Anglicans and Episcopalians claim or assert their orders are valid. Rome says they are not. But it is interesting that your friend says he was ordained by bishops of more than one tradition. Were they or was he covering his bases, just in case one might be not really a bishop?Hi I have a friend that is an episcopal priest. He said that when he was ordained the bishops that did it were consecrared by bishops of the PNCC and episcopal ones. Does mean that when he does an eucharist it is valid. He is a rector of an Anglo Catholic church. So his belives are very close to Catholics.
You are correct as to the necessity of proper matter (baptised male) for a valid ordination, and that, in the Episcopal Church, is quite problematic, today. But, that point aside, as as been discussed here extensively, the Anglican Communion entered into full communion with the Old Catholics of Utrecht, in 1932, with the Agreement of Bonn, and began regular joint consecration of bishops, between the two Churches. The same began with the PNCC, in 1946. And by this time, the Dutch touch is quite pervasive throughout Anglicanism. My own priest was ordained by a bishop, whose primary consecrating bishop had PNCC lines, from 1962.Anglicans and Episcopalians claim or assert their orders are valid. Rome says they are not. But it is interesting that your friend says he was ordained by bishops of more than one tradition. Were they or was he covering his bases, just in case one might be not really a bishop?
Pope John Paul II taught that the Church has no power to ordain women as priests. It is impossible for a woman to be a priest, much less a bishop. The head of the Episcopal Church or the head bishop in America is a woman. They might have more women than men masquerading around as priests. They can not possible be validly ordained if you accept Catholic teaching. It does not matter who ordains them, or what group, they are not priests, or priestesses. All of their orders are as fake as their claims to be Catholic.
Welcome to the forum, WillK!Hi I have a friend that is an episcopal priest. He said that when he was ordained the bishops that did it were consecrared by bishops of the PNCC and episcopal ones. Does mean that when he does an eucharist it is valid. He is a rector of an Anglo Catholic church. So his belives are very close to Catholics.
GKC,You are correct as to the necessity of proper matter (baptised male) for a valid ordination, and that, in the Episcopal Church, is quite problematic, today. But, that point aside, as as been discussed here extensively, the Anglican Communion entered into full communion with the Old Catholics of Utrecht, in 1932, with the Agreement of Bonn, and began regular joint consecration of bishops, between the two Churches. The same began with the PNCC, in 1946. And by this time, the Dutch touch is quite pervasive throughout Anglicanism. My own priest was ordained by a bishop, whose primary consecrating bishop had PNCC lines, from 1962.
Since Rome recognizes the validity (but not the licitness) of both OC/Utrecht (or did so, until the OCs began to waiver on the point of valid matter), and the PNCC, this logically would make the infusion of these episcopal lines into Anglicanism result in similarly valid, though illicit, orders in Anglicanism. But Rome has made no specific comment on this particular situation.
Anglicans do differ on the basic point in Apostolicae Curae, of course. But certainly that should be affirmed by any RC.
As I said, this has been covered here recently, in a couple of threads.
GKC
GKC,
As I said, the Anglican/Episcopalians will claim their orders are valid and Rome says they are not.
I have not followed any previous discussions on the matter, but what you said is interesting. To clarify, if the proof you give for validity is hooking up with a schismatic group in 1932, are you saying that prior to that time Anglican orders were invalid?
What happens when a new class of Anglicans is ordained, in your opinion, and half are women and half are men? Are the male ordinations valid and the attempted ordinations of females not? Are they all valid?
What happens when an Anglican female bishop ordains a male. Is that ordination valid? If the OCs or PNCCs are associated with Anglicanism does that make the Anglican ordinations of women valid and their female bishops validly consecrated? Do the OC and PNCC bishops recognize Anglican female bishops? It seems that they must, if they are in full communions, right?
If they do, and Rome is correct that women can not be ordained, then what are Catholics to say about the Anglican recognition of the rest of Anglican orders?
When Anglican/Episcopal priests convert to Catholicism many of them are ordained as Catholic priests, by the Catholic Church. If the argument that Anglican orders are valid through association as you claim, then it seems that Rome ought to realize this. They would not re-ordain a validly ordained priest. These men do not enter the Church insisting on recogntion of their priestly status. They apply for ordination. They request it. Are they thinking they are validly ordained priests, but are just humoring the Catholic Church they wish to join, by making believe they are not ordained and going through the rite of ordination just to placate their new fellow Catholics?
