What is happening is that you are not paying attention to the details and thinking about what you read.


From one of my above posts:





Study. Think about what you studied. Review. Think and learn. Have patience.



God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
bump

[ICTHUS]

Okay, fine. If you want to play hardball, I'm going to admit something.

We (at least many of us) don't have the same beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist as you Papists do (and yes, I'm using that word, because Ironmonk has been being a jerk to me, so I'm going to repay him in kind). And our ordinal reflects that. We don't blasphemously resacrifice Jesus as you Romans do. We don't offer Him for the souls of the dead in 'purgatory', because such a place is a fable invented to fatten the pockets of corrupt men at the expense of dear souls.

You constantly beg the question in your debates, and try to force me to operate under your definitions of sola ecclesia, et al, that I do not accept. As such, you make it impossible to have any kind of coherent discussion, because you either do not understand, or refuse to understand, that I do not agree with the presuppositions from which you approach arguments. I do not believe that the Roman Bishop has any authority outside of the Church of Rome and those communions that choose to place themselves under his jurisdiction. Because the Anglican Communion chooses not to, I do not see why the Church of Rome should shun her any more than she shuns the Eastern Orthodox.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 27 2004, 05:56 PM'] Okay, fine. If you want to play hardball, I'm going to admit something.

We (at least many of us) don't have the same beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist as you Papists do (and yes, I'm using that word, because Ironmonk has been being a jerk to me, so I'm going to repay him in kind). And our ordinal reflects that. We don't blasphemously resacrifice Jesus as you Romans do. We don't offer Him for the souls of the dead in 'purgatory', because such a place is a fable invented to fatten the pockets of corrupt men at the expense of dear souls.

You constantly beg the question in your debates, and try to force me to operate under your definitions of sola ecclesia, et al, that I do not accept. As such, you make it impossible to have any kind of coherent discussion, because you either do not understand, or refuse to understand, that I do not agree with the presuppositions from which you approach arguments. I do not believe that the Roman Bishop has any authority outside of the Church of Rome and those communions that choose to place themselves under his jurisdiction. Because the Anglican Communion chooses not to, I do not see why the Church of Rome should shun her any more than she shuns the Eastern Orthodox. [/quote]
Christ is not [i]re-sacrificed[/i] in the Eucharistic liturgy; instead, His one and only oblation is rendered mystically present. This is the common faith of both Latin and Byzantine Catholics, and it is also the faith of the Eastern Orthodox. The Divine Liturgy is the unbloody [i]anamnesis[/i] of the sacrifice of Calvary, and as such it is a true and propitiatory sacrifice.

God bless,
Todd