JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
But you just claimed the Orthodox don't have the apostolic succession...
I never claimed that. Go back and read again
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Discrimination in the Catholic Church
- Thread starter E. Nato Difficile
- Start date
I never claimed that. Go back and read again
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
Difference between the situation with East and west, and the situation with Anglicans.
And the motivation behind the Anglicans splinting is very questionable, if not completely damnable.
So? Does the character or deeds of a bishop invalidate his ordination or the efficacy of the sacraments he performs?
If so, then you're arguing for Donatism. If not, then you'll have to point to some specific problem with the Anglican sacrament of Holy Orders if you're going to argue that they don't have Apostolic Succession.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Every time I see that word this delicate french cruller comes to mind, and I feel a swell of support for anything donatist.
Mmmmmmmmmm......donats.....uglrghlolghhjulgll!
(I've always had a hard time spelling Homer's expression of delight. Is the "j" before or after the "h"?)
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Read it and weep...Originally Posted by JacobEzra
No other church has Apostolic succession.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Every split is damnable!
Schism is schism. The moral advisability notwithstanding, the archbishop of C. still had a valid line.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I don't think he'd notice one way or the other. Too busy drooling...:drool:
The Edwardine Ordinal.
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
What, did you stop on that page and refused to read the next?
I made special note of the Orthodox.
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
His appointing was not from the Pope. His excommunication was legit.
Though the Orthodox excommunication was legit, they did not break away for selfish reasons.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You said, "No other church."
Unless you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Whose? The Archbishop of Canterbury? What appointment was necessary? When he was consecrated as bishop, it was within the apostolic succession. You can't just magically take that away. "In the line" is "in the line." Period.
The Anglicans didn't break away for selfish reasons, either. They broke away because their Sovereign told them to. Henry may have been selfish, but the bishops were not.
Even if they were, "in the line" is still "in the line."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That doesn't make any difference. They are still in the line of succession.
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
It would have been the job of the Archbishop to refuse Henry. Just like if the American government told the ArchBishops they had to allow something that was against the Church teaching (homosexual marriage; women ordination) they would have to refuse.
The Pope is the head of the church. Not some king.
The act of supremacy sealed their schism.England was removed from the Pope.
Of course hopefully one day they will return to the one true church that has stayed the same. Just like hopefully the whole East will come back and we can be one whole church.
But their ordination is meaningless. The Holy See didn't assaign anyone since Reginald Pole
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
Id also like to point out, that to say it is invalid because of the schism is not donatism. It has nothing to do with moral characteristics, but with schism
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
Apostolic origin does not equal to Apostolic succession nor authority.
Being in schism does not invalidate the sacraments, including ordination, or the Orthodox orders would be invalid too.
Changing the form, however, does do so. That is why their orders are deemed invalid, not because of a characteristic of the men performing the rite, but because they, for a period of time, did not perform valid ordinations. This time was long enough that all of those who had been properly ordained had passed on, and with them apostolic succession.
Changing the form, however, does do so. That is why their orders are deemed invalid, not because of a characteristic of the men performing the rite, but because they, for a period of time, did not perform valid ordinations. This time was long enough that all of those who had been properly ordained had passed on, and with them apostolic succession.
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
Thank you for clarifying that up.