Apostolic succession question

[OrthoCanuck]

I believe that Anglicans have maintained apostolic succession, yet the Catholics and Orthodox don't think so. I've read Leo XIII's writings and the response by the Church of England and I find the CoE's arguments much stronger. Can anyone further elaborate and help me when I need to discuss apostolic succession with Catholics and/or Orthodox? Also, any good webpages you could suggest.


Peace.

[trooper]

Boy, while I've read a lot, it seems to get all muddled in my head. I do think that the original statement against Anglican orders on a who did what to whom basis is flawed, from the RC side. In other words, their history is bad and many historians think so....

I also know that ordination has a number of levels: form, intent, and something else. So, I do wonder these days, if an Anglican priest is ordained by a bishop who doesn't really believe in the truthfulness of apostolic succession, is the ordination valid? Is the intent there? I don't know.

Which is why I am now "on the banks of the Tiber" I am sure that there are many folks on this forum who can offer you a more academic answer. I'll be reading as well.

[Aymn27]

Boy, while I've read a lot, it seems to get all muddled in my head. I do think that the original statement against Anglican orders on a who did what to whom basis is flawed, from the RC side. In other words, their history is bad and many historians think so....
Some RC theologians think so was well, I read an article the other night by a RC who said they were invalid because Cranmer had changed the intent in the Ordinal (he was defending Leo and Apostolic Curae). The problem is that the wording for the ordination of bishops/priests is almost exactly the same as the new Roman Rite, so the author of the article was arguing (as the Pope had) that the flaw (which invalidated the orders) was there because the writer of the book (Cranmer) had intended to do away with the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. The problem I see with that is pretty evident. It is not the intent of the writer of the Ordinal that matters (perhaps his consecrations would have been invalidated), but the intention of the bishop consecrating. If the book uses the "right words" and the bishop consecrating has the "right intention" - it is just silly to believe that the intention is not there because the writer of the Rite didn't have it...that is illogical at best.


I also know that ordination has a number of levels: form, intent, and something else. So, I do wonder these days, if an Anglican priest is ordained by a bishop who doesn't really believe in the truthfulness of apostolic succession, is the ordination valid? Is the intent there? I don't know.

Matter, form and intent. No modern problems exist with form (that I am aware of). Without getting into the whole female ordination debate - according to RC and the Augustinian notion of valid sacraments - the matter must be a male (the whole in persona christi argument), therefore any female ordinations are invalid. And since a female bishop in theory cannot exist, any priests serving under her could very well not be celbrating sacraments (except baptism) since their functions flow from the bishop (you'd have to research some on that to see if you agree and if it is totally correct - I've read theologians who say that the ordination of females is valid, but illicit and others who say no way - and of course, others who think it's just peachy).

As far as intent - I think you'd have to find something written by the bishop that would fly in the face of his intent to discredit it, otherwise, I would say you have to assume the intent is there, even if they are heterodox/apostate or whatever. I just don't see how someone else can judge intent..

BTW..Orthodox do not reject the form (of course they don't operate under an Augustinian view either). There are several letters from Orthodox jurisdictions that say the Anglican form is fine. Check them out here (http://www.orthodoxanglican.net/html/downloads.html). Reading these really helped me accept Anglican orders - they refute the Western reasons for considering them invalid.

[gitlance]

Leo XIII was a man operating over 300 years after the English Reformation. What gave him the right to all of a sudden know exactly what took place in the 1500s, what the intent of Cranmer was, and how the other bishops in England felt? He acts as if all the bishops in England lost their ordination when the pope was no longer head over the Church in England. That is ridiculous. They accept Old Catholic orders, and they are not under the pope. The Romans just don't wish to accept that somebody other than themselves could have valid orders, and therefore valid sacraments, because it would invalidate their claim to exclusive ownership of the Truth. I also find it interesting that it took them 350 years to wake up and decide, all of a sudden, that our orders were invalid. And not to mention, but Leo's arguments are totally bogus if you read the history at the time of the Reformation. The Roman Ordinal for Consecration in the 1500s simply said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost". What does that mean? Where is the intent for a "sacrificial priesthood" there? At least the English Church specified what they were receiving the Holy Ghost for.

