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

[steve_b]

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?

Re: the highlighted points

Personally, In anticipation of those points, I brought up the following for that reason.

#9

especially given these forums are visited by, ergo read by, far more people than actually contribute to the actual conversation(s). So IMV, it’s always good to clarify any potential questions one might raise, and a reader who intends to remain a reader or lurker might have, and won’t necessarily ask the question, an answer is given just the same.

 

[Memaw]

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.

And those that do come into the Catholic Church and want to go on to be a Catholic Priest DO have to be Ordained by a valid Catholic Bishop. A few years ago several thousand Anglicans and their clergy petitioned Rome to come into the Catholic Church, They were unhappy with things developing in the Anglican Church, such as women priests and gay priest. While we do share some truths with other denominations, there are some very important things we do NOT share and I understood that several years were spent studying the Catholic faith so they know they would have to adhere to all Catholic teaching… And that is why the Anglican Ordinariate was formed. It didn’t happen over night and it is FULLY Catholic. We welcome all Anglicans wanting to learn about it. The divisions among Christians must be a thorn in Our Lords Sacred Heart. I pray for Unity every day! God Bless, Memaw

 

[adf417]

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)

Im not concerned and ive never met anyone that was. As for the emotional viewpoint i would guess it might have something to do with the “what if” and “aren’t we supposed to know”, if not how can we know or believe anything?

Peace!!!

 

[commenter]

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?

One reason Protestants and Anglicans give for converting to Catholicism is that this Church does in fact draw the line on some things. This sets the Catholic Church apart from other groups that no longer know where to draw the line, no longer able to draw a line on anything, or nothing is doctrinally important enough to draw a line for.

The person who, today, disagrees with our firm categories in one area may in the long run appreciate the value of firm categories in general; and have a new respect for those who maintain them.

 

[SteveLy]

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.

Thanks for the response. On the other post I enjoyed your comments and the links you posted.

In the past, threads on Anglican Orders tended to wind up in insults being thrown and circular reasoning.

My guess is there is a bit of cognitive dissonance as there was at points in the last post. This some times takes the form of people reading new information whicheck makes sense, but does not align with their current beliefs such as the article on the previous thread. People then tend to lash out rather than explore deeper as you had done.

Thanks again for the dialogue.

 

[Padres1969]

One reason Protestants and Anglicans give for converting to Catholicism is that this Church does in fact draw the line on some things. This sets the Catholic Church apart from other groups that no longer know where to draw the line, no longer able to draw a line on anything, or nothing is doctrinally important enough to draw a line for.

The person who, today, disagrees with our firm categories in one area may in the long run appreciate the value of firm categories in general; and have a new respect for those who maintain them.

Suppose that’s possible. But by the same token it doesn’t really answer the question of why the obsession with Anglican orders specifically.

Maybe that’s it, that Anglicans are one of the few and largest of groups who claim valid Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession specifically who are outside of what the Catholic Church deems as being valid holy orders and apostolic succession (unlike say the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Old Catholics who while outside the Catholic Church are some whom the Catholic Church recognizes as having valid Holy Orders).

I mean is there a larger non-Catholic group than the Anglican Communion who claim valid holy orders and apostolic succession but whom the RCC denies have such?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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.

“Available” but not something typically practiced from what I saw.

 

[Padres1969]

“Available” but not something typically practiced from what I saw.

Depends on your church and what you consider reconciliation. I’ve seen communal and personal reconciliation be offered in Anglican churches, the former quite regularly. Not many take advantage of the latter, but it is available and as GKC will point out, there’s even a little adage Anglicans like to say about it. But then I’ve noted that Anglicans and Catholics have that in common (ie: one on one reconciliation being offered but not taken advantage of by the vast majority).

 

[SteveLy]

One reason Protestants and Anglicans give for converting to Catholicism is that this Church does in fact draw the line on some things. This sets the Catholic Church apart from other groups that no longer know where to draw the line, no longer able to draw a line on anything, or nothing is doctrinally important enough to draw a line for.

The person who, today, disagrees with our firm categories in one area may in the long run appreciate the value of firm categories in general; and have a new respect for those who maintain them.

Works for me.

 

[GKC]

“Available” but not something typically practiced from what I saw.

All can, some should, none must, as you recall, as to auricular confession. Corporate confession is done at every Mass. Anglicans consider it efficacious for the need.

No one need agree with that. But confession/absolution is there, regularly.

Caveat on Anglican motleydom, as usual.

 

[billy15]

Thanks for the response. On the other post I enjoyed your comments and the links you posted.

