Which kind of rite use the Anglican church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PickyPicky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, what I wrote was
It’s never been given any credibility by the Church–not to the point of regarding as valid any attempted ordinations.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how someone would take that as implying that the event did not happen.
 
We have, in the city where I live:

Episcopal churches (NOT VALID,and getting less even Christian) – we left this church. It does have a service similar to the Catholic Mass, but it is soooo far away from Catholic in practice.

Anglican Churches that broke away from the Episcopal Church due to the latter’s departure from basic Christian beliefs, scripture, and belief that the Bible is something that we are actually following. They have no desire to be Catholic. They are just trying to hold to the tenets of Christian faith.

Than we have two Anglo-Catholic churches. It is VERY different, than the general Anglican Churches. One is very tiny, and dying out, the other is doing well. They are actively trying to be more Catholic. It is more than “window dressing”. The services are quite formal, and very beautiful. No women clergy, chapel veils, formal service of Mass, and it is their belief that their priests are in “succession”. There is formal confession, which is less the case in the Anglican or Episcopal churches. The service has the Hail Mary (Episcopal and the other Anglican Churches do not), and they believe Mary was an eternal virgin. There do tend to be some differences. I have not hear of annulments, for example. I do not believe they exactly believe in purgatory. Both churches mention and respect the Pope, although the smaller one seems to defer to him more as from the Chair of Peter, where the other seems to just more respect him as a high up religious leader and not “the” leader. Oh, and the priests are allowed to marry.

The particular larger church I do not believe is trying to gain Communion with Rome, mostly due to legal issues that have to do with their very beautiful church building, and the circumstances under which it was donated to them. It must remain Anglo-Catholic. But there was certainly discussion of it. I consider it fairly close in many ways, after having attended many services their confirmation classes with my daughter, as well as a fair portion of RICA for a Catholic church. To be honest, I rather prefer the Anglican-Catholic church service. It seems more “right and proper” and less “folksy”. Formal organ music, incense, communion on your knees, sung Latin psalms, etc. But that is just a personal preference.
 
Thanks so much. I’ll just say up front that I’m writing this reply more for the understanding of those doing research while contemplating coming to the Catholic Church as I did, as well as those looking to deepen their general knowledge of the Christian Faith . I have no thought that you will be changing your mind. And thanks for the information on post laicization ordinations still being valid. I hadn’t realized that, but I guess with the belief their is a permanent change in the man at ordination, it makes sense.

Now, as to the article with Bishop Paul Brennan being ordained (or consecrated in the Angilcan tradition) by Bishop Milingo. My response using this article was responding to your claim that the RCC always recognized valid Orders whether convenient or not.
  1. Bishop Paul Brennan was an Old Catholic Bishop and therefore validly in line of succession. He was ordained sub-conditione in 2006 as a Roman Catholic Bishop by Archbishop Milingo.
  2. In 2006 at the time of Bishop Brennan’s sub-conditione ordination, Archbishop Milingo had not yet been laicized (laicized in 2009), which as you state is immaterial.
  3. The statement by the Vatican press office did state the ordination was valid (so we can presume valid form and intent).
  4. The Vatican press office stated it does not recognize this valid ordination and will not recognize future ordinations which come from Bishop Brennan’s (and the other three Bishops ordained at the same time). What makes this case so interesting is that Bishop Brennan was already a Bishop in a Church with acknowledged valid succession.
  5. So what we have is a case of the Vatican knowing certain ordinations are valid but not recognizing them, or future ordinations coming from them, which was my point which you initially objected to.
Thanks again for your fervency for the Catholic faith!
 
Last edited:
One of the interesting by-products of AC is that it gave the world the “formula” for valid succession.
  1. A valid Bishop
  2. Proper form of the ordination rite.
  3. Proper intent “to make a Priest” which is shown by proper form.
As such, using the “Roman Catholic” formula it is possible to form a new church on any given day if you have a willing valid Bishop and proper ordination rite.

This is why I stated that those groups with valid succession outside the Roman Catholic Church don’t look to Rome for affirmation of succession. They already received it by following the format layed out in AC.

I know this doesn’t sit well with many In the RCC, as demonstrated in this thread, but they are following the rules set by the Pope. Ultimately I find those Roman Catholics who take issue have an underlying concern that any of these groups are not currently connected with the Pope. As a Roman Catholic I understand that and don’t fault them for the view. Coming into the RCC from another tradition, I just see there is a wider community that is more loosely connected to the historic church, but connected still the same.

I will continue to pray for you, please continue to pray for me.
 
