episcopal priests

[bill_karweik]

I heard that episcopal priests can not have a valid eucharist. that back in 1500s they left out the word sacrifice about the eucharist in their odraination. Then it was change back. I know that they believe it is a sacrifice. Today alot of their priest have been ordained with bishops of the Old Catholic church who are reconized by the Catholic Church. so an episcopal may have a valid eucharist even when they use their own eucharistic prayer?

 

[mab23]

I heard that episcopal priests can not have a valid eucharist. that back in 1500s they left out the word sacrifice about the eucharist in their odraination. Then it was change back. I know that they believe it is a sacrifice. Today alot of their priest have been ordained with bishops of the Old Catholic church who are reconized by the Catholic Church. so an episcopal may have a valid eucharist even when they use their own eucharistic prayer?

if your talking about the episcopalian priests I think that they don’t use a proper form of Consecration not to mention have broken the union with the one holy Catholic and apostolic church so their Eucharist would not be valid and a Catholic should refrain from receiving communion there

 

[GKC]

I heard that episcopal priests can not have a valid eucharist. that back in 1500s they left out the word sacrifice about the eucharist in their odraination. Then it was change back. I know that they believe it is a sacrifice. Today alot of their priest have been ordained with bishops of the Old Catholic church who are reconized by the Catholic Church. so an episcopal may have a valid eucharist even when they use their own eucharistic prayer?

This is one of those things that keeps me active here. Mostly.

In 1896, Leo XIII issued the Bull Apostolicae Curae. The details of why this came about are multitudinous and complicated. The conclusion stated in Apostolicae Curae were (among at least one other conclusion) that Anglican holy orders were null and void and thus an Anglican priest could not confect a valid Eucharist. The logic behind this conclusion involved two of the elements necessary for a valid sacrament: form and intent.

The form for the ordering of priests and bishops, in the Edwardine Ordinal (the Rite by which Anglicans consecrated/ordained clergy), was judged to be defective, in that it did not reflect the sacrificial office of the priest, in offering the Eucharist. But this alleged defect of form had to be coupled with an assumption of defect of intention. Other, pre-existing Rites, that the RCC holds do transmit orders validly, also lack mention of the sacrifice. The difference here was held to be that the Edwardine Ordinal was specifically constructed, at that specific point in history, by the specific persons who wrote it, for a specific purpose. Hence the form was judged invalid.

The equally essential and intertwined judgment of defective intent, as judged under Apostolicae Curae, has to be that of the persons who used the Ordinal. Sacramental intent inheres in the sacramental action and minister, not in a Church, or in a document (Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION has a good chapter on this). So while the form itself was not exceptional (other Rites were constructed similarly), the circumstances under which the form was written were. And hence, the sacramental intent of those who used the form (usually taken to be at the consecration of ++Parker in 1559; Parker is a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy) was judged to have been invalid, invalidating the sacramental act of consecration (when coupled with the defective form).

As Apostolicae Curae says, sacramental intent is an interior state and not one that can be easily determined. Hence, if a priest uses the accustomed form, matter, subject, etc, the intent also would normally be judged valid, that is, to be facere quod facit ecclesia. Unless there is something in the sacramental act that allow a determinatia ex adiunctis. This is taken, in Apostolicae Curae to be the use of that particular defective form, as it was constructed. Hence, invalid intent and invalid form intertwined meant that no valid sacrament of order was conveyed.

The point in time that the use of the invalid form, by ministers with invalid intent (in Apostolicae Curae’s reasoning broke apostolic succession is not explicit in the Bull, but it is usually taken to be at the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559. From that point, consecrations /ordinations in the Church of England were said to be invalid, and apostolic succession was lost.

The point about the Old Catholics, and later the PNCC and Anglicans is also complicated. In 1932, following the Agreement of Bonn, Anglicans and OC-Utrecht, entered into a full communion (a similar agreement was made with the PNCC in 1946). Among other things, this permitted joint consecrations with both OC and Anglican bishops consecrating the others episcopacy. Note that this does not involve OC bishops ordaining Anglican priests, but of consecrating, jointly, Anglican bishops. Logically, since bishops with valid but illicit orders (as the RCC judges the OCs to have been) convey valid but illicit orders (all other points being sacramentally valid - see Ott), this would suggest that the OCs lines were infused into Anglicanism, and were propagated as the Anglican bishops performed their own episcopal functions. Logically, I say, but AFAIK, Rome has never commented officially on this point.

