Old Catholics and Anglicans

[DJ_Pius_X]

So as near as I understand (which isn’t much, so please correct me if I’m wrong), the Old Catholics, since all of their priests at the time of the Utrecht split had valid apostolic succession, still retain a valid Eucharist and other sacraments. Roman Catholics can receive communion at Old Catholic parishes, and vice versa. Is this right? If not, why not?

Since the 1930s, Anglicans and some Lutherans have picked up Old Catholic succession. They therefore have valid sacraments and valid apostolic succession. There congregations, therefore, should be able to receive the Eucharist in the same way that Orthodox Christians can, assuming they believe in the Real Presence.

Yes? Or am I off somewhere?

 

[philial]

The Old catholic do, indeed, have valid orders. However, since they are in schism it would be improper to share Commuion with them, since the Eucharist is, among many things, the source & summit of our union with the Church on earth & in heaven. An exception might be made in an emergency, I’d guess, especially with Absolution / anointing at a point of death. But ordinarily it’d be a no-no!

With regard to Lutheran (and Anglican) orders, there no certainty of validity. And likewise, since these bodies are in schism / herersy sharing their Eucharist is an abuse of the sacrament, no matter how nice it makes us feel. As far as I know, Anglican ministers swimming the Tiber undergo conditional ordination, to ensure validity.

 

[JonNC]

The Old catholic do, indeed, have valid orders. However, since they are in schism it would be improper to share Commuion with them, since the Eucharist is, among many things, the source & summit of our union with the Church on earth & in heaven. An exception might be made in an emergency, I’d guess, especially with Absolution / anointing at a point of death. But ordinarily it’d be a no-no!

With regard to Lutheran (and Anglican) orders, there no certainty of validity. And likewise, since these bodies are in schism / herersy sharing their Eucharist is an abuse of the sacrament, no matter how nice it makes us feel. As far as I know, Anglican ministers swimming the Tiber undergo conditional ordination, to ensure validity.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that these ordinations are not “conditional”.

JOn

 

[GKC]

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that these ordinations are not “conditional”.

JOn

AFAIK, you are correct.

GKC

 

[MarkBrown]

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that these ordinations are not “conditional”.

JOn

They are not conditional. I have been told the priest can still refer to his Anglican ordination date vice his Catholic and when the priests are ordained, their prior ministry is celebrated and honored.

I know of only 1 Anglican priest in the UK, Grahame (sp), who was conditionally ordained years ago. He was able to prove a valid succession.

Most Anglican priests today would not be able to prove valid succession (in Romes eyes) and we really do not want to go through the process of vetting each and every Bishop and then that Bishops line of succession, ordination etc. Too many, uhm irregular activities in Anglican succession. Some places just named a man Bishop and he was a Bishop. Found all sorts of, again uhm irregularities, in Anglican orders when I investigated my Bishop’s succession.

The UK and other places may not have the same fluid environment of Bishops we have here in the USA. I know one Bishop was a Vineyard pastor, was tapped to be an Anglican for his church growth work. Confirmed, ordained deacon, priest and bishop lightning speed. I heard a speech of his prior to becoming a Bishop. He did not know the basics of being an Anglican…still questioned the “confirmation thing”. But hey he can plant churches.

Another, a group in Asia broke away from the Catholic Church. No Bishops, just priest and laity. Named one a Bishop. This Bishop later participated in Anglican ordinations in the States.

The Old Catholics…since they now ordain women, well Anglican orders can get muddy.

I expect Anglicans will chime in and state…“so and so priest, orders, bishop is valid.” The state of Anglican orders is not good enough for the cure of souls for the Church. And I, as a former Anglican priest, do not fault the Church. the Cure of Souls is too important.

So if and once my approval comes back…I will be ordained, willingly.

Mark

 

[GKC]

They are not conditional. I have been told the priest can still refer to his Anglican ordination date vice his Catholic and when the priests are ordained, their prior ministry is celebrated and honored.

I know of only 1 Anglican priest in the UK, Grahame (sp), who was conditionally ordained years ago. He was able to prove a valid succession.

Most Anglican priests today would not be able to prove valid succession (in Romes eyes) and we really do not want to go through the process of vetting each and every Bishop and then that Bishops line of succession, ordination etc. Too many, uhm irregular activities in Anglican succession. Some places just named a man Bishop and he was a Bishop. Found all sorts of, again uhm irregularities, in Anglican orders when I investigated my Bishop’s succession.

The UK and other places may not have the same fluid environment of Bishops we have here in the USA. I know one Bishop was a Vineyard pastor, was tapped to be an Anglican for his church growth work. Confirmed, ordained deacon, priest and bishop lightning speed. I heard a speech of his prior to becoming a Bishop. He did not know the basics of being an Anglican…still questioned the “confirmation thing”. But hey he can plant churches.

