Validity of High-Church Anglican orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe4

Guest
In my area there are two “Anglican” churches. One is an “Anglican-catholic” church the other is part of the Anglican church in america. I have attended both and the former church uses the anglican missal while the latter uses the 1928 book of common prayer. Both are beautiful liturgies and the sacrificial nature of the mass is present in both. I have discussed, at length, catholic doctrine with the priests of both churches and both seem to hold the catholic faith. Certainly, they are more theologically orthodox than the local catholic priests.

My question is are these priests validly ordained? That is how relevant is Apostolicae Curae to their situation.
 
The validity of priestly ordination depends on the validity of the ordaining bishop and his intent. It does not depend on how beautiful their liturgies might be. There are some Protestants who seem to hold theological views very similar to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. We should pray for a reunion of Christian Churches.
 
I would love for the answer to be so cut and dry, but the what is the support. I guess the question is regarding sacramental theology. For instance Apostolicae Curae was created for the CoE prior to the introduction of old catholic orders into the church. Furthermore, polish national bishops ordained in america.

Father, I would ask what part of anglican “orders” make them invalid. Especially considering the above .
 
joe4 said:
I would love for the answer to be so cut and dry, but the what is the support. I guess the question is regarding sacramental theology. For instance Apostolicae Curae was created for the CoE prior to the introduction of old catholic orders into the church. Furthermore, polish national bishops ordained in america.

Father, I would ask what part of anglican “orders” make them invalid. Especially considering the above .
Click to expand...
It is indeed that “cut and dry.”

Nothing has changed.

In the mind of the Church nothing has happened that would cause the answer to be any different.

It isn’t a matter of proving that they don’t have valid orders. That’s been done. The question is settled.
 
Of course, the liturgy doesn’t translate to valid orders. However, I think your point regarding the original bishop and his intent is important. I would say that it is hard to attend their liturgies, having doubts about the validity of their orders and by extension the Eucharist.
 
I’m a former Anglican, and a Catholic convert of nearly 40 years.

I understand your sympathy for the Anglican liturgy, and respect for these parishes and their priests.

I would advise against a forensic analysis of the “validity” of these orders, through Old Catholics, etc. Whether they are “valid” or not doesn’t change two things: 1. They are doing a good and Holy thing in their ministry, and are united with us through baptism and faith, and 2. They are not in full communion with Rome, ie. the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”
 
Last edited:
Father, the consideration is on the validity of some dissident anglicans. It is easy to apply AC as a blanket statement, but you couldn’t say that if a valid Episcopus vagante ordained an Anglican priest that the priest would lack orders.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I have found that doing this type of analysis always ends inconclusively. I am a convert, but I wasn’t anglican. I attend the anglican liturgy when I can because it is so peaceful. I would attend a latin mass but none are within a 100 mile radius of me. I still take care of my Sunday obligation, but I dread going because it is always riddled with abuses and quite frankly leftist propaganda. I take refuge at my local anglican parish in order to not lose faith in the true catholic faith.
 
joe4 said:
I would say that it is hard to attend their liturgies, having doubts about the validity of their orders and by extension the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
A Catholic should not be attending their liturgy with regularity, and certainly should not approach during their communion.
 
I would never receive communion outside the church. I dread receiving it during the Easter season. I have a problem with scruples, I love our lord. I cant stand to see him mistreated on the altars of his own church. It has a times been an near occasion of sin for me.
 
I don’t know that you can be so quick to condemn. I detest anyone who denies the supreme authority of the roman pontiff, however, when my local catholic clergy deny catholic doctrine. That is a problem, If I can find liturgy that does not violate doctrine nor does the priests then what is the problem. I can agree that the validity is shaky but, we have to look at the glass house that we are in with pope Francis. Ultramontanism is a double-edged sword.
 
joe4 said:
I would never receive communion outside the church. I dread receiving it during the Easter season. I have a problem with scruples, I love our lord. I cant stand to see him mistreated on the altars of his own church. It has a times been an near occasion of sin for me.
Click to expand...
Please get spiritual counsel from your (Catholic) pastor. You speak of dread at approaching at Easter time, and in a prior post you talk about lots of “abuses” in the liturgy and other things. I would suggest anxiety, OCD, scruples have planted some ideas in your head that may not align with reality, particularly as it pertain to the liturgy and to sin.

Get professional help!
 
All I am saying is that is hard to hold the real presence of our lord in the Eucharist and then act in a way that is banal and disrespectful to that very same lord. On the threads topic, what is the problem with attending occasionally a mass at the anglican church.
 
joe4 said:
Father, the consideration is on the validity of some dissident anglicans. It is easy to apply AC as a blanket statement, but you couldn’t say that if a valid Episcopus vagante ordained an Anglican priest that the priest would lack orders.
Click to expand...
As to your last part, I would indeed say it under some circumstances. If that rogue bishop is going around attempting to ordain women, I would most certainly question any of his attempts at ordination.

What I can say is that as a community, they do not have valid orders. I can say that with absolute certainty.

It’s not up to us as individuals to go around deciding for ourselves whether someone (non-Catholic or Orthodox) might have valid orders. The Catholic Church decides that and decides it based (first) on whether or not the community has valid orders. That’s why we can say that we know the Orthodox have valid orders.

If there is some reason to question whether or not any particular man has been validly ordained, that must be investigated by the Holy See. No one else can make that determination. And unless/until that happens, we must consider them to be invalid attempts.

A few years ago, the Holy See indicated that they would no longer consider the validity of Anglican attempts at ordination for those seeking to become Catholic priests. They must be ordained without conditions. That is enough to indicate where the Church stands on this.
 
Of course, I believe pope Benedict, when he was cardinal ratizinger, issued a document saying that the faithful must hold as authoritative certain things taught by the churches ordinary magesterium. I am sympathetic to that view, however recently an Italian cardinal suggested that Anglican orders might not be invalid. Even more concerning is this document by the usccb regarding their validity.

But if you allow me to press you on the fact. Could the church determine Lutheran orders to be valid, how about baptist. You know somethings are simply facts and no judgment by the church can change it. However, using your logic, because Francis allows adulterers to receive communion, then one should support that.

Again I’m as traditionalist as they come, but I have sympathy for these clergy who hold the faith but remain separated. Especially in light of rampant heretical teaching within the Church.
 
joe4 said:
All I am saying is that is hard to hold the real presence of our lord in the Eucharist and then act in a way that is banal and disrespectful to that very same lord.
Click to expand...
Get some counseling, you are assuming motives and intents of others and likely your scruples are impacting your ability to see things objectively.
joe4 said:
what is the problem with attending occasionally a mass at the anglican church.
Click to expand...
That is just it, it is NOT a mass.
 
joe4 said:
… I have sympathy for these clergy who hold the faith but remain separated. …
Click to expand...
They cannot be both at the same time.

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church states, unequivocally, that Anglican attempts at ordination are null and void. End. Finished. Done. Settled.
 
Actually father, to quote from apostolicae curae “that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void.” The edwarine ordinal hasn’t been in use since 1662 with the publication of the eponymous book of common prayer. Now of course this means that apostolic succession ended in England due to time. 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.

Now I do agree that they cant hold the full faith and remain separated, but I am sure you would treat the orthodox the same way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top