Why are anglican orders invalid?

[DeusExMachina]

I Was wondering if someone could expolian to me why anglican orders and sacramentos are invalid. Is it grounded in the resección of catholic teaching by the fundamental sources of anglican doctrine, is it that the ordination ceremony is lacking in something, or both? Also, white would be requiered to chance for Anglican priesthood and sacraments to be considered valid. Iveheard many different answers and am very confused

 

[Duane1966]

I Was wondering if someone could expolian to me why anglican orders and sacramentos are invalid. Is it grounded in the resección of catholic teaching by the fundamental sources of anglican doctrine, is it that the ordination ceremony is lacking in something, or both? Also, white would be requiered to chance for Anglican priesthood and sacraments to be considered valid. Iveheard many different answers and am very confused

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

 

[Memaw]

I Was wondering if someone could expolian to me why anglican orders and sacramentos are invalid. Is it grounded in the resección of catholic teaching by the fundamental sources of anglican doctrine, is it that the ordination ceremony is lacking in something, or both? Also, white would be requiered to chance for Anglican priesthood and sacraments to be considered valid. Iveheard many different answers and am very confused

They broke the Apostolic Succession that is necessary for valid Ordination. God Bless, Memaw

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I Was wondering if someone could expolian to me why anglican orders and sacramentos are invalid. Is it grounded in the resección of catholic teaching by the fundamental sources of anglican doctrine, is it that the ordination ceremony is lacking in something, or both? Also, white would be requiered to chance for Anglican priesthood and sacraments to be considered valid. Iveheard many different answers and am very confused

In order for the priestly order to be valid, it must be able to trace itself back to Peter and the Apostles, and it must retain the proper understanding of the nature of the priesthood. With Anglican, while I believe they retained a link back to Peter, at least for the first generation, they lost the proper understanding of the priesthood. Specifically, they lost the understanding the the priest stands in the person of Christ, and is able to confect the sacraments. Specifically, Anglicans rejected confession and the True nature of the sacrament. With this rejection, they no longer understood the true nature of the preisthood, and could therefore no longer have the proper intent necessary to ordain new priests and bishops. As such, they lost their connection to Apostolic tradition, and the ability to ordain new priests and confect the sacraments.

In contrast, Orthodox communities retain the proper understanding of the nature of the sacraments, and so have retained their ability to ordain new priest and bishops, even if they are not in full communion with Christ’s Church.

As for what would be necessary, they would essentially have to renounce their rebellion against the Church and regain the proper understanding of the nature of the priesthood and the sacraments. Then their bishops and priests would still need to be ordained in the Church, since from our perspective they have no more ability than regular lay-people.

 

[Joe_5859]

I Was wondering if someone could expolian to me why anglican orders and sacramentos are invalid. Is it grounded in the resección of catholic teaching by the fundamental sources of anglican doctrine, is it that the ordination ceremony is lacking in something, or both? Also, white would be requiered to chance for Anglican priesthood and sacraments to be considered valid. Iveheard many different answers and am very confused

Basically, they changed the ordination rite to the extent that it was no longer valid. That broke apostolic succession. Without apostolic succession and a valid priesthood, you cannot have valid Eucharist and the other sacraments (save Baptism, which anyone can administer, and Marriage, which the baptized couple administers to each other).

At this point, the only way I can see that changing is reunion with Rome. Obviously, the Anglicans would not agree that the orders are no longer valid (and the consequences that flow from that). So they wouldn’t seek to re-obtain valid apostolic succession from the Catholic Church without recognizing that the Catholic Church’s claims are correct. And if they do that, they would probably accept the rest. That’s why the Anglican ordinariate was created.

 

[Young_Ludovicus]

I’d say it isn’t that they’re always invalid. While you may believe all Anglican clerics lost apostolic succession a few centuries back. The Old Catholic church still had valid orders. They cross-ordainend Anglican clerics so there are Anglican clerics with valid orders.

But it’s pretty hard to determine which clerics do have valid orders and who doesn’t from a Catholic/Orthodox point of view.

So while some may have it, and others don’t the best solution is to have converted Anglican clerics undergo another ordination. As that’s the only way to know for sure it seems to me.

Now with the added system of female bishops, if they ordain priests than there wouldn’t be apostolic succession. But in some Anglican communities which don’t allow female bishops and which have valid orders through the Old Catholic church for example, I’d reckon they will still have valid orders.

