The Anglican Church == the holy catholic church?
-
This I know....Originally posted by ben1xy:The Anglican Church didn't come from the Reformation, but actually from the renunciation of Papacy when King Henry VIII decreed the "Act of Supremacy" While they had succession, they rejected the authority of Peter and the Pope. And their succession also encompass religious and political prowess. With that being said, King Henry VIII while denying Papal authority, did not reject other articles of faith. It was only later that more reformation took place under Elizabeth.
But I think they have some form of "apostolic succession"....
same like some other christian denominations too (e.g. orthodox).... -
Lambeth Conference Resolutions regarding ordination of women.
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1978/1978-21.cfm -
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians possese Apostolic Succession. However Anglicans do not for a number of reasons.
Here explains it:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/a-orders.htm
It is Pope Leo's On the Nullity of Anglican Orders (1896) -
The Anglican Church's doctrines are NOT APOSTOLIC as well!
-
Ah....now u agree orthodox also have Apostolic Succession....Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians possese Apostolic Succession. However Anglicans do not for a number of reasons.
Here explains it:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/a-orders.htm
It is Pope Leo's On the Nullity of Anglican Orders (1896)
Anglican do have "Apostolic Succession", but not in the catholic sense..... -
That depends on how u define "Apostolic"...Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The Anglican Church's doctrines are NOT APOSTOLIC as well!
u can't use the RCC stance to define what Apostolic Succession In Anglicanism is. -
I dun think the Anglicans claim their doctrines to be APOSTOLIC in the Catholic sense yeah?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The Anglican Church's doctrines are NOT APOSTOLIC as well! -
I never disagreed....Originally posted by laoda99:Ah....now u agree orthodox also have Apostolic Succession....
Anglican do have "Apostolic Succession", but not in the catholic sense.....
Only the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church has apostolic succession and valid priesthood as they alone can trace themselves to the Apostles.
If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!' For to Peter succeeded Linus, Clement...Damsus, Sircius, Anastasius. In this order of succession no Anglican bishop is too be found!!! - adapted from Augustine -
They do. Remember, they see themselves as the True Catholic Church...just like the Orthodox.Originally posted by ben1xy:I dun think the Anglicans claim their doctrines to be APOSTOLIC in the Catholic sense yeah? -
Wait, there seems to be a slight paradox.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:They do. Remember, they see themselves as the True Catholic Church...just like the Orthodox.
Nich, both you and i are Catholic, therefore we recognise Apostolic succession and the Pope agreed? But Anglicans do not see their succession in the Catholic sense but the Anglican sense. I think that was the point Laoda was trying to drive across.
To rephrase, we can't look at it from a Catholic lens -
Ben,Originally posted by ben1xy:Wait, there seems to be a slight paradox.
Nich, both you and i are Catholic, therefore we recognise Apostolic succession and the Pope agreed? But Anglicans do not see their succession in the Catholic sense but the Anglican sense. I think that was the point Laoda was trying to drive across.
To rephrase, we can't look at it from a Catholic lens
Every doctrine including the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is a universal one ie the same meaning. For example the doctrine of the Real Presence or even the Hypnostic Union is common to all denominations that hold it. The Anglican idea of the Real Presence matches that of the Lutheran ie Christ is present in the Eucharist.
When ISSUES are intepretated differently it becomes a new doctrine altogether for example Transubstituion as opposed to Holy Mysterty. Hence all 3 sides view the Apostolic Succession in similiar order as its the same doctrine to all. It does not bear another name nor theology.
However the Anglicans do not fulfil the criteria in oder to be Apostolic. This view is not only held by Catholics, but also by the Orthodox. -
Yup, i reflected on what you pointed out. After some googling, i acknowledge the short sightedness on my part and that yours is a valid stand. Looking at wiki, it seems to corroborate what u've mentioned but yet, there seems to be a disagreement on the 'meaningfulness'Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Ben,
Every doctrine including the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is a universal one ie the same meaning. For example the doctrine of the Real Presence or even the Hypnostic Union is common to all denominations that hold it. The Anglican idea of the Real Presence matches that of the Lutheran ie Christ is present in the Eucharist.
When ISSUES are intepretated differently it becomes a new doctrine altogether for example Transubstituion as opposed to Holy Mysterty. Hence all 3 sides view the Apostolic Succession in similiar order as its the same doctrine to all. It does not bear another name nor theology.
However the Anglicans do not fulfil the criteria in oder to be Apostolic. This view is not only held by Catholics, but also by the Orthodox.
