How do Anglicans and Methodists have AS?

[Sothron]

This is not a flame just a honest question.

I was a Methodist for twenty something years and I never heard that we believed as a church that we had Succession. I have seen it posted several times on here that the Anglicans and Methodists say they do have it.

How is this possible? Didn't the Anglicans lose their ties to the RCC claim to Succession with that whole king who wanted to keep on divorcing until he rolled a lucky seven on a boy deal? Do the Catholics consider the Anglican/Methodist Sacraments valid?

Just curious, don't shoot the messenger. :wave:

[WarriorAngel]

Methodists are an offshoot, not valid succssion.

[Sothron]

Methodists are an offshoot, not valid succssion.

Ok...what about the other questions I asked? ;)

[Secundulus]

Ok...what about the other questions I asked? ;)

Anglicans have AS in exactly the same manner as everybody else that has it; a direct line of validly ordained bishops.

[Sothron]

And again, didn't that stop when they broke away from the RCC? :confused:

[Secundulus]

And again, didn't that stop when they broke away from the RCC? :confused:

No. But even if it did (which it did not), in the past 100 years Bishops in the Anglican Communion have been consecrated by Old Catholic Bishops,

[Simon_Templar]

And again, didn't that stop when they broke away from the RCC? :confused:
The Roman Catholic position on Anglican orders is that they became invalid when the Anglican church modified its Ordination ritual.

Anglicans obviously disagree. Also as Secundulus pointed out many Anglicans can now trace their succession through the Old Catholic church which is valid.

[Albion]

This is not a flame just a honest question.

I was a Methodist for twenty something years and I never heard that we believed as a church that we had Succession. I have seen it posted several times on here that the Anglicans and Methodists say they do have it.

How is this possible? Didn't the Anglicans lose their ties to the RCC claim to Succession with that whole king who wanted to keep on divorcing until he rolled a lucky seven on a boy deal? Do the Catholics consider the Anglican/Methodist Sacraments valid?

Just curious, don't shoot the messenger. :wave:

It's a fair question. Anglicans can indeed trace their succession just like RC, EO, OO, and others. The reason that the Vatican pronounced them invalid (three hundred years after the fact) is said by many historians to be mainly a political matter. It happened at about the same time as the Roman Catholic Church was under pressure from Socialism, Revolution, Secularism, Italian nationalism, the advance of Science, and so on.

This was the time that the Vatican I council voted for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. It is also the time when the Vatican condemned Freemasonry most famously. Many historians see the entire thing as one of preserving the historic leadership of the Catholic Church in a European world fast changing away from its authority.

The declaration of the invalidity of Anglican orders was not based upon there being any interruption in the line of succession, just that the wording was not that used by the Roman Catholic Church for its own bishops at the time of Pope Leo XIII's declaration on Anglican Orders (19th Century). Ironically, it WAS the wording used by the Roman Church in the late middle ages, at about the time that the invalidity was supposed to have happened. Henry VIII had nothing to do with the matter in any case.

But the issue is moot except for the continuation by the Vatican of its stand. Most Anglican bishops now have had lines of consecration including EO or OO bishops.

And now the Methodists. I believe you are right that no Methodist church body I've ever heard of claims Apostolic Succession for itself. HOWEVER, there are Methodists who maintain that Wesley was secretly consecrated a bishop by a sympathetic Anglican bishop late in his career, after the Church of England had shown an unwillingness to consecrate bishops who reflected Wesley's views. They also say that the evidence of this was not generally known earlier but is now available.

[WarriorAngel]

Illicit. Valid but illicit.

IE the sacraments are valid, but the AC is illicit of the intent to do these things 'for' the Church.


They have illicit ordinations...and in some cases invalid ordinations. [women/married gays]

[Albion]

Illicit. Valid but illicit.

IE the sacraments are valid, but the AC is illicit of the intent to do these things 'for' the Church.


They have illicit ordinations...and in some cases invalid ordinations. [women/married gays]

That would be the point as concerns the Roman Catholic Church. Consecrations (note: consecrations in the case of bishops, ordinations in the case of priests) are not held to be illicit in, for example, the Anglican churches merely because the Catholic Church holds that they do not conform to the Catholic Church's procedures.