Again, it must also be understood that just because a particular bishop may be in apostasy, it does not mean that his orders or sacraments are invalid. That is actually a heresy, which I'm sure PaladinValer would be more than willing to elaborate on. Once a bishop, always a bishop. If the intent is to ordain another person into the succession, then the ordination is valid. The English bishops of the 1500s had the intent of ordaining people into the succession, they had received the succession themselves from Rome (and others), and therefore the subsequent bishops were also validly ordained.

[xristos.anesti]

As far as I know Orthodox Church has not deemed Anglican orders (or Orthodox view of what such term implies) as invalid.

Myself as an Orthodox look upon Anglicans as a very close brethren, more so than any others in the West.

It makes me very sad that the communion was not reached back in the early period of the twentieth century.

Hope is there that communion will be reached in the near future.

[gitlance]

Xristos Anesti,

I want you to know that I appreciate everything you have to say. Whenever you come over here to STR, you always say wonderful, kind things, and I thank you for that.

Could you perhaps do us all a favor? Whenever one of us Anglicans goes over to TAW to inquire about Anglican orders, we are generally met with some resistance. Would you be willing to ask around over there and get the consensus of other Orthodox as to the nature of Anglican Orders in their opinion?

Thank you!

In Christ,

gitlance :crossrc:

[xristos.anesti]

gitlance, brother.

The real issue is the idea of communion. That is the problem.

I will give you an example.

Orthodox and Anglicans.

We can say for each other that we see that both of us have valid apostolic succession (of course, there will always be those who will say otherwise). But the fact that we are not in communion is what makes us out-of-communion.

For Orthodox, Apostolic Succesion is only one of the conditions for being Orthodox. Being in communion is really important (and I really wish to stress the word really).

So, we see that Anglicans have valid Apostolic succession in a sense of generations of bishops from the time of Lord and holy Apostles until today, however we are not in communion.

This will be (general) answer given, not just in TAW but, wherever you go (as far as the "Greeks" are concerned).




Now, I have noticed a constant occurence and this is what I wonder:

-Why do you (Anglicans) really care what Orthodox and Latins think?

Please, do not get me wrong, I am not being smart. But, who cares what others think? You have a beautiful revelation (one that I so wish to be in the very communion with) and a long and correct Tradition.

I do not care what Latins think about Orthodox, nor really what Anglicans think; I am Orthodox because that is what I am, and to me, it does not matter what someone says. I will laugh and tell them that they are wrong, if they really annoy me I will call them a heretic.

So, why do you care? Do you need someone to come and tell you that you have right to belive what you belive? NO! Our Bishops are working on these things on their fancy dinners and God willing soon, sometimes we might end up in communion. If not, God will judge... He will do that anyhow.

I do not know how you will understand this, but seriously, who cares what other humans think, especially when they do not want to extend you the curtesy that you are extending to them.

You are doing what you think you are ought to do, and... why would you care if they think that is not enough, especially when they do not care to do what they are ought to do.

That is why I wonder this.

So, keep on keeping on.

Those who love you love back, and those that do not love you, pray for them.




Many years.




Please, if I am out of place... I am sorry.

[IowaLutheran]

Here'sa couple of links for you about the Anglo/Orthodox discussions that occurred early in the 20th century:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/Orthotake.htm

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/orthodoxy/

[gitlance]

gitlance, brother.

The real issue is the idea of communion. That is the problem.

I will give you an example.

Orthodox and Anglicans.

We can say for each other that we see that both of us have valid apostolic succession (of course, there will always be those who will say otherwise). But the fact that we are not in communion is what makes us out-of-communion.

For Orthodox, Apostolic Succesion is only one of the conditions for being Orthodox. Being in communion is really important (and I really wish to stress the word really).

So, we see that Anglicans have valid Apostolic succession in a sense of generations of bishops from the time of Lord and holy Apostles until today, however we are not in communion.

This will be (general) answer given, not just in TAW but, wherever you go (as far as the "Greeks" are concerned).




Now, I have noticed a constant occurence and this is what I wonder:

-Why do you (Anglicans) really care what Orthodox and Latins think?

