As an Anglican Priest, are my Orders valid?

[QuicumqueVult]

Greetings! My ordination invitation stated that I was to be ordained to the Sacred Order of Priests in Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I have indeed been ordained by a Bishop (claiming) Apostolic Succession, and (claiming that) his lineage goes back to the Holy Apostles. I’ve seen his pedigree. The names of bishops do go all the way back, including, of course, fifteen centuries of Roman Catholic bishops.

 

[Fergal]

To the best of my knowledge, for Anglican Orders to be valid, they would ultimately have to be approved by the Vatican and I am not aware of any such news.

It is the correct form and matter which the Holy See approves that makes the Sacrament of Holy Orders valid.

There are Churches though, like the Orthodox Church, that are not in union with the Holy See that still have valid sacraments. This is because, unlike the Orders in denominations that broke with Rome at the Protestant Reformation, the Orthodox preserved the text which make up the form for Holy Orders as well as Apostolic succession. We still disagree over the primacy of Peter, but they too can trace their valid Holy Orders back to the original Apostles, like the Nestorians.

During the Protestant Reformation, Henry VIII introduced a Protestant notion of the Priesthood, one that excluded the sense of the priest offering sacrifice to God, a crucial distinction which later would cause the Catholic Church to declare that the priestly orders of the Church of England were “absolutely null and utterly void” because he had fundamentally changed the concept of the priesthood. This happened with the publication of a new order for ordaining and consecrating bishops and priests in 1550 and revised in 1552. The intent behind this new order was to eliminate the concept of the priesthood having a sacrificial character.

We would say that Orthodox Holy Orders are valid, but due to our lack of unity with them, are illicit or illegal.

Because of this, Orthodox priests who convert to the Catholic faith are not usually re-ordained.

 

[aimee]

Hi QV,

I will say no…but am not sure…depends on Rome./ magisterium.
Fergal responded with a good explanation…

 

[_veritas]

I have heard of entire Anglican congregations converting with their pastor and becoming true Anglo-Catholics (in fact, there is even an approved version of the Anglican book of common prayers that has been slightly adapted by the Vatican to be used by such congregations – granting them the status of another rite under the umbrella of Holy Mother Church, while allowing them to maintain their style/format of liturgy)

I am not certain, however, whether such pastors have had to be re-ordained (or “conditionally” ordained?). I do know that very little further education has been generally required of them (ie, it’s technically not very difficult for an Anglican ordained male priest, particularly a “High Anglican”, to convert to being a Catholic priest).

So I guess I’m “not sure” about the validity of an individual Anglican priest’s ordination according to the Church…

+veritas+

 

[larryo]

Pope Leo XIII, in the papal bull, *Apostolicae Curae, *declared Anglican orders to be null and void.

 

[mercygate]

QV,

I don’t know why you ask this question here. This is not the place to get a definitive answer.

I am a former Episcopalian, who cried my eyes out over Apostolicae Curae for years – even though I still find it to be a flawed document. Anglican Orders, as you probably know, are considered invalid on two counts. The first is the claimed rupture of the literal Apostolic line. The second is that validity hinges in part on the intention of the consecrators. It cannot be argued with conviction that Anglican Bishops of the 16th-18th Centuries intended to consecrate catholic Bishops and Priests to serve Catholic Sacraments.

However, since Apostolicae Curae, Anglicans have sometimes sought co-consecrators from illicit, though valid, Apostolic lines, such as the Polish National Catholic Church, the Utrecht line and certain Orthodox lines. Thus, it is unlikely but barely possible that your Orders may be valid, although they are certainly illicit.

You probably know that when Bishop Graham Leonard, formerly the Anglican Bishop of London, was ordained a Priest in the Catholic Church, he was ordained conditionally. That means he was able to show his “pedigree” and to provide evidence that his Orders might possibly be valid. Since the Sacrament of Holy Orders is indelible, and it would be sacrilege to confer Orders on somebody already validly ordained, the doubt had to go toward the possibility that his orders were valid, and the ordination was done conditionally and not de novo.

I know of no other case where an Anglican Priest was conditionally ordained (but that doesn’t mean anything; I don’t keep up and I am not a canon lawyer). Every former Anglican Priest I know has been ordained de novo.

 

[mercygate]

larryo:

Pope Leo XIII, in the papal bull, *Apostolicae Curae, *declared Anglican orders to be null and void.