IMO, it's best that we do not get into the practice of answering questions about one church by explaining how a totally different one would proceed to do things.

[Sothron]

This is interesting. I had thought the Pope had excommunicated the clergy en masse back then and thus rendered any futured ordinations invalid because it would be "poisonous fruit" to borrow from American legal terminology.

[Secundulus]

This is interesting. I had thought the Pope had excommunicated the clergy en masse back then and thus rendered any futured ordinations invalid because it would be "poisonous fruit" to borrow from American legal terminology.

I have never heard that the clergy were excommunicated. Is there any historical documentation to that effect?

[Fish and Bread]

and in some cases invalid ordinations. [women/married gays]

To the best understating, under Roman Catholic theology, a homosexual male would be considered valid matter and thus validly consecrated if all other conditions were in place. An individual leading a sinful life does not invalid the sacraments. In the early church, the idea that the sacraments would be invalided was known as the Doanist heresy. Later on, after the Great Schism, there was a famous story about St. Francis kissing the hand of a priest who had a mistress to demonstrate that he was still a priest and his hands still touched the Body of Christ.

I've always seen the key issue with Anglican orders, from the Roman Catholic perspective, as being whether there is an assumed intent to ordain a sacrificial priesthood and to confect a sacrifice at each mass (Since there must be valid form, matter, and intent according to Roman Catholic theology). In certain eras, there was a certain anti-sacrificial bent to Anglican theology of the Eucharist, and thus if we can say that, for example, that a bishop or group of bishops ordaining a priest (all) did not intend to ordain a sacrificial priest, and if the official theology of the Church of England was contrary to ordaining a sacrificial priest (Or at least did not assume it), there could be an issue. However, usually the base of the "intent" issue is "Do the bishops intend to ordain priests or consecration biships to 'do as the church has done'?", which may not actually require them to understand or accept any sort of sacrificial reality, depending on how one looks at it. It's a complicated situation that has been and probably will continue to in the future be argued for many centuries.

[Fish and Bread]

This is interesting. I had thought the Pope had excommunicated the clergy en masse back then and thus rendered any futured ordinations invalid because it would be "poisonous fruit" to borrow from American legal terminology.

Under Roman Catholic theology, excommunication does not in itself render future ordinations invalid, just illicit. They make a distinct between "valid" and "licit" that Eastern Orthodox do not. This is why the Eastern patriarchies were considered to remain valid (but not necessarily licit) bishops confecting valid (but not necessarily licit) sacraments even after the Pope excommunicated them during the Great Schism, and today the Society of Pius X is considered to have valid (but not necessarily licit) sacraments even though all of it's bishops have been excommunicated and it's priests suspended.

Validity involves whether the actual sacrament itself takes place. For example, communion must generally involve a validly ordained priest saying the words of consecration using bread and wine with intent to confect the sacrament. If Father Bob leave some tortilla chips by his bed side when he falls asleep, having intended to eat them as a late night snack, and in his sleep rolls over puts his hand on them, and mutters "This is Jesus", it doesn't become the Eucharist because he had neither valid form, matter or intent (Hence, not valid as a whole). However, if Father Bob leaves the Church and starts "Father Bob's Parish, Sports Bar, and Casino" and says the exact Catholic mass using the right type of bread and wine and with intent to confect the Eucharist, it's valid and really the Eucharist because he is really a priest doing what priests have done.

In the last example, though, the Eucharist would be valid, but not licit. "Licit" means authorized by the canons of the church and in communion with the Pope. To confect an illicit sacrament is considered a sin by the Vatican, but it is technically still a "real" sacrament (Doing whatever the sacrament really does -- making a priest, turning break into the Body of Christ, whatever). This is why the Vatican does not generally re-ordain Eastern Orthodox or Pius X Society clergy who convert or re-baptise or reconfirm their individual lay members who convert.

[a_ntv]

The Roman Catholic position on Anglican orders is that they became invalid when the Anglican church modified its Ordination ritual.

