Are any Anglican priests valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gmsod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gmsod

Guest
I ask this because it seems like there could be if one was ordained a catholic priests then converted to Anglicanism. I’m mainly concerned because my parents, both of whom are Protestant, have taken communion at an Anglican Church and it made me wonder if they could have unknowingly been participating in a valid Eucharist, thereby eating and drinking judgement to themselves. Also applying to how Anglicans allow all baptized Christians to partake, it concerns me as to whether or not some of them could be valid. Any (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated.
Thanks, GOD bless!
 
Gmsod said:
I ask this because it seems like there could be if one was ordained a catholic priests then converted to Anglicanism.
Click to expand...
It’s possible. However, if he were laicized, then he would no longer be a member of the (Catholic) clergy, and therefore, would not have the ability to celebrate the sacraments validly (with the exception of being able to hear the confession of someone who was in danger of death).

If the Anglican minister is a former Catholic priest and he’s married, then you can be relatively certain that he’s laicized, and therefore, cannot validly confect the Eucharist. Be at peace… 😉
 
But surely a laicised priest retains the sacramental mark of priesthood: his orders would still be valid even if exercising them would be illicit. Not so?
 
I don’t think that is true. here is an extract from an EWTN response to a similar question:

“The “clerical state” is a legal concept, and when a man leaves the active priesthood and seeks to be returned to the lay state (to leave the clerical state), this is merely a matter of Church law – that is, purely a legal matter, not a matter of doctrine. With the loss of the clerical state goes the loss of the rights and obligations that are a part of a cleric’s ministerial role, at least generally speaking. There are some exceptions. For example, a priest who has been returned to the lay state can hear confessions and give absolution in danger of death. (Such exceptions do not extend to Mass or anointing of the sick.)”
 
From a Catholic’s perspective, the principal rule of a valid priest is that he must have apostolic succession. Anybody (church) can say they have priests but it may not necessarily so from the Catholic standpoint as a priest must satisfy the apostolic succession requirement.

Basically for Protestant churches that split away from the Catholic Church, over time they would lose the apostolic succession. It is probably some gray area when a Bishop left the Church and this is where non-Catholic priests perhaps may claim validity.

Just a personal opinion, I could be wrong.
 
thistle said:
There are some exceptions. For example, a priest who has been returned to the lay state can hear confessions and give absolution in danger of death. (Such exceptions do not extend to Mass or anointing of the sick.)”
Click to expand...
Confession is a juridical act. It requires faculties to do so. A priest, even one in good standing, cannot validly offer absolution if he has no faculties to so. The same is true for witnessing marriages.

A priest CAN validly say Mass. That does not require faculties, but is a function of the Orders that the priest received. This is possible for a laicized priest to validly say Mass, meaning that the bread and wine become the Eucharist. But to do so is generally a grave error.

This is what the EWTN article is referring to. The licitly of the act, a laicized priest could validly and licitly hear the confession of a dying person. But there is no provision for a laicized priest to licitly say Mass.
 
PickyPicky said:
But surely a laicised priest retains the sacramental mark of priesthood: his orders would still be valid even if exercising them would be illicit. Not so?
Click to expand...
No. Once laicized, he is no longer in the clerical state, and therefore, may not celebrate the sacraments. (Yes, he remains a priest, but without the ability to ‘act’ as a priest.) The one exception is that, if someone is in danger of death and no one else is around to hear their confession, he validly may absolve them.
Reuben_J said:
From a Catholic’s perspective, the principal rule of a valid priest is that he must have apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
Umm… no. Priests don’t share in apostolic succession – bishops do! Priests are helpers in their bishop’s ministry. So, although they must be ordained by a valid bishop (who himself is a successor of the apostles), the priest does not share in that role. 😉
Reuben_J said:
Basically for Protestant churches that split away from the Catholic Church, over time they would lose the apostolic succession. It is probably some gray area when a Bishop left the Church and this is where non-Catholic priests perhaps may claim validity.
Click to expand...
Actually, if a bishop leaves the Catholic Church, he cannot ordain other bishops or priests licitly. So, it’s not a matter of it happening “over time”.
 
Last edited:
You seem to me to be confusing what is valid with what is licit. Your defrocked priest has the ability to confect a valid Eucharist, but such an action would be illicit.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
You seem to me to be confusing what is valid with what is licit.
Click to expand...
No, really, I’m not. 😉
PickyPicky said:
Your defrocked priest has the ability to confect a valid Eucharist, but such an action would be illicit.
Click to expand...
No, he doesn’t. If he is laicized (there’s actually no such thing as “defrocking” 😉 ), then he is no longer able to celebrate the sacraments validly.
 
PickyPicky said:
(name removed by moderator), Brendan and I disagree.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that, but with all due respect, ya’ll are mistaken.

Here’s what canon law has to say:
Can. 290 Once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid. A cleric, nevertheless, loses the clerical state:

1/ by a judicial sentence or administrative decree, which declares the invalidity of sacred ordination;

2/ by a judicial sentence or administrative decree, which declares the invalidity of sacred ordination;

3/ by rescript of the Apostolic See which grants it to deacons only for grave causes and to presbyters only for most grave causes.

Can. 291 Apart from the case mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, loss of the clerical state does not entail a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which only the Roman Pontiff grants.

Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state according to the norm of law loses with it the rights proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of orders, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 976. By the loss of the clerical state, he is deprived of all offices, functions, and any delegated power.
Click to expand...
It seems that c. 292 is what we’re discussing here, and canon law is clear: when a man loses the clerical state, he is prohibited from exercising the power of orders, including all its functions.

Blessings,
G.
 
Yes, but thanks for asking.

A laicized priest may not validly celebrate the sacraments (with the exception of absolution in case of danger of death).
 
If a laicized priest were to consecrate the host it WOULD indeed become the body of Christ, illicitly of course, but would still be the body of Christ. Once a priest is laicized the church forbids him from exercising priestly duties with the ONE exception of confession and only if asked to hear it IF the person is at the point of death.
 
Look at what you’re attempting to say, however: a laicized priest cannot validly absolve… but he could validly confect the Eucharist. Seriously? :roll_eyes: 😉
 
Yes. FrDavid96 explained this to me in these very forums:

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church. That means that is a “legal act” which requires the minister to have jurisdiction–the ability to pass a judgement. Just as a judge from one state cannot simply decide on his own to hold court in another state, because he would be acting outside his jurisdiction, so too a priest must have jurisdiction to absolve. In short, we say that he must have the “faculties to absolve.”

For more on this (ok, it’s really just a summary) see canon 966. For one to absolve validly (validly, not just licitly) he must have both the character of orders (priesthood) and faculties. Both are required. All too often people forget this.

The confecting of the Eucharist requires valid orders. Absolution requires valid orders plus faculties.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top