Anglicans & The Blessed Sacrament

[Katholikos]

I think Catholicism recognizes the validity of the Orthodox churches because of the lack of Catholic presence in those nations, but if the Catholic Church increased its presence in the Eastern European nations, would she have the authority to revoke the validity of the Orthodox orders?

L5, here's my take on it:

The Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox episcopates because they were from the beginning of Christianity and continue to be in apostolic succession, never having lost it, although they are in schism. That's why Orthodox sacraments are valid, and Anglican sacraments [and others] are not. Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession through a defect in the form in the Edwardine Ordinal [after Henry VIII] and a defect in intention in those who used it.

The Charismatic Episcopal Church, as I understand it, has bishops that are "validly" but illicitly ordained. Therefore, they don't have the faculties of bishops; for example, they cannot validly ordain priests and other bishops.

It's kinda like a person getting elected governor in an election that isn't recognized by the State.

Izzat right, guys?

JMJ Likos

[Ellenita]

The Charismatic Episcopal Church, as I understand it, has bishops that are "validly" but illicitly ordained.

Do you mean illicitly ordained as in by other Anglican bishops or the arch bishop?

[Katholikos]

Ellenita,

QUOTE

who we are ...

other names by which known: The Charismatic Episcopal Church

leadership: The Most Reverend A. Randoph Adler, Patriarch

membership:The International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (ICCEC) is one of the fastest growing churches in the world, having started with only one bishop and three parishes in 1992 and now reporting close to 1000 churches with over 200,000 “communicant” members in 20 countries. (Attendance is much higher than “communicant” membership.)

historical origin: While the ICCEC is a relatively young communion, it occupies a position within the crucible of historic faith through both Anglican and Catholic [i.e., Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil] lines; receiving its apostolic succession through pure lines of undisputed orthodox Christianity. While rooted in the ancient we also believe that the ICCEC has been raised by God to be a new jurisdiction with pillars in the historic, apostolic churches as well as the charismatic and evangelical movements of our own generation. In this respect the ICCEC exists as a "convergence of streams" -- a unifier of the liturgical/sacramental, evangelical, and charismatic tributaries of the Church Universal, which flow into the one “river, whose streams make glad the city of God, the Holy Place where the Most High dwells" (Psalm 46:4).

The seeds of this “convergence movement” were planted in May, 1977, when a group of evangelical leaders came together to issue a powerful call to all evangelicals to rediscover their roots in historic Christianity. "The Chicago Call," as it came to be known, was signed by such people as Peter Gilquist, Thomas Howard, Robert Webber, and Jon Braun. Their message--a recovery of our common and apostolic roots for the faithful transmission of the Gospel--became the catalyst and heartbeat for our church.

Uniquely, the ICCEC is not a schism or splinter group from another denomination. It was a unique work of God borne into the hearts of dedicated and faithful clergy from a number of denominations (Pentecostals, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Independent Charismatics, Wesleyans, etc.) who studied, prayed over, and witnessed this need for a house of convergence. They were burdened for a church that not only exercised apostolic authority within a liturgical framework but operated under the inspiration and anointing of the Holy Spirit. On June 26, 1992, Father Randolph Adler was consecrated as the church's first Bishop and Primate.

Today, clergy and laymen of the ICCEC, traveling from their heritage in Evangelical, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Anglican, Roman, and Eastern Orthodox expressions, now have the common vision of making the Kingdom of God visible to the nations of the world. The founding vision of the ICCEC states: “We seek to bring the rich sacramental and liturgical life of the early church to searching evangelicals and charismatics as well as carrying the power of Pentecost to our brothers and sisters in the historical churches, all the while providing a home for all Christians who seek an expression of faith that is equally liturgical/sacramental, evangelical, and charismatic.”

[Ellenita]

Katholikos, thanks!

Sounds really dodgy to me, certainly if I understand apostolic succession correctly!

It's a really young church which will no doubt have to start building it's own interpretation of theology if it's going to be as universal as it claims with people from all those different denominations, especially since it's going to have to undo centuries of division!

What's the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil? Is it in communion with Rome?

[Katholikos]

Katholikos, thanks!

Sounds really dodgy to me,    certainly if I understand apostolic succession correctly! 

It's a really young church which will no doubt have to start building it's own interpretation of theology if it's going to be as universal as it claims with people from all those different denominations, especially since it's going to have to undo centuries of division!

What's the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil?  Is it in communion with Rome?

Ellenita,

http://www.cecofcanada.org/page7.html

I tried to copy and paste the contents of this website, but couldn't. This is where the Charismatic Episcopal Church gets its "apostolic succession" from the "Catholic Church." This bishop in Brazil was removed from duty (in other words, fired) and started his own "Independent Catholic Church." He thinks that since he was validly ordained, he can ordained others. Uh uh. Doesn't work that way.

I emailed the CEC and asked them where I could get info about their apostolic succession. I read it some time ago, but now I can't find it on their website. I'll let you know when (if) I hear from them.

JMJ Likos

[Ellenita]

OK, that's a clearly written justification for their apostolic succession. (I'm not saying I agree with them, before anyone wonders! )

I can fully understand the logic that a bishop who had 'broken away' from the authority of Rome would no longer be considered in communion and therefore the apostolic succession would not be valid.....and yes, (I hear the gasps of shock from Phatmassers who know that I'm originally from the Anglican tradition), I am aware of the implications of accepting that principle!

However, it seems to me from reading that 'justification' that the dispute about their apostolic succession has in part been created by the failure of the Catholic church to insist that the Bishop who returned to the church should go through some form of reinstating (for the want of a better word) his apostolic succession if it had been broken during his time in this 'break away' church. It has allowed them to claim that since the church has not done this, they must see it as valid after all.

