Please explain what Valid Holy Orders are

[Gorgias]

Holy Orders IS a Sacrament. Deacons are the only people who can receive all 7 sacraments, since they are ordained, but often, married as well.

Priests can be widowers, and therefore, have received all seven sacraments.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

A Catholic cannot receive holy Communion from any other Church except the Orthodox Church as that is the only Church that is recognised as having valid Holy Orders apart from the CC.

Usually this is allowed only if there is no Catholic Church in the area. We can receive Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Likewise, an Orthodox Christian in a similar situation is allowed to receive Communion and some other sacraments in any Catholic rite. Such an attendance is always optional and is never obligatory, not even in order to fulfill a festive precept.

PLEASE NOTE: Not all Orthodox Churches accept this, and some take a dim view of any form of intercommunion.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Thomas Orthodox Church in southern India claims apostolic succession. The story goes that the apostle Thomas evangelize the region, converting confirming ordaining, before he was martyred with a spear. Hundreds of years later, the Thomas rite Church was found by explorers and reunited with Rome.

Found? It was never lost. The Portuguese oppressed the St. Thomas Christians, forced latinizations, broke the ties the Church had to the Chaldean-Assyrian Church and succeeded in a partial forced latinized ‘reunion’ that hasn’t yet seen the Church fully restored.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Well, kinda. Deacons (at least in the Latin Church) receive Holy Orders but are not anointed. Only priest and bishops are anointed with chrism, though all three ranks include the laying on of hands.

In many of the Eastern Churches, all baptized are anointed. In the Syriac Tradition, from head to toe!

 

[ChurchSoldier]

No, it was after Henry VIII, during the reign of his son, king from January 28, 1547 to July 6, 1553, who died at age 15.On the Nullity of Anglican Orders, Apostolicae Curae, Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII

1. For an opinion already prevalent, confirmed more than once by the action and constant practice of the Church, maintained that when in England, shortly after it was rent from the center of Christian Unity, a new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI, the true Sacrament of Order as instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Ordinal under Edward, succession claimed to be lost under Queen Elizabeth and Bishop Matthew Parker. See: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Parker for a general overview.

But that is actually somewhat moot. Say for arguments sake the Anglican Communion did not exist prior to 1896 and beginning in the early 1900’s there was an ecclesiastical body which wanted to call itself Anglican, and then connected with a church with valid succession. That church sent it’s Bishops to ordain the new bodies bishops throughout the 1900’s using a form which was proper. That new church would have valid succession.

Well that situation would be analogous to Anglicanism and the Old Catholic Church (has recognized Orders) which came to the Episcopal Consecrations of the Anglican / Episcopal churches from the 1930’s to the 1960’s. So even if it had been lost, it would have been re-established.

As previously stated, the RCC would not agree regards the previously stated AC, but it is what it is.

(41 comments remaining [see post 13])

Pax

 

[SyroMalankara]

Ordinal under Edward, succession claimed to be lost under Queen Elizabeth and Bishop Matthew Parker. See: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Parker for a general overview.

But that is actually somewhat moot. Say for arguments sake the Anglican Communion did not exist prior to 1896 and beginning in the early 1900’s there was an ecclesiastical body which wanted to call itself Anglican, and then connected with a church with valid succession. That church sent it’s Bishops to ordain the new bodies bishops throughout the 1900’s using a form which was proper. That new church would have valid succession.

Well that situation would be analogous to Anglicanism and the Old Catholic Church (has recognized Orders) which came to the Episcopal Consecrations of the Anglican / Episcopal churches from the 1930’s to the 1960’s. So even if it had been lost, it would have been re-established.

As previously stated, the RCC would not agree regards the previously stated AC, but it is what it is.

(41 comments remaining [see post 13])

Pax

This was not the Anglican practice universally. The so called “Dutch Touch” was limited, did not change the overall intent of the Anglican Communion to remain vague, and doesn’t ‘correct’ women’s “ordination”, lay presidership, the union churches wholesale acceptance of clergy, and more

 

[pablope]

Found? It was never lost. The Portuguese oppressed the St. Thomas Christians, forced latinizations, broke the ties the Church had to the Chaldean-Assyrian Church and succeeded in a partial forced latinized ‘reunion’ that hasn’t yet seen the Church fully restored.

Do you have a link to a lost of bishops from st. Thomas?

