p0lar_bear Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 In what respect are Anglican orders invalid? Does it have something to do with the intent to offer Christ's body and blood, the One completed sacrifice of Calvary? Anglican orders are invalid because the rite of 1552 changed the wording in such a way as to deny the traditional sacrificial priesthood instituted by Jesus Christ. A valid sacrament requires proper form and proper intention. Cmom is correct in her example of baptism. For baptism to be valid, it must be performed with pure water, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the intent to baptize. If the baptism takes place with any other liquid, is done in the name of the Son only, or without the intent to baptize, then it is not valid. The same applies to Holy Orders. When the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer was issued, the changes in the wording of the rite and the intent of those who composed it rendered the rite invalid. After exhaustive research was done on the issue, Leo XIII issued His Papal Bull, Apostolicae Curae in 1896 stating that because of a defect in both form and intention, apostolic succession was not preserved in Anglican orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellenita Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Polar Bear, thanks for replying about the Charismatic Episcopal Church. So the claims on their website are completely false then if your friend is correct. It's a shame the Catholic Church can't sue over the matter! OK, in terms of the Anglican apostolic succession being invalid since 1552 when Elizabeth I instituted the change in the rite, I now understand the reasoning behind why Catholics have not been able to receive communion at an Anglican mass on the advice of their bishops and why I have always been told that I cannot participate in communion in a Catholic church. I have never understood this before, though of course I have always respected the wishes of the church. Does the same then apply to baptism and confirmation? Is the baptism I received in the Anglican church not accepted by Catholics as valid since it carried out by a priest who does not have valid apostolic succession? An interesting point which might have something to do with this is that I was not baptised as an infant since one of my godparents was Catholic and the Anglican priest refused to baptise me as a result. It alienated my parents from the church for many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katholikos Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 It's a shame the Catholic Church can't sue over the matter! The Catholic Church can sue. But she chooses not to. Have you ever heard of a law suit brought by the Catholic Church against any calumnist, regardless of the lies and slander heaped upon her? The Church never loses the focus of her mission: to work for the salvation of mankind by teaching the Truth and nothing but the Truth. She simply prays for those who spread lies about her. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. JMJ Likos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Gus Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Does the same then apply to baptism and confirmation? Is the baptism I received in the Anglican church not accepted by Catholics as valid since it carried out by a priest who does not have valid apostolic succession? The baptism is valid, but the confirmation is not. (short answer ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellenita Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Thanks Uncle Gus. But now I am truely confused! In my dictionary it states that the sacaments for protestants are baptism and the Lords supper; for Catholics and the Eastern churches they are baptism, penance, confirmation, the Eucharist, holy orders, matrimony and the anointing of the sick. (this is the dictionary order, not in order of importance if one exists!) My question is wouldn't valid apostolic succession be required for all these if they are considered as sacraments, in which case baptism by any other church would not be acceptable, or marriage, or even anointing the sick? I'm trying to understand the logic of valid apostolic succession - do different rules apply? Also is this the reason why interfaith marriage, while not rejected, is not encouraged either and when it does happen the ceremony is usually held in a Catholic church? In my life time I have seen a relaxing of the marriage 'rule'. She simply prays for those who spread lies about her. Father, forgive them for they know not what they do Katholikos, of course! A much more Christian and charitable attitude than the one expressed in my comment about taking legal action. Please forgive me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Gus Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Nah, baptism is valid no matter who does it, even an atheist. They just have to use the right matter (water) and the right form ("I baptise you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"). I'm not sure about the other sacraments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 (edited) Jesus used Juicy Juice. () Edited November 13, 2003 by Paladin D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Ellenita, So the claims on their website are completely false then if your friend is correct. While they are wrong about their relationship with the Catholic Church and about the validity of their Holy Orders, I do think that the people who claim the CEC has apostolic succession really believe that they do. There probably was actually a Brazilian bishop who broke away from the Church and, apparently, validly consecrated at least one bishop. However, if they did not use a valid rite for ordaining priest or bishops, they no longer have valid Holy Orders or apostolic succession (I don't know that this is what happened, merely speculation on what could have happened). I don't think those who claim apostolic succession are intentionally lying. It's a shame the Catholic Church can't sue over the matter! Since I don't think the CEC is actually claiming to be Catholic, only to have apostolic succession like the Catholic Church does, it wouldn't really be a matter for a lawsuit. It would be kind of like trying to sue the Anglican church... Does the same then apply to baptism and confirmation? Is the baptism I received in the Anglican church not accepted by Catholics as valid since it carried out by a priest who does not have valid apostolic succession? The Catholic Church can recognize baptisms and marriages of other Christian churches. This is because neither require a priest. Anyone can be the minister of baptism and the couple