www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Apostolic Succession and Anglicanism

I too think that TECHNICAL correctness in Apostolic Succession is not in itself determinative.

If one may borrow the thinking e.g. re the validity of Baptism:

The Latin Church focuses on the technical aspect, the correct formula. This, to such a degree that they recognize [or at one point recognized] the baptism of Mormons [I think I have it right] because their formula was Technically correct. This, despite the obvious variance Mormonism is at vis a vis Christianity.

Whereas Orthodoxy [as I understand] looks to the entire faith and theology of the Church in its discernment whether or not to recognize the Baptism. Hence, Mormons may say the right words and have the correct actions, but their Faith into which they baptise the person is not Christianity, therefore one cannot recognize the baptism as a valid Christian baptism.

Hence, an Ordination may be TECHNICALLY correct, but there is a PRIOR condition - the validity of the theology of one's Church.

I am not sure about the import or trajectory of the issue of Apostolic Succession, if one has not dealt with more fundamental and prior issues. E.g. bishops with technically correct Apostolic Succession have fallen into heresy and have been excommunicated. Thus in itself and by itself Apostolic Succession of an individual is not an absolute sign or guarantee of orthodoxy or membership in the Body of Christ - however important it may be.

Given that the Anglican Communion, is a Communion of many Churches and more significantly many different theologies and Praxes, some quite at variance to each other and at variance with the Orthodox and Catholic Communions [if the Media reports are to be believed (and maybe they are wrong about various Bishops denying the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Christ, the bodily Resurrection, the praxes and resolutions of certain diocese like the one in Vancouver, B.C. regarding the recognition of certain lifestyles)]....it is not a simple matter to discern whether the Greek Catholic Churches or the Orthodox Churches can recognize the validity of Anglican orders and that the Anglican Churches are that kind of Sister Church in which inter-Communion is presently possible.

Perhaps the question would be simpler if the context/referent were the "Anglican-Catholic" Church [as I believe it is called] - wherein the theology is more homogeneous and which theology is not so at variance as in the e.g.'s op. cit.

herb.

Herbigny,

I have always heard, from many RC priests and religious articles/apologetics, that Mormon "baptism" is not baptism at all because of their hugely warped view of the Trinity. The answers I have heard basically go something like this: "Mormons are not Christians because of their Trinitarian formula; Mormon baptism is invalid and not true baptism because of their warped view of the Trinity and the Trinitarian formula."

The fact remains that the Catholic Church has stated definitely that it does not view Anglican orders as valid (obviously excluding the exceptions with the Old Catholic, Orthodox, and Polish Catholic Churches). The Orthodox Churches do not seem to have a definitive view on the validity of the Anglican orders. Although the Ecumenical Patriarch affirmed that they were valid, the Ecumenical Patriarch isn't infallible like the Holy Father, so who knows?

ChristTeen287

Dear Herb:

I would like to expound on what you posted and I quote:

According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church, there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism:

(1) the matter;
(2) the form;
(3) the intention of the minister; and
(4) the right disposition of the recipient.

In coming up with the four requisites, the Catholic Church extensively considered doctrinal and theological, and not merely technical, matters.

AmdG

dear AmdG:

Of course you are correct.

On the other hand, I am at a loss to otherwise explain how Latin Canonists would accept as valid Mormon baptism and not accept the baptism of the Christian and Missionary Alliance - which I know to be a pretty orthodox Evangelical Protestant Church, certainly Christian.

(my source for this is Fr. Dr. J.M. Huels, JCD a Latin Canonist, in his book: "The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook..." (Franciscan Herald Press) p.50-51.)

Perhaps the Latin Church has corrected this oversight.

In any case, my little excursus into an illustration aside, my point remains, that ordinations and Apostolic Succession should not be just a question of getting the technical requirements down. That I find too "Latin" an approach [I realize that this is perhaps an unfair caricature, so let me amend it to say "legalistic"], and would suggest to the Forum, the more Orthodox approach which considers the theological and ecclesial context in which the ordination takes place as perhaps even more central than the technical requirements of "Apostolic Succession" as it were.

herb.

Dear Herb:

The Catholic Church considers Mormon baptism as invalid.

AmdG

Most Protestant sects do have that "wrapped" interpretation of the Trinity, in that case their baptisms should not be valid at all.
In the case of the Anglicans or the Lutherans, unction with Myre would confirm what is infirm.

OK, I guess my explanation was ignored...but for those inquiring minds who want to know about the invalidity of Mormon "baptism" refer to my post about 3 posts up. Age discrimination! Just kiddin'

ChristTeen287

Herbigny
Yes the Latin Church insists on the right form but there is more to it than this.
1. Form (Trinitarian) = Mormons -Yes
2. Matter (Water) = Mormons - Yes
3. Intention of the Minister (Baptizing into the Trinitarian Faith of the Church ) Mormons = NO

So Mormon Batism does not just cut it and is invalid. Their intention is far from that of the Church, as their doctrine of the Trinity is "screwed up royally"

Stephanos I

As to the question of the Latin view of Anglican Orders is "Null and Void"
Stephanos I

Gentlemen,
It seems to me that I recall that Anglican orders are still invalid wether or not they have received ordination from the Old Catholics, or any other group having valid orders.
That being because their intention "excludes" the idea of a sacrificing priesthood.

Stephanos I

Dear Friends,

Last year, we had an ecumenical gathering of Anglican and RC theologians here in Toronto.

Bishops from both sides walked around, arm in arm, smiling cheerfully to waving crowds .

One of the Catholic bishops actually told the press that the Catholic Church would be willing to recognize as valid Anglican Orders, if the Anglican Church would be willing to change a few words in their Ordinal.

Has anyone else heard of this? What do you make of it?

Alex

Alex, Catholic and Anglican bishops walk around arm in arm, smiling. Change a few words in the Anglican Ordinal and Anglican orders will be "valid"? What a legalistic approach! What about the entirety of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith? With the emphasis on "inclusiveness" in the Anglican tradition, virtually anything goes, e.g., Episcopal Bishop Spong in Newark, NJ.

Btw, in the Orthodox Church in America (the OCA)--I can't speak for other Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions--when an Anglican clergyman converts to Orthodoxy and wishes to continue as a clergyman in Orthodoxy, he is ordained anew in Holy Orders as if he had never been a clergyman previously.

God bless!

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Yes, quite legalistic, to be sure . . .

I met one of your OCA Priests who was a former Anglican clergyman in Florida last time I was down there.

He was from Britain and spoke with an English accent - as did his Presbytera.

But it doesn't matter where someone is from, all Orthodox priests give you the same suspicious look when you try to rummage through their icon catalogues without their permission . . .

I held one in my hands as Father stood in front of me, looking at me.

I then put the catalogue down . . .

God love them all, I say!!

Alex

Alex,
Can I ask a question?

How can a group that has left the apostolic church still have apostolic succession?

How can a group that believes it can ordain priestesses and female bishops still have apostolic succession?

Doesn't apostolic succession have more to do with who you are in communion with than who you were ordained by?

How can a bishop outside of your communion and/or your jurisdiction pass along apostolic succession just because he participated in your ordination?

Sorry for so many questions.

David

Alex,

If this is what this "Catholic" bishop said, then I would be inclined to say that he is just expressingly his opinion as a private theoligian- - -the fact still holds that the Church views as invalid the Anglican Orders.

ChristTeen287