Anglican vs. Orthodox Orders

[mizznicole]

Hi,

Can someone explain to me in a nutshell why Orthodox orders (and Eucharist) are valid but not Anglican?

Thanks!

 

[mizznicole]

Hello moderator,

I’m curious why this was moved since it deals with liturgy and sacraments (Orders).

Just wondering for future reference. Thanks!

 

[GKC]

Hi,

Can someone explain to me in a nutshell why Orthodox orders (and Eucharist) are valid but not Anglican?

Thanks!

In the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae, issued over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, it was said that the Anglican Church had lost apostolic succession, through the use of the Edwardine Ordinal (in the 16th century), which was judged defective in form, and through a defective intent, as demonstrated by the use of that Ordinal format. Both defects, of form and of intent, have to be considered together, for technical reasons. Hence, having lost the apostolic succession (according to Rome), Anglican orders were considered null and void, since there was no valid bishop to pass valid orders.

The Orthodox are not considered in the same situation, merely being schismatic, and still retaining valid (though illicit) orders, thorugh the use of valid form and with valid intent. Other churchs in the same situation as the Orthdox would be the Old Catholics of Utrecht (in the beginning) and the Polish National Catholic Church.

Anglicans, of course, have a different opinion.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Hesychios]

Hello GKC,
I am not targeting you in the least, but I hear this terminology a lot and I have to comment. Technically you are correct according to Latin Catholic understanding, a perfect textbook reply.

…The Orthodox are not considered in the same situation, merely being schismatic,

Merely? We are all schismatics, if not worse, every last one of us.

and still retaining valid (though illicit) orders…

The term illicit is absolutely meaningless if a sacrament is valid, that is, if the Holy Spirit acts.

One does not pooh pooh the Holy Spirit, one does not conjure up the Holy Spirit against His will, like an act of magic. One does not tell the Holy Spirit “You do not go there!”

This terminology itself is completely wrong, offensive and probably dangerous. The theory behind it needs a major rework.

We are all schismatics, Catholics and Orthodox alike, not one or the other but both. We might as well all get used to the idea or we will make no progress at setting things aright.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael your brother

 

[bpbasilphx]

We are all schismatics, Catholics and Orthodox alike, not one or the other but both. We might as well all get used to the idea or we will make no progress at setting things aright.

**Someone asked the now Metropolitan Kallistos about the various groups called either “non-canonical” or “independent.”

He said that we should not be so quick to throw stones, as the canons clearly say there is to be but ONE bishop in a city, and there are about 4 or 5 claiming to be the Orthodox bishop of Chicago.

In the Youngstown, Ohio area, there are three OCA churches–each under a different OCA bishop!**

 

[Hesychios]

We are all schismatics, Catholics and Orthodox alike, not one or the other but both. We might as well all get used to the idea or we will make no progress at setting things aright.

**Someone asked the now Metropolitan Kallistos about the various groups called either “non-canonical” or “independent.”

He said that we should not be so quick to throw stones, as the canons clearly say there is to be but ONE bishop in a city, and there are about 4 or 5 claiming to be the Orthodox bishop of Chicago.

In the Youngstown, Ohio area, there are three OCA churches–each under a different OCA bishop!**

True enough, with a similar situation in the same state for Catholics.

It’s a hard road.

 

[Peter_J]

The Orthodox are not considered in the same situation, merely being schismatic, and still retaining valid (though illicit) orders, thorugh the use of valid form and with valid intent.

I now lost count of how many times I’ve seen internet posters and bloggers claim that Orthodox sacraments are illicit – and, in every case, this was not backed up with any statement from the magisterium of the Catholic Church, but was based on the person’s own blogerial authority.

 

[GKC]

Hello GKC,
I am not targeting you in the least, but I hear this terminology a lot and I have to comment. Technically you are correct according to Latin Catholic understanding, a perfect textbook reply. Merely? We are all schismatics, if not worse, every last one of us. The term illicit is absolutely meaningless if a sacrament is valid, that is, if the Holy Spirit acts.

One does not pooh pooh the Holy Spirit, one does not conjure up the Holy Spirit against His will, like an act of magic. One does not tell the Holy Spirit “You do not go there!”

This terminology itself is completely wrong, offensive and probably dangerous. The theory behind it needs a major rework.

We are all schismatics, Catholics and Orthodox alike, not one or the other but both. We might as well all get used to the idea or we will make no progress at setting things aright.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael your brother

Oh, I agree with you, in general.

Did I mention that I was an Anglican?

GKC

 

[GKC]

I now lost count of how many times I’ve seen internet posters and bloggers claim that Orthodox sacraments are illicit – and, in every case, this was not backed up with any statement from the magisterium of the Catholic Church, but was based on the person’s own blogerial authority.

