Anglican bishops re-ordained by Orthodox bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gene_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gene_C

Guest
Hi all,

I heard Fr. Benedict Groeschel say that there are some Anglican bishops who have valid ordination because after Pope Pius ??? issued the edict saying that Anglican orders were not valid, a bunch of Anglican bishops went out and got themselves re-ordained by Orthodox bishops. (At least, that is the way I heard it.)

I have high respect for Fr. Groeschel so I assume what he says is true. Can anyone fill me in on this? (I did a quick search on the Net and couldn’t find much, other than that the Orthodox DO consider Anglicans to have valid orders.)

So here is my questions:

1 - If this is true, does this mean that there are Anglican bishops and priests who can grant absolution and celebrate a valid Eucharist (as well as the other sacraments)?

2 - Are there any other bishops and priests, other than Catholic and Orthodox and these Anglicans, who have valid orders? (Old Catholic, etc.)

3 - What does it mean when an ordination is valid but illicit?

Thanks,
Gene
 
  1. yes, so long as they obey proper matter and form as well. though im not sure if confession holds becuse a priest needs faculties to do that (bishop needs to OK his hearing of confessions)
  2. Yup, but its gravely illicit
  3. It means the man is a priest or bishop, but went about getting the sacrament the wrong way (that is in disobediece to Rome and canon law or the eastern rite canons)
 
Just a technical point: The possibility that Anglican bishops were ordained by ORTHODOX bishops is HIGHLY unlikely. I believe that in the Orthodox Church, such an action is forbidden (though I’m sure someone else can provide more details). What has happened though has been the participation of Old Catholic bishops in Anglican ordinations.
 
While some Anglican priests and bishops “might” have been validly ordained by “Old Catholic” bishops, they are still illicit-thus even though they are technically priests and bishops and carry Apostolic Succession it really doesn’t avail to anything because they are in schism.

What I find funny about the whole deal is that why would they care what Pope Leo XIII (he was the one who made the point that the Anglicans generally speaking DO NOT have valid ordinations) if they broke away from Rome in the first place. Why should they care if Rome says no to the validity of ordinations if they are really committed to the whole protestant thing? Seems to me they want to be legit, but don’t want to “subject” themselves to Rome. How sad is that. 😦
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
While some Anglican priests and bishops “might” have been validly ordained by “Old Catholic” bishops, they are still illicit-thus even though they are technically priests and bishops and carry Apostolic Succession it really doesn’t avail to anything because they are in schism.

What I find funny about the whole deal is that why would they care what Pope Leo XIII (he was the one who made the point that the Anglicans generally speaking DO NOT have valid ordinations) if they broke away from Rome in the first place. Why should they care if Rome says no to the validity of ordinations if they are really committed to the whole protestant thing? Seems to me they want to be legit, but don’t want to “subject” themselves to Rome. How sad is that. 😦
Click to expand...

Read “Saepius Officio” (an Anglican reply to “Apostolicae Curae”) and you will be part of the way to getting an answer.​

It can be found on this page, some way down. ##
 
Thanks for the link. I’ll have to fully read over it, but from what I have gathered so far-the Anglicans think they are “legit” and the Pope is mistaken. The Pope thinks they aren’t “legit” because of the Edwardian Ordinal and since that made their ordinations invalid, any change coming later won’t “re-validate” them.

With this in mind, why would an Anglican be ordained by an “Old Catholic”? Unless they are of the three way camp that thinks there are three legit “branches” of the Catholic Church (the Roman, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican) and figure they can be ordained by a valid bishop because he’s valid and they’re valid so its all good.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
Thanks for the link. I’ll have to fully read over it, but from what I have gathered so far-the Anglicans think they are “legit” and the Pope is mistaken. The Pope thinks they aren’t “legit” because of the Edwardian Ordinal and since that made their ordinations invalid, any change coming later won’t “re-validate” them.

With this in mind, why would an Anglican be ordained by an “Old Catholic”? Unless they are of the three way camp that thinks there are three legit “branches” of the Catholic Church (the Roman, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican) and figure they can be ordained by a valid bishop because he’s valid and they’re valid so its all good.
Click to expand...
Sort of, yes. The Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics/PNCC have been in communion with each other, and mutually participated in episcopal consecrations, since the 1930s.

And after reading* Saepius Officio*, try and find 2 books by RC Father John J. Hughes, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. Best presentation I know of of the Anglican case against* Apostolicae Curae *. As (the then Jesuit Father) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best presentation of the RCC case.

