To: jo kus; sionnsar
It would be interesting to discuss why Anglican orders are not valid,
I don't know about this -- I thought they WERE considered valid by the Vatican until recently (when the Anglicans started having women priests).
61 posted on
11/16/2006 8:22:36 AM PST by
Cronos
("Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" - Omar Ahmed, CAIR)
To: Cronos
I don't know about this -- I thought they WERE considered valid by the Vatican until recently (when the Anglicans started having women priests). I am pretty sure they aren't or hadn't been because the King of England appointed bishops of their own liking, something reserved for Rome (at the time). Thus, Rome claims apostolic succession had been broken because of these political appointments (rather than apostolic succession). I know that converts from Anglicanism must go through another ordination if they desire to remain a priest.
Regards
64 posted on
11/16/2006 8:31:06 AM PST by
jo kus
(Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
To: Cronos
No, the determination that they are invalid was made in the 19th century. Newadvent has an article on this under the heading "Anglican" I believe.
-A8
66 posted on
11/16/2006 8:31:42 AM PST by
adiaireton8
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson