Charismatic Episcopal Church - Valid Holy Orders?

[threej_lc]

Caelicola:

Try holding the ALT key down and typing 0167 on the number pad (not the numbers above the letters).

Enjoy. =) Also useful for German chars: ä (0228), ß (0223), ö (0246), ü (0252) and tons of other more esoteric symbols…

I guess I should clarify once more. I know I could hunt through the symbol table for the more advanced characters, but I was too lazy :yawn:

Thanks for the tip, though!
§§§§
Josh

 

[Matt16_18]

Irish Melkite:

I am a long-time serious student of the various independent “Catholic” and “Orthodox” Churches and not infrequently acknowledged as somewhat expert on the subject.

What is your opinion about the validity of the orders of the TAC?

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Matt16_18:

What is your opinion about the validity of the orders of the TAC?

Matt,

Very difficult question to answer, since the TAC is actually a communion of Churches, rather than a single Church. Last time I checked, there were about a dozen separate Churches involved.

I have no doubt that there are individual episcopal lineages that meet the standard of being arguably valid, since there has been participation in Anglican episcopal ordinations by hierarchs from the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Communion at various times and places. Albeit, it would be necessary to examine the lineage of any particular OCC-UC hierarch involved, the likelihood is that most of them will themselves have had valid orders and, thus, been capable of transmitting validity. Instances without OCC-UC participation are significantly unlikely to pass muster as to validity, unless there was some other factor present (e.g., participation by a hierarch of the Duarte-Costa line).

Many years,

Neil

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1399.htm

It’s been a while since I have looked at this thread, but I never said that Eastern Orthodox churches did not posses valid Apostolic succession. All I meant to say was, in under normal circumstances, a practising Latin-Rite Catholic may not accept communion at a church not in communion with Rome (notice, I said churches in communion with Rome and this obviously includes the Eastern Catholic churches who are in communion). It is different for some Eastern Catholic churches which may share some sort of intercommunion with their counterparts in the EO world, but under normal circumstances for a Latin-Rite Catholic you may not take Communion at a church not in communion with Rome even if they do posses valid Holy Orders (i.e. Apostolic Succession). Please re-read my post.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

threej_lc:

Thank you for the correction. I know that canon law says in the Church all sacraments are presumed valid. I was incorrectly extrapolating this principle to sacraments administered outside the church.

Forgive me if my initial impression was incorrect, I didn’t mean you any personal harm. Neither do I see any attempt to act on a personal opinion, and the only “personal” opinion I applied was a incorrect understanding of what I had thought the church had already stated.

Josh,

In reading your original post, I was concerned that you seemed firmly convinced that individual Catholics could make “informed” judgements as to sacramental validity in Churches not in communion with Rome and I was anxious to dispel that belief on your part and assure that it wasn’t taken up and acted upon by others. I want to apologize and ask your forgiveness for judging your words prematurely and coming across a bit harshly in my response to you.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Joseph_Kopsho]

I do not know if the Catholic Church considers the Anglican and Episcopal Churches to have valid Holy Orders. I consider the Anglican and Episcopal Churches to have valid Holy Orders.

 

[threej_lc]

Irish Melkite:

Josh,

In reading your original post, I was concerned that you seemed firmly convinced that individual Catholics could make “informed” judgements as to sacramental validity in Churches not in communion with Rome and I was anxious to dispel that belief on your part and assure that it wasn’t taken up and acted upon by others. I want to apologize and ask your forgiveness for judging your words prematurely and coming across a bit harshly in my response to you.

Many years,

Neil

Glad to get that cleared up.
The Lord give you His peace!
Josh

 

[Thepeug]

I’m confused; how can churches like the TAC and and CEC possibly have valid lines of succession? Did not Apostolicae Curae definitively declare all Anglican orders invalid?

God bless,

Chris

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Thepeug:

I’m confused; how can churches like the TAC and and CEC possibly have valid lines of succession? Did not Apostolicae Curae definitively declare all Anglican orders invalid?

God bless,

Chris

The TAC posseses valid lines of Apostolic Succession (even if illicit) thru the Old Catholic Church. The TAC is a break off from the Anglican Communion, who broke off because of issues such as women’s ordination, ordination of openly gay bishops, etc.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

Thepeug:

I’m confused; how can churches like the TAC and and CEC possibly have valid lines of succession? Did not Apostolicae Curae definitively declare all Anglican orders invalid?

Chris,

Note Neil/Irish Melkite’s comment in his detailed post about the CEC

the CEC, its name notwithstanding, did not originate in the Episcopal Church.

Also, read Neil’s remarks in the post above in which he replies to Matt about the TAC. It is a communion of Churches, rather than a single Church and some of those may have valid Apostolic Succession, Orders, and (consequently) Sacraments, through the process of having interacted with the Old Catholics. From his remarks in that and the earlier posts, I suspect that Neil would not be inclined to any statement as definitive as that by Semper Fi as to the validity of the TAC’s Orders and my reaction is also to err on the side of caution. Until reviewed and a determination made, the presumption is against validity of their Orders (as I understand it, the case for the validity of the CEC’s Orders is much stronger, because of the involvement of the schismatic Brazilian Church).

Joe

 

[GKC]

And it should be remembered that Anglican orders generally have been infused with Old Catholic/PNCC lines since 1932, not just the TAC. Neither Graham Leonard, nor John Hughes, for example, both of whom were ordained sub conditione when they became RC priests, were in the TAC. Even accepting the logic of Apostolicae Curae, many, many Anglicin clergy possess valid, though illicit, orders. My rector does, for example, and most of the larger Traditional Anglican movement (including the TAC) likewise, who trace their episcopal line back to +Chambers, in 1978.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Joe Monahan:

I suspect that Neil would not be inclined to any statement as definitive as that by Semper Fi as to the validity of the TAC’s Orders and my reaction is also to err on the side of caution.

Tough crowd! You are right, though.

 

[David_Zampino]

Thepeug:

I’m confused; how can churches like the TAC and and CEC possibly have valid lines of succession? Did not Apostolicae Curae definitively declare all Anglican orders invalid?

God bless,

Chris

The CEC was never aligned with Anglicanism.

 

[St_Benedict]

Semper Fi:

It’s been a while since I have looked at this thread, but I never said that Eastern Orthodox churches did not posses valid Apostolic succession. All I meant to say was, in under normal circumstances, a practising Latin-Rite Catholic may not accept communion at a church not in communion with Rome (notice, I said churches in communion with Rome and this obviously includes the Eastern Catholic churches who are in communion). It is different for some Eastern Catholic churches which may share some sort of intercommunion with their counterparts in the EO world, but under normal circumstances for a Latin-Rite Catholic you may not take Communion at a church not in communion with Rome even if they do posses valid Holy Orders (i.e. Apostolic Succession). Please re-read my post.

I posted the above to highlight your post “that you should only recieve in a Church in communion with Rome.” This could be misinterpreted as meaning communion in other Church’s (as opposed to ecclesial communities) is never acceptable, hence my post. The relevent section is the last sentence (A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”) but I hate choping Catechism references into bits. Your subsequent post acknowledges this.

I think your language - “may share some sort of communion” - is very grudging, the Church is quite clear reception of the Eucharist is acceptable.

I think it should be clear that a Latin Catholic could recieve under limited circumstances from an Orthodox priest, however 99.999% of Orthodox priests would not allow it I believe