[Anna]

However, it seems to me from reading that 'justification' that the dispute about their apostolic succession has in part been created by the failure of the Catholic church to insist that the Bishop who returned to the church should go through some form of reinstating (for the want of a better word) his apostolic succession if it had been broken during his time in this 'break away' church. It has allowed them to claim that since the church has not done this, they must see it as valid after all.

When others stray, they always say it's the Church's fault.

If bishops leave communion with Rome, separating themselves from the head, how can they claim to be united to the Body?

And before I get the "Christ is the head" lecture, please realize that Christ established a Church, His Mystical Body, on earth, with Peter at the head (as Christ's representative, or vicar).

Pax Christi. <><

[p0lar_bear]

Anglican Eucharist is not valid because their holy orders are not valid.

Anglicans do not have valid holy orders because they no longer have valid bishops.

The validity has nothing to do with whether the ordaining bishop is in union with Rome. The Anglicans lost their valid holy orders when Elizabeth I changed the rite in 1552. The form of that rite (i.e. the words) and the intent were such that they invalidated the rite, and therefore, the sacrament.

Holy Orders, once validly conferred, cannot be invalidated. The Church can take away permission to act as a priest, but She cannot take away the priesthood. Like Baptism and Confirmation, Holy Orders bestows a "character" that cannot be removed.

This is why Old Catholics, SSPX, SSPV, Thuc's sect (I can't remember the name of it...), and other groups not in union with Rome have valid sacraments.

[ICTHUS]

Anglican Eucharist is not valid because their holy orders are not valid.

Anglicans do not have valid holy orders because they no longer have valid bishops.

The validity has nothing to do with whether the ordaining bishop is in union with Rome. The Anglicans lost their valid holy orders when Elizabeth I changed the rite in 1552. The form of that rite (i.e. the words) and the intent were such that they invalidated the rite, and therefore, the sacrament.

Holy Orders, once validly conferred, cannot be invalidated. The Church can take away permission to act as a priest, but She cannot take away the priesthood. Like Baptism and Confirmation, Holy Orders bestows a "character" that cannot be removed.

This is why Old Catholics, SSPX, SSPV, Thuc's sect (I can't remember the name of it...), and other groups not in union with Rome have valid sacraments.

In what respect are Anglican orders invalid?

This is of particular interest to me because I go to an Anglican school, and I was asked to be a LEM (Lay Eucharistic Minister) for a chapel service at Easter. I would have been happy to do it, were it not for the fact that I asked the Bishop of my diocese to see if it was okay and he (in a nutshell) said NO, it was not.

It raised a bit of a stink when I had to tell my principal (who is an ordained Anglican priest) that I couldn't be an LEM. However, thank God he's an Anglican and not a Baptist, because as an Anglican clergyman he understands episcopal authority, because he himself is under the authority of HIS Bishop and understands that I must submit to, and obey, my own Diocesan Bishop.

Does it have something to do with the intent to offer Christ's body and blood, the One completed sacrifice of Calvary?

[Ellenita]

Anna and Polar bear, so what you are both saying is that the Brazilian bishop who broke away from communion with Rome still has valid orders because he was originally ordained within the true apostolic succession? This would mean therefore that the claims by the Charismatic Episcopal Church are correct! This is quite a disturbing thought since it does not seem to 'fit into' the logic of what I have been reading here at phatmass concerning apostolic succession!

Check the link in Katholikos post.

I understand your argument about the Anglican church. Not being able to refute the logic of it is very frustrating because of course it forces me to re evaluate all that I have understood about Holy Communion which has always been something very special to me in the anglican mass.

[hyperdulia again]

a validly ordained bishop/priest is jusst that, a validly ordained bishop or priest...howver if he's not in communion w/rome his ordination is valid, but illicit.

[Ellenita]

And the relevance of illicit? Does this mean that the communion taken within a church under the authority of an illicit bishop is not Holy Sacrament?

I'm sorry, I'm confused! It seems with regard to the Charismatic Episcopal Church people who have responded in this thread are unclear - some of you seem to be saying they do not have valid apostolic succession and others are arguing they do.

Isn't valid apostolic succession clear? And doesn't this have a reflection on what is regarded as Holy Communion?

[cmotherofpirl]

When the English broke away from Rome, they changed the words of ordination and removed all references to it being a sacrament. aposolitic succession, priesthood etc. Therefore the men recieving it were not validly ordained. It would be like baptising in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit and leaving out the Son.

Words do matter.

[Ellenita]

I absolutely understand your arguments about the English Anglican church and by definition the Episcopal church since this is what it is called worldwide.

However my question was about the Charismatic Episcopal Church which is NOT part of the anglican communion since it has encompassed all and sundry from a number of different denominations and includes the claim that it has valid apostolic succession directly from Rome through the Catholic church in Brazil. Their point is that one of their bishops returned to Rome and was not required to 'be reordained' (I don't know the correct word for what ever process this might involve) and therefore they must have valid apostolic sucession according to Rome otherwise he would have been required to do this.

Please read the link in Katholikos post.

So does it mean that if someone has valid apostolic succession but breaks away from Rome, their communion still regared as Holy Sacrament even though they are no longer part of the Catholic church? I don't think from reading the link in Katholikos post to the Charismatic Episcopal Church that it would regard itself as a Catholic church. (Or Anglican for that matter)

[p0lar_bear]

Ellenita,

I have not researched this personally, so I can't offer details at this time. However, someone I know used to be a priest in the Charistmatic Episcopal Church before he converted to Catholicism. For obvious reasons, he researched the claims of valid orders. According to him the claims are based on spurious evidence and statements made by people who were not qualified to make judgements on the matter. He is convinced that he was never validly ordained. I don't know the details, so I can't offer a critique of their claims.

Edited November 12, 2003 by p0lar_bear