Question about Holy Orders.

[EphelDuath]

Why are Anglican bishops and priests not valid, but Eastern Orthodox and Society of St. Pius X presbyters are? Is it because Anglicans are committing grave heresy, but the EO/SSPX are only in schism?

And as a further elaboration to that: to what degree do you have to commit heresy to no longer have valid consecrations? In this example, Anglicans deny that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but SSPXs only claim that there is no current, valid Pope.

 

[1ke]

Here’s an article on why Anglican orders are invalid:

newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm

 

[Saint_Gemma]

SSPXs only claim that there is no current, valid Pope.

No, the SPPX does not claim that. You are thinking of the SPPV.

 

[Spirithound]

Why are Anglican bishops and priests not valid, but Eastern Orthodox and Society of St. Pius X presbyters are? Is it because Anglicans are committing grave heresy, but the EO/SSPX are only in schism?

The Anglican rite of ordination was changed so much that the actual form of the sacrament, the essential words were eliminated. The Orthodox and SSPX have not changed the rite at all, as far as i know.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Yes, and the intent is different, too. Some Anglicans speak in terms of a “real presence”, but not transubstantiation. Therefore, there is no intent in their version of ordaining a priest to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Consecration of the bread and wine is central to the priesthood.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Why are Anglican bishops and priests not valid, but Eastern Orthodox and Society of St. Pius X presbyters are? Is it because Anglicans are committing grave heresy, but the EO/SSPX are only in schism?

And as a further elaboration to that: to what degree do you have to commit heresy to no longer have valid consecrations? In this example, Anglicans deny that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but SSPXs only claim that there is no current, valid Pope.

For a valid consecration you must have apostolic succession - the priest must either be a bishop or be acting on behalf of a bishop who is ordained in a direct line from ther apostles. You must also have the intention to confect the sacrament. The material of bread and wine must also be present.

Anglicans, although not all Methodists, have the third. However they don’t have the first and the second in adequate degree. There was a lapse in succession during the Cromwell period. Also, thoughthere is an intention to offer the eucharist in a non-trivial way, there isn’t always the intention the body and blood of Christ.

It is not a black and white situation, but Rome had to make a judgement, and decided no. The fact that Anglicans are now ordainign women really vidicates that decision - their understanding of the priesthood is not the same as the Catholic one. However asserting that Anglican clergy are not priests is not the same as saying that they are worse in any moral or doctrinal sense than schismatics or heretics who remain valid priests.

The man who claims to be Pope is probably much worse than the one who has some well thought out and politely expressed objections to transsubstantiation. Howeever the first can beleive that and remain a priest, the second cannot.