Anglican valid orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter f_william
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
Historically, that is not what happened. For complicated reasons not usually related in this sort of discussion, there was appointed a commission of first 6,then 8 RC clergy, to examine the question of what the historic RCC attitude toward Anglican orders had been and whether they should be a change in that. The commissioners were 4 English RC clergy, 3 selected by Archbishop Cardinal Vaughan, the others from European countries.

The results of their deliberations were not made public, but are discernible from info leaked over the years - possibly 4 each, for valid-invalid, or, more likely, 2 for valid, 2 for possibly valid, 4 for invalid. Cardinal Vaughan’s 3 selectees were solidly for invalid.

After 10 meetings, the commissioners’ deliberations were ended, and they made a report. After which, the matter went to a group of Cardinals,under the Holy Office for final deliberation. The Cardinals met once, after about a month of maneuverings, primarily by Cardinal Vaughan and his representatives, on Thursday, 16 July 1896. This was a Feria V meeting, under the personal presidency of the Pope, which lends greater solemnity and authority to the final decision. An unusual effort to have the maximum number of Cardinals in attendance resulted in an ill Cardinal (Mertel) being carried into the meeting. But there was one notable absence: Cardinal Rampolla, the Cardinal Sec. of State, the only high Vatican official to have shown any favor to the general idea of valid Anglican orders from the first, was not present.

The Cardinals sat for about 2-3 hours. The unanimous vote, in brief, was that Anglican orders were invalid. Apostolicae Curae, written by Monsignor Merry Del Val, who had served as the original Commission secretary, and had worked closely with Cardinal Vaughan throughout, and Dom Francis Gasquet, from the Commission. Or perhaps primarily by Cardinal Mazella, Prefect of the Holy Office, who drafted the original of the Bull (authorities differ). Leo annotated it, for the final version. And it was issued on 13 Sep, 1896. Much history is compressed here. The best resource on this subject, as on the detailed history of Apostolicae Curae generally, is found in Fr. John J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID.

The correct attitude to take toward the judgement is that it is certainly binding on RCs, at the appropriate level of theological certainty, and should be affirmed by them. Anglicans, of course, may take another view of the matter (or the form, or intent).

GKC
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
That is the question of the Polish Pat (analogous to the Dutch Touch). And, AFAIK, and I’ve been interested in the general subject for 15-18 years, the RCC has made no definitive statement on that point, with respect to the judgement made on Anglican orders, in Apostolicae Curae. By the logic found in Ott’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p.458, it would seem that you would receive the sacrament of Orders validly, assuming all other aspect of the sacramental action were equally valid. But there is nothing I know of to point at.

GKC
Click to expand...
I think it is time for Apostolicae Curae to be revisited. Much has changed since AC was written, such as the Dutch Touch and the Polish Pat.
 
f_william said:
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.
Click to expand...
First what does pncc mean?

Second why would you come to a forum to ask such an important question related to your vocation?
 
40.png
f_william:
So it was a upswing in Anglocatholism in England that made Leo say Anglican orders are invalid.So if it wasn’t for the anglo catholic we may be valid . It make one think.
 
f_william said:
So it was a upswing in Anglocatholism in England that made Leo say Anglican orders are invalid.So if it wasn’t for the anglo catholic we may be valid . It make one think.
Click to expand...
No. It was far, far more complicated than that.

I always recommend Fr. John J. Hughes’ 2 books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for the history and theology involved; Francis Clark’s (at the time, Fr. Francis Clark, SJ) for the best RC account of the theology involved.

The last time I tried a comprehensive history of the sad tale of Apostolicae Curae, it took me about 6 -8 full posts, at max post length. Unlikely I will do that again.

GKC
 
andrewstx said:
I think it is time for Apostolicae Curae to be revisited. Much has changed since AC was written, such as the Dutch Touch and the Polish Pat.
Click to expand...
Much has indeed changed, in Anglicanism in particular. For the last 50 years or so, the shifts in Anglicanism, generally, tend to make Apostolicae Curae seem a prescient document, 70+ years ahead of its time.

GKC
 
What about bishops appointed and priests ordained during the anti-Pope history in the RCC?

I grew up in the episcopal church and I don’t know when or how- but I believed the priests did have valid orders. When I became Catholic I was told differently. My episcopal priest I had was also shocked.

I think it should be revisited. I don’t think the CoE posed a threat to the RCC. I agree with andrew it should be revisited. Maybe if episcopal priests believed they had valid orders they would be more accountable about following the teachings of the Church.
 
f_william said:
Is’nt that what Rome is doing making anglican priest Catholic? What worng with married priests? Know a marriedpriest in wisconsin and in tv interview the parishers say that there no difference than a single one. That always there when needed. If the CC change the rule they may not have a priest shortage.It might work but have to think about Anglican, lutherans and others that allow marriage and have a shortage.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what your actual question is here. :confused: Yes, some Anglican priests have been received into the Catholic Church but they aren’t received* as priests*. Afterwards, they can attend seminary and seek ordination. If married, a dispensation for celibacy is given. They don’t just go from Anglican priest to Catholic priest in a snap.

There is a lot of discussion and debate about married priest. Besides the converts, there are married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches. It’s an open discussion with pros and cons on both sides.
 
Nine_Two said:
Pretty sure that is an implicit teaching of the C of E, even if not explicit. The idea that the state of a priest’s soul affects the sacraments is certainly foreign to my Anglican upbringing.
Click to expand...
As it is to the Catholic Church.
 
f_william said:
So it was a upswing in Anglocatholism in England that made Leo say Anglican orders are invalid.So if it wasn’t for the anglo catholic we may be valid . It make one think.
Click to expand...
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…
 
srands.
pablope said:
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…
Click to expand...
This appears to be a misunderstanding of the point. It wasn’t a case of public opinion. Cardinal Vaughan expressed to Leo that Anglo-Catholics, who respected the Papacy, would react to a condemnation of Anglican orders by converting, in numbers. This is covered, among other places, in Fr. George Tavard’s A REVIEW OF ANGLICAN ORDERS. Fr. Tavard puts more emphasis on this than does Fr. Hughes. But it is only one aspect in the complex, lengthy, and sad history of Apostolicae Curae; a tangled web of theological, political, historical, and personal strands.

GKC
 
7_Sorrows said:
Do you think GKC it will ever be revisited?
Click to expand...
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.
 
7_Sorrows said:
First what does pncc mean?

Second why would you come to a forum to ask such an important question related to your vocation?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top