Anglican priests valid?

[exnihilo]

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

Well that would settle it then.

It is too bad that we seem to have lost GKC.

I haven’t seen him post. I hope he makes his way back.

 

[KjetilK]

Anglican Communion is not valid, because the Church of England is not in communion with Rome.

The hidden premise of this is that you have to be in communion with Rome to have a valid celebration of Communion. But that isn’t what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. She teaches that the celebration of Communion in, say, the Russian Orthodox Church or the Polish National Catholic Church is valid.

 

[KjetilK]

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.

The problem with that is that even if the judgement of Apostolicae Curae was right, and there are good arguments against it, it cannot be used to judge what happened later, or what will happen in the future. It was a historical judgement, and can therefore only be used, if correct, to judge the situation before up until 1896.

 

[KjetilK]

Only the Anglican baptism is valid…

While the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t recognise the validity of the Eucharist, Confirmation, Confession, Ordination, and Extreme Unction, in Anglican churches, she does, in addition to Baptism, recognise the validity, and sacramentality, of Holy Matrimony. In fact she teaches that any time two baptised Christians are validly married (for example if two Lutherans or two Anglicans marry), the marriage is sacramental.

 

[LoyalViews]

The fact of the matter is that the Church as spoken on this. There is a certain degree of legitimacy of those men who have been ordained by Old Catholic bishops, since most of them (unless intercepted by a female ‘bishop’ at some point) have a valid ordination.

The Orthodox are successors to the apostles in the ancient tradition - as we are, and it is unfortunate that our schism prolongs. Anglicans split off from the Church in a much different fashion, for different reasons, and fell under the influence of Calvin and Zwingli, if not Wycliffe and Tyndale as well. Henry was very much a Catholic after the schism, but as the years passed and Cranmer spread his poison through the Eucharistic theology of the Church of England, a lot fell away. As Father said above, when the CofE changed their ordination rite it explicitly removed any Catholicity to the rite and such all ordinations are invalid.

While Anglicans are very Catholic, they can also be found to be very Calvinist, very Pentecostal, or very liberal. The Oxford movement pushed the Anglican Communion towards the Catholic end of the spectrum, bringing prominence to the Anglo-Catholic tradition and even an Anglo-Papalist structure that included individuals who wished to restore the entire Communion to Papal union from within the Anglican church outwards.

Yet it is unfortunate that ordination remains invalid in the CofE, since many of their priests are very sincere and pious people. But the Church has spoken, and Pope Leo was a very wise man. Let it be known unto God what graces the lay faithful have received through Anglican sacraments, but let us be sincere in our prayers for the members of our sister-communities of the Anglican Communion; that they may restore again their unity with Rome as it was before the Henry complication.

 

[KjetilK]

Yet it is unfortunate that ordination remains invalid in the CofE, since many of their priests are very sincere and pious people. But the Church has spoken, and Pope Leo was a very wise man.

Yes, the Pope Leo spoke, in 1896. Even if what he wrote was true, what bearing does his historical assessment of Anglican Orders, before, and at most up until, 1896, have on the situation today, 121 years later, and more than 70 years after the Old Catholic co-consecrations?

 

[LoyalViews]

Perhaps even worse! The state of the Anglican Communion in the Western World has decayed, and it appears as though each province has embarked on its own self destruction - the ordination of women, contraceptive allowance, the Episcopal Churches of the USA and Scotland allowing same-sex marriage, the Anglican Church of Canada going forth with the same regulations, the CofE’s abysmal Sunday attendance.

The newer forms of ordination in the Anglican church are just the same level of invalidity, and they will remain to be invalid until such time the Church decrees they are not. The truth of a pontifical statement based on the objective theological reality of the Anglican situation does not change because the seconds pass.

But Old Catholic consecrations do inject validity on certain priests. Certain. And their priesthood is valid but how can we know which have received that laying on of hands from the Old Catholics? Certainly not in Canada, nor Australia, where the Old Catholic population is but a grain of sand. Maybe the United Kingdom, perhaps in the USA. Then we cannot request they wear pins on their breasts announcing “OC-ordained.”

However, the Edwardian Ordinal, the book in which the ordination formula was changed, if used by the Old Catholics in attendance - would not, by nature of the wording and understanding of the Anglican formulae, the ordination still be invalid? Unless in his heart of hearts the bishop silently repeated the words of the Church with the true intent.

 

[PJM]

As to the Eucharist being Valid; NO!

Henry the 8th was in Schism and founded a NEW faith and religion founded on Schism.

Anglican priest do, as well they should have an easier Path to Catholics, once they commit to and embrace Catholic Faith beliefs in total.

I think it was Pope Benedict that set this up?