I really think it isn’t black or white, it’s gray.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’d say it isn’t that they’re always invalid. While you may believe all Anglican clerics lost apostolic succession a few centuries back. The Old Catholic church still had valid orders. They cross-ordainend Anglican clerics so there are Anglican clerics with valid orders.

But it’s pretty hard to determine which clerics do have valid orders and who doesn’t from a Catholic/Orthodox point of view.

So while some may have it, and others don’t the best solution is to have converted Anglican clerics undergo another ordination. As that’s the only way to know for sure it seems to me.

Now with the added system of female bishops, if they ordain priests than there wouldn’t be apostolic succession. But in some Anglican communities which don’t allow female bishops and which have valid orders through the Old Catholic church for example, I’d reckon they will still have valid orders.

I really think it isn’t black or white, it’s gray.

This explanation has, I think, some strength, but the Church of Rome still officially holds (and its members are no doubt bound to hold) that Anglican orders are invalid, Old Catholics or no Old Catholics.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Basically, they changed the ordination rite to the extent that it was no longer valid. That broke apostolic succession. Without apostolic succession and a valid priesthood, you cannot have valid Eucharist and the other sacraments (save Baptism, which anyone can administer, and Marriage, which the baptized couple administers to each other).

At this point, the only way I can see that changing is reunion with Rome. Obviously, the Anglicans would not agree that the orders are no longer valid (and the consequences that flow from that). So they wouldn’t seek to re-obtain valid apostolic succession from the Catholic Church without recognizing that the Catholic Church’s claims are correct. And if they do that, they would probably accept the rest. That’s why the Anglican ordinariate was created.

They most certainly don’t.

Used to hear my priest from the Anglican church say the Church in Rome thinks they are the only Church that exists lol

Anyway, when you go through their version of ‘RCIA’ they show you a chart of their lineage dating back to the apostles.

We were told there were 2 major sacraments and 5 lesser sacraments. I’ve seen no such distinction in the Catholic Church; other than focusing more on the Eucharist, of course.

In addition, they have gone a little too far the way of the reformers, imo. No purgatory or prayers for the departed. Lacking a fundamental, Catholic understanding of the communion of saints, etc, etc.

Many of them do not want to be considered protestant or part of the reformation. But doctrinally they need to shift some in order for that to become a reality.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’d say it isn’t that they’re always invalid. While you may believe all Anglican clerics lost apostolic succession a few centuries back. The Old Catholic church still had valid orders. They cross-ordainend Anglican clerics so there are Anglican clerics with valid orders.

First off, what are you calling the “Old Catholic” church. There is only one Catholic Church.

As for the rest of this. The Anglican Church no longer understands the nature of the priesthood properly, and as such are incapable of ordaining priests to confect the sacraments. Even if a Catholic priest were to leave the Church and become Anglican, while they would personally be able to confect the sacraments due to the indelible nature of the ordination, if they were to try to ordain someone else it would be under the Anglican understanding of the priesthood, and would therefore be invalid.

But it’s pretty hard to determine which clerics do have valid orders and who doesn’t from a Catholic/Orthodox point of view.

Not really. We can examine the person who did the ordaining, how the ordination was handled, and what the beliefs of the ordainer and ordanee are.

So while some may have it, and others don’t the best solution is to have converted Anglican clerics undergo another ordination. As that’s the only way to know for sure it seems to me.

Quite right, I believe that’s what happens.

 

[Padres1969]

Basically, they changed the ordination rite to the extent that it was no longer valid. That broke apostolic succession. Without apostolic succession and a valid priesthood, you cannot have valid Eucharist and the other sacraments (save Baptism, which anyone can administer, and Marriage, which the baptized couple administers to each other).

At this point, the only way I can see that changing is reunion with Rome. Obviously, the Anglicans would not agree that the orders are no longer valid (and the consequences that flow from that). So they wouldn’t seek to re-obtain valid apostolic succession from the Catholic Church without recognizing that the Catholic Church’s claims are correct. And if they do that, they would probably accept the rest. That’s why the Anglican ordinariate was created.

Indeed that was Pope Leo’s assertion in his bull Apostolicae Curae. However the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the time issued a joint statement Saepius Officio countering the claims of insufficiency of form and intent in the Papal Bull. In short they argued that the form was no different than many extant western and eastern ordination rites as well as historic rites in those same churches. And with regard to intent they argued that during Mary’s reassertion of Catholicism after the Edwardian era which was the primary cause of what Rome saw as the break in succession that no Edwardian ordained priest was treated as having a defect and many were even promoted to higher positions within the RCC. That and the strong sacrificial theology of the Book of Common Prayer was asserted as well.

