Validity of Anglican Orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter Belcanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Belcanto

Guest
This may have been addressed in this forum before, but is the validity of orders received in the Anglican communion an open question in the Catholic Church? I’m aware of Leo XIII’s decree, but I’ve been reading conflicting information as of late, and was wondering if anyone had definite information? Edwin…?

Pax Tecum,
Jay
 
Belcanto said:
This may have been addressed in this forum before, but is the validity of orders received in the Anglican communion an open question in the Catholic Church? I’m aware of Leo XIII’s decree, but I’ve been reading conflicting information as of late, and was wondering if anyone had definite information? Edwin…?

Pax Tecum,
Jay
Click to expand...
Yep. I’ve discussed it.

Nope, it’s not an open question, for RCs. The bull
Apostolicae Curae, issued over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, was reaffirmed by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger a few years ago. And lately the official Anglican Communion has been doing its best to make Leo’s judgement accurate, ex post facto, at least. There is some theoretical wiggle room, with respect to a few technical issues, and at least two Anglican priests were reordained sub conditione when they crossed the Tiber, indicating a certain lack of certainty, in those individual cases. But generally, the RC position is that Anglican orders are null and void.

Of course, Anglicans have a different opinion.

For background and exposition, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best summary of the RC position. For the Anglican side, Fr. J. Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are superb.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
GKC said:
Yep. I’ve discussed it.

Nope, it’s not an open question, for RCs. The bull
Apostolicae Curae, issued over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, was reaffirmed by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger a few years ago. And lately the official Anglican Communion has been doing its best to make Leo’s judgement accurate, ex post facto, at least. There is some theoretical wiggle room, with respect to a few technical issues, and at least two Anglican priests were reordained sub conditione when they crossed the Tiber, indicating a certain lack of certainty, in those individual cases. But generally, the RC position is that Anglican orders are null and void.

Of course, Anglicans have a different opinion.

For background and exposition, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best summary of the RC position. For the Anglican side, Fr. J. Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are superb.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...
OK, thanks. I wonder why the Orthodox Church recognizes the validity of Anglican Orders? In addition, I came across this article, which raises some interesting questions. One of the arguments of defenders of Anglican Orders is that Ratzinger’s statement that Apostolicae Curae was infallible was itself not an infallible statement. You can read about that here.

Just some food for thought 🙂

Pax Tecum,
Jay
 
Belcanto said:
OK, thanks. I wonder why the Orthodox Church recognizes the validity of Anglican Orders? In addition, I came across this article, which raises some interesting questions. One of the arguments of defenders of Anglican Orders is that Ratzinger’s statement that Apostolicae Curae was infallible was itself not an infallible statement. You can read about that here.

Just some food for thought 🙂

Pax Tecum,
Jay
Click to expand...
That Orthodox statement was one of four such (IIRC) that came out after the Anglican Communion made some enquires amongst some of the various Orthodox jurisidictions, back in the 20s-30s. That one reads most favorably, but all were in a sense favorable. But, between the lines, Orthodox do not recognise ANY orders outside Orthodoxy as valid, RC included. The recognise them as potentially valid, with the validity supplied by conversion to Orthodoxy. For Orthodox, as for the RCC, there is one Church, and they are it.

Ratzinger’s statement doesn’t have to be infallible; it still must be affirmed by RCCs, sententia ad fidem pertinens, at least.

I’m familar with (and argee with) the argumenta presented at your 2nd site. It is a summary of much other discussion, as found in Hughes’ books, and many others (Dix, Lula, Cirlot, Lowndes, etc).

Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.

Now, does that mean that Anglican orders are invalid, and hence so are their sacraments? No. But it means that is what the RCC teaches.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Belcanto said:
OK, thanks. I wonder why the Orthodox Church recognizes the validity of Anglican Orders? In addition, I came across this article, which raises some interesting questions. One of the arguments of defenders of Anglican Orders is that Ratzinger’s statement that Apostolicae Curae was infallible was itself not an infallible statement. You can read about that here.

Just some food for thought 🙂

Pax Tecum,
Jay
Click to expand...
The topic of how the Orthodox view the Anglican orders was discussed in the Eastern Christianity forum. Post #6 clarifies this question.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115451&highlight=Anglican

Post #6
Quote=Padre Ambrogio
…
Moscow based its decision on the present discrepancy between Anglican and Orthodox belief: ‘The Orthodox Church cannot agree to recognize the rightness of Anglican teaching on the sacraments in general, and on the sacrament of Holy Order in particular; and so it cannot recognize Anglican ordinations as valid.’ (Note that Orthodox theology declines to treat the question of valid orders in isolation, but considers at the same time the faith of the Church concerned.) But, so the Moscow decree continues, if in the future the Anglican Church were to become fully Orthodox in faith, then it might be possible to reconsider the question. While returning a negative answer at the present moment, Moscow extended a hope for the future.
Such is the situation so far as official pronouncements are concerned. Anglican clergy who join the Orthodox Church are reordained; but if Anglicanism and Orthodoxy were to reach full unity in the faith, perhaps such reordination might not be found necessary. It should be added, however, that a number of individual Orthodox theologians hold that under no circumstances would it be possible to
 
GKC said:
That Orthodox statement was one of four such (IIRC) that came out after the Anglican Communion made some enquires amongst some of the various Orthodox jurisidictions, back in the 20s-30s. That one reads most favorably, but all were in a sense favorable. But, between the lines, Orthodox do not recognise ANY orders outside Orthodoxy as valid, RC included. The recognise them as potentially valid, with the validity supplied by conversion to Orthodoxy. For Orthodox, as for the RCC, there is one Church, and they are it.

Ratzinger’s statement doesn’t have to be infallible; it still must be affirmed by RCCs, sententia ad fidem pertinens, at least.

I’m familar with (and argee with) the argumenta presented at your 2nd site. It is a summary of much other discussion, as found in Hughes’ books, and many others (Dix, Lula, Cirlot, Lowndes, etc).

Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.

Now, does that mean that Anglican orders are invalid, and hence so are their sacraments? No. But it means that is what the RCC teaches.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...
GKC,

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I take it from your posts that you consider yourself to be an Anglo-Catholic?

Pax Tecum,
Jay
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top