Why are anglican orders invalid?

[Picky_Picky]

There must not be, or have been, many, if clerics of bodies separated from the Catholic Church but which the Catholic Church agrees has valid Holy Orders, and are of the Latin Rite, have been brought in to attempt to cure any question in the Episcopal Church.

Again, I’m not trying to spark a fight, this just seems to be something that caution dictates a certain result for.

Of course, at the same time, events within the Anglican Communion over the past 30 years have taken some parts of it further from the Catholic Church and others closer, so one single answer to this question may not be easy.

I don’t think clerics have “been brought in to attempt to cure any question”. What has happened is that Anglicans have achieved communion with, for instance Old Catholics. Of course you understand that Old Catholics share many of Anglicans’ views about the claims of the papacy.

 

[Yeoman]

Thanks for the various replies.

Would that we could all reunite in some fashion so that these discussions would be ones of form rather than the more serious function, at some point in the foreseeable future.

 

[Padres1969]

There must not be, or have been, many, if clerics of bodies separated from the Catholic Church but which the Catholic Church agrees has valid Holy Orders, and are of the Latin Rite, have been brought in to attempt to cure any question in the Episcopal Church.

Again, I’m not trying to spark a fight, this just seems to be something that caution dictates a certain result for.

Of course, at the same time, events within the Anglican Communion over the past 30 years have taken some parts of it further from the Catholic Church and others closer, so one single answer to this question may not be easy.

I think that’s where the confusion is laying. Clerics haven’t been brought in specifically to cure any RCC perceived defect in Anglican/Episcopal orders. Rather they’ve been brought in as a sign of communion between those Old Catholic bodies and the Anglican bodies. Similar arrangements are made between Anglican and Lutheran bodies and other Protestant bodies on occasion. It’s not to cure perceived defects but to show communion and unity between the various denominations involved.

Remember the Catholic view may be that Anglican orders are in some way defective. But Anglicans in no way see our clerics orders as being deficient or lacking. And we’ve no doubt of the veracity of their ordination or link to the historic Episcopate.

And I’m sure events in the last 30 years at least for the mainline Anglican Churches, the ECUSA in particular, have moved it farther away in some respects from the RCC and in the RCC’s view would have further invalidated what the RCC deems as needed to make Anglican orders valid. But that’s neither here nor there to many Anglicans. Either through historic indifference, or simple rejection of the RCC’s view. Remember, the RCC has viewed Anglican orders as invalid formally for over a century long before women for example were allowed into the episcopate.

 

[GKC]

I think that’s where the confusion is laying. Clerics haven’t been brought in specifically to cure any RCC perceived defect in Anglican/Episcopal orders. Rather they’ve been brought in as a sign of communion between those Old Catholic bodies and the Anglican bodies. Similar arrangements are made between Anglican and Lutheran bodies and other Protestant bodies on occasion. It’s not to cure perceived defects but to show communion and unity between the various denominations involved.

Remember the Catholic view may be that Anglican orders are in some way defective. But Anglicans in no way see our clerics orders as being deficient or lacking. And we’ve no doubt of the veracity of their ordination or link to the historic Episcopate.

The discussions leading to the Agreement of Bonn, which began, among other things, joint Anglican/OC episcopal consecrations, preceded *Apostolicae Curae *by around 25 years.

That said, Anglicans can differ, amongst themselves, as to what constitutes the historic episcopate. Sadly.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the various replies.

Would that we could all reunite in some fashion so that these discussions would be ones of form rather than the more serious function, at some point in the foreseeable future.

Which was the intent, in the minds of Charles Lindley, Second Viscount Halifax, and the Abbe Portal, from their first meeting in 1890.

The result was Apostolicae Curae.

 

[GKC]

I don’t think clerics have “been brought in to attempt to cure any question”. What has happened is that Anglicans have achieved communion with, for instance Old Catholics. Of course you understand that Old Catholics share many of Anglicans’ views about the claims of the papacy.

Yep.