Another, a group in Asia broke away from the Catholic Church. No Bishops, just priest and laity. Named one a Bishop. This Bishop later participated in Anglican ordinations in the States.

The Old Catholics…since they now ordain women, well Anglican orders can get muddy.

I expect Anglicans will chime in and state…“so and so priest, orders, bishop is valid.” The state of Anglican orders is not good enough for the cure of souls for the Church. And I, as a former Anglican priest, do not fault the Church. the Cure of Souls is too important.

So if and once my approval comes back…I will be ordained, willingly.

Mark

You are thinking of the late Graham Leonard, one time Anglican bishop of London.

In addition, Fr. John J. Hughes was ordained, sub conditione, in IIRC, 1958. These are the only two I know of and I like knowing that sort of thing.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

What I find interesting in this is that many of the Old Catholics and others who have orders from them have theological ideas that are way beyond the pale compared to most Anglicans, and certainly compared to the ones who supposedly “lost” Anglican orders back in the day.

I often find myself wondering how it is that if Anglican orders were lost for less bizarre views/expressions of the sacrament, these Old Catholic orders are considered ok.

 

[GKC]

What I find interesting in this is that many of the Old Catholics and others who have orders from them have theological ideas that are way beyond the pale compared to most Anglicans, and certainly compared to the ones who supposedly “lost” Anglican orders back in the day.

I often find myself wondering how it is that if Anglican orders were lost for less bizarre views/expressions of the sacrament, these Old Catholic orders are considered ok.

AFAIK, the straying from the doctrinal straight and narrow is a fairly recent occurrence, in most of the OC groups, as with the placing of collars on women, in the OCs-Utrecht.

But the fundamental reason Anglicans were said (in Apostolicae Curae) to have lost the Apostolic Succession was based (as the RCC stated) on the breaking of that succession through a use of a rite for consecration/ordination that was defective as to form, and whose users were judged to be defective in sacramental intent, as determined (determinatatio ex adiunctus) by the use of that defective form. The OCs merely became schismatic, which didn’t affect their succession. Had the Anglicans used the existing Pontificale Romanum to consecrate/ordain, instead of creating the Edwardine Ordinal, they would be merely schismatic, too, as far as the judgment in Apostolicae Curae goes.

What the OCs have been up to lately, I don’t know.

GKC

 

[philial]

They are not conditional. I have been told the priest can still refer to his Anglican ordination date vice his Catholic and when the priests are ordained, their prior ministry is celebrated and honored.

I know of only 1 Anglican priest in the UK, Grahame (sp), who was conditionally ordained years ago. He was able to prove a valid succession.

Most Anglican priests today would not be able to prove valid succession (in Romes eyes) and we really do not want to go through the process of vetting each and every Bishop and then that Bishops line of succession, ordination etc. Too many, uhm irregular activities in Anglican succession. Some places just named a man Bishop and he was a Bishop. Found all sorts of, again uhm irregularities, in Anglican orders when I investigated my Bishop’s succession.

The UK and other places may not have the same fluid environment of Bishops we have here in the USA. I know one Bishop was a Vineyard pastor, was tapped to be an Anglican for his church growth work. Confirmed, ordained deacon, priest and bishop lightning speed. I heard a speech of his prior to becoming a Bishop. He did not know the basics of being an Anglican…still questioned the “confirmation thing”. But hey he can plant churches.

Another, a group in Asia broke away from the Catholic Church. No Bishops, just priest and laity. Named one a Bishop. This Bishop later participated in Anglican ordinations in the States.

The Old Catholics…since they now ordain women, well Anglican orders can get muddy.

I expect Anglicans will chime in and state…“so and so priest, orders, bishop is valid.” The state of Anglican orders is not good enough for the cure of souls for the Church. And I, as a former Anglican priest, do not fault the Church. the Cure of Souls is too important.

So if and once my approval comes back…I will be ordained, willingly.

Mark

Then I wish you ‘God speed’ for your approval, and ‘God bless’ for your future ministry. Oh, and I’m glad the tiber was not too cold for you!

 

[Bluegoat]

AFAIK, the straying from the doctrinal straight and narrow is a fairly recent occurrence, in most of the OC groups, as with the placing of collars on women, in the OCs-Utrecht.

