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

[Lenten_ashes]

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

True, dont want nor would i receive their sacraments.

However, doesnt mean what they do have is worthless or not beneficial at all. They have faith in them and in Christ so im sure they are meaningful. It’s just not the total package that we get in the CC.

 

[GKC]

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.

I do, occasionally, go there, and my reputation (which was brighter and shinier, in years past; the fan club has shrunk, now) must, in some sense, live on. Or, perhaps, my notoriety.

Was I mentioned, or more excoriated?

Either way, thanks for letting me know. Is that the thread that I read had been deleted?

 

[GKC]

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.

Invalid form, intertwined with invalid intent, is the logic in Apostolicae curae. Both function together, in the judgement.

 

[GKC]

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.

Samuel Johnson corrected that sort of reasoning, going in the other dorection, observing that, as the RCs believed the confected Eucharist was the Body and Blood, not bread and wine, it was in no sense idolatry. It was worship.

Boswell listened dutifully, of course.

 

[GKC]

I do, occasionally, go there, and my reputation (which was brighter and shinier, in years past; the fan club has shrunk, now) must, in some sense, live on. Or, perhaps, my notoriety.

Was I mentioned, or more excoriated?

Either way, thanks for letting me know. Is that the thread that I read had been deleted?

Added. I went and looked. Lots of comments, some of them knowledgeable. Didn’t read past page 3. I made a couple of quick comments. Now must go shopping. Thanks again.

 

[Padres1969]

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.

Interesting take. Won’t totally disagree with you. There are a few regular Anglican posters like myself so that may play into it. Perhaps there’s a bit of both in it. Because while there are likely more Anglican and Lutheran posters on here than Baptist, D of C, Pentacostals, etc… Anglicans and Lutherans are unlike those groups in that we either claim to still have valid Apostolic Succession and orders, or at the very least with Lutherans, Anglicans and arguably Methodists, claim we confect a valid Eucharist with Christ becoming present in said Eucharist in a similar way to Catholic mass. Most other reformed or baptist based churches do not claim that they confect Eucharist in that manner either having just a “spiritual presence” or a purely memorial nature.

 

[commenter]

Interesting take. Won’t totally disagree with you. There are a few regular Anglican posters like myself so that may play into it. Perhaps there’s a bit of both in it. Because while there are likely more Anglican and Lutheran posters on here than Baptist, D of C, Pentacostals, etc… Anglicans and Lutherans are unlike those groups in that we either claim to still have valid Apostolic Succession and orders, or at the very least with Lutherans, Anglicans and arguably Methodists, claim we confect a valid Eucharist with Christ becoming present in said Eucharist in a similar way to Catholic mass. Most other reformed or baptist based churches do not claim that they confect Eucharist in that manner either having just a “spiritual presence” or a purely memorial nature.

Catholic “Mass”

Although to be fair,
Baptist and Reformed also should be capitalized.

 

[GKC]

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.

I’ve read the posts, now. Some folk know a lot. Some folk get a few points wrong. I posted about 10 comments, but am not trying to cross every uncrossed T and dot every topless I.

Things were quiet when I left.

 

[Padres1969]

Catholic “Mass”

Although to be fair,
Baptist and Reformed also should be capitalized.

Any comment on the actual comment?

 

[commenter]

Interesting take. Won’t totally disagree with you. There are a few regular Anglican posters like myself so that may play into it. Perhaps there’s a bit of both in it. Because while there are likely more Anglican and Lutheran posters on here than Baptist, D of C, Pentacostals, etc… Anglicans and Lutherans are unlike those groups in that we either claim to still have valid Apostolic Succession and orders, or at the very least with Lutherans, Anglicans and arguably Methodists, claim we confect a valid Eucharist with Christ becoming present in said Eucharist in a similar way to Catholic mass. Most other reformed or baptist based churches do not claim that they confect Eucharist in that manner either having just a “spiritual presence” or a purely memorial nature.

