Anglican Confirmation

  • Thread starter Thread starter KnightIHSV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KnightIHSV

Guest
I have a friend who says he was “confirmed” in the Church of England at age 13. He asked me if the Catholic Church recognised it as valid.

I know we Catholic recognise CofE baptisms but am I right in telling him we would not consider an Anglican confirmation as a valid sacrament?

Thanks very much.
 
Correct. Anglican confirmation is not a valid sacrament, from the Catholic Church point of view as Anglican Ordination is not valid.

I converted to the CC from the Anglican Communion (Episcopal Church) as an adult (received EC confirmation at age 13) and when received into the Catholic Church also received Confirmation.
 
1ke said:
Correct. Anglican confirmation is not a valid sacrament, from the Catholic Church point of view as Anglican Ordination is not valid.

I converted to the CC from the Anglican Communion (Episcopal Church) as an adult (received EC confirmation at age 13) and when received into the Catholic Church also received Confirmation.
Click to expand...
Wonderful, thank you very much. I explained to my friend that I did not think it was because the CC did not consider Anglican orders valid, hence any purported confirmation was null and void.
 
Sorry 1ke, but can you just tell me, if you know, what is the status of an Anglican minister in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Is it null to the extent that they are just considered a lay person with invalid orders or are they almost a deacon? Sorry to tax you.
 
KnightIHSV said:
Sorry 1ke, but can you just tell me, if you know, what is the status of an Anglican minister in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Is it null to the extent that they are just considered a lay person with invalid orders or are they almost a deacon? Sorry to tax you.
Click to expand...
The former. In the eyes of the Church, all Anglican ministers are technically laypeople. Ordaining a deacon requires valid holy orders from a valid bishop, of which they have none, so none of them can even be considered a deacon. 🙂
 
KnightIHSV said:
Sorry 1ke, but can you just tell me, if you know, what is the status of an Anglican minister in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Is it null to the extent that they are just considered a lay person with invalid orders or are they almost a deacon? Sorry to tax you.
Click to expand...
They are a lay person.

I don’t understand what you mean by “almost a deacon”. Not validly ordained = lay person
 
1ke said:
They are a lay person.

I don’t understand what you mean by “almost a deacon”. Not validly ordained = lay person
Click to expand...
Thank you - my question answered. All Anglican orders are null and void.

So when Pope Francis sends a message to the Archbishop of Canterbury, are we being polite, ie we still do not recognise the validity of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s consecration.
 
KnightIHSV said:
Thank you - my question answered. All Anglican orders are null and void.

So when Pope Francis sends a message to the Archbishop of Canterbury, are we being polite, ie we still do not recognise the validity of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s consecration.
Click to expand...
The See of Canterbury is vacant. But, public figures respect people by using their proper titles. Rev John Doe, Dr John Doe, Fr John Do, etc.
 
KnightIHSV said:
Thank you - my question answered. All Anglican orders are null and void.

So when Pope Francis sends a message to the Archbishop of Canterbury, are we being polite, ie we still do not recognise the validity of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s consecration.
Click to expand...
It’s neither of the two. While we do not consider him a valid bishop, we recognise that he has an office and responsibility to match, and that is why we still address him with the respect due to him. It is not mere politeness but rather a real and full recognition of the responsibilities of his position, even though said position is occupied by a layperson. We would do the same when addressing other Protestant pastors as well. 🙂
 
Filii_Dei said:
It’s neither of the two. While we do not consider him a valid bishop, we recognise that he has an office and responsibility to match, and that is why we still address him with the respect due to him. It is not mere politeness but rather a real and full recognition of the responsibilities of his position, even though said position is occupied by a layperson. We would do the same when addressing other Protestant pastors as well. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks very much. Most appreciative.

I have an Anglican friend who is a good Bible-believing Christian who also has a great knowledge of history. I am trying to help him come “home”.
 
Many thanks. Very helpful. I have John Salza’s book on the Freemasons as I had a great grandfather who was a Freemason and I was once asked to join the Freemasons and I did not know anything about Freemasonry. Once I found out more it rather “creeped” me out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top