Does the so-called "Evangelical Catholic Church" have valid ordinations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Actaeon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Actaeon

Guest
So I just read a news story about some kid who was supposedly denied confirmation after his bishop stepped in on reports that he had posted photos of himself supporting gay marriage publicly. The parish priest maintains that the boy chose not to go through with the sacrament, while the family claims that they were blocked. That’s not the point of this question though.

The point is, another group called the “evangelical catholic church” is saying they WILL offer him the sacrament of confirmation. Now, this group is obviously fatally flawed, and their doctrine is about inclusiveness to the point that they’re without much in the way of moral authority… but would such a confirmation even be valid??? The group claims they have valid ordinations, and this is obviously a sham insofar as they have “ordained” women “priests”, but are their male “priests” actually validly ordained priests???

I can’t find any reliable sources on the question online… help me internet search big-brains!
 
Actaeon said:
So I just read a news story about some kid who was supposedly denied confirmation after his bishop stepped in on reports that he had posted photos of himself supporting gay marriage publicly. The parish priest maintains that the boy chose not to go through with the sacrament, while the family claims that they were blocked. That’s not the point of this question though.

The point is, another group called the “evangelical catholic church” is saying they WILL offer him the sacrament of confirmation. Now, this group is obviously fatally flawed, and their doctrine is about inclusiveness to the point that they’re without much in the way of moral authority… but would such a confirmation even be valid??? The group claims they have valid ordinations, and this is obviously a sham insofar as they have “ordained” women “priests”, but are their male “priests” actually validly ordained priests???

I can’t find any reliable sources on the question online… help me internet search big-brains!
Click to expand...
Yes. Their website evangelicalcatholicchurch.org/ has an apostolic succession link on the side that explains they have validly ordained priests through the “Dutch touch” of the see of Utrect that was granted independence by the papacy, as well as through an Eastern Orthodox line, and an Eastern Rite line.
 
hieroglyph said:
Yes. Their website evangelicalcatholicchurch.org/ has an apostolic succession link on the side that explains they have validly ordained priests through the “Dutch touch” of the see of Utrect that was granted independence by the papacy, as well as through an Eastern Orthodox line, and an Eastern Rite line.
Click to expand...
True, I know what they CLAIM. However, the same claim regarding valid ordinations including succession is given by the episcopal/anglican church, but due to the fact that they changed the form of the ordination ceremony they do not (and have not for a long time). I’m more interested in whether or not the CHURCH teaches that they have valid ordinations (er… their male priests anyway). Of course the schismatics are going to say they do while they teach all sorts of heresies.
 
As Presiding Bishop for the Evangelical Catholic Church and as Bishop for the Diocese of the Northwest, I can assure you that our catholic jurisdiction indeed hold valid lines of succession. When I continued my vocational journey with the ECC, one of the important questions for me was the issue of succession. If one visits the entire webpage for the Evangelical Catholic Church, one will see that our foundation within succession comes via our link with Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa.
 
Actaeon said:
True, I know what they CLAIM. However, the same claim regarding valid ordinations including succession is given by the episcopal/anglican church, but due to the fact that they changed the form of the ordination ceremony they do not (and have not for a long time). I’m more interested in whether or not the CHURCH teaches that they have valid ordinations (er… their male priests anyway). Of course the schismatics are going to say they do while they teach all sorts of heresies.
Click to expand...
The easiest way is to contact your local Diocesan office and find out. One clue: their website will have a list of ‘our parishes’. If the church you speak of is not listed amongst them then 'taint a Latin parish in communion with Rome and you cannot get the sacrament of Confirmation there.

Even the SSPX, who are not outright out of communion but in an ‘irregular’ situation, have question marks over the validity of their confirmations if memory serves.
 
Exactly as the above poster stated , unless they are in Communion with Rome it’s simply not valid.
 
Actaeon said:
True, I know what they CLAIM. However, the same claim regarding valid ordinations including succession is given by the episcopal/anglican church, but due to the fact that they changed the form of the ordination ceremony they do not (and have not for a long time). I’m more interested in whether or not the CHURCH teaches that they have valid ordinations (er… their male priests anyway). Of course the schismatics are going to say they do while they teach all sorts of heresies.
Click to expand...
Since they have taken to “ordaining” women, it is clear that they do not intend the same thing in ordination that the Catholic Church intends. Thus, even with apparent Apostolic succession, it is clear they have abandoned valid orders. therefore, all new ordinations are invalid. Some of their clergy ordained before this departure from doctrine may be validly ordained (thus able to celebrate valid sacraments) but it is illicit for a Catholic to approach them for sacraments outside immediate mortal danger (due to the doubt about validity of orders, it would be preferable not to, however).

