Are any Anglican priests valid?

[RedFan]

Your “intertwining” observation highlights my issue with formalism, GKM.

To me, it is (1) acquired power and (2) intent that matter for the administering of sacraments, including Holy Orders. There is – and must be, if we are to avoid the burden of being mind readers – a rebuttable presumption that if the traditional or established form of a sacramental Rite is followed, the intent of the presiding officers mirrors the intent which originally generated the form. But the form can be altered without sacrifice of the intent. Loss of the presumption simply shifts the burden to the presiders to show fidelity to the intent.

Or so I muse.

 

[GKMotley]

I muse similarly, as best I can.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
(I had to remove the original post to keep within forum limits)

…

The way I look at it is that I see intent on both sides, the Anglicans as well as the Old Catholics.

I think it’s pretty clear (undeniable, really) that the Anglicans intended to pass along that which they had received. Well, by that time, 1933, there is no doubt but to say that Anglican attempts at ordination were null and void—that’s clearly the Catholic position. My argument is that since what they received was lacking in validity, then whatever they pass along is likewise lacking in validity; both at the time and in the future.

It’s also very clear that there was no intent to heal anything; no intent to restore anything. Indeed everything said at the time was to specifically deny any such intentions. Again, I find that very clear in the historic record.

My position is that since there was no intent to heal, but a specific intent not to heal but to mingle, then no such healing occurred.

There is also the issue of present-day Anglicanism. The Anglican understanding of Ordination is that it is a sacrament that may (at least “may”) be conferred on women. This goes to the very essential elements of the Sacrament. I hold that it proves that what Anglicans consider “ordination” is entirely different from what Catholics consider “ordination” to mean. In other words, it’s no longer the Sacrament established by Christ, no matter what they claim. And I see this with regard to both sides of the Sacrament—both giving and receiving. Since they now hold that a woman dressed as a bishop is able to pass along to another person the said office, then that office is no longer that of Successor to the Apostles. The final point being that even if I were to accept the Dutch Touch (which I’ve already said I do not), the whole question is rendered moot in the present day. Even if some Anglican bishops did have Apostolic Succession, the circumstances of the present day render their attempts to pass that Succession along as likewise null and void. History has repeated itself, in a sense. Just as the denial of the sacrificial role of the priesthood rendered attempts at Ordination null under the Edwardian Ordinal, so too (in much the same way) their flawed understanding that ordination can be conferred on a woman renders any attempts absolutely null and utterly void today.

 

[GKMotley]

The forum is a little restrictive.

What the Anglicans theoretically would pass on, was what Ott says they theoretically could receive, valid/illicit orders, which was what the OCs specifically stated was their intent to pass on.

That sad assumption as to the valid recipient of orders is certainly that of some Anglicans. Others. not so much. Motley, be that crew. Fissiparous, over matters (and forms and such) like this.Not all Anglicans think as you suggest. Not all Anglicans are in communion with all other Anglicans over precisely such things. I don’t overly generalize over Anglicans.

To the extent that the OCs/Utrecht seem to have drifted into the same error, they fall into the same judgement. Now. The point of the Dutch Touch (then) and musings on it explicitly states and assumes (when I’m posting, anyway. Or other Anglicans such as myself) that all other sacramental factors in the confecting of (in this case the sacrament of Orders), are assumed to be valid. And if all visible aspects of the sacrament are valid, per Apostolicae Curae, one would assume the intent to be also.

Regardless, I think you’ve seen me post often enough to know that I don’t accept the judgement in Apostolicae Curae (no requirement to; I’m Anglican). And that I repeat, over and over, that all RCs should accept it, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. But it is a long, sad story, from Leo’s time, and involves history, personalities and politics, as well as theology. In a sense it reminds me of Henry’s Great Matter. Interesting.

 

[FrDavid96]

That sad assumption as to the valid recipient of orders is certainly that of some Anglicans. Others. not so much. Motley, be that crew. Fissiparous, over matters (and forms and such) like this.Not all Anglicans think as you suggest. Not all Anglicans are in communion with all other Anglicans over precisely such things. I don’t overly generalize over Anglicans.

That represents a tiny minority–a very tiny minority indeed. All branches of Anglicanism accept to some degree that women (at least) may be ordained. Even those who might not practice it (either as individuals or as communities) still accept that those who do practice it do so validly (as they see validity).

