Validity of Anglican Holy Orders

With the Dutch Touch this essentially became negated anyway would it now be?

 

This has most likely been covered already in this thread, but the Orthodox have a Cyprianic view of Holy Orders, not Augustinian.

The authority to exercise orders derives (in the Orthodox view) from the Church. If a priest or bishop leaves the Church (or is given the boot), he no longer can perform valid sacraments. In the Western, Augustinian view, there is the idea of the "indelible mark" of the priesthood, whereby a priest or bishop who leaves or is removed from the Church still can perform valid (but illicit) sacraments; the power they were given at ordination can never be removed.

The obvious weakness of the Augustinian view is that, hypothetically, a priest could quit the Church, denounce Christianity, become a Satanist, and yet still perform a valid Eucharist. This, to me, implies that he has the authority to command the Holy Spirit. As an ex-Orthodox person, I hold to the Cyprianic view; once outside the Church, or defrocked, an ex-priest no longer has the ability to perform valid sacraments.

This also leads to a proliferation of "episcopi vagantes."

As an aside, Since many Orthodox don't recognize the validity of RCC orders (though some, notably the Russians, do), the "Dutch Touch" is meaningless.

 

My personal feeling about the validity of Anglican orders is that as long as the deacon, priest, or bishop in question is ordained in the succession and is orthodox in theology and practice, then he has valid orders. The Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, retained valid orders via the Roman Church, and maintained orthodox doctrine and practice.

Once a cleric deviates from orthodox theology or practice (e.g. Spong), I wouldn't accept any sacraments from him. A Church which refuses to discipline or repudiate such a cleric has departed from the faith to the extend I would have a difficult time accepting that Church body as orthodox, or as having valid sacraments.

 

A pendulum Pope indeed. The pendulum had swung from the likes of Alexander VI to Leo XIII. One might say from the ridiculous to the almost sublime.

Leo supported workers rights, rejected communism and unrestricted capitalism, approved trade unions and called for social justice. He opened the Vatigan archives, refounded the vatican observatory and was the first Pope to be filmed. He even made friendly overtures Protestants and the Orthodox.

I could have tolerated receiving communion from him, but I doubt he would have been allowed to give it me by the rest of his denomination. (Theoretically for them still The One and only True Church).
.

 

Actually Roman Catholic, and sometimes Anglican priests, are in some churches received by “vesting”, where they receive the Byzantine vestments during the service of their first Eucharist. As recently as the 1940s, ROCOR, one of the most conservative Orthodox churches, as a rule considered Anglican orders to be valid.

 

Saepius Officio crushed Leo's logic to be honest. The inconsistency with which Cardinal Pole recognized English priests, the fact they recognize(d) many Old Catholic orders and the fact they themselves no longer use the old rite, means it is dead letter. I would love to see the current Roman bishop recognize Anglican orders because the trads would lose it online.

 

Oh, that would be hilarious. They'd be unlikely to listen of course, as most just ignore his holiness anyway.

 

I see not point to him doing this as the Church of England already admits by its actions that Anglican orders are null and void.

 

I am mainly being facetious (though arguably since the CoE has compromised its catholicity and holy orders, there are clearly valid bishops and priests). I am not in communion with Canterbury so it is little concern to me.

 

I know but I thought it was worth saying that we really have no defence against Apostolicæ Curæ now that the CofE by its own actions, e.g. admitting women to holy orders, considering Methodist ministers to be on a par with an ordained priest, etc., confirms its conclusions.

 

Those weren’t the accusations in Apostolicae Curae though. And yeah while women bishops will invalidate the orders of anyone they ordain, the mere idea doesn’t invalidate the whole priesthood a priori. If a CofE priest gets ordained by a male bishop, then you’re good to go.

 

I know that and I did not say they were. It was the final conclusion that counted.

Yes we can maintain a line of valid ordinations but what I am saying in essence is the Church of England no longer recognises the priesthood in a way that is a valid priesthood. It has in effect demonstrated that Leo XIII came to the correct conclusion.

 

Judging an argument by the conclusion is not how things work. If I say, "Flying monkeys invented the bird, and therefore, birds can fly", that is a nonsensical statement, argument, and claim, even if the final conclusion is a correct one.

So you personally may come to a conclusion that the CofE orders have become invalidated, but it has nothing to do with Leo XIII, whose argument was nonsensical and irrational, and was disproven by the later history of the Roman church, whose orders by Leo XIII's own arguments would also become invalid.

