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.
Padres1969 said:
I

And with regard to Extraordinary Ministers of the sacrament, the body is always distributed by a priest (or visiting minister of a church we’re in communion with who may have given the sermon that day (the presider and confector of the Eucharist is always a priest from our church)), however the blood is typically distributed by one of the altar servers following the priest down the communion rail.
Click to expand...
So in this case the altar server would be, in effect, what RC’s call an EM. But in GKC’s church, in the Continuum, who would minister the cup if they don’t use EM? I assume they would sometimes happen to have two priests, or a priest and deacon, but usually they would not, and I assume the same clergyman can’t minister both.

Re: Padres, I wonder if this (only a clergyman ministers the Body) is feasible only in churches up to a certain size. Even in the RCC, EM’s are not supposed to be used unless there is a substantial number of communicants.
 
commenter said:
So in this case the altar server would be, in effect, what RC’s call an EM. But in GKC’s church, in the Continuum, who would minister the cup if they don’t use EM? I assume they would sometimes happen to have two priests, or a priest and deacon, but usually they would not, and I assume the same clergyman can’t minister both.

Re: Padres, I wonder if this (only a clergyman ministers the Body) is feasible only in churches up to a certain size. Even in the RCC, EM’s are not supposed to be used unless there is a substantial number of communicants.
Click to expand...
Not sure. My church is technically our diocesan cathedral so we’re larger than is typical. We always have at least two priests and an priest deacon at every Sunday mass minimum so one always takes the left side altar rail and the other the right side and one the “gluten free” location off to the side of the altar near the image of Mary. As for the three who hold the cup, technically they’d be Extraordinary Ministers in the Catholic parlance. As mentioned it’s either Altar Servers or the Dean’s verger who take that role.

Now I’ve been to Episcopal Churches that are smaller on occasion, but even then there the priest was distributing the body and altar servers were distributing the blood. In fact I can’t recall an instance where I’ve seen a priest going down the rail with the cup. This being among more 'high church" or “Anglo-Catholic” parishes mind.

At the only low Episcopal church I’ve ever visited during a much more sparsely attended mass the body and then blood was actually passed from congregant to congregant starting with the priest who had us all stand near the altar rail. And the body was not what I’ve found in my experience to be the more typical communion wafer (as you’d find in Latin Catholic mass for example) but was rather a form of lightly leavened bread broken into pieces (more akin to what Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics utilize).
 
GKC said:
It is extremely rare for someone in my parish not to receive the Blood. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an instance.
Click to expand...
Many don’t in my parish and also at the Cathedral daily Mass. God Bless, Memaw
 
commenter said:
So in this case the altar server would be, in effect, what RC’s call an EM. But in GKC’s church, in the Continuum, who would minister the cup if they don’t use EM? I assume they would sometimes happen to have two priests, or a priest and deacon, but usually they would not, and I assume the same clergyman can’t minister both.

Re: Padres, I wonder if this (only a clergyman ministers the Body) is feasible only in churches up to a certain size. Even in the RCC, EM’s are not supposed to be used unless there is a substantial number of communicants.
Click to expand...
We have, usually, 2 priests available. And we are also the diocesan cathedral, and the Bishop is most often present, when he is not off on episcopal visits, or other diocesan business. We have often had deacons available, none at present. So the sacrament is distributed either by 2 clergy, or by one priest, who returns for the chalice after distributing the Body. No problem.

The second priest is not always vested to serve, and functions as one of the cantors, in that case. He is only the celebrant if he is the only cleric present on a given day.
 
Memaw said:
Not really, all ages. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
GKC probably meant older custom in the idea that before the New Order of the Mass post Vatican II, Catholic Churches didn’t disseminate the blood. And I know many persisted in that for decades after the now “Ordinary Form” mass became the norm even among Catholics. The Catholic parish I grew up in didn’t begin offering the blood until the late 90’s. No one in my family to my knowledge who were or are Catholic partakes of the blood, nor did I after it became available or when visiting parishes that did offer it.

