Anglicans/ Episcopalians and Apostolic Succession

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. I have read that the Anglican/Episcopal Church does not have valid apostolic succession. From what I heard, there is a papal letter called Apostolicae Curae that shows why Anglican/Episcopalian orders are invalid. From what I understand, the main reason why they are invalid is because they did not use the proper form at one point in history during an ordination. Is that true? Also, I think that with there being women bishops and priests in the Anglican and Episcopal churches, that is more proof that they do not have valid apostolic succession. What do you think?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi everyone. I have read that the Anglican/Episcopal Church does not have valid apostolic succession. From what I heard, there is a papal letter called Apostolicae Curae that shows why Anglican/Episcopalian orders are invalid. From what I understand, the main reason why they are invalid is because they did not use the proper form at one point in history during an ordination. Is that true? Also, I think that with there being women bishops and priests in the Anglican and Episcopal churches, that is more proof that they do not have valid apostolic succession. What do you think?

Holly-

What you have written is correct. Anglicans, Episcopalians, Wesleyans, Methodists, etc. do not have valid orders due to defect in form and intent.

You may read about that document online here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae

It is interesting to note that the recent ordination of women further complicates the arguements supporting valid orders. Since the Catholic Church holds that only males may be consecrated as priests, the Anglican ordination of women has introduced the defect of form.

 

[GKC]

Holly-

What you have written is correct. Anglicans, Episcopalians, Wesleyans, Methodists, etc. do not have valid orders due to defect in form and intent.

You may read about that document online here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae

It is interesting to note that the recent ordination of women further complicates the arguements supporting valid orders. Since the Catholic Church holds that only males may be consecrated as priests, the Anglican ordination of women has introduced the defect of form.

And, what you have written is correct, from the RC standpoint. Anglicans have a different view.

You’re right on the females issue, though. Except that reflects a defect of matter, not of form. I suspect a typo.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[chris_molter]

While AC requires the assent of all Catholics, much has changed since the late 19th century with regards to the validity of the Orders within Anglicanism.

Because of an ‘injection’ of Old Catholic and PNCC (valid in the eyes of Rome) orders, many Anglicans probably DO have valid Catholic Orders. Whether that is sufficient to overcome the differing ideas of what a Priest does between Catholicism and Anglicanism (or, indeed, Anglicanism and Anglicanism) remains to be seen.

There are at least a handful of former Catholic Priests who have left the Church and become Anglican Priests who retain their valid orders as well.

So yes, Anglican Orders are invalid. But if somewher along the lines they became CATHOLIC Orders, then you’re talking about a new ballgame.

 

[GKC]

While AC requires the assent of all Catholics, much has changed since the late 19th century with regards to the validity of the Orders within Anglicanism.

Because of an ‘injection’ of Old Catholic and PNCC (valid in the eyes of Rome) orders, many Anglicans probably DO have valid Catholic Orders. Whether that is sufficient to overcome the differing ideas of what a Priest does between Catholicism and Anglicanism (or, indeed, Anglicanism and Anglicanism) remains to be seen.

There are at least a handful of former Catholic Priests who have left the Church and become Anglican Priests who retain their valid orders as well.

So yes, Anglican Orders are invalid. But if somewher along the lines they became CATHOLIC Orders, then you’re talking about a new ballgame.

Fair statement.

GKC

 

[Holly3278]

While AC requires the assent of all Catholics, much has changed since the late 19th century with regards to the validity of the Orders within Anglicanism.

Because of an ‘injection’ of Old Catholic and PNCC (valid in the eyes of Rome) orders, many Anglicans probably DO have valid Catholic Orders. Whether that is sufficient to overcome the differing ideas of what a Priest does between Catholicism and Anglicanism (or, indeed, Anglicanism and Anglicanism) remains to be seen.

There are at least a handful of former Catholic Priests who have left the Church and become Anglican Priests who retain their valid orders as well.

So yes, Anglican Orders are invalid. But if somewher along the lines they became CATHOLIC Orders, then you’re talking about a new ballgame.

Then would it not be fair to say that some Anglicans and Episcopalians have valid orders and some do not?

 

[piperspop]

To say such orders are invalid because of a defect in form is to say Jesus is a nitpicker, a lawyer, a tax accountant.

That letter was never proclaimed ex-cathedra (I don’t think), so even though it was a papal bull (as was the inquisition), it could be reversed.

The Anglican perspective is different, as mentioned above.

The question is, is intent not more important than form?

What would Jesus say?

 

[GKC]

To say such orders are invalid because of a defect in form is to say Jesus is a nitpicker, a lawyer, a tax accountant.

That letter was never proclaimed ex-cathedra (I don’t think), so even though it was a papal bull (as was the inquisition), it could be reversed.

The Anglican perspective is different, as mentioned above.

The question is, is intent not more important than form?

What would Jesus say?

The judgment in Apostolicae Curae requires that the defect of form of the Ordinal must be considered with the defect of intent in using it, so intent, as the RCC saw it, is also defective. It’s slightly complicated.

A Bull does not convey a degree of theological certainty in itself, it’s just a means of communicating, under certain circumstances. And, while AC, was not an ex cathedra statement, it is de fide, none the less, at least *sententia ad fidem pertinens *. Then Cardinal Ratzinger, around 20 years ago, affirmed the idea, obliquely, that AC was de fide..

There was a time, in the days of Paul VI, and Michael Ramsey, when there might have been a chance, not so much to reverse it, as to work around it. Official Anglicanism shut the door on that prospect, in the past 30 years.

Remember, I’m Anglican.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Then would it not be fair to say that some Anglicans and Episcopalians have valid orders and some do not?

That would appear to be the logic, but there is no definitive RC statement on it. However, even if valid, such orders would be illicit.

Also, such valid orders are quite widely spread in Anglicanism, it being difficult to find an Anglican bishop without some form of the Dutch Touch in his lines, since 1932.

Anglicans, as I often say, have a different view of the whole issue.

GKC

 

[Jsmith17]

To say such orders are invalid because of a defect in form is to say Jesus is a nitpicker, a lawyer, a tax accountant.

That letter was never proclaimed ex-cathedra (I don’t think), so even though it was a papal bull (as was the inquisition), it could be reversed.

The Anglican perspective is different, as mentioned above.

The question is, is intent not more important than form?

What would Jesus say?

They are of equal importance.

 

[chris_molter]

Then would it not be fair to say that some Anglicans and Episcopalians have valid orders and some do not?

You could say that, however, since (AFAIK) there hasn’t been any official word from the Church on that since AC, you’re probably better off not running around arguing the point with orthodox or traditional Catholics who very likely don’t know much about the situation.

We can trust the Church to EVENTUALLY say something if it’s an issue

For now, though, Catholics cannot receive the sacraments in Anglican Churches and do not treat any Anglican body as a true, particular Church (as we do the Eastern Orthodox Churches). Continue to pray for unity.

 

[GKC]

They are of equal importance.

Within the context of any valid sacramental action they are equally important, yes. And with respect to Apostolicae Cuare, they have a particular relationship, in that the form used was considered invalid, taken as an external expression of invalid intent, itself judged by the use of the form. They are inter-twined.

GKC