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.
GKC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi old friend,

Samuel Johnson? The author?
 
GKC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair points on both counts. Though at this point I tend to think of the former as a given since it’s pretty well established that Anglicans are not of one mind about anything, even within single churches.

For the RC’s though I agree that it may be on a continuum of “level” about what is sometimes ok to be and what is not ok to be transitory. Whether all Catholics would agree on what is where in that continuum and where Anglican orders would fall I cannot say. Clearly for some including at least one Cardinal in a place of import to the matter, it being less a settled matter is not a problem.
 
Padres1969 said:
Fair points on both counts. Though at this point I tend to think of the former as a given since it’s pretty well established that Anglicans are not of one mind about anything, even within single churches.

For the RC’s though I agree that it may be on a continuum of “level” about what is sometimes ok to be and what is not ok to be transitory. Whether all Catholics would agree on what is where in that continuum and where Anglican orders would fall I cannot say. Clearly for some including at least one Cardinal in a place of import to the matter, it being less a settled matter is not a problem.
Click to expand...
The vital question, ISTM, with respect to the RCC doctrine/dogmas, is where a given subject falls, on the hierarchy of theological certainty, and how authoritatively it is placed there. Something that is *sententia communis *is much more malleable than something that is de fide. And no individual can suggest/speculate with authority that a higher level can be demoted to a lower, esp. on the revealed truths. If it looks like that is what is going on, folk get antsy.

Anglicans of course are motley, which is a truth revealed. I’ve been revealing it for years.

Single churches might be more monolithic than you would think.
 
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...
If an Anglican priest desires to be received into the RCC, it is important to determine whether he should be reordained (and whether conditionally or unconditionally), which to my mind depends on having a lineage from an Old Catholic or PNCC bishop.

If he is remaining Anglican then I don’t worry about whether his orders are valid because I don’t receive communion in Anglican churches regardless.
 
Peter_J said:
If an Anglican priest desires to be received into the RCC, it is important to determine whether he should be reordained (and whether conditionally or unconditionally), which to my mind depends on having a lineage from an Old Catholic or PNCC bishop.

If he is remaining Anglican then I don’t worry about whether his orders are valid because I don’t receive communion in Anglican churches regardless.
Click to expand...
So far, the rule is absolute ordination (and not re-ordination, in any case. I can’t imagine an Anglican being received in his orders), with the exception of Fr. Graham Leonard, whose case does seems to be related to the joint consecrations with OC bishops. It was a point I was interested in when Anglicanorum coetibus was first promulgated.
 
GKC said:
Was wondering if you might notice me.

BTW, I’ve lost my Lone Ranger watch, somewhere, and am sad.
Click to expand...
Tonto and the Lone Ranger were asleep out on the range one night. The lone Ranger woke Tonto up, and said, Gee Tonto what a nice night. Look at all those stars. Tonto said, kemosabe, that means someone stole our tent.
40.png
GKC:
Yep. The Great Cham, Sam.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize he had expertise in such matters
 
steve_b said:
Tonto and the Lone Ranger were asleep out on the range one night. The lone Ranger woke Tonto up, and said, Gee Tonto what a nice night. Look at all those stars. Tonto said, kemosabe, that means someone stole our tent.

I didn’t realize he had expertise in such matters
Click to expand...
He had, at least, opinions.

Perhaps someone stole my watch.
 
Memaw said:
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
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that you are wrong, I’m only stating that this is why we Catholics are concerned with Anglican Orders.
 
