Anglican Sacraments

[pjcsisabel]

If I’m not mistaken, a Pope declared sometime in the past that Anglican sacraments are “null and utterly void.” Does this mean that before this declaration Anglican sacraments were considered valid by the Catholic Church or is this declaration of the pope just a reaffirmation of the fact that Anglican sacraments are indeed void? And if it is the former, why would the Catholic Church consider Anglican sacraments valid in the first place given that they broke away from Rome and they don’t have (if I’m not mistaken) apostolic continuity?

 

[GKC]

If I’m not mistaken, a Pope declared sometime in the past that Anglican sacraments are “null and utterly void.” Does this mean that before this declaration Anglican sacraments were considered valid by the Catholic Church or is this declaration of the pope just a reaffirmation of the fact that Anglican sacraments are indeed void? And if it is the former, why would the Catholic Church consider Anglican sacraments valid in the first place given that they broke away from Rome and they don’t have (if I’m not mistaken) apostolic continuity?

You are thinking of Leo XIII and Apostolicae Curae. Which stated that Anglican orders are null and void, hence any sacraments depending on orders are invalid. And that the RCC had always so considered them, at least post 1559 and the consecration of Archbishop Parker (the exact point is a scholarly question mark). The point in contention is apostolic succession, and when it was lost. The contention was that it would have been when the last bishop in the Church of England consecrated with the Pontificale Romanum died, the Edwardine Ordinal which the CoE replaced it with being considered faulty, in form, and its use reflecting an invalid sacramental intention, hence apostolic succession was broken at that point. Prior to that, the orders would have been valid, but illicit.

It’s complicated. And, as you might guess, Anglicans have a different view of the matter (so to speak).

GKC

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Here’s my understanding, based on a radio source I’d rather not name in case I’ve made an error in my memory or my presentation.

The Church of England originally had all seven valid sacraments, since its clergy, including its bishops, were Catholic bishops that broke away from the Church. During the reign of Henry VIII, Anglicanism remained mostly Catholic in its beliefs (except a few key ones to justify breaking with Rome, suppressing the monasteries, etc.). It was later on in the same century, under Edward VI and Elizabeth I, that they became more Protestant in their beliefs and practices. It was around that time that the sense of a sacrificial priesthood was lost. A part of the form of the sacrament for ordaining a priest (or, therefore, a bishop) is the intent to ordain the person to a sacrificial priesthood. With the idea of a sacrificial priesthood lost, new ordinations to the higher levels of Holy Orders were invalid.

Whether ordinations to the deaconate were still valid for that first generation, when valid bishops were ordaining but without a sense of sacrificial priesthood, is an interesting question. Maybe there was a phase (around the time of Shakespeare, I suppose) in which many Anglican “priests” and “bishops” were validly ordained deacons. But a deacon can not validly ordain anyone, even to the deaconate, and so Holy Orders was eventually lost entirely.

Without valid Holy Orders (specifically priests and bishops) there can be no Eucharist, no Reconciliation, no Anointing of the Sick, and I believe no Confirmation either. Anglican baptisms would still be valid, and marriages as long as neither party is canonically Catholic (or, if one is, if he or she has done everything that needs to be done for convalidation).

Today, some Anglicans have regained a sense of sacrificial priesthood, but it is too late. Apostolic succession has already been ruptured, unless a particular priest or bishop traces his line of ordination back through some line, outside the Anglican Communion, that does have Apostolic succession.

 

[GKC]

Here’s my understanding, based on a radio source I’d rather not name in case I’ve made an error in my memory or my presentation.

The Church of England originally had all seven valid sacraments, since its clergy, including its bishops, were Catholic bishops that broke away from the Church. During the reign of Henry VIII, Anglicanism remained mostly Catholic in its beliefs (except a few key ones to justify breaking with Rome, suppressing the monasteries, etc.). It was later on in the same century, under Edward VI and Elizabeth I, that they became more Protestant in their beliefs and practices. It was around that time that the sense of a sacrificial priesthood was lost. A part of the form of the sacrament for ordaining a priest (or, therefore, a bishop) is the intent to ordain the person to a sacrificial priesthood. With the idea of a sacrificial priesthood lost, new ordinations to the higher levels of Holy Orders were invalid.