This is the short version.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

if your talking about the episcopalian priests I think that they don’t use a proper form of Consecration not to mention have broken the union with the one holy Catholic and apostolic church so their Eucharist would not be valid and a Catholic should refrain from receiving communion there

Your conclusion is correct, but the preceding points are not.

GKC

 

[PaulinVA]

I believe it is simpler than that.

Church of England Priests and Bishops were excommunicated. Hence, no valid orders to licitly pass on. The Bishops are no longer in apostolic succession and the priests are not ordained by valid Bishops.

The Anglicans, and Episcopalians, obviously disagree with this.

 

[GKC]

I believe it is simpler than that.

Church of England Priests and Bishops were excommunicated. Hence, no valid orders to licitly pass on. The Bishops are no longer in apostolic succession and the priests are not ordained by valid Bishops.

The Anglicans, and Episcopalians, obviously disagree with this.

It’s not that simple, has nothing to do with excommunication. See above.

GKC

 

[PaulinVA]

It’s not that simple, has nothing to do with excommunication. See above.

GKC

Our posts crossed in the ether.

I have heard your explanation before. I won’t argue with it.

Are you saying, though, that the original CoE priests retained valid orders and there were no excommunications?

 

[GKC]

Our posts crossed in the ether.

I have heard your explanation before. I won’t argue with it.

Are you saying, though, that the original CoE priests retained valid orders and there were no excommunications?

Considering how often I’ve posted it, or variations, I can well believe it’s been seen.

Only Henry and Elizabeth were excommunicated. And excommunication does not effect the validity of orders, only their licitness. Had excommunication, or not being in communion with Rome, been the issue, Apostolicae Curae would have been far shorter.

GKC

 

[Filioque]

I have to side with GKC on this, that communion with the Holy See does not make or break validity. If it did then anyone ordained by Abp. Lefebvre or the bishops he consecrated would not have valid orders. Nor would the Orthodox or Old Catholics.

While the participation of the Old Catholics in Anglican Consecrations (or the Dutch Touch as some refer to it.) does complicate things it is more than a surface complication. I knew a TAC (Traditional Anglican Communion) priest in Los Angeles, who was ordained by one of their bishops, While the rite was almost word for word the Pre-Vatican II ordination rite and the mass rite was also nearly word for word the old Missal Mass, one would presume confected the ordination, given that the bishop was in the Dutch Touch line. I had a conversation with the bishop about a year later and asked him about the ordination and the Mass, because I’d heard several things about him which were contrary to what the Parish in Los Angeles taught and practiced. The bishop clarified that he did not believe in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, or the priest, and would never attempt to ordain a priest to do such. He used the 1928 Book of Common Prayer at his parish in Arizona, and had never celebrated a Missal Mass before, in fact they had suggested that a priest from the parish celebrate and he just sit on the sidelines until it came time for the actual ordination.

It makes one wonder, with the variations of belief among the Clergy and laity of the Anglican Communion, (Including the Episcopal Church USA and other former Episcopalian groups in the States) how common is is that a bishop who does not intend to confect the priesthood in the Catholic and Orthodox meaning of a sacrificing priesthood, or bishop who does intend but the newly ordained priest does not accept a sacrificing priesthood where and when the Apostolic Succession that the Dutch Touch was intended to restore remains intact. To date I only know of one priest, Fr. John Jay Hughes, who was recieved into the Catholic Church and conditionally ordained in the Catholic Church due in part to his excellent study of Anglican Orders and the lineage of the bishop who ordained him. While GKC may know of others, I only know of this one case where an absolute ordination was required of a former Anglican/Episcopalian clergyman who was to be ordained and function as a Catholic priest.

