Simultaneously receiving Eucharist in different church communions

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I used to take communion from Anglican and Roman Catholic parishes at the same time without consulting the pastors…

 

[malphono]

I used to take communion from Anglican and Roman Catholic parishes at the same time without consulting the pastors…

The problem there is that the Eucharist in an Anglican (or Episcopalian) church is not valid, irrespective of whether it’s “High Anglican” (or even what they call “Anglo-Catholic”) or not. The part that is missing is valid ordination. Their bishops lack Apostolic succession, and neither the “Dutch touch” nor an EO co-consecrator doesn’t provide it. Without it, any ordination they may in turn perform is in invalid. Hence, any Mass offered by a priest so ordained is invalid.

 

[MrPip]

The problem there is that the Eucharist in an Anglican (or Episcopalian) church is not valid, irrespective of whether it’s “High Anglican” (or even what they call “Anglo-Catholic”) or not. The part that is missing is valid ordination. Their bishops lack Apostolic succession, and neither the “Dutch touch” nor an EO co-consecrator doesn’t provide it. Without it, any ordination they may in turn perform is in invalid. Hence, any Mass offered by a priest so ordained is invalid.

Absolutely correct!

 

[smad0142]

The problem there is that the Eucharist in an Anglican (or Episcopalian) church is not valid, irrespective of whether it’s “High Anglican” (or even what they call “Anglo-Catholic”) or not. The part that is missing is valid ordination. Their bishops lack Apostolic succession, and neither the “Dutch touch” nor an EO co-consecrator doesn’t provide it. Without it, any ordination they may in turn perform is in invalid. Hence, any Mass offered by a priest so ordained is invalid.

Depending on the faith of the communion that the Anglican belongs to, i.e. if he is a continuing Anglican not associated with the hereitcal aspects of the anglican communion, the Dutch Touch, Polish Pat, or any other type of co-consecrator could actually re-instate a line of Succession. If the Orthodox reordained “arbp” Rowan Williams, however, it would probably still result in no ordination and no Succession because the faith of the Anligcan communion based out of Canterbury is in heresy.

 

[malphono]

Depending on the faith of the communion that the Anglican belongs to, i.e. if he is a continuing Anglican not associated with the hereitcal aspects of the anglican communion, the Dutch Touch, Polish Pat, or any other type of co-consecrator could actually re-instate a line of Succession.

No, not really. The faith of the particular “communion of Anglicanism” is one thing, and I won’t argue that since it’s a personal matter between the person (or persons) and God. It’s not an ecclesisial matter. However, the effect of a co-consecrator at an episcopal ordination is quite another matter. Coming right down to it, the role of a co-consecrator is extraneous: consider that in times of need, one bishop may (and frequently does) ordain another without the assistance of a co-consecrator. The bishop so ordained is validly ordained and indeed has true Apostolic Succession. Not so for a bishop ordained by, using your example, Rowan Williams, regardless of the presence of an Orthodox (or Old Catholic or PNCC) co-consecrator.

If the Orthodox reordained “arbp” Rowan Williams, however, it would probably still result in no ordination and no Succession because the faith of the Anligcan communion based out of Canterbury is in heresy.

If he were ordained (or, as you put it “re-ordained”) bishop only, no. His previous ordinations (deacon and priest) were not valid, ergo his episcopal ordination (being the fullness of the priesthood) cannot be valid. A person cannot be validly ordained bishop unless he has first been validly ordained deacon and then priest. OTOH, if he were validly ordained deacon, then priest, and then ordained bishop (all, let’s say, by an Orthodox bishop or bishops), yes, the ordinations would be valid and Apostolic Succession would attach to the episcopal ordination. Of course, that’s all hypothetical: in such a scenario, the ordinand would first have had to renounce the heresy that is Protestantism, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Of course, all of this is tangential to the present thread,

 

[smad0142]

Malphono,

I grant that if the man was not already ordained a Deacon, and Priest, that he could not validly be ordained Bishop. But I imagined since they were going through the hassel of having co-consecrators to ensure validity, they would also be sure to conditionally ordain all three levels of ordination again.

And I disagree with your point about co-consecrators. The whole point of co-consecrators is to make sure that Succession is validly passed on. If one consecrator is valid, and the man recieving ordination understands and wants to recieve the Sacrament according to the Heart and Mind of God and the Church, then how could the ordination be invalid?

Unless you’re arguing that the man being ordained is ineligible for ordination because he is a heretic insofar as he is letting people who have no valid ordination pretend to ordain him. I could buy that.

 

[malphono]

And I disagree with your point about co-consecrators. The whole point of co-consecrators is to make sure that Succession is validly passed on. If one consecrator is valid, and the man recieving ordination understands and wants to recieve the Sacrament according to the Heart and Mind of God and the Church, then how could the ordination be invalid?

Totally off topic in this thread but, under normal circumstances, a co-consecrator is required., However, as I mentioned earlier, in times of need, that requirement is abrogated: one bishop can validly perform an episcopal ordination. (If a co-consecrator were required for validity, the norm could not be waived under any circumstances). Given that fact, the role of the co-consecrator is extraneous at best.

 

[smad0142]

It might be extraneous when all the Bishops consecrating are valid. However, it might be essential if he is the only valid Bishop.

 

[malphono]

It might be extraneous when all the Bishops consecrating are valid. However, it might be essential if he is the only valid Bishop.

No. The point is that it’s the primary consecrator who confers the Sacrament. If it were otherwise, those cases in extremis with a single consecrator could not be valid. Take it to the extreme: say, for example, the primary consecrator was a some sort of so-called female bishopess and the co-consecrators were valid PNCC and EO bishops. The candidate is simply not ordained. Period. There was no principal consecrator. Twenty co-consecrators would not have made a difference.

In any case, believe what you wish. I’ve had my say and I’m done. There’s no sense in going for another turn on the merry-go-round. I’m getting dizzy.

Happy Easter.

 

[smad0142]

Malphono,

Your argument is analagous to saying that concelebrant Priests aren’t actually celebrating the Mass. Just because one alone is sufficient, does not mean that when fellow Bishops celebrate nothing happens. If they were witnesses they would be called witnesses, they are called co-consecrators because they are taking part in the consecration.

May the Good Lord bless your Easter as well.

 

[malphono]

Malphono,

Your argument is analagous to saying that concelebrant Priests aren’t actually celebrating the Mass. Just because one alone is sufficient, does not mean that when fellow Bishops celebrate nothing happens. If they were witnesses they would be called witnesses, they are called co-consecrators because they are taking part in the consecration.

No, it’s not even similar, much less analogous. Whatever. I said I was done with this absurd discussion, and so I am. Evidently you want the last word. That’s what you want? You can have it. I really and truly do not care.

 

[smad0142]

Explain how it isn’t analagous. In both instances the Priests/Bishops are saying the words of the Sacrament. In one case, Concelebration, everyone agrees that the Priests all take part in the Consecration. In the other case you claim that the Bishops are saying the words of the Sacrament, but that it is all pretend and only one Bishop actually takes part in anything important.

If you want to walk away fine. I am interested in getting at the truth. If you are correct in what you are saying, then explain it and we all win because we all become aware and share in the truth. I think that is important.