Anglican priests valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inbetweener
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Inbetweener

Guest
Visited St Albans and looked at the history of the English church which started when Pope Leo the great sent Augustine to start the church in England in Canterbury. Obviously after the King separated from the Pope and some pope approved/ordained priests/bishops stayed with the King to what is at present the Anglican Church. I remember a Catholic Sister saying the Anglican priests are still valid, it’s just that they are separated from the Catholic, thus making any Anglican priest conversion to become a Catholic priest more simple than say a baptist minister. My question is, do you consider an Anglican (High church) Eucharist valid, as the priest is valid but maybe depends on whether they believe in the real presence in Eucharist as some Anglican High church might do. The reason I ask this question is that I plus many people who normally have communion at independent Protestant churches when they do have the opportunity to partake the Eucharist at Anglican mass they say it’s very powerful and special unlike their own churches, thus making me think is the presence there if the Anglican priest believes in it. I had one at midnight mass at Christmas Eve night and me my friends felt so clean and pure afterwards.
 
The line of succession arguably ceased when the teachings and practices changed (ie. confession done away with essentially overnight) and was later confirmed by papal decree. I don’t think whether they believe in the real presence or not makes any difference; he is either validly ordained and can offer the sacrament or he isn’t and can’t. Sadly, a number of Catholic priests today don’t even believe in the real presence.
 
Last edited:
I think that sister was under a false impression. Apostolicae Curae in 1896 affirmed the invalidity of Anglican holy orders and in the late 1990’s this was, in effect, reaffirmed by the CDF. This link might be helpful.
 
Anglican Orders have been invalid since the time of Edward VI (not Henry VIII; until his death, the Church of England held on to Catholic beliefs and practice; all bishops and priests ordained during his reign received valid Holy Orders).

In the reign of Edward VI, a new rite of ordination was promulgated, which explicitly omitted, on the basis of Protestant belief, the office of offering the Mass as a Sacrifice—the core function of a priest. The Catholic Church judged this to be a defect of intention. Even though the ordinal was latter corrected, the break occurred at that time.

It’s not the priest’s belief that confects the Eucharist. It’s his Holy Orders.

That said, this is not to say the Eucharist as celebrated by Anglicans is devoid of grace. It does not have the Real Presence of course, but this act of commemorating the Lord’s Supper is still at least a sacred, devotional act and can and does impart actual graces to those disposed. In many cases, these actual graces have moved Anglicans to reconcile with the Catholic Church.
 
I still think outside of the Catholic/Orthodox church it’s probably the best your gonna get. Plus the fact so many Anglican priests concerts shows they appreciate and understand the real presence.
 
Only the Anglican baptism is valid… Rest of the sacraments are good for nothing… The high Anglicans do have services that can seem to be Catholic and also high Anglicans call themselves as Anglo Catholics .
 
I wouldn’t say good for nothing. These rites are channels of actual grace, and actual grace isn’t “nothing.”
deprofundis89 said:
Only the Anglican baptism is valid… Rest of the sacraments are good for nothing… The high Anglicans do have services that can seem to be Catholic and also high Anglicans call themselves as Anglo Catholics .
Click to expand...
 
God works in mysterious ways… but from a catholic stand point they have no sacramental value… the only reason Henry VIII kept the façade of the catholic church in his newly founded ‘anglican’ church was because he knew that had he changed everything the people themselves would not have accepted it. Although the exterior seemed catholic, the pillars of faith eventually changed along with the prayers and rites, thus although they started out as schismatic they eventually became protestant.
 
No. Anglican attempts at ordination are not valid.

Consequently, any attempts to consecrate the Eucharist are invalid attempts.
 
I think you are right for most cases, but I thought it was possible some Anglicans had valid holy orders because some consecrations invovled bishops from other churches who do have valid orders. For instance I think some Old Catholic bishops had been involved in consecrations. I may be mistaken but I thought I had read that.
 
Inbetweener said:
I remember a Catholic Sister saying the Anglican priests are still valid, it’s just that they are separated from the Catholic, thus making any Anglican priest conversion to become a Catholic priest more simple than say a baptist minister. My question is, do you consider an Anglican (High church) Eucharist valid, as the priest is valid but maybe depends on whether they believe in the real presence in Eucharist as some Anglican High church might do.
Click to expand...
No, you were told incorrectly. Anglican Holy Orders are not valid, according to the Catholic Church, and therefore, neither is the Anglican Eucharist. The only two valid sacraments any Protestant church has are Baptism and Holy Matrimony, as these do not require valid clergy with Holy Orders. Note that this does not mean that Protestant Christians are not truly Christian. Many are better Christians than many Catholics.
 
Anglican Communion is not valid, because the Church of England is not in communion with Rome.

Interestingly enough though, the baptism DOES carry across. So if someone converts from one of the Protestant Churches to Catholicism, they don’t need to get baptized again.
 
Anglican attempts at ordination as such are invalid.

It is possible for individual Anglicans to have been validly ordained. An easy example is that some Catholic priests left the Church and became Anglicans—they are still ordained.

The theory about the Old Catholics re-introducing validity into Anglican attempts at ordination is one that has been floating around the internet for a few years now; although only several decades after the fact. The Church’s position hasn’t changed, though.
 
From what I remember reading that the Old Catholics are only Catholics in name but are as good as protestants and not all their bishops have a valid consecration… I maybe wrong in part though.
 
Not exactly.

It is not “because the C of E is not in Communion with Rome.” That’s not what makes ordinations valid. Nor is Communion with Rome required for valid Eucharistic consecration.

There are several reasons why Anglican attempts at ordination are not valid; the principle one being that Apostolic Succession was lost when Anglicans changed their rites to deny the actual priesthood (ie “one who offers sacrifice”) of the presbyterate. More recently, their attempts to ordain women only further the conclusion of invalidity.

Still though, Communion with Rome is not a condition to a valid Eucharist.
 
deprofundis89 said:
Only the Anglican baptism is valid… Rest of the sacraments are good for nothing… The high Anglicans do have services that can seem to be Catholic and also high Anglicans call themselves as Anglo Catholics .
Click to expand...
Their marriages are hopefully still good for something! 😉
 
FrDavid96 said:
It is possible for individual Anglicans to have been validly ordained. An easy example is that some Catholic priests left the Church and became Anglicans—they are still ordained.

The theory about the Old Catholics re-introducing validity into Anglican attempts at ordination is one that has been floating around the internet for a few years now…
Click to expand...
There have been a handful of Anglican priests or bishops that requested ordination from Old Catholic bishops. A few have even converted to Catholicism, and been accepted immediately into the priesthood.
deprofundis89 said:
From what I remember reading that the Old Catholics are only Catholics in name but are as good as protestants and not all their bishops have a valid consecration… I maybe wrong in part though.
Click to expand...
The Old Catholic church is splintering, but it historically has been a valid sacramental church. It now ordains women, which will break apostolic successor for anyone they attempt to ordain; however, existing male bishops could still validly ordain men to the priesthood.
 
Not exactly. They were still conditionally ordained. They were not “accepted immediately.”

Further, conditional ordination (for Anglicans) is something which the Holy See will no longer consider.

For those who might not be familiar: conditional ordination is like conditional baptism “if you have not been ordained…”
 
It is too bad that we seem to have lost GKC. He is the expert in all things having to do with the history of Anglican orders. Perhaps you can go back and do a search to read his extensive comments. By the way, Rome may not recognize the apostolic validity of Anglican orders, but Anglicans certainly do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top