Invalidity of Anglican orders

[GoLatin]

I know that His Holiness Pope Leo XIII declared that the Anglicans had lost Apostolic Succession, and that their “clergy” thus were not really “ordained”.

So I am wondering:

Before Pope Leo XIII, were Anglican orders commonly assumed to be invalid, and were Anglican “priest” converts to Catholicism ordained by a real Catholic Bishop?

Thank you!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

GoLatin:

I know that His Holiness Pope Leo XIII declared that the Anglicans had lost Apostolic Succession, and that their “clergy” thus were not really “ordained”.

So I am wondering:

Before Pope Leo XIII, were Anglican orders commonly assumed to be invalid, and were Anglican “priest” converts to Catholicism ordained by a real Catholic Bishop?

Thank you!

Yes for some amount of time until they changed the wording or Form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Anyone who converts from the Anglican church must be Ordained by a Catholic Bishop.

 

[AJV]

This is not exactly related to the original question but some Anglicans are conditionally ordained owing to the fact that valid Old Catholic bishops may have been involved in Anglican orders.

 

[Brendan]

Br. Rich SFO:

Yes for some amount of time until they changed the wording or Form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Anyone who converts from the Anglican church must be Ordained by a Catholic Bishop.

The “Edwardian Ordinal”, promugated under Henry VIII’s son Edward VI

This Ordination right lasted from 1550 to 1622, so all previously (validly) Ordained bishops had passed away.

There are also circumstances during the Cromwell era where Bishops were appointed, not ordained, in keeping with Puritian theology.

There was a movement called the ‘Oxford’ movement to restore Apostolic Sucession via co-ordination with the Utrect Catholic Church (break away Catholic bishops)
, so some Anglican clergy can be said to have valid orders, but that has to be researched on a ‘case by case’ basis.

Converting Anglican clergy are Ordained by Catholic Bishops, both then and now.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

GoLatin:

I know that His Holiness Pope Leo XIII declared that the Anglicans had lost Apostolic Succession, and that their “clergy” thus were not really “ordained”.

So I am wondering:

** Before Pope Leo XIII, were Anglican orders commonly assumed to be invalid, and were Anglican “priest” converts to Catholicism ordained by a real Catholic Bishop?**

Thank you!

Click here and read, if you haven’t already, Apostolicae Curae. Pope Leo XIII answers your question nicely in the following quote.

Paul IV issued his Bull Praeclara Charissimi on June 20 of that same year. In this, whilst giving full force and approbation to what Pole had done, it is ordered in the matter of the Ordinations as follows:
" Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders . . . by any one but a Bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders again."

also…

“we, desiring to wholly remove such doubt, and to opportunely provide for the peace of conscience of those who during the aforementioned schism were promoted to Holy Orders, by clearly stating the meaning and intention which we had in our said letters, declare that it is only those bishops and archbishops who were not ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church that can not be said to be duly and rightly ordained…”

That’s from around par. 12 and 14. He’s talking about Pope Paul IV, and Julius III also, how they already appointed commissions to thoroughly look in to the matter (back in the 16th century), and had already determined the Edwardine Ordinal invalid.

However, there are some interesting complexities involved in all that. For instance…
Generally speaking,
Catholics consider Orthodox Orders valid. Conversely Orthodox receive Catholic clergy under the “economy of the Church.” The Orthodox, generally speaking, also receive Anglican clergy under the economy of the Church.

What if an Anglican “priest” were to convert to Orthodox? They’d typically accept his Orders, and then what if the former Anglican “priest” were to convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism? We receive Orthodox clergy, would we not receive him because he used to be Anglican, even though the Orthodox received him? I suppose he’d have to receive Orders, but it brings up intersting questions.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Reformed Rob:

For instance…
Generally speaking,
Catholics consider Orthodox Orders valid. Conversely Orthodox receive Catholic clergy under the “economy of the Church.” The Orthodox, generally speaking, also receive Anglican clergy under the economy of the Church.