 

[Yeoman]

Even the use of terms is confusing. Who is an Anglo Catholic, and what is an Anglican, for example, can be confusing based upon where a person is.

And of course the use of “Roman” Catholic Church is itself an Anglican thing, as there is no “Roman” Catholic Church and quite a few Catholics reject the term, although quite a few others will use it to define the Latin Rite within the Catholic Church, to include self describing themselves that way.

Well, would that this discussion need not exist except in a historical context at some future point.

 

[GKC]

Even the use of terms is confusing. Who is an Anglo Catholic, and what is an Anglican, for example, can be confusing based upon where a person is.

And of course the use of “Roman” Catholic Church is itself an Anglican thing, as there is no “Roman” Catholic Church and quite a few Catholics reject the term, although quite a few others will use it to define the Latin Rite within the Catholic Church, to include self describing themselves that way.

Well, would that this discussion need not exist except in a historical context at some future point.

Last time that was a glimmer in anyone’s eye was in the time of Paul VI and Michael Ramsey,* Cantuar.*

Anglicans are motley. Motley is confusing.

Alas.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I managed to somehow fail to acknowledge disagreement on the role of the Papacy.

Recently I came across an Anglo Catholic parish’s website, where that parish was one in the state, which was proclaiming that their position was the same as the Orthodox. I guess basically that’s how they resolved their differences, although generally theologically, but for the question on the Papacy, Anglo Catholics seem to be pretty close in many instances to having the same views as Catholics (keeping in mind, of course, that not all Anglicans have the same views).

Assuming I’m correct, which I may not be, outside of the role of tradition, if the Papacy is the big issue, why not explore union with an Orthodox Church that has the same views, but which otherwise everyone would agree has valid Holy Orders.

Again, not seeking to pick a fight, just curious.

I guess the basis of my question is that if everyone agrees that valid Holy Orders are necessary for valid sacraments, and valid sacraments normally necessary for salvation, and if everyone agrees that Catholic and Orthodox Holy Orders are valid, but not everyone agrees that those in the Anglican Communion are, why not make sure they are so that everyone agrees on that point, or join a church for which there is no debate on that question?

The reason we dont is that Constantinople has yet to take seriously our request for a Western rite Orthodox liturgy

 

[Picky_Picky]

Even the use of terms is confusing. Who is an Anglo Catholic, and what is an Anglican, for example, can be confusing based upon where a person is.

And of course the use of “Roman” Catholic Church is itself an Anglican thing, as there is no “Roman” Catholic Church and quite a few Catholics reject the term, although quite a few others will use it to define the Latin Rite within the Catholic Church, to include self describing themselves that way.

Well, would that this discussion need not exist except in a historical context at some future point.

The point about the name of the “Roman” Catholic Church is often brought up in this forum, but puzzles me: I see the words “Roman Catholic Church” on the board outside Catholic churches, and in documents from the Church. Catholics seem to object to the expression only when it is used by non-members.

Following is Wikipedia

 

[Picky_Picky]

Popes have on several occasions in different contexts during the 20th and 21st centuries used the term “Roman Catholic Church” to refer to the whole church in communion with the Holy See. Example encyclicals include Divini Illius Magistri of Pope Pius XI in 1929 and, Humani generis of Pope Pius XII in 1950.[81]

Pope Paul VI used the term “Roman Catholic Church” in the joint declarations he signed with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in 1965 and 1967.[82] He also used that term in the declarations he signed with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church on 27 October 1971 and with Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan on 29 April 1977.

Pope John Paul II referred to himself as “the Head of the Roman Catholic Church” (29 September 1979). He called the Church “Roman Catholic” when speaking to the Jewish community in Mainz on 17 November 1980, in a message to those celebrating the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana on 25 June 1980, when speaking to the people of Mechelen, Belgium on 18 May 1985, when talking to representatives of Christian confessions in Copenhagen, Denmark on 7 June 1989, when addressing a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on 29 June 1989, at a meeting of the Ukrainian Synod in Rome on 24 March 1980, at a prayer meeting in the Orthodox cathedral of Bialystok, Poland on 5 June 1991, when speaking to the Polish Ecumenical Council in Holy Trinity Church, Warsaw 9 June 1991, at an ecumenical meeting in the Aula Magna of the Colégio Catarinense, in Florianópolis, Brazil on 18 October 1991, and at the Angelus in São Salvador da Bahia, Brazil on 20 October 1991.