Taken from wiki,
In episcopal churches, the Apostolic Succession is understood to be the basis of the authority of bishops (the episcopate). Specifically in the case of the Catholic Church, the Apostolic Succession as passed on through Saint Peter is also the basis for the specific claim of papal primacy. Within the Anglo-Catholic section of the Anglican Communion this is seen more as a symbolic precedence, not unlike the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. In any event, all these communions recognize Apostolic Succession as the determining criterion of a particular group's legitimacy as a catholic Church.
While many churches within the historic episcopate argue that holy orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most Protestant Churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among various Protestant churches about the exact content of apostolic teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession
What do our other Christian brothers have to say about this?
-
Originally posted by ben1xy:
***I was just reading this in Wiki and about to post the same thing, haha
Yup, i reflected on what you pointed out. After some googling, i acknowledge the short sightedness on my part and that yours is a valid stand. Looking at wiki, it seems to corroborate what u've mentioned but yet, there seems to be a disagreement on the 'meaningfulness'
Taken from wiki,
In episcopal churches, the Apostolic Succession is understood to be the basis of the authority of bishops (the episcopate). Specifically in the case of the Catholic Church, the Apostolic Succession as passed on through Saint Peter is also the basis for the specific claim of papal primacy. Within the Anglo-Catholic section of the Anglican Communion this is seen more as a symbolic precedence, not unlike the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. In any event, all these communions recognize Apostolic Succession as the determining criterion of a particular group's legitimacy as a catholic Church.
While many churches within the historic episcopate argue that holy orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most Protestant Churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. [b]To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among various Protestant churches about the exact content of apostolic teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession
What do our other Christian brothers have to say about this? [/b]
seems like there is a difference in this understanding of Apostolic Succession
1) the physical succession through the ordaination of Bishops (apostles -> bishops -> bishops ...etc)
"Those who hold to the importance of episcopal apostolic succession would counter the above by appealing to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example) and which states that Jesus gave the Apostles a "blank cheque" to lead the Church as they saw fit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
2) through the succession of apostolic teachings
" To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth"
The former appeal mainly to the catholics and orthodox, while the latter appeal more to the protestants. -
Originally posted by ben1xy:
They wouldn't bother. None of them buy Apostolic Succession.
Yup, i reflected on what you pointed out. After some googling, i acknowledge the short sightedness on my part and that yours is a valid stand. Looking at wiki, it seems to corroborate what u've mentioned but yet, there seems to be a disagreement on the 'meaningfulness'
Taken from wiki,
In episcopal churches, the Apostolic Succession is understood to be the basis of the authority of bishops (the episcopate). Specifically in the case of the Catholic Church, the Apostolic Succession as passed on through Saint Peter is also the basis for the specific claim of papal primacy. Within the Anglo-Catholic section of the Anglican Communion this is seen more as a symbolic precedence, not unlike the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. In any event, all these communions recognize Apostolic Succession as the determining criterion of a particular group's legitimacy as a catholic Church.
While many churches within the historic episcopate argue that holy orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most Protestant Churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. [b]To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among various Protestant churches about the exact content of apostolic teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession
What do our other Christian brothers have to say about this? [/b] -
I take the Catholic definition of apostolic succession.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:They wouldn't bother. None of them buy Apostolic Succession.
The wide and general definition is too vague to give any real meaning. Machiam any denomination can qualify like that. -
There is a clear definition which all adherents of A.S accept. Most protestant denom reject A.s (like DUH!)Originally posted by Icemoon:I take the Catholic definition of apostolic succession.
The wide and general definition is too vague to give any real meaning. Machiam any denomination can qualify like that.
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 9
.
"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250).
A.s - historic episcopate. One must be able to trace his Bishops directly to the Apostles."But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. Â…To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrineÂ…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).
-
ya .. I was surprised when the Anglican Church is said to have apostolic succession.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:A.s - historic episcopate. One must be able to trace his Bishops directly to the Apostles.
-
actually, the Anglican church, which really means the English Church or Church of England (Anglican is from the word Anglo meaning English) traced their heritage back to the sixth century, with their first Archbishop of Canterbury, St Augustine of CanterburyOriginally posted by Icemoon:ya .. I was surprised when the Anglican Church is said to have apostolic succession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury
Augustine of Canterbury (birth unknown, died May 26, 604) was the first Archbishop of Canterbury, sent to Ethelbert of Kent by Pope Gregory the Great in 597. He was accompanied by Laurence of Canterbury, the second archbishop. -
yup but before that they recognised the PapacyOriginally posted by vince69:actually, the Anglican church, which really means the English Church or Church of England (Anglican is from the word Anglo meaning English) traced their heritage back to the sixth century, with their first Archbishop of Canterbury, St Augustine of Canterbury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury
Augustine of Canterbury (birth unknown, died May 26, 604) was the first Archbishop of Canterbury, sent to Ethelbert of Kent by Pope Gregory the Great in 597. He was accompanied by Laurence of Canterbury, the second archbishop. -
apostolic succession ..Originally posted by ben1xy:yup but before that they recognised the Papacy
apostle -> 1st bishop (disciple of apostle) -> 2nd bishop (disciple of 1st bishop) ...etc
the thing is.. the succession of the seat of Archbishop of Canterbury was traced back St Augustine of Canterbury ...to an apostle..
should still holds even after they stop recognising the Papacy ... shouldn't it?
