Anglican valid orders

[f_william]

First what does pncc mean?

Second why would you come to a forum to ask such an important question related to your vocation?

First of all it means Polish National catholic Church.They have valid sacraments but ilucit. Second I don’t have to come here to ask questions. I come here to find out what other peoplethink on a subject.So if I come across some questionlike in classI may be able to answer it.Somethings in anglicanism is hard to understand and knowing opinions of peolpe are thinking may help.

 

[Nine_Two]

By denying that the C of E teaches ex opere operato, I am not thereby endorsing that the C of E teaches donatism. The C of E clearly teaches that Holy Orders are a legal function, and that it is the church’s job to discern those who are called and train and install them as ministers. They are not invested with sacerdotal powers by the laying on of hands.

Notice that the priest is charged after his ordination to “take thou authority” to preach the word and administer the sacraments. The celebration of the sacraments according to the C of E is a matter of discipline, not a charisma that can be confected on a man.

Is this just the CofE or the entire communion? Because the Province of Canada seems to accept just about anyone who wants to be a minister.

 

[7_Sorrows]

First of all it means Polish National catholic Church.They have valid sacraments but ilucit. Second I don’t have to come here to ask questions. I come here to find out what other peoplethink on a subject.So if I come across some questionlike in classI may be able to answer it.Somethings in anglicanism is hard to understand and knowing opinions of peolpe are thinking may help.

Sorry. I didn’t mean to be rude. I was both episcipalian and anglican before I converted to Catholicism so I understand that there are questions. So many things have happened in the anglican communion and episcopal church the last 20-25 years.

How can sacraments of PNCC be both valid and illicit?

 

[f_william]

No…the pope is his own on such decisions. Pope paul vi went against the majority view in not letting the rcc approve birth control, is one instance, that show the pope does not go with popular public opinion…/]Birt
Now
Thats why I left the Catholic Church. UhI don’t think one man should not be inso much power to mmake a decision like that.Birth control should made between a husband and wife.I bet we’ll agree on this one abortion should be outlawed.I’m just saying that popes are only human and some might make decisions on personal motives.

 

[f_william]

Sorry. I didn’t mean to be rude. I was both episcipalian and anglican before I converted to Catholicism so I understand that there are questions. So many things have happened in the anglican communion and episcopal church the last 20-25 years.

How can sacraments of PNCC be both valid and illicit?

I know you weren’t being rude. Now the pncc got their orders from the Old Catholics. They left the RC because of the belief of the pope is infallible. That made them in schism but still have valid sacraments. The pncc left the RC for reasons(if you want to know let me know)They needed bishops for their church and they askef the Old Catholic to ordain them.Witch put them in schism they have a valid priesthood becausr of the OC but rome da don’t want them to celebrant the eucharist but they do it anyway wi5ch make them illucit. MA I hope you got all that.Its getting late so forgive my typing and my spelling.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It is very confusing. So many schisms!

 

[GKC]

Sorry. I didn’t mean to be rude. I was both episcipalian and anglican before I converted to Catholicism so I understand that there are questions. So many things have happened in the anglican communion and episcopal church the last 20-25 years.

How can sacraments of PNCC be both valid and illicit?

Any validly consecrated bishop (in apostolic succession), even schismatic, heretical, or excommunicated ones, can validly confect the sacrament of Orders, assuming valid intent, matter, form, etc. The RCC considers the PNCC, as also certain parts of the Union of Utrecht, to possess valid Orders. Hence, the sacraments they confect (those requiring valid orders) are considered valid. But since they are not in communion with Rome, they are not considered licit, that is, they are not authorized.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think it has indirectly with Lutherans. The Commission on Unity between Lutherans and Catholics acknowledges full communion between Lutheran and Anglicans as a positive signal toward Catholic reunification.

Rather more pertinent to the question would be a re-visitation of the decision expressed in Apostolicae Curae. Which will not happen.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Do you think GKC it will ever be revisited?

No. For a variety of reasons.

GKC

 

[7_Sorrows]

Would you care to list those reasons or are they too many
or obvious (and I don’t get it)?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Would you care to list those reasons or are they too many
or obvious (and I don’t get it)?

While I am sure there are deeper considerations GKC will have, the main one I would think is there is no particular benefit.

First the theological innovations in the past couple decades would make it particularly difficult.

Secondly, Rome has provided a way for those Anglicans who desire to come over through the Ordinariates and the response has been somewhat tepid.

 

[GKC]

While I am sure there are deeper considerations GKC will have, the main one I would think is there is no particular benefit.

First the theological innovations in the past couple decades would make it particularly difficult.

Secondly, Rome has provided a way for those Anglicans who desire to come over through the Ordinariates and the response has been somewhat tepid.

And thirdly the wording of the Apostolic Letter makes it extremely unlikely that any such thing could be considered. Even if the the first 2 points, which you correctly list, were not true.

When Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey developed close relations, back in the 60s, and the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission was first formed, to explore methods of narrowing the gap between Rome and Anglicanism, there was a possibility that such a process might lead to something like a revisiting of *AC *. But then came your (delicately worded) point #1. The Devil has exquisite timing.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all. I see much has already been posted on this thread before I arrived, but I want to return to:

I’m studying to be an anglican priest… when Iget ordained there will be 2 bishops from the pncc there. Now I believe that without them there I will still be a priest. Would like to know with the two bishops there would the Catholic Church recognize my order as valid? It doesn’t matter either way just want to know.