 

[mark_a]

I heard that episcopal priests can not have a valid eucharist. that back in 1500s they left out the word sacrifice about the eucharist in their odraination. Then it was change back. I know that they believe it is a sacrifice. Today alot of their priest have been ordained with bishops of the Old Catholic church who are reconized by the Catholic Church. so an episcopal may have a valid eucharist even when they use their own eucharistic prayer?

A valid episcopal Eucharist does not mean it is licit for Catholics to receive it.

How episcopals view their Eucharist is their business. I personnally hope that it is everything they want it to be and more, but I have no business partaking of it.

 

[GKC]

A valid episcopal Eucharist does not mean it is licit for Catholics to receive it.

How episcopals view their Eucharist is their business. I personnally hope that it is everything they want it to be and more, but I have no business partaking of it.

I agree with both points.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I have to side with GKC on this, that communion with the Holy See does not make or break validity. If it did then anyone ordained by Abp. Lefebvre or the bishops he consecrated would not have valid orders. Nor would the Orthodox or Old Catholics.

While the participation of the Old Catholics in Anglican Consecrations (or the Dutch Touch as some refer to it.) does complicate things it is more than a surface complication. I knew a TAC (Traditional Anglican Communion) priest in Los Angeles, who was ordained by one of their bishops, While the rite was almost word for word the Pre-Vatican II ordination rite and the mass rite was also nearly word for word the old Missal Mass, one would presume confected the ordination, given that the bishop was in the Dutch Touch line. I had a conversation with the bishop about a year later and asked him about the ordination and the Mass, because I’d heard several things about him which were contrary to what the Parish in Los Angeles taught and practiced. The bishop clarified that he did not believe in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, or the priest, and would never attempt to ordain a priest to do such. He used the 1928 Book of Common Prayer at his parish in Arizona, and had never celebrated a Missal Mass before, in fact they had suggested that a priest from the parish celebrate and he just sit on the sidelines until it came time for the actual ordination.

It makes one wonder, with the variations of belief among the Clergy and laity of the Anglican Communion, (Including the Episcopal Church USA and other former Episcopalian groups in the States) how common is is that a bishop who does not intend to confect the priesthood in the Catholic and Orthodox meaning of a sacrificing priesthood, or bishop who does intend but the newly ordained priest does not accept a sacrificing priesthood where and when the Apostolic Succession that the Dutch Touch was intended to restore remains intact. To date I only know of one priest, Fr. John Jay Hughes, who was recieved into the Catholic Church and conditionally ordained in the Catholic Church due in part to his excellent study of Anglican Orders and the lineage of the bishop who ordained him. While GKC may know of others, I only know of this one case where an absolute ordination was required of a former Anglican/Episcopalian clergyman who was to be ordained and function as a Catholic priest.

John J. Hughes was ordained* sub conditione*, not absolutely, in 1958; absolute ordination being the norm, IOW the logic of Apostolicae CuraeApostolicae Curae recognizes that. Intent, in the sacramental action, is interior, and accordingly, if all other elements are sacramentally valid, the assumption is that intent is likewise sacramentally valid. Otherwise, no sacramental action at all could be judged valid, without a method to determine intent by other means. Apostolicae Curae assumes there is such a method to determine (determinatio ex adiunctus), whether the sacramental intent is facere quod facit ecclesia, that being, in this case, the use of the invalid Form in the Ordinal (as it was judged). This allowed a judgement of invalid intent, on the part of ++Parker’s consecrators, and hence the break in apostolic succession. Which is why the two points are intertwined.

What a given OC or PNCC bishop might have intended would have to be judged similarly, and I suspect a direct statement would be such a* determinatio ex adiunctus*, in a given case. Similarly, the full expressed intent of the first such OC bishop, in 1932, as given in detail in an appendix to Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD (highly and constantly recommended by me), is quite clear that his intent was orthodox and informed. One never knows. But as Ott points out, schismatic or excommunicated and other sorts of bishops, possessing valid lines, can convey valid but illicit orders. As I have said, Rome has not officially commented on the Dutch Touch question.

One other point. The Inter-communion agreement with the OCs was not specifically intended to restore succession. The dealings between the OCs and the Anglicans predate Apostolicae Curae. See Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT.