What if an Anglican “priest” were to convert to Orthodox? They’d typically accept his Orders, and then what if the former Anglican “priest” were to convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism? We receive Orthodox clergy, would we not receive him because he used to be Anglican, even though the Orthodox received him? I suppose he’d have to receive Orders, but it brings up intersting questions.

This would turn up in his background and I would guess that he would be required to be conditionally Ordained.

 

[porthos11]

Reformed Rob:

What if an Anglican “priest” were to convert to Orthodox? They’d typically accept his Orders, and then what if the former Anglican “priest” were to convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism? We receive Orthodox clergy, would we not receive him because he used to be Anglican, even though the Orthodox received him? I suppose he’d have to receive Orders, but it brings up intersting questions.

Let’s make it even more interesting. What if he were an Anglican “Bishop”? He is received under the oikonomia into Eastern Orthodoxy and while there, ordains further Orthodox Bishops. Then he becomes Catholic.

Should he be re-ordained?

But what happens to the Orthodox bishops he had already ordained? Does Ecclesia Supplet for the Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Chatter163]

What if an Anglican “priest” were to convert to Orthodox? They’d typically accept his Orders, and then what if the former Anglican “priest” were to convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism? We receive Orthodox clergy, would we not receive him because he used to be Anglican, even though the Orthodox received him? I suppose he’d have to receive Orders, but it brings up intersting questions.

I always love these extremely improbable scenarios; they remind me of the “If God is all-powerful, can He make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it”? George Carlin line, and they make about as much sense.

There is no universal Easter Orthodox position toward Anglican orders. Some of the churches accept Anglican orders, while others do not. The number of churches that do not accept them has increased greatly, since the Anglicans stopped ordaining women.

And as for these multiple conversions as a priest, I would say that would raise a red flag in and of itself.

 

[shawnbm]

This subject is quite dear to me for obvious reasons. If a valid member of the episcopacy an, therefore, one in the line of apostolic succession ordains other bishops and priests, then whether there is recognition of the Bishop of Rome as having jurisdictional authority or even primacy should be of no moment in terms of that individual’s valid succession to the Apostles. Just like the consecrated host is in no way affected by the personal sinful nature of the celebrant in terms of its vailidty as the sacrament, the same is true of those sacramentally ordained, no? If there is conflicting evidence from the Orthodox churches (all of whom are recognized as “churches” by the worldwide Catholic Church, while Anglicans and others are referred to as “separated brethren” or communities) about Anglicans being in the same line historically, then why doesn’t Rome–if the Holy See truly views the Orthodox churches as part of the “holy, catholic and apostolic church”, just in schism? Thanks for your anticipated replies. Shalom.

 

[johnnykins]

shawnbm:

This subject is quite dear to me for obvious reasons. If a valid member of the episcopacy an, therefore, one in the line of apostolic succession ordains other bishops and priests, then whether there is recognition of the Bishop of Rome as having jurisdictional authority or even primacy should be of no moment in terms of that individual’s valid succession to the Apostles. Just like the consecrated host is in no way affected by the personal sinful nature of the celebrant in terms of its vailidty as the sacrament, the same is true of those sacramentally ordained, no? If there is conflicting evidence from the Orthodox churches (all of whom are recognized as “churches” by the worldwide Catholic Church, while Anglicans and others are referred to as “separated brethren” or communities) about Anglicans being in the same line historically, then why doesn’t Rome–if the Holy See truly views the Orthodox churches as part of the “holy, catholic and apostolic church”, just in schism? Thanks for your anticipated replies. Shalom.

Actually the arguments you cite are from the Augustinian view of Orders, etc., accepted by Catholicism, but not the Cyprian view adhered to by most if not all Orthodox. Thus, a heretical priest in the Cyprian view cannot confect the Eucharist - or any other sacrament. Under the Cyprian view a heretical Bishop is not a Bishop. Many Catholic clerics are surprised to find out that the Orthodox Church view Catholic Baptism as invalid - and only as a matter of economy are Catholics allowed into orthodoxy without Orthodox baptism. The Orthodox use of economy is something you need to understand because it permeates all these sorts of discussions. There simply are differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that still need to be addressed - beyond the filioque, immaculate conception, purgatory, the assumption and the Petrine doctrines, inter alia.