I’ve persisted in that even more than a decade after leaving the RCC. Though admittedly that makes me what appears to be somewhat unusual among my fellow parishioners and Episcopalians. I was raised that the priest(s) is the only one who partakes of the blood, and I’ve stuck to that.
 
Padres1969 said:
GKC probably meant older custom in the idea that before the New Order of the Mass post Vatican II, Catholic Churches didn’t disseminate the blood. And I know many persisted in that for decades after the now “Ordinary Form” mass became the norm even among Catholics. The Catholic parish I grew up in didn’t begin offering the blood until the late 90’s. No one in my family to my knowledge who were or are Catholic partakes of the blood, nor did I after it became available or when visiting parishes that did offer it.

I’ve persisted in that even more than a decade after leaving the RCC. Though admittedly that makes me what appears to be somewhat unusual among my fellow parishioners and Episcopalians. I was raised that the priest(s) is the only one who partakes of the blood, and I’ve stuck to that.
Click to expand...
My point, yes.
 
GKC said:
Sam’s were a little surprising, for his time. In some ways he resembled Lewis.
Click to expand...
Never understood why Lewis didn’t become Catholic.
40.png
GKC:
The tent they can keep. I’m after the watch…
Click to expand...
Both were obviously important. Must be a status symbol thing. Was the watch autographed?
 
steve_b said:
Never understood why Lewis didn’t become Catholic.

Both were obviously important. Must be a status symbol thing. Was the watch autographed?
Click to expand...
There are a couple of theories, including Lewis’.

And a couple of books that discuss the issue. It comes up around here often.

No, just a favorite watch. Not an original, collectible, like the 1940’s New Haven one, but it does use the same pre-Clayton Moore illustration on the dial. The Clayton Moore signed book is safe.

OTOH, the Hopalong Cassidy watch, which was an original 1959 US Time model I got for my 5th birthday, is also missing. For 6-8 years. Both are in the house, somewhere. But so is so much other stuff.
 
GKC said:
OTOH, the Hopalong Cassidy watch, which was an original 1959 US Time model I got for my 5th birthday, is also missing. For 6-8 years. Both are in the house, somewhere. But so is so much other stuff.
Click to expand...
And all this time I thought you were old, just hopping along… as they say. 😉
 
steve_b said:
And all this time I thought you were old, just hopping along… as they say. 😉
Click to expand...
I’m even older than that implies. I got the watch in 1950, for my 5th birthday. Perpetrated a typo, with the other date. Oops. Probably age related.
 
GKC said:
I’m even older than that implies. I got the watch in 1950, for my 5th birthday. Perpetrated a typo, with the other date. Oops. Probably age related.
Click to expand...
I could give you a few years 😉
 
There’s been a recent development in the discussion of Anglican orders incidentially.
One of the Vatican’s top legal minds has opened the way for a revision of the Catholic position on Anglican orders by stressing they should not be written off as “invalid.”
Click to expand...
In a recently published book, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, calls into question Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 papal bull that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.”
Click to expand...
“When someone is ordained in the Anglican Church and becomes a parish priest in a community, we cannot say that nothing has happened, that everything is ‘invalid’,” the cardinal says in volume of papers and discussions that took place in Rome as part of the “Malines Conversations,” an ecumenical forum.
Click to expand...
 
peter26 said:
There’s been a recent development in the discussion of Anglican orders incidentially.
Click to expand...
So a Cardinal “calls into question” a Pope, hmmmmm!!! If the Anglicans want unity with the Catholic Church , they should be willing to work with the Church to make sure TRUE Unity is obtained. That is why every Anglican Clergy coming into the Catholic Faith and wants to be a Catholic Priest, has to be Ordained by a valid Catholic Bishop. No question then of his validity!!! If he doesn’t agree, then I would question his desire for unity!!! God Bless, Memaw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top