Anglican Holy Orders

[Zenas]

I understand Catholics don’t regard Anglican holy orders as valid. However, when the English Parliment set up Henry VIII as head of the Church of England in 1534, all the bishops and priests had been validly ordained by the Catholic Church. The schism certainly did not render these priests and bishops invalid. So what happened (and when) that cast doubt on the validity of their holy orders?

 

[jay29]

The deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. They changed the sacrament.

Read about the ***Apostolicae Curae.

http://mgwriters.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/episcopal-bishop-katharine-jefferts.jpg**
*

 

[RevDrNorth]

I understand Catholics don’t regard Anglican holy orders as valid. However, when the English Parliment set up Henry VIII as head of the Church of England in 1534, all the bishops and priests had been validly ordained by the Catholic Church. The schism certainly did not render these priests and bishops invalid. So what happened (and when) that cast doubt on the validity of their holy orders?

There is a lot to it. At least you can see clearer to ask the question than many who say they are invalid because Henry had too many wives…or because he was 6 ft 2 tall in a day when men were shorter or because he was mean (ie people who have no earthly clue).

GKC is probably the best subject matter expert here.

They were deemed invalid do to a couple of reasons, one of which was a change in the ordinal. Frankly, this is highly debatable since it goes back to similar wording (or lack) of) in earlier Roman Catholic rituals. In other words, to invalidate Anglican orders would be to invalidate Catholic. In any case this perceived defect was fixed looooong before Leo made his pronouncement.

When Leo (1800’s) wrote his infamous statement about Anglican orders there were Catholic theologians who did not agree (one specifically whose name I do not recall). I suspect that Leo’s issue his pronouncement had more to do with political realities than theological. At the time Britain was the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. At the height of the empire they controlled all of the world’s oceans and 1/4 of its surface. If Leo had recognized Anglican orders this could have had very negative consequences for the Catholic church around the world where to be British and Anglican had status and to be Catholic meant discrimination. It could have led to many people converting to fit in and so on (at least where British culture held influence). Even in the US the Episcopal Church (though not established) was one of the churches of the establishment.

In any case, the introduction of the Old Catholic orders (recognized as valid by Rome) into the Anglican orders in the 20th century, likely rendered Leo’s pronouncement (from the 1800’s) as largely invalid. The Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics had intercommunion and this is why there are continuing Anglican groups who likely have valid orders through the Chambers and PICC succession (both having OC orders).

But as long as the Pope says “we are sticking to Leo’s pronouncement” it really does not matter whether Anglican orders are truly valid. Even if Leo’s statement has been rendered obsolete, is contradictory to other recognition given by Rome to Old Catholic orders and is illogical…it must be recognized by Roman Catholics as policy. Most Anglicans have no heartburn as you must follow instructions. Frankly, most Anglicans do not give it much thought (ie they know their orders are valid).

PS. One interesting thing that got comment recently in the meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope was the fact that the Pope gave the Archbishop a pectoral cross. Commentators noted this is usually a recognition of orders.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

jay29,

You’re absolutely right. Even back in the 1890’s the Holy See could tell what was coming down the road. Your photo of the “abomination of desolation” tells all. Anglican orders ARE invalid, period.

I was, until quite recently, a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion. We had been in talks for years with the Vatican over this very issue. One of the main problems, as Benedict XVI pointed out clearly last year, is that we can no longer speak of an Anglican “Communion”. The conservatives and liberals are poles apart. It has fractured to the point of complete self-destruction.

For years, our Bishops had kept telling us that a union with the Holy See was “in the works”. Frankly, I grew tired of waiting. I then began a very serious investigation of Roman Catholicism and joined an RCIA class. I was happily Conformed at the Easter Vigil just passed, and I’ve never looked back.

Sometimes you just HAVE to call a spade a spade. God bless Pope Leo XIII for ensuring my entrance into God’s Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Amen.

 

[peary]

I understand Catholics don’t regard Anglican holy orders as valid. However, when the English Parliment set up Henry VIII as head of the Church of England in 1534, all the bishops and priests had been validly ordained by the Catholic Church. The schism certainly did not render these priests and bishops invalid. So what happened (and when) that cast doubt on the validity of their holy orders?