 

[shawnbm]

johnnykins:

Actually the arguments you cite are from the Augustinian view of Orders, etc., accepted by Catholicism, but not the Cyprian view adhered to by most if not all Orthodox. Thus, a heretical priest in the Cyprian view cannot confect the Eucharist - or any other sacrament. Under the Cyprian view a heretical Bishop is not a Bishop. Many Catholic clerics are surprised to find out that the Orthodox Church view Catholic Baptism as invalid - and only as a matter of economy are Catholics allowed into orthodoxy without Orthodox baptism. The Orthodox use of economy is something you need to understand because it permeates all these sorts of discussions. There simply are differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism that still need to be addressed - beyond the filioque, immaculate conception, purgatory, the assumption and the Petrine doctrines, inter alia.

I am very interested in learning more about what you mention here. The definition of “economy” as it is distinguished between the Catholic and Orthodox would certainly be one. I also would like to know more about what you mean when you refer to the Cyprian view of Holy Orders in contrast to the Augustinian view–if that is not too much trouble. Thanks alot!

 

[johnnykins]

shawnbm:

I am very interested in learning more about what you mention here. The definition of “economy” as it is distinguished between the Catholic and Orthodox would certainly be one. I also would like to know more about what you mean when you refer to the Cyprian view of Holy Orders in contrast to the Augustinian view–if that is not too much trouble. Thanks alot!

Go to the Eastern Orthodox threads. There are several threads that will go into great length on these matters.

The essential difference in the Augustinan view and Cyprian view is that St. Cyprian held that someone in heresy could not confect a sacrament. Augustine holds that there is an indelble mark on the soul of one receiving orders that is not changed by heresy, etc. The usual reason for the Cyprian view is that a person who is in heresy is outside the Church - so how could they confect a sacrament. The Augustinan view addresses the issue of how owuld you know if someone were a heretic in every case? In effect you might never know if any sacrament is a sacrament. For example, the monks of Esphigmenou believe the Patriarch of Constantinople has pushe ecumneism to the point of heresy. Are his sacraments really sacraments? You see the issues

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Orthodox viewpoint is laid out in the thread.
"Validity of Anglican Orders for Eastern Orthodox"

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=99363

To sum it up:

There is no difference of practice among the Orthodox Churches. Every one ordains convert Anglican clergy. That is provided the Orthodox bishop wants him to be a priest. If he doesn’t then of course he remains a layman and is received as a layman.

There is however provision for the use of economy in the future event (more and more unlikely) that the Anglican Church as a whole were able to bring its faith into line with Orthodoxy. While that was the hope 50 years ago, the present trends in the Anglican Church can only make the Orthodox shake their heads in woe.

 

[shawnbm]

johnnykins:

Go to the Eastern Orthodox threads. There are several threads that will go into great length on these matters.

The essential difference in the Augustinan view and Cyprian view is that St. Cyprian held that someone in heresy could not confect a sacrament. Augustine holds that there is an indelble mark on the soul of one receiving orders that is not changed by heresy, etc. The usual reason for the Cyprian view is that a person who is in heresy is outside the Church - so how could they confect a sacrament. The Augustinan view addresses the issue of how owuld you know if someone were a heretic in every case? In effect you might never know if any sacrament is a sacrament. For example, the monks of Esphigmenou believe the Patriarch of Constantinople has pushe ecumneism to the point of heresy. Are his sacraments really sacraments? You see the issues

If I understand this correctly, then, all Anglican/Episcopal bishops and priests, even if out of communion with the Roman See and arguably (some) adhering to heretical beliefs/practices, would still be in episcopal lineage and part of the apostolic succession (the bishops, at least), under the Augustinian view, but not under the Cyprian view? If that is the case, then my Episcopal bishop can rightfully claim vis-a-vis the Bishop of Rome the same apostolic succession as a bishop in the Orthodox church as per Saint Augustine, correct? I would love to hear both from Orthodox and Catholic readers on this most important topic (at least to me). Thanks. I will also look at the threads referred to in response. Shalom.

