Which kind of rite use the Anglican church?

[SteveLy]

Thank you. I appreciate you taking time to reply and want to affirm your strong defense of the Catholic faith. Many Catholics still hold this opinion and often quote Apostolic Curia as their theological justification.

Just as a point of note; those outside the Catholic Church who have valid orders don’t rely on affirmation of the Catholic Church for recognition of validity those orders. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church has orders all would consider valid. Yet, they don’t see the Roman Church as being a true church, nor do they share communion. The belief of validity is not based on Rome’s acknowledgement of their orders, but of the historical continuance of men being ordained by a valid bishop with valid form with the intent of making a Priest. In the case of the EO, they (most) would argue vehemently they were intentionally NOT making a Roman Catholic Priest, but in fact a TRUE Catholic Priest… (Not saying this is my belief, but would be expressed by most EO.)

In his book “What Catholics Really Believe ( p.111)” Karl Keating states “Most Catholics adults are virtually uncatechized. They may have a professional’s understanding of their job duties, but they have only a grammar schooler’s understanding of their faith. This is the chief reason they’re easy prey for (Protestant) proselytizers”.

The above quote points to my previous post that most Catholics don’t really know their own faith, let alone take the initiative to learn other major denominations’ faith. And so, we get people incorrectly claiming that “all” Anglicans have invalid Holy Orders and Mass. If you read the previous thread to which I linked you will see that if applied to the RCC, Apostolica Curia, if applied in the same way to the RCC, would create a similar outcome as far as validity of Orders. Meaning, an Anglican would say, as they did in response to Apostolica Curia, that either both institutions have valid Orders, or both don’t.

That said, as Catholics, we can acknowledge other denominations may hold valid Orders while at the same time acknowledging that the Vatican (and therefore we as Catholic faithful) does not necessarily recognize those Orders.

Thanks again for interacting.

 

[SteveLy]

Language and the often greater level of depth to the music. An example being the great hymn “All glory laud and honor” often used on Palm Sunday.

Here is what it sounded like at the Novus Ordo Mass I attended

And this more akin to what most Anglican and Anglican Ordinariate parishes attempt to emulate

 

[dochawk]

That said, as Catholics, we can acknowledge other denominations may hold valid Orders while at the same time acknowledging that the Vatican (and therefore we as Catholic faithful) does not necessarily recognize those Orders.

Err, no, as per the papal quote above.

It’s not a question of whether Catholics “recognize” the “orders.”

The Catholic question is whether or not group X has orders. A secondary question is whether those orders are licit or not.

The church set out to answer the question as to what orders are, mean, etc., including how they are transmitted. She found that the Church of England doesn’t have them, at least in its general succession.

It has found that other entities, e.g. the Old Catholic Church (until recently) and the Polish National Church do have them (though not licit), while others, particularly the EO and OO, have them and are licit.

This isn’t a discernment of recognition, but for truth. Whether a man does or does not have them does not depend upon their “recognition” by the church. Stating that they might have them but the church doesn’t recognized them is different only in topic than saying that adultery may be permissible, even though not recognized as valid by the church.

The RC church goes to great effort and trouble to keep track of both western and eastern “vagante” lines of “bishops” and bishops.

As on other matters, these lay ecclesial groups disagree. That no more makes it untrue than their failure to “recognize” the Resurrection makes that untrue, or dependent upon denomination.

hawk

 

[SteveLy]

Hawk, thanks for your reply.

If you could direct me to the place which keeps track of the vagrantes I’d appreciate it. I’d love to do more research.

As to the quote above, I would encourage you to read through the prior thread as I did discuss AC and that which happened after. Just to reiterate for those folks who would rather not take time, for discussions sake, let’s say AC is correct. It doesn’t matter.

For example, we can look at the SSPX. They left the Catholic Church, but had a valid Bishop, used valid form which demonstrated valid intent (as per AC guidelines). Everyone agrees the SSPX (and even Bishop Williamsons’ break off of the break off) has valid Orders.