The English Reformation succeeded in either driving out the bishops and priests, either imprisoned or murdered them, and replaced them with their own. The apostolic succession was broken. In a two hundred years time, there wasn’t a legitimate Catholic bishop left in England who could continue the succession. Not only that, the Mass was no longer a Sacrifice and the nature of the priesthood had been changed.

Anglican Orders are NOT Catholic Holy Orders. They were devised on their own and without any authority of the Catholic Church. They are invalid.

 

[JaMc]

I always thought that, while Henry VIII didn’t change things too radically, when the young Edward VI took the throne, Cranmer, who was pulling the strings at the time as far as the Church of England was concerned, made extensive changes which rendered the resulting Holy Orders invalid.

 

[grandfather]

Pope John Paul II, in order to settle controversy defined as “of the faith” that the Church has no power to ordain women as priests, or priestesses. It is impossible. Anglicans have women priests and bishops in their organization. Their women priests and bishops are recognized and accepted by those in communion with Canterbury. Those who do not accept women in orders are conflicted.

The Church of England, as it is called, is in disarray. It is confused and full of contradictions. It is dying. The cause of death might be not knowing what it believes. The cause of death might be that it is a severed limb.

This time of year we cut evergreen bows and decorate with them. It takes a long time for the needles to turn brown and fall off and the limbs finally look dead. They look and smell alive for some time, but they are dead from the time of removal from the tree. They are severed from their life force.

The Church of England is this dead and dying branch. The country of England is also withering and dying spiritually. Several years ago the then Arshbishop of Canterbury announced that England had lost its faith and declared it missionary territory. The Church of England was unable to keep the Christian faith alive in England.

Now we have women posing as bishops and Anglican priests marrying one another in an English cathedral. Where do they go from here? What next? What is the difference between a church and a circus?

Anglicanism will never reunite with Catholicism. Groups of Anglicans may eshew Anglicanism and embrace Catholicism while keeping some trappings of English tradition, as we see now, but they are becoming Catholic and rejecting Canterbury and communion with the church that claims the British sovereign as it head. Their loyalty in faith is to the pope, not the queen.

What remains of the queen’s church that Henry VIII began will continue to shrivel and die.

 

[Thing]

One would imagine if they wanted valid orders they would love to have their priests and Bishops trained and ordained validly so nobody could ever have the slightest reason or excuse to doubt them. But stubborn is the human heart, if they don’t want to be part of the church they won’t be if they do want to be they will be. Its just a matter of people of goodwill in Anglicanism coming to the top and restoring the English beyond anyones doubt to the One Church.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Pope John Paul II, in order to settle controversy defined as “of the faith” that the Church has no power to ordain women as priests, or priestesses.

It is impossible. Anglicans have women priests and bishops in their organization. Their women priests and bishops are recognized and accepted by those in communion with Canterbury. Those who do not accept women in orders are conflicted.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

When King Henry VIII seperated from the Pope, and was made Pope himself of the Anglican Church, it is viewed from Cathoilc Church that the orginal Bishops and priests who remained with King Henry possesed Valid Holy Orders. After these died off, their successors possesed invalid holy orders, because King Henry changed the validation process and wording. I am not sure of the change of wording, but placed the person recieving Valid orders under the King of England, thereby invalidating holy orders from the Apostolic succession.

I am sure there are some wonderful Male priests in the Anglican Church, who can recieve valid Holy Orders by convalidation with the Catholic Church.

 

[grandfather]

One would imagine if they wanted valid orders they would love to have their priests and Bishops trained and ordained validly so nobody could ever have the slightest reason or excuse to doubt them. But stubborn is the human heart, if they don’t want to be part of the church they won’t be if they do want to be they will be. Its just a matter of people of goodwill in Anglicanism coming to the top and restoring the English beyond anyones doubt to the One Church.