Last edited:
You are correct that those of us in Anglican/ Episcopal churches do not require RCC recognition and also understand that any such thing is unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future.

I’m personally more intrigued by the fact that starting in 1922, the EO patriarchs investigated Anglican orders and did find them valid. So much so that for a time, those Orthodox living too far way from an EO church were given permission to receive at Episcopal chuches.

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2006/05/orthodoxy-and-anglicanism-in-road.html?m=1

It would be nice if the RCC had come to the same conclusion, but 1 out of 2 ain’t bad.

Anglicans live to confound.
 
SteveLy said:
Thanks so much. I’ll just say up front that I’m writing this reply more for the understanding of those doing research while contemplating coming to the Catholic Church as I did, as well as those looking to deepen their general knowledge of the Christian Faith . I have no thought that you will be changing your mind. And thanks for the information on post laicization ordinations still being valid. I hadn’t realized that, but I guess with the belief their is a permanent change in the man at ordination, it makes sense.

Now, as to the article with Bishop Paul Brennan being ordained (or consecrated in the Angilcan tradition) by Bishop Milingo. My response using this article was responding to your claim that the RCC always recognized valid Orders whether convenient or not.
  1. Bishop Paul Brennan was an Old Catholic Bishop and therefore validly in line of succession. He was ordained sub-conditione in 2006 as a Roman Catholic Bishop by Archbishop Milingo.
  2. In 2006 at the time of Bishop Brennan’s sub-conditione ordination, Archbishop Milingo had not yet been laicized (laicized in 2009), which as you state is immaterial.
  3. The statement by the Vatican press office did state the ordination was valid (so we can presume valid form and intent).
  4. The Vatican press office stated it does not recognize this valid ordination and will not recognize future ordinations which come from Bishop Brennan’s (and the other three Bishops ordained at the same time). What makes this case so interesting is that Bishop Brennan was already a Bishop in a Church with acknowledged valid succession.
  5. So what we have is a case of the Vatican knowing certain ordinations are valid but not recognizing them, or future ordinations coming from them, which was my point which you initially objected to.
Thanks again for your fervency for the Catholic faith!
Click to expand...
You’re all over the place here.

Show me the communication from the Vatican. Either cut-and-paste the text or show me the website. Yes, I could find it myself, but you obviously already have it.

Then I’ll address your questions.
 
SteveLy said:
Thanks so much. I’ll just say up front that I’m writing this reply more for the understanding of those doing research while contemplating coming to the Catholic Church as I did, as well as those looking to deepen their general knowledge of the Christian Faith . I have no thought that you will be changing your mind. And thanks for the information on post laicization ordinations still being valid. I hadn’t realized that, but I guess with the belief their is a permanent change in the man at ordination, it makes sense.

Now, as to the article with Bishop Paul Brennan being ordained (or consecrated in the Angilcan tradition) by Bishop Milingo. My response using this article was responding to your claim that the RCC always recognized valid Orders whether convenient or not.
  1. Bishop Paul Brennan was an Old Catholic Bishop and therefore validly in line of succession. He was ordained sub-conditione in 2006 as a Roman Catholic Bishop by Archbishop Milingo.
  2. In 2006 at the time of Bishop Brennan’s sub-conditione ordination, Archbishop Milingo had not yet been laicized (laicized in 2009), which as you state is immaterial.
  3. The statement by the Vatican press office did state the ordination was valid (so we can presume valid form and intent).
  4. The Vatican press office stated it does not recognize this valid ordination and will not recognize future ordinations which come from Bishop Brennan’s (and the other three Bishops ordained at the same time). What makes this case so interesting is that Bishop Brennan was already a Bishop in a Church with acknowledged valid succession.
  5. So what we have is a case of the Vatican knowing certain ordinations are valid but not recognizing them, or future ordinations coming from them, which was my point which you initially objected to.
Thanks again for your fervency for the Catholic faith!
Click to expand...
In order to address your questions, I need to know what was said. I need to know exactly what was said by the Holy See.

Wiki articles and other paraphrases won’t suffice. I’m forced to rely on what is already someone’s interpretation, and that someone might not have any clue about the subject matter. For example, the phrase “does not recognize them” is imprecise. The Vatican doesn’t use that kind of language. An ordination is either valid or it is an invalid attempt. It is either licit or illicit.

To use the word “recognize” all by itself is incomplete.
 
There wasn’t really a question in what I wrote. No need on my part for you to address it… I was just pointing out a line of logic which concluded in support for my point that the Vatican has indeed known of valid orders without publicly recognizing / acknowledging their validity.