You already mentioned everyone agrees the Old Catholics have, or at least until recently had, valid Orders. Well, from the 1930’s to the 1960’s many Anglican Episcopal Consecrations were attended by an Old Catholic Bishop with valid Orders with the intent of enjoining a closer relationship with the Anglicans. Certainly by the 1930’s Form and Intent were corrected of any deficiency perceived by the Roman Catholic Church as noted in AC.

And so, it brings us to the point of non-Biblical ordination (usually called ordination of women). While we would all like to think the Church decisions and statements are made solely on spiritual and theological grounds, the reality is the Church has always existed within a larger secular culture and been influenced by that same culture.

So it leads us to a point where we need to ask the question, “in today’s political and cultural atmosphere, how could the RCC acknowledge the Orders of a man ordained by a valid Bishop and not acknowledge the validity of a woman ordained by the same Bishop?” They can’t. It would cause such a political and legal mud storm that any benefit gained by the laypeople and Church being served by those men, would be far outweighed by the political and legal costs which recognition would bring on.

As such, the only rational answer is/was to create the Ordinariate, or I guess more correctly The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter. Even with the Ordinariate, the Church would run into the same issues if they chose to “conditionally ordain” the men coming over. Some of them would have been ordained by Bishops who had subsequently ordained women. So, there is really no benefit for the RCC to revisit the validity of Anglican Orders, but there are a whole lot of possible negative aspects.

Thanks again for the interaction.

 

[PickyPicky]

As such, the only rational answer is/was to create the Ordinariate

Ordinariates, actually. First the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in Britain; then the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter in North America; then the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross in Australia.

 

[Isca]

They do refer to their services as “Masses”, though, and the vicar is known as “Father”. I attended one for a short while when I was making the move from the CofE to the Catholic Church. They didn’t try to suggest they were an RC church, but there was more incense and more bells than I’ve ever come across in a Catholic church!

 

[ConfusedLucy]

If Catholic priests could marry then I expect some of these Cathlo-Anglican vicars would be Catholic.

 

[1ke]

They do refer to their services as “Masses”, though, and the vicar is known as “Father”.

Yes, I am aware of what they call their services and how they address their clergy. I grew up in the Episcopal church before I became Catholic.

However, they do not have valid holy orders and do not have a valid mass.

 

[1ke]

If Catholic priests could marry

Let’s be clear, married men can become priests in the Eastern Rites, and could do so if the Latin Rite changed its discipline. The Latin Rite currently makes exceptions for some converts.

Priests, after ordination, cannot marry in any Rite. Nor among the Orthodox. This has never been the case.

then I expect some of these Cathlo-Anglican vicars would be Catholic

The priests who come in through the Ordinariate can be married men. That is already in place for them.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Maybe they don’t want to rock the boat, It’s just a vibe I have got from some of these guys

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you. I appreciate you taking time to reply and want to affirm your strong defense of the Catholic faith. Many Catholics still hold this opinion and often quote Apostolic Curia as their theological justification.
…

It doesn’t matter what ecclesial communities might claim, they either have valid orders or they do not.

If those orders are valid they (generally, but not automatically) constitute a Church; if invalid, they constitute an ecclesial community.

Rome does not “consider” (attempts at) ordination valid or invalid. Rome (ie the Holy See) discerns and knows they they are either valid or invalid.

Anglican attempts at ordination are absolutely null and utterly void. This has not changed. Nor is it likely to change anytime in the foreseeable future (quite the opposite).

If and when Orders are valid, the Holy See recognizes them as such, even if that means recognizing Orders outside the visible Catholic Church; and even when such recognition might be inconvenient or otherwise problematic. That’s what is missing from your post. Such decisions are objective—they don’t depend on that particular community’s relationship with the Holy See.