Anglicans obviously disagree. Also as Secundulus pointed out many Anglicans can now trace their succession through the Old Catholic church which is valid.

That is true.

Even if there are some not clear points you can clear to me
- the Old Catholic bishops involved in the Anglican ordinations acted always as co-ordinators (the other bishops that celebrate with the principal bishop). The CC considers the co-cordinators as giving the apostolic succession by themself only if they lay the hands AND they pronuonce even soflty all the necessary prayers. I dont know if this was the use in the Anglican ordinations.
- the Anglican bishops dont use to show their apostolic lineage. So it is impossible to know if each one of them have an apostolic succession from the Old Catholic. How know about any web site with listed the apostolic lineage of Anglican bishops?
- the ordination is not only a matter of succession of layings of the hands. There is aldo the need of a valid will to consacrate bishops, knowing that bishops are not priests and are not deacons, knowing that the Church is also visible and that the Eucharist, which the bishops are fully called to celebrate, is THE same sacrifice of the Cross. Missing these points there is a lack of will, whichever rite is used. It is not clear to me what is exactly the will of the Anglicans (and of the Methodists) in ordaining bishops

[a_ntv]

Under Roman Catholic theology, excommunication does not in itself render future ordinations invalid, just illicit. They make a distinct between "valid" and "licit" that Eastern Orthodox do not. This is why the Eastern patriarchies were considered to remain valid (but not necessarily licit) bishops confecting valid (but not necessarily licit) sacraments even after the Pope excommunicated them during the Great Schism, and today the Society of Pius X is considered to have valid (but not necessarily licit) sacraments even though all of it's bishops have been excommunicated and it's priests suspended.

Good explanation :)

The only remarks is that the CC considers licit (and not only valid) the ordinations of the Orthodox Churches (and in the 1054 the pope did not excomunicated the EO patriarch. but this is an other history...)

[Fish and Bread]

Good explanation :)

Thanks! :)

The only remarks is that the CC considers licit (and not only valid) the ordinations of the Orthodox Churches (and in the 1054 the pope did not excomunicated the EO patriarch. but this is an other history...)I'm actually interested in the reasoning behind the idea that the RCC considers EO ordinations licit. I'd assume it might have something to do with the fact that the original diocesan bishops continued on and that they consecrated new ordinaries to succeed them in the way they had always done, but that wouldn't make sense in light of the fact that Utrecht is considered illicit and is a very similar situation in that regard. Yet, I did word my post carefully, though, because I'll admit I've never heard a modern Pope or western bishop call the eastern ones illicit, so I thought something might be up there.

Also, I'd be interested in hearing more about your view that the EO patriarchies and excommunication. If they were never excommunicated, why has every history class I've taken or documentary I've watched include the Papal envoys marching up to an Eastern cathedral (or something similar) and nailing decrees of excommunication to the wall? And if there was no excommunication, what did one of the last Popes jointly lift with the ecumenical patriarch that made all that press? Perhaps you mean the excommunication occurred later than the 1054 date? Or is it something else?

[Sothron]

It was a Cardinal in 1054 that left a Papal Bull of Excommunication on the altar at St. Sophia. The Pope was at that time dead so technically at that moment it could not be valid.

[a_ntv]

It was a Cardinal in 1054 that left a Papal Bull of Excommunication on the altar at St. Sophia. The Pope was at that time dead so technically at that moment it could not be valid.
That is true.
And anyway such cardinal had not received the permission to excumunicate.
And we have the historical proof that on about the 1200 the EO Costaninople synod officially declared (to the emperator) the pope as not-excomunicated.

Unfortunatly the division beween the West and the East goes beyond the pure events of 1054. The divison started in the VI century and became larger and lager year after year up to the last 40 years.