It would be great if you could find the original documents for the quote from the Vatican press office. I’ve been aware of this article for several years and have looked at times to find the original and as of yet have not been able to do so. That was why, in part, I asked the person who mentioned the Vatican tracks these things (meaning Vagrante Bishops) very closely where I may be able to get the original documentation.

That said, this article has been out there for several years and nobody has come out with information to counter the claims it makes.
 
Last edited:
If I may suggest, please don’t answer. This thread has dwindled to the point where one persons perception of the meaning of the Vatican’s meaning of the word “recognize” quoted in the article being material to whether historical facts are true (or not).

I think it would be more helpful for you just to acknowledge your belief is that if the Vatican doesn’t say a groups Holy Orders are valid and licit, you don’t think they are either.

As I stated before, I’m not trying to change your mind or anyone else’s who holds that opinion. As those who consider their Churches Orders valid based on the Vatican guidelines, I would say to let them be. Their validity or invalidity has no bearing on the validity of the Catholic Churches Orders or Sacraments.

What is possible, is creating more of a fracture with our separated brothers and sisters through prideful argument when history shows certain facts being facts.

I think it’s more beneficial for us to build bridges with those who are questioning and considering coming into fulness of communion rather than continuing to be critical of their current beliefs and trying to point out how wide the chasm may be.

Blessings.
 
Last edited:
I’ve begun a different thread on succession.
40.png
Valid Catholic Succession Liturgy and Sacraments
There are regular discussions of Anglican Holy Orders with many faithful falling on both sides of the valid/invalid concept. In doing research a few years ago I came across the Roman Catholic Bishop Scipione Rebiba. He is in the line of succession of 95% of Roman Catholic Bishops, yet there is no record of who consecrated him a bishop. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/brebi.html I am wondering the Catholic reasoning or scholarship of accepting him as a Bishop when we have no record of…
Click to expand...
The topic is the consecration of Bishop Scipione Rebiba who is in the line of succession of 95% of Roman Catholic Bishops yet there are no records of his consecration.

Particularly interested in answers from frdavid96 and 1ke. As this is a different topic, I will only reply at the new thread.

TIA
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
I’m personally more intrigued by the fact that starting in 1922, the EO patriarchs investigated Anglican orders and did find them valid.
Click to expand...
This is repeated frequently, but is not correct.

What was stated was that if the Anglican church were to become orthodox, it would not be necessary to ordain all of their clergy, who could be accepted as an act of ekonomea. This was an individual opinion, not the result of an investigation.

While it may baffle the west, the Orthodox have no qualms about this kind of retroactive validation. For CofE, it’s basically saying that it could use the same path as when a daughter national church breaks away, is considered not valid, and is eventually accepted.

The Orthodox follow the Cyprian understanding of Orders, in which Orders are lost when out of communion with the Church granting them; the RCC follows the Augustinian “indelible mark” approach.

Also, note that with the purported ordinations of women in the CofE, you probably won’t find a single Orthodox prelate that would believe the church could simply be accepted.

hawk
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
What was stated was that if the Anglican church were to become orthodox, it would not be necessary to ordain all of their clergy, who could be accepted as an act of ekonomea. This was an individual opinion, not the result of an investigation.
Click to expand...
From the link I included:
The Patriarch of JERUSALEM, 1923
The Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of his Synod on March 12, 1923, as follows: To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, First Hierarch of All England, our most beloved and dear brother in our Lord Jesus, Mgr. Randall. Greeting fraternally your beloved to us, Grace, we have the pleasure to address to you the following: Yesterday we dispatched to Your Grace the following telegram: ‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.’ Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession. We have great pleasure in communicating to Your Grace, as the First Hierarch of all the Anglican Churches, this resolution of our Church, which constitutes a progress in the pleasing-to-God work of the union of all Churches, and we pray God to grant to Your Grace many years full of health and salvation.
(Signed) DAMIANOS
February 27/March 12, 1923 Official translation published in The Christian East, vol. IV, 1923, pp. 121-122. The Archbishop of the autonomous Church of Sinai expressed for his Church adherence to the decisions of Constantinople and Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
Of course, one may argue if such validity exists after the advent of women bishops, and frankly, it doesn’t concern me if either the EO or the RCC takes that position. I am satisfied with my own investigation with regards to that matter.

However, as the letter attests, the question of validity was forthrightly answered not only by this Patriarch, but all of them. Regardless of why they initially looked into the matter, their conclusion was clear.

At least to me.

That said, I did not bring this up in order to convince you or other Catholics of Anglican validity. Your Church has come to its conclusion and there is nothing to be done but to fully accept it.