 

[SteveLy]

Regarding Brennan’s episcopal ordination by Milingo, the Vatican Press Office declared, in a carefully worded statement that “While expressing hope for their conversion, the Church reaffirms what was declared on 26 September 2006, namely that she does not recognize these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognize them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them, in the future. Hence the canonical status of the supposed bishops remains as it was prior to the ordination conferred by Archbishop Milingo.”[3] This denial of canonical status means that Brennan has no authority to exercise any ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. The Reverend Ciro Benedettini of the Holy See Press Office, who was responsible for publicly issuing the press conference communique on Milingo, told reporters that any ordinations that the excommunicated Milingo had performed prior to his laicization were “illicit but valid”, while any subsequent ordinations would be invalid.[4][5]Peter Paul Brennan - Wikipedia

Thanks for your reply. Why I asked for more information on the Vagrantes was to be able to do further research. Here is an article quoting the Vatican Press Office in which they are quoted as acknowledging the validity of this Bishops Ordination, but not recognizing it. Interestingly enough this Bishop was already a Bishop in the Old Catholic Church which is recognized as having valid succession.

Maybe you would have more in depth information regarding your claim they always recognize valid orders verses this seemingly contradictory claim.

Thanks again for your fervent defense of the faith.

 

[dochawk]

If you could direct me to the place which keeps track of the vagrantes I’d appreciate it. I’d love to do more research.

I don’t recall which it is, but the Vatican has a department.

if you google
vagante site:byzcath.org

you will get amazing numbers of hits on the subject. There’s a couple of folks there who have a minor hobby of it . . .

You already mentioned everyone agrees the Old Catholics have, or at least until recently had, valid Orders. Well, from the 1930’s to the 1960’s many Anglican Episcopal Consecrations were attended by an Old Catholic Bishop with valid Orders with the intent of enjoining a closer relationship with the Anglicans. Certainly by the 1930’s Form and Intent were corrected of any deficiency perceived by the Roman Catholic Church as noted in AC.

Yes. It’s called “the Dutch touch.” It’s why I used the easel words like “at least in its general succession.”

Rome has a lists of yes/no/maybe on those bishops. Some are in question because of sequences such as a vagante bishop with orders becoming a seminarian in an unsuspecting Catholic or Orthodox seminary, and running around consecrating bishops in the middle of the night (seriously). There are questions at time over whether some folks were or were not ordained, and so forth.

Returning to CofE, Rome actually keeps track of which ones are bishops, and who they’ve ordained, and so forth. I presume that the list goes so far as to distinguish by time when a bishop loses the ability to consecrate when he loses the necessary understanding of the sacrament as evidenced by attempting to ordain women.

So it leads us to a point where we need to ask the question, “in today’s political and cultural atmosphere, how could the RCC acknowledge the Orders of a man ordained by a valid Bishop and not acknowledge the validity of a woman ordained by the same Bishop?” They can’t. It would cause such a political and legal mud storm that any benefit gained by the laypeople and Church being served by those men, would be far outweighed by the political and legal costs which recognition would bring on.

The mud storm isn’t even needed. Someone who thinks women can be successfully ordained lacks the understanding needed to confer orders.

Such concerns are why new bishops are supposed to be consecrated by three bishops, in case one or two aren’t bishops or lack capacity. The ordination by a single bishop is valid if the ordaining bishop has orders, but is not licit for these reasons (of note is when the Melkites entered communion with Rome–they lacked three bishops at the election, and the two bishops consecrated a third, and then had the election. Some of the bishops who were not there and didn’t like the subsequent request for communion with Rome asked the EP for help–at which point the EP convened a purported synod with no melkite bishops and purported to elect a new patriarch. Both elections were flawed . . .)

[continued]

 

[dochawk]

[continuing]

Even with the Ordinariate, the Church would run into the same issues if they chose to “conditionally ordain” the men coming over. Some of them would have been ordained by Bishops who had subsequently ordained women. So, there is really no benefit for the RCC to revisit the validity of Anglican Orders, but there are a whole lot of possible negative aspects.

if an Anglican/Episcopal minister were ordained by a bishop on Rome’s “yes” list, the conditional ordination wouldn’t be necessary.

hawk

 

[dochawk]

If Catholic priests could marry then I expect some of these Cathlo-Anglican vicars would be Catholic.

Yes, married vicars are to be ordained by the Ordinariate. However, married “bishops” are to be ordained only as priests, although they may continue to use episcopal vestments.

Priests, after ordination, cannot marry in any Rite. Nor among the Orthodox. This has never been the case.

