Posted on 05/25/2005 7:48:20 PM PDT by jec1ny
Doubt is not the same as lying. I thought the question was about someone who was lying?
The statements in the oath are "I believe ...", "I admit ...", "I profess ..." Thus, if one does not believe, admit, profess those specific things, but claims to do so, one is lying. Which, as you say, begs the question of what exactly is meant by "believe", "admit", "profess"? They are apparently terms of art in Catholic ecclesiasticalese, and we need to know their correct definitions.
I hadn't heard Catholics say Matthew Parker's lineage was false. He was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury by Bishop William Barlow of Chichester in 1559. William Barlow had been consecrated Bishop of St David's by Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer in 1536.
The usual line of reasoning I've heard is that the Anglican Succession was broken when Oliver Cromwell overthrew Charles I and ousted the bishops. Fortunately for the Anglicans, the Restoration occurred in time for them to be restored and continue the succession. The ECUSA lineage goes through Scotland and ties into the Church of England before Cromwell, thus avoiding that problem altogether.
It's my understanding that PNCC and Old Catholic bishops are the ones who refused to recognize the Pope as infallible after Vat-1. They were summarrily ex-communicated. Wouldn't a hard-core Catholic hold that their succession is therefore null and void?
Let me be clear about what I was saying:
I know dozens and dozens of Catholics. My wife is Catholic. My children go to CCD.
But I don't know ANY Catholics who are faithful, if that profession of faith which you posted is the definition.
Of course, you are free to say that all Catholics who do not believe as the Church teaches "aren't Catholic"-you can even say, as some have here, that the Pope "isn't catholic"-but this is absurd.
The visible Catholic Church is made up of the bishops, the priests, the deacons, and the laity-and the fraction of that group which could validly and licitly make that profession of faith is miniscule-bishops included.
Re: "But I don't know ANY Catholics who are faithful, if that profession of faith which you posted is the definition."
Wow. You may bee right but I have more hope than that in my fellow Catholic.
This is the essence of the Bull "Apostolicae Curae". Parker was "consecrated" using the Edwardine Ordinal, which the Holy See had adjudged in 1555 as being an improper form. By using an improper form after the Holy See had already corrected the English on previous use of it, the "consecrators" manifested a defect of intention as well, since had they intended to create a Catholic Bishop, they could have used the approved form in common use in England prior to 1549, and again during the reign of Queen Mary. That they chose not to was primae facie evidence that their sacramental intention was being guided not by intending to do what the Church does, but by their heretical beliefs about Holy Orders, the Mass, and the Priesthood.
It's my understanding that PNCC and Old Catholic bishops are the ones who refused to recognize the Pope as infallible after Vat-1. They were summarrily ex-communicated.
That accurately describes the Old Catholic Church of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, which after Vatican I made common cause with the Jansenist/Gallican schismatic diocese of Utrecht in the Netherlands. The Polish National Catholic Church is an American schism resulting from persecution of Polish Catholics around 1900 by the dominant Irish Catholics. Similar ill will towards the "strange" traditions of the Ukranian and Ruthenian Catholics caused the creation of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church in union with Constantinople and Moscow, and the reunion of many Ukranians with the Russian Orthodox.
The Old Catholics and PNCC hold to the Catholic teaching on the priesthood, and have retained the Catholic form of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore, their ordinations are presumed valid.
Wouldn't a hard-core Catholic hold that their succession is therefore null and void?
Yes and no.
Yes, they do have a valid sacramental succession coming down from the Apostles. No, they do not have Apostolic Succession proper, because being cleaved from the Church by heresy, they no longer share the faith of the Apostles. It is an extremely mechanistic view which limits Apostolic Succession to the mere chain of valid Bishops laying on hands.
Real Anglicans do not believe in the supremacy of the Pope, transubstantiation, the veneration of Mary and the intercession of Saints. Real Anglicans have a thorough Protestant theology with a form of worship that resembles that of Roman Catholicism. We are catholics with a small "C".
Our local churches call our own Pastors and they are paid by the local churches. Our budgets are set by our Vestries with the approval of the Congregation. Our Bishops are elected by a conference with half the voters being Lay Delegates and the other half Clergy.
On the other hand, Roman Catholic Laymen have no say in the running of their church.
And also, real Anglicans deplore the pathetic and pitiful situation in the soon to be defunct ECUSA.
The purpose of the 1559 consecration was to have an overseer of the Archdiocese of Canterbury who was in the Church catholic. It is true that there was no intention to consecrate a bishop for and in the Roman Catholic Church. That intention also does not exist in the Russian, Greek and Oriental Churches. If the lack of that intention invalidates the Anglican episcopacy, then should it not also invalidate the Greek episcopacy?
I had an orthodox priest tell me once that Apostolic Succession isn't just ordination genealogy; it's adherence to the Apostolic Faith. When considering a bishop, the primary question should be whether or not he adheres to the Apostolic Faith. For Archbishops Hepworth and Akinola, the answer would be yes. For Spong and Vicki Gene, the answer would be (expletive deleted) no. Obviously something was done right with Hepworth and Akinola, and something went wrong with Spong.
The consecrators of Parker, by using the Cranmerian Ordinal, signified outwardly their intention to do something other than what the Church does in consecrating a Bishop. In their case, they were not intending to hand on powers to offer sacrifice and forgive sins and ordain sacrificing priests. Had they wished to do that, they could have used the restored Ordinal that Cardinal Pole had used under Queen Mary.
St. Thomas notes: "Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament." (Summa, Pt. III, Q 64, Art. 9, ad. 2)
Your very description of what the heretic Barlow and Company were doing, which is certainly faithful to what they intended, makes clear that they were not ordaining a man to the summum sacerdotium as understood by the Catholic Church spread throughout the world. Give Barlow and Co. credit for what they were doing, which was certinly anything but ordaining a man to the Bishopric in the Catholic sense.
That intention also does not exist in the Russian, Greek and Oriental Churches. If the lack of that intention invalidates the Anglican episcopacy, then should it not also invalidate the Greek episcopacy?
You are very confused. The Orthodox certainly intend to make men Bishops with the power to forgive sins, offer the sacrifice of the Mass, and ordain Priests with the same powers. Not only is this explicitly their faith, but it is very cogently expressed in their rites, the same which are used by the Eastern churches in union with the Pope of Rome. Additionally, the Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches as a part of her in rebellion, but not yet completely cut off. The Anglican Church, on the other hand, is a conventicle of heretics, its Anglo-Catholic wing which shares our faith only making this more manifest among the depraved majority.
I had an orthodox priest tell me once that Apostolic Succession isn't just ordination genealogy; it's adherence to the Apostolic Faith.
And to the Apostolic Comunion.
Now we have sliced through the "who ordained whom" discussion and come to the real issues that must be addressed in order for an Anglo-Catholic reunion to work. Those issues tend to evolve mostly around priests. Do priests forgive sins or do they pronounce the Lord's forgiveness of sins? During the Eucharist, does the priest consecrate the elements or does the Holy Spirit consecrate them? During ordination, does the bishop make the postulant a deacon/priest/bishop or does the Holy Spirit do that?
My http://romanliturgy.net site has been moved to http://perso.wanadoo.fr/civitas.dei/
Please update your browser bookmarks.
Fr. Anthony Chadwick
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.