Catholic Bishop ordains Anglican Bishops?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Quickest and easiest way to look at this is to see what the Church does today.

When an Anglican or Episcopalian priest comes into the Catholic Church and is ordained, is it a conditional ordination or an out right ordination?

If it is conditional then the Church is not sure if the ordinad has already been ordained validly or not, if it is not conditional then the Church says he was not previously ordained.

 

[manualman]

That’s a good question ByzCath. AC predates the ‘Dutch Touch’ issue and there have been no clarifications since. Thus, there appears to be no official answer to the question of validity of Anglican Holy Orders that trace back through the Old Catholic line.

But for catholics, what’s the issue? We must not attend such a mass, nor partake of communion in a community demonstrably NOT in communion with us.

My take on the issue is just wait a few more decades and it will be a moot point. Every Anglican will have an invalidly ordained woman somewhere in the lineage and the logic of lost Holy Orders contained in AC will apply fully again.

 

[beeliner]

What is more important is that the RCC asserts, and requires all of its adherents to affirm, that Anglican orders are not valid.

Hmmmm…I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about that has a hollow ring, not that I doubt you, but it seems to be a matter of ‘we say so, therefore it must be true’, and I’m not sure that such affirmation is required of me as a Catholic, except in matters of ‘ex cathedra’ doctrine. This seems more like an opinion.

Granted that the consecrating bishops have valid orders, where, or by what mechanism, is the chain broken?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hmmmm…I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about that has a hollow ring, not that I doubt you, but it seems to be a matter of ‘we say so, therefore it must be true’, and I’m not sure that such affirmation is required of me as a Catholic, except in matters of ‘ex cathedra’ doctrine. This seems more like an opinion.

Granted that the consecrating bishops have valid orders, where, or by what mechanism, is the chain broken?

There is more to Catholicism than just infallible statements.

There is much we believe that no pope has ever issued a ex cathedra statement on.

As a Catholic we are bound to all the Church Teaches, even in matters of disciple we must give our assent to.

 

[beeliner]

There is more to Catholicism than just infallible statements.

There is much we believe that no pope has ever issued a ex cathedra statement on.

As a Catholic we are bound to all the Church Teaches, even in matters of disciple we must give our assent to.

Well, OK…with reservations…would that include assent to the practice of shielding pedophiles rather than turning them over to the police?

But apart from that, you didn’t address the second part. Here it is again:

Granted that the consecrating bishops have valid orders, where, or by what mechanism, is the chain broken?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, OK…with reservations…would that include assent to the practice of shielding pedophiles rather than turning them over to the police?

Red Herring argument and not worthy of a response (and had been reported for its inflammatory nature) but it is worthy of ignoring you in the future.

If you can show where the Church ever Taught what you claim or you chose to withdraw this statement and apologize I will remove you from my ignore list and resume responding to you.

You may pick and chose what you believe but that is not true Catholicism.

 

[beeliner]

Red Herring argument and not worthy of a response but it is worthy of ignoring you in the future…

You are certainly free to do so.

You said, “…even in matters of disciple we must give our assent…” and I assume by ‘disciple’ you meant to say ‘discipline’.

That is certainly a matter of discipline and also one of most enormous scandals in the Church’s history - hardly a red herring, nor ‘petty gossip’ as His Holiness himself described it.

But it was merely the first example that came to mind, being the most topical.

I could instead have asked whether I would have been so bound, at a previous time, to assent to the Church’s teaching on the relative motions of heavenly bodies while knowing that such teaching was false. Maybe you would have regarded that as a red herring too.

In this case, I don’t know whether Anglicans have valid orders or not, I was just inquiring - of another poster, not yourself - whether the RCC’s claim has any validity other than mere convenience, with no basis, which seems, in an attempt to degrade Anglicanism, to end up degrading Catholicism as well.

 

[GKC]

Quickest and easiest way to look at this is to see what the Church does today.

When an Anglican or Episcopalian priest comes into the Catholic Church and is ordained, is it a conditional ordination or an out right ordination?

If it is conditional then the Church is not sure if the ordinad has already been ordained validly or not, if it is not conditional then the Church says he was not previously ordained.

Two such ordinations have been sub conditione, since Apostolicae Curae: John Hughes, in the mids 60s, Graham Leonard, in the early 80s.

GKC

 

[Corki]

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this as just a matter of discipline. The validity of the Sacraments is more affirmative than a discipline.

 

[GKC]

That’s a good question ByzCath. AC predates the ‘Dutch Touch’ issue and there have been no clarifications since. Thus, there appears to be no official answer to the question of validity of Anglican Holy Orders that trace back through the Old Catholic line.

But for catholics, what’s the issue? We must not attend such a mass, nor partake of communion in a community demonstrably NOT in communion with us.