Holy Orders is a sacrament. All sacraments require three valid components to be valid. They are form, matter and intent. Jesus founded His Church on men. He did not found His Church on the Bible. Jesus ordained His apostles to carry out His mission of spreading the faith, doing what He taught them to do and governing His Church. He gave them the power and authority to do this in His name. They established the Church in various places and spread the faith Jesus taught. Jesus made promises to them. he said there was much He wanted to tell them, but they could not yet bear it, but He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into ALL truth, and be with them until the end of time. He said many would come in His name and lead astray many. So we see the phenomenon of denominationalism, many groups with different versions of doctrine claiming to be church. They say their authortiy to exist comes from the Bible and their various doctrines are Biblical. Jesus commands unnty of His Church.

According to the words Jesus said, recorded in the Bible, if you want to know what the truth is in matters of faith and morals you will have to learn it from an apostle or someone who an apostle gave authority to teach on behalf of the Church. Others are imposters. Logic says all of these churches claiming to be Bible churches can not have true doctrine, because they contradict one another.

So the Church from the very beginning is called apostolic, of the apostles, sent to teach the nations. The proof that the Church is apostolic is valid Holy Orders.

The orders of a priest are incomplete in a sense. The orders of a bishop are complete. A priest can not pass on his authority, ordain another priest. Only a bishop with valid orders can ordain validly.

Anglicans claim their orders are valid. Catholics say Anglican orders are invalid. You can not pass on what you do not have. Orders are passed on from the apostles. I know Lutheran ministers who claim today to have valid orders. Luther claimed there was no such thing as Holy Orders. He attacked the priesthood. Now there is some realization among some Lutherans that orders are necessary and even their women ministers try to claim they are validly ordained and say it is rude or insulting to even question someone’s orders who claims to have them.

Anglicans claim that some of those who joined them at one time or another were validly ordained priests and therefore that makes Anglican orders valid. This attempt shows the Anglicans recognize the necessity of orders, but also is illogical. A bishop is required for ordination, and if Anglicans did have a validly consecrated bishop join them here or there what you would have is the possiblility of some Anglican priests being validly ordained, assuming form and intent was valid, but which are which? Which men are validly ordained and which are not?

But now with the mess they have created with women in their episcopacy and priesthood there will be no unentangling of the confusion, ever. They keep digging themselves into a deeper morass. Gene Robinson abanonded his marraige vows and left a wife and two children to run off with another man. He said he always wanted to be a June bride. The Episcopalians of Vermont overwhelmingly elected him their bishop. Now a woman who is living with her lesbian lover may get elected as the Episcopal bishop of another state. There is no fixing this. For decades there were meetings and conferences to discuss ways to reunify Anglicanism with the Church. There were words coming out of both camps that they were working to reunify. They said there was not much of a breach to overcome and things were getting closer, but the actions of the Anglicans, rather than narrow the divide, steadily widened it to where there is a great gulf of separation.

The result is those who were waiting and hoping to rejoin the Church have lost patience and are leaving Anglicanism and its confusion en masse. As the saner parties and groups leave, what is left behind are the more radical camps that favor women bishops, gay and lesbian bishops, homosexual marriage, defenders of abortion, etc., and the gulf grows ever wider. Their numbers dwindle more and more, because they don’t believe in anything.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

When King Henry VIII seperated from the Pope,

Just when and where did this happen? You’re making it up!

and was made Pope himself of the Anglican Church it is viewed from Cathoilc Church that the orginal Bishops and priests who remained with King Henry possesed Valid Holy Orders.

Is it not rather arrogant for a member of a catholic sect,to decide what the Catholic and Apostolic Church should either do or not do?

After these died off,

You’re missing a lot out aren’t you That is when these ,‘successors,’ or some of them, allied themselves wiith the ,‘New Church of Trent.’
[John Evelyn.]

their successors possesed invalid holy orders, because King Henry changed the validation process and wording. I am not sure of the change of wording, but placed the person recieving Valid orders under the King of England, thereby invalidating holy orders from the Apostolic succession.

I am sure there are some wonderful Male priests in the Anglican Church, who can recieve valid Holy Orders by convalidation with the Catholic Church.

Traditionally, Anglican priests are already within the catholic Church!

You should really study harder, have you read the answer of the Anglican Archbishops to the popes missive? Give it a try and you will perceive the crudity and ludicrous approach to a serious subject. The Bishop of Sarum exposed the Roman approach for what it was, a tissue of lies and untruths.

