Anglican Apostolic succession


#1

I believe that the Church does not believe tha the Anglicans have apostolic succession. In a post I was reading another member countered that by saying, Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury was installed by the Pope and the line has continued to Rowan Williams.

Basically my question is, when did their apostolic succession end? Is it simply because of them breaking away from the Church, or is it because we do not consider their ordinations valid?

Any insight/Information you guys have on the subject would be great.

Thanks,
Andrew.


#2

[quote=ak29]I believe that the Church does not believe tha the Anglicans have apostolic succession. In a post I was reading another member countered that by saying, Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury was installed by the Pope and the line has continued to Rowan Williams.

Basically my question is, when did their apostolic succession end? Is it simply because of them breaking away from the Church, or is it because we do not consider their ordinations valid?

Any insight/Information you guys have on the subject would be great.

Thanks,
Andrew.
[/quote]

During the reign of Edward VI, when the ordinal was changed to reflect a more protestant viewpoint. It left out things thought by the Church to essential in the consecration of a bishop. At least this is what I’ve read.


#3

So Anglican ordinations were not considered invalid outright starting with King Henry the XIII, rather when they changed the formula? This is when their apostolic succession ended?

Thanks
Andrew


#4

[quote=ak29]So Anglican ordinations were not considered invalid outright starting with King Henry the XIII, rather when they changed the formula? This is when their apostolic succession ended?
[/quote]

Correct. It was the ordination of Mathew Parker in 1559, done with a defect in form (and an underlying defect in intent) that invalidated Anglican Orders. It wasn’t Henry’s break that did it - Anglican Orders were still valid under Henry VIII (who died in 1547). The break occured during Elizabeth I’s reign (not Edward VI, as JKirk suggested). Parker was Elizabeth’s choice for the post from the moment she assumed the throne (though Parker didn’t want the job).

Oh, and it’s not a question of Apostolic Succession. There’s no question that Parker’s consecrators (all four of them, if I’m not mistaken) were themselves in valid Succession, so Parker’s ordination was 100% genuine Apostolic. But that’s not the same thing as Sacramental. Anglicans sometimes loose sight of this perspective (as did I when I was Anglican). A valid Sacrament must have FIVE valid components (and not one less): Minister, Subject, Matter, Form, and Intent. The first component (Minister) was fine - Parker had valid consecrators (Apostolic Bishops). But other requirements were lacking.


#5

[quote=DavidFilmer]Correct. It was the ordination of Mathew Parker in 1559, done with a defect in form (and an underlying defect in intent) that invalidated Anglican Orders. It wasn’t Henry’s break that did it - Anglican Orders were still valid under Henry VIII (who died in 1547). The break occured during Elizabeth I’s reign (not Edward VI, as JKirk suggested). Parker was Elizabeth’s choice for the post from the moment she assumed the throne (though Parker didn’t want the job).

Oh, and it’s not a question of Apostolic Succession. There’s no question that Parker’s consecrators (all four of them, if I’m not mistaken) were themselves in valid Succession, so Parker’s ordination was 100% genuine Apostolic. But that’s not the same thing as Sacramental. Anglicans sometimes loose sight of this perspective (as did I when I was Anglican). A valid Sacrament must have FIVE valid components (and not one less): Minister, Subject, Matter, Form, and Intent. The first component (Minister) was fine - Parker had valid consecrators (Apostolic Bishops). But other requirements were lacking.
[/quote]

He’s right. But David, the ordinal was written by the English reformers under Edward VI, right? Prior to that, they had used the same one as the Church.


#6

Thanks for the help guys, it really cleared it up for me.


#7

[quote=DavidFilmer]There’s no question that Parker’s consecrators (all four of them, if I’m not mistaken) were themselves in valid Succession, so Parker’s ordination was 100% genuine Apostolic.
[/quote]

My understanding is that Leo XIII did raise some questions about just who consecrated Parker and whether they were themselves consecrated. I think you may be right that Anglicans have since answered those objections successfully. But at least originally, that issue did play a role as well. I’m sure GKC would have something to say about this . . . .

Edwin


#8

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.