OT: Apostolic Succession (was Re: making money from Java)

There was already an OT: Religion started elsewhere, so I decided to be
more
specifid.

Bottom posting also:

"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:406of.110903$ki.54011@pd7tw2no...
> Can we do Bill a favour, and at his request switch this to an "OT" ?
> Having personally started "Making Money from Java" - all I got was (1)
> from Donald - Sun Microsystems sue the rest of the world and (2) some
> useful URLs from Stephen Gennard :-)
>
> Now a bottom posting :-
>
> Chuck Stevens wrote: 
>
> Yep I recognize Chuck's word 'begrudgingly' - depends who taught him.
>
> So the priesthood in Catholicism, "Once a priest always a priest". A
> seminarian studies and as a deacon in due course will prostrate himself in
> front of an altar before a bishop. The ritual involves the 'laying of
> hands' or passing on of the Holy Spirit - the deacon is now a consecrated
> priest.
>
> The Seven Sacraments, (of Catholicism) are Baptism, Penance/Confession,
> Holy Eucharist/Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders and Extreme
> Unction; the latter being a ritual of anointing a dying person with oils -
> which you sometimes see in war movies where a chaplain is praying with a
> dying soldier. Priesthood comes in as #6, Holy Orders.
>
> So back to Chuck's comments - and let's just stick with Merrie Old Tudor
> England. The hierarchy, bishops, priests etc., were all ordained Catholic
> priests. So when there was the split with Rome and Thomas Cranmer was made
> Archbishop of Canterbury he automatically qualified as being an ordained
> Catholic priest - "Once a priest, always a priest". Therefore he was able
> to logically pass on the priesthood to fellow Protestants.
>
> The idea didn't sit well with a lot of catholic clergy, nor for that
> matter some of the Anglican clergy. However today any open-minded catholic
> theologian would admit to the principle. Similarly, many knowledgeable
> Anglican clerics are aware of the same loophole.
>
> Jimmy

My recollection is that a *priest* is allowed to perform all the
sacraments
*except Holy Orders*.  That one requires a *bishop*.

Cranmer was ordained a priest; it's not clear that he was in the
meantime
ordained a *bishop*.  Whether his subsequent ordinations as Archbishop
of
Canterbury are meaningful or not depends on whether a "real" bishop
ordained
him *as a bishop* (if not before, then at Canterbury).  It is only
after the
officiant's ordination *as bishop* that the Church holds the
ordinations he
performs as valid.

Since the Roman Catholic Church *does* appear to accept that the
Apostolic
Succession has been maintained in the Church of England, my guess is
that
they're satisfied that he was indeed ordained *as a bishop* by a "real"

bishop.

-Chuck Stevens

charles.stevens@unisys.com wrote:

Bottom Post :

> There was already an OT: Religion started elsewhere, so I decided to be
> more
> specifid.
> 
>
>
> My recollection is that a *priest* is allowed to perform all the
> sacraments
> *except Holy Orders*.  That one requires a *bishop*.
>
> Cranmer was ordained a priest; it's not clear that he was in the
> meantime
> ordained a *bishop*.  Whether his subsequent ordinations as Archbishop
> of
> Canterbury are meaningful or not depends on whether a "real" bishop
> ordained
> him *as a bishop* (if not before, then at Canterbury).  It is only
> after the
> officiant's ordination *as bishop* that the Church holds the
> ordinations he
> performs as valid.
>
> Since the Roman Catholic Church *does* appear to accept that the
> Apostolic
> Succession has been maintained in the Church of England, my guess is
> that
> they're satisfied that he was indeed ordained *as a bishop* by a "real"
>
> bishop.

I think we can shortcut this one by using logical progression. During
that Tudor period there must have been upwards of 20 - 50 bishops based
on cathedral cities in England and Wales. Each of those bishops was
already a Catholic priest and a Catholic bishop. Regardless of Henry's
Act of Supremacy they still had their sacramental 'powers'. (Being
sacramental the 'gift' cannot be removed, just like 'once a Priest
always a Priest', once Holy Orders have been obtained). In unison these
bishops could appoint one of their number to perform the ritual
consecration of Cranmer.

Goes to some length, but one of your favourite references, the Catholic
Encyclopedia appears to support this :-

"......Episcopal jurisdiction is acquired by the act of election and
confirmation or by definite appointment, whilst the fullness of the
priestly power itself is obtained in consecration, as the completion of
hierarchical orders. Formerly the consecration of a suffragan bishop was
performed jure communi by the metropolitan of the province, who could
delegate another bishop. An archbishop was consecrated by one of his
suffragans, the senior being usually selected. If the bishop-elect was
not a suffragan of any ecclesiastical province, the nearest bishop
performed the ceremony. ..........."

The introductory part acknowledges consecration by the Egyptians and
other pagan religions. Yet once again, looking back, it makes reference
to consecration under Hebrew Law and the Temple in Jerusalem.

Jimmy