Do Roman Catholics consider Episcopalian sacremental confession valid?

[Nella]

Just curious about it. My father who is Catholic hasn’t been to confession in years because he is very uncomfortable with his priest and church. He seems very much more in tune and at ease with our priest. I believe that he would do a sacremental confession with our priest but of course we are Episcopalian. Would this be ok for him to do? I personally don’t care except for the implications for him. If I were to bet, I would say that he will most likely be Episcopalian in a years time from now.

 

[GKC]

Just curious about it. My father who is Catholic hasn’t been to confession in years because he is very uncomfortable with his priest and church. He seems very much more in tune and at ease with our priest. I believe that he would do a sacremental confession with our priest but of course we are Episcopalian. Would this be ok for him to do? I personally don’t care except for the implications for him. If I were to bet, I would say that he will most likely be Episcopalian in a years time from now.

From the RC stand-point, of course not. It’s Apostolicae Curae, again.

GKC

 

[hosemonkey]

Just curious about it. My father who is Catholic hasn’t been to confession in years because he is very uncomfortable with his priest and church. He seems very much more in tune and at ease with our priest. I believe that he would do a sacremental confession with our priest but of course we are Episcopalian. Would this be ok for him to do? I personally don’t care except for the implications for him. If I were to bet, I would say that he will most likely be Episcopalian in a years time from now.

Episcopal priests are not in valid orders, therefore do not have the power to absolve sins.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I have been asked by Catholics if I can hear confession because of the setting I minister in. I am upfront that I can but that it would not be considered valid since I am not Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Polish National Catholic/Old Catholic. Some are bewildered but I want to be honest.

Rev North

 

[nonsumd]

Just curious about it. My father who is Catholic hasn’t been to confession in years because he is very uncomfortable with his priest and church. He seems very much more in tune and at ease with our priest. I believe that he would do a sacremental confession with our priest but of course we are Episcopalian. Would this be ok for him to do? I personally don’t care except for the implications for him. If I were to bet, I would say that he will most likely be Episcopalian in a years time from now.

Nella, if your father does not want to make his confession to the priest in his parish, he can always go to a priest in another Catholic parish.

I have heard that in the Anglican Church confession is optional, which does not make it sound like much of a sacrament to me. I’ll leave debating the validity of Anglican orders to others.

I mean no disrespect to your father, but if a Catholic leaves the Church because he is uncomfortable with the particular local priest geography has dealt him, then he’s already thinking like a Protestant (whatever many Protestants may claim about seeking a “personal relationship to Christ,” they often seem to be rather reliant on “being in tune with and at ease with” a particular pastor or preacher).

 

[mgrfin]

I have been asked by Catholics if I can hear confession because of the setting I minister in. I am upfront that I can but that it would not be considered valid since I am not Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Polish National Catholic/Old Catholic. Some are bewildered but I want to be honest.

Rev North

You can’t validly hear anyone’s (including Anglicans) (including Catholics in the case of emergency) confession because you do not have valid Orders. I might as well go to my next door neighbor as go to you for Confession, or any of the other sacraments. Repeat, you do not have valid Orders.

And what is this about that if child abusers come to you for confession, you must insist that they turn themselves into the Police? What is that all about?

peace

 

[w_stewart]

They do not have valid apostolic succession, therefore their sacraments are not valid too.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

No !

 

[Yerusalyim]

You can’t validly hear anyone’s (including Anglicans) (including Catholics in the case of emergency) confession because you do not have valid Orders. I might as well go to my next door neighbor as go to you for Confession, or any of the other sacraments. Repeat, you do not have valid Orders.

And what is this about that if child abusers come to you for confession, you must insist that they turn themselves into the Police? What is that all about?

And we are now attacking REVNOR because…??? In my experience he’s not been the most Anti-Catholic person on the board…ease up a bit.

Yes, by Catholic doctrine REVNOR does not hold valid orders…that doesn’t take away from the fact that he serves God as best he knows how.

Perhaps by gently continuing to explain apostolic succession etc rather than attacking individuals we might convince a few of them to come home. When you attack you drive them farther INTO the thing that you’re trying to get them out of.

 

[Deconi]

And we are now attacking REVNOR because…??? In my experience he’s not been the most Anti-Catholic person on the board…ease up a bit.

Yes, by Catholic doctrine REVNOR does not hold valid orders…that doesn’t take away from the fact that he serves God as best he knows how.

Perhaps by gently continuing to explain apostolic succession etc rather than attacking individuals we might convince a few of them to come home. When you attack you drive them farther INTO the thing that you’re trying to get them out of.

Ditto! Ditto and Ditto!

…but I would hasten to add that I abhor the 'oily, greasy, smiley pious, ‘carsalesman’ approach also.

As St. Peter instructs, ‘Always be prepared to answer their queries, but with charity. Always, be charitable.’…or words to that effect!

Just because you possess the truth doesn’t mean you bash people over the head with “Dem’s the facts, Jack!” all the time…unless of course, it’s called for.

 

[Nella]

Episcopal priests are not in valid orders, therefore do not have the power to absolve sins.

That answers my question from the RC standpoint. Thank you. From my standpoint though, I don’t care what the RCC says about others not being valid to give absolution of sins, this is surely not even close to being arguable by Scripture but that is for another thread.

