Validity of the Ordination Rite

[dizzy_dave]

I hear that Pope Leo XIII said and wrote that Anglican Ordination Rites were invalid - why? The Orthodox Ordination Rite is okay - why? What’s the difference? What makes them valid or invalid? The Latin (Roman) Rite was changed, what makes that still valid? Thanks.

 

[benedictgal]

I hear that Pope Leo XIII said and wrote that Anglican Ordination Rites were invalid - why? The Orthodox Ordination Rite is okay - why? What’s the difference? What makes them valid or invalid? The Latin (Roman) Rite was changed, what makes that still valid? Thanks.

The Anglicans broke with Apostolic succession. They do not have this, therefore, their ordinations, as are others within the Protestant ecclesial communities, are invalid.

Now, the Orthodox can trace their lineage back to the Apostles, most notably, St. Andrew. The Church considers the Orthodox as Sister Churches.

In the Church, a validly ordianed bishop can trace his lineage back down to the Apostles through the line of Apostolic succession. There is a website, but the address escapes me, that shows the apostolic lineage of just about all of the bishops in the Church. In fact, it lists Rome as the first diocese of the Church.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I hear that Pope Leo XIII said and wrote that Anglican Ordination Rites were invalid - why? The Orthodox Ordination Rite is okay - why? What’s the difference? What makes them valid or invalid? The Latin (Roman) Rite was changed, what makes that still valid? Thanks.

In a nutshell, the Anglican Rite specifically lacked intent because the wording denied Ordination to offer Sacrifice.

 

[benedictgal]

In a nutshell, the Anglican Rite specifically lacked intent because the wording denied Ordination to offer Sacrifice.

Thank you for that clarification. I thought that it also had something to do with Apostolic succession as well. Wasn’t Cramner the one responsible for the omission?

 

[Aramis]

Cranmer’s ordination protocol was questionable; during Elizabeth’s reign, however, the apostolic succession was broken, and again and more clearly under the Cromwell government.

 

[puzzleannie]

I hear that Pope Leo XIII said and wrote that Anglican Ordination Rites were invalid - why? The Orthodox Ordination Rite is okay - why? What’s the difference? What makes them valid or invalid? The Latin (Roman) Rite was changed, what makes that still valid? Thanks.

it is not a matter only of the rite, it is a matter of the canonical standing of the bishop(s) who are ordaining. The Orthodox Churches retain apostolic succession, so their ordinations are valid, as are their sacraments. Anglicans deliberately broke the apostolic sucession and that reality was formalized by the declaration of the popes that they no longer have apostolic succession of their bishops, therefore their ordinations and sacraments are not valid. This is true, sadly, despite the misaprehensions of many Anglicans, lay and clergy.

 

[malphono]

Thank you for that clarification. I thought that it also had something to do with Apostolic succession as well. Wasn’t Cramner the one responsible for the omission?

As Aramis alludes, it was really both the Cranmerian protocol and the break in Apostolic succession. In the past 100 or so years, at least, the mess is further complicated since some Anglican bishops claim true (restored) Apostolic succession based on Orthodox or Old Catholic co-consecrators. As I understand it, the role of a co-consecrator is a bit murky, so such claims would seem to be inaccurate.

 

[FrDavid96]

The break in Apostolic Succession and the lack of intent to ordain actual priests (ie those who offer the Holy Sacrifice) are actually one-and-the-same-thing.

Here’s a link to Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Here’s the conclusion:
36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

You can follow the link for a better explanation in the Pope’s own words of why and how he came to that conclusion.

 

[brigid12]

Converting from Anglicanism (and having some family members who call themselves Anglicans/Episcopalians), and fully understanding the loss of Apostolic Succession during the reign’s of Edward and then of Elizabeth I through both the ordination rite itself and through intention also, I haven’t heard that co-consecration (with Orthodox Bishops or Old Catholic Bishops) was under question. I’d be interested in more information on that, if there is some official documentation.

 

[John_Augustine]

Saepius Officio

Just about the most Catholic document from English Archbishops since the Reformation…