The Reformation and Apostolic Succession

[Matt Black]

To what extent does the rebellion and breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church that characterised the Magisterial Reformation invalidate any claims that episcopal churches arising from that branch of the Reformation have to continuity with what went before them? For example, is the fact that Cranmer was ordained/ consecrated by Catholic bishops negated by his subsequent rebellion against the (Roman) Catholic Church, thus cutting off valid Apostolic Succession for his successors in the Anglican episcopacy? And what implications does that have for the "correct administration of the Sacraments" within the episcopal Magisterial Reformation churches?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[jasJis]

I'm not an expert, but I've read and can give you a response in layman's terms.

Basically, the Church is not meant to be divided. That's why it's called 'catholic/universal'. There is room for varience and that's why there are different 'rites', with the Roman being the dominant one by the coincidence of geography, politics, and history. In any case, we are joined together under one Authority of the Holy Spirit. The degree and nature of the seperation from this Authority and the Deposit of Faith determines how the Church understands how the Holy Spirit is abandoned by others.

[Matt Black]

So, what would that mean in practice if I was to join the Anglican Church? Were I to join the Anglican Church, would communion there 'communicate' the Real Presence to me, and if I got my infant son baptised there, would that communicate baptismal regeneration? Or do I have to go the whole hog and swim the Tiber, with which I have some real problems, such as Marian hyperdulia plus some hang-ups from my (Catholic) childhood?

The supplementary question to the above is this: to what extent can the Anglican and other Magisterially Reformed/episcopal churches be said to be valid successors to the early church of the patristic period which did have baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence, or is it just the Catholic and Orthodox Churches of which this can be said?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Guest Eremite]

Matt,

Anglican baptisms are valid, because the Sacrament does not necessitate an ordained minister. The same is true of Marriage. The Holy Eucharist, however, does require an ordained minister, and so it is not present in Anglicanism.

The Church distinguishes between "Churches" and "Communities". To be a valid Church, a group needs valid Apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. Unlike Orthodoxy, Anglicanism (and Protestantism in general) don't have this, and so they are not regarded as Apostolic Churches, but rather Christian communities.

Leo XIII dealt with the invalidity of Anglican Orders in his Encyclical "Apostolicae Curae":

[quote]Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. [/quote]

The cause of the invalidity of Anglican orders is not that it broke away from the Church, but that it mutilated the ordination rite to the extent where it was no longer valid.

[Theoketos]

Being Luke warm is not good enough.

As far as Anglican communion goes, a few hundred years ago their ordination process was messed up because a defect in form, that is cursing the pope as part of the rite. And while the matter is schewed because of their relationship to the Orthodox, it is still most likely true that they do not have valid orders, and thus invalid sacraments.

As far as baptism goes, any one can baptise your son, and as long as the rite is done with intention of the Church it is valid.

I wonder what issues you have with HyperDulia...Though it is not surprising, even the Pope, as a young man struggled with this, until he read "True devotion to Mary" by St. Louis De Montfort.

[Matt Black]

I do have a problem - call it psychological or emotional rather than necessarily strictly theological if you will - with Marian devotion and all its 'paraphernalia'. Although raised a Catholic, I have not "moved in that world" really for over twenty years and, while there are sufficient similarities between the Catholic and Anglican (with which I am recently familiar) liturgies to make me feel comfortable (yes, I know Christianity isn't about feeling comfortable but I hope you know what I mean by the term here), the Marian aspects are part of what I referred to elsewhere on this board as being 'alien'; it's kind of like going back to your old school again at the age of 35

Yours in Christ

Matt

Edited March 17, 2005 by Matt Black

[Theoketos]

I see and I can sympathize, I will pray for you.

A question for you...what is the difference between an Anglican and a Roman Catholic Mariology?

[Matt Black]

Anglican Mariology is not something with which I am familiar. I am aware that the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England engage in hyperdulia and I expect the Mariology there is very similar to the Catholic variety, but when I have been Anglican, it has tended to be on the evangelical wing where hyperdulia is of course unknown

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Paphnutius]

The thing to keep in mind is that one is not required to particpate in all of this, as you called it, "Marian devotion and all its 'paraphernalia'." One, as a Catholic, is required to believe in the Immaculate conception and what not for it has been proclaimed as dogmatic. If the rosary and statues make you "uncomfortable," pray about it and speak with people that have a strong devotion to Mary about why. Recently, Our Blessed Mother, has assisted me with overcoming a sin, so I am now praying a novena to her in thanks for her intercession. When used wrongly, Marian devotion can be harmful to faith, but if used correctly it can do nothing but enhance your unity with Christ. I understand what you mean. Sometimes it irks me to see Our Blessed Mother on the back of a car (no offense to anyone who has it, it just isnt me). But, one has to realize that the paraphenlia and hyperdulia are two different things. THe rosary in itself, the beads themselves, do not give honor to her. Only our meditations on the mysteries and her role in them give honor. I hope that I am not coming off as berating you, I am just trying to help you realize that Catholicism is universal, and thus is vaired. Let me know if this helps.

[jasJis]

Matt,
Growing up in the South with mostly Prots, I too have a seemingly cultural aversion to a lot of the Mary paraphenalia. But as an adult, discussing religion w/ people w/ strong Mary devotion, I now am able to recognize and appreciate their sincere and pious Christianity that this devotion has aided. Just as I recognize the sincere and pious Chistianity that I have seen in non-Catholic Christians. On a theological level, I have no problem with the Church teachings. On a practicing Catholic level, I am not particularly moved with Mary devotion. I have no problem with a the Rosary because I looked to understand the bigger picture of it and see how it points to contemplation of Christ and God operating in our lives. To a protestant though, it probably creeps them out that I have a rosary in my pocket or truck almost all the time.

[Brother Adam]

[2 cents]

Marian devotion still makes me squirm sometimes hearing how deeply devoted to Mary some people get, reading some of the requests of Mary, and so on.

No problem with the rosary though. It's a huge part of my story.

[/2 cents]

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Mar 17 2005, 11:41 AM'] As far as Anglican communion goes, a few hundred years ago their ordination process was messed up because a defect in form, that is cursing the pope as part of the rite. And while the matter is schewed because of their relationship to the Orthodox, it is still most likely true that they do not have valid orders, and thus invalid sacraments.

[/quote]
Thanks Theo and Eremite, some of us in our parish young adult group were wondering the EXACT same thing (why the Orthodox and other schismatics have valid orders, but not the Anglicans).

But that probably would only cover those bishops who willingly defected to Henry VIII/Edward VI/Elizabeth I. There were probably a lot of bishops loyal to Rome that were forcibly removed and replaced by those loyal to Henry or Elizabeth. That I believe would constitute the original break in succession for those bishoprics.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 17 2005, 04:02 PM'] [2 cents]

Marian devotion still makes me squirm sometimes hearing how deeply devoted to Mary some people get, reading some of the requests of Mary, and so on.

No problem with the rosary though. It's a huge part of my story.

[/2 cents] [/quote]
Yeah, as mentioned, if it is used wrongly, one can get a warped sense of spirituality. If used correctly, however, one's spirituality will flourish like the tree that is planted near flowing water.

[Therapon]

Matt Black:

If you want to look into mariology, from an anglican perspective, have a look at "Mary for all Christians" by John Macquarrie. It is a good read, also for people on the other side of the Tiber.

[Brother Adam]

Welcome to phatmass. What is your religion pending on?