Actually, Larry, it was even worse. The phrase is “absolutely null and utterly void.” Ouch.

 

[HagiaSophia]

mercygate:

QV,I don’t know why you ask this question here. This is not the place to get a definitive answer.

I was wondering the very same. It seems to me that the proper source would be the local bishop’s oiffice not a forum.

However there is a very interesting article on Anglican Orders since the Cardinal Willebrands statement some time back: it gives a clear explanation of the “why” and also some conditions which could change the decision. It is by Fr. Harrison a and is entitled RECENT THOUGHT ON ANGLICAN ORDERS at

rtforum.org/lt/lt14.html *

(scroll past the first article, this is the second on the page).

 

[QuicumqueVult]

I need to clarify the initial question. I am not seeking adjudication but opinion. The latter is quite licit for a forum such as this.

I do have a rejoinder or two. For one thing, the committee that Leo XIII appointed to advise him on the validity of Anglican Orders was not unanimously con by any stretch. One notable dissenter was Louis Duchesne, probably the best liturgist of the nineteenth century. But that’s not epistemically significant. It is just interesting.

One consistent objection to the ruling in *Apostolicae Curae * has been inconsistency. The Orthodox do not have pronounced sacrifical language in their Ordinals, but their Rites are deemed valid. This makes sense if you understand the Eastern views on the Eucharist.

Another is that one would have a hard time proving that first millenium ordinations contained sacrificial language of a sufficient degree to warrant their validity.

These objections were brought up by Anglicans at the time and I do not think they were sufficiently answered.

But I realize the RCC was not obligated to defend its claims. And unanimity is not a criterion for the truth of a body’s decisions.

 

[John_Higgins]

Father QV,

Who ordained you?

John

Aside: More than several Anglican bishops (including the last few A of C) have had Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops as co-consecrators. That’s why there is a current discussion about this matter. The Leo XIII proclamation was certainly valid—for 1896, but things have changed.

jh

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Father, bless!

I have always admired the liturgy as practiced in the Episcopalian cathedral near where I live. I used to go to Mass at the Catholic Cathedral occasionally, then sit in at the Episcopal Cathedral. This was when Griswold was bishop in Chicago!

I had often wished that Chicago had an Anglican Use parish, I would have become a member without hesitation!

Alas, I have turned to the East and put that idea behind me.

But as to the question,

One consistent objection to the ruling in *Apostolicae Curae * has been inconsistency. The Orthodox do not have pronounced sacrifical language in their Ordinals, but their Rites are deemed valid. This makes sense if you understand the Eastern views on the Eucharist.

I am pretty sure that the Orthodox would not recognize the Anglican bishop that ordained you as having valid orders, their own concept of a valid bishop has a lot to do with whether or not he Communes with heretics or heretical bishops (I am not trying to use insulting language here, just the terminology they regularly use themselves). So I guess I would say that it probably doesn’t really apply as an argument. The Roman Catholic requirements for Western Christianity are what count as far as the Church of England is concerned.

An Anglican bishop or priest is simply not required to believe in the Real Presence, not required to teach that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, that’s why the language is absent, it was removed, or am I mistaken about this?

As far as I know generation after generation of bishops taught that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial re-enactment.

Just musing here…this whole mess could have been avoided if Cranmer had been interested in promoting Orthodox theology and prevented the Calvinists and Pseudo-Lutherans from coming into the English church from Geneva and wherever. (I suppose his marriage after ordination might have been a big factor in his decision).

Oh, if only Cranmer had become an Orthodox Patriarch! It could have been the Patriarchate of Canterbury, with the Sarum Rite. There would be no question of validity of orders, discipline…ok, I have stopped dreaming.

 

[sparkle]

QuicumqueVult:

Greetings! My ordination invitation stated that I was to be ordained to the Sacred Order of Priests in Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.I have indeed been ordained by a Bishop (claiming) Apostolic Succession, and (claiming that) his lineage goes back to the Holy Apostles. I’ve seen his pedigree. The names of bishops do go all the way back, including, of course, fifteen centuries of Roman Catholic bishops.

I don’t know about “Orders”, etc., but I do know Anglicans find the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as being the True Presence, repungent. This is a big reason I could never be Episcopalian again.

Pertaining to your inquiry, you are still a Priest, still ordained by God, still leading folks to our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is one mighty beautiful, awesome thing!!!

