Catholics: Why are you concerned whether Anglican Orders are valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveLy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SteveLy

Guest
Title says it.

I find it interesting that some people are quite adamant about arguing over the validity Anglican Orders. As Catholics, why the emotion over another Church having valid Orders or not?
(As I Catholic I uphold Catholic teaching on Orders btw)
 
SteveLy said:
Title says it.

I find it interesting that some people are quite adamant about arguing over the validity Anglican Orders. As Catholics, why the emotion over another Church having valid Orders or not?
(As I Catholic I uphold Catholic teaching on Orders btw)
Click to expand...
And so you should.

I don’t argue the point, myself. I wonder occasionally, on this and that, and draw my own conclusions, based on stuff, and delve into the history (and other things). But I don’t argue.
 
I think many would welcome the Anglican Communion as a sister “church” and not just an “ecclesial community.” And I think there are some “liturgical traditionalists” who, if Anglican orders were valid and thus they had a valid Eucharist, would consider attending the unreformed Anglican “high liturgy” in place of the Roman Ordinary Form, at least occasionally.
 
SteveLy said:
Title says it.

I find it interesting that some people are quite adamant about arguing over the validity Anglican Orders. As Catholics, why the emotion over another Church having valid Orders or not?
(As I Catholic I uphold Catholic teaching on Orders btw)
Click to expand...
Probably because many Anglicans “argue” their validity?

I do not know how you are using “emotion”, but when an Anglican priest/bishop claims apostolic succession, it behooves me to gently correct that claim. 👍
 
GKC said:
And so you should.

I don’t argue the point, myself. I wonder occasionally, on this and that, and draw my own conclusions, based on stuff, and delve into the history (and other things). But I don’t argue.
Click to expand...
😃
 
Because Christ commissioned one Church. Not two, three, a dozen, 30 thousand “sister churches”.

That Church establishes doctrine for the Christian community worldwide. Any disagreements over important doctrine (particularly those that are potentially salvific) should not exist in that one Church.

Disciplinary differences notwithstanding;
 
SteveLy said:
Title says it.

I find it interesting that some people are quite adamant about arguing over the validity Anglican Orders. As Catholics, why the emotion over another Church having valid Orders or not?
(As I Catholic I uphold Catholic teaching on Orders btw)
Click to expand...
What, you want us to divert time to prayer, reading scripture, the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and similar distractions?

Ok, you are correct that lots of us argue to excess over some things, including this. But it is not totally irrational. Pope Leo XIII, who I think quite accurately predicted many of the developments of his future, which is our recent past and present, felt the topic was important enough to issue a papal bull, Apostolicae Curae. That alone is some reason for our attention now.

There may have been a time when Christians were too preoccupied with supernatural realities, and under emphasized their responsibilities for societal conditions. That time is not now. Pope Leo, who himself was deeply concerned over societal conditions, also recognized the importance of supernatural realities, specifically the sacraments. Whether or not you agree with Pope Leo on this particular decision, I hope you will admit he gave it much attention, and that it does make a crucial difference.

So in 2017 you have evangelicals on the one side, and liberal Protestants and Catholics on the other, saying or hinting that it is the “community” that confects the Eucharist; the “community” that forgives and reconciles; the “community” that raises up leaders, or bishops, not some bureaucratic process of these 3 guys laying on hands on that guy.

So, whether you agree with this or that side, ok, I think you will realize in 2017 it is something important here.
 
Not concerned and don’t know why people are so quick to point out how “invalid” their orders are. It’s like pointing your finger at them on the school yard and taunting them…hahaha you don’t count. Or like the Rock telling somebody that it doesn’t matter what they think or say or who they are.

What I do know, as a former Anglican, is that they lack the sacrament of reconciliation which is great for the state of our eternal soul. And that’s not good and I pray for them to enter into the Church. They are already about as close as you can get from the protestant side.
 
SteveLy said:
Title says it.