But the fundamental reason Anglicans were said (in Apostolicae Curae) to have lost the Apostolic Succession was based (as the RCC stated) on the breaking of that succession through a use of a rite for consecration/ordination that was defective as to form, and whose users were judged to be defective in sacramental intent, as determined (determinatatio ex adiunctus) by the use of that defective form. The OCs merely became schismatic, which didn’t affect their succession. Had the Anglicans used the existing Pontificale Romanum to consecrate/ordain, instead of creating the Edwardine Ordinal, they would be merely schismatic, too, as far as the judgment in Apostolicae Curae goes.

What the OCs have been up to lately, I don’t know.

GKC

Yes, my problem though is that the defect of form is important, as I understand it, because it shows a defect of intent. And the defect of intent is, IMO, pretty clearly present in most of the Old Catholics I have talked to. While some are still quite conservative, many are not, and they are all in communion with each other.

I’m not really even thinking at the level of ordaining women. More things like believing Scripture is mythological truth only, and denial of any objective reality to the sacraments, including ordination.

If Anglican orders are positively going to be considered null due to the improper intent evidenced by those people in the ordinal, how can the bizarre views held by these Old Catholics also not mean they have improper intent?

It makes i difficult for me to give any credence to the idea that the Catholic method of examining orders is accurate or useful.

 

[GKC]

Yes, my problem though is that the defect of form is important, as I understand it, because it shows a defect of intent. And the defect of intent is, IMO, pretty clearly present in most of the Old Catholics I have talked to. While some are still quite conservative, many are not, and they are all in communion with each other.

I’m not really even thinking at the level of ordaining women. More things like believing Scripture is mythological truth only, and denial of any objective reality to the sacraments, including ordination.

If Anglican orders are positively going to be considered null due to the improper intent evidenced by those people in the ordinal, how can the bizarre views held by these Old Catholics also not mean they have improper intent?

It makes i difficult for me to give any credence to the idea that the Catholic method of examining orders is accurate or useful.

The form in itself is important, but a line of argument can be made that the form is unexceptional, since other rites can easily be adduced which have the same “defect”, but which the RCC holds convey the sacrament validly.The use of that particular defective form, constructed when and by whom it was, was taken to indicate the defective sacramental intention. This, as Hughes shows, is arguable. In any case, the argument re: Anglican orders involves the intertwined issues of form and intent, at a particular point (as Clark shows, this has to be the consecration of ++Parker), resulting in the breaking of the succession.

Intention is an internal state, as Apostolicae Curae says. And as long as there is no clear evidence of an positive invalid intent to the contrary, the use of valid form, matter, subject, causes a presumption that the intent of the sacramental minister is facere quod facit ecclesia, hence valid, hence the sacrament is validly confected. Had the Anglicans not used that defective form, which permitted a determinatio ex adiunctis of invalid (internal) intent, this logic would have not permitted the judgment that AC expressed. What it would take to justify a similar judgment on the aberrant OCs, I couldn’t say. But heretical or apostate sort of statements from individual OCs would be the same sort of thing that loss of Apostolic Succession would be, for the OCs corporately. Heretical, schismatic, etc, etc, bishops still valid ordain and consecrate validly, as Ott says, providing the intent, and other factors are valid.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

The form in itself is important, but a line of argument can be made that the form is unexceptional, since other rites can easily be adduced which have the same “defect”, but which the RCC holds convey the sacrament validly.The use of that particular defective form, constructed when and by whom it was, was taken to indicate the defective sacramental intention. This, as Hughes shows, is arguable. In any case, the argument re: Anglican orders involves the intertwined issues of form and intent, at a particular point (as Clark shows, this has to be the consecration of ++Parker), resulting in the breaking of the succession.

Intention is an internal state, as Apostolicae Curae says. And as long as there is no clear evidence of an positive invalid intent to the contrary, the use of valid form, matter, subject, causes a presumption that the intent of the sacramental minister is facere quod facit ecclesia, hence valid, hence the sacrament is validly confected. Had the Anglicans not used that defective form, which permitted a determinatio ex adiunctis of invalid (internal) intent, this logic would have not permitted the judgment that AC expressed. What it would take to justify a similar judgment on the aberrant OCs, I couldn’t say. But heretical or apostate sort of statements from individual OCs would be the same sort of thing that loss of Apostolic Succession would be, for the OCs corporately. Heretical, schismatic, etc, etc, bishops still valid ordain and consecrate validly, as Ott says, providing the intent, and other factors are valid.

GKC

So the question is, why spend so much time and energy denying Anglican orders, and not really even bother with smaller schismatic groups?

 

[GKC]

So the question is, why spend so much time and energy denying Anglican orders, and not really even bother with smaller schismatic groups?

Because of what Viscount Halifax and the Abbe Portal had started in roughly 1890.

Like much of history, it’s complicated.

GKC