Are any Anglican priests valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gmsod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PickyPicky said:
He can, validly, but may not, licitly.
Click to expand...
I think we’ve just reached the point of two children shouting “yes, you are!”, “no, I ain’t”, “yes!”, “no!”, “YES!”, “NO!”… 😉

Have a lovely day.
 
And I think you are confusing the terms. But, yep, you have a good day, too.
 
So if a protestant took communion at an Anglican church it would be profaning the body and blood of JESUS?

GOD blesss!
 
If the Priest had valid Holy Orders (not all Anglican Priests do, in fact most don’t) and the correct matter is used then it really is the body and blood of Christ.

I’d say it’s similar to Eastern Orthodox.
 
Gorgias said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is prohibited to drive at 100mph on a motorway in the UK. Does that mean that it isn’t possible to do so?
 
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...
Yes, it is possible that a validly ordained Catholic priest has become a non-Catholic minister. It is also possible, through what is called the “Dutch Touch” that individual Anglican ministers are validly ordained priests.

These are the exceptions, not the rule.
Gmsod said:
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,
Click to expand...
The Church has not spoken on whether the words of institution in the Anglican churches would confect a valid Eucharist. It requires valid matter, valid form, and a validly ordained priest. If all three are present, then yes it could be possible. No one here can say if any specific incident or even in general if this has happened.
Gmsod said:
thereby eating and drinking judgement to themselves
Click to expand...
This is a scrupulous stance. You can’t accidentally do this. You are taking the scriptures WAY out of context. Unknowingly partaking in a valid Eucharist doesn’t condemn anyone.
 
Thanks for all the replies, especially the ones with the catechism. For those who say I didn’t read it in context and it doesn’t condemn those who don’t know, does that mean it isn’t a sin or it isn’t a mortal sin? Thanks.

GOD bless!
 
1ke said:
It is also possible, through what is called the “Dutch Touch” that individual Anglican ministers are validly ordained priests.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that before, but is the Anglican rite of ordination not in itself invalid? If so then even if a valid (but illicit) bishop from the Old Catholic church participated in the ordination then it would still not get around the issue of the Anglican rite of ordination being itself invalid.
 
Last edited:
Which is why I often said (on a previous incarnation of this board), that a simple definitive statement from Rome on the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat question would be useful. The form for ordination/consecration which was judged as invalid in Apostolicae Curae is not the form which was used when the Utrecht Old Catholics and the Church of England first began joint Episcopal consecrations.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
This does not imply that a laicized priest may validly confect the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Your statement is ambiguous. Are you referring to “having permission” (as in “may”) or “validity” in the event he acted without permission?

Or are you asserting that the lack of permission eliminates the potential for valid Eucharist?
 
1ke said:
This is not an accurate statement. He is no longer able to celebrate the sacraments licity. He most certainly is able to validly confect the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
🤷‍♂️

But, here’s the question: presuming matter and form, would you say that he intends to do what the Church intends, when attempting the sacrament?

(Otherwise: “uncle.” 😉 )
 
Last edited:
I’d say, assuming valid form and matter, unless there is something specific to act as a determinatio ex adiunctis, that sacrificial intent was facere quod facit ecclesia, in the sacramental act.
 
@Gorgias, I am not sure why you’re still fighting for your erroneous opinion after you’ve been proven mistaken.

A laicized priest can still confer the Eucharist, even if illicit.
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
1ke:
This is not an accurate statement. He is no longer able to celebrate the sacraments licity. He most certainly is able to validly confect the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
🤷‍♂️

But, here’s the question: presuming matter and form, would you say that he intends to do what the Church intends, when attempting the sacrament?

(Otherwise: “uncle.” 😉 )
Click to expand...
Sacramental intent does not need to be to intend what the Church intends. That is ideal but not required.

The minimum requirement is to intend to do whatever it is the Church does. For an Anglican, this is very easy to meet.

If this Anglican also happens to have valid Holy Orders, he will indeed validly confect the Eucharist.
 
I believe there is a statement from the Church which definitively says that Anglican orders are null and void (or words to that effect). It doesn’t seem to make provision for exceptions. I forget where I read that statement, but I’m pretty sure I read it in an official Vatican document.

I guess if an already ordained priest from the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church switched and became an Anglican, or if an Old Catholic priest or a priest from a sedevacantist group switched and became Anglican, then the Eucharist would be valid. But other than that it is dangerous to make an assumption that the ‘Dutch touch’ would necessarily make an Anglican ordination valid.
 
Last edited:
Let’s ask a simpler question and apply some common sense and moral intuition: do you think God would punish someone who had no way of knowing that what they were doing was wrong?
 
You’re thinking of Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, a long, convoluted, and sad tale. It doesn’t make any exceptions, but it doesn’t answer all questions raised. The point of the Dutch Touch follows from the point that a bishop in valid orders, whether schismatic, heretical or such-like, (such as the Old Catholics/Utrecht) consecrates and ordains validly/illicitly, (all other sacramental factors also being valid). Which raises the question of the joint consecrations beginning in 1932, between the OC/Utrecht and the Church of England, and the PNCC and the Episcopal Church in 1946, and makes for many posts on boards like this. It’s not an assumption, but it is an officially unresolved point. The general point, the idea of Anglican orders, has been a hobby of mine for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top