Why are anglican orders invalid?

[DeusExMachina]

Basically, they changed the ordination rite to the extent that it was no longer valid.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 Obviously, the Anglicans would not agree that the orders are no longer valid (and the consequences that flow from that).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.

Even if a proper understanding of the priesthood and sacraments were reinstated?

 

[Young_Ludovicus]

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 ).

We are in agreement on this one.

When an Anglican bishop (of the Anglican Catholic Church or the Traditional Anglican Communion) has valid orders through the Old Catholic Church (Utrecht) I would say they have valid orders. I don’t see how one would dispute this. That there are valid orders outside of Roman Catholicism is wel known and even recognized by the Catholic Church (such as in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East but also with the Old Catholic Church).

If a low church bishop with a protestant understanding of the sacraments and the priesthood ordained somebody I’de see how this would be considered a break from apostolic succession. But if a bishop with valid orders with a different understanding (like orthodox, catholics) of sacraments and priesthood ordained somebody this would result in the priests getting valid orders.

Anglicanism is very diverse. There are those with valid orders, and those who doesn’t have those. Because of all this history, it’s difficult to see who has valid orders and who doesn’t. You’d have to map basically all clerics, starting a few centuries back, and you’d have to know the situations at the ordinations, how they thought etc.

Someone said this was simple, but I’ve heard of protestants that had to have another baptism when converting to catholicism, because the protestant baptism wasn’t that well recorded. And this is a year or 50 ago. (Notorious case of a Dutch princess converting to catholicism, pretty scandalous. Protestants were upset because of her conversion. And also because she got baptised a second time.) Imagine ordinations, a few centuries back. Surely you can’t believe that it is as simple as some think.

Best solution in many examples would still be a new ordination to leave no room for confusion (in the case of an anglican cleric converting).

 

[GKC]

We are in agreement on this one.

When an Anglican bishop (of the Anglican Catholic Church or the Traditional Anglican Communion) has valid orders through the Old Catholic Church (Utrecht) I would say they have valid orders. I don’t see how one would dispute this. That there are valid orders outside of Roman Catholicism is wel known and even recognized by the Catholic Church (such as in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East but also with the Old Catholic Church).

If a low church bishop with a protestant understanding of the sacraments and the priesthood ordained somebody I’de see how this would be considered a break from apostolic succession. But if a bishop with valid orders with a different understanding of sacraments and priesthood ordained somebody this would result in the priests getting holy orders.

Anglicanism is very diverse. There are those with valid orders, and those who doesn’t have those. Because of all this history, it’s difficult to see who has valid orders and who doesn’t. You’d have to map basically all clerics, starting a few centuries back, and you’d have to know the situations at the ordinations, how they thought etc.

Someone said this was simple, but I’ve heard of protestants that had to have another baptism because the protestant baptism wasn’t that well recorded. And this is a year or 50 ago. (Notorious case of a Dutch princess converting to catholicism, pretty scandalous. Protestants were upset because of her conversion. And also because she got baptised a second time.) Imagine ordinations, a few centuries back. Surely you can’t believe that it is as simple as some think.

Best solution in many examples would still be a new ordination to leave no room for confusion (in the case of an anglican cleric converting).

What would likely be appropriate in such a case would be an ordination sub conditione, as can be done when the validity of a baptism is in doubt. This has happened, AFAIK, twice, post Apostolicae Curae, in the case of Fr. John Hughes, mentioned above, and Fr. Graham Leonard, one time Anglican Bishop of London. All the ordinations done post Anglicanorum Coetibus have been absolute; the question of the efficacy of the joint episcopal consecrations after the 1932 Agreement of Bonn, with the OCs of Utrecht, not being considered.

The question of sacramental intent, in the sacramental action of ordination/consecration, is actually rather simple. If there is nothing to indicate directly what that intent might be, and as Apostolicae Curae points out, that is an internal question, it is considered, assuming all other requisite sacramental factors are externally valid, that the intent is valid also. The test is whether the intent is to do what the Church does (facere quod facit ecclesia) in that sacramental action. This is why the judgement in AC intertwines the question of form and intent. The use of the Edwardine Ordinal being considered evidence of invalid intent, on the part of the sacramental minister, in that action. It serves as a means of assessing that intent, determinatio ex adiunctis.

 

[GKC]

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

Prior to the Henrician Acts of 1534, the episcopal lines of the Church in England were those recognized by the RCC.

 

[GKC]

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 ).

And, post 1