 

[Leopard]

Episcopal priests are not in valid orders, therefore do not have the power to absolve sins.

Anglican/Episcopalian orders are not valid, but that does not mean all Anglican/Episcopalian priests do not have valid Holy Orders. Some do.

Valid Orders for a particular Anglican/Episcopalian priest (or other non-Catholic clergyman) may exist because that priest was formerly a Catholic priest who defected to a different church, or because that Anglican/Episcopalian priest was ordained by an Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, PNCC, or some other bishop with valid Orders, using a valid rite of ordination. In the first case it’s pretty easy to be certain, in the second case, maybe not so easy.

For such an Anglican/Episcopalian priest known positively to have valid Orders, his ministering the Sacrament of Reconciliation would be the same as the case of a laicized priest or any other priest without faculties: Normally he should not do so (meaning in this case that normally a Catholic should not approach him for Reconciliation), but in an emergency situation he may and should minister this sacrament to those who may need it.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

That is a very problematic analysis.

Let the lineage be in tact through what some Anglicans have termed the “Dutch touch.” If the intent was to make a priest in the Anglican meaning of the term, then there’s no intent to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and therefore a defect in intent.

A proper “pedigree” (for want of a better term) is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for ordination,and it would be deficient if even a validly ordained bishop did not intend to do what the Church does, in this or any sacrament.

And of course, Anglicans deny that Penence is a Sacrament, or, more accurately, many deny that it is, and are still accepted as Anglicans.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Leopard]

That is a very problematic analysis… A proper “pedigree” (for want of a better term) is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for ordination,and it would be deficient if even a validly ordained bishop did not intend to do what the Church does, in this or any sacrament…

Quite. That is why I said that in such a case as this it is not easy to be certain whether a particular Anglican/Episcopalian priest’s Orders might be valid.

The case of a Catholic priest who has defected is pretty definite, though.

 

[exiled]

:clapping:

And we are now attacking REVNOR because…??? In my experience he’s not been the most Anti-Catholic person on the board…ease up a bit.

Yes, by Catholic doctrine REVNOR does not hold valid orders…that doesn’t take away from the fact that he serves God as best he knows how.

Perhaps by gently continuing to explain apostolic succession etc rather than attacking individuals we might convince a few of them to come home. When you attack you drive them farther INTO the thing that you’re trying to get them out of.

 

[Tomster]

Anglican/Episcopalian orders are not valid, but that does not mean all Anglican/Episcopalian priests do not have valid Holy Orders. Some do.

Valid Orders for a particular Anglican/Episcopalian priest (or other non-Catholic clergyman) may exist because that priest was formerly a Catholic priest who defected to a different church, or because that Anglican/Episcopalian priest was ordained by an Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, PNCC, or some other bishop with valid Orders, using a valid rite of ordination. In the first case it’s pretty easy to be certain, in the second case, maybe not so easy.

For such an Anglican/Episcopalian priest known positively to have valid Orders, his ministering the Sacrament of Reconciliation would be the same as the case of a laicized priest or any other priest without faculties: Normally he should not do so (meaning in this case that normally a Catholic should not approach him for Reconciliation), but in an emergency situation he may and should minister this sacrament to those who may need it.

It would seem to me that if an Anglican/Episcopal priest received orders from an Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic or PNCC Bishop that Anglican/Episcopal priest would no longer be Anglican/Episcopal. He would be implicitly denying the validity of orders within the Anglican/Episcopal communion.

 

[Contarini]

It would seem to me that if an Anglican/Episcopal priest received orders from an Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic or PNCC Bishop that Anglican/Episcopal priest would no longer be Anglican/Episcopal. He would be implicitly denying the validity of orders within the Anglican/Episcopal communion.

No, he would be acknowledging that our orders have been placed in some doubt. It’s no more denying the validity of our orders than a conditional baptism denies the validity of the prior baptism–it simply recognizes that there is some room for doubt.

Edwin

 

[hosemonkey]

No, he would be acknowledging that our orders have been placed in some doubt. It’s no more denying the validity of our orders than a conditional baptism denies the validity of the prior baptism–it simply recognizes that there is some room for doubt.

Edwin

Eliminate all doubt. Become Catholic. If you wanna be a priest, become a Catholic priest. Nobody has any doubt about that.

 

[Contarini]

Become Catholic. If you wanna be a priest, become a Catholic priest.

I don’t particularly want to be a priest (or more precisely I don’t think I’m called, though I’ve wondered about it), and since I’m married becoming a Catholic priest is not an option (unless I became an Episcopal priest first, which in my current state of doubt about Anglicanism is not an option either).

Nobody has any doubt about that.

The Orthodox do, for one thing. The one church with indisputably valid orders is the Orthodox Church.

Edwin

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t particularly want to be a priest (or more precisely I don’t think I’m called, though I’ve wondered about it), and since I’m married becoming a Catholic priest is not an option (unless I became an Episcopal priest first, which in my current state of doubt about Anglicanism is not an option either).

The Orthodox do, for one thing. The one church with indisputably valid orders is the Orthodox Church.

Edwin

I wasn’t addressing my comment to you in particular, just to those stressing about whether or not an Episcopal priest could validly absolve. Catholics enjoy undisputably valid orders with the Orthodox.
As I said, if you are Catholic, you have no doubts.