In the past, threads on Anglican Orders tended to wind up in insults being thrown and circular reasoning.

My guess is there is a bit of cognitive dissonance as there was at points in the last post. This some times takes the form of people reading new information whicheck makes sense, but does not align with their current beliefs such as the article on the previous thread. People then tend to lash out rather than explore deeper as you had done.

Thanks again for the dialogue.

No problem. Thank you for your contributions and your take on things as a Catholic in the Ordinariate. It’s sad that this lashing out happens sometimes, but if we do our due diligence, it helps to get past the cognitive dissonance you described.

I just wanted to make one brief comment on your final post in the previous thread. You said, "taking this all into consideration, we may be able to more easily accept Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s statement that ‘something happened’ "

I think one thing that was odd about his comments is that he even suggested that people are saying “nothing happened”. That’s never been the position of the Church, as evidenced by the Bishops of England and Wales statement on the matter several years ago, that I’ll post here:

"We would never suggest that those now seeking full communion with the Roman Catholic Church deny the value of their previous ministry. According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the liturgical actions of their ministry can most certainly engender a life of grace, for they come from Christ and lead back to him and belong by right to the one church of Christ.”

I think many people, myself included, just found it odd he’d be saying such a thing. Hopefully, as Dr. Peters pointed out, all he’s talking about is simply that he thinks we need to make it easier to document cases like Bishop Leonard’s.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

All can, some should, none must, as you recall, as to auricular confession. Corporate confession is done at every Mass. Anglicans consider it efficacious for the need.

No one need agree with that. But confession/absolution is there, regularly.

Caveat on Anglican motleydom, as usual.

Yeah, do remember that. Not sure how beneficial it is, though.

 

[GKC]

Yeah, do remember that. Not sure how beneficial it is, though.

Nor should you be.

Anglicans are, sufficiently (though doubtless not all of one mind).

 

[commenter]

Suppose that’s possible. But by the same token it doesn’t really answer the question of why the obsession with Anglican orders specifically.

Maybe that’s it, that Anglicans are one of the few and largest of groups who claim valid Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession specifically who are outside of what the Catholic Church deems as being valid holy orders and apostolic succession (unlike say the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Old Catholics who while outside the Catholic Church are some whom the Catholic Church recognizes as having valid Holy Orders).

I mean is there a larger non-Catholic group than the Anglican Communion who claim valid holy orders and apostolic succession but whom the RCC denies have such?

Catholic Posters on CAF tend to show “obsession” responding to the interests shown by the kinds of non Catholics who tend to show up here, frequently. Certain groups - Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, other Reformed communions, Methodists - are under represented here, so trigger-happy CAF Catholic untrained but wannabe apologists don’t get to obsess about their interests much, sadly.

Fortunately, there is a group of Anglicans and Lutherans who have resigned employment, abandoned responsibilities to spouse and children, and let their yard care slide, to post **their **interests here, so that’s what the shoot-first-ask-questions-later, We-Are-The-One-True-Church-And-You’re-Not, Catholics naturally respond to.

 

[Yeoman]

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.

GKC, you were mentioned down in the Catholic News on a post concerning Anglican orders. Don’t know if you check there, but I thought I’d note that.

 

[Herculees]

We are NOT concerned over whether or not they have valid orders! We would NEVER receive sacraments from them as they are NOT valid.

 

[AugustTherese]

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?

Ultimately, because Our Lord wants unity and solidarity in His Church. Likewise, the members of his Mystical Body desire that same oneness, trying to bring others into that one sheepfold, especially our separated brethren.

When I have a evangelical opportunity and moral obligation to lovingly disclose to an Anglican why their “orders” are invalid, it is not because I want to win an argument or utterly prove them wrong, but, rather, to expose to them, using Christian pedigree and antiquity, along with Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture, that their “orders” are invalid because apostolic succession was lost due to a new rite of ordination being introduced outside of the one Christ Himself instituted.

Most every non-Catholic/non-Orthodox will most likely disagree because of invincible ignorance, lack of knowledge, and/or incorrigibility. It behooves me to gently rebuke those apparent hindrances to the fullness of Truth.

 

[Herculees]

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.

In the Boston area we now have a Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church (yes the do recognize the pope).

 

[SyroMalankara]

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)

Because it’s important to know where to draw the line. If Anglican orders are valid, adoring the Eucharist at Mass or outside of Mass is ok; if not, adoring a piece of bread is idolatry.

 

[steve_b]

Because it’s important to know where to draw the line. If Anglican orders are valid, adoring the Eucharist at Mass or outside of Mass is ok; if not, adoring a piece of bread is idolatry.

exactly