Anglican Orders ( again)

[JohnCarroll]

As we know, in the 19th century, Anglican Orders were ruled invalid by the Catholic Church. ( Yes, I know Anglicans tried to fix this later but that is not to the point). Other protestant minister’s " Orders" were not addressed but we can assume those were also thought invalid for the same reasons. Not that they aren’t good men --even better men than us-- just that they forfeted apostolic sucession and so do not have the right to confect the Eucharist.

Because of this I often hear apologists infer that protestants do not receive the Body and Blood of the Lord during their communion. However, I am told ( and I think I believe) as is stated in the Catechism, #1257 " God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." It is that last part of the CCC that interests me. He is not bound by them. I was once a protestant. ( now I am a Catholic) It seems wrong to infer as many do that Our Lord , who is not bound by Holy Orders ( a sacrament) , would deny any needful thing to his children who through no fault of their own have an invalid priest. So, it may be that Anglican orders are invalid but Anglicans ( and others) do indeed receive true sacraments at their churches. At least, is it possible to say, it is not against Catholic teaching to say that they MAY be doing so. It is only that Catholics have the guarantee of the sacrements, not that God can’t do what ever He likes for others. I have also asked this question to an apologist.
But I welcome your thoughts.

 

[Spirithound]

What conclusions would you draw from this?

 

[laszlo]

So, it may be that Anglican orders are invalid but Anglicans ( and others) do indeed receive true sacraments at their churches. At least, is it possible to say, it is not against Catholic teaching to say that they MAY be doing so. It is only that Catholics have the guarantee of the sacrements, not that God can’t do what ever He likes for others. I have also asked this question to an apologist.
But I welcome your thoughts.

Anglicans do not receive the Eucharist, Christ’s body, but they can and many does receive Christ’s grace through their Liturgy. That is not necessarily less than the grace what we receive, and in any way with significantly lesser risk of the sacrilege.

Catholic get more, but God expect more from them in return; so the Catholics do not have better chance for the heaven that protestant or even non baptized. That better change simply through birthright would be unjust.

 

[JohnCarroll]

What conclusions would you draw from this?

These are my hopes in this question :

1. That apologists will stop making up Gods mind for Him. Saying others are without any grace God wishes to give.
2. That those moments of great sacramental consolation I have known as a protestant were real and not illusory.
3. That God is faithful to all who turn to Him.

 

[JohnCarroll]

Anglicans do not receive the Eucharist, Christ’s body, but they can and many does receive Christ’s grace through their Liturgy. That is not necessarily less than the grace what we receive, and in any way with significantly lesser risk of the sacrilege.

Catholic get more, but God expect more from them in return; so the Catholics do not have better chance for the heaven that protestant or even non baptized. That better change simply through birthright would be unjust.

I appreciate your response but am hoping for more of an answer using Church documents. That Anglicans do not currently have a valid priesthood may be true, it does not necessarily follow that their communion is invalid, if God wishes it to be valid. As far as I know, the Church has not ruled on this.

 

[curlycool89]

These are my hopes in this question :

1. That apologists will stop making up Gods mind for Him. Saying others are without any grace God wishes to give.
2. That those moments of great sacramental consolation I have known as a protestant were real and not illusory.
3. That God is faithful to all who turn to Him.

Some people feel that the greatest consolation is when they have sex, or for others (who have real issues) it’s when they’re hurting someone. They’re called endorphins; they’re a hormone that makes you feel good. That’s why our faith is not completely based on feelings, because our feelings often (very often) betray us (concupiscence and all that fun stuff).

I appreciate your response but am hoping for more of an answer using Church documents. That Anglicans do not currently have a valid priesthood may be true, it does not necessarily follow that their communion is invalid, if God wishes it to be valid. As far as I know, the Church has not ruled on this.

That’s an extremely slippery slope. You can basically justify anything with that line.

God works through the methods He has revealed to us, and He works consistently because He is the perfect judge. Through Christ, He revealed to us that a priest is required to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Apostles (through the Holy Spirit) showed us that they need to lay their hands on someone to ordain them a priest (c.f. Acts). This is the way God has revealed this to us; it is not for us men to put words in God’s mouth as to what He “might do”.

 

[JohnCarroll]

Some people feel that the greatest consolation is when they have sex, or for others (who have real issues) it’s when they’re hurting someone. They’re called endorphins; they’re a hormone that makes you feel good. That’s why our faith is not completely based on feelings, because our feelings often (very often) betray us (concupiscence and all that fun stuff).

That’s an extremely slippery slope. You can basically justify anything with that line.

God works through the methods He has revealed to us, and He works consistently because He is the perfect judge. Through Christ, He revealed to us that a priest is required to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Apostles (through the Holy Spirit) showed us that they need to lay their hands on someone to ordain them a priest (c.f. Acts). This is the way God has revealed this to us; it is not for us men to put words in God’s mouth as to what He “might do”.

Thank you. Yes, I agree with your point about emotions. However, They are a valid part of our faith life and we all wish to have them. That is part of my question: If the Church has ruled that God will not give the Eucharist to anyone without a Catholic Priest ( I don’t think it has), then I am open to saying I was deceived in my emotions.