Yeoman said:
I’m not saying that you are wrong, I’m only stating that this is why we Catholics are concerned with Anglican Orders.
Click to expand...
I am concerned about those Anglican Clergy that may actually have valid Holy Orders due to the “Old Catholic Church”. and what do they do with the Hosts that are “left over” Do they have a Tabernacle?? (I have never heard they did!) What do they do?? Are they taught to be in the State of Grace before receiving?? God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
I am concerned about those Anglican Clergy that may actually have valid Holy Orders due to the “Old Catholic Church”. and what do they do with the Hosts that are “left over” Do they have a Tabernacle?? (I have never heard they did!) What do they do?? Are they taught to be in the State of Grace before receiving?? God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
Yes. Anglicans have Tabernacles. Most often centered on the altar, not off in another location. And they reserve the consecrated hosts (Blessed Body) and consume the Blood, if any remains. And use a Sacrarium/piscina. And allow no one not in Holy orders to distribute or touch the consecrated elements. And state of Grace, yes (hence the corporate confession and absolution in the Mass)… And other stuff.

Remember that Anglicans are motley. But this is what is usually done by all. I’ve never seen an exception. But you never know.
 
GKC said:
Yes. Anglicans have Tabernacles. Most often centered on the altar, not off in another location. And they reserve the consecrated hosts (Blessed Body) and consume the Blood, if any remains. And use a Sacrarium/piscina. And allow no one **not in Holy orders to distribute or touch the consecrated elements. **And state of Grace, yes (hence the corporate confession and absolution in the Mass)… And other stuff.

Remember that Anglicans are motley. But this is what is usually done by all. I’ve never seen an exception. But you never know.
Click to expand...
I assume this is other than when laity are receiving Communion themselves from the priest or deacon. Do any Anglicans utilize (lay) Extraordinary Ministers to distribute communion? Is or was there an issue with Communion in the hand, as compared with on the tongue? Is this something more for Low Church, or something that changed over time?

Re: state of grace, is there something like the Confiteor said at the liturgy?
 
commenter said:
I assume this is other than when laity are receiving Communion themselves from the priest or deacon. Do any Anglicans utilize (lay) Extraordinary Ministers to distribute communion? Is or was there an issue with Communion in the hand, as compared with on the tongue? Is this something more for Low Church, or something that changed over time?

Re: state of grace, is there something like the Confiteor said at the liturgy?
Click to expand...
Some Anglicans may do who knows what, as you know.

Anglicans of the right sort (that is, like me), attend only parishes that do not use EMs at all. Others may follow the RCC in this practice.

Communion in the hand varies, as you might expect. It is common in my Anglo-Catholic parish, maybe 60%. Others mostly on the tongue, some few by intinction. I never receive in the hand. But it is basically adiaphora, amongst the motley crew… In the hand has been at least that common for the roughly 50 years, off and on, that I’ve been observing the herd,

State of Grace, as I interpreted the comment is that which follows confession/absolution.
 
GKC said:
Some Anglicans may do who knows what, as you know.

Anglicans of the right sort (that is, like me), attend only parishes that do not use EMs at all. Others may follow the RCC in this practice.

Communion in the hand varies, as you might expect. It is common in my Anglo-Catholic parish, maybe 60%. Others mostly on the tongue, some few by intinction. I never receive in the hand. But it is basically adiaphora, amongst the motley crew… In the hand has been at least that common for the roughly 50 years, off and on, that I’ve been observing the herd,

State of Grace, as I interpreted the comment is that which follows confession/absolution.
Click to expand...
Indeed even among congregations it may vary. My congregation is a mix of by hand, by intinction or by tongue. It really depends on personal preference or upbringing. Most partake of the wine, a few like myself, who was raised Catholic during the time wine wasn’t distributed, don’t partake.

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.
 
Padres1969 said:
Indeed even among congregations it may vary. My congregation is a mix of by hand, by intinction or by tongue. It really depends on personal preference or upbringing. Most partake of the wine, a few like myself, who was raised Catholic during the time wine wasn’t distributed, don’t partake.

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...
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.
 
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...
Not surprised. It’s not common to turn it down in mine either. Only ones I’ve seen do it are myself due to my upbringing, and a couple of the homeless gents from the nearby park who regularly attend who may have alcohol addiction issues or other reasons not to partake.
 
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...
You mean, to receive the Blood from the Chalice…

We all receive the Blood from the Host. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top