Confused about valid orders and Protestantism

[garysibio]

I understand that only a bishop can ordain a priest. We accept the priesthood of the Eastern Orthodox churches because, at the time of the schism, they had valid bishops who could ordain valid priests.

Here’s where I’m confused. I’m sure at the time of the Reformation some validly ordained bishops left the Catholic Church for Lutheranism, Calvinism or whatever. Why couldn’t these bishops also ordain priests that we accept as valid? Why are the Orthodox and the Protestants treated differently in this regard?

 

[Rolltide]

Well for one, the Orthodox still recognize the necessity of validly ordained priests and bishops. In most of the Protestant churches, this idea (in fact, often the idea of the formal priesthood itself) has been rejected. Most Protestants see no need for it, and actively reject it as part of their faith. It was one of the things they were “protesting” against.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Well for one, the Orthodox still recognize the necessity of validly ordained priests and bishops. In most of the Protestant churches, this idea (in fact, often the idea of the formal priesthood itself) has been rejected. Most Protestants see no need for it, and actively reject it as part of their faith. It was one of the things they were “protesting” against.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Most of the Protestant reformers rejected apostolic succession and Holy Orders as unnecessary in favor of the lay “priesthood of all believers.”

 

[ChadS]

Well for one, the Orthodox still recognize the necessity of validly ordained priests and bishops. In most of the Protestant churches, this idea (in fact, often the idea of the formal priesthood itself) has been rejected. Most Protestants see no need for it, and actively reject it as part of their faith. It was one of the things they were “protesting” against.

I would just add also that Protestants not only rejected a formal priesthood, but also the sacramental nature of the priesthood along with the sacrificial nature of the mass.

So, to the OP even if validly ordained priests left the Catholic church and rejected its teachings about the priesthood and the mass the men that were “ordained” by these priests would’ve been illicitly ordained at best, but I suspect this is unlikely. Most likely the people that were “ordained” were never actually priests and if they further ordained men according to the new Protestant teachings Apostolic succession would’ve been broken.

As for the Orthodox the sacramental nature of the priesthood and the sacrificial nature of the mass has never been in question for them. That is why they retained a valid priesthood even while being separated from Rome.

ChadS

 

[JD27076]

I believe what the OP was getting at is such protestant denominations such as Anglicanism.

King Henry VIII did retrieve validly ordained Catholic bishops to the Anglican Church, and for some time, had validly ordained priest and bishops.

Though their rite of ordination changed and apparently is now invalid. But I had heard that the only thing necessary for a valid ordination is the laying of hands on the persons head with the bishops intention of ordination to whatever sacramental level of holy orders.

So I also have to question, why is Orthodoxy valid, and Anglicanism not? Anglicanism, to an extent, believes in the sacramental priesthood and need for it, and have laying on of hands of succession.

 

[JerryZ]

I understand that only a bishop can ordain a priest. We accept the priesthood of the Eastern Orthodox churches because, at the time of the schism, they had valid bishops who could ordain valid priests.

Here’s where I’m confused. I’m sure at the time of the Reformation some validly ordained bishops left the Catholic Church for Lutheranism, Calvinism or whatever. Why couldn’t these bishops also ordain priests that we accept as valid? Why are the Orthodox and the Protestants treated differently in this regard?

Luther burned the Code of Canon Law. They jettisoned all the Magisterium even at the Reformation period they had internal schims, I would guess that they did not give much thought to the issue of “Valid Orders”.

Calvin was a lawyer by trade self taught theologian used mainly St Agustin as his inspiration to formulate his brand of protestantism.

Luther was originally a Monk and had training in theology

So none of the 2 biggest stars where Bishops they probably despised the title as at the time it could happen that the loyalty would have relatives ordained as bishops.
Terrenal power trying to control the Church from within.

The fact that the Catholic Church is still standing after 2000 years, endured the turmoil of the middle ages and did not collapse is definitive proof that Jesus Himself is protecting His Bride.