My take on the issue is just wait a few more decades and it will be a moot point. Every Anglican will have an invalidly ordained woman somewhere in the lineage and the logic of lost Holy Orders contained in AC will apply fully again.

That logic would not necessarily hold. Anglicans normally use 3 bishops to consecrate; Research would be required to determine the lineage of the other two, to determine if one had a validly consecrated bishop, after the consecration.OTOH, any priest ordained by any female in a miter, the issue is clear.

GKC

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That logic would not necessarily hold. Anglicans normally use 3 bishops to consecrate; Research would be required to determine the lineage of the other two, to determine if one had a validly consecrated bishop, after the consecration.OTOH, any priest ordained by any female in a miter, the issue is clear.

GKC

Anglicans use three bishops to ordain priests?

 

[Tyuiop411]

My take on the issue is just wait a few more decades and it will be a moot point. Every Anglican will have an invalidly ordained woman somewhere in the lineage and the logic of lost Holy Orders contained in AC will apply fully again.

I think you may be right, at least in the Episcopal Church and the Church of England. But I do find it strange that the two Anglican churches that were possibly restored to apostolic succession again; are now promptly working on losing it by ordaining women.

 

[GKC]

Hmmmm…I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about that has a hollow ring, not that I doubt you, but it seems to be a matter of ‘we say so, therefore it must be true’, and I’m not sure that such affirmation is required of me as a Catholic, except in matters of ‘ex cathedra’ doctrine. This seems more like an opinion.

Granted that the consecrating bishops have valid orders, where, or by what mechanism, is the chain broken?

The exact degree of theological certainty associated with the Bull is not stated, though it seems to be sententia ad fidem pertins (maybe). But it is a de fide teaching of the magisterium, requiring assent, as then Cardinal Ratzinger stated, in his Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, in 1998.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Anglicans use three bishops to ordain priests?

No. To consecrate bishops. Meaning that the mere fact of one of them being an invalid minister of the sacrament wouldn’t cause the consecration to be invalid. As would be the case of a female bishop, in a priestly ordination (acting alone). The issue in that case would be clear.

GKC

 

[Tyuiop411]

No. To consecrate bishops. Meaning that the mere fact of one of them being an invalid minister of the sacrament wouldn’t cause the consecration to be invalid. As would be the case of a female bishop, in a priestly ordination (acting alone). The issue in that case would be clear.

GKC

So while there may be some Anglican bishops that retain AS, there are a number of priests that are not validly ordained because of female bishops?

To me thats almost worse then the bishop not being validly ordained, since the priests are the ones providing the sacraments regularly.

 

[GKC]

Hmmmm…I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about that has a hollow ring, not that I doubt you, but it seems to be a matter of ‘we say so, therefore it must be true’, and I’m not sure that such affirmation is required of me as a Catholic, except in matters of ‘ex cathedra’ doctrine. This seems more like an opinion.

Granted that the consecrating bishops have valid orders, where, or by what mechanism, is the chain broken?

I missed the last question. Do you mean, in effect, what was the logic stated, behind the conclusion stated, in Apostolicae Curae?

GKC

 

[GKC]

So while there may be some Anglican bishops that retain AS, there are a number of priests that are not validly ordained because of female bishops?

To me thats almost worse then the bishop not being validly ordained, since the priests are the ones providing the sacraments regularly.

Correct. As you and I both understand valid orders.

GKC

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No. To consecrate bishops. Meaning that the mere fact of one of them being an invalid minister of the sacrament wouldn’t cause the consecration to be invalid. As would be the case of a female bishop, in a priestly ordination (acting alone). The issue in that case would be clear.

GKC

Right but to be validly ordained a bishop one must first be a priest.

So if a man who was ordained a priest by a bishopess then he would not validly be a priest so he could not be validly ordained a bishop even if he had three validly ordained bishops doing the ordination.

So as stated, eventually the orders will be very murky if not totally invalid.

Though as a Catholic I do believe that the Anglican Church lost its valid orders and I am very skeptical that they have corrected that defect.

 

[beeliner]

I missed the last question. Do you mean, in effect, what was the logic stated, behind the conclusion stated, in Apostolicae Curae?

GKC

Exactly. My recollection, which may be faulty, is that it concerned something rather trivial, such as variations in the actual rite of consecration.

 

[Corki]

Right but to be validly ordained a bishop one must first be a priest.

So if a man who was ordained a priest by a bishopess then he would not validly be a priest so he could not be validly ordained a bishop even if he had three validly ordained bishops doing the ordination.
So as stated, eventually the orders will be very murky if not totally invalid.

Though as a Catholic I do believe that the Anglican Church lost its valid orders and I am very skeptical that they have corrected that defect.

That’s my understanding too and one of the reasons given for why some branches of Old Catholics who have accepted women’s ordination may be losing valid orders.