Episcopal

[AnglicanRite]

I am really going to get into trouble for saying this, but I do believe it, so here it goes:

The Catholic Church does not recognized Anglican Orders, as per the decree from Pope Leo XIII back in the 1890’s. But the reason he did this was not because the orders are invalid, but because of POLITICS.

If Pope Leo had decreed Anglican orders to be valid, then it would have undermined the Roman Catholic Church in England, which had just been re-established only a few short decades before the decree. If Anglican orders are valid, the reasoning would go, then why be Roman Catholic?

This is what makes me weary of Rome and its stance on Anglican Orders. They know very well that they are valid, yet they made up something political to undermine them (their argument that they lost the intent to do sacrifice is absurd). This is the main reason why full unity between the two churches is next to impossible, women clergy aside.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

AnglicanRite:

I am really going to get into trouble for saying this, but I do believe it, so here it goes:

The Catholic Church does not recognized Anglican Orders, as per the decree from Pope Leo XIII back in the 1890’s. But the reason he did this was not because the orders are invalid, but because of POLITICS.

If Pope Leo had decreed Anglican orders to be valid, then it would have undermined the Roman Catholic Church in England, which had just been re-established only a few short decades before the decree. If Anglican orders are valid, the reasoning would go, then why be Roman Catholic?

This is what makes me weary of Rome and its stance on Anglican Orders. They know very well that they are valid, yet they made up something political to undermine them (their argument that they lost the intent to do sacrifice is absurd). This is the main reason why full unity between the two churches is next to impossible, women clergy aside.

AnglicanRite, I’m very glad you mentioned this. The response of the Anglican Bishops to Leo’s decree is very illuminating in this regard and demonstrates that if the Pope had applied the same logic to Roman Orders that he was applying to Anglican Orders, then the Vatican would be forced to reconsecrate all of its priests and deny that the Orthodox had valid orders as well.

Regarding consubstantiation, I know of this term only from Lutheran theology–I haven’t seen it in reference to Anglican Eucharistic theology. However, I know a number of Lutherans who would say that (c)onsubstantiation and (t)ransubstantiation are the same–along Thomistic lines, one could say that C focuses on the accident and T on the essence–but C does not deny that the essence of the elements becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Christ, nor does T deny that the accidents of bread and wine remain. The Lutherans who maintain this stance believe that the term consubstantiation was developed to create a distance from Rome.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[JOHNYJ]

Catholics are forbidden from receiving Communion in a protestant church. The Anglican church has no valid Sacraments,Orders, or Apostolic Succession. The 1896 Decree Apostoliac Curae said so. It has been verified by the Anglican Communions actions , especialy since the 1970’s.
The Episcopal church U S A has been defacto expelled from the Anglican Communion because of the aberations it has engaged in.

 

[GKC]

AnglicanRite:

I am really going to get into trouble for saying this, but I do believe it, so here it goes:

The Catholic Church does not recognized Anglican Orders, as per the decree from Pope Leo XIII back in the 1890’s. But the reason he did this was not because the orders are invalid, but because of POLITICS.

If Pope Leo had decreed Anglican orders to be valid, then it would have undermined the Roman Catholic Church in England, which had just been re-established only a few short decades before the decree. If Anglican orders are valid, the reasoning would go, then why be Roman Catholic?

This is what makes me weary of Rome and its stance on Anglican Orders. They know very well that they are valid, yet they made up something political to undermine them (their argument that they lost the intent to do sacrifice is absurd). This is the main reason why full unity between the two churches is next to impossible, women clergy aside.

AR,

I agree that there was a political component to the entire *Apostolicae Curae * episode, from the appointment of the commission, to the final judgement, and the political hand behind it was Cardinal Vaughan’s. ]*Apostolicae Curae * is occasionally referred to as the Recusant’s Revenge, for that reason. Even so, it is also true that a case can be made for AC, using traditional RC/Thomistic logic with respect to the validity of a sacrament. And the opposite case could also be made, as (apparently) was the opinion of at least 3 of the 8 AC commissioners. But either way, it’s the official judgement of the RCC, and we Anglicans can’t really object when RCs follow that portion of the Magisterium. It’s not a topic that worries Anglicans much, while kneeling at the altar rail to receive the Body and Blood, only when we contemplate how we might manage to achieve a corporate unification. A sad subject.

Recommended reading: Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the RC side, and Fr. J. J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for the Anglican case (Fr. Hughes was the first Anglican priest to be ordained by Rome *sub conditione *. And this site

angelfire.com/nj/malleus/index_old.html

has much interesting material on the topic.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[Contarini]

AnglicanRite,

I think you’re being too dismissive. Of course there are political aspects to all such decisions. But the plain fact is that the theological understanding of ordination expressed in the Edwardian Ordinal and other 16th-century texts is significantly different from that of the Roman Communion. The Edwardian Church, and in a more moderate degree (but quite clearly) also the Elizabethan Church, were both decidedly Protestant. Elizabethan figures like Hooker, and even such an allegedly high-church Jacobean as John Donne, saw Anglicanism as falling somewhere in between the Lutherans and the Reformed. Anglo-Catholic attempts to claim otherwise are blatant revisionism.