Please, do not get me wrong, I am not being smart. But, who cares what others think? You have a beautiful revelation (one that I so wish to be in the very communion with) and a long and correct Tradition.

I do not care what Latins think about Orthodox, nor really what Anglicans think; I am Orthodox because that is what I am, and to me, it does not matter what someone says. I will laugh and tell them that they are wrong, if they really annoy me I will call them a heretic.

So, why do you care? Do you need someone to come and tell you that you have right to belive what you belive? NO! Our Bishops are working on these things on their fancy dinners and God willing soon, sometimes we might end up in communion. If not, God will judge... He will do that anyhow.

I do not know how you will understand this, but seriously, who cares what other humans think, especially when they do not want to extend you the curtesy that you are extending to them.

You are doing what you think you are ought to do, and... why would you care if they think that is not enough, especially when they do not care to do what they are ought to do.

That is why I wonder this.

So, keep on keeping on.

Those who love you love back, and those that do not love you, pray for them.




Many years.




Please, if I am out of place... I am sorry.

I think that is one of the most beautiful things I have ever read on these forums. Thank you so very much, brother. Whether you know it or not, you just said some things that have needed to be said for a long time.

Christ's peace be always with you, and I do pray that one day our two Communions will be reunited.

[pmcleanj]

I think that is one of the most beautiful things I have ever read on these forums. Thank you so very much, brother. Whether you know it or not, you just said some things that have needed to be said for a long time.

Christ's peace be always with you, and I do pray that one day our two Communions will be reunited.

You know, I concur. It was a heartwarming post.

[SirTimothy]

Why do you (Anglicans) really care what Orthodox and Latins think?

I don't.

Timothy

[Wigglesworth]

Now, I have noticed a constant occurence and this is what I wonder:

-Why do you (Anglicans) really care what Orthodox and Latins think?

It is the desire for unity. Some Anglicans, and some Old Catholics, want to be accepted at the communion table of other Christians regardless of differences in doctrine or discipline. There is a strong desire for unity, even though there is a rational recognition that it is unlikely to exist this side of Heaven. The desire for unity is what causes pain in the heart and water in the eye when a fellow Christian forbids us from receiving at their table.

:crossrc:

[xristos.anesti]

It is the desire for unity. Some Anglicans, and some Old Catholics, want to be accepted at the communion table of other Christians regardless of differences in doctrine or discipline. There is a strong desire for unity, even though there is a rational recognition that it is unlikely to exist this side of Heaven. The desire for unity is what causes pain in the heart and water in the eye when a fellow Christian forbids us from receiving at their table.

:crossrc:

I understand.

[alban]

It is the desire for unity. Some Anglicans, and some Old Catholics, want to be accepted at the communion table of other Christians regardless of differences in doctrine or discipline. There is a strong desire for unity, even though there is a rational recognition that it is unlikely to exist this side of Heaven. The desire for unity is what causes pain in the heart and water in the eye when a fellow Christian forbids us from receiving at their table.

:crossrc:

And it is sad to see the desire for unity by the Holy Anglican church to be thrown back in her face by those who consider themselves more righteous. That strong desire for unity to which you refer is central to the message of the bible. I find it astounding that the Anglican church is the only church which actuually notices that message. Well i suppose that at least we can be thankful that Catholicism is at least alive in some parts of Christendom.

[SirTimothy]

I don't really care about unity, to be honest. Yeah, I'd love to see it, but not if it means compromising what I believe. We've compromised like crazy. I'd like to see the other side do some for a change. We would never be so arrogant as to call ourselves the 'One True Church', rather we acknowledge ourselves as a part of it, as we also acknowledge them. Until they do the same, efforts for unity will fail. I'm not willing to compromise my belief that I've been recieving valid sacraments all my life, for the sake of their insecurity. Because that's all I believe it is, insecurity. They've got a small part of the Truth of the gospel, and are so tightly clinging on to it, that they refuse to see that the gospel is so much bigger than that tiny bit that they're clinging on so tenaciously to, and that just because we see the gospel a trifle differently, doesn't actually mean that we are not part of the One True Church (TM).

Timothy