Anglican Ordination question

Discussion in 'Sacraments and Holy Orders' started by BibleHoarder, Apr 12, 2018.

  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    How do you respond to the argument that current Anglicans do not have holy orders, because the original apostolic line merged with Rome during it's claim to supremacy/universal jurisdiction, before they broke away, so therefore all that came after were bound in agreement to let the Pope have authority to invalidate their orders if he wanted, and thus the ones who came after were not from an apostolic branch?
     
  2. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    They are priests of God not priests of the Pope
     
    Anglican04 likes this.
  3. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    940
    Likes Received:
    689
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    A curious argument, haven't heard this one before

    I would argue that ordinations even in the Roman Catholic sense do not depend on the Papacy, but on the regular series of ordinations, from bishop to bishop, down through the ages...

    Thus even for Roman Catholics if an ordination takes place which the Pope will officially reject, it becomes "illicit", not invalid
     
    Anglican04 and PotterMcKinney like this.
  4. JayEhm

    JayEhm Member

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    30
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Orthodox Protestant
    May I recommend Archdeacon Fr. McKinnon? He convinced me of the validity of Anglican orders and has caused me to reconsider apostolic succession.

    http://www.htacfeeds.org/astudies.php
     
  5. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    173
    Likes Received:
    116
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    It's just plain historically untrue. The claims to papal supremacy are hardly ancient.

    The best response is the Anglican document Saepius Officio responding to Pope Leo XIII's absurd claim that Anglican orders are null and void.

    http://anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf
     
  6. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    On a purely political level, this is my thought on the issue, and I've stated this before somewhere. The Synod of Whitby is often looked at as the seminal event where the English Church comes under Roman authority. King Oswiu's capitulation to "St Peter" on the date of Easter and the method of tonsure is often taken as his willingness to submit to the Papacy on all eccliastical matters of debate. Regardless of the historiocity of the event or accuracy of the quote, what one can clearly see is that the king exercised his royal discretion to place the Church of his realm under Roman jurisdiction. Therefore, if a king has the power to delegate such authority to a party, it stands that a king equally has the power take back that authority at his pleasure, which is exactly what King Henry VIII did. Oswiu's refusal to disobey "St Peter" did not bind Henry since no king has the power to bind future kings. St Paul put the hierarchy like this: "Fear God, honor the king". The pope is noticeably absent. Therefore, a priest's allegiance should follow suit. If Anglican orders are defunct it must be for a reason other than because the Pope invalidated their ordinations since the king clearly did not recognize the Pope's authority to do so at that point.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
    Vincent J. Coppola likes this.
  7. Shane R

    Shane R Active Member

    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    208
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    There are many Roman theologians who are admitting behind closed doors -and even openly in a few cases- that the late 19th century position of the RCC on Anglican orders is indefensible for any number of reasons. But at the heart of the question is a debate on ecclesiology, wherein the Uniate churches prove that autocephaly is grudgingly accepted even by Rome. If all of these other churches have valid orders: Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, SSPX/sedevacantists, and even many Old Catholics; why not Anglicans? Then the usual tactic is to claim a deficiency in the Anglican Ordinal. That is a precarious place to make one's stand.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  8. peter

    peter Active Member

    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    143
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Simple, Rome's claim of Papal supremacy is flawed an unbiblical. Rome's claim of exclusivity as the "One True Church" is flawed and unbiblical. Therefore, Rome's clam to be the only organisation that can validly confer Holy Orders is flawed and unbiblical.
     
  9. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    791
    Likes Received:
    969
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Catholic is a note of the Church, not the name of the Church
     

Share This Page