I mentioned it to Steve because he seems very interested in the subject.
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
The Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of his Synod on March
Click to expand...
As I said, the opinion of an individual–from a group for which many believe that "considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, " means “none”.

Also, at that time, the Russian Orthodox church instructed members to receive communion in the Church of England’s they–but not the members of CofE–would be receiving the actual presence.

You will get much better answers for this over at byzcath.org than here, with many members who know far more on this than I.

But to believe that the Orthodox as a whole or group ever believed that CofE had currently valid orders is to choose a single source over the general teachings of the Orthodox Churches.
QContinuum said:
Of course, one may argue if such validity exists after the advent of women bishops,
Click to expand...
As in, "Of course, one may argue that water is wet’ . . .

hawk
 
hawk, thank you, but I will take the primary sourced, written word of the Patriarchs (plural, because each one sent a similar letter from each of the Churches over the course of a few years) over the theological reductions of chagrined Orthodox from a website. Much as I do respect those folks.

As you may argue that water is wet, I similarly maintain that the definition of synod is not individual.
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
As you may argue that water is wet, I similarly maintain that the definition of synod is not individual.
Click to expand...
True.

And the patriarchs do not constitute a synod in any sense of the word, nor do they speak for Orthodoxy in the way that Rome speaks for Roman Catholicism.

You are still taking that document out of time and meaning, and will not find an Orthodox source today that supports your interpretation,

For that matter, go to any Orthodox site, and they will explain exactly what you are misunderstanding.

I’ll take Orthodox understanding of their position over yours 🙂

hawk
 
Last edited:
As someone has read many books, visited EO churches and discussed this and other topics with their wonderful clergy, and dug into this from many angles (including looking at various websites) please take me at my word I am well informed on this subject. But I don’t see the purpose of presenting the many arguments to be made to someone who is, quite frankly, not permitted to entertain them.

Anglicans do have very good reasons (we think) for holding to what we do. Even the EO Patriarchs agreed at one time. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the more pertinent point is the Catholic Church has already made its determination, and we are both agreed that you must affirm that view regardless.

If you mean to alter mine, you would doubtless have far better uses of your valuable time. 😌
 
Last edited:
SteveLy said:
… I was just pointing out a line of logic which concluded in support for my point that the Vatican has indeed known of valid orders without publicly recognizing / acknowledging their validity.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s not quite logical because the Vatican doesn’t do that.

If a situation is valid (whether it’s about an individual ordination or about a community that has valid Apostolic Succession), the Holy See recognizes it as valid. That’s true even if the conclusion is inconvenient.
It would be great if you could find the original documents for the quote from the Vatican press office. I’ve been aware of this article for several years and have looked at times to find the original and as of yet have not been able to do so. …
Click to expand...
And that’s exactly my point. You’re making statements that the Vatican is behaving illogically but you don’t have all the information in front of you to draw that conclusion.
That said, this article has been out there for several years and nobody has come out with information to counter the claims it makes.
Click to expand...
Ecclesiastical authorities don’t try to dispute wiki articles. Those articles are not considered credible in the first place, therefore ecclesiastics and other true scholars don’t bother themselves to dispute that sort of thing.

Please take a moment to consider what you’re claiming here, and consider the source of your information.

For the sake of your own credibility (here on CAF) if you’re going to say what you are saying, you need to have some reliable sources for your information.

What I am trying to explain to you is that the Vatican doesn’t do the sort of thing that you’re claiming here–namely to be inconsistent in deciding if ordinations are valid or invalid-attempts.

It seems to me (and I’ll remind everyone that I haven’t read it either) that it’s going to be a rather straightforward answer: that this particular bishop was validly ordaining priests until a certain point in his life, a point which corresponds roughly with the events that caused his excommunication, and that after that point, he invalidly attempted ordinations. That’s with regard to bishop M—.

With regard to bishop B----. It’s entirely possible to have a situation where the ordination of a bishop is a valid one, but the ordinations performed by him are invalid attempts.

(continued)
 
There’s a few points I think you might be missing here:
  1. Just because a bishop is validly ordained, that does not automatically mean that every attempt at ordination by that same bishop is valid. A true line of succession is necessary, but it’s not the only condition for valid ordination.
  2. The situation of the Old Catholics (a rather broad term to begin with) underwent considerable change in the later part of the 20th century. While the Church did, in the past, consider their ordinations to be valid, their theology of ordination (most especially their attempts to ordain women) is problematic, and a consequence of that is that their sacraments are no longer taken (at face value) to be valid. That means that we cannot say “the Old Catholics have valid Succession” and leave it at that (as we once could).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top