 

[Thing]

Holy Orders is a sacrament. All sacraments require three valid components to be valid. They are form, matter and intent. Jesus founded His Church on men. He did not found His Church on the Bible. Jesus ordained His apostles to carry out His mission of spreading the faith, doing what He taught them to do and governing His Church. He gave them the power and authority to do this in His name. They established the Church in various places and spread the faith Jesus taught. Jesus made promises to them. he said there was much He wanted to tell them, but they could not yet bear it, but He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into ALL truth, and be with them until the end of time. He said many would come in His name and lead astray many. So we see the phenomenon of denominationalism, many groups with different versions of doctrine claiming to be church. They say their authortiy to exist comes from the Bible and their various doctrines are Biblical. Jesus commands unnty of His Church.

According to the words Jesus said, recorded in the Bible, if you want to know what the truth is in matters of faith and morals you will have to learn it from an apostle or someone who an apostle gave authority to teach on behalf of the Church. Others are imposters. Logic says all of these churches claiming to be Bible churches can not have true doctrine, because they contradict one another.

So the Church from the very beginning is called apostolic, of the apostles, sent to teach the nations. The proof that the Church is apostolic is valid Holy Orders.

The orders of a priest are incomplete in a sense. The orders of a bishop are complete. A priest can not pass on his authority, ordain another priest. Only a bishop with valid orders can ordain validly.

Anglicans claim their orders are valid. Catholics say Anglican orders are invalid. You can not pass on what you do not have. Orders are passed on from the apostles. I know Lutheran ministers who claim today to have valid orders. Luther claimed there was no such thing as Holy Orders. He attacked the priesthood. Now there is some realization among some Lutherans that orders are necessary and even their women ministers try to claim they are validly ordained and say it is rude or insulting to even question someone’s orders who claims to have them.

Anglicans claim that some of those who joined them at one time or another were validly ordained priests and therefore that makes Anglican orders valid. This attempt shows the Anglicans recognize the necessity of orders, but also is illogical. A bishop is required for ordination, and if Anglicans did have a validly consecrated bishop join them here or there what you would have is the possiblility of some Anglican priests being validly ordained, assuming form and intent was valid, but which are which? Which men are validly ordained and which are not?

But now with the mess they have created with women in their episcopacy and priesthood there will be no unentangling of the confusion, ever. They keep digging themselves into a deeper morass. Gene Robinson abanonded his marraige vows and left a wife and two children to run off with another man. He said he always wanted to be a June bride. The Episcopalians of Vermont overwhelmingly elected him their bishop. Now a woman who is living with her lesbian lover may get elected as the Episcopal bishop of another state. There is no fixing this. For decades there were meetings and conferences to discuss ways to reunify Anglicanism with the Church. There were words coming out of both camps that they were working to reunify. They said there was not much of a breach to overcome and things were getting closer, but the actions of the Anglicans, rather than narrow the divide, steadily widened it to where there is a great gulf of separation.

The result is those who were waiting and hoping to rejoin the Church have lost patience and are leaving Anglicanism and its confusion en masse. As the saner parties and groups leave, what is left behind are the more radical camps that favor women bishops, gay and lesbian bishops, homosexual marriage, defenders of abortion, etc., and the gulf grows ever wider. Their numbers dwindle more and more, because they don’t believe in anything.