I find it interesting that some people are quite adamant about arguing over the validity Anglican Orders. As Catholics, why the emotion over another Church having valid Orders or not?
(As I Catholic I uphold Catholic teaching on Orders btw)
Click to expand...
This isn’t a matter of one’s own personal opinion(s). Far too many people live by that. And as a result, THEY often are in error as well. The Church declared this about their orders being null and void. papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Modernism is the source of all errors / heresies. Add to that Relativism and indifferentism (the belief that differences of religious belief are of no importance.)

The following is important to regard
 
I admit I find the whole thing confusing. If Anglican orders are valid, does that mean my female Anglican priest friend is validly ordained? Because, while I appreciate her ministry in her faith community, I would find it very difficult to understand why she can be an actual priest and a Catholic woman can’t (just to be clear, I accept and celebrate the Catholic teaching on women and the priesthood). I don’t want to argue about this (or anything, really) but this is one of those things I shall have to keep pondering.

As an aside, as a nearly Catholic, I have found it best and wisest to listen to the latest pronouncements from bishops and so on, and take a step back and wait to see how it all comes out in the wash…
 
JoyToTheWhirled said:
I admit I find the whole thing confusing. If Anglican orders are valid, does that mean my female Anglican priest friend is validly ordained? Because, while I appreciate her ministry in her faith community, I would find it very difficult to understand why she can be an actual priest and a Catholic woman can’t (just to be clear, I accept and celebrate the Catholic teaching on women and the priesthood). I don’t want to argue about this (or anything, really) but this is one of those things I shall have to keep pondering.

As an aside, as a nearly Catholic, I have found it best and wisest to listen to the latest pronouncements from bishops and so on, and take a step back and wait to see how it all comes out in the wash…
Click to expand...
On your first question, the asnwer you got would depend on who you asked. Many Anglicans, not all, would say yes. Valid priest. All RCs (inter alia), as well as many Anglicans, would say no. Not a valid priest. And that regardless of whether Anglican orders were, generally, valid or not. Valid orders cannot confect valid sacraments unless all sacramental factors (form, matter, intent, minister) are valid, and in this case, there is no valid subject/recipient of the sacrament. So, valid sacrament. No priest.

Other folk believe differently, as you might guess.

Last para is a prudent approach. I’m a big wait and see type.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Not concerned and don’t know why people are so quick to point out how “invalid” their orders are. It’s like pointing your finger at them on the school yard and taunting them…hahaha you don’t count. Or like the Rock telling somebody that it doesn’t matter what they think or say or who they are.

What I do know, as a former Anglican, is that they lack the sacrament of reconciliation which is great for the state of our eternal soul. And that’s not good and I pray for them to enter into the Church. They are already about as close as you can get from the protestant side.
Click to expand...
As to the sacrament of reconciliation, Anglicans certainly have it. Just ask them. If you get a negative reply, ask another. Both corporate and auricular confession/absolution are generally available.

Generalizing about Anglicans is still risky, though.
 
steve_b said:
This isn’t a matter of one’s own personal opinion(s). Far too many people live by that. And as a result, THEY often are in error as well. The Church declared this about their orders being null and void. papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Modernism is the source of all errors / heresies. Add to that Relativism and indifferentism (the belief that differences of religious belief are of no importance.)

The following is important to regard
Thank you, God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
 
As it is with the endless debate over justification, I do not see any real Catholic concern over the validity of non-Catholic orders, other than the obviously valid Orthodox orders. I think the interest goes the other way, actually. We hear of the “Dutch touch” and other ostensibly valid ordinations in the Protestant world. But, was not the very essence of the reformation a repudiation of Holy Orders? Methinks that reflective cognition is occurring and the modern view is that the European rebels were somewhat, ummm… hasty in their 16th century decisions.

If the Roman Church was truly corrupt and all communities are equally valid, who cares one whit about ordinations or their rites?
 