God Bless You in Your Ministry~~~~

 

[QuicumqueVult]

If an Episcopalian finds the Real/True Presence repugnant because of the language of “Body” and “Blood” it is because they reject the *prima facie * meaning of the Rite itself.

Just this morning I celebrated three Masses, two in English (Rite I, Eucharistic Prayer II) and one in Spanish. Following are excerpts from the English Rite:

Here is the Epiklesis:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, to bless and sanctify these gifts of bread and wine, **that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ. **

The Canon of the Mass continues:

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, whereby we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies. Grant, we beseech thee, that all who partake of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, and be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction; and also that we and all thy whole Church may be made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord;

And finally, the Per Ipsum:

By whom, and with whom, and in whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost all honor and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. AMEN.

The distribution commences with the following variants:

The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.

or with these words

**The Body (Blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ ** keep you in everlasting life. [Amen.]

or with these words

The Body of Christ, the bread of heaven. [Amen.]
The Blood of Christ, the cup of salvation. [Amen.]

I don’t doubt there are those who deny that it is the true, real Body and Blood, but not from grounds of the ritual itself.

Cheers,

 

[Brendan]

mercygate:

QV,

.The second is that validity hinges in part on the intention of the consecrators. It cannot be argued with conviction that Anglican Bishops of the 16th-18th Centuries intended to consecrate catholic Bishops and Priests to serve Catholic Sacraments

.

That’s pretty much correct. The Anglican Rite of Ordiantion specifically did not include in it’s form Ordination to Perform the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Without that specific form, the Holy Orders are invalid as the priest cannot confect the Eucarist. There was no form or intent to ‘do as the Church does’.

However, since Apostolicae Curae, Anglicans have sometimes sought co-consecrators from illicit, though valid, Apostolic lines, such as the Polish National Catholic Church, the Utrecht line and certain Orthodox lines. Thus, it is unlikely but barely possible that your Orders may be valid, although they are certainly illicit.

.

I believe that really started with the Oxford Movement. They made great strides to seek out valid lines of bishops to ‘co-ordain’.

So it is barely possible that an Anglican priest might have a valid Holy Orders, but the chances of that happening outside of High Church are virtually nil.

 

[mercygate]

Brendan:

.

That’s pretty much correct. The Anglican Rite of Ordiantion specifically did not include in it’s form Ordination to Perform the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Without that specific form, the Holy Orders are invalid as the priest cannot confect the Eucarist. There was no form or intent to ‘do as the Church does’.

I believe that really started with the Oxford Movement. They made great strides to seek out valid lines of bishops to ‘co-ordain’.

So it is barely possible that an Anglican priest might have a valid Holy Orders, but the chances of that happening outside of High Church are virtually nil.

Just an addendum to muddy the water: Around the ceiling freize in my Episcopal seminary chapel were chiseled and gilded the words: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedek. Accipite Spiritum Sanctum quorum remiseritis peccata, remissa sunt eis; quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt.

“Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Receive the holy spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained.”

The building was erected in 1873 (if I remember correctly).

 

[Hesychios]

This doesn’t bode well for Anglican orders, unfortunately.

It seems that the Anglican Communion is not of one mind about the issue itself. The article definately sounds relavent to some things brought up on this thread.

One wonders if this isn’t as big, or bigger an issue than anything else the communion faces right now.

 

[mercygate]

This doesn’t bode well for Anglican orders, unfortunately.

O goody. Australia is just as big a headache for Anglicans as it is for Catholics. Some consolation.

 

[Hesychios]

mercygate:

O goody. Australia is just as big a headache for Anglicans as it is for Catholics. Some consolation.

I wasn’t looking for consolation out of the misfortunes of the Anglican Communion. Just passing on a report.

I am deeply dismayed by what has been happening.

 

[mercygate]

Hesychios:

I wasn’t looking for consolation out of the misfortunes of the Anglican Communion. Just passing on a report.

I am deeply dismayed by what has been happening.

Sorry, Hesichios. I guess my comment seemed glib. It rose from the sorrowful heart of a former Anglican. I, too, am deeply dismayed by what has been happening. Christendom is ALWAYS in trouble but that oesn’t mean we ever get used to it.

 

[Evan]

larryo:

Pope Leo XIII, in the papal bull, *Apostolicae Curae, *declared Anglican orders to be null and void.

The only time their ordination would be valid is if their bishop was a Catholic or Orthodox bishop then left their church and become an anglican bishop. Then the orders are valid because ‘once a bishop, always a bishop’