How was it determined what non-Catholic Christians had valid or invalid Holy Orders?

[TK421]

From what I understand, all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well as the Eastern Orthodox are regarded as having valid Holy Orders, and so their priests can perform the sacraments. In the Reformation period, when the Catholic Church in England was severed from Rome and largely became the Church of England, the Anglican priests were deemed not to have valid Holy Orders, therefore they could not perform the sacraments (though belief in the Eucharist remained in the Anglican Church IIRC). What was the critical distinction between the Great Schism and the creation of the Church of England that invalidated the later? (or likewise with the Lutheran priesthood).

Ty ty. I <3 you guys. XOXOXO

 

[getysbg]

From what I understand, all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well as the Eastern Orthodox are regarded as having valid Holy Orders, and so their priests can perform the sacraments. In the Reformation period, when the Catholic Church in England was severed from Rome and largely became the Church of England, the Anglican priests were deemed not to have valid Holy Orders, therefore they could not perform the sacraments (though belief in the Eucharist remained in the Anglican Church IIRC). What was the critical distinction between the Great Schism and the creation of the Church of England that invalidated the later? (or likewise with the Lutheran priesthood).

Ty ty. I <3 you guys. XOXOXO

Of course, I couldn’t find a short answer! Here’s a link to Catholic En. that might help.

newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm

 

[TK421]

A reading assignment?!

Nah, that’s okay. I thought there might be a concise answer floating around but I don’t mind reading.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Read Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae.

For a variety of opinion, read the Wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae

 

[VanSensei]

I’ve heard some bishops in Scandinavia converted to Lutheranism from Catholicism, therefore maintaining possibly valid apostolic succession. You could make a case that if they came to the United States and Canada to consecrate Lutheran bishops in the New World, the line of succession is still valid and going.

 

[getysbg]

I’ve heard some bishops in Scandinavia converted to Lutheranism from Catholicism, therefore maintaining possibly valid apostolic succession. You could make a case that if they came to the United States and Canada to consecrate Lutheran bishops in the New World, the line of succession is still valid and going.

But doesn’t that also include that the intent has to be there, both on the part of the bishop as well as the candidate?

 

[eamonnroma]

From what I understand, all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well as the Eastern Orthodox are regarded as having valid Holy Orders, and so their priests can perform the sacraments. In the Reformation period, when the Catholic Church in England was severed from Rome and largely became the Church of England, the Anglican priests were deemed not to have valid Holy Orders, therefore they could not perform the sacraments (though belief in the Eucharist remained in the Anglican Church IIRC). What was the critical distinction between the Great Schism and the creation of the Church of England that invalidated the later? (or likewise with the Lutheran priesthood).

Ty ty. I <3 you guys. XOXOXO

I think that the problem with the Anglican orders was that at the time of the Reformation, Bishops were installed without any form of episcopal ordination. There were of course some that were validly ordained. This is why there has been doubt about the validity of Anglican orders.

However, the Utrecht Old Catholic Church which broke away as it rejected the claims of papal infallibility is recognised by the RC Church as having valid orders. The OC Church is now in communion with the Anglican church. It is probable now that modern Anglican bishops have valid apostolic succession from the OC Church. (However there are some so called Old catholic churches that are not part of the Utrecht Church, and their orders are questionable.)

 

[Chatter163]

However, the Utrecht Old Catholic Church which broke away as it rejected the claims of papal infallibility is recognised by the RC Church as having valid orders. The OC Church is now in communion with the Anglican church. It is probable now that modern Anglican bishops have valid apostolic succession from the OC Church. (However there are some so called Old catholic churches that are not part of the Utrecht Church, and their orders are questionable.)

Um, doesn’t the Utrecht Union ordain women?

 

[Filioque]

Lutherans on the Continent, and Anglicans imposed a rite of Ordination that was defective, ordaining their clergy to Preach the Word, omitting any mention of what both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches felt was necessary to confect a valid ordination or Consecration of a Bishop. They also issued dogmatic statements that the idea that the Mass was a true Sacrifice that could be offered for the living or the dead; or the belief that when the priest consecrated the bread and wine it became the body and blood, soul and divinity of Chirist was a vain and repugnant thing.

So both by changing the Rite of Ordination and Consecration to omit what the Church had always taught that a priest and bishop are ordained to do. Along with the official teachings of those bodies as to what a priest is and can as well as cannot do they removed from their lines any ability to transmit the Apostolic Succession needed for a validly ordained priesthood or Episcopacy.

