Other Anglican orders

[Richard_I]

Okay my question is are all Anglican orders invalid? I know some Anglicans like the Anglo-Rite Roman Catholic Church claimss the Coptics and the Old Catholic bishop ordained them?
Do then any Anglicans have Apostolic Succession?

 

[paduard]

Okay my question is are all Anglican orders invalid? I know some Anglicans like the Anglo-Rite Roman Catholic Church claimss the Coptics and the Old Catholic bishop ordained them?
Do then any Anglicans have Apostolic Succession?

I think the term is valid but illicit. Not 100% sure though.
paduard.

 

[peter26]

I am absolutely convinced in the validity of Anglican orders, certainly in those of the Church of England at least, since there is a succession going back to Catholic bishops before the reformation. Clearly this only applies to those who are valid matter for the sacrament of ordination, i.e. only a man can validly be ordained, that is a rule of God not of man and is unalterable.

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

The last validly ordained bishop of the Anglican church died in the 1700s. They changed their rite of ordination, therefore they aren’t valid priest. A priest can’t ordain a priest. If they have valid orders and be an Anglican “priest” or “bishop” then they retain their orders but the sacraments are valid, but illicit. I recommend reading this to help with further questions papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

 

[1ke]

Yes Anglican orders are invalid, and the Catholic Church has declared as much over 100 years ago.

Via the various entanglements of the Anglican communion and some Churches that do have valid orders, there may be individual priests in the Anglican communion that were validly ordained by a Bishop with valid orders.

 

[BenP]

The Anglican Church lost its orders, but yes a number of Anglo-Catholic clergy sought to remedy this by obtaining non disputed orders elsewhere. So one doesn’t know for sure at this poin if ones local Anglican priest is a priest or not.

 

[porthos11]

I am absolutely convinced in the validity of Anglican orders, certainly in those of the Church of England at least, since there is a succession going back to Catholic bishops before the reformation. Clearly this only applies to those who are valid matter for the sacrament of ordination, i.e. only a man can validly be ordained, that is a rule of God not of man and is unalterable.

The ordinal of Edward VI changed all that. Even though it was corrected later on, the break in apostolic succession happened.

Apostolicae curae.

It IS possible that any individual Anglican priest is in valid Holy Orders because of the corrective actions the Anglicans tried to rectify the Edwardian situation. But this is a far cry from saying “the Anglican church has valid orders.” The Anglicans do not enjoy the presumption of validity.

Our Ordinariate priest here in Calgary was ordained into the Catholic priesthood in the absolute, not conditional form.

 

[peter26]

My own Ordinariate priest has told me that he was convinced the Masses he celebrated in the Church of England before his conversion were valid.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Maybe his were, but a blanket statement cannot be made and Rome has erred on the side of caution

 

[peter26]

I can just imagine Jesus sitting there in Heaven going through a checklist to make sure a Mass is valid before he will appear in the bread and wine. The Sacrament is about Jesus love for us, not a list of rules and requirements.

 

[porthos11]

I can just imagine Jesus sitting there in Heaven going through a checklist to make sure a Mass is valid before he will appear in the bread and wine. The Sacrament is about Jesus love for us, not a list of rules and requirements.

You describe a caricature, but he did ordain our sacramental system the way he did.

Masses are valid or invalid, meaning they happen or didn’t happen, depending whether the man celebrating is a priest or not.

It was his will that a man be an ordained priest for a Mass to be valid, yes. His orders, not ours. One of the requirements for validity of sacraments is the proper intent, which was deemed lost when Edward VI promulgated his defective ordinal. This is the point where the Anglicans lost their apostolic succession, not during the time of Henry VIII.

Maybe your priest had valid Holy Orders. But maybe he also didn’t. This is not like the Orthodox, where the Catholic Church gives an unequivocal Yes to the validity of their holy orders. She doesn’t give the same benefit to the Anglicans because of the Edward VI ordinal.

There ARE rules and requirements, a checklist if you will (form, matter, intent) and these were set by Christ himself. This is why the Church is unable to change them. It is precisely because of Christ’s love for us that the sacramental rules are in place, to prevent people from mucking with them.

 

[peter26]

There ARE rules and requirements, a checklist if you will (form, matter, intent) and these were set by Christ himself.

Where were they set by Christ? We can discern from the scriptures that bread and wine are to be used and certain words said I concede, but other than that?

 

[porthos11]

Where were they set by Christ? We can discern from the scriptures that bread and wine are to be used and certain words said I concede, but other than that?

We discern it from the apostolic Tradition of the Church, which is part of Divine Revelation just as Scripture is.

The Church has discerned that as a result of his ordination of his apostles, and the most ancient Scriptural and historical accounts of the laying on of hands, she has determined that it is a matter of divine precept that the matter, form, and intent of any sacrament must be there for validity.

This is Sacraments 101. If you are a Catholic, I should not have to defend this stuff to you.

 

[peter26]

Lime a lot of Catholics, there are things the church teaches that I doubt or disagree with. For me though, it is increasingly becoming a lot of the fundamentals. Such as the notion that any one organisation constitutes the church as established by Christ.

 

[porthos11]

Lime a lot of Catholics, there are things the church teaches that I doubt or disagree with. For me though, it is increasingly becoming a lot of the fundamentals. Such as the notion that any one organisation constitutes the church as established by Christ.

Then you should bring these to your pastor. Because your pastor is in the Ordinariate, I’m certain he will give you sound, solid advice.

I, for one, am convinced of one thing: the Catholic Church teaches the truth. Do I understand everything? No. But my reason and knowledge tells me that the Church’s claims are true. Therefore, if I disagree with the fundamentals, I am wrong. I therefore seek to understand, not entertain doubts. If I have a question, the first thing I accept is that the Church is right. Then I ask my pastor to help me through it.

Christ established only one Church.