 

[Vico]

Ordinal under Edward, succession claimed to be lost under Queen Elizabeth and Bishop Matthew Parker. See: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Parker for a general overview.

But that is actually somewhat moot. Say for arguments sake the Anglican Communion did not exist prior to 1896 and beginning in the early 1900’s there was an ecclesiastical body which wanted to call itself Anglican, and then connected with a church with valid succession. That church sent it’s Bishops to ordain the new bodies bishops throughout the 1900’s using a form which was proper. That new church would have valid succession.

Well that situation would be analogous to Anglicanism and the Old Catholic Church (has recognized Orders) which came to the Episcopal Consecrations of the Anglican / Episcopal churches from the 1930’s to the 1960’s. So even if it had been lost, it would have been re-established.

As previously stated, the RCC would not agree regards the previously stated AC, but it is what it is.

(41 comments remaining [see post 13])

Pax

It is because the intention that is required for Holy Orders was changed, that the succession was lost. Each bishop must maintain the intention to do in ordination what was done before at his ordination.

“A new Ordinal or Order for making bishops, priests, and deacons was compiled, from which in like manner all mention of the sacrificial office of the priesthood was rigorously excluded. It was approved by Parliament in 1552.” – Catholic Encyclopedia

Nine major doctrinal difference occurred then:

1. • rejection of the Papacy,
   • denial of the Church Infallibility;
   • Justification by Faith only;
   • supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture as Rule of Faith;
   • the triple Eucharistic tenet
   • that the Eucharist is a Communion or Sacrament, and not a Mass or Sacrifice, save in the sense of praise or commemoration;
   • the denial of Transubstantiation and worship of the Host;
   • the denial of the sacrificial office of the priesthood and the propitiatory character of the Mass

   • the non-necessity of auricular Confession;

   • the rejection of the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints;

   • the rejection of Purgatory and omission of prayers for the dead;

   • the rejection of the doctrine of Indulgences.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

This was not the Anglican practice universally. The so called “Dutch Touch” was limited, did not change the overall intent of the Anglican Communion to remain vague, and doesn’t ‘correct’ women’s “ordination”, lay presidership, the union churches wholesale acceptance of clergy, and more

Thanks!

(40 remaining)

 

[ChurchSoldier]

It is because the intention that is required for Holy Orders was changed, that the succession was lost. Each bishop must maintain the intention to do in ordination what was done before at his ordination.

“A new Ordinal or Order for making bishops, priests, and deacons was compiled, from which in like manner all mention of the sacrificial office of the priesthood was rigorously excluded. It was approved by Parliament in 1552.” – Catholic Encyclopedia

Nine major doctrinal difference occurred then:

1. • rejection of the Papacy,
   • denial of the Church Infallibility;
   • Justification by Faith only;
   • supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture as Rule of Faith;
   • the triple Eucharistic tenet
   • that the Eucharist is a Communion or Sacrament, and not a Mass or Sacrifice, save in the sense of praise or commemoration;
   • the denial of Transubstantiation and worship of the Host;
   • the denial of the sacrificial office of the priesthood and the propitiatory character of the Mass

   • the non-necessity of auricular Confession;

   • the rejection of the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints;

   • the rejection of Purgatory and omission of prayers for the dead;

   • the rejection of the doctrine of Indulgences.

1. 
   Thank you for responding. That looks like a pretty thorough list, but of course not all Anglicans (nor Roman or Orthodox) would uphold these concepts. Certainly the Orthodox reject the Papacy and Infallibility and have valid orders so we can’t hold acceptance of those doctrines as the standard of validity.
   
   I think it would be fair to suggest that we (the church catholic) have standards which apply equally throughout the ages (that would be fair, wouldn’t it?). If we do apply fairly, or equally, those standards to which the Anglican Church is being held, to the historic church, there is no way for the church to know with certainty that each Bishop throughout was ordained with / without these same doctrinal intentions.
   
   We wouldn’t even be able to say with certainty that Matthew, the first replacement Apostle, was ordained with upholding certain doctrines and could say with much more surety that he didn’t hold all those listed since many had not been even thought of at his ordination. As such, if that was the standard, it would call into question the validity of all orders. That wouldn’t be very practical.
   
