|
|
 |
William
Morse
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
Both the Orthodox and the Anglican churches claim Apostolic
Succession and typically have the succession chart in their
respective Cathedrals.
Rome recognizes the Orthodox orders as legitimate but
denies the Anglican orders.
- Was this always the case, and
- Why?
Thank you,
William
|
|
{
Why does Rome
recognize Orthodox holy orders as legitimate but deny Anglican orders as valid? }
|
|
Eric
replied:
|
William —
Pope Leo XIII's Apostolic letter of 1896, Apostolicae
Curae (on Anglican orders) declared Anglican
orders absolutely null and utterly void owing
to the fact that Thomas Cranmer had altered the
ordination rite to exclude the concept of sacrifice
as a chief purpose of a priest.
Since a priest was no longer ordained to offer sacrifice,
this fundamentally corrupted the very nature of Apostolic Succession for the Anglicans, effectively breaking
it.
Eric
|
John
replied:
|
Hi William,
Adding to what Eric said, the 39 Articles of the
Church of England deny that Holy Orders is even a
Sacrament instituted by Christ.
As a consequence, if you don't believe it's a sacrament,
you obviously don't have the proper intention when
you ordain 'priests and bishops'. If
the intention is not there, the sacrament is invalid
and hence Apostolic Succession is interrupted on
both the basis of an improper:
Now that they are ordaining woman, they have changed
the matter as well. Hence there ain' t nothing left
to their Orders except a nice ceremony which conveys
absolutely nothing on a sacramental level.
John
|
William
replied:
|
Thank you.
I thought about this over night. I mean no disrespect
but the answer doesn't make sense to me.
My understanding
of the validity of Anglican orders is based on what
I was taught as a child. Let's start with the truth
that the vast, vast, vast numbers of Popes, Bishops
and Priests [are were] holy men, called of God, who
faithfully served Him.
Having said that, there have been some, and it only
takes one to make the point, bad apples in robes
throughout history. I was told that their unfaithfulness
in no way negated their Apostolic or Priestly calling.
They may have been evil, but as ordained men:
- When
they served at the alter, their consecration was
valid.
- When they were ordained, it was valid.
- When
they heard confessions, their priestly ministry was
valid . . .
not due to being men themselves, but due to
their holy orders.
If that is true, then a Catholic Bishop who changed
to Anglican was still a Bishop regardless of whether
or not he was holy or evil. If he was a valid Bishop,
those he consecrated must be valid and so on, otherwise
the sacrament of the original Bishops would have
been invalid.
Either what I was taught in school was wrong or
you are wrong. Both views can't be right.
- What are your thoughts on this?
AMDG (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam),
William
|
Eric
replied:
|
William,
I' m not sure what you mean.
The argument has nothing to do whatsoever
with whether the priests were holy or evil. It has to do with why
they were ordained.
If they were not ordained to do what our priests do, then
they cannot do what our priests do.
In other words, Anglicans deliberately
stopped doing what our priests do and that is offer sacrifice, condemning
the entire concept.
They stopped passing on the power that our
priests receive of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus,
they do not celebrate as we do and we do not recognize their orders.
- Does that make more sense?
Eric
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
William,
You are right:
The Catholic bishops who became Anglican
retained their power to validly ordain, but to make
a sacrament, two things are necessary:
- the power to do it, and
- the intention to do what the Church does.
In Baptism, absolutely anyone has the power to baptize
and the intention is contained in the words, so that
one is simple.
With Holy Orders, the bishop must intend to ordain
priests who will have the powers of Orders to do
what the Church does. The intention of any sacrament
must be to at least intend to do what the Church
intends, regardless of the beliefs of the minister.
(An atheist priest can still validly offer Mass.)
Some of those bishops may have had such an intention,
which is why Anglican priests, who convert, are conditionally
ordained.
Besides those who did not convert, there were also 'bishops' consecrated
by 'bishops' who were not validly consecrated,
even if they were validly ordained. (A bishop
must consecrate a bishop) so there was really no
way to sort out the tangled mess, especially since
the Anglican theology was all over the map about
it.
Mary Ann
|
|
|
|