I have no doubt that this is true. Anglicanism will die out, they are a dying breed. I think Catholicism should revive its old Latin Mass, Gregorian Chant, priests facing the altars, altar rails and kneeling for Communion. In a country where truth is portrayed as a soft and easy path where nothing really matters and nothing can be excluded by law there is great opportunity for offering very clearly an attractive alternative. Catholicism that means what it says and stays clear and true to the realities of life, heaven, hell, and real Sacraments not any pretend rituals. Life is not easy, truth is a hard road and infinitely more attractive than the soft suggary offerings of contemporary Anglican thought.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Everyone in here who has said Anglicanism is dying could not be more correct. The factions within Anglicanism are legion, the never had theology in the first place in the 16th Century until now which has only exacerbated their problems, they have heretical ideas like women’s ordination, homosexuality is tolerated in some circles of the communion although not the majority, attendance numbers are down horribly, their $$$ is being drained from both sides as liberal groups like TEC sue the ‘conservatives’ at ACNA. Both sides are draining their wealth on litigation. Sydney, Australia diocese allows “lay consecrations” and Africa is quickly allowing female ordinations as well. Katherine Schiori is a rogue liberal idealogue who is totally out of control, Bob Duncan, the chief architect of ACNA is a misguided moderate who allows female ordination as well. ACNA is mainly evangelical and the anglo-catholics are being marginalized as Calvary Chapel-type “priests” infiltrate the ranks with watered-down feel-good evangelical spirituality. Divorce and remarriage is permitted by conservatives because it’s challenging for them to confront their many divorcees but bashing the gays is easy for ACNA since there are probably ten gay people in their entire organization!

Anglicanism may indeed possess valid orders in its myriad tangled web organization thanks to the Dutch Touch Utrecht consecrations with the Old Catholics, etc. but their theology is so spurious and out of line with what Catholicism teaches that they are highly irregular and illicit from a RCC point of view.

Anglicanism reminds me of what JRR Tolkien said of Sauron, the lidless eye that rules over the minions of Mordor…“it is a lidless eye that stays open watching but stands for absolutely nothing.” Anglicanism is so fragmented, full of civil war, financially in collapse, that within the next twenty or thirty years it will be a tiny minority denomination if it even exists at all. There will be two types of Christianity: Evangelicalism and Catholicism. There can be no via media halfway highway. There will be these two types of religion in Christianity. The other mainline protestant sects will also collapse. Lutherans of the more conservative stripes are on the decline in numbers and finance and influence. The other groups are becoming more irrelevent and quiet as the biggy mega churches and happy clappy Asembly of God types are growing. It will come down to Catholic or Evangelical. I know what side I’m on.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Holy Orders is a sacrament. All sacraments require three valid components to be valid. They are form, matter and intent. Jesus founded His Church on men. He did not found His Church on the Bible. Jesus ordained His apostles to carry out His mission of spreading the faith, doing what He taught them to do and governing His Church. He gave them the power and authority to do this in His name. They established the Church in various places and spread the faith Jesus taught. Jesus made promises to them. he said there was much He wanted to tell them, but they could not yet bear it, but He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into ALL truth, and be with them until the end of time. He said many would come in His name and lead astray many. So we see the phenomenon of denominationalism, many groups with different versions of doctrine claiming to be church. They say their authortiy to exist comes from the Bible and their various doctrines are Biblical. Jesus commands unity of His Church.

According to the words Jesus said, recorded in the Bible, if you want to know what the truth is in matters of faith and morals you will have to learn it from an apostle or someone who an apostle gave authority to teach on behalf of the Church. Others are imposters. Logic says all of these churches claiming to be Bible churches can not have true doctrine, because they contradict one another.
So the Church from the very beginning is called apostolic, of the apostles, sent to teach the nations. The proof that the Church is apostolic is valid Holy Orders

.

Is anyone disputing this?

The orders of a priest are incomplete in a sense. The orders of a bishop are complete. A priest can not pass on his authority, ordain another priest. Only a bishop with valid orders can ordain validly.

Or indeed this! But, thank you!

Anglicans claim their orders are valid. Catholics say Anglican orders are invalid. You can not pass on what you do not have. Orders are passed on from the apostles. I know Lutheran ministers who claim today to have valid orders. Luther claimed there was no such thing as Holy Orders. He attacked the priesthood. Now there is some realization among some Lutherans that orders are necessary and even their women ministers try to claim they are validly ordained and say it is rude or insulting to even question someone’s orders who claims to have them.

Why do you bring Lutherans in to the argument? Character assassination?
Lutherans were the first protestants, or so I’m told, but when I read literature from the patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Oldest Christian Diocese, the Birth Place of Christendom, they refer to Rome as either papists or the protestants!

Anglicans claim that some of those who joined them at one time or another were validly ordained priests and therefore that makes Anglican orders valid.

