Ordination of Priests and Bishops valid?

[noob]

Thank you all very much for your thoughtful responses!

So the big takeaway for me personally is that the Anglican church may or may not have some validly ordained priests, but it is still prudent to dismiss their validity writ large on the ground of murky doctrinal differences and a history of canonically wishy-washy ordinations.

What differences the Orthodox hold are not as substantial as regards intention and form of ordinations, and therefore they may be viewed as a valid if illicit breakaway sect (like, for example, one could imagine a hypothetical SSPX developing in a state outside of full communion with Rome, in that their sacraments would probably still be seen as valid, despite schism). It’s also worth noting that the intention in both of these cases would be to preserve the teaching of the Church, and not to promulgate new, as another poster described, ‘man-made’ alterations to revealed dogma.

Also, Margaret_Ann, I have read some of the articles you’re referring to and it has elucidated much. It would appear that the issue regarding the view of the Mass as sacrificial offering doesn’t need to be present in the ordination ceremony explicitly, so long as the intention is to do what the Church does: offer the sacrifice of the Mass. It also cleared up that many if not most ordinations today still retain sacrificial language at one point or another in the ceremony regardless.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If it is due to form, why is the NO rite valid, as it is guilty of similar changes to form as the Anglican?

It is not guilty of similar changes to form as the Anglican form. Obviously not as there are still references to Sacrifice and even Mass itself is still called “Sacrifice of the Mass”. All Priests must understand and realize what they are doing is Sacrifice (or rather, that they allow Lord to do the Sacrifice through them).

Also, if it is due to intention, why is the Orthodox rite valid while the Anglican isn’t? What is the difference between the two?

There is still Sacrificial aspect in Orthodoxy. It isn’t just social gathering or anything like that.

How does one reconcile all of these different answers into one cohesive whole?

Anglicanism has lost Sacraments during Edwardine Ordinations which were surely invalid as they were heavily Protestant. Then there is also case that Anglicanism at large is motley… the line is insecure because some might view even Priesthood as just office and not ordination while it is true that some might not. In the end, take it by whatever end but Anglican Ordinations are very debatable at best and it comes to individual cases sometimes.

If Eastern Catholic Sacraments are valid (which all Popes even pre-V2 would of course admit) then Eastern Orthodox ones are too. I don’t recall Church ever seeing Orthodox Sacraments as invalid. Novus Ordo did not change Ordinations in intention or matter either.

I see no reason why the Orthodox church should be considered valid, as they are heretical and in schism.

They are not heretical. They may contain heretics but they are not heretical in character- there is no dogmatic belief that contradicts True Faith. They miss out on some things but they aren’t necessarily in any heresy. They are however in Schism. However, Sacraments remain valid even when Heretics celebrate them as long as faith in the Sacrament remains the same. If I would be in heresy of saying that Apostle Paul was not true Christian I would still be able to baptize properly and to confer other Sacraments because my faith regarding the Sacraments remain the same. However if I believed that Eucharist was just a symbol my faith in Eucharist wouldn’t be same hence I wouldn’t be able to administer it even if I was validly ordained Priest (I’m not btw), and even if I was Bishop I wouldn’t be able to administer Priesthood because principal role of Priest is to consecrate Eucharist and if my belief in Eucharist fails, then so does belief in Priesthood. I would still be able to baptize properly though.

Anglicans do not necessarily believe that Eucharist is True Body and Blood of Christ but Orthodoxy and current Church do. So that is also why Novus Ordo and Orthodoxy are valid BUT Anglicanism is not.

(There are Anglicans who believe in Real Presence but since that isn’t universal belief it isn’t quite the guarantee either)

 

[kapp19]

So the big takeaway for me personally is that the Anglican church may or may not have some validly ordained priests

That is the wrong takeaway… There are no such priests, unless they came in after being ordained from outside. This is, by the way, why we do not even say “Anglican Church” but rather “Anglican Communion”… they are not a Church, as they do not have valid ordinations.

 

[ioannes_pius]

Because the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession

Just as an aside, valid orders and apostolic succession are not the same thing.

 

[Dovekin]

Anglican Ordinations are very debatable at best and it comes to individual cases sometimes.

Catholics believe, following Leo XIII, that Anglican orders are null and void.
Anglicans believe their ordinations are valid.

Catholics and Anglicans do debate, and discuss. Some Catholics even believe that Anglican ordinations are valid even though their orders are null and void.

Out of respect, Anglican clergy are acknowledged at shared prayer services, with the Abp of Canterbury robing as a bishop alongside the Pope. This is despite their orders being null and void, and not in defiance of that judgment.