THE ISSUE IS MAINTAINED DIRECT APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, WHICH THEY DO NOT HAVE

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[fredystairs]

I wanted to clarify one point the OP made. It was Pope Gregory the Great who sent St Augustine to England. Pope Leo the Great was pope over century before Gregory the Great.

 

[steve-b]

Rome may not recognize the apostolic validity of Anglican orders, but Anglicans certainly do.

and it could be said, since Our Lord’s Church doesn’t recognize their validity, then neither does Jesus.

 

[FrDavid96]

LoyalViews:

Yet it is unfortunate that ordination remains invalid in the CofE, since many of their priests are very sincere and pious people. But the Church has spoken, and Pope Leo was a very wise man.

Yes, the Pope Leo spoke, in 1896. Even if what he wrote was true, what bearing does his historical assessment of Anglican Orders, before, and at most up until, 1896, have on the situation today, 121 years later, and more than 70 years after the Old Catholic co-consecrations?

Exactly because Apostolic Succession must be received.

Once it is lost, it is lost.

The Old Catholic event—often called on the internet the “Dutch Touch” has never been given any credence by the Church.

The teaching of Leo XIII was re-affirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sometime in the 21st century by St Jon Paul II. I cannot recall the name offhand, but it was the well-known document about degrees of assent and degrees of teaching in the Church. Written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by JP2.

If anything, in the last few decades, the actions of the Anglicans only further proves that they do not have Apostolic Succession. When the “ordaining” bishop is a female, the issue does not even rise to the level of a question.

 

[LoyalViews]

The “Dutch Touch.”

My first year of university, the lecturer passed out laughing when I used that to refer to the Old Catholics. I’ve never heard many use it

 

[7_Sorrows]

I wish GKC would try the new CAF. He had a lot of knowledge about this topic and Henry
VIII.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, the Pope Leo spoke, in 1896. Even if what he wrote was true, what bearing does his historical assessment of Anglican Orders, before, and at most up until, 1896, have on the situation today, 121 years later, and more than 70 years after the Old Catholic co-consecrations?

What he wrote was true in 1896, and remains true today.

What Pope Leo wrote has every bearing and every relevance to the question today. Since the recipients of Anglican attempts at ordination today are receiving what existed at the time of Pope Leo XII (although a few generations removed), what they receive is likewise invalid;
to use his oft-quoted words “absolutely null and utterly void”.

Apostolic Succession does not just appear out of nowhere because a certain amount of time has passed. It must be received. Since it could not be received (could not be given) in 1896, then neither can it be transmitted today.

Anglican “bishops” cannot give what they do not have; because they never received it in the first place.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Believing or not believing in the “real presence” is irrelevant–a number of Protestant ministers, not just Anglicans, believe in it, but that doesn’t mean they can consecrate bread and wine as a Catholic priest can. Conversely, there are probably a few Catholic priests out there who don’t believe in it, but that disbelief doesn’t make their consecration invalid.

As for Anglican priests quickly becoming Catholic priests if they convert, and vice versa, keep in mind that of all the Protestant denominations, Anglicans are closest to Catholics in rituals and beliefs. There’s not much to learn if you go from a Catholic priest to an Anglican priest or vice versa.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

As for Anglican priests quickly becoming Catholic priests if they convert, and vice versa, keep in mind that of all the Protestant denominations, Anglicans are closest to Catholics in rituals and beliefs. There’s not much to learn if you go from a Catholic priest to an Anglican priest or vice versa.

That all depends on ones definition of “quickly.”

Some people seem to be under the impression that an Anglican might become a Catholic priest in just a matter of days; the word “immediately” was used somewhere in this thread earlier. That is certainly not the case.

An Anglican cleric becoming a Catholic priest in one of the Ordinariates requires about 1 full year of education and discernment. That is the fastest, shortest and easiest method. Labeling that “quickly” is a matter of perspective and very subjective. One person might think that quick, another might see it as a long time.

While they already know most of what they need, (they don’t have to take courses on the letters of St Paul, for example) there is still quite a bit of being a Catholic priest that is significantly different than being an Anglican; especially when it comes to canon law and topics that depend on it, such as marriages.

So again, one person might say “quickly” another might not.

 

[Jamac]

Depends on who you are asking. From the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church they are not valid, though the Anglican and Catholic Church have been in talks and are actually making some progress on this issue.

From the perspective of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church though, fascinatingly enough in the 1920s they recognized them as being valid. From my own Anglican perspective i would say we are just as valid as any

 

[PickyPicky]

Although the Church existed in England long before the Augustinian mission, a main object of which was to bring the bishops of the existing British Church under the authority of Rome.

 

[PickyPicky]

Well, actually when the Ordinal changed. Leo held that the Edwardian ordinal represented an invalid form and represented an invalid intent.

 

[PickyPicky]

The Catholic Church does not, I think, hold that they are good for noth8ng.