Anglican orders go back in to the beginning of Church history, Queen Eliza, in a letter to the apostate bishops you mentioned above, said they came from S.Joseph of Arimathea. I do not know and I do not know that you have any more information! It is simply wishful thinking.
Now the interesting thing is who condemned them, why the pope who had an axe to grind, can he be trusted? Certainly some of his officials were of doubtful honesty!

Gene Robinson abanonded his marraige vows and left a wife and two children to run off with another man. He said he always wanted to be a June bride.

Well it is certainly a ghastly and unedifying tale. How-and-ever, coming from a sect whose leadership includes a pope who slept with his own mother, I should have thought that you would, if not hide the mishap, at least let it lie.

The Episcopalians of Vermont overwhelmingly elected him their bishop. Now a woman who is living with her lesbian lover may get elected as the Episcopal bishop of another state. There is no fixing this.

Is it a question then of paedophiles in Boston for Romans or homosexuals for Anglicans?
There’s non so blind as them as cannot see, my old neighbour used to say. He could have been talking about you friends!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. They changed the sacrament.

Read about the ***Apostolicae Curae.

http://mgwriters.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/episcopal-bishop-katharine-jefferts.jpg***

You got lucky, Jay. I’ve posted images of Schiori before and some Episcopalian throws a fit and mods yank her pics off. Expect to see Queen Katherine’s pic vanish pretty soon!

 

[RevDrNorth]

But now with the mess they have created with women in their episcopacy and priesthood there will be no unentangling of the confusion, ever. They keep digging themselves into a deeper morass. Gene Robinson abanonded his marraige vows and left a wife and two children to run off with another man. He said he always wanted to be a June bride. The Episcopalians of Vermont overwhelmingly elected him their bishop. Now a woman who is living with her lesbian lover may get elected as the Episcopal bishop of another state. There is no fixing this.

I mean no disrespect but Roman Catholics are in NO position to point their fingers at the TEC due to gay clergy and Bishops. The RC has had many practicing gay clergy and Bishops over the course of history and recently. Some of it was apparently known and a blind eye turned. There has been more than one gay Bishop in recent memory (including the one that ordained one of his unqualified gay lovers before finally being removed). Yes the RC may have a policy against such behavior but if it is winked at…it amounts to the same thing as not having a policy.

In addition to Bishop Weakland who came out of the closet, and the other Bishop from AZ (??) who was removed, there is Bishop Gumbleton (retired) who is calling on Catholic priests and Bishops to come out of the closet and be open about being gay. He caused a stir by wearing a mite at a Church service that had the cross as well as the gay pride rainbow and a pink triangle on it. As I recall Bishop Gumbleton is not gay himself just a supporter
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gumbleton

I point out the above just to urge caution about too self righteous an attitude about the Episcopal Church.

As to Anglicanism dying out…not exactly. Yes in England it is (and TEC here) but in the global South it is most definitely not. In fact it is vibrant, alive and evangelical.

 

[JaMc]

Just when and where did this happen? You’re making it up!

Between 1533 and 1534. It was a little thing called the “English Reformation,” which resulted in great upheaval at the time. Ever wonder why John Paul II didn’t appoint Rowan Williams upon George Carey’s retirement.

 

[grandfather]

I mean no disrespect but Roman Catholics are in NO position to point their fingers at the TEC due to gay clergy and Bishops. The RC has had many practicing gay clergy and Bishops over the course of history and recently. Some of it was apparently known and a blind eye turned. There has been more than one gay Bishop in recent memory (including the one that ordained one of his unqualified gay lovers before finally being removed). Yes the RC may have a policy against such behavior but if it is winked at…it amounts to the same thing as not having a policy.

 

[RevDrNorth]

grandfather,

While I tend to agree about the issue of the Episcopal Church and the Cof E dying, Anglicanism is actually vibrant and growing. It is growing by leaps and bounds among conservative Anglicans in the global south. There they are orthodox, on fire for Christ and on the move. This is why they sponsored Anglican Communion groups in the US and Canada.

Anglicanism will not likely die by a long short but the days of being centered in Canterbury are likely coming to an end. Anglicanism will be centered in Africa and elsewhere in the southern hemisphere.