To add to the confusion, with the exception that makes the rule . . . there has been at least one case each for EC and EO in which a priest with very young children was permitted to remarry for the children’s sake. (Hmm, it wasn’t so much the priest that was permitted, but the children). Also, the Russian Orthodox have permitted marriage in some cases for RC priests who converted on the grounds that they were “wrongfully” denied the opportunity before marriage–but keep in mind that the RO don’t generally ordain single men outside the monasteries, and even have a saint known for marrying a candidate just before her death so he could be ordained).

Anglican attempts at ordination are absolutely null and utterly void.

with the wildcard exception of that handful of dutch-touched bishops. But even then, the form would need to be correct.

hawk

 

[FrDavid96]

with the wildcard exception of that handful of dutch-touched bishops. But even then, the form would need to be correct.

hawk

The so-called “Dutch Touch” is nothing but a theory floating around.

It’s never been given any credibility by the Church–not to the point of regarding as valid any attempted ordinations.

 

[FrDavid96]

Regarding Brennan’s episcopal ordination by Milingo, the Vatican Press Office declared, in a carefully worded statement that “While expressing hope for their conversion, the Church reaffirms what was declared on 26 September 2006, namely that she does not recognize these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognize them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them, in the future. Hence the canonical status of the supposed bishops remains as it was prior to the ordination conferred by Archbishop Milingo.”[3] This denial of canonical status means that Brennan has no authority to exercise any ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. The Reverend Ciro Benedettini of the Holy See Press Office, who was responsible for publicly issuing the press conference communique on Milingo, told reporters that any ordinations that the excommunicated Milingo had performed prior to his laicization were “illicit but valid”, while any subsequent ordinations would be invalid.[4][5]Peter Paul Brennan - Wikipedia

Thanks for your reply. Why I asked for more information on the Vagrantes was to be able to do further research. Here is an article quoting the Vatican Press Office in which they are quoted as acknowledging the validity of this Bishops Ordination, but not recognizing it. Interestingly enough this Bishop was already a Bishop in the Old Catholic Church which is recognized as having valid succession.

Maybe you would have more in depth information regarding your claim they always recognize valid orders verses this seemingly contradictory claim.

Thanks again for your fervent defense of the faith.

You’re mis-reading the text.

It was “carefully worded” for a reason.

Ordinations by Milingo before he was laicized are valid (for example, he undoubtedly ordained many priests in the 1970s). Those performed after he was laicized are invalid. (See important closing note).

That’s hardly the same thing as saying that his own episcopal ordination is “acknowledged” but not “recognized” (to use the same words you used). Instead, the Holy See determined that there was a point in time, corresponding to his laicization, where something happened that caused any attempts at ordination by him to be invalid.

The Holy See does still “recognize” (again, to use your word) the fact that he was ordained a bishop. That is an event in time. It cannot be erased or changed; and ordination is permanent. What are not-valid are his attempts to ordain anyone else after he was laicized. (Again, see closing note.)

A validly ordained bishop is one condition for that bishop to perform valid ordinations of his own. It is not the only condition. It’s perfectly logical and theologically sound (although unfortunate) that someone might be a completely legitimate bishop but then something happens which causes future ordination-attempts by him to be invalid.

Closing note: laicization itself does not make a bishop incapable of performing future ordinations validly (it affects liciety not validity). The laicization event is a marker in time, not a reason unto itself. That’s important to note.

 

[PickyPicky]

The involvement of Old Catholic bishops in Church of England consecrations is rather more than a theory floating around, being a fact.

 

[FrDavid96]

The involvement of Old Catholic bishops in Church of England consecrations is rather more than a theory floating around, being a fact.

The event itself is a fact. Of course, it is.

The consequences of that event, on the other hand, are what I’m writing about. That much should be obvious.

At no point has the Church given any credence (anything substantial) to the theory that the event somehow restored Apostolic Succession to the Anglicans.

 

[PickyPicky]

Indeed the Church has not, as you say.

That much should be obvious.

Father you will, I’m afraid, need to forgive those of us to whom not everything is quite as obvious as it is to you.