Therefore, while I deplore Apostolicae Curae, I can understand the reasoning behind it. We have episcopal succession, but our 16th-century progenitors clearly did not understand the meaning of this in a fully Catholic sense. I don’t think that this broke the chain, but clearly the See of Rome disagrees, and their view counts for rather more than mine.

Edwin

 

[StephanieC]

Rellinger:

I believe that where there are two or more gather in his name he is present.

You posted a question, and the forum has given you an answer, with documentation to read.

Yes, it is heartbreaking that there are so many denominations that are not in unity with the Church that Christ founded–I can only imagine the suffering it caused Him at Calvary.

On a day to day, practical level, this disunity causes dilemmas such as, what to do at an Episcopal wedding?

I am not sure, but it sounds as though your mind is made up, since you haven’t responded to any of the documents provided.

 

[AnglicanRite]

Thank you, everyone, for not coming down on me to harshly for going on a rant pertaining to Anglican Orders.

I am an Anglican who swam the Tiber and is now an Anglican-Use Roman Catholic, but sometimes I think I did so despite arrogance of Roman Catholicism towards Anglicanism. This is what hold many Anglicans back from going to Rome, this “well, your orders and communion are all fake, and ours are real, so (blank) you” attitude that many of us have encountered.

I know this is controversial, but I accept it. I just have never understood how the Orthodox churches can accept Anglican orders as valid, yet the Roman Catholics cannot.

And then there is the issue of women in orders, but I will not go there today -----

 

[GKC]

AnglicanRite:

Thank you, everyone, for not coming down on me to harshly for going on a rant pertaining to Anglican Orders.

I am an Anglican who swam the Tiber and is now an Anglican-Use Roman Catholic, but sometimes I think I did so despite arrogance of Roman Catholicism towards Anglicanism. This is what hold many Anglicans back from going to Rome, this “well, your orders and communion are all fake, and ours are real, so (blank) you” attitude that many of us have encountered.

I know this is controversial, but I accept it. I just have never understood how the Orthodox churches can accept Anglican orders as valid, yet the Roman Catholics cannot.

And then there is the issue of women in orders, but I will not go there today -----

AR,

I would be interested in more info re: the Orthdox attitude generally toward Anglican Orders. I have heard this said before, but details are lacking.

In the late 20s/30s. the Anglican Communion did approach 4-5 Orthodox Patriarches and ask for their opinion on the validity of Anglican Orders. The replies looked favorable, but AFAIK, the actual judgement was that Anglican orders are neither more or less valid than RC oders, in that neither group is part of “the” Church, that is, not part of Orthodoxy. This makes both Anglican and Roman orders “potentially valid”, in Orthodox eyes.

I may be wrong.

GKC

 

[chriswilliam]

Contarini:

On what basis can you claim that we trivialize the Eucharist? You can accuse us of a lot of things, but not that, I think.

True, we officially don’t believe in transubstantiation, but this is pretty much a dead letter. Many Anglicans do believe in transubstantiation, and those who don’t generally believe in some kind of vague “Real Presence.”

I’m not saying that this is or should be good enough for you. Just clarifying the matter of fact.

Edwin

I agree with you and Iam Catholic but not Roman I belong to the PNCC. Maybe that make the differentce. How can anyone say you don’t valid sacarments many of your priests and bishops have lines through the PNCC. So many of your churches are valid Just that they don’t know which ones. We belive in the true Presence in the eucharist but do not call it transubstantiation either how the Presence happens is above understanding. My point is even that the Roman church knows this we are still in diaolog with them and have a valid eucharist and are closer in unity. So why do we have valid scaraments and you don’t we almost believe in the same faith.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Rellinger:

I believe that where there are two or more gather in his name he is present.

Since you have already made up your mind on this matter, this reply will be in vain. But ask Fr. Vincent Serpa here for clarification if you do not trust us or our sources. As a Catholic, you cannot knowingly accept “communion” at a protestant church. You asked us, and you asked because you thought it might be wrong, and we gave you the answer. If you do, it will be a mortal sin. Think of how many people were persecuted during the rule of King Henry and the disunity that he brought to our church for splitting off with Rome. Taking their communion will be saying that you believe what they believe. I highly recommend that you do take part in the wedding, but do not take part in their communion service. If you do, every time you come back to the Catholic Church to receive eucharist before confessing to a priest, you will be in sin.

God bless and have a good time at the wedding - just don’t take the communion.

 

[rayne89]

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

This is the official teaching of the church. So yes in the eyes of the Church it is wrong. As a Catholic we are called to obedient despite our feelings since Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide the church in “all truth”. You can feel all kinds of things are ok but it doesn’t mean that they are.

If you came here seeking the church’s instructions on the matter you now have it.