The fact that two bishops from the PNCC will be present does not have any bearing on the matter (unless they will be consecrating you – which they won’t, unless I’ve misunderstood your post, since the PNCC does not ordain anyone outside of their communion) any more than an RC bishop being present.

BTW, which two bishops?

 

[GKC]

Hi all. I see much has already been posted on this thread before I arrived, but I want to return to:

The fact that two bishops from the PNCC will be present does not have any bearing on the matter, any more than an RC bishop being present (unless they will be consecrating you – and the PNCC does not ordain anyone outside of their communion).

BTW, which two bishops?

They will be co-consecrators. It has been done since 1946.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

They will be co-consecrators. It has been done since 1946.

GKC

Well, no question it was done beginning in 1946. But surely it did not continue after 1978 (when the PNCC discontinued inter-communion with the EC-USA) – of course, if you can prove me wrong on that, I’ll be very impressed.

 

[GKC]

Well, no question it was done beginning in 1946. But surely it did not continue after 1978 (when the PNCC discontinued inter-communion with the EC-USA) – of course, if you can prove me wrong on that, I’ll be very impressed.

Nope. You’re right on that.

And if they no longer do it with any Anglican entity at all, I would suspect they won’t do it for the OP. Of course, that’s assuming when he says he is Anglican, he doesn’t mean he’s in TEC. But he certainly seems to be saying that they will lay on hands, not just attend the luncheon, afterwards.

GKC

 

[Yeoman]

They will be co-consecrators. It has been done since 1946.

GKC

How did that come about?

I’ve read somewhere that at one point Anglicans became concerned with the validity of their Holy Orders (which is in part what we’ve been discussing here) and took this approach on one occasion in order to address that. I wasn’t aware that this kept on going on.

Of course, the Anglican Communion would be in the situation on continually recreating these concerns, at least from a Catholic prospective, by various acts such as the ordination of women and the raising them to the level of of Bishops. But the fact that the concern exists and that the way to address it is through the PNCC is an interesting concession to the Catholic point of view.

 

[Yeoman]

Oops, I see I should have continued reading the thread before posting.

 

[Yeoman]

In the spirit of trying to write charitably (which the written word doesn’t always convey well) and pose a question I’ve often had, and which I think sincere Anglicans should have as well, I’ll post this. First the background needed for the question.

I don’t know what exact interest the original poster had here, who is a candidate for ordination in an Anglican church, but it seems to me that there’s essentially three types of Anglicans, which are:

1. Anglicans who are fully protestant and disregard the positions of Catholics and Anglican who are “Catholic” in their view about the nature of their church. These people don’t believe in the Real Presence, they don’t worry about holy orders being valid as they don’t regard any of them as really special in that sense, etc. To them, I guess, being an Episcopalian is simply a tradition, or perhaps familiar.
2. Anglicans who do believe in the Catholic position in general but are satisfied with their Church’s claims on apostolic succession and are liberal in their views, where they insist on the ordination of women and perhaps other liberal positions.
3. Anglicans who fully believe that their church has valid Holy Orders, etc. and that its essentially a “catholic” church the same way the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are.

So, here’s my questions.

For those for whom Holy Orders and validity are important (group 3), who are often the most devout and thoughtful of the Anglicans, why risk any doubt? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to remove the doubt and become Catholic? It seems like gambling with your soul not to do so.

For those who are fully protestant (#1), shouldn’t they reconsider the position of their own church which maintains that these questions are important, and which has occasionally gone to some very great lengths to try to make sure that it does address them?

As for group #2, I guess I my point would essentially be the same as for group #1, but if you’re in group #2 that sort of points you to group #3 which gets you back to my original question.

 

[GKC]

In the spirit of trying to write charitably (which the written word doesn’t always convey well) and pose a question I’ve often had, and which I think sincere Anglicans should have as well, I’ll post this. First the background needed for the question.

I don’t know what exact interest the original poster had here, who is a candidate for ordination in an Anglican church, but it seems to me that there’s essentially three types of Anglicans, which are:

1. Anglicans who are fully protestant and disregard the positions of Catholics and Anglican who are “Catholic” in their view about the nature of their church. These people don’t believe in the Real Presence, they don’t worry about holy orders being valid as they don’t regard any of them as really special in that sense, etc. To them, I guess, being an Episcopalian is simply a tradition, or perhaps familiar.
2. Anglicans who do believe in the Catholic position in general but are satisfied with their Church’s claims on apostolic succession and are liberal in their views, where they insist on the ordination of women and perhaps other liberal positions.
3. Anglicans who fully believe that their church has valid Holy Orders, etc. and that its essentially a “catholic” church the same way the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are.

So, here’s my questions.

For those for whom Holy Orders and validity are important (group 3), who are often the most devout and thoughtful of the Anglicans, why risk any doubt? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to remove the doubt and become Catholic? It seems like gambling with your soul not to do so.

For those who are fully protestant (#1), shouldn’t they reconsider the position of their own church which maintains that these questions are important, and which has occasionally gone to some very great lengths to try to make sure that it does address them?

As for group #2, I guess I my point would essentially be the same as for group #1, but if you’re in group #2 that sort of points you to group #3 which gets you back to my original question.

Many of your group 3 will do precisely that: convert.

Many similarly situated do not see that there is an issue of doubt. To automatically assume that such an Anglo-Catholic would make such a submission to the Apostolic Letter is to make precisely the error that Cardinal Vaughan promulgated, back in the 1890s. Such folk already believe themselves to be Catholic. Just not Roman Catholic.

GKC