About Anglican orders

[William1]

After the ordainations with the old Catholics. Anglican priests can show their orders are valid.Why do Catholics still hold them invalid?

 

[GKMotley]

Specifically, there has been no official statement I know of on the subject. Theoretically, according to Ott (P. 454) they would possess valid/illicit orders. Assuming that all factors bearing on the sacrament were also valid. This, in the case of much of the Anglican Communion, has not been so for years.

The subject, in general, has been one of my interests for 20+ years. Must have posted on it 400-500 times (IIRC) on the old board.

 

[HopkinsReb]

After the ordainations with the old Catholics. Anglican priests can show their orders are valid.Why do Catholics still hold them invalid?

Has to do with the rites themselves, not the actual linear apostolic succession.

It’s an area I’ll be researching soon. I’m sure Apostolicae Curae will be over my head at first, but I reckon eventually I’ll figure out what’s going on.

Case in point: I initially misspelled “Apostolicae Curae.”

 

[GKMotley]

Consult me for guidance. It had to do with an intertwined judgement on the sacramental form and intent, the form being that of the Edwardine Ordinal, as of 1559. Start by finding Fr. J. J. Hughes/ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD, the two best books on what happened and what it all meant that I know of. Also consult (then Jesuit Father) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, a noble Roman effort.

It is a long, complicated, and sad story, involving history, personalities, politics and theology.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Consult me for guidance.

At this point, that seems like a pretty smart idea in general.

Start by finding Fr. J. J. Hughes/ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD, the two best books on what happened and what it all meant that I know of. Also consult (then Jesuit Father) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, a noble Roman effort.

Added to the list.

It is a long, complicated, and sad story, involving history, personalities, politics and theology.

Isn’t it all?

 

[GKMotley]

Yes.This is even more so.

 

[Thom18]

After the ordainations with the old Catholics. Anglican priests can show their orders are valid.Why do Catholics still hold them invalid?

You’ll need to provide more info. What “ordinations with the old Catholics” are you talking about?

 

[PickyPicky]

Anglicans and Old Catholics began joint consecration of bishops following the 1931 Bonn Agreement.

 

[GKMotley]

And with the PNCC/TEC in 1946.This latter arrangement ended when TEC started trying to ordain/consecrate non-valid subjects.

 

[William1]

There’s a Church of Enland bishop that became a Catholic He proved there were Old Catholic bishops at his ordaination .He didn’t have to be reordained, They say it is true about most Anglican priests can now prove it.

 

[Rob2]

There’s a Church of Enland bishop that became a Catholic

That was Bishop Graham Leonard who was conditionally ordained a Catholic priest .

Msgr. Graham Leonard: Former Anglican Bishop Becomes Catholic - The Coming Home Network

 

[GKMotley]

That was Graham Leonard, one time Anglican Bishop of London (# 3 in the CoE hierarchy). It was indeed rumored that his OC lines were a factor in being ordained sub conditione (he was not accepted in his orders), and he suggested as much.

Similar things were said, years before, about former Anglican priest, Father J. J. Hughes, author of the two books I recommended above, the only other Anglican cleric known to have become a RC priest sub conditione, and the same rumors circulated.

Not considering the issue of non-valid subjects now functioning as bishops in the Anglican world, it would indeed be more difficult to find Anglican clergy not touched by OC/PNCC episcopal lines, through derivation, than otherwise.

Sorry for the brevity. My internet connection is lousy.

 

[GKMotley]

Yes. My lousy connections caused a delay.

There were several other COE bishops who came in with Anglicanorum Coetibus, for the same reason, but who were ordained absolutely.

Connection is getting worse.

 

[GKMotley]

Delete this duplicate post. I either get nothing, or duplications.

 

[PickyPicky]

That was Graham Leonard, one time Anglican Bishop of London (# 3 in the CoE hierarchy). It was indeed rumored that his OC lines were a factor in being ordained sub conditione (he was not accepted in his orders), and he suggested as much

And indeed this was confirmed as I understand it by the then Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the much admired Basil Hume:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LEONARD.TXT

 

[GKMotley]

So I have read, also. Will now bookmark the reference.

And, IIRC, Fr. Hughes asserts the probability, in his case, in his autobio, which I haven’t gone over there to the bookcase to find.

Lousy connections.

 

[dochawk]

After the ordainations with the old Catholics. Anglican priests can show their orders are valid.Why do Catholics still hold them invalid?

No, “Anglican priests” as a group cannot show that.

Some individual anglican priests can show that they received “the Dutch touch” from an Old Catholic bishop (back when they still had valid orders; they have since decided to attempt ordination of women).

But those validly ordained priests aren’t “contagious” or any such thing, and it doesn’t spread to the others.

hawk

 

[Vico]

After the ordainations with the old Catholics. Anglican priests can show their orders are valid.Why do Catholics still hold them invalid?

There has to be an acceptance of what the Catholic Church teaches for Holy Orders for it to be valid. I read that Anglicans only hold Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments. Since the time of King Edward VI, Anglican holy orders are not understood in the Catholic Church sense, so they are invalid.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-...i_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem.html

 

[GKMotley]

No, that’s not the issue. Under the Agreement of Bonn, 1931, what began was joint episcopal consecrations - bishops, not individual priests - between CoE bishops and OC/Utrecht bishops. You can find a list of these joint consecrations, between 1932 and1964 in Appendix II of Hughes’ book STEWARDS OF THE LORD, mentioned above, along with a brief description of how this came about, and a similar list of joint consecrations between the Episcopal Church and the PNCC, starting in 1946. More info can be found in Fr. C. B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, but I can’t lay hands on my copy for a more detailed citation. Too many books around here

Point here: the issue of the Dutch Touch was one of episcopal consecrations. Not individual priests. And if such bishops (as some folks maintain) imparted valid/illicit orders to the CoE bishops, those bishops passed them on in the course of their own episcopal functions, both to other CoE bishops and to any priest ordained. But it’s the bishops that matter. And likewise for those originating from the TEC/PNCC joint consecrations. Until that was ended by the TEC’s strange ideas on proper subjects for orders. in the 80s. The PNCC is still friendly to certain orthodox Anglicans, such as those in the Continuum.

The subject (the sad tale of Apostolicae Curae, whence came it and and what followed there after) has been a hobby of mine for over 20 years. Hundreds of posts, covering a lot of territory, in those years. This point is one of the more common errors about it. There are many such.

In the long run, since Anglicans don’t accept the conclusions of Apostolicae Curae, it matters little. But I like history, in certain spots. What happened and why. And certainly, no one sitting at my computer is expecting anything to change, re: what Leo XIII signed, nor that any RC should do anything but accept it, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. That’s what I always suggest they do.

I’m going to post this before my computer eats it, as it has tried to do already.

 

[GKMotley]

That is not quite the gist of the judgement in Apostolicae Curae, which involves an intertwined issue of the form of the Edwardine ordinal and the intention of those who used it, at the consecration of Archbishop Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1559. But, excepting the mention of those sacraments, it’s close. The link to what looks like maybe (then Cardinal) Ratzinger’s Commentary to Ad Tuendam Fidem (?) is appropriate, I often mention it. I suggest Hughes’ two books and the addition of Clark’s book, all mentioned above, for more insight. It’s late and I’m tired.