 

[Lormar]

Lutherans on the Continent, and Anglicans imposed a rite of Ordination that was defective, ordaining their clergy to Preach the Word, omitting any mention of what both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches felt was necessary to confect a valid ordination or Consecration of a Bishop. They also issued dogmatic statements that the idea that the Mass was a true Sacrifice that could be offered for the living or the dead; or the belief that when the priest consecrated the bread and wine it became the body and blood, soul and divinity of Chirist was a vain and repugnant thing.

So both by changing the Rite of Ordination and Consecration to omit what the Church had always taught that a priest and bishop are ordained to do. Along with the official teachings of those bodies as to what a priest is and can as well as cannot do they removed from their lines any ability to transmit the Apostolic Succession needed for a validly ordained priesthood or Episcopacy.

Speaking of transmitting Apostolic Succession, I have a question for you. Is it or isn’t it true that if a bishop is consecrated without a mandate from the pope, he does not have true apostolic succession. Also, is it true that within the mark of the Church “apostolic” is contained the other three marks - one, holy and Catholic - so that if you do not validly have apostolic succession, you do not have the other three marks either?

 

[Filioque]

Speaking of transmitting Apostolic Succession, I have a question for you. Is it or isn’t it true that if a bishop is consecrated without a mandate from the pope, he does not have true apostolic succession. Also, is it true that within the mark of the Church “apostolic” is contained the other three marks - one, holy and Catholic - so that if you do not validly have apostolic succession, you do not have the other three marks either?

Two different issues. If a Catholic bishop attempts to consecrate without a Papal Mandate the bishop elect is a validly consecrated bishop, Apostolic Succession is accomplished. However the Bishops who consecrate and the newly consecrated bishops are suspended a divinis, and unable to function licitly (Legally function).

The requirement for a Papal Mandate is fairly new, and comes about as a result of the Old Catholic Consecrations after Vatican I and the Consecrations for the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church (Communist China). The Chinese government forced their own candidates to be consecrated as bishops so they could have a clergy loyal to the Party rather than the Pope. Pope Pius XII (IIRC) made the Papal Mandate a requirement not for validity but for licity.

 

[manualman]

The Eastern Orthodox churches are genuinely churches precisely because they continue the tradition of apostolic succession whereby new bishops are ordained by existing bishops in direct descending line from the apostles. When Rome and the eastern churches split, it was a terrible schism and a wound on the body of Christ, but did not negate the authenticity of the new EO episcopal ordinations.

The Anglican church, on the other hand, went through a heavily Calvin - influenced period in which they still CALLED the installment of new bishops “ordination” but intentionally repudiated the sacramentality and the efficacy of Grace transmitted via that ordination. It was more of an external ceremony than something understood to actually transmit Grace in and of itself.

Thus, the Church discerned that such “ordinations” were invalid and that period lasted long enough for the last actual CoE bishop to die out before the theology was reformed and the CoE returned to a more sacramental theology of Holy Orders. By then, of course, it was too late. Correct theology, by itself, is not enough to “conjure up” genuine Holy Orders. They can only be given by someone who has received them and intends to pass them on. Once there were no more valid CoE bishops to pass them on, the CoE ceased to be a genuine church by the catholic definition. (Technically, protestant “ecclesial communities” are not churches)

The Vatican document, of course, is more complete, nuanced and not so terribly simplified as the above. Another linked to it above.

 

[eamonnroma]

Speaking of transmitting Apostolic Succession, I have a question for you. Is it or isn’t it true that if a bishop is consecrated without a mandate from the pope, he does not have true apostolic succession. Also, is it true that within the mark of the Church “apostolic” is contained the other three marks - one, holy and Catholic - so that if you do not validly have apostolic succession, you do not have the other three marks either?

Of course the word ‘catholic’ in the creed does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church alone - right?

 

[otjm]

Of course the word ‘catholic’ in the creed does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church alone - right?

There is no Roman Catholic Church; there is only the Catholic Church. It consists of the Roman or Latin rite, as well as a number of other rites, including something in the range of 22 Eastern rite Churches.

As best I recall, the Maronite rite is considered a Western rite.

The Roman rite is the largest by far, but it is amazing how many members have no clue that they are not the sum and substance of the Church.

 

[MorEphrem]

There is no Roman Catholic Church; there is only the Catholic Church. It consists of the Roman or Latin rite, as well as a number of other rites, including something in the range of 22 Eastern rite Churches.

As best I recall, the Maronite rite is considered a Western rite.

The Roman rite is the largest by far, but it is amazing how many members have no clue that they are not the sum and substance of the Church.

That is incorrect for several reasons.

Firstly, as described by the Latin Church, there are indeed 23 different sui iuris Churches within the Catholic Church (ecclesiologically, I think it would be better to use the term Catholic Communion but that’s a whole other matter). The Church is not just a composite of “rites” (read: rituals) but various Churches with not only rituals, but hierarchies and theologies that have their own equal dignity. The Latin Church is the largest of these sui iuris Churches, and governs all of the Western rites (the most proliferous being the Roman rite).