I’m certainly willing to be corrected on this, since I don’t hold that view at all. But I do understand the difference in the Cyprianic and the Augustinaian views on orders.

Did I mention that I’m an Anglican?

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

Oh, I agree with you, in general.

Did I mention that I was an Anglican?

GKC

My dear brother.

I knew you were an Anglican, and a very well informed one at that. I have read your work here quite a bit, very satisfying contributions I must add…

I just went off on a tangent, to explain my position viv a vis that particular contention.

I acknowledge that you did good service by answering the inquirers question honestly and correctly according to the understanding of many, if not most Latin Catholic apologists we find here. These people (and I once thought the same way, in times long past) make the contention that Orthodox sacraments and orders are illicit, but I find that type of reasoning poorly formed.

I beg you pardon 1000 times!

Your brother,
Michael

 

[GKC]

My dear brother.

I knew you were an Anglican, and a very well informed one at that. I have read your work here quite a bit, very satisfying contributions I must add…

I just went off on a tangent, to explain my position viv a vis that particular contention.

I acknowledge that you did good service by answering the inquirers question honestly and correctly according to the understanding of many, if not most Latin Catholic apologists we find here. These people (and I once thought the same way, in times long past) make the contention that Orthodox sacraments and orders are illicit, but I find that type of reasoning poorly formed.

I beg you pardon 1000 times!

Your brother,
Michael

Oh, shucks.

It’s ok.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

I’m certainly willing to be corrected on this, since I don’t hold that view at all. But I do understand the difference in the Cyprianic and the Augustinaian views on orders.

Did I mention that I’m an Anglican?

GKC

Actually, I was figuring you for a Catholic . Now that I know you’re Anglican, would I be right in guessing that you’ve seen “Orthodox order are illicit” on some Catholic website or other, and that the authority backing it up was blogerial rather than magisterial?

 

[GKC]

Actually, I was figuring you for a Catholic . Now that I know you’re Anglican, would I be right in guessing that you’ve seen “Orthodox order are illicit” on some Catholic website or other, and that the authority backing it up was blogerial rather than magisterial?

I’ve certainly seen it in board discussions, and assumed it was an accurate reflection of the RCC position. I can check Ott, but what can you tell me?

BTW, I am a Catholic. But not of the Roman variety.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[vocatio]

Did I tell you I’m a Latin Rite Catholic in love with the Eastern Orthodox Church? I found my way home by way of the Eastern Church. But I love my papa so I’d have to be Byzantine Catholic I guess. But my wife won’t let me… But that’s okay, our oldest son says he wants to be a priest in the Latin Rite. Oh well. Loving every minute of being home.

 

[GKC]

Did I tell you I’m a Latin Rite Catholic in love with the Eastern Orthodox Church? I found my way home by way of the Eastern Church. But I love my papa so I’d have to be Byzantine Catholic I guess. But my wife won’t let me… But that’s okay, our oldest son says he wants to be a priest in the Latin Rite. Oh well. Loving every minute of being home.

That is good.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve certainly seen it in board discussions, and assumed it was an accurate reflection of the RCC position. I can check Ott, but what can you tell me?

I don’t give much credence to hearsay – as I mentioned before 0% of the people I’ve seen make that claim offered any kind of evidence.

BTW, I am a Catholic. But not of the Roman variety.

Some people around here would disagree with you (as you’ve perhaps already experienced).

 

[GKC]

I don’t give much credence to hearsay – as I mentioned before 0% of the people I’ve seen make that claim offered any kind of evidence.

Fair enough. But what can you tell me defintively with respect to the attitude of the RCC toward Orthodox orders?

Some people around here would disagree with you (as you’ve perhaps already experienced).

Frequently.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Fair enough. But what can you tell me defintively with respect to the attitude of the RCC toward Orthodox orders?

Well, I haven’t any official church statement specifically contradicting such hearsay (or telling bloggers that don’t have the authority to make such decisions ). But I think a little common sense is all that’s needed.

 

[GKC]

Well, I haven’t any official church statement specifically contradicting such hearsay (or telling bloggers that don’t have the authority to make such decisions ). But I think a little common sense is all that’s needed.

Ok.

Are there any RCs here with anything to contribute on the “Orthodox orders are valid but illicit (because not in communion with the Pope” issue? That is how I usually see it expressed.

GKC

 

[jesusluv]

I’m not that big of a fan of this site, but this article about anglican, catholic, and orthodox orders was at least an interesting read and the writer seemed to make a decent argument. It at least touches on what you are asking, GKC.

religioustolerance.org/tony02.htm