That my second statement is a slippery slope I dont agree. Rather, It seems an ocassion for humility for the apologis when answering questions to realize that God is not going to be put in a box but can do whatever is not contrary to his nature.

Forgive my spelling, Spellcheck not working.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

These are my hopes in this question :

1. That apologists will stop making up Gods mind for Him. Saying others are without any grace God wishes to give.
2. That those moments of great sacramental consolation I have known as a protestant were real and not illusory.
3. That God is faithful to all who turn to Him.

To receive Sacramental consolation, or God’s Grace through the Sacraments, one must have access to the Sacraments. Protestants only have the Sacrament of Baptism. They have none of the other Sacraments because they lack the priesthood.

 

[JohnCarroll]

To receive Sacramental consolation, or God’s Grace through the Sacraments, one must have access to the Sacraments. Protestants only have the Sacrament of Baptism. They have none of the other Sacraments because they lack the priesthood.

Thank you very much, Brother. I am not trying to be argumentative. But what you say is the answer we all give to this question ( even me)but I hope to get Church Documents on this issue. Yes, the normal way to receive the Eucharist is to have it supplied by a priest. But can God supply the Eucharist to a Baptist, for instance, when he takes Communion. Unknowingly. Can God do this. If the Churchhas ruled that he can not, then the answer is “no”. This is not a fanciful question to me. Otherwise a billion people are not receiving someone who we are told they can not have life without.

 

[FrDavid96]

I appreciate your response but am hoping for more of an answer using Church documents. That Anglicans do not currently have a valid priesthood may be true, it does not necessarily follow that their communion is invalid, if God wishes it to be valid. As far as I know, the Church has not ruled on this.

Actually, it does necessarily follow that their services are an invalid attempt at communion. There is no communion. The Sacrament simply does not occur unless the bread and wine are consecrated by a priest.

The Church as “ruled” on this, many many times. Here is it in the Catechism
1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

The phrase “only validly ordained priests” cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than precisely that, validly ordained priests.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you very much, Brother. I am not trying to be argumentative. But what you say is the answer we all give to this question ( even me)but I hope to get Church Documents on this issue. Yes, the normal way to receive the Eucharist is to have it supplied by a priest. But can God supply the Eucharist to a Baptist, for instance, when he takes Communion. Unknowingly. Can God do this. If the Churchhas ruled that he can not, then the answer is “no”. This is not a fanciful question to me. Otherwise a billion people are not receiving someone who we are told they can not have life without.

It’s God’s law to begin with that only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist, so to say that the Eucharist is there without a priest would make God Himself into a liar.

When our separated brethren gather to commemorate the Lord’s Supper, they may receive graces from God, and He may be present among them, but that’s not the same as saying that the bread becomes Communion. God gives His graces, but not Holy Communion.

 

[JohnCarroll]

Actually, it does necessarily follow that their services are an invalid attempt at communion. There is no communion. The Sacrament simply does not occur unless the bread and wine are consecrated by a priest.

The Church as “ruled” on this, many many times. Here is it in the Catechism
1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

The phrase “only validly ordained priests” cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than precisely that, validly ordained priests.

Dear Father,
I know it will seem I am being obstinate but please let me say a little more. There is a priest present where ever two or three are gathered: Jesus. So, the question remains, can the Lord give the sacrament to whom ever He wishes. This is like the fatted calf, given to the prodigal in the presence of the older brother. I completely agree that this is not the ordanary way or the intended way, only that the Lord will find a way, that they may not be without those things they need.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear Father,
I know it will seem I am being obstinate but please let me say a little more. There is a priest present where ever two or three are gathered: Jesus. So, the question remains, can the Lord give the sacrament to whom ever He wishes.

And the answer the Church has consistently no to this question.

 

[JohnCarroll]

And the answer the Church has consistently no to this question.

So, to summarize, you are saying the Church has ruled that the Lord will not wish to do this. I will need chapter and verse on that. That the priest is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist, yes; that other clergy are not true priests, yes, but that the Lord Himself can not do this if He wishes, is an opinion. I will need more proof .

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So, to summarize, you are saying the Church has ruled that the Lord will not wish to do this. I will need chapter and verse on that. That the priest is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist, yes; that other clergy are not true priests, yes, but that the Lord Himself can not do this if He wishes, is an opinion. I will need more proof .

The Lord grants his Graces to those He wills. Sacramental Graces only come through the Sacraments as we are taught through His Church, so this is also His will.

The Church teaches us that to have the Eucharist you need the proper form and matter, with out the apostolic priesthood something is missing and no Eucharist can be confected. Same goes with the lack of proper form and also most protestants use grape juice instead of wine.

Again, this is what the Church Teaches and as a Catholic I am bound to assent to it but I with my (still rather limited) theological studies I agree with this 100%.

 

[JohnCarroll]

The Lord grants his Graces to those He wills. Sacramental Graces only come through the Sacraments as we are taught through His Church, so this is also His will.

The Church teaches us that to have the Eucharist you need the proper form and matter, with out the apostolic priesthood something is missing and no Eucharist can be confected. Same goes with the lack of proper form and also most protestants use grape juice instead of wine.

Again, this is what the Church Teaches and as a Catholic I am bound to assent to it but I with my (still rather limited) theological studies I agree with this 100%.

Thank you all for your help.