I don’t think anyone can cite a case of Orthodox participation in Anglican consecrations, by the way.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Hi all,

Thanks for the participation so far.

Gottle’s link revealed the following paragraph on Orthodox participation in Anglican consecrations:
  1. Greek Orthodox
    There have been at least four Anglican consecrations at which bishops of the Patriarchate of Constatinople assisted, and succession from at least three of them can be traced today. The first such bishop was LYCURGUS, Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, who on the 2nd February 1870 assisted John Jackson, Bishop of London, at the consecration of Henry Mackenzie as Bishop of Nottingham, who on the 25th April 1877 assisted Archbishop Tait at the consecration of Edward White Benson as Bishop of Truro (see main list).
Is there any significant meaning to this?

Also, I am confused on this issue. Rome does not recognize Anglican orders as valid, but the Orthodox do. Rome recognized Orthodox orders as valid. So if a valid Orthodox bishop participated in an Anglican ordination, wouldn’t that make it “valid”?

Thanks,
Gene
 
Gene C.:
Hi all,

Thanks for the participation so far.

Gottle’s link revealed the following paragraph on Orthodox participation in Anglican consecrations:
  1. Greek Orthodox
    There have been at least four Anglican consecrations at which bishops of the Patriarchate of Constatinople assisted, and succession from at least three of them can be traced today. The first such bishop was LYCURGUS, Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, who on the 2nd February 1870 assisted John Jackson, Bishop of London, at the consecration of Henry Mackenzie as Bishop of Nottingham, who on the 25th April 1877 assisted Archbishop Tait at the consecration of Edward White Benson as Bishop of Truro (see main list).
Click to expand...
Thank you and Gottle, for that info. If it holds up as historically valid, it’s very interesting. Some of my Orthodox acquaintances have said there was none such. What I thought I knew of orthodox opinions of both Alican and Roman orders would have supported that.
Is there any significant meaning to this?
Click to expand...
For Rome, I doubt it. Benson eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury, so his touch got around.
Also, I am confused on this issue. Rome does not recognize Anglican orders as valid, but the Orthodox do. Rome recognized Orthodox orders as valid. So if a valid Orthodox bishop participated in an Anglican ordination, wouldn’t that make it “valid”?

Thanks,
Gene
Click to expand...
Maybe, but still illicit. Same as the issue with the Old Catholics/PNCC. Where there are many co-consecrations in the last 75 years or so. It’s hard to find an Anglican bishop without some sort of Dutch touch lineage.

AFAIK, and again following on some published Orthodox opinions on Anglican orders, back in the 1920s, and from what Orthodox folks have told me, the kicker is that the Orthodox consider Roman and Anglican orders in a like manner. Being outside the Church (Orthdoxy), neither’s orders are valid, *per se * (this, I was told, is why no Orthodox had acted as co-consecrators for Anglicans). But neither’s orders are invalid, either. What Rome (and Anglicans) would consider valid, though outside Orthodoxy, the Orthodox consider *potentially * valid.

I would be glad to hear from any knowledgeable Orthodox on this, myself.

GKC
 
Hi GKC,

Would you mind filling me in a little on the Old Catholic issues. I did a little searching on the Web so I know the basics. But as regards to Holy Orders, are they considered valid but illicit by Rome? Would any bishop or priest they consecrate be able to celebrate the sacraments?

I’m just curious on this. I’m not looking to switch. 🙂 I’m home in Rome and plan on staying!

Peace,
Gene
 
Gene C.:
Hi GKC,

Would you mind filling me in a little on the Old Catholic issues. I did a little searching on the Web so I know the basics. But as regards to Holy Orders, are they considered valid but illicit by Rome? Would any bishop or priest they consecrate be able to celebrate the sacraments?
Click to expand...
AFAIK, yes, the Old Catholics, particularly those associated with Utrecht were historically considered valid, though illicit, because they are schismatic. Us Anglicans think we should be thought of the same way. We aren’t, as noted in *Apostolice Curae *. So, again, AFAIK, the historic Old Catholics can celebrate the sacraments, validly, but illicitly, in Rome’s eyes.

I stress “historically”, since of late, and like the mainstream Anglicans, the Old Catholics have been laying hands on hairspray, and putting females in sacerdotal garments. So that’s that, from now on. Puts an end to the discussion of “valid”

PNCC is still sound on that matter.
I’m just curious on this. I’m not looking to switch. 🙂 I’m home in Rome and plan on staying!

Peace,
Gene
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top