   Therefore, there needs to be a given standard, which when applied equally throughout the ages would result in validity. In reality, that is the laying on of hands with the generalized belief that that act is the sign that authority is being passed and the internal grace applied. This is what has been held in all historic churches and accepted as the standard of continuation of validity. When that is done, Anglicans (and Catholic / Orthodox) would fall within the scope.
   
   Thanks again for the post!
   
   (39 remaining?)

 

[Vico]

Thank you for responding. That looks like a pretty thorough list, but of course not all Anglicans (nor Roman or Orthodox) would uphold these concepts. Certainly the Orthodox reject the Papacy and Infallibility and have valid orders so we can’t hold acceptance of those doctrines as the standard of validity.

I think it would be fair to suggest that we (the church catholic) have standards which apply equally throughout the ages (that would be fair, wouldn’t it?). If we do apply fairly, or equally, those standards to which the Anglican Church is being held, to the historic church, there is no way for the church to know with certainty that each Bishop throughout was ordained with / without these same doctrinal intentions.

We wouldn’t even be able to say with certainty that Matthew, the first replacement Apostle, was ordained with upholding certain doctrines and could say with much more surety that he didn’t hold all those listed since many had not been even thought of at his ordination. As such, if that was the standard, it would call into question the validity of all orders. That wouldn’t be very practical.

Therefore, there needs to be a given standard, which when applied equally throughout the ages would result in validity. In reality, that is the laying on of hands with the generalized belief that that act is the sign that authority is being passed and the internal grace applied. This is what has been held in all historic churches and accepted as the standard of continuation of validity. When that is done, Anglicans (and Catholic / Orthodox) would fall within the scope.

Thanks again for the post!

(39 remaining?)

The succession is established by the Church which solemnly requires matter, form and intention. The Anglican Church does not have the intention to confer actual grace by the ordination since that intention was changed by them. It is not fair to say that standards apply equally throughout the ages because the Church had not yet defined them in every age, although they may have been traditions since the ancient times.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

The succession is established by the Church which solemnly requires matter, form and intention. The Anglican Church does not have the intention to confer actual grace by the ordination since that intention was changed by them. It is not fair to say that standards apply equally throughout the ages because the Church had not yet defined them in every age, although they may have been traditions since the ancient times.

Thanks!

 

[ChurchSoldier]

The succession is established by the Church which solemnly requires matter, form and intention. The Anglican Church does not have the intention to confer actual grace by the ordination since that intention was changed by them. It is not fair to say that standards apply equally throughout the ages because the Church had not yet defined them in every age, although they may have been traditions since the ancient times.

Thank you for your response.

What does the church say about those Middle Ages ordinations where no records are available as to form?

Also, it raises the question of intention in situations of Simony (purchasing a church office in this case) as was widely practiced in the Roman Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages. Would there be proper intent when the purpose of the ordination was financial rather than spiritual? Certainly the Apostles spoke out against the intention of Simon (Magnus) who tried to buy the office and the church teaches Simony is a grave sin. You can’t be sinning and have proper intention simultaneously, they are mutually exclusive.

Without records, and knowing that Simony was widely practiced, how can the church be sure valid orders were kept? What is the reasoning in holding validity in these cases of doubt?

Thanks again for the reply.

 

[Tommy999]

Thanks to everyone who replied. My intention when I started the thread was to better understand the ***concept of holy orders ***and which churches had them, especially from the RCC perspective, because I come from an evangelical Protestant background and had no idea what holy orders even were.

I did not intend to start a ruckus – I was just trying to learn the basics.

Please carry on with your discussion if you feel it is profitable to you but I have a feeling that in the end Catholics and Anglicans will probably just need to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Thanks to everyone who replied to this thread. My intention when I started the thread was to better understand the ***concept of holy orders ***and which churches had them, especially from the RCC perspective, because I come from an evangelical Protestant background and had no idea what holy orders even were.

I did not intend to start a ruckus – I was just trying to learn the basics.

Please carry on with your discussion if you feel it is profitable to you but I have a feeling** that in the end Catholics and Anglicans will probably just need to agree to disagree and move on**.

Wise suggestion. The Catholic Church won’t change it’s stance on this so it’s a moot point really.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Do you have a link to a lost of bishops from st. Thomas?

