Should We See Anglican Holy Orders As Valid?

[st-annes]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1429397' date='Dec 4 2007, 03:15 PM']Does the term 'Roman Church' bother anyone else as much as it bothers me?[/quote]



Me too.


I would think the Anglican orders would have to be invalid, since they willfully separated from the Catholic Church. In doing so they deliberately and specifically rejected the authority of the Pope. I think this leaves only the Anglicans themselves as those who would recognize Anglican ordination.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='st-annes' post='1431021' date='Dec 7 2007, 09:45 PM']Me too.
I would think the Anglican orders would have to be invalid, since they willfully separated from the Catholic Church. In doing so they deliberately and specifically rejected the authority of the Pope. I think this leaves only the Anglicans themselves as those who would recognize Anglican ordination.[/quote]

The Eastern schismatics have valid Orders even though they are separated from the Catholic Church and reject the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. The reason the Anglican Orders are invalid is because they have invalid form in addition to an invalid intention.

[N/A Gone]

His post on catholicism is still bothering me

-- one minor problem i have with Catholics. in some ways i think the infallible claims can be good, but in other ways i think they are overstated and leave no room for what i feel is valid conversation

--I feel that the CAtholics may be right that according to Catholic standards, Anglicans probably do not have valid orders. But i do not feel that these standards are right. And if you claim that we do not have Apostolic Succesion then you are saying we do not partake in true sacraments and therefore are barely Christians or not Christians.

-- immensely respect the Catholic Church, however i do not respect their sorry attempt at ecumenism. (Though i respect John Paul II and Benedict XVI's attempts at ecumenical conversation)...

--It all comes back to my one problem with Catholicism: that is, they say too much too explicitly. Sometimes they seem to be the fundamentalists of Sacramental Churches.

--so yeah, i guess you can accept Anglicans as true Christians or not, but the truth is we have apostolic succession and we have true sacraments. I cannot believe that God would reject imparting grace, simply because someone may have been corrupt in history.

(and then just accuses our quotes of being bias)

grr hiss blah

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']His post on catholicism is still bothering me

-- one minor problem i have with Catholics. in some ways i think the infallible claims can be good, but in other ways i think they are overstated and leave no room for what i feel is valid conversation[/quote]
Unfortunately, we as Catholics can "talk about" what they feel is wrong, but infallibility is infallibilty. We can't knuckle to other people's demands, just like what the Bishops of England did 500 years ago.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']--I feel that the CAtholics may be right that according to Catholic standards, Anglicans probably do not have valid orders. But i do not feel that these standards are right. And if you claim that we do not have Apostolic Succesion then you are saying we do not partake in true sacraments and therefore are barely Christians or not Christians.[/quote]
Well, he's putting words into our mouth. We didn't say they're barely Christians. For the record, baptism works, and I think marriage? I'm sure someone could correct me there. For the record, they're no less Christian than the non-denominational-fundie-indepenent-Pentebaptist-Lutheran guy/gal who runs a "home church".

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']-- immensely respect the Catholic Church, however i do not respect their sorry attempt at ecumenism. (Though i respect John Paul II and Benedict XVI's attempts at ecumenical conversation)...[/quote]
Just his opinion. Leave it be. Ecuminism is on our grounds, not his. As long as we're showing Jesus truly, there should be no cause for alarm.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']--It all comes back to my one problem with Catholicism: that is, they say too much too explicitly. Sometimes they seem to be the fundamentalists of Sacramental Churches.[/quote]
Lawl.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1431412' date='Dec 8 2007, 02:33 PM']--so yeah, i guess you can accept Anglicans as true Christians or not, but the truth is we have apostolic succession and we have true sacraments. I cannot believe that God would reject imparting grace, simply because someone may have been corrupt in history.

(and then just accuses our quotes of being bias)

grr hiss blah[/quote]

Interesting thought. What can we say... I guess we gotta wait till we're dead... then we can ask God, "so hey, what's the deal with the Anglicans?"

[N/A Gone]

LAWL?

[CatholicCid]

Form of "lol".

[jeffpugh]

[N/A Gone]

What about this

[url="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm"]http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm[/url]

[quote]Encyclical on Anglican Orders
from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:]

1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.

2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.

3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.

4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches.[/quote]

What makes the anglican orders not valid? It this just being polemic on our side? Are their sacraments valid and do they have the real presence? Is that church in apostolic succesion?

[jeffpugh]

So the Orthodox are saying that in grave circumstances, they'd go into an Anglican "service" to receive what is said to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? Even if the Anglican parish is "low church"?

Edit: Another thought. How much of a say do they have? (You might want to take this as a bit rhetorical)

Edited December 12, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[the 13th papist]

Because the Anglican Church separated from the Holy See and had the King placed as the head of the Church, they no longer have Apostolic suggession. If they do not have Apostolic succession then they cannot have valid sacraments, thins includes ordination and the Eucharist, but does not include baptism, which is universal.

The church has even decalred that The Anglican and other protestant churches are not rightly "churches" becaus they do not have apostolic succesion. (Unitatis Redintigratio) Thery are called "ecclesial communities".

On a practical note, do the results of Anglican holy orders look the same as lets say Catolic or the Orthodox Churches? I know the Catholic Church in America has had its problems as far as the sex abuse scandal, but look at Canada. One of my Proffessors used to be and Anglican minister in Canada and is now a classics proffessor.

[jeffpugh]

What do you mean about Canada?

[the 13th papist]

Canada is going through some crazy things rght now. The bible is considered hate speech, the Anglicans are ordaining women and openly homosexual men. I heard that one of the ministers was in an openly homosexual relationship.

Something i forget on my last post, somebody was talking about how Anglican ordination isn't okay for the Catholic church but isn't bad for them, or something like that. But that is to deny that there are objective truths. SOmebody else objected to the use of "Roman Catholic", which refers to a particular Rite of the Catholic Church. I am Roman Catholic, whereas somebody else might belong to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='the 13th papist' post='1433359' date='Dec 12 2007, 04:35 PM']Because the Anglican Church separated from the Holy See and had the King placed as the head of the Church, they no longer have Apostolic suggession. If they do not have Apostolic succession then they cannot have valid sacraments, thins includes ordination and the Eucharist, but does not include baptism, which is universal.

The church has even decalred that The Anglican and other protestant churches are not rightly "churches" becaus they do not have apostolic succesion. (Unitatis Redintigratio) Thery are called "ecclesial communities".

On a practical note, do the results of Anglican holy orders look the same as lets say Catolic or the Orthodox Churches? I know the Catholic Church in America has had its problems as far as the sex abuse scandal, but look at Canada. One of my Proffessors used to be and Anglican minister in Canada and is now a classics proffessor.[/quote]
Just to bump up, and to clarify something, it was not the king becoming the head which invalidated the orders, it was the protestantization of the the orders which broke the chain. As soon as the understanding of the Eucharist was redefined, the priesthood was redefined, thus, after a generation of bishops, there was no real apostolic heritage left. Despite the fact the Bishops knuckled under Henry VIII, it didn't invalidate them, just made their celebration of the sacraments illicit.

[N/A Gone]

Did I inspire this?

[CatherineM]

I guess my take on how we view things is kind of practical. We don't re-baptize Anglicans who convert to Catholicism, but we do re-ordain Anglican ministers when they become Catholic priests.