GKC

 

[cothrige]

I just want to say thanks to GKC for posting the information he has in this thread. It is both interesting and educational. As a former member of the Episcopal Church I find such discussions fascinating, naturally, but this one particularly so.

 

[GKC]

I just want to say thanks to GKC for posting the information he has in this thread. It is both interesting and educational. As a former member of the Episcopal Church I find such discussions fascinating, naturally, but this one particularly so.

You are very welcome. The subject has been a hobby of mine for around 10 years ( I got a lot of those, requiring buying books, which is what I mainly do with my time) and I do try to give a level account of the story. Which is complicated, beyond the theology involved. A long, sad story.

And, of course, I might get something wrong, don’t forget.

GKC

Oh, and let me correct a typo in the post of mine above. The acronym should be IAW (in accordance with). That and IOW are both remnants of my Air Force career.

 

[manualman]

GKC is both more educated and probably smarter than me, but for what it’s worth what he says lines up perfectly with what I’ve read elsewhere. The only quibble I might offer is that based on the historical context and influence of Calvinist thought on the British monarchy and subsequently the CoE, it shouldn’t be considered supposition or coincidence that the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist was omitted from the Anglican rubrics when it was. It’s pretty clear from the historical record that the Calvinist line achieved dominance in the CoE in that era. Sure, they later fixed the theology somewhat, but not until all the validly ordained bishops from the original rite had passed away. Once apostolic succession is lost, no amount of later reform in theology can resusitate it. That’s what the church ruled in A.C.

The church has studiously avoided making an authoritative ruling on what happens when a PNCC bishop (valid, but illicit) participates in the ordination of an Anglican bishop. It does make for interesting speculation, but catholics should view such arguments similarly to arguments about how far you can hang your toes off a 300’ cliff without falling!

 

[Indifferently]

The terms of Apostolicae Curiae were so absurd that if Pope Leo’s reasoning was correct, he would likely have inadvertently invalidated his own consecration. ‘Saepis officio’ is recommended reading for anyone who isn’t familiar with the topic.

 

[GKC]

GKC is both more educated and probably smarter than me, but for what it’s worth what he says lines up perfectly with what I’ve read elsewhere. The only quibble I might offer is that based on the historical context and influence of Calvinist thought on the British monarchy and subsequently the CoE, it shouldn’t be considered supposition or coincidence that the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist was omitted from the Anglican rubrics when it was. It’s pretty clear from the historical record that the Calvinist line achieved dominance in the CoE in that era. Sure, they later fixed the theology somewhat, but not until all the validly ordained bishops from the original rite had passed away. Once apostolic succession is lost, no amount of later reform in theology can resusitate it. That’s what the church ruled in A.C.

The church has studiously avoided making an authoritative ruling on what happens when a PNCC bishop participates in the ordination of an Anglican bishop. It does make for interesting speculation, but catholics should view such arguments similarly to arguments about how far you can hang your toes off a 300’ cliff without falling!

I mostly agree. I would recommend, again, Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for the best presentation of a possible Anglican case. But the entire story of Apostolicae Curae is not contained in the theology alone. It is intertwined (I’ve grown accustomed to that word) with personalities, history and politics. It reminds me, in a small way, of Henry’s Great Matter.

But, most certainly, all RCs should fully affirm what Apostolicae Curae requires to be affirmed, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.

GKC

 

[GKC]

The terms of Apostolicae Curiae were so absurd that if Pope Leo’s reasoning was correct, he would likely have inadvertently invalidated his own consecration. ‘Saepis officio’ is recommended reading for anyone who isn’t familiar with the topic.

Saepius Officio, words of the Bishop of Salisbury, over the signatures of Cantuar and Ebor, is certainly worth reading and I certainly recommend it. But it slights, slightly, the question of intent.

Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID (covering the history of the sad tale) and STEWARDS OF THE LORD (addressing the theology) are the best I know of, from an Anglican perspective. Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best statement of the RC side. My opinion.

GKC

 

[mab23]

Your conclusion is correct, but the preceding points are not.

GKC

thanks for correcting me and informing me

:tiphat:

 

[GKC]

thanks for correcting me and informing me

:tiphat:

You are very welcome.

Remember that occasionally I could be wrong.

GKC