So there we have it. Anglicans and Episcopalians claim their ordinations are valid and Rome says they are not. We should not expect the As and Es responding to the question on these forums to admit their orders are invalid. They will argue the opposite.
The ordination of women and consecration of women bishops is a farce. Yet the Anglicans insist it is valid and proper at the same time as they insist on their Catholicity. There is no fixing this. The damage is irrepairable. The gulf can not be bridged. It is too wide and growing wider. There will be Anglican individuals and groups who return to Catholicsm as we see happening, but the institution is falling in on itself.
The question of a hypothetical group of Anglicans, who are to be ordained, will have, in similar manner, a variety of possible answers. Assuming the minister, form, intent and matter are proper, the ordinations would be valid, but (in Rome’s eyes) illicit. Since all the women fail the test of proper matter, the sacrament is not confected, in those cases. Cuts your group in half.
GKC;5010053:
I appreciate your wishes.Kind of a circus it seems. Will the real ordinands please stand up.
So you are at odds with the leadership of your Church, the Williams fellow in Canterbury, Schori and the majority of Episcopalian bishops who elected her and who all assert she is a bishop. You are also probably at odds with the masses who gave Robinson the ovation at Lambeth. Will the real Anglican please stand up. What does your church teach? Who knows? Does it teach what it used to, or something new. I am reminded of Muslims who at seeing some horrendous act committed by Muslims, called for and applauded by Muslim leaders, decry it as not true Islam. They know what true Islam is, but millions of other Muslims don’t. There is no head in Islam or Protestantism, Anglicanism included. The inevitable consequence is the chaos we see.
That’s quite considerate of you. Had you decided otherwise I am sure the pope would have immediately come to his senses and seen it your way.
This is true and it is too bad most don’t on a variety of matters. But what does Anglicanism teach? Who holds the keys? Is it you, Rowan, the Africans, TAC, Shori, Robinson? I know what Catholicsm teaches on any matter. We can find out by asking Peter’s successor. Who do you ask to find out what your religion teaches?
Yes, I am Catholic. So we agree. In my initial post I said Anglicans will say they have valid orders and Rome says they do not. See, it is not that difficult to come to assent. We agree. Who is right on the matter, you or the pope? I guess it depends. It depends on if I talk to you or the pope.
But to whom do you listen to know what doctrine to affirm or reject, other than yourself?
How true!
That makes perfect sense, like everything else coming from Canterbury. Protestants have no leadership. Whenever there is a controversy there is no way to settle it. The result is division, more separation. We saw the boycott of Lambeth by the group that held their own conference. They could not abide the insanity. But what is right or wrong in any controversy is not the issue. How we know who is right is the issue when it comes to both settling disputes and maintaining unity. What happens when a branch is cut off from the vine is it ends up dividing again from itself, chaos. So we have some Episcopalians in this country trying to detach themselves from their leadership that seized power regionally and reattach themselves to other branches in Africa, or another group whose leadership seems to maintain sanity, for now.
Anglicans claimed to be Protestant once, or most did. Then they claimed to be in between, a middle way, sort of half this and half that. Nowadays they like to say they are Catholic. It seems like an identity crisis, but how can we tell a Protestant from a Catholic? There is no defined set of Protestant beliefs to identify a Protestant. Yet they all seem to know one another, somehow by instinct, or the real way is by knowing what they are not, Catholic. Anglicans are different. Here we have Protestants claiming to be Catholic.
How do we tell a Protestant from a Catholic? It is by behavior, since there is no defining dogma. In Protestantism everyone holds the authority to define his beliefs, as you do for yourself. They ultimately recognize no authority, other than themselves, even the ones who say they do. They end up saying things like there are Anglicans and there are Anglicans and I am one of the latter, or former, and it makes perfect sense to them. They think they can believe and teach disparate tenets of their religion and have unity at the same time. They think can have women running around acting as they have valid orders while others say they are not priests, and still claim to all belong to the same religion.
I have to concede, GKC, that you might be right. You might be Catholic after all, but not know it yet. You seem to believe that the true teachings of faith can not change. You agree with the pope more than Shori or Williams. But you agree with their predecessors more than the pope and his predecessors. Maybe you are caught in the middle where Newman found himself, for now, not one of these and not one of those. Is it fish or fowl? Can there be a creature with feathers and beak and gills and scales? Would he wonder all his life what he is? If you persist in defining your own religion you are Protestant. Best wishes! God bless you.
And part of your problem in talking to me here is that you assume that I’m a member of the Anglican Communion, that is, in communion with *Cantur *. I’m not. I see you have heard of the TAC. While not a member of that jurisdiction, I’m the same sort of thing. That is, a Continuing Anglican.
