Convert historian Michael Davies speaking on Anglican orders & their validity from the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. For more please visit www.keepthefait...
In Davies book, “The Order of Melchisedech” he gives step by step examples and proof about the Anglican orders being null and void of confecting true priestly ordinations for the priesthood. Then Davies goes into explaining how the post Vatican II ordinations are severely compromised and doubtful, with key phrases and sacred words being purposely dropped or omitted; yet without out-and-out telling us that the (new rite of ordination) has a serious chance of being invalid. Davies nullifies his excellent point with examples by refusing to tie it together at the end or just say it. He chickens out out of political correctness or fear.
Correct. Antipope Paul VI’s 1968 new rite of ordination was most definitely invalid. Along with the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae. It was all a plot by the Devil to take away the true priesthood and true mass from most of the world.
He’s mistaken on one point: when the Old Catholic bishops took part in the consecrations, they did it separately from the Anglican bishop(s) and using their own form (the same as it always had been and acceptable to Rome) in Latin.
The Anglican ministry is both the leadership and agency of Christian service in the Anglican Communion. "Ministry" commonly refers to the office of ordained clergy: the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons. More accurately, Anglican ministry includes many laypeople who devote themselves to the ministry of the church. Ultimately, all baptized members of the church are considered to partake in the ministry of the Body of Christ. " ... [I]t might be useful if Anglicans dropped the word minister when referring to the clergy... In our tradition, ordained persons are either bishops, priests, or deacons, and should be referred to as such." Each of the provinces of the Anglican Communion has a high degree of independence from the other provinces, and each of them have slightly different structures for ministry, mission and governance. However, personal leadership is always vested in a member of the clergy (a bishop at provincial and diocesan levels, and a priest at parish level) and consensus derived by synodical government. At different levels of the church's structure, laity, clergy and bishops meet together with prayer to deliberate over church governance. These gatherings are variously called conferences, synods, convocations, councils, chapters and vestries.
Orders can only happen in the one true apostolic church. Outside the church, there are no sacraments. So, all this fuzzy speculation about the validity of schismatic orders is a waste of time. The Orthodox church didn't even accept Rome as a church, so it didn't accept any of their orders or sacraments. Sadly, that changed in the last century due to modernist influences in Orthodoxy.
Orthodox priests are valid and all sacraments are valid but they are in schism becuase they do not believe the authority of the Pope...papal primacy...there are Orrhodox Catholics in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
@@thereselastname9197 because Papal Supremacy didn’t exist in the first 800 years of Christianity. There is no bishop of bishops. Christ alone is head of the Church.
Not entirely true. Few Orthodox ever ordained anew RC clergy and before the the 1930’s Anglican clergy whenever they converted to Orthodoxy. They were incardinated and received by Chrismation. Oikonomia.
You miss the whole point, and you call others “ignorant”. Not only are you willfully “ignorant”, you’re a bigot and you’re in denial! Christ ascended and left a governing authority for His flock. That was St Peter and the Apostles. Man, dude, you’re warped. You’re all over the place on here. You trying to convince us or yourself?...
I've been ever religion Catholic and Baptist for over 40ys Seven day Adventists church of Christ, God Mormon Methodist Jehovah witness protestant even China church of ALMIGHTY God none compares to the Anglican Church at least my providence church I've even been through all bible studies but what I've learn most is that all Christians have forgotten John 17 the prayer Jesus prayed to The FATHER In Jesus HOLY Name HALLELUYAH AMEN!
You sound VERY confused if what you said is true.There is only ONE Church and that is the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ Himself established in 33 A.D.
If you do not have One Pope you have to many. Pope Luther. Pope Henry 8. Pope Calvin. Pope John Smyth. 40 thousand popes different names of churches and founders.
Only if by a properly ordained bishop. But a Catholic Bishop would not ordain an Anglican Priest. However, the old Sarum Pontifical could in theory be brought back into use in England to ordain Catholic priests, if permitted by the Catholic Church.
You can not have version of churches: Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Protestant. No Eunuchs - New Wine - Earthly Church that belong to apostles. and Children of Abraham and Sarah - Old Wine - The Promise. Luke 22:29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, Luke 5:39 39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’” You see because the rules do not apply to children of mother Sarah same as the earthly church which are heavier. Romans 4:4 Paul was a servant and He stood with the church. However he will revive a share of gentiles those who beloved the message. But No baptism there. Baptism belongs to the church. Matthew 18:17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
YOU would have to be a member of a Christian denomination yourself.Whatever church you attend is of some denomination.even the supposed 'Non-denominational" churches are off-springs of some denomination.Most of those are in the Baptist tradition.
Richard Sells AZ Why Christ ordered Eunuchs if parents can baptize their own children. You can call on Jesus and believe the message and be saved but in order to produce a holy child you need a proper seed of baptism provided by eunuch in the place of their brother Jesus that became my father. Otherwise you just another child of Hagar child of slavery that God sentenced the entire world under her. Acts 19 3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
The idea of one church declaring the orders of another church “null and void” is arrogant nonsense. God does not play games with the salvation of millions of His children.
@@jacob6515 if it was God's Church it wouldn't be wrong all the time. The Bull declaring Anglican orders was proved wrong on many occasions, and in any case the material circumstances have changed since anglicans have recieved orders from churches thsat the Roman church considers to be valid anyway
@@frogleg10 I suggest you take a nice look into history my friend. Jesus Christ founded only one Church and it's only the . Holy Roman Catholic Church which outside of her there's no salvation
200 Years had passed and 14 popes prior to Leo XIII did not make that declaration. It was not "ex cathedra" when the pope made it. The pope committed the heresy of *donatism.* When the Apostles ordained the first episkopos, they _did not do what the church has always done._ All that is needed is a validly ordained bishop and priest laying hands on the ordinands head with the intent being that he is to be a priest and the HOLY SPIRIT does the work. Lest we forget, the first Anglican Bishops were, in fact, validly ordained by the Roman Catholic church. The HOLY SPIRIT, not the pope, ordains priests and bishops.
What a bunch of arrogant crap, the idea of one church declaring the orders of another church null and void. With the ordination of women and especially the elevation of women to the episcopate has rendered them null and void according to St. Paul.
FWIW their orders aren't null and void just because the Church declared them so. The Church declared them so because they were *already* null and void.
A question, for one arrogant enough to contradict the Church without any research: Can you baptize someone with the wrong words? Or would you baptize someone again who was "baptized" with the formula: I dunk you in water in the name of the Trinity?