Your mileage on accepting any of that if you’re Roman Catholic will of course vary, but their raised points are IMO compelling. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not however it seems historically many in England actually welcomed the Papal Bull so not everyone was upset that the Catholic Church doesn’t see Anglican orders as valid. Of course it goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway, that Anglican Churches do still see their line to the historic Episcopate as being sound and valid regardless of the Catholic position on the matter.

 

[Padres1969]

**First off, what are you calling the “Old Catholic” church. There is only one Catholic Church. **

As for the rest of this. The Anglican Church no longer understands the nature of the priesthood properly, and as such are incapable of ordaining priests to confect the sacraments. Even if a Catholic priest were to leave the Church and become Anglican, while they would personally be able to confect the sacraments due to the indelible nature of the ordination, if they were to try to ordain someone else it would be under the Anglican understanding of the priesthood, and would therefore be invalid.

Not really. We can examine the person who did the ordaining, how the ordination was handled, and what the beliefs of the ordainer and ordanee are.

Quite right, I believe that’s what happens.

This is likely what was being referred to when Old Catholic Churches was referenced.

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t the only church that claims the name “Catholic.” Hence why many will use Roman as a modifier when referring to those in the Latin Rite in communion with Rome.

 

[GKC]

I Was wondering if someone could expolian to me why anglican orders and sacramentos are invalid. Is it grounded in the resección of catholic teaching by the fundamental sources of anglican doctrine, is it that the ordination ceremony is lacking in something, or both? Also, white would be requiered to chance for Anglican priesthood and sacraments to be considered valid. Iveheard many different answers and am very confused

T’is a subject that has been a hobby of mine for around 20 years. Gets a lot of airing around here, or has done in the past. Gives me the chance to post a lot, in such cases.
,
It is a long, sad story, involving a mix of history, theology, politics and personalities. I usually deal only in the theology, though I do recommend reading.

Brief answer, as given in Apostolicae Curae, at the link given above, involved a judgement on two intertwined requirements to confect a valid sacrament, in this case, orders. The judgement was based on a supposed defect in sacramental form, as given in the Edwardine Ordinal, in not specifying a priest’s sacerdotal function of confecting the Eucharist.

That in itself would not necessarily render the form invalid; there are a few Rites that the RCC recognizes as valid in confecting the sacrament of orders (assuming all other factors are valid).

And hence the verdict in Apostolicae Curae looks at another sacramental factor: sacramental intent. Given the circumstances under which the Edwardine Ordinal was written, AC assumes that anyone who used the Ordinal did not possess the requisite sacramental intent, in the sacramental action. So, given the intertwined judgements of defective sacramental form and defective sacramental intent, in using that Edwardine Ordinal, Anglican Orders were null and void, post roughly 1559, amen.

Anglicans have a different view of the matter (and the form and the intent).

Recommended reading: Clark ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the best exposition of the RCC position; Fr. John Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, for the history of the long sad story, and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for a different take on the theology. Fr. Hughes is a very interesting person.This is a brief, hasty account. It is, as I have said, a long, sad, and complicated story, running from around 1891, to the end of the Malines Conversations, in 1927. I might know more.

 

[GKC]

This explanation has, I think, some strength, but the Church of Rome still officially holds (and its members are no doubt bound to hold) that Anglican orders are invalid, Old Catholics or no Old Catholics.

Yep. And, as I have occasionally observed, they have not made any particular (let alone any definitive) reference to the efficacy (or lack thereof ) of the Dutch Touch.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’d say it isn’t that they’re always invalid. While you may believe all Anglican clerics lost apostolic succession a few centuries back. The Old Catholic church still had valid orders. They cross-ordainend Anglican clerics so there are Anglican clerics with valid orders.

But it’s pretty hard to determine which clerics do have valid orders and who doesn’t from a Catholic/Orthodox point of view.

So while some may have it, and others don’t the best solution is to have converted Anglican clerics undergo another ordination. As that’s the only way to know for sure it seems to me.

Now with the added system of female bishops, if they ordain priests than there wouldn’t be apostolic succession. But in some Anglican communities which don’t allow female bishops and which have valid orders through the Old Catholic church for example, I’d reckon they will still have valid orders.

I really think it isn’t black or white, it’s gray.

