Defending Anglican Holy Orders

Discussion in 'Sacraments and Liturgy' started by Anglican04, Feb 1, 2018.

  1. Anglican04

    Anglican04 Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    165
    Likes Received:
    112
    I have heard many Anglicans defend the authenticity of our holy orders in many different ways. How do you defend them? Just curious as to how others debate..
     
  2. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    481
    Likes Received:
    450
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    APA
    The Church of England maintained the Apostolic Succession. My understanding is that the RCC questions the intent of the ordinal regarding ordinations (such as the sacrificial nature of the mass). As an aside, I think it is important to recognize that the succession itself does not guaranty orthodoxy. The Lutheran Church of Sweden and the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht both maintained the succession, yet neither of those bodies are orthodox in their theology and practice, so the argument could be made that even though Anglicans have preserved the succession, a particular Anglican body might not be orthodox, rendering, IMHO, the validity of their sacraments moot.
     
    Anglican04 likes this.
  3. DivineOfficeNerd

    DivineOfficeNerd Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    105
    Likes Received:
    118
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Laudian Anglo-Catholic
    Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't all sacraments celebrated by a validly ordained priest inherently valid, regardless of the orthodoxy of the minister? Article XXVI made me think that, but I'd defer of course.
     
    ApostolicChristian likes this.
  4. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    190
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    I believe the contention on the RCC side was not that the ordainer did not intend to ordain, but moreso that the ordinal itself did not actually voice an intention to ordain to a sacerdotal priesthood by de-emphasizing the sacrifice of the mass. The actual documents involved, Apostolicae Curae on the RC side and Saepius Officio on ours, put it all much better than I can.
     
  5. DivineOfficeNerd

    DivineOfficeNerd Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    105
    Likes Received:
    118
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Laudian Anglo-Catholic
    I knew that much, but Peteprint was saying an unorthodox ministers sacraments are moot, which is what I was asking about. The Roman obsession with a "sacerdotal priesthood" is a whole other ball of wax :).
     
    PotterMcKinney and Anglican04 like this.
  6. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    190
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    Ah, okay, I see it as well. Being, I suppose in certain views, heterodox myself, as well as referring to the Articles, I'm not sure I agree there.
     
  7. ApostolicChristian

    ApostolicChristian New Member

    Posts:
    18
    Likes Received:
    17
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Latin Catholic
    Indeed. Isn't is the heresy of donatism to suggest otherwise?
     
    Stalwart and Shane R like this.
  8. Cameron

    Cameron Active Member

    Posts:
    150
    Likes Received:
    155
    Country:
    Newfoundland
    Religion:
    Catholic
    This is what I was thinking.

    It's similar to the sacraments confected by a priest whose soul is in the state of mortal sin. The sacraments are still valid, for the good of the faithful!
     
    Aidan likes this.
  9. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    481
    Likes Received:
    450
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    APA
    There are a number of views regarding the efficacy of a heretical priest's sacraments. The Augustinian view is almost a magical one, in which, once a person is ordained, he always has the power to perform valid sacraments. The Church can say that his sacraments are illicit, but they are still valid. Opposed to this view is the Cyprianic one held by the Eastern Churches, which essentially states that the authority to perform valid sacraments derives from the Bishop, and ultimately the Church. If s priest is defrocked or expelled from the Church, he can no longer perform valid sacraments. What I was arguing in my earlier posting was that if a church became heterodox, then its sacraments would be null and void as a result.
     
    DivineOfficeNerd and Cameron like this.
  10. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    481
    Likes Received:
    450
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    APA
  11. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    699
    Likes Received:
    896
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Ultimately the usual argument against Anglican Orders centers around Matthew Parker's consecration. Even if (and that is a big if) the rite was in some sense deficient at that time, the intent was clear and the Orders of the Consecrating Bishops are not in doubt. If Anglican Orders are in jeopardy, then so to are Rome's.

    In terms of the other matters, the 39 make it plain that the worthiness of the minister hinderth not the effect of the sacrament.
     
    Cameron and Shane R like this.
  12. Cameron

    Cameron Active Member

    Posts:
    150
    Likes Received:
    155
    Country:
    Newfoundland
    Religion:
    Catholic
    This is why I've always had a bit of trouble with Apostolicae Curae. I've never met a priest who didn't take his holy orders differently to the Roman holy orders. Priesthood is still sacrificial, and especially in the High Church, the focus on the Holy Eucharist is just as frequent as in the Roman traditions. Many bishops and cardinals still believe in the validity of Anglican orders, even reading them from the Thomistic side, I cannot see a problem. I have read through the Ordinal, the BCP ordination rites, and various other Anglican texts and compared with the the rites included in the Missal!
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  13. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    898
    Likes Received:
    727
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving is a very basic and core apostolic doctrine. Our Rite of Communion directly invokes "the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving" in the Prayer of Invocation. Even others accept it, see this book by a noted Presbyterian theologian:
    The Sacrifice of Praise: Meditations before and after Receiving Access to the Table of the Lord

    The problem is that Trent has added a new understanding of Sacrifice, namely, the Sacrifice of Propitiation, as if the priest actually re-sacrifices Christ on the altar to God. By that standard Apostolicae Curae tried to judge the Anglican orders as deficient, but not only is this doctrine heinous, it's also no longer accepted by today's Catholic Church either. In the old Latin Rite, there were references to Christ as the victim being 'sacrificed' by the priest, whereas in the modern Catholic Rites all that has been taken out. This is why "Traditionalist" Catholics judge the modern RCC as deficient, because they understand that if this is the standard by which Anglicans lack, then by it the modern Catholics would lack as well. Sedevacantist Catholics don't accept modern RCC holy orders as valid.

    But if the 'propitiation as sacrifice' is not the standard (and it should not be), then there is nothing differentiating the Anglican Orders from the Roman ones.

    Saepius Officio, thank you. A key document from our Primates and Archibishops, in direct response to Apostolicae Curae.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018

Share This Page