[a_ntv]

I'm actually interested in the reasoning behind the idea that the RCC considers EO ordinations licit. I'd assume it might have something to do with the fact that the original diocesan bishops continued on and that they consecrated new ordinaries to succeed them in the way they had always done, but that wouldn't make sense in light of the fact that Utrecht is considered illicit and is a very similar situation in that regard.
You are right about the EO.
We dont like the idea of 'patriarchate', but in this case it can be usefull. Utrech was part of the Westen (patriarcate), part of the Latin Church, so the own bishop was not free to go elsewhere.
The CC never gives judgments on the internal Orthodox issues, but a_ntv considers illicit the schiamatic ordinations in the EO world, like the old-calendarists, even if made by a 'town-bishop'


And if there was no excommunication, what did one of the last Popes jointly lift with the ecumenical patriarch that made all that press?
Well, all EO and CC scolars knew perfectly that there was no excomunication to remove, but it was done anyway as great sign of brothership.

[zhilan]

I think for Orthodox this is a moot point since the idea of deciding who, outside of the Church, has or does not have proper succession is not something the Church does.

[Fish and Bread]

You are right about the EO.
We dont like the idea of 'patriarchate', but in this case it can be usefull. Utrech was part of the Westen (patriarcate), part of the Latin Church, so the own bishop was not free to go elsewhere.

Cool. Good explanation. I've always like the idea of having a patriarch or a primate/metropolitan for each region. I'd love to see the Vatican and other western churches that don't utilize them much (or limit their powers more significantly than the original intent) restore the concept on a grander scale. For example, the RCC could have an American primate ruling from the historic See of Baltimore with power over the local bishops in North America, but still beneath the Pope. This would also help ease the power of the historically unprecedented national bishop conferences and help ecumenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox. I've heard rumors that Pope Benedict XVI may have once toyed with the concept (perhaps as a Cardinal), but haven't heard much lately, or anything solid in the first place, really. :)

[Wigglesworth]

You are right about the EO.
We dont like the idea of 'patriarchate', but in this case it can be usefull. Utrech was part of the Westen (patriarcate), part of the Latin Church, so the own bishop was not free to go elsewhere.


What does this mean?

Does it mean that the Archbishop of Utrecht was canonically required to maintain communion with Rome, rather than reject the Roman Pope to embrace the Orthodox churches of the East?

[Aymn27]

I think for Orthodox this is a moot point since the idea of deciding who, outside of the Church, has or does not have proper succession is not something the Church does.
which I think is EXCELLENT policy!!

[a_ntv]

Does it mean that the Archbishop of Utrecht was canonically required to maintain communion with Rome, rather than reject the Roman Pope to embrace the Orthodox churches of the East?
Yes of course
Utrech was not found as diocesis by one of the apostoles.
Uthrech is part of the Latin Church, have apostolic succession through the Latin Church and his propter order is to stay into the Latin Church.
So, not only be in Comunion with the pope (a quite vague idea, the only thing that the EO lack), but also be actualy part of the Latin Church, under the direct jurisdiction of the pope (as Head of the Latin Church)
And anyway, about the Old Catholic, the Archbishop of Utrech who made the schism, did not rappresented the whole diocesys, but only a part. The people and the diocesys of Uthrech went on been part of the Latin church. Here its site (http://www.aartsbisdom.nl/).
And to join the EO would have been for sure less heavy that to stay alone as he did.
Which are the result? Women priests and bishops...a clear experimental sign that the succession is no more in the Tradition

[a_ntv]

I think for Orthodox this is a moot point since the idea of deciding who, outside of the Church, has or does not have proper succession is not something the Church does.
Well, this choice is a sign of a different attitude between the EO and the CC on the Ecclesiology.

For the EO, only the EO is the Church. Nothing out from the EO. Full Stop. So the question is useless.

The Catholic Church, more humile, knows that the power of God is not confined into the CC, and so there are also many other Churches than God uses for his sacraments. The sacraments, even the more precious, are not owned by the CC (or by the EO).

So it is NOT "to decide" who has a propter succession (the Church cannot decide it), but it is "to check" who has a propter succession.

[zhilan]

Well, this choice is a sign of a different attitude between the EO and the CC on the Ecclesiology.

For the EO, only the EO is the Church. Nothing out from the EO. Full Stop. So the question is useless.

The Catholic Church, more humile, knows that the power of God is not confined into the CC, and so there are also many other Churches than God uses for his sacraments. The sacraments, even the more precious, are not owned by the CC (or by the EO).