This is true. I have a friend that is Catholic, and his son as well as he, is a former Baptist, and he became Catholic, and his son is a former Baptist preacher and now an old Catholic Priest. He and I had a discussion on whether or not it would be permissible for him to receive communion at his son’s church. I told him under ordinary circumstances, no, but, since he may have a valid ordination, in cause of a really severe situation (like total impediment from getting to Mass at a church in communion with the Pope of Rome) than there may be situations at which he may. I know of a few former Anglicans that have asked their bishops to check on the validity of their ordinations.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

OP, to be clear, all Anglican/Episcopal sacraments are not invalid. They have valid baptisms and marriages.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This is likely what was being referred to when Old Catholic Churches was referenced.

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t the only church that claims the name “Catholic.” Hence why many will use Roman as a modifier when referring to those in the Latin Rite in communion with Rome.

Thanks for the link.

As for the rest, they can claim whatever they want. Doesn’t make them right ^^

 

[KjetilK]

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

The problem with that is that even if it was accurate, it only applies to the specific historical situation that existed in 1896.

 

[Fuerza]

First off, what are you calling the “Old Catholic” church. There is only one Catholic Church.

As for the rest of this. The Anglican Church no longer understands the nature of the priesthood properly, and as such are incapable of ordaining priests to confect the sacraments. Even if a Catholic priest were to leave the Church and become Anglican, while they would personally be able to confect the sacraments due to the indelible nature of the ordination, if they were to try to ordain someone else it would be under the Anglican understanding of the priesthood, and would therefore be invalid.

Not really. We can examine the person who did the ordaining, how the ordination was handled, and what the beliefs of the ordainer and ordanee are.

Quite right, I believe that’s what happens.

Old Catholic refers to the churches within the Utrecht Union as well as some Independent Catholic churches located largely in Europe and North America. These churches retained valid sacraments after breaking from Rome, and use the term “Old” to distinguish themselves from the Roman/Eastern Catholic Churches. Overall these churches have grown very liberal, allowing things like gay marriage and female ordination (which may ultimately compromise their Holy Orders) but for now they retain the sacraments. Many of these organizations have entered into communion with various Anglican groups.

The term “Old Catholic” is sometimes also extended to those who, while having their origin in or at least some historical connection to Utrecht, no longer associate themselves with the Old Catholics. These churches, which include the Polish National Catholic Church and the various Old Roman Catholic Churches, maintain valid orders and are very orthodox with issues regarding marriage and ordination. They range in theological approach from essentially “Western Orthodox” (PNCC, Old Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain/America) to almost completely Roman Catholic. The North American Old Roman Catholic Church-Utrecht Succession, for example, even accepts papal primacy and infallibility, just not universal jurisdiction.

Unlike the Anglicans, these groups all maintained valid form and intent with regard to Holy Orders, and therefore they still possess them even apart from the Church. Like an above poster mentioned, there may be some individual Anglican priests and bishops who hold valid orders due to communion with the Old Catholic groups, but Anglican orders in and of themselves remain defective (see, I tied it back into the topic ).

 

[Tomdstone]

I’d say it isn’t that they’re always invalid. While you may believe all Anglican clerics lost apostolic succession a few centuries back. The Old Catholic church still had valid orders. They cross-ordainend Anglican clerics so there are Anglican clerics with valid orders.

But Anglican clerics were originally, way back, ordained by clerics with valid orders, and yet they still lost their apostolic succession according to the Roman Catholic Church because of how they perceived the priesthood. Why wouldn’t an Anglican cleric, who had been ordained by a bishop with valid orders, lose his apostolic succession if he has the same views that caused the Roman Church to dispute the validity?

 

[DeusExMachina]

They most certainly don’t.

Used to hear my priest from the Anglican church say the Church in Rome thinks they are the only Church that exists lol

Anyway, when you go through their version of ‘RCIA’ they show you a chart of their lineage dating back to the apostles.

We were told there were 2 major sacraments and 5 lesser sacraments. I’ve seen no such distinction in the Catholic Church; other than focusing more on the Eucharist, of course.

In addition, they have gone a little too far the way of the reformers, imo. No purgatory or prayers for the departed. Lacking a fundamental, Catholic understanding of the communion of saints, etc, etc.

Many of them do not want to be considered protestant or part of the reformation. But doctrinally they need to shift some in order for that to become a reality.

Who do they list before Augustine of Canterbury and St Patrick? Im curious