Speaking only for myself, I tend not to focus that much on validity of Anglican Orders. I realize it is important, but it is a theological area where I don’t have much expertise. Other groups such as the Old Catholics do have valid (in Rome’s eyes) orders, but that seems not to make much difference in how they relate to Catholics. Bishop Williamson has valid orders. Yup.

I am personally more concerned with things like prolife and the sanctity of marriage. That brings my interest closer to the Continuum, ACNA, and LCMS, of course. But also I consider the Assemblies of God, or certain Baptist groups, as having “valid orders” in a sense, of upholding true doctrine on life and death matters. Who are the people standing shoulder to shoulder outside the abortion clinic with us?

Maybe we need to identify “validity” of social witness in the public square? Again, just a personal comment, as per your request.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I read the Catholic News thread so far as it had got by last night (British Summer Time). I found it a painful read, and I won’t get further up to date until after breakfast. But it did leave me with one impression which, if I may be allowed as an outsider to both faith traditions, I will show here.

It seems to me that Catholics are not particularly interested in Anglican orders except where discussion of them touches the deep intellectual and emotional investment many (all?) Catholics have in the unchanging nature of their Church. That investment leads many, perhaps, to avoid giving too much attention to the way Rome’s view of other denominations has evolved since Vatican II, and when that evolution is made plain it produces sometimes a sense of pain, a feeling almost of betrayal. We saw the same thing here when it was announced that the Pope would be taking part in a service commemorating the Reformation.

It may be, perhaps, that as Catholics become accustomed to seeing the Pope embrace other Christians — in the East but also Christians much further along the Protestant spectrum than Anglicans — these feelings of pain will ease?

 

[commenter]

It may be, perhaps, that as Catholics become accustomed to seeing the Pope embrace other Christians — in the East but also Christians much further along the Protestant spectrum than Anglicans — these feelings of pain will ease?

I have been seeing popes embrace other Christians since the 1960s. Unless you are talking about Catholics who are very old now, this is the main norm we have known. We have little experience with anti ecumenism. But even though I remember the 1960s, I am aware of events since then.

The Episcopal Church, and to a greater or lesser extent other denominations, has taken positions totally at variance with Scripture, with the common core of Christian Tradition, and with the historic commitments of Anglicanism, or their own faith heritage, as expressed as recently as the 1960s. It is not so much churches moving “farther along the **Protestant **spectrum”, but some, not all, churches moving farther along the **secular **spectrum. It is not liberal churches embracing the current population of their society, but liberal churches embracing the power structure, as represented by the media.

It’s not a “feeling of pain” to recognize we are not living in the 1960s. It is prudence. I am not uncomfortable with popes reaching out to individuals in movements I disagree with, whether it be the secularized portions of Protestantism, Islam, or atheism. (People forget Pope Benedict wanted to give an address to a mostly atheistic audience at University of Rome, but unfortunately they cancelled him).

Vatican II never taught Catholics to always look back to the 1960s but to consider the signs of the times they are currently living in. New realities, such as the distinction between Anglicanism and the Continuum, are observed, and taken into account.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I have been seeing popes embrace other Christians since the 1960s. Unless you are talking about Catholics who are very old now, this is the main norm we have known. We have little experience with anti ecumenism. But even though I remember the 1960s, I am aware of events since then.

The Episcopal Church, and to a greater or lesser extent other denominations, has taken positions totally at variance with Scripture, with the common core of Christian Tradition, and with the historic commitments of Anglicanism, or their own faith heritage, as expressed as recently as the 1960s. It is not so much churches moving “farther along the **Protestant **spectrum”, but some, not all, churches moving farther along the **secular **spectrum. It is not liberal churches embracing the current population of their society, but liberal churches embracing the power structure, as represented by the media.

It’s not a “feeling of pain” to recognize we are not living in the 1960s. It is prudence. I am not uncomfortable with popes reaching out to individuals in movements I disagree with, whether it be the secularized portions of Protestantism, Islam, or atheism. (People forget Pope Benedict wanted to give an address to a mostly atheistic audience at University of Rome, but unfortunately they cancelled him).

