Anglican priests valid?

[PJM]

Thank you Father for a necessary and needed explanation

God Bless you and your ministry,

Patrick.

 

[Nelka]

Do the Orthodox church have apostolic succession and valid holy orders?

If so what is different between what happened when Anglicanism began and Orthodoxy?

 

[FrDavid96]

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

The precise term is “absolutely null and utterly void.” That is the official position. It has been since Leo XIII and remains so to this day. We sometimes soften the vocabulary; it’s not necessary to say both ‘null’ and ‘void’, a simple ‘invalid’ suffices.

At the same time, however, not “good for nothing” is also another way to say it (and yes, the double negative is intentional).

Not good for nothing can be re-phrased as “good for something.” And that is also the position of the Church.

While their attempts at ordination are invalid; that is not the same thing as saying that they achieve nothing—only that they achieve nothing sacramentally valid. They still bring the Good News of the Gospels. They still care for the poor. They still bring sinners to conversion. I could continue with examples, but I hope readers get the point. They still do all those things that do not require Apostolic Succession for their fullness.

 

[FrDavid96]

Do the Orthodox church have apostolic succession and valid holy orders?

If so what is different between what happened when Anglicanism began and Orthodoxy?

Volumes could be written to answer that question, so please understand that my response is going to be very brief and incomplete.

In brief: the Orthodox have never denied the Christian priesthood (ie the ‘sacerdotal’ office of offering the Holy Sacrifice . Although Eastern and Western vocabularies and emphasis will vary; they have always preserved and never denied anything essential about the Sacrament/Mystery of Holy Orders. In every possible way, the Orthodox have preserved Apostolic Succession.

In contrast, after Henry VIII died and his young son Edward became king of England, certain factions in the English government changed a book called the “Ordinal” which is the book that describes the rite of ordination (that’s the ‘Eduardian Ordinal’ so often referenced in threads like this). They changed it in a way to specifically deny that the 2nd Order (ie priest, presbyter, etc) offers the Sacrifice of the Mass; and that his only real function is that of preaching. It goes beyond merely an absence and into an outright denial. It also must be seen in the broader context, meaning that it wasn’t just the book itself (Ordinal) or the rite itself, but the entire attitude and reality of Anglicanism at the time, and for centuries after that. Simply put, the Anglicans ceased to believe in the priesthood as such; and instead believed that the priest was only a preacher with an official license from the community. The result was that Anglican bishops (although until that time validly ordained themselves) ceased to pass-along the office of priesthood as Christ had instituted it. So the first generation had it, but never passed it along. The second generation never received it, and so were unable to pass it along to future generations.

 

[PickyPicky]

It would be good to hear from him.

 

[PickyPicky]

Indeed so. The concept that non-Catholic orders are quite worthless, and that no access of grace can be discovered in non-Catholic eucharists, has, if I have got it straight, been denied in the teachings of, for instance, Pope Benedict. That is not to say, of course, that either the orders or the eucharists are valid in Catholic thought.

 

[PickyPicky]

I’m not sure Leo held that the Edwardian ordinal specifically “denied” that the priest offered the sacrifice, rather that the assertion that this was offered was (he held) removed from the previous liturgy. It was the absence of the (in his view) appropriate language that he found telling, rather than the presence of opposite language. And although the Anglican reply showed that Roman ordinals in the past had similarly lacked the appropriate language — again, the key difference in Rome’s eyes was the removal of language in the Edwardian ordinal.

Your suggestion that the only function left to priests by the Edwardian ordinal was preaching is, I respectfully suggest, hyperbole?

 

[Nelka]

Thank You Father.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not sure Leo held that the Edwardian ordinal specifically “denied” that the priest offered the sacrifice, rather that the assertion that this was offered was (he held) removed from the previous liturgy. It was the absence of the (in his view) appropriate language that he found telling, rather than the presence of opposite language. And although the Anglican reply showed that Roman ordinals in the past had similarly lacked the appropriate language — again, the key difference in Rome’s eyes was the removal of language in the Edwardian ordinal.

Your suggestion that the only function left to priests by the Edwardian ordinal was preaching is, I respectfully suggest, hyperbole?

First, no, not hyperbole. I prefer to use the word brevity to describe my intentions. I cannot possibly type-out every minute detail in an online context like this. A phrase that comes to mind is “minister of the word” which is often used as a brief description to refer to Protestant clergy collectively. It’s not meant to be an exhaustive description, simply a brief one. I did not intend to imply that after the Edwardian Ordinal, Anglican clergy ceased to do other functions such as baptisms, or marriages or burials—merely that those functions flow from someones office of ‘minister of the word’ . The point is not to read too much into it. Brevity, not hyperbole, was the intention.