AugustTherese said:
Probably because many Anglicans “argue” their validity?

I do not know how you are using “emotion”, but when an Anglican priest/bishop claims apostolic succession, it behooves me to gently correct that claim. 👍
Click to expand...
And you will not be surprised to be, by such people, gently ignored. Or maybe you’ll get some historical points presented. Or some theological discussion. Or a book to read. Such things happen.
 
JoyToTheWhirled said:
I admit I find the whole thing confusing. If Anglican orders are valid, does that mean my female Anglican priest friend is validly ordained? Because, while I appreciate her ministry in her faith community, I would find it very difficult to understand why she can be an actual priest and a Catholic woman can’t (just to be clear, I accept and celebrate the Catholic teaching on women and the priesthood). I don’t want to argue about this (or anything, really) but this is one of those things I shall have to keep pondering.

As an aside, as a nearly Catholic, I have found it best and wisest to listen to the latest pronouncements from bishops and so on, and take a step back and wait to see how it all comes out in the wash…
Click to expand...
JPII addressed the issue of “women priests” with an infallible ruling. Some thought the case was an open matter. JPII closed that notion. Even though today some still think the case is open and will change. It won’t because it can’t.

Here’s the text

"4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore,* in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. "*

From http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…otalis_en.html

That language he used is by definition, infallible

here is the language used in the definition at Vat I

(emphasis mine)

"we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

that is, when,**

**
  • **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
  • **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
  • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  • he possesses,
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Ergo, what JPII wrote Re: inability of the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, not only is the case closed, and there is no more discussion, it is irreformable, i.e. it can’t be overturned.
 
I’ll answer your title question in a second, but I am wondering who here was “arguing” over the validity of Anglican Orders. There were a lot of people posting in the deleted thread in the Catholic News forum, but for my part, I was simply posting why the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican Orders, as it appeared many people were confused on the specifics.

So why am I as a Catholic concerned? Because we should know where our Lord is present in the Eucharist. Also, Catholics and many Anglican communities (High Church communities, that is) share many things in common. We should want those people to become Catholic Christians, as their priests would be a great asset to the Catholic Church, and the laity would bring their strengths as well to the Church. And that’s why we as Catholics are concerned about all this. Pope Leo XIII definitively declared that those who were ordained in the Edwardine rite were not ordained to the sacramental priesthood. With the Ordinariate, we have a streamlined way of getting these people validly ordained. We’re concerned because we want our brothers and sisters in Christ to enter into the fullness of Christ’s Church.

Why the “emotion”, you ask? The only emotion I feel is a longing to see the Anglican clergy reconcile with the Church so that they may legitimately be priests and administer the sacraments to the faithful.
 
GKC said:
On your first question, the asnwer you got would depend on who you asked. Many Anglicans, not all, would say yes. Valid priest. All RCs (inter alia), as well as many Anglicans, would say no. Not a valid priest. And that regardless of whether Anglican orders were, generally, valid or not. Valid orders cannot confect valid sacraments unless all sacramental factors (form, matter, intent, minister) are valid, and in this case, there is no valid subject/recipient of the sacrament. So, valid sacrament. No priest.

Other folk believe differently, as you might guess.

Last para is a prudent approach. I’m a big wait and see type.
Click to expand...
Last sentence of 1st para is missing a “no”. “So, no valid sacrament. No priest”.
 
Truth.

And of course those Priests who come over into full Communion - they need to be ordained.

One does not want non-ordained men trying to Celebrate the Mass!
 
AugustTherese said:
Probably because many Anglicans “argue” their validity?

I do not know how you are using “emotion”, but when an Anglican priest/bishop claims apostolic succession, it behooves me to gently correct that claim. 👍
Click to expand...
I think that’s what the OP is asking though no? Why does it behoove you to “correct” them? Particularly when you know going in that they disagree with your and your church’s assessment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top