are the ministers of marriage. Confirmation, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Annointing, and Reconcilliation all require a validly ordained priest as their minister. But now I am truely confused! In my dictionary it states that the sacaments for protestants are baptism and the Lords supper; for Catholics and the Eastern churches they are baptism, penance, confirmation, the Eucharist, holy orders, matrimony and the anointing of the sick. The dictionary says this because most Protestant and Evangelical churches recognize only two sacraments (or ordinances): baptism and the Lord's supper. Catholics, Orthodox, and some high church denominations (such as Anglicanism) recognize seven. However, the Catholic Church does not recognize the Eucharist as valid in churches or ecclesial communities without valid Holy Orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Ellenita, I know a lot of Charismatic Episcopal Church priests and bishops. Actually, of all the non-catholics I have met, these guys are the best, most fun, absolutely cool guys I have ever encountered (as a collective group). Anyway, one of my good friends, Jim Pinto used to be a CEC priest in Alabama and just this year he came into full communion with Rome. If you want, I can email him and you ask him to email you. I'm sure he would be happy to help with any questions. He's very cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Also, you can't "RE-DO" a sacrament. If it is "valid" even if it is illicit, it is still a sacrament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adeodatus Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Ellenita, is your avatar St Thomas Aquinas with the Holy Spirit as a dove whispering inspiration in his ear? The Catholic Church recognises the true apostolic succession and valid sacraments of 3 groups of Churches: 1. The Eastern Orthodox who have some connection with the Patriarch of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox, Russian, Romanian etc); out of communion with us since 1054, made worse by Crusaders sacking Constantinople in 13th century. 2. The four Oriental Orthodox Churches---Syrian, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian; out of communion with us since the Council of Chalcedon, AD 451. 3. The Assyrian Church, a.k.a. Church of the East, out of communion with us since Council of Ephesus, AD 431. The Anglicans officially recognise only 2 sacraments in their 39 Articles: baptism and the Eucharist. Catholics think Anglicans have 2 valid sacraments also, but we think they're baptism and matrimony. When a baptised adult Anglican becomes Catholic we give them the sacrament of Confirmation and don't conditionally baptise them unless there are serious doubts about their original baptism. Although we believe Anglicans don't have valid orders, there is a problem now when you have ex-Catholic priests serving as Anglican ministers and saying Mass. Their ordination is unimpaired, even though they've become schismatic and defected from the Church. So their sacraments are presumably valid although hideously illicit. It certainly makes for a real mess! When I go into an Anglican church I bow my head to the crucifix or cross, because it is Our Lord's cross after all, but I don't genuflect to their tabernacles. I just don't know if their tabernacles are genuine repositories of the sacred Body of Our Lord or just really expensive and outlandish bread-bins. It's usually the latter!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellenita Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 OK, so now I want to know the difference between valid and illicit in terms of what might be recognised by the church! Is there any official punitive action on anyone who is considered illicit, for example, are they excommunicated? Blazer, thanks for the offer of contacting your friend who is ex CEC. I'm not really interested in that particualr denomination, I was just intriqued by their claims to valid apostolic succession and how that fitted into my understanding with the position the church has taken with the Anglican church and I can see the difference from what people have posted here. I don't want to get confused by reading the beliefs from different denominations at the moment - my heart is heading rapidly towards the Catholic church, but my brain and body are taking alittle bit longer to catch up! is your avatar St Thomas Aquinas Yes. Dust has it on the site and I hope that I haven't upset anyone by using it if they already were! I read on a site about saints from a link in one of the threads here that St Thomas Aquinas is the saint for academics, so I'm really hoping if he gets a moment he'll kindly put in a word with the big guy for me - I need all the help I can get at the moment! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Ellenita, Illicit is a legal term. It means that the act, in this case the sacrament, was not performed in accordance with the law. This can refer to some fairly minor things or major ones. Invalid means that the sacrament never took place, only the semblance of the sacrament. There are certain elements that are required for a sacrament. For Baptism, that is pure water, the triune formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"), and intent. There are other elements provided for in law, but not required for validity. While, for validity, anyone can baptize, the law provides that the priest is the primary or ordinary minister of Baptism. If a priest, for whatever reason, lets the godparent or someone else baptize the child, the Baptism is illicit (against the law), but not invalid (i.e. the person is still baptized). If, on the other hand, the priest baptized the person, but in the name of the "creator, the redeemer, and the sanctifier" or in the name of Jesus alone, the triune formula is lacking, and therefore the Baptism is invalid. Consecration of the Eucharist requires wheat bread and grape wine, a priest, and the words of consecration. If a priest consecrates the Eucharist without having the Liturgy of the Word, it is illicit, but still valid. If a priest changes the words of consecration, it can become invalid (depends on the changes). If a priest says the words of consecration over pizza and coke, no sacrament takes place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 excellent answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkan_hanil Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 (edited) I'm afraid they are inDouche kidding themselves. That's one of the scariest thoughts that will ever attack you in you're religion. <_< Edited November 18, 2003 by nikkan_hanil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now