As I see it, Pope Leo was concerned not just with the absence of any reference to the Sacerdotal (ie priestly, sacrificial) office of presbyter, but that the active removal indicated an active denial. So yes, as you said, it was the removal of such language. The conclusion was that the removal when seen within the broader context (that’s key) is seen as a form of denial.

 

[PickyPicky]

Well, Father, as to the only function left to the Edwardian priest being that of preacher, what the Ordinal has the Bishop say is:

RECEIVE the holy goste, whose synnes thou doest forgeve, they are forgeven: and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, thei are retained: and be thou a faithful despensor of the word of god, and of his holy Sacramentes. In the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy gost. Amen.

and then …

TAKE thou aucthoritie to preache the word of god, and to minister the holy Sacramentes in thys congregacion, where thou shalt be so appointed.

 

[AlNg]

There was a report in the news of a Catholic priest who got married to a divorced woman and then joined the Episcopal or Anglican Church (I am not sure which one). Would his Sacraments be valid as he is now in the Anglican Church, but was ordained in the Catholic Church. The Anglican Mass and the Episcopal Mass are pretty close to the Catholic Mass?

 

[FrDavid96]

There was a report in the news of a Catholic priest who got married to a divorced woman and then joined the Episcopal or Anglican Church (I am not sure which one). Would his Sacraments be valid as he is now in the Anglican Church, but was ordained in the Catholic Church. The Anglican Mass and the Episcopal Mass are pretty close to the Catholic Mass?

Theoretically, yes, they would be valid, but not “always yes.” It would depend on other factors.

In danger-of-death situations, he can still exercise his priesthood licitly.

Other than danger-of-death, his attempts at absolution would still be invalid because absolution requires jurisdiction in order to be valid (not just licit, but valid).

As for Eucharist, it would depend on what text he uses (among other issues as well)—Anglicans are permitted a great deal of latitude in what texts they use, and we cannot say that every one of them is valid. For example, Anglicans are permitted to visit other communities and take part in their versions of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, even though the standard Anglican attempts at consecration use valid texts, it’s not true that every text available to them does likewise. Likewise, Anglicanism as a whole permits substances other than bread and wine to be used, so in such cases, attempts at consecration would be invalid.

There are 4 sacraments that require the character of the priesthood—Eucharist, Confession, Unction, and Confirmation. I exclude ordination because that requires Episcopal ordination.

So, again excluding danger of death, the answer would actually be:

Eucharist: “that depends” but most often and most likely it would probably be valid
Confession/Absolution: No
Unction/Anointing: No (with a “sometimes maybe” qualification)
Confirmation: No

 

[PickyPicky]

I was interested by what you said about absolution, Father — I hadn’t understood that it required jurisdiction. Could you explain further? I presume Orthodox absolution would be valid, for instance, so I would guess the jurisdiction comes from the validity of the Church itself — am I on the right track?

 

[FrDavid96]

I was interested by what you said about absolution, Father — I hadn’t understood that it required jurisdiction. Could you explain further? I presume Orthodox absolution would be valid, for instance, so I would guess the jurisdiction comes from the validity of the Church itself — am I on the right track?

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. That means that is a “legal act” which requires the minister to have jurisdiction–the ability to pass a judgement. Just as a judge from one state cannot simply decide on his own to hold court in another state, because he would be acting outside his jurisdiction, so too a priest must have jurisdiction to absolve. In short, we say that he must have the “faculties to absolve.”

For more on this (ok, it’s really just a summary) see canon 966. For one to absolve validly (validly, not just licitly) he must have both the character of orders (priesthood) and faculties. Both are required. All too often people forget this.

Only a validly ordained priest can have those faculties to absolve.

As for the Orthodox, I am going to give the Western response here. Since the Orthodox Churches began as Apostolic Churches (meaning “Catholic”) they have always had jurisdiction over their own people. Ultimately, jurisdiction to absolve comes from Peter and his successors (“whatever you bind on earth…”) Since no Successor to Peter (ie Pope) has ever withdrawn from the Orthodox Churches the general faculties to absolve sinners, they retain that power.

In a sense, the answer to your question is “yes, the validity of absolution depends on the status of the community as a Church (opposed to an ecclesial community)” But it’s not quite as simple as that either. It isn’t about just preserving Apostolic Succession, although that’s a necessary requirement. It’s about the fact that the community (ie Orthodox Churches) had jurisdiction to absolve and have never had that jurisdiction withdrawn.

For a contrary example, look at the SSPX. They have always had Apostolic Succession, but once their bishop ceased to have an office in the Church (office of Ordinary) they ceased to have any jurisdiction. So until Pope Francis granted them faculties to absolve, they did not have them. I do NOT want to get into a discussion of the SSPX and I ask everyone here to just leave it be. I am merely citing an example of how there can be a situation of Apostolic Succession, but not the jurisdiction or faculties to absolve sinners.

 

[PickyPicky]

Many thanks, Father, for taking the trouble to make that helpful reply.