Continuing Anglicans

  • Thread starter Thread starter William1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

William1

Guest
I’m just wondering that if the continuing Anglicans Churches are recognized by the Catholic Church? If not why. The PNCC bishops were at their ordination. Shouldn’t that make their bishops and priests valid and be regconized?
 
No, the RCC doesn’t recognize the orders of any Continuing Anglicans.Or any Anglicans, per se.

As to the Old Catholic/PNCC issue, the point is complicated. But historically, at least one Anglican priest, ordained as a RCC priest, and the first since to be ordained sub conditione since Apostolicae Curae (and one of only two, total), attributed his conditional ordination to his Old Catholic lines, among other things.OTOH, Rome has not shown much interest in this point.

It would be more correct to observe that Anglicans historically, since 1932 with respect to Old Catholics and 1946, with respect to the PNCC, have had joint episcopal consecrations, than that all Continuing Anglicans routinely had PNCC bishops present at all such ordinations/consecrations. The process long predates the birth of the Continuum.

and OYAH, 4 of the major Continuing jurisdictions are in serious discussions with the PNCC and the Union of Scranton, aimed at forming a single jurisdiction.

And it’s even more complicated, but it is late.
 
Last edited:
But the point of the OP is this: even if one accepts the Catholic position re the Edwardian ordinal, have not valid orders been re-introduced into Anglican churches by the joint consecration of Anglican bishops by bishops in Old Catholic and PNCC churches, whose orders are believed to be valid? Or, if valid orders have not been re-introduced by those joint consecrations, why not?
 
PickyPicky said:
have not valid orders been re-introduced into Anglican churches by the joint consecration of Anglican bishops by bishops in Old Catholic and PNCC churches, whose orders are believed to be valid
Click to expand...
It’s a very good question, but I think it’s one that is unfortunately relegated to academic interest at this stage.

As @GKMotley noted, the Holy See doesn’t seem to be especially interested in revisiting the topic given (1) the provision of Ordinariates for Anglicans; (2) the increasing fragmentation of the Anglican communion, with many continuing Anglican churches (apart from the ACNA) being very small; (3) the general decline of most Western and Northern Anglican provinces which have historically spearheaded ecumenical engagement with the Catholic Church; (4) a trend towards conservative, Reformed evangelicanism that is supplanting Anglo-Catholicism in several provinces.
 
I don’t really see why Anglicans should want recognition from Rome. They might as well become Catholics.
 
According to Apostolicae Curae.

And, of course, that is the correct thing for all RCs to affirm.
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
I don’t really see why Anglicans should want recognition from Rome. They might as well become Catholics
Click to expand...
I don’t think they do want recognition from Rome. As has been said, the question is academic only.
 
Practically as long as Anglicans do not view priesthood as sacrament unable to be removed or conferred on women, as sacrificial function primarily and Liturgy as sacrifice, Catholic Church will not view their orders as valid. Even if they had consecrations done by fully valid Bishops.
 
That is not quite accurate, as stated. Apostolicae Curae (which, as we recall, all RCs should affirm and maintain, at the appropriate level of theological certainty), concludes with an intertwined judgement on the sacramental form of the Ordinal, coupled necessarily with the presumed sacramental intent of those using it, as the issue. The best treatment I can suggest for the RC position on that would be (former Jesuit priest) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. It delves deeply into the issue.

Anglicans have a different take on the matter. (And the form and the intent).
 
Last edited:
But, of course, depending on which Anglicans you are thinking of, some do consider Orders one (of 7) sacraments, imparting upon reception an indelible character, and sacerdotal authority to confect the Eucharist as a re-presentation of the One Sacrifice.

Doesn’t affect the judgement of Apostolicae Curae. But even so, there you are. Motley, them Anglicans.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
depending on which Anglicans you are thinking of
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is my understanding that Orders are conferred even by those who do not hold those views. That alone makes Anglican orders dubious at best. Then also Catholics view that only those who do not view female ordination as option can confer Priesthood. That limits number of Bishops that can administer Sacrament of Priesthood and even those Bishops would need to be consecrated in line which holds all teachings of above. For that to last very unlikely- which is why in some, rare, cases there is performed conditional ordination to Priesthood for clergy crossing the Tiber from Anglican communion.
 
Certainly. And Anglicans of the ilk I belong to (and similar folk) know that a valid sacrament must include a sacramentally valid recipient (if appropriate, as in baptism or orders). And only those sacraments that do so are validly confected. Which is an issue only going back in Anglicanism for 40 years or so. Episcopal lines can be traced, to see who was laying hands on hairspray and this might indeed be used as a determinatio ex adiunctus for valid ordinations.

As to ordination sub conditione, I don’t think you will find more than two individuals who received it, in this context and time frame, post Apostolicae Curae. That would be Fr. John J. Hughes and Fr. Graham Leonard. If you know of others, I would be interested in hearing of them.
 
GKMotley said:
I don’t think you will find more than two individuals who received it
Click to expand...
That might be true. I do not have too much knowledge about the topic. I looked up Apostolicae Curae because I saw some sedevacantists using it to “prove” that Catholic Church lost sacraments post-Vatican II. I also know about existence of Anglican Ordinariate and knew about Priest being ordained sub conditione and wrongly assumed that it is “sometimes” done… though I didn’t know “sometimes” means twice in such a long time frame. Thank you for information.
 
You are very welcome. Fr. Hughes’ case was around 1958; he knew of none other at the time, since the issuing of Apostalicae Curae.

Sub conditione ordinations were something I had on my mind, back when Anglicanorum Coetibus was first promulgated. If ( I said to myself) this results in any sub conditione ordinations, it will be fascinating. And it did not. I was not surprised.
 
Since you cannot any more be sure if an Anglican minister has been ordained by a male bishop, or even if he has, that that bishop was not consecrated by a female In the role of bishop, it is hard to see how any Anglican orders can be trusted. And where trust is absent, so are intentions.
 
Records of Anglican episcopal lines and consecrations are kept, just as are RC similarly.
 
Last edited:
I get my info from the Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., who was considered to be one of the greatest dogmatic theologians. To me, it seems that the intent and practice of the Anglican Church from its inception to very recent times, was to separate from Rome and maintain that separation, all the while claiming succession.

For that reason, Anglican who desired unity were offered an Anglican rite and an Anglican Ordinariate to serve it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top