Why are anglican orders invalid?

[Duane1966]

You’re welcome.

What it more accurately is suggesting is if the argument was that the ordinations must be valid by the RC reckoning; i.e., if one were saying that it would have been valid by RC standards. As I’ve pointed out, no Anglican believes in the nativa indoles ac spiritus, as applied to the words on a piece of paper, arising from the beliefs of the authors. As applied to the question of the Dutch touch, it’s why I say so gently that logically the question is an interesting one, in light of Ott, p. 458. And wonder why a mere mention of that concept is not made to stop the questioning.

Amongst the RC writers on the subject, one occasionally finds a suggestion, as in the end of that link you gave to the Harrison piece, as to what the impact would be of a clear, valid intent on the part of the Anglican users, with respect to a sacrificial priesthood, on the umm… status of the form. One such suggestion was that the renewal among Continuing Anglicans, of the porrection of the instruments, was such an indication, inviting further consideration.

Similarly, Anglicans have no doubt that their presbyters were indeed valid priests, when consecrated, even not considering per saltum consecration, if applicable. The OCs had the same opinion, accepting the validity of the Anglican priests.

Your points are germane only if one is arguing that the RC judgement was not in keeping with RC teaching. Which is not necessarily what is happening.

For RCs, Anglican orders are null and void, for the reasons stated, adequate for RC judgement. All RCs should affirm that, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.

Anglicans have a different view. It doesn’t include doubting their orders, in light of Apostolicae Curae and its overall history.

I understand this. But for others who have stated that the ‘Dutch Touch’ should remove any doubt about Apostolic Succession in the mind of a Catholic, it doesn’t, and shouldn’t.

Theoretically, if Apostolic Succession was in reality lost, I do not see how the consecrations by the Old Catholics changed anything.

 

[GKC]

I understand this. But for others who have stated that the ‘Dutch Touch’ should remove any doubt about Apostolic Succession in the mind of a Catholic, it doesn’t, and shouldn’t.

Theoretically, if Apostolic Succession was in reality lost, I do not see how the consecrations by the Old Catholics changed anything.

And all RCs should say Amen.

 

[Duane1966]

And all RCs should say Amen.

Can I get an AMEN Brother Love?

 

[GKC]

Can I get an AMEN Brother Love?

From Amen corner.

 

[commenter]

And all RCs should say Amen.

Amen

 

[GKC]

Amen

It’s a start.

 

[kevinkuck78]

I think it’s important to address the rupture of the Apostolic Succession and more importantly, how it was corrected. The consecration of Anglican bishops in the 19th and early 20th centuries involved Old Catholic bishops in all consecrations. By the 1960s, every bishop of the Anglican Communion, was once again a part of the Apostolic Succession of the ministerial priesthood.

 

[GKC]

I think it’s important to address the rupture of the Apostolic Succession and more importantly, how it was corrected. The consecration of Anglican bishops in the 19th and early 20th centuries involved Old Catholic bishops in all consecrations. By the 1960s, every bishop of the Anglican Communion, was once again a part of the Apostolic Succession of the ministerial priesthood.

I do not have time to correct this, but I might have posted the data somewhere in this thread. I’ve been doing it for around 10 years. Briefly, the regular co-consecrations of Anglican/OC bishops began in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn. More details may follow. Other points also have bearing on the question.

GKC

 

[Tomdstone]

On October 25, 1970, Pope Paul VI said that the Anglican Church was an ever beloved Sister of the Roman Catholic Church:

“There will be no seeking to lessen the legitimate prestige and the worthy patrimony of piety and usage proper to the Anglican Church, when the Roman Catholic Church—this ‘humble Servant of the servants of God’—is able to embrace her ever beloved Sister in the one authentic Communion of the family of Christ, a communion of origin and of faith, a communion of priesthood and of rule, a communion of the saints in the freedom of love of the Spirit of Jesus.”

 

[Duane1966]

I do not have time to correct this, but I might have posted the data somewhere in this thread. I’ve been doing it for around 10 years. Briefly, the regular co-consecrations of Anglican/OC bishops began in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn. More details may follow. Other points also have bearing on the question.

GKC

A question that must be asked is: did the Old Catholic bishops ordain the Anglican candidates to the priesthood first? If not, then you run into the problem of elevating to bishops, people who were never validly ordained as priests. And from a question I asked GKC earlier on this particular point, the Old Catholics did not.

 

[GKC]

A question that must be asked is: did the Old Catholic bishops ordain the Anglican candidates to the priesthood first? If not, then you run into the problem of elevating to bishops, people who were never validly ordained as priests. And from a question I asked GKC earlier on this particular point, the Old Catholics did not.

They did not. And whether that was necessary, if the OCs could consecrate validly at all, under the circumstances, would depend on whether the concept of ordination/consecration per saltum, was valid. Opinions vary; *AC * passes over it as not necessary to consider, in the original circumstances. I recall that Clarke, in his ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTIONS had something to say on it, but I can’t find my copy.

That’s starting to happen with too many books.