Vatican II never taught Catholics to always look back to the 1960s but to consider the signs of the times they are currently living in. New realities, such as the distinction between Anglicanism and the Continuum, are observed, and taken into account.

Yes, these are arguments with which I am of course familiar, but they do not seem to figure prominently in the comments in the Catholic News thread. No distinction taken into account there of any distinction between the Anglican Communion and the Continuum, for instance. The concern seems largely to be with the permanence of Leo’s decision.

 

[GKC]

Yes, these are arguments with which I am of course familiar, but they do not seem to figure prominently in the comments in the Catholic News thread. No distinction taken into account there of any distinction between the Anglican Communion and the Continuum, for instance. The concern seems largely to be with the permanence of Leo’s decision.

Which, it seems to me, is not entirely unfair. The narrow issue of Anglican orders was deemed nailed down permanently, in the wording of Apostolicae curae. How can there be any sense of permanency if this, as well as other settled points of the Magesterium, seem to be (at least to be), subtly undermined?

Personal observation: the RC online from whom I leaned the most about AC, the most knowledgeable lay person I ever interacted with, was of the mind that the Continuum and such like Anglican aberrations do suggest occasion for rethinking the issue,of some Anglicans, today. But that would suggest that permanency is transitory, in some cases.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Which, it seems to me, is not entirely unfair. The narrow issue of Anglican orders was deemed nailed down permanently, in the wording of Apostolicae curae. How can there be any sense of permanency if this, as well as other settled points of the Magesterium, seem to be (at least to be), subtly undermined?

Personal observation: the RC online from whom I leaned the most about AC, the most knowledgeable lay person I ever interacted with, was of the mind that the Continuum and such like Anglican aberrations do suggest occasion for rethinking the issue,of some Anglicans, today. But that would suggest that permanency is transitory, in some cases.

Indeed, your first paragraph expresses exactly the concerns which, I was trying hamfistedly to argue, lie behind the reaction questioned in the title of this thread.

 

[Yeoman]

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 we want everyone to be saved.

 

[GKC]

Indeed, your first paragraph expresses exactly the concerns which, I was trying hamfistedly to argue, lie behind the reaction questioned in the title of this thread.

And concerns fueled by such things as the new thread just above. "Pope Francis: many young people in the Church have fallen into the ‘temptation of rigidity’ ". Are sands shifting, and if so, how many, how much, and why? Not unreasonable concerns, to some.

 

[Memaw]

Because we want everyone to be saved.

Of course we do but that doesn’t mean we overlook everything they disagree with the Catholic Church on and say one belief is as good as any other. Like it or not the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago and PROTECTED from Error by the Holy Spirit. While we may agree on some beliefs, there is still a huge difference on some very important beliefs. And that cannot be swept under the rug just to be nice. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Padres1969]

Which, it seems to me, is not entirely unfair. The narrow issue of Anglican orders was deemed nailed down permanently, in the wording of Apostolicae curae. **How can there be any sense of permanency if this, as well as other settled points of the Magesterium, seem to be (at least to be), subtly undermined? **

Isn’t it though in practice? I mean look at the RCC’s understanding of certain parts of the bible, for example Genesis. That has evolved over time. Permanency in my experience on many issues the church addresses ends up being transitory.

As an Anglican now I don’t mind that clearly, but I can see how it might concern a Catholic.

 

[GKC]

Isn’t it though in practice? I mean look at the RCC’s understanding of certain parts of the bible, for example Genesis. That has evolved over time. Permanency in my experience on many issues the church addresses ends up being transitory.

As an Anglican now I don’t mind that clearly, but I can see how it might concern a Catholic.

It concerns me, too. But then, I am an Anglican of a particular type.

For the RCs’ concern, the level of identified and defined theological certainty is going to be a factor.