*** just a thought... literally speaking... Apostolic succession simply means tracing back to the Apostles... right? -
Which apostle?Originally posted by vince69:the thing is.. the succession of the seat of Archbishop of Canterbury was traced back St Augustine of Canterbury ...to an apostle..
Apostolic succession should not be taken lightly. -
Yes its simply tracing back to the Apostles. The orthodox dont recognise the papacy as well remember haha.Originally posted by vince69:apostolic succession ..
apostle -> 1st bishop (disciple of apostle) -> 2nd bishop (disciple of 1st bishop) ...etc
the thing is.. the succession of the seat of Archbishop of Canterbury was traced back St Augustine of Canterbury ...to an apostle..
should still holds even after they stop recognising the Papacy ... shouldn't it?
*** just a thought... literally speaking... Apostolic succession simply means tracing back to the Apostles... right?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm
1) The Anglican mode of ordination changed after the 1600s.
2) The latter bishops was not appointed by properly ordanied Bishops as none of the catholic bishops were willing so they lacked apostolic succession.None of the Catholic bishops still living would consent to perform the ceremony, and in default of them she had recourse to four ecclesiastics of no very high reputation, three of whom (William Barlow, John Scory, and Miles Coverdale) had been deprived by Mary, and the fourth (John Hodgkins) was a turncoat who had been consecrated suffragan Bishop of Bedford in 1537 and had consistently changed with every change of the times. To Barlow was given the lead, and he, with the others as his assistants, consecrated Parker, 17 December, 1559, in the private chapel at Lambeth, using the Edwardine Ordinal. Three days later Parker, with the aid of Barlow, Scory, and Hodgkins, consecrated four others at Bow Church. From these ancestors the whole Anglican succession is sprung. Was, then, the consecration of Parker a valid act? This is the other ground of dispute round which, as a matter of history, the controversy has gathered.
3) They changed thier church constitution by adopting the 39 Articles hence there is a breach in faith so the 'old church' ceased to exist. -
so ... what you are saying is .... the 'old church' ceased to exist because the Roman Catholic Church (ie. pope) says it ceased to exist..Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:3) They changed thier church constitution by adopting the 39 Articles hence there is a breach in faith so the 'old church' ceased to exist.
But as far as the Anglican Church is concerned, this is not the case, the ordainations and appointments continues to be valid. In other words, when they adopted the 39 Articles, the Roman Catholic Church no longer holds juristiction over them. -
The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is also significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age".Originally posted by vince69:so ... what you are saying is .... the 'old church' ceased to exist because the Roman Catholic Church (ie. pope) says it ceased to exist..
But as far as the Anglican Church is concerned, this is not the case, the ordainations and appointments continues to be valid. In other words, when they adopted the 39 Articles, the Roman Catholic Church no longer holds juristiction over them.
According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the CC bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or to repudiate the Bible
Hence its not a question on whether they adopted heretical doctrines or not. But rather the fact that they threw away their FORMER doctrines for new ones. The Anglicans reduced 7 sacraments to 2, changed the meaning of the Mass, adopted Luther Sola Fide and Sola Scripture as opposed to Sola Verbum Dei which they held previously. Hence there is a break which means the old Church of England had died in that sense. The Orthodox Church and the Orientals kept the same doctrines (while adding a few more) hence the church at 1500AD is still the same church at 500AD. -
Which means you are succeeding the guy who was succeeding the guy who was succeeding the Apostles who were succeeding Jesus.Originally posted by vince69:apostolic succession ..
apostle -> 1st bishop (disciple of apostle) -> 2nd bishop (disciple of 1st bishop) ...etc
the thing is.. the succession of the seat of Archbishop of Canterbury was traced back St Augustine of Canterbury ...to an apostle..
should still holds even after they stop recognising the Papacy ... shouldn't it?
[/quote]
Possibly there might be valid orders in the Anglican Communion. Some Orthodox recognise it. But since it's too messy and impossible to investigate, we take it to be invalid.
[quote]
*** just a thought... literally speaking... Apostolic succession simply means tracing back to the Apostles... right?