So it is NOT "to decide" who has a propter succession (the Church cannot decide it), but it is "to check" who has a propter succession.
This is a misrepresentation of our beliefs, and in my feeling our view is more "humble" (although let's not fool ourselves, we both believe we are the true church). The Orthodox church's position is that we know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not. One of our main theologies is that we do not limit God. In refusing to play the "who's the next best" game we are not saying that God cannot be found elsewhere (in fact you would be VERY hard pressed to find an Orthodox who would say that), but that we do not KNOW where God and we see no use in speculating. We know that the fullness of the truth is in the Orthodox Church. We do not know where else God may or may not be as it is nor our prerogative to tell God to what degree He is in this church and that church. God can be wherever He wants, whenever He wants.

I really do not understand the point or reason behind deciding this. It's not your Church, so why does it matter? If someone comes to you and says, "I do not want to be Catholic, so what's the next best thing" are you going to pull out a list with Churches in order of the "Godness" in them? It just seems silly.

You believe you have the fullness of the truth, that's fine so do we, but what makes you think you know how much of God is in other churches?

[a_ntv]

I really do not understand the point or reason behind deciding this. It's not your Church, so why does it matter? If someone comes to you and says, "I do not want to be Catholic, so what's the next best thing" are you going to pull out a list with Churches in order of the "Godness" in them? It just seems silly.

Well, to know which churches have apostolic succesion and which denominations havent it, it is NOT at all a big issue fror the CC.

But in some case it may be important.
- in the ecumenism, the CC has two different ways of acting
- it is important to confirm our faith: if the EO reject the women priests, it is a good help for us to conferm also our faith. (Of course we look and estimate the EO only because they have valid bishops).
- it is necessary to arrive to intercomuonion agreements: the CC can have official intercomunion agreements with two Churches of the East only because they have valid apostolic succession
- and it is also important for dummy things: it teachs us that we shall enter a EO church with the same reference we have in a catholic church, while in a protestant church-building it is different.

And in many other cases: in a globalized world we all live near...and there can be many interactions
Think to a marriage between a catholic and a not-catholic:
- if the not-catholic is an Orthodox, ok it is better to baptise the baby catholic, but the baby can find all the sacraments also in the EO.
- if the not-catholic is protestant, it is actually more necessary to have the childern to be educated catholic in order thay can receive all the sacraments.
- if the not-catholic is a mormon, it is extremply necessary to have the baby baptism in the CC
These cases are very common...and to close the eyes stating that what is out from my own particular little church doesnot exist, is not a prudent attitude.

If someone comes to me and says, "I do not want to be Catholic, so what's the next best thing" , I of course advice him the OO, or the EO

[zhilan]

Well, to know which churches have apostolic succesion and which denominations havent it, it is NOT at all a big issue fror the CC.

It's obviously a big enough issue that they list the churches in the Missel.

But in some case it may be important.
- in the ecumenism, the CC has two different ways of acting
- it is important to confirm our faith: if the EO reject the women priests, it is a good help for us to conferm also our faith. (Of course we look and estimate the EO only because they have valid bishops).

Why doyou need to confirm your faith? If you know you have the truth, why does it matter what any other church does? Why would the the actions of any other churches have any effect on your Church?

- it is necessary to arrive to intercomuonion agreements: the CC can have official intercomunion agreements with two Churches of the East only because they have valid apostolic succession

But they cannot have intercommunion because the EOC does not practice it. Again, I fail to see the point in speculating on Churches that are not part of your own.


- and it is also important for dummy things: it teachs us that we shall enter a EO church with the same reference we have in a catholic church, while in a protestant church-building it is different.

Personally, I think we should be respectful in all houses of worship. Even when I was a Catholic it was not like I would go to an Orthodox church and be very respectful but then go to an Anglican church and spit on the ground because according to the RCC they don't qualify for Apostolic succession. I would hope we would show respect wherever God is being worshiped.

And in many other cases: in a globalized world we all live near...and there can be many interactions
Think to a marriage between a catholic and a not-catholic:
- if the not-catholic is an Orthodox, ok it is better to baptise the baby catholic, but the baby can find all the sacraments also in the EO.