 

[Duane1966]

They did not. And whether that was necessary, if the OCs could consecrate validly at all, under the circumstances, would depend on whether the concept of ordination/consecration per saltum, was valid. Opinions vary; *AC * passes over it as not necessary to consider, in the original circumstances. I recall that Clarke, in his ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTIONS had something to say on it, but I can’t find my copy.

That’s starting to happen with too many books.

Have I seen you on a Hoarders episode?

 

[Peter_J]

if the OCs could consecrate validly at all,

Is that something that is in question? (From an RC pov I mean. I shan’t get into e.g. the EO pov.)

 

[GKC]

Is that something that is in question? (From an RC pov I mean. I shan’t get into e.g. the EO pov.)

Under the circumstances of the Agreement of Bonn, using the Anglican Ordinal, as of 1662, and consecrating those not, in Rome’s eyes, already in orders. Hence, subject or form might be in doubt. Intent, as Fr. Hughes points out, seems valid.

 

[GKC]

Have I seen you on a Hoarders episode?

I click past those shows with a shudder, fearing recognition. I am past 30,000 volumes, and climbing steadily. Not all are in the house, though I might in reality have damaged a floor joist, as well be checked next week.

It’s not unusual to “lose” a book that I know is in storage, but not where (been looking for Clay Blair’s SILENT VICTORY for years). And it is not unusual for a section of a particular hobby area to be transferred to storage as a block, and not able to be at hand. What’s worrying me now is the several books that have a known specific place, in this room and the next, that disappear into the piles of stuff on the floor, from their home shelves. There are only a couple of rooms they might be in, skulking. And I can’t locate them. Clarke’s book joined the list tonight.

Bothersome.

 

[Duane1966]

I click past those shows with a shudder, fearing recognition. I am past 30,000 volumes, and climbing steadily. Not all are in the house, though I might in reality have damaged a floor joist, as well be checked next week.

It’s not unusual to “lose” a book that I know is in storage, but not where (been looking for Clay Blair’s SILENT VICTORY for years). And it is not unusual for a section of a particular hobby area to be transferred to storage as a block, and not able to be at hand. What’s worrying me now is the several books that have a known specific place, in this room and the next, that disappear into the piles of stuff on the floor, from their home shelves. There are only a couple of rooms they might be in, skulking. And I can’t locate them. Clarke’s book joined the list tonight.

Bothersome.

Those books are motley aren’t they?

 

[GKC]

Those books are motley aren’t they?

They show a certain focus, on subject areas I have developed and maintained an interest in, over 60 years. Some areas fade in intensity, occasionally a new one is born and flourishes.

But motley they look, to an outsider. Heavy, too

 

[Yeoman]

I do not have time to correct this, but I might have posted the data somewhere in this thread. I’ve been doing it for around 10 years. Briefly, the regular co-consecrations of Anglican/OC bishops began in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn. More details may follow. Other points also have bearing on the question.

GKC

My presumption is that this would have been limited, i.e., that we can’t extend this out to include the Episcopal church in North America. But that’s a presumption. Am I correct? The statement kevinkuck78 made applied to all the Bishops in the Anglican Communion, which is pretty broad, but maybe that’s correct.

Also, of course, from a Catholic point of view, and from an Orthodox point of view, the statement above about Apostolic succession being restored would be in error to the extent it includes female Bishops. As the Catholics and Orthodox do not hold it possible to ordain female priests, there can be no female bishops, and therefore ordination stemming from a female cleric or to one presents problems.

 

[GKC]

My presumption is that this would have been limited, i.e., that we can’t extend this out to include the Episcopal church in North America. But that’s a presumption. Am I correct? The statement kevinkuck78 made applied to all the Bishops in the Anglican Communion, which is pretty broad, but maybe that’s correct.

Also, of course, from a Catholic point of view, and from an Orthodox point of view, the statement above about Apostolic succession being restored would be in error to the extent it includes female Bishops. As the Catholics and Orthodox do not hold it possible to ordain female priests, there can be no female bishops, and therefore ordination stemming from a female cleric or to one presents problems.

As to the first point, not exactly. The point I was correcting was the time frame in which regular, but not inevitable, co-consecrations of Anglican/OC (and later, Anglican/PNCC) bishops began. That was in 1932, and it was not something that occurred in all cases. OTOH, as the Anglican bishops who were co-consecrated proceeded to consecrate in their own right, the transmission of valid orders would continue. (All this is as viewed from the perspective that valid orders were transmitted in the co-consecrations). Whether all bishops in the entire Anglican Communion (and outside of it) had received such orders might be demonstrable, but it is not something I would assume. I would bet it’s far harder to find one that doesn’t trace back to OC or PNCC co-consecrations, than otherwise, though.

But. as you note in your second point, that would need to take into account the idea of invalid subjects for the reception of the sacrament. As you say, from the RC/Orthodox and orthodox Anglican view, any invalid subjects do not receive the orders, and any sacraments they attempt to confect that require valid orders would likewise be invalid.

 

[Peter_J]

Under the circumstances of the Agreement of Bonn, using the Anglican Ordinal, as of 1662, and consecrating those not, in Rome’s eyes, already in orders. Hence, subject or form might be in doubt. Intent, as Fr. Hughes points out, seems valid.

OIC. When did they stop using the 1662 Ordinal?