Whether ordinations to the deaconate were still valid for that first generation, when valid bishops were ordaining but without a sense of sacrificial priesthood, is an interesting question. Maybe there was a phase (around the time of Shakespeare, I suppose) in which many Anglican “priests” and “bishops” were validly ordained deacons. But a deacon can not validly ordain anyone, even to the deaconate, and so Holy Orders was eventually lost entirely.

Without valid Holy Orders (specifically priests and bishops) there can be no Eucharist, no Reconciliation, no Anointing of the Sick, and I believe no Confirmation either. Anglican baptisms would still be valid, and marriages as long as neither party is canonically Catholic (or, if one is, if he or she has done everything that needs to be done for convalidation).

Today, some Anglicans have regained a sense of sacrificial priesthood, but it is too late. Apostolic succession has already been ruptured, unless a particular priest or bishop traces his line of ordination back through some line, outside the Anglican Communion, that does have Apostolic succession.

Pretty good coverage, of the RCC position, per Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

 

[Cheshangle]

Here’s my understanding, based on a radio source I’d rather not name in case I’ve made an error in my memory or my presentation.

The Church of England originally had all seven valid sacraments, since its clergy, including its bishops, were Catholic bishops that broke away from the Church. During the reign of Henry VIII, Anglicanism remained mostly Catholic in its beliefs (except a few key ones to justify breaking with Rome, suppressing the monasteries, etc.). It was later on in the same century, under Edward VI and Elizabeth I, that they became more Protestant in their beliefs and practices. It was around that time that the sense of a sacrificial priesthood was lost. A part of the form of the sacrament for ordaining a priest (or, therefore, a bishop) is the intent to ordain the person to a sacrificial priesthood. With the idea of a sacrificial priesthood lost, new ordinations to the higher levels of Holy Orders were invalid.

Whether ordinations to the deaconate were still valid for that first generation, when valid bishops were ordaining but without a sense of sacrificial priesthood, is an interesting question. Maybe there was a phase (around the time of Shakespeare, I suppose) in which many Anglican “priests” and “bishops” were validly ordained deacons. But a deacon can not validly ordain anyone, even to the deaconate, and so Holy Orders was eventually lost entirely.

Without valid Holy Orders (specifically priests and bishops) there can be no Eucharist, no Reconciliation, no Anointing of the Sick, and I believe no Confirmation either. Anglican baptisms would still be valid, and marriages as long as neither party is canonically Catholic (or, if one is, if he or she has done everything that needs to be done for convalidation).

Today, some Anglicans have regained a sense of sacrificial priesthood, but it is too late. Apostolic succession has already been ruptured, unless a particular priest or bishop traces his line of ordination back through some line, outside the Anglican Communion, that does have Apostolic succession.

As GKC says, you’ve summed up your position quite well, and certainly your church would have had problems if it recognised our priesthood as valid.

But an hour from now, I’ll be at CofE eucharist, and take the sacrament, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s valid, or else I wouldn’t partake of it.

Of course your eucharist is also perfectly valid, but I’m not allowed to partake (in theory at any rate).

 

[jnpl1185]

How do RCs today deal with Paul VI calling the Church of England “our beautiful Sister Church”?

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

As GKC says, you’ve summed up your position quite well, and certainly your church would have had problems if it recognised our priesthood as valid.

[But an hour from now, I’ll be at CofE eucharist, and take the sacrament, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s valid, or else I wouldn’t partake of it.

Of course your eucharist is also perfectly valid, but I’m not allowed to partake (in theory at any rate)].

But you haven’t explained " why " you think the CoeE eucharist is actually valid ( and for the record , I don’t ) . Why doesn’t the loss of Apostolic Succession And Improper Form/Intent present a problem for you ?

