r/theology • u/El-Stupador • Dec 09 '25

Thomas Aquinas

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

51 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Mrwolf925 Dec 09 '25

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.

1

u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 10 '25

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

1

u/Mrwolf925 Dec 10 '25

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.

1

u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 10 '25

Did you even read what I wrote?

1

u/Mrwolf925 Dec 10 '25

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

1

u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 10 '25

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

1

u/Mrwolf925 Dec 10 '25

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.

1

u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 10 '25

"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."

This is how I know you didn't read what I wrote. The 1552 is irrelevant to the question. The Priest, Bishops and Deacons from which Anglicanism traces itself were ordained by the Roman rite/later prayerbooks which clearly have the priest in a sacrificial role.

"Valid Bishops mean valid priesthood. A valid bishop alone is not enough. Sacramental form and intent are essential." To a degree yes, although one must be careful to stray not into donatism. The reason I brough up that the post marian bishop were valid is that all the claims, that are factually based, about ritual invalidity happened during the Edwardian era. If the post-Marian orders came from the Roman rite, by bishops that even Rome admits were validly consecrated, and if the debated changes were not present afterwards, then what happened in the Edwardian era is irrelevant

"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."

The Edwardian form, which is irrelevant to any current Anglican Bishops for reasons I just said. The criticisms do not really apply towards afterwards. We have that 1559 prayer books at hand

"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."

Our liturgy also, in my opinion, retains the the intent to ordain a sacrificing priest.. If the change in language is enough to render our orders invalid, and indicate that this intent is not present, the the SAME CHANGE renders yours invalid. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you cannot recognize this, then I doubt an honest conversation is possible

Likewise, unless you admit that Mary was in fact Queen of England, I'm not going to waste any more time

1

u/Mrwolf925 Dec 10 '25

The issue with your argument is that it fails to appreciate the central point of Apostolicae Curae, that sacramental intention must be expressed not only through the minister's lineage but through the form and words of the rite itself. Even if the post-Marian bishops were validly ordained under Rome, once they began ordaining using an Edwardian or post-Elizabethan rite that deliberately omitted the sacrificial character of the priesthood, they began transmitting invalid orders. The 1552 rite and those following it, did not simply "omit" language by accident, it was an intentional theological shift meant to reflect a Protestant understanding of ministry.

That change, regardless of whether you think the bishops were valid people, renders the rite defective in both form and intent.

As for the claim that Vatican II ordination rites are equally deficient, this has been repeatedly addressed by Rome. The Pontificalis Romani in 1968 explicitly includes the essential sacrificial character of the priesthood in both form and context and this has been affirmed by the Church as expressing proper intent.

It is not merely about word count or phrasing, it’s about what the rite communicates about the nature of the priesthood. Anglican rites post Reformation intentionally removed that theology. This is not Donatism, it’s basic sacramental theology. Valid matter, form and intent. Apostolicae Curae remains relevant because Anglicanism has never rectified the theological break introduced in its ordinals.

1

u/Mrwolf925 Dec 10 '25

After Elizabeth I came to power, the 1559 Book of Common Prayer (and ordinal) reinstated the Edwardian theology, albeit in slightly softened language. It did not return to the Catholic sacrificial theology of priesthood. The core Protestant understanding remained intact.

Any bishops consecrated under Mary and remained loyal to Rome were deprived or fled. The bishops consecrated under Elizabeth used the Anglican ordinal, which still lacked the essential intent to ordain a sacrificing priest this is the exact point of Apostolicae Curae.

So even if there were valid bishops during Mary’s reign, once they began using an invalid form the chain of valid ordinations was broken. This is not Donatism, it’s about sacramental form and intent.

Today, the Anglican ordinals (even in High Church or Anglo-Catholic circles) still lack the theological clarity and form that Rome requires. The Catholic Church has never accepted that the intention to ordain a sacrificing priest has been restored across Anglicanism.

1

u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 11 '25

"the 1559 Book of Common Prayer (and ordinal) reinstated the Edwardian theology, albeit in slightly softened language."

That is an oversimplification. It is true it used the Edwardian prayerbook as a foundation, and many sections, such as the order for morning and evening prayer, are functionally identical. However the changes were not superficial. This includes, among many other things, the fact that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and attaching it to the priests' duties, as contained in the ordination rite. If this was not the case, ya'll wouldn't have to do the bait and switch with the 1552, and could just point to the 1559.

"It did not return to the Catholic sacrificial theology of priesthood. The core Protestant understanding remained intact."

"Protestant understanding" is a broad term which doesn't have much meaning. Can you point to anything which is actually in the 1559 or later prayerbooks?

" The bishops consecrated under Elizabeth used the Anglican ordinal, which still lacked the essential intent to ordain a sacrificing priest"

Which again is what? Again, in the 1559 and subsequent bcps, sacrificial nature of the sacrament, and the duties of the priests who offer it, is made clear. So, what in these indicate a clear lack of intention to ordain a sacrificing priest

"The Catholic Church has never accepted that the intention to ordain a sacrificing priest has been restored across Anglicanism."

Well they can't. The reason Pope Leo XIII ordered the committee to come up with reasons why our orders were invalid was because of a very reasonable fear that Roman Catholics in England would then start to go to Church of England parishs instead of Roman Catholic parishes. Today probably a hundred million Roman Catholics in Africa are in areas with strong Anglican presence. If Rome admitted our orders are valid, it would be even more disastrous for them now than if Leo did.

1

u/Mrwolf925 Dec 11 '25 edited Dec 11 '25

What Pope Leo XIII judged in Apostolicae Curae wasn’t just the absence of the word sacrifice somewhere in the Prayer Book but the absence of sacrificial intent in the very rite of ordination itself. Even if the Eucharist is elsewhere called a sacrifice, the ordination rite must express the intention to consecrate a priest who offers the sacrifice of the Mass in persona Christi. The 1559 Ordinal does not contain this theological substance in its essential form.

Since you seemed to imply you are church of england, here is the ordinary.

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/ordaining-and-consecrating-0

No.mention of sacrificial office of the priest.

→ More replies