I see your point and I share your caution about over-generalizing Anglicans (truly I do). Yet, at the same time, such generalizations are sometimes necessary, otherwise “Anglicanism” itself becomes a word without a definition.

 

[GKMotley]

Yeah, that’s about what i find to be the definition of Anglican. Undefined, until pointed at a particular one or group.

All branches do not do so. The Continuum, AFAIK, does not attempt to convey orders to invalid recipients, in this sense. And I live in the Continuum. Think of us, when you think of Anglicans. We have about as much use for the establishment as you do, in this regard.

Might be tiny, but we’re here. Wave at us occasionally; we’ll wave back.

 

[FrDavid96]

To the extent that the OCs/Utrecht seem to have drifted into the same error, they fall into the same judgement. Now. The point of the Dutch Touch (then) and musings on it explicitly states and assumes (when I’m posting, anyway. Or other Anglicans such as myself) that all other sacramental factors in the confecting of (in this case the sacrament of Orders), are assumed to be valid. And if all visible aspects of the sacrament are valid, per Apostolicae Curae, one would assume the intent to be also.

And that’s where, as a Catholic, I say it is objective invalid. If one of the ordaining bishops is known to lack valid ordination himself, then the attempt is invalid. Since the existing Anglican “bishops” were not validly ordained but they saw themselves as being validly ordained their understanding of validity was fundamentally flawed.

In other words, we cannot say that “they had a valid intent” when the overtly expressed intent was still to pass along that which is objectively (via A.C. Leo XIII) null-and-void.

 

[GKMotley]

As a Catholic, I hear you. And since I’m not trying to convince you to the contrary, good enough. Remembering that neither the Anglicans nor the OCs shared Leo’s judgement on the matter (form, intent, etc).

 

[FrDavid96]

Yeah, that’s about what i find to be the definition of Anglican. Undefined, until pointed at a particular one or group.

All branches do not do so. The Continuum, AFAIK, does not attempt to convey orders to invalid recipients, in this sense. And I live in the Continuum. Think of us, when you think of Anglicans. We have about as much use for the establishment as you do, in this regard.

Might be tiny, but we’re here. Wave at us occasionally; we’ll wave back.

Yes, I admit that “all branches do not do so” but still, they are willing to accept as valid those other branches who do.

From the Catholic perspective, saying “we don’t do it ourselves, but others do it, and even if we don’t accept certain individuals as being validly ordained, we still consider that other community to have valid ordinations of men despite their attempts to ordain women” just doesn’t cut the mustard. I know that’s a bit of a caricature, and I don’t mean any offense. I’m just trying to illustrate that, from the Catholic perspective, that’s not acceptable. Either believe it or don’t believe it; there’s no middle ground.

 

[GKMotley]

There you go again.

Your last para is a common place approach in the Continuum. In the ACNA, it is more murky.

No offense taken, since I agree with you.

 

[FrDavid96]

There you go again.

Your last para is a common place approach in the Continuum. In the ACNA, it is more murky.

No offense taken, since I agree with you.

So where does that leave us then?

I mean a quick search tells me there are approximately 85 million Anglicans worldwide. I’ll take that as being a reasonably accurate number.

What part of Anglicanism would say without any qualifications whatsoever (and I exclude those who say “we don’t do it, but we accept that others do”) that the Sacrament of Ordination can only be validly conferred on a man? I don’t mean individual persons, because anyone can have private opinions that do not reflect the official teaching of any religious body.

How many of the 85 million does that leave? A few thousand, a few ten thousands? Would it even amount to a full one percent? Would it even be one tenth of one percent?

I know generalizations can be dangerous, I admit that fully. But really, I have to say “let’s be real here.” When someone says to me “just because it only applies to 99.8% of us, don’t generalize” I just have to wonder what’s the point of saying “don’t generalize.”

And I honestly would like to know the actual figure. I’ve tried to do some research, but frankly there are so many groups out there calling themselves “Anglican” with an alphabet soup of names, it would take me too much time to be worthwhile.

So after my own musings, let me repeat the question just for clarity:

What part of Anglicanism would say without any qualifications whatsoever (and I exclude those who say “we don’t do it, but we accept that others do”) that the Sacrament of Ordination can only be validly conferred on a man? And again, I don’t mean individual beliefs, I mean the stated beliefs of the community.

