Validity of High-Church Anglican orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
friend, I appreciate your concern for my mental health, but could we please debate in a charitable, christian manner. I am asking for some reasons regarding the invalidity of certain orders. But I’m sure you have been to a mass with many abuses that are not in the missal, is that not concerning. That is what i am saying, and I use the Anglican “service” in order to find solace from these abuses.
 
I am absolutely not going to participate in this thread.

Again.
 
The rationale put forth by Apostolicae Curae borders on the inane. It declared 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.” And what was the difference in the Edwardian Rite that deprived the Orders of admittedly validly consecrated bishops from being effective? What was “the defect of form, which defect equally affects all these ordinations” under that Rite?

Hold on to your hats, boys and girls, it was simply this: The Anglican bishop, upon laying hands on the ordinand, said "Receive the Holy Ghost” instead of "“Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest.” That’s it! As if anyone present could have doubted that imploring the reception of the Holy Ghost was for that precise purpose! And based on that omission – based on a failure to recite these “magic words” that no one in his right mind could fail to see were too obvious to need verbal expression – Rome declared the Anglican orders invalid.

This elevation of form over substance is an embarrassment.
FrDavid96 said:
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church states, unequivocally, that Anglican attempts at ordination are null and void. End. Finished. Done. Settled.
Click to expand...
Sure, Father. And if Pope Leo had declared Anglican Orders void for failure of the bishop to have his mitre on, would you buy into that one too? It doesn’t have to make sense; it only has to emanate from the Holy See!

Well, I’m not drinking the Kool-aid . . .
 
RedFan said:
…it only has to emanate from the Holy See!
…
Click to expand...
The Holy See does get to decide this issue. Not you.

I couldn’t care less what your personal opinion might be.

Null and void means null and void.
 
joe4 said:
But the papal bull does not say that the rites in use by the CoE circa 1896 was invalid, But that simply no bishops existed to administer the sacrament.
Click to expand...
No bishops means no bishops. The result is the same.

And still the same for purposes of this thread. Null and void.
 
If the Anglican pastor was ordained as a Catholic priest, then they have valid orders but would be illicitly using them.

Anglican holy orders themselves are not valid.

As far as I understand it.
 
RedFan said:
The Anglican bishop, upon laying hands on the ordinand, said "Receive the Holy Ghost” instead of "“Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest.” That’s it!
Click to expand...
Was that the only reason to declare the Anglican ordinations invalid?
 
AlNg said:
Was that the only reason to declare the Anglican ordinations invalid?
Click to expand...
No, of course not.

There is a lot more to it than that.

At the risk of over-simplifying, the real issue was that the Anglicans denied the sacrificial role of the priest, and modified their ordination rite to express that—in other words, they removed references to the priest as priest.

Beyond that, it is a lot of little things that add up to an overall (over many decades) denial of the role of the priest as one who offers the Sacrifice.
 
FrDavid96 said:
At the risk of over-simplifying, the real issue was that the Anglicans denied the sacrificial role of the priest, and modified their ordination rite to express that—in other words, they removed references to the priest as priest.
Click to expand...
AC says “in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.” If that is true, it should be of little difficulty to point out the omissions.

It’s easy to spot the difference between Accipe Spiritum Sanctum and Accipe Spiritum Sanctum ad officium et opus presbyteri. Find me another material difference, please. Let’s explore them together.
 
Last edited:
When we look at the Anglican Church and its’ diverse bishops today, can we really argue that they are valid bishops in Apostolic Succession?
 
Let’s not mix apples and oranges. For all its discussion of defect of “form,” Apostolicae Curae did not once point to a want of apostolic succession. The issue on invalidating Anglican Orders was not “by whom” bishops and priests were consecrated or ordained, but “by what rite” they were consecrated or ordained.
 
The answer, from the RCC viewpoint, is sure to be given, eventually. I could do it, have done it often, but, as I said, supra, I am absolutely …Wait a minute.
 
GKMotley said:
The answer, from the RCC viewpoint, is sure to be given, eventually. I could do it, have done it often, but, as I said, supra, I am absolutely …Wait a minute.
Click to expand...
“Absolutely null and utterly void.”

I left out the adjectives earlier.
 
I accept the invite.

I don’t mean the history, politics, personalities, etc, of the affair. I mean the theological basis as stated. Form/intent. No one has mentioned intent, as related to form yet…

The end game is exactly what I do post (Or did, in the day. Or might, again). Every RC should affirm the teaching of the RCC on the matter (no double entendre), at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Absolutely Null and Utterly Void. As Fr. Hughes titled his indispensable book.
 
Last edited:
If there was a Catholic or Orthodox bishop that conferred the Sacrament of Orders on the Anglican bishop (rare, but does happen), then all subsequent ordinations by that bishop are valid, provided that he’s not ordaining women and the the priests hold the Catholic faith.

In that instance, I assume that the canonical situation would be similar to the Orthodox: in schism from Rome, but not heretical.
 
Athanasius_Mary said:
If there was a Catholic or Orthodox bishop that conferred the Sacrament of Orders on the Anglican bishop (rare, but does happen), then all subsequent ordinations by that bishop are valid, provided that he’s not ordaining women and the the priests hold the Catholic faith.

In that instance, I assume that the canonical situation would be similar to the Orthodox: in schism from Rome, but not heretical.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not that simple.

Once we go outside of Catholic and Orthodox ordinations, every situation has to be evaluated individually.

The reason is that when the entire community has valid Apostolic Succession (ie, “is a proper church”) we can be assured that the next generation is validly ordained. That is not the case with ecclesial communities (in this case, Anglican, in its many forms). Since the community as a whole lacks valid Succession, the individual acts are much more questionable.

We know that everything the Orthodox do is valid (excepting some rare situations which can happen anywhere).

All I’m trying to say (to summarize) is

1 It’s not that simple–to just assume that if he’s validly ordained then everything afterward will be valid
2 we cannot say that Orthodox and Anglicans are in anything near the same situation. The Orthodox are Churches, the Anglicans are ecclesial communities. Big difference.
 
Can you define, @FrDavid96, what is meant by
ecclesial communities? How do Churches differ from ecclesial communities?
Was it JPII that announced this distinction
or BenedictXVI? I vaguely remember when the term ecclesial community was used, but my memory isn’t very good.
I remember asking a friend of mine what her pastor thought of the term used “ecclesial community” (this was before I became Catholic) and she laughed that she didn’t think her pastor paid attention or cared what the Pope said.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top