 

[johnnykins]

shawnbm:

If I understand this correctly, then, all Anglican/Episcopal bishops and priests, even if out of communion with the Roman See and arguably (some) adhering to heretical beliefs/practices, would still be in episcopal lineage and part of the apostolic succession (the bishops, at least), under the Augustinian view, but not under the Cyprian view? If that is the case, then my Episcopal bishop can rightfully claim vis-a-vis the Bishop of Rome the same apostolic succession as a bishop in the Orthodox church as per Saint Augustine, correct? I would love to hear both from Orthodox and Catholic readers on this most important topic (at least to me). Thanks. I will also look at the threads referred to in response. Shalom.

No. You would be right only if the apostolic succession had been maintained - which LEO XIII definitively stated was not maintained. But, for example, the Anglican Bishops who left the Catholic Church at the time of Henry VIII were still Bishops - the problem was with the Edwardian reforms which ended valid ordination thereby ended that apostolic line.

 

[johnnykins]

btw there is the issue of the participation in ordination by schismatic or heretical bishops that may lead to a valid ordiation, but that’s a facts and circumstance issue that will require all sorts of interesting discussion.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Chatter163:

I always love these extremely improbable scenarios; they remind me of the “If God is all-powerful, can He make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it”? George Carlin line, and they make about as much sense.

There is no universal Easter Orthodox position toward Anglican orders. Some of the churches accept Anglican orders, while others do not. The number of churches that do not accept them has increased greatly, since the Anglicans stopped ordaining women.

And as for these multiple conversions as a priest, I would say that would raise a red flag in and of itself.

I understand your reasoning, but in the world of almost limitless possibilities, if such a situation were to occur, it would likely be more intricate, and there would have to be some sort of way to handle the ecclesial transfer. And, it would have to be justifiable, because it would be challenged, so it would therefore set a precedent of some sort, notwithstanding the uniqueness of such situations, thus a case-by-case element would likely remain.

 

[jbuck919]

One of my best friends is an Anglican (American Episcopalian) priest. I mean he is a best friend like a brother to me.

I desperately want to believe in the validity of Anglican orders, but the plain fact of the matter is that this entire separation goes back to one evil man working under the influence of Satan, namely Henry VIII, pehaps the most brutal and twisted ruler in western Europe since the Roman Empire. Prior to him, England had been the most Catholic country in Europe. He did to Christianity in the British Isles what Lenin, Stalin & co. did to the potential of Russia.

I look at the modern Anglican clergy and see nothing but good men (and women). Their bishops carry a crozier and sometimes were mitres. They practice an eternal rite of ordination by the laying on of hands. They almost invariably, given the condition that the Eucharist will be in the vernacular, celebrate it with greater dignity and ceremony and sense of aesthetics than Roman Catholics in much of the world. But 500 years ago a monster of a man was responsible for taking that seeming precedence away from them, for his selfish trilings brought about a break in the apostolic succession.

 

[LordHORSEY]

Chatter163:

I always love these extremely improbable scenarios; they remind me of the “If God is all-powerful, can He make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it”? George Carlin line, and they make about as much sense.

There is no universal Easter Orthodox position toward Anglican orders. Some of the churches accept Anglican orders, while others do not. The number of churches that do not accept them has increased greatly, since the Anglicans stopped ordaining women.

And as for these multiple conversions as a priest, I would say that would raise a red flag in and of itself.

Hello!

Did I miss something here? When did Anglicans stop “ordaining” women?

LordHORSEY@comcast.net

 

[LordHORSEY]

Chatter163:

I always love these extremely improbable scenarios; they remind me of the “If God is all-powerful, can He make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it”? George Carlin line, and they make about as much sense.

There is no universal Easter Orthodox position toward Anglican orders. Some of the churches accept Anglican orders, while others do not. The number of churches that do not accept them has increased greatly, since the Anglicans stopped ordaining women.

And as for these multiple conversions as a priest, I would say that would raise a red flag in and of itself.

Hello!

Did I miss something here? When did Anglicans stop “ordaining” women?

LordHORSEY@comcast.net