 

[GKMotley]

I have no idea. But my point remains. Say the majority, say the vast majority have heterodox views, say a few say differently(I’d honestly put it in the low 10s of thousands); trifling remnants, not enough to leaven any sort of lump, or other words of similar import. But say, in addition, there 's also my friend GKMotley, and his friends, few and negligible, nay, likely contemptible as their numbers may be, too few to count. And I’ll wave at you.

It is not possible to generalize about Anglicans, successfully, without some sort of caveats. And almost never has been.

 

[PickyPicky]

Quite like old times, this.

I think you’d better get your mates in the Continuum to turn the heat up under their efforts at unity, otherwise you’ll never be big enough for Fr David to see. Let alone wave at.

Or perhaps being seen isn’t so very important?

 

[GKMotley]

The Continuum efforts are rising (much to the surprise of some cynics, myself in the forefront). Might even be visible, some day.

But, as you guess, being seen isn’t the main issue here. Though I do tend to wave a flag, bearing the motley emblem, when there is some suggestion of Anglican homogeneity. Small but feisty.

And yes, the beat goes on. Happy New Year.

 

[Brendan]

Look at what you’re attempting to say, however: a laicized priest cannot validly absolve… but he could validly confect the Eucharist. Seriously?

Yes, that is correct. Even a priest in good standing cannot absolve without faculties from his bishop. Without faculties, the absolution is simply invalid.

But the priest may still validly celebrate the Eucharist.

The exact same is true for a laicized priest. He does not have faculties, ergo, the cannot absolve. But the ontological mark of Orders remains, so that an attempt to consecrate bread and wine into the Eucharist succeeds. But the attempt is an act of disobedience.

 

[FrDavid96]

Quite like old times, this.

I think you’d better get your mates in the Continuum to turn the heat up under their efforts at unity, otherwise you’ll never be big enough for Fr David to see. Let alone wave at.

Or perhaps being seen isn’t so very important?

I am not saying “not big enough to be seen.” Not by any means.

What I am saying, though, is that when someone says to me “don’t generalize” or don’t make statements that seem to apply to everyone when they only apply to some, there are times when it is fair to look at the issue at-hand and ask “how many does this apply?”

If the answer turns out to be that it actually does apply to 99.9% * then it’s no longer “unfair to generalize.”

I certainly take notice of them, even though the number is small. I assure you that I do. I actually work with the Ordinariate in my own diocese, so I can assure you I do care about the people.

My own parish makes up a tiny fraction of a percent of the Catholic Church. Simply saying that doesn’t mean they’re not big enough for me to notice.

---

• 1/10 of 1 percent of 85 million would be 85 thousand, so “the low tens of thousands” would indeed be less than 1/10 of 1% or the opposite of 99.9%

 

[FrDavid96]

Gorgias:

Look at what you’re attempting to say, however: a laicized priest cannot validly absolve… but he could validly confect the Eucharist. Seriously?

Yes, that is correct. Even a priest in good standing cannot absolve without faculties from his bishop. Without faculties, the absolution is simply invalid.

But the priest may still validly celebrate the Eucharist.

The exact same is true for a laicized priest. He does not have faculties, ergo, the cannot absolve. But the ontological mark of Orders remains, so that an attempt to consecrate bread and wine into the Eucharist succeeds. But the attempt is an act of disobedience.

I just want to add something to this for clarity sake.

A laicized priest (or indeed any priest who lacks the normal faculties to hear confessions) can absolve in danger of death, not abesnt-faculties, but because the Church grants him the faculties “by the law itself” to act in that situation.

It might seem like hair-splitting to some, but it’s a very important point to make. A priest always needs faculties to absolve, even in danger of death.

 

[GKMotley]

I thank you for taking notice, even of such Anglicans who remain outside the Ordinariates, and outside the standard Anglican groupings.

I will continue to raise the standard (and make other dull points), as appropriate. Say, if an assertion might imply all Anglicans, when a comment such as “vast tracts of Anglicans (but not all)” might sufficiently make a differentiation

GKMotley, feisty.

 

[PickyPicky]

Yes, that’s fair enough, and of course I was being flippant.

Equally, if you say the Dutch Touch didn’t convey valid orders and even if it did they can’t be valid in Anglican priests because Anglicans have ordained women, or (even if they haven’t ordained women) recognise the orders of those who have … if you say something like that, it is “fair” for Anglicans for whom that doesn’t apply to say: Oy, what about us?

 

[PickyPicky]

Or “Oy, what about us” feistily.

Happy New Year!