I agree with a good deal of what you have said above. But I rarely post to express my opinion of you, or reply to your opinion of me (speaking generically, of course). I talk history. Or, in this case, what the requirements are for valid, though illicit, orders, as viewed by the RCC. That is, I responded to the OP.
What you say here is appropriate for an RC to affirm. No problem.
GKC
grandfather;5010267:
. I’m not. I see you have heard of the TAC. While not a member of that jurisdiction, I’m the same sort of thing. That is, a Continuing Anglican.I appreciate your wishes.
And part of your problem in talking to me here is that you assume that I’m a member of the Anglican Communion, that is, in communion with *Cantur *
I agree with a good deal of what you have said above. But I rarely post to express my opinion of you, or reply to your opinion of me (speaking generically, of course). I talk history. Or, in this case, what the requirements are for valid, though illicit, orders, as viewed by the RCC. That is, I responded to the OP.
What you say here is appropriate for an RC to affirm. No problem.
GKC
GKC,
I assumed you were Anglican of some sort, one version or another. My opinion of you personally is that you are a man of good will, like the rest of us wrestling with trying to understand issues of faith and the reality we live in, and that you are doing that sincerely and honestly. My opinion of Anglicanism is a different matter.
Catholicism is full of its own problems and issues today. Anglicanism in all of its forms has its own peculiar ones as well. Both groups face many of the same topical issues and challenges, but within a different institutional structure. The means of dealing with them is different in the end.
My interest in watching the internal workings of Anglicanism is not so much curiosity about what Williams and his coreligionists say or do, what particular positions they take, logical or not, but from a more global interst in the unity or reunity of Christendom. I don’t follow their news to be critical of them, but wondering what the outcome of their activities will be, the impact it will all have on Christendom as a whole.
I think it was inevitable, or is, that the Anglican world would disintegrate as it seems to be doing now, falling into chaos. I have sympathy for the souls effected.
The same things influence the Catholic Church. The same controversial issues and debates on faith and the moral order are in play. There are just as many nutty Catholic clerics as Anglican, maybe more. The same voices and arguments go on in both worlds. The outcomes will be different.
Catholics could go into schism over female ordination, sexual morals, etc. In the end we know that where the pope is there is the Church.
Please excuse my sarcasm. It is a fault I struggle with and do pretty well most of the time. Somehow when I am in discussion about Anglicans the worst of me comes out. Sorry! I know you are sincere.
God bless you.
GKC;5010611:
I thank you, *Grand-pere, *and I know you are sincere also. I agree with much of what you post here. You should see my opinion of the official world of Anglicanism.GKC,
I assumed you were Anglican of some sort, one version or another. My opinion of you personally is that you are a man of good will, like the rest of us wrestling with trying to understand issues of faith and the reality we live in, and that you are doing that sincerely and honestly. My opinion of Anglicanism is a different matter.
Catholicism is full of its own problems and issues today. Anglicanism in all of its forms has its own peculiar ones as well. Both groups face many of the same topical issues and challenges, but within a different institutional structure. The means of dealing with them is different in the end.
My interest in watching the internal workings of Anglicanism is not so much curiosity about what Williams and his coreligionists say or do, what particular positions they take, logical or not, but from a more global interst in the unity or reunity of Christendom. I don’t follow their news to be critical of them, but wondering what the outcome of their activities will be, the impact it will all have on Christendom as a whole.
I think it was inevitable, or is, that the Anglican world would disintegrate as it seems to be doing now, falling into chaos. I have sympathy for the souls effected.
The same things influence the Catholic Church. The same controversial issues and debates on faith and the moral order are in play. There are just as many nutty Catholic clerics as Anglican, maybe more. The same voices and arguments go on in both worlds. The outcomes will be different.
Catholics could go into schism over female ordination, sexual morals, etc. In the end we know that where the pope is there is the Church.
Please excuse my sarcasm. It is a fault I struggle with and do pretty well most of the time. Somehow when I am in discussion about Anglicans the worst of me comes out. Sorry! I know you are sincere.
God bless you.
And a little sarcasm is ok. I’ve used it myself. And if it comes at me, I try to roll with the punches.