The list of bishops from St. Thomas the Apostle is among the hierarchy of the following Churches:

Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Chaldean-Syrian Church of India
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church
Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Assyrian Church of the East
Ancient Church of the East
Maronite Syrian Catholic Church
Syrian Catholic Church (mainly in Iraq)
Malabar Independant Syriac Church of Malankara (in Communinon with below, succession not universally accepted)
Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar (Anglican Communinon, succession not universally accepted)

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Thanks to everyone who replied. My intention when I started the thread was to better understand the ***concept of holy orders ***and which churches had them, especially from the RCC perspective, because I come from an evangelical Protestant background and had no idea what holy orders even were.

I did not intend to start a ruckus – I was just trying to learn the basics.

Please carry on with your discussion if you feel it is profitable to you but I have a feeling that in the end Catholics and Anglicans will probably just need to agree to disagree and move on.

Tommy, no worries. Pope Clement VII and King Henry VIII started the ruckus in 1534…

What you are witnessing is what I listed in post #13 and is following the usual course. The real issue is a difference in doctrinal philosophies of the RCC and the Anglican Church. The RCC has a hierarchical nature and follows the teachings of the Magisterium and declarations from the Pope. There’s little leeway, and it has served them well.

Anglicanism on the other hand is always open to questioning just about anything due to a biforcated theology based both in Roman Catholicicism and the Protestant Reformation. It makes for somewhat of a muddled mess.

Most Roman Catholics are taught basic theology and never question further. (Members of this forum tend to be unlike the average RC in that way) I have a bit of a rebellious nature and as such tend to question most things if only to understand them more fully.

Through that questioning, as witnessed in this thread, I am convinced that Anglican Orders have continued since Christ and are certainly present today. (If not I would move to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.) Actually it was in studying our Catholic roots that my greatest gains of knowledge in Anglicanism have occurred. My research raised certain questions which seem common sense to me and I think may cause others to delve more deeply into learning their faith instead of accepting it without question.

I have no thoughts that Catholics will change their Doctrine, but the discussion, even when a little at odds with each other, does allow us to move more deeply into our respective traditions.

Thanks again for starting the thread!

 

[Antegin]

Through that questioning, as witnessed in this thread, I am convinced that Anglican Orders have continued since Christ and are certainly present today. (If not I would move to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.)

Keep on questioning. The Church will still be here to welcome you with open arms.

Just don’t wait too long.

 

[PJM]

Hello,
I am a Protestant inquirer and have heard the term, “Holy Orders” used in Catholicism but I don’t know what it means in context.

For example, 'Orthodox Christians, and members of a few other Christian churches **with valid holy orders **and a valid Eucharist, are allowed to receive Communion when attending Catholic Masses.

If you would, please help me understand what ‘holy orders’ means and what groups have them. Much obliged. :tiphat:

John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you”

Throughout the bible God has consistently chosen One man [male] to administer, guide and be in charge of His People. In New Testament times this begins with Peter, on whom Christ lays the responsibility of establishing and growing His “My Church” singular: Mt 16:18-19; and gives to Peter all of the Key;s for entry into God’s kingdom conditionally.

In Mt. 10 where Christ appoints His Chosen Apostles and sends them out with some of His Own Power and Authority, but commands them to go cf. “Only to the Hebrew nation” Mt. 10: 5-6; but then just before ascending “back to my Father and Your’s” He changes the mandate from only the Hebrew Nation to the Entire World. Mt. 28:16-20 & Mk. 16: 15-16. So in order to accomplish this new Mandate; succession And a priesthood becomes necessary.

This new priesthood follows on the Tradition of the Old Testament Priesthood: Exodus 31:10. But God empowers his new priesthood with FAR more authority and Powers including the Authority to forgive mens sins John 20:1923 & astonishingly to make Jesus actually and Really, Truly and Substantially Present in our midst at Mass. Mt. 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22-24, Lk. 22:17-19, John 6: 45-59, & Paul in 1st. Cor. 11:23-30.

God gives these men special Powers and Authority and tells them and US, that He [Christ] is sending them, JUST AS the Father sent Jesus. John 20:21

Just a God; Yahweh choose Aaron and his sons apart for priestly ministry; Christ sets apart through the Sacrament of Holy Orders and a special anointing that "marks them: and priest for Christ Ministry. Exodus 28: 1 & John 20: 21-23 " He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them:** Receive ye the Holy Ghost**. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. And they too like Aaron and his sons are set asside to minister on behalf of Christ.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Keep on questioning. The Church will still be here to welcome you with open arms.

Just don’t wait too long.

Keep prayin’