Since you bring up the Anglican church, it should be noted that that reconciliation with the Anglican Communion was pursued until they began ordaining women. At that point, it became impossible and the only way to bring in large numbers of Anglicans and keep their distinctive style of worship was through the Ordinariates.
 
LilyM said:
The easiest way is to contact your local Diocesan office and find out. One clue: their website will have a list of ‘our parishes’. If the church you speak of is not listed amongst them then 'taint a Latin parish in communion with Rome and you cannot get the sacrament of Confirmation there.

Even the SSPX, who are not outright out of communion but in an ‘irregular’ situation, have question marks over the validity of their confirmations if memory serves.
Click to expand...
rfournier103 said:
Who??? Never heard of 'em.

Pretenders…
Click to expand...
Lack of communion with the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff does not mean that a group’s Orders are invalid. It is quite possible to be in formal schism but retain all the Sacraments, including Orders. Case in point: the Orthodox and the Old Catholics.

SSPX sacraments are valid except Matrimony and Reconciliation (except in cases of emergency).
 
YoungTradCath said:
Lack of communion with the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff does not mean that a group’s Orders are invalid. It is quite possible to be in formal schism but retain all the Sacraments, including Orders. Case in point: the Orthodox and the Old Catholics.

SSPX sacraments are valid except Matrimony and Reconciliation (except in cases of emergency).
Click to expand...
They aren’t licit though.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Correct.
Click to expand...
And why on earth should something that is valid but illicit be preferred where something that is both valid and licit is available? What possible spiritual advantage is there to obtaining sacraments from a group that is in disobedience to Rome? What example does such a group set for its members except one of spiritual pride and arrogance?
 
Christine85 said:
Exactly as the above poster stated , unless they are in Communion with Rome it’s simply not valid.
Click to expand...
I really wish this is the case, but it isn’t. Rome has outlined what constitutes a valid Sacrament or not, even outside of the Church (ie. those who go into schism or receive Sacraments from schismatics). So there is a line of valid succession when these conditions are met.
 
Actaeon said:
However, the same claim regarding valid ordinations including succession is given by the episcopal/anglican church, but due to the fact that they changed the form of the ordination ceremony they do not (and have not for a long time).
Click to expand...
You might want to check your research. Anglican formularies (for ordination) had been changed a long time ago to once again meet the “intent”.

And so as you implied, “dutch touch” plus proper formulary/intent would have them valid but not licit. For whatever reason the RCC has chosen not to look past 1900 in consideration of it.

PAX
 
LilyM said:
And why on earth should something that is valid but illicit be preferred where something that is both valid and licit is available? What possible spiritual advantage is there to obtaining sacraments from a group that is in disobedience to Rome? What example does such a group set for its members except one of spiritual pride and arrogance?
Click to expand...
:confused: I never said anyone should prefer it. I simply stated the facts.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I really wish this is the case, but it isn’t. Rome has outlined what constitutes a valid Sacrament or not, even outside of the Church (ie. those who go into schism or receive Sacraments from schismatics). So there is a line of valid succession when these conditions are met.
Click to expand...
Hmmm interesting
 
YoungTradCath said:
:confused: I never said anyone should prefer it. I simply stated the facts.
Click to expand...
I never suggested that you said it should be preferred either. I’m saying validity is not the only issue here, so any discussion of validity is only a half-discussion of the issue.

And I would hold that any sect which ordains women priests is so far away from the intent of the sacrament that whoever performs ordinations in such a sect clearly does not do so validly, and so any sacraments offered by those ‘priests’ are likewise invalid.

It is akin to a priest who attempts to baptise dogs or confect the Eucharist with milk and cookies rather than wine and bread. Any priest who would do so would have to be lacking in an understanding of the nature of the sacrament - and the intent required to confect it - and so it is most unlikely that he could validly confect it under any circumstances.
 
Their confirmation would be doubtful. I recommend staying away from those people
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top