 

[commenter]

Regarding Proper Intention, the Anglican “ordination” of women throws in a possible monkey wrench.
Even if your pastor is male, what if he was ordained by a bishop who previously and subsequently “ordained” women as priests?

This suggests the bishop may have a different view of priesthood itself, which may affect his “intent” in all his ordinations. Some Anglican parishes try to get around this by seeking ministry of specially appointed “Flying Bishops” who are not their territorial ordinary.

But this complicates the whole issue, with sub orders of validity within Anglicanism, and raises a larger issue: all “Flying” bishops consecrated after a certain date, have been consecrated and/or appointed by other bishops or archbishops …who themselves ordain or certainly accept ordination of women priests. And bishops.

So lapse(?) of true intent Cascades.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Just as an aside, valid orders and apostolic succession are not the same thing.

Isn’t Apostolic Succession basically about valid Episcopate?

 

[Dovekin]

This is, by the way, why we do not even say “Anglican Church” but rather “Anglican Communion”… they are not a Church, as they do not have valid ordinations.

We say Anglican Communion because that is what they use to describe themselves. They do not believe they are a Church, though their individual dioceses are churches. They sometimes will use church at the level of province, eg Church of England. But they are a communion of churches at the international level.

I do not know what language the Vatican uses when addressing the Church of England. Generally they use the designation used by the person addressed.

 

[Dovekin]

So lapse(?) of true intent Cascades

We have already said that about the ordinations, I am not sure what point there is to saying the ordination of women somehow complicates things. It does not make them more null and void.

 

[kapp19]

But they are a communion of churches at the international level.

I guess so - but it still would not be right to predicate “Church” in the proper sense of any part, due to a lack of apostolic succession, unlike the Orthodox (and some other groups).

 

[ioannes_pius]

Apostolic Succession is an about being a successor to the apostles or a member of the Apostolic College, in other words.

To be a member of the Apostolic College, two things are necessary: I) valid episcopal consecration, and II) hierarchical Communion with the Roman Pontiff and the other bishops in union with him (the other members of the Apostolic College).

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

But they are a communion of churches at the international level.

I guess so - but it still would not be right to predicate “Church” in the proper sense of any part, due to a lack of apostolic succession, unlike the Orthodox (and some other groups).

I guess so, except when addressing them or in another ecumenical situation. I cannot find a direct statement of the principle right now, but the instruction for clergy at a non eucharistic ecumenical celebration illustrates the principle:

Regarding assistance at liturgical worship of this type, there should be a meticulous regard for the sensibilities of the clergy and people of all the Christian Communities concerned, as well as for local customs which may vary according to time, place, persons and circumstances. In a Catholic liturgical celebration, ministers of other Churches and ecclesial Communities may have the place and liturgical honors proper to their rank and their role, if this is judged desirable. Catholic clergy invited to be present at a celebration of another Church or ecclesial Community may wear the appropriate dress or insignia of their ecclesiastical office, if it is agreeable to their hosts.
Directory on the application… Ecumenism. 119

If they called themselves the Anglican Church, that would be the first thing to discuss. But the Church of England has been used by the Vatican and others to refer to the Anglican Church of England. It is not a theologically correct way to address them, but it is the proper way.

 

[Gorgias]

In this line of reasoning, the question isn’t so much “Is the Anglican Ordination valid?” but rather “In an Anglican Ordination, is the bishop actually a validly ordained bishop?”

Isn’t it both, though? The initial problem was the invalidity of the Edwardine ordinal. No bishop – validly ordained or not – could validly ordain using that ritual.

(And, of course, the question of whether a man was a validly consecrated bishop came into play, as well.)

 

[commenter]

How does one get around the point that Pope Pius XII defined what is required of the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop to be valid and the new form under Paul VI is missing required verbiage.

It would help if you gave a specific citation from Pope Pius. In any event, I assume he didn’t deny the validity of Catholic bishops consecrated before his definition, and presumably wouldn’t deny the ability of an equal authority - a pope - to also define.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

So lapse(?) of true intent Cascades

We have already said that about the ordinations, I am not sure what point there is to saying the ordination of women somehow complicates things. It does not make them more null and void.

You may consider the matter settled by the reasons given in the thread, and so do I, but many Christians disagree with the earlier arguments.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

To be a member of the Apostolic College, two things are necessary: I) valid episcopal consecration, and II) hierarchical Communion with the Roman Pontiff and the other bishops in union with him (the other members of the Apostolic College)

Ah, I see. When talking about Apostolic Succession in Ecumenical terminology only first one is applied but it is correct that both need to actually apply. Thank you.