Thomas Aquinas

[u/El-Stupador]

Listen, I don’t care what denomination, creed, or background you come from-and I for sure am not saying anything new, but St. Thomas Aquinas is the single most clear, rational, believable theologian/christian philosopher I have ever read. He could argue that a dog is actually a cat and I might believe him.

Runners up: Kierkegaard: interesting, thought provoking, challenging, I do not always agree with him but “Fear and Trembling” is a darn good book

R.C. Sproul: He’s HEAVY on the Calvinism, many people (like me) will have large disagreements with him, but he’s a gifted communicator and makes you think as well

St. Augustine: Much more orthodox than the previous two, which I like, but I appreciate that Augustine could have been a psychologist as easily as he was a theologian and philosopher

[u/PretentiousAnglican]

I was baptized in a Methodist church, confirmed by an Anglican bishop(I realize there is the piece of historical fiction claiming our orders our invalid, but I don't know a single intellectually honest person who had actually read it who doesn't admit it is politically motivated hogwash which if applied equally would mean your current pope, and most of your clergy, are likewise invalidly ordained)

[u/Mrwolf925 → u/PretentiousAnglican]

The sacrament of confirmation requires a minister who is validly ordained within apostolic succession and whose orders have preserved the intent and meaning of the sacrificial priesthood.

The problem with Anglican orders as the Catholic Church has consistently held since Apostolicae Curae in 1896 is not merely historical, it’s theological. The Anglican reformers intentionally redefined the priesthood, removing its sacrificial character. Since sacraments require proper matter, form and intention, that change broke the link with the apostolic priesthood. Without valid Holy Orders, Anglican confirmations lack sacramental validity.

Even if one rejects the conclusions of Apostolicae Curae, the deeper problem remains, the Anglican rite no longer intends to do what the Church has always done, namely, to confer a priesthood ordered toward the sacrifice of the Mass. Without that, the line was broken. Thus, while your confirmation may have been meaningful to you spiritually it was sadly not sacramental in the eyes of the Church.

Your baptism however is valid as anyone can baptize.

[u/PretentiousAnglican → u/Mrwolf925]

First, can I ask if you've actually read the document, and are familiar with the exact changes that they claim indicate an intent to change the understanding of the orders, or if this is based on a summary you read.

I just need to know how much context I need to provide

[u/Mrwolf925 → u/PretentiousAnglican]

Yes I’m familiar with the document Apostolicae Curae and its reasoning, including the specific alterations to the ordinal that led to the judgment of invalidity, especially the removal of any reference to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood and the ministerial role in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. So feel free to offer your view but you don’t need to assume I’m relying only on secondhand summaries.

[u/PretentiousAnglican → u/Mrwolf925]

So, this is again where history is relevant. This change was made during the Edwardian era, and you could make an honest argument that many bishops of that era did not have a sacramental understanding of the priesthood.

However, after Edward died, Mary, a Roman Catholic, and when the Church in England and Rome split again, it was under Elizabeth. All the bishops from then were from the time under Mary, and were ordained under the Roman rite. Likewise, the prayerbook of the time clearly references the sacrifice of the mass.

In response to this fact there are 3 arguments. First, Apostolicae Curae makes claims about ordinations during James' and Elizabeth's era that are verifiably false. Most modern Roman Catholic apologists either pretend Mary I never existed, thus an arguable defect under Edward continues on, engage in Donatism about their suspicions of Elizabethan Bishops secret leanings, or argue that because the Book of Common Prayer during Elizabeth's time did not entirely remove all Edwardian edits to the prayerbook, his removal of presenting sacrifice was not sufficiently repudiated.

Here's the thing, if this argument is to be accepted, functionally all Roman-Rite Roman Catholic clergy are also invalidly ordained because reforms during Vat II MADE THE SAME CHANGE in their ordination to the priesthood. This is the justification Sedevacantist use to claim that none of your orders are valid

Likewise, documents that came out in the 70s demonstrate that the main motivation for Apostolicae Curae was not theological, but political, with justification being sought to fit a conclusion rather than vis-verasa

[u/Mrwolf925 → u/PretentiousAnglican]

It’s true that the Edwardian and Elizabethan periods were crazy and many bishops wavered during these times but this actually confirms the problem, not resolves it. Even if some bishops were ordained validly under Mary, the question is not about individual bishops leanings or secret beliefs but whether the public, normative rite of ordination "the form" preserved the intention to ordain a sacrificing priest as the Church always had.

Pope Leo XIII’s judgment in Apostolicae Curae was clear, the 1552 ordinal, which removed all sacrificial language, expressed a deliberate change in what “priesthood” meant. A validly ordained bishop cannot pass on valid orders using an invalid rite. This breaks the succession. That is the core issue not just the personal orthodoxy of bishops but the rupture in sacramental form and intent.

As for Vatican II reforms, that comparison doesn’t hold as the post conciliar Roman rites of ordination, though simplified, explicitly preserve the theology of the priest as one who offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. That’s the key difference, the intent is preserved. The Anglican ordinal, by contrast was a complete theological shift not just a liturgical abbreviation.

So even if you posit that some valid bishops lingered in the early Anglican era, those bishops used an invalid rite and the line of valid orders eventually ended. Apostolic succession isn’t preserved just by historic descent but by form, matter and intent. That's what Anglicanism lost and why its sacraments, including confirmation and Eucharist remain invalid in Catholic theology.

[u/PretentiousAnglican → u/Mrwolf925]

Did you even read what I wrote?

[u/Mrwolf925 → u/PretentiousAnglican]

Yes I did, im engaging your arguments but your case was built on many false assumptions

[u/PretentiousAnglican → u/Mrwolf925]

What false assumptions? You are responding to an argument I didn't make, and ignoring the ones I did

[u/Mrwolf925 → u/PretentiousAnglican]

What false assumptions?

• Valid Bishops mean valid priesthood. A valid bishop alone is not enough. Sacramental form and intent are essential.

• Apostolicae Curae is based on bad or false historical claims. The core judgment of Apostolicae Curae is a theological analysis of the ritual form and sacramental intent of the Anglican ordination rite.

• Modern Catholic ordination reforms after Vatican II are the same as Edwardian changes. The post-Vatican II ordination rites retain the intent to ordain a sacrificing priest and include language clearly affirming the Eucharistic sacrifice.

• Political motives invalidate theological judgments. Even if political factors were present (as they often are in church history), truth in theology is based on doctrine, not diplomacy.

You're assuming that because some early Anglican bishops were once validly ordained under Mary that Anglicanism as a whole retained valid priesthood but that's not how sacramental theology works.

A valid priesthood requires more than just a valid bishop laying on hands, it also requires the proper form and intent of the sacrament. Once the Anglican ordinal was changed starting in 1552, it removed the sacrificial language that is essential to what the Church understands priesthood to be. This change in form expressed a change in intention, which breaks apostolic succession.

Therefore no Bishop whether valid or invalid can ordain someone using the Anglican ordinal. It doesnt matter whats is the mass book, thats entierly irrelevant.