I don't know what the difference is between a line of valid successions and the "essence" of the priesthood. Priesthood is nothing more than a line of valid successions. The more parts/members of it are valid, the more valid "it" is is valid. And conversely, the more women bishops spread through the body politic of the Church of England, the more doubt there becomes about the validity of those orders. But even then, say there's an archlaywoman like Sarah Mullally who mimics the Rite of Ordination, but she has male co-consecrator bishops with her (as happens almost every time), then those orders become conveyed correctly.

 

When the supposedly 'valid' arguments for succession to the priesthood and episcopate, being the way to obtain salvation, spirituality or priestly ministerial authority are minutely examined for a purely scriptural basis, they don't ammount to much more than, "Flying monkeys invented the bird, and therefore, birds can fly" and even the conclusion wrung out of the supposed 'reasoning' does not hold up to actual scripture, only to church tradition, post 400 AD at that.

A two legged stool at best, a wobbly one at that because the historical basis 'leg' for 'celebate only', has the wordworm of Papal inteference boring all through it since the 10th century onwards and RC 'men only' tradition before that, dating from about 400AD. Bishops, (as we now know them), are not even mentioned in The Bible and some local 'churches' mentioned in the Bible were undoubtedly led by women.

Canterbury has recognised for some time that this is yet another issue like transubstantiation or priestly celebacy, that the RC denomination under it's boss has gone ahead full steam on, with only very threadbare scriptural evidence in it's support, (as it so often sees its prerogative). Just another (because I say so), doctrine as far as I am concerned, and I use Articles XX, XXI, XXVI, XXXII and XXXVI to support such views.
.

Mod: please remember that promoting women's ordination is against the terms:

4. Modern errors
There shall be no statements to promote modern errors, such as gay "marriage" and women's ordination. [Anglican Forums Reformation, Advent 2014.]

 

The Ordinal clearly supports the priesthood and episcopate, additionally it is clear the Lord commissioned the Apostles and said Apostles commissioned overseers (i.e bishops). Only by ignoring the earliest history of the Church and refusing their consensus, do we ignore how the Church is set up bishop (overseer), elder (priest) and servant (deacon).

 

Depends how 'early' we go and what the word 'bishop' means now as opposed to what it meant when the Greek word was written.

ἐπίσκοπος
STRONG’S NUMBER: g1985
Dictionary Definition g1985. ἐπίσκοπος episkopos; from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively): — bishop, overseer.
AV (7) - bishop 6, overseer 1;
an overseer a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church

An overseer in Christian terms, in the Kingdom of God, need not necessarily be a man.

For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. 1 Pet.2:25.

This clearly refers to Christ as our shepherd and bishop of souls, of both wives and husbands, women and men.

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 1 Pet.3:1-2.

Let's be clear, it is respectful and pure conduct that is being eulogised here, not unquestioning submission of wives to unbelieving pagan, male supremacy loving, tyrants.

Also Peter contrasts right behaviour as exhibited by Kingdom principled wives, with that of bad behaviour, unbecoming of The Word, (i.e. of Christ and the Gospel), of some unbelieving husbands, clearly unfit for the role of leadership in the Church, and exhibiting behaviour unacceptable in The Kingdom of God. Peter hopes that they will see the error of their misogynistic ways by being won for Christ by the pure conduct of their Kingdom principled wives.

Mod: edited, and insults removed.

 

Pure exgetical nonsense.

1. The office of Bishop is in fact limited to males.

1 Timothy 3:1-7

The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.


2. The text in First Peter has nothing to do with the offices of the Church.

3. None of this refutes that Christ commissioned the Apostles to lead His Church and the Apostles set up overseers via manual succession to replace them (ex. Matthias), to oversee presbyter-priests (Titus, Timothy) and were instituted early in the Church as the last Apostles died out (early Church historians and theologians).

4. re:
A two legged stool at best, a wobbly one at that because the historical basis 'leg' for 'celebate only', has the wordworm of Papal inteference boring all through it since the 10th century onwards and RC 'men only' tradition before that, dating from about 400AD. Bishops, (as we nowknow them), are not even mentioned in The Bible and some local 'churches' mentioned in the Bible were undoubtedly led by women.

A. The episcopacy predates the Papacy entirely. Once again you have your history wrong.
B. Male only ordination dates to the Scriptures and way before AD 400. Once again you have your history entirely wrong. There are no bishopesses mentioned in the Scriptures or in the early Church. You've made a very specific doctrinal claim now back it up.

 

I am pressed to ask whether @Tiffy has read any of the classic Anglican works on holy orders...

 

Do you mean EXTRA Biblical Writings and Commentaries or what can actually be found in the scriptures?
.