You are correct about not being able to receive Communion at a RC Mass; but remember , you are not in “communion” with us and I am not sure you believe the same things about the Eucharist as we do . So what is the issue ?

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

[How do RCs today deal with Paul VI calling the Church of England “our beautiful Sister Church”? ]

Without knowing the context of the quote , I’m not sure what to think . But since a number of Popes have referred to Protestants and protestant denominations as our " separated brethren ", the quote you referenced doesn’t seem controversial at all . IOW , I don’t think it’s a big deal .

 

[Cheshangle]

But you haven’t explained " why " you think the CoeE eucharist is actually valid ( and for the record , I don’t ) . Why doesn’t the loss of Apostolic Succession And Improper Form/Intent present a problem for you ?

You are correct about not being able to receive Communion at a RC Mass; but remember , you are not in “communion” with us and I am not sure you believe the same things about the Eucharist as we do . So what is the issue ?

That’s easy. I do not accept the loss of the Apostolic Succession. I believe in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and said so at eucharist an hour ago.
And I believe that churches of the Anglican Communion are part of that church.

I believe our sacraments are valid. If I did not believe that, I would not take them. I also believe that the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise that the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

If I did not believe that, I would not be an Anglican.

 

[Cheshangle]

How do RCs today deal with Paul VI calling the Church of England “our beautiful Sister Church”?

I’ll leave our RC friends to answer that, but in my experience they’re uncomfortable with it. I believe that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have tried to “air-brush” it.

Of course as Anglicans we certainly regard the RCC as our Beloved Sister Church. Living in Ireland for four years strengthened me in that belief.

 

[GKC]

Without knowing the context of the quote , I’m not sure what to think . But since a number of Popes have referred to Protestants and protestant denominations as our " separated brethren ", the quote you referenced doesn’t seem controversial at all . IOW , I don’t think it’s a big deal .

Theoretically, the point would be in the use of the word church, which refers to a particular church, and which implies apostolic succession. As in the case of the Orthodox. The term generally used for other Christian groupings, by the RCC, is ecclesiastical community.

The occasion of Paul’s quote was his speech at the canonization of the British and Welsh Martyrs, in1970. While Paul had a particularly close relationship with the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, I don’t read a lot of significance into the use of the term.

GKC

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

[Theoretically, the point would be in the use of the word church, which refers to a particular church, and which implies apostolic succession. As in the case of the Orthodox. The term generally used for other Christian groupings, by the RCC, is ecclesiastical community.

The occasion of Paul’s quote was his speech at the canonization of the British and Welsh Martyrs, in1970. While Paul had a particularly close relationship with the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, I don’t read a lot of significance into the use of the term.]

GKC

Thanks , when I first read the quote , I didn’t notice that the “c” in church was upper case . But even that wouldn’t matter . You are right about the ecclesiastical community designation . If it had been a layman , you might assume he was speaking in the colloquial sense of "church " , but the Pope would not be that informal in a public setting . My bad.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

[That’s easy. I do not accept the loss of the Apostolic Succession. I believe in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and said so at eucharist an hour ago.
And I believe that churches of the Anglican Communion are part of that church.

I believe our sacraments are valid. If I did not believe that, I would not take them. I also believe that the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise that the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.]

If I did not believe that, I would not be an Anglican.

I think you miss my point . What is your evidence ? You have made an assertion , not an arguement . IOW , I know what you believe but I don’t know why .

 

[puzzleannie]

If I’m not mistaken, a Pope declared sometime in the past that Anglican sacraments are “null and utterly void.” Does this mean that before this declaration Anglican sacraments were considered valid by the Catholic Church or is this declaration of the pope just a reaffirmation of the fact that Anglican sacraments are indeed void? ?

various popes have made this declaration, repeating the first judgement, throughout the sad history of separation of the Anglicans from Rome. There was never a time when Anglican sacraments including ordination were considered valid once the first pope, certainly before the end of QE’s reign, and probably in the time of Edward VI declared apostolic succession had been interrupted. Since the question came up from time to time, especially in the rise of the high Church Oxford movement in the 19th c. it had to be reitterated. by subsequent popes.