Pope Benedict XVI called the Church “the Roman Catholic Church” at a meeting in Warsaw on 25 May 2006 and in joint declarations that he signed with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on 23 November 2006 and with Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople on 30 November 2006.

 

[Yeoman]

The point about the name of the “Roman” Catholic Church is often brought up in this forum, but puzzles me: I see the words “Roman Catholic Church” on the board outside Catholic churches, and in documents from the Church. Catholics seem to object to the expression only when it is used by non-members.

Following is Wikipedia

Not objecting, only noting.

Terms in this area can be confusing in their own right, and I think that is particularly the case geographically.

I think it’s likely brought up here more often, as folks here are likely more in tune with the existence and nature of Catholic churches outside the Latin Rite. To even be on a forum like the one we’re on evidences a heightened degree of attention on such matters.

Shoot, most Catholics or Episcopalians wouldn’t have read all the way to page five of this thread, I suspect, so that observation is true all the way around.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The reason we dont is that Constantinople has yet to take seriously our request for a Western rite Orthodox liturgy

The Ordinariate and the AntiochianWRV aren’t good enough?

 

[DeusExMachina]

The Ordinariate and the AntiochianWRV aren’t good enough?

I thought that was only in Europe and the Middle East

 

[GKC]

I thought that was only in Europe and the Middle East

antiochian.org/western-rite

 

[SyroMalankara]

I thought that was only in Europe and the Middle East

There are probably none in the Middle East, only Europe and the US and Canada.

And what about the Ordinariate, they seem to be very active in many areas, and their bishop is willing to travel to see your Parish personally if there is interest

 

[Duane1966]

It’s more complicated than that. Yes the English reformers had problems with the prevalent Roman doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice, worried that it taught a repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary.

This is unacceptable. Does anyone really believe that the reformers were so naive, that they, who had been raised Catholic clergy, did not realize that it was a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary?

 

[Duane1966]

Well, to repeat what others have said, Anglicans are sure. But of course they pursue ecumenical discussions with a range of other churches, including Roman and Eastern. And Lutheran and Methodist and Reformed. My understanding is that the Catholic Church does the same.

But what (Roman) Catholics seem often not to understand is that Anglicans have no doubt about their orders, and aren’t consumed with the desire to validate them in other people’s eyes.

Are the ordinations of women to the Anglican priesthood valid? If you say no, then Anglicans do have doubts about the validity of their orders.

 

[GKC]

Are the ordinations of women to the Anglican priesthood valid? If you say no, then Anglicans do have doubts about the validity of their orders.

Picky Picky is unlikely to have an opinion on that topic.

As to Anglicans, the answer would depend on which Anglican you asked.

Those who do not attempt that exercise have no doubts as to the reason why they do not. And no doubts arising therefrom, as to their own orders.

Those who do attempt it will answer yes, and no doubts arise, etc.

 

[Padres1969]

Are the ordinations of women to the Anglican priesthood valid? If you say no, then Anglicans do have doubts about the validity of their orders.

Yes they are certainly valid.

If they weren’t half the priests at my church would suddenly be finding themselves somehow, invalid. Which would be a darn shame as the Dean of my church is one of the better preachers and theologians I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing. When she consecrates the Eucharist during mass you can clearly feel Christ’s presence among us. She was once a candidate for the Episcopate a few years ago, and I’ve no trouble seeing why.

But to be fair as I’m sure GKC will point out, not all Anglican churches ordain women but they don’t doubt their own orders within their particular church just because they don’t agree with those Anglican Churches that do.