The Maronite Church is of Syriac extraction, i.e. oriental, and in no way Western in essence.

Relevant to thread: I would say the only Churches that we can be absolutely sure of the Apostolic Succession of their ordinations are the truly Apostolic Churches, i.e. the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox [Communion], the Oriental Orthodox [Communion] and the Assyrian Church of the East. To put it concisely, all other Churches have some item of issue in their Apostolic Succession, but these Apostolic Churches have not only maintained unbroken succession and proper keeping of Sacramental Tradition but also records tracing their Apostolic lineages.

 

[otjm]

That is incorrect for several reasons.

Firstly, as described by the Latin Church, there are indeed 23 different sui iuris Churches within the Catholic Church (ecclesiologically, I think it would be better to use the term Catholic Communion but that’s a whole other matter). The Church is not just a composite of “rites” (read: rituals) but various Churches with not only rituals, but hierarchies and theologies that have their own equal dignity. The Latin Church is the largest of these sui iuris Churches, and governs all of the Western rites (the most proliferous being the Roman rite).

The Maronite Church is of Syriac extraction, i.e. oriental, and in no way Western in essence.

Relevant to thread: I would say the only Churches that we can be absolutely sure of the Apostolic Succession of their ordinations are the truly Apostolic Churches, i.e. the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox [Communion], the Oriental Orthodox [Communion] and the Assyrian Church of the East. To put it concisely, all other Churches have some item of issue in their Apostolic Succession, but these Apostolic Churches have not only maintained unbroken succession and proper keeping of Sacramental Tradition but also records tracing their Apostolic lineages.

Hmph. That is what I get for repeating what I have read, and not researching. Thank you for the correction. It has been too long since I have seen the abouna here.

 

[Aramis]

There is no Roman Catholic Church; there is only the Catholic Church. It consists of the Roman or Latin rite, as well as a number of other rites, including something in the range of 22 Eastern rite Churches.

As best I recall, the Maronite rite is considered a Western rite.

No. It’s “West Syrian” - also called Antiochene - as is the Syrian Church… but it’s still eastern.

The prototypical rites of the West (IE, the Roman Patriarchate) are the Roman, Gallican, and Celtic… and have hybridized/diverged/morphed into a dozen distinct ritual traditions… The Roman, Mozarabic, Bragan, & Ambrosian are regional rites; the Dalmatian is also regional, but is fundamentally Roman, but using slavonic rather than latin.

The various western religious rites are each non-territorial, but used by their various orders… Dominican, Carmelite, Norbertine, Cistercian, etc. Not all have a distinct rite; for example, the Franciscans use the local Rite of the people when in the public church, and the Roman for their corporate use.

The groups in the east are those developed from…
Byzantium/Constantinople - Byzantine
Antioch - Antiochene/West Syrian
Antioch via Chaldea - Chaldean/East Syrian/Assyrian
Jerusalem via Armenia - Armenian
Alexandria - Alexandrian (Coptic and Ethiopian)

The case can be made that the Ethiopian is a separate rite from the Coptic. Likewise, some don’t differentiate between Antiochene and Chaldean Syrian rites. (They compare pretty closely, much like the archaic Roman and Celtic rites.)

 

[otjm]

No. It’s “West Syrian” - also called Antiochene - as is the Syrian Church… but it’s still eastern.

The prototypical rites of the West (IE, the Roman Patriarchate) are the Roman, Gallican, and Celtic… and have hybridized/diverged/morphed into a dozen distinct ritual traditions… The Roman, Mozarabic, Bragan, & Ambrosian are regional rites; the Dalmatian is also regional, but is fundamentally Roman, but using slavonic rather than latin.

The various western religious rites are each non-territorial, but used by their various orders… Dominican, Carmelite, Norbertine, Cistercian, etc. Not all have a distinct rite; for example, the Franciscans use the local Rite of the people when in the public church, and the Roman for their corporate use.

The groups in the east are those developed from…
Byzantium/Constantinople - Byzantine
Antioch - Antiochene/West Syrian
Antioch via Chaldea - Chaldean/East Syrian/Assyrian
Jerusalem via Armenia - Armenian
Alexandria - Alexandrian (Coptic and Ethiopian)

The case can be made that the Ethiopian is a separate rite from the Coptic. Likewise, some don’t differentiate between Antiochene and Chaldean Syrian rites. (They compare pretty closely, much like the archaic Roman and Celtic rites.)

Once wrong, twice corrected.