This is not correct. If an Orthodox marries a non-Orthodox the baby must be baptized Orthodox. And again, you said that your way is more humble, but really it's not. You are saying "well this one is more right, so that's better" - I don't think your child's soul should be seen as something that can be bargained with to please parents. And the idea that you would know the degree to which non-Catholic churches have God in them, to me is insulting.


- if the not-catholic is protestant, it is actually more necessary to have the childern to be educated catholic in order thay can receive all the sacraments.
- if the not-catholic is a mormon, it is extremply necessary to have the baby baptism in the CC
These cases are very common...and to close the eyes stating that what is out from my own particular little church doesnot exist, is not a prudent attitude.

This reminds me of a book I found in a Baptist bookstore that gave "information" about "other religions" and gave a sort of report card on them. "Well Orthodox are better than Catholics but still worship Mary and depend on works. Anglicans are a little better but also not real Christians." I just don't understand why you would speculate and rank churches outside your own. Don't you think it's persumptious to think that you know where God is and to what degree He is in each church? Sure you can know He's in your Church, but outside of that why would you even speculate. Are the Anglicans slightly better than Lutherans? God is a little bit more in Lutherans than in Methodists. It just seems so silly and almost prideful.

If someone comes to me and says, "I do not want to be Catholic, so what's the next best thing" , I of course advice him the OO, or the EO

Then you must not really believe in your Church. And don't you see how that is insulting and not humble as you claim? That we are the runners up?

[zhilan]

which I think is EXCELLENT policy!!

I agree. :thumbsup:

[a_ntv]

But they cannot have intercommunion because the EOC does not practice it. Again, I fail to see the point in speculating on Churches that are not part of your own.I was not speaking of the EO. the Eo are only one denomination in the Orthodox

Personally, I think we should be respectful in all houses of worship. The main respect I own in a church building is for the Holy Sacrament that is keep in, in both the CC and the EO Churches (and not in the Lutherans one...)

This is not correct. If an Orthodox marries a non-Orthodox the baby must be baptized Orthodox.
That simply shows the idea of Church of the EO: the EO are the only church, and out from the EO there is the void.

As I stated in previous posts, the CC idea is different: all are part of the Church of Christ, who more perfectly, who less perfectly...but the Church of Christ is not owned by anyone, nor even by the CC


which I think is EXCELLENT policy!!
This policy means: all churches/denominations are the same
"all are the same" has two opposite meanings:
- all the others are good in the same way (sincretism, typical of same protestants), or
- all the others are wrong so we do not do differences ("ciprianism", typical of same EO)
I cannot agree with any of these meanings

[zhilan]

I was not speaking of the EO. the Eo are only one denomination in the Orthodox

I'm not really sure what you mean here. There is the EO and the OO, both hold the same view in this regard.


The main respect I own in a church building is for the Holy Sacrament that is keep in, in both the CC and the EO Churches (and not in the Lutherans one...)

Ok.

That simply shows the idea of Church of the EO: the EO are the only church, and out from the EO there is the void.

We do not say that. I think you are missing my point. We of course believe we are the one true Church. But we do not limit God. We know that God is in the Orthodox Church. Outside of that, we don't know. If what you said was true, then we would play the Catholic game and make lists. But we don't. We do not know where the Church ends, we only know where it IS.

As I stated in previous posts, the CC idea is different: all are part of the Church of Christ, who more perfectly, who less perfectly...but the Church of Christ is not owned by anyone, nor even by the CC

And yet you believe you are the one true Church. So what is the point of ordering them?



This policy means: all churches/denominations are the same
"all are the same" has two opposite meanings:
- all the others are good in the same way (sincretism, typical of same protestants), or
- all the others are wrong so we do not do differences ("ciprianism", typical of same EO)
I cannot agree with any of these meanings

Again, we do not say God is not in other Churches, we say that we know God is in our Church and our Sacraments. We don't speculate outside of that. We would never tell a Baptist that they have not experienced God. We would only say that the Fullness of Truth is in our Church.