*Pax, Avus *
GKC
But, doesn’t a bishop who tries to ordain a woman automatically excommunicate himself? Wouldn’t that make all the ordinations of this hypothetical group of Anglicans (and all subsequent ordination attempts by the now-excommunicated prelates) invalid?The question of a hypothetical group of Anglicans, who are to be ordained, will have, in similar manner, a variety of possible answers. Assuming the minister, form, intent and matter are proper, the ordinations would be valid, but (in Rome’s eyes) illicit. Since all the women fail the test of proper matter, the sacrament is not confected, in those cases. Cuts your group in half.
According to Rome, I’m not sure if such an act would automatically result in excommunication (latae sententiae) or if it would be done only upon a rendered judgment (ferendae sententiae) I suspect the former. But either way, an excommunicated bishop does not lose the ability to ordain, assuming all other factors to be valid. See, again, Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458.But, doesn’t a bishop who tries to ordain a woman automatically excommunicate himself? Wouldn’t that make all the ordinations of this hypothetical group of Anglicans (and all subsequent ordination attempts by the now-excommunicated prelates) invalid?
You are both correct. A bishop who attempts to ordain a woman excommunicates himself. He still has the power to confect valid orders, but the ordination of women is invalid.According to Rome, I’m not sure if such an act would automatically result in excommunication (latae sententiae) or if it would be done only upon a rendered judgment (ferendae sententiae) I suspect the former. But either way, an excommunicated bishop does not lose the ability to ordain, assuming all other factors to be valid. See, again, Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458.
GKC
grandfather;5011704:
and I know you are sincere also. I agree with much of what you post here. You should see my opinion of the official world of Anglicanism.I thank you, *Grand-pere, *
And a little sarcasm is ok. I’ve used it myself. And if it comes at me, I try to roll with the punches.
*Pax, Avus *
GKC
GKC,
The reason I have so much difficulty and am more impatient with Anglicans than say Baptists or other, is that Anglicans should be able to see the holes in their thinking. They seem so evident. They are so close to the target, how can they keep missing? Whereas, with those whose theologies are totally in a mess you can’t expect much from them. They need to be spoon fed, but Anglicans are logical and systematic and should get it.
Where they get tripped up should be obvious to them without any straining. I listen to them and wonder, you get it, so why would you want to remain Anglican and pretend to be Catholic. You see the validity of Catholicism and call yourselves Catholic. It is obvious that the separation is wrong and offends God. Why persist in it? The answer must not be found in intellectual reason, but sentimental or emotional loyaties. Any historian can look at what happened and see what went wrong. It seems so easy to fix it and repair the breach.
Maybe we have the strongest disagreements and our patience is tested most by those with whom we are closest.
GKC;5011812:
Maybe so.GKC,
The reason I have so much difficulty and am more impatient with Anglicans than say Baptists or other, is that Anglicans should be able to see the holes in their thinking. They seem so evident. They are so close to the target, how can they keep missing? Whereas, with those whose theologies are totally in a mess you can’t expect much from them. They need to be spoon fed, but Anglicans are logical and systematic and should get it.
Where they get tripped up should be obvious to them without any straining. I listen to them and wonder, you get it, so why would you want to remain Anglican and pretend to be Catholic. You see the validity of Catholicism and call yourselves Catholic. It is obvious that the separation is wrong and offends God. Why persist in it? The answer must not be found in intellectual reason, but sentimental or emotional loyaties. Any historian can look at what happened and see what went wrong. It seems so easy to fix it and repair the breach.
Maybe we have the strongest disagreements and our patience is tested most by those with whom we are closest.
What I often hear, given my 45 years of reading and collecting Chesterton, Belloc, and similar authors (and similar types in the Anglican world, too) is “How can you know all of that, and still not be Catholic?”.
You can guess my answer. But it is true, I am not in communion with Rome.
We pray for Bendict, by name, in each Mass, though.
GKC
True.You are both correct. A bishop who attempts to ordain a woman excommunicates himself. He still has the power to confect valid orders, but the ordination of women is invalid.
Of course the RCC’s opinion would’t mean anything to Anglicans and Episcopalians. And we do not have priestesses, we have priests, male and female.Anglicans and Episcopalians claim or assert their orders are valid. Rome says they are not. But it is interesting that your friend says he was ordained by bishops of more than one tradition. Were they or was he covering his bases, just in case one might be not really a bishop?
Pope John Paul II taught that the Church has no power to ordain women as priests. It is impossible for a woman to be a priest, much less a bishop. The head of the Episcopal Church or the head bishop in America is a woman. They might have more women than men masquerading around as priests. They can not possible be validly ordained if you accept Catholic teaching. It does not matter who ordains them, or what group, they are not priests, or priestesses. All of their orders are as fake as their claims to be Catholic.