OP’s question deals specifically with the Catholic POV of the question, so opinions of any other body, including Anglicans themselves, are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[GKC]

various popes have made this declaration, repeating the first judgement, throughout the sad history of separation of the Anglicans from Rome. There was never a time when Anglican sacraments including ordination were considered valid once the first pope, certainly before the end of QE’s reign, and probably in the time of Edward VI declared apostolic succession had been interrupted. Since the question came up from time to time, especially in the rise of the high Church Oxford movement in the 19th c. it had to be reitterated. by subsequent popes.

OP’s question deals specifically with the Catholic POV of the question, so opinions of any other body, including Anglicans themselves, are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

Though you might get some anyway. I gave the thumbnail sketch here, as to Apostolicae Curae, and its history. Straight history. One reason Apostolicae Curae was issued (among other reasons) was that there had been no definitive statement on the question. AC was that statement.That Anglican orders had been treated as invalid, esp. post 1559, is also true.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think you miss my point . What is your evidence ? You have made an assertion , not an arguement . IOW , I know what you believe but I don’t know why .

I would suspect he means that he doesn’t accept the argument (which was the theological side of Apostolicae Curae; there were also political and personal ones), that the use of the form in the Edwardine Ordinal (which itself was not exceptional; there were a number of Rites with the same "defect: that were and are considered valid) was not enough reason to allow a conclusion that the sacramental intent in the sacramental action was not* facere quod facit ecclesia* and constituted a sufficent reason for a determinatio ex adiunctus to establish invalid interior intent.

Or he may be considering the OC/PNCC/Anglican joint consecrations.

Or maybe something else.

GKC

 

[Cheshangle]

I think you miss my point . What is your evidence ? You have made an assertion , not an arguement . IOW , I know what you believe but I don’t know why .

Sorry, evidence for what?

If you mean the Apostolic succession as regards the Anglican Communion, well, yes I can produce that (though it’s my bedtime now). but I thought that your church regarded the succession as broken because the form of service was not in order.

And what is your evidence for disputing the Apostolic Succession with regard to Anglican orders? As opposed to an assertion.

 

[KathleenGee]

It needs to be clarified here…

I believe I read that the Catholic Church does recognize valid communion in some Anglican branches, but in the majority, communion is not recognize because of the break in apostolic succession and not having the laying on of hands…

Our bishop from the Commission of Ecumenism in Vatican II stated the Anglicans are most close to us after the Orthodox. It is women’s ordination and approved homosexual activity that is now blocking greater unity between the two churches.

 

[GKC]

Sorry, evidence for what?

If you mean the Apostolic succession as regards the Anglican Communion, well, yes I can produce that (though it’s my bedtime now). but I thought that your church regarded the succession as broken because the form of service was not in order.

And what is your evidence for disputing the Apostolic Succession with regard to Anglican orders? As opposed to an assertion.

It will be as cited in Apostolicae Curae

GKC

 

[TimothyH]

I’ll leave our RC friends to answer that, but in my experience they’re uncomfortable with it. I believe that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have tried to “air-brush” it.

Of course as Anglicans we certainly regard the RCC as our Beloved Sister Church. Living in Ireland for four years strengthened me in that belief.

Perhapse the discomfort is not so much with the Pope’s comments but the fact that Anglicanism is institutionalized in England as the official government religion. My Protestant friends in French Canadian provinces feel somewhat distrustful of Catholicsim for the same reason.

My experience here in the US is that Catholics view the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches as disobedient sisters, and not a little bit schizophrenic or bipolar. Being, as we see it, part of the Church which possesses the fullness of truth, we just kinda shake our heads and wonder what the heck is going on in those places.

I don’t mean this as an insult and really want to maintain a spirit of charity and good will. I’m sure there are differences between the US and England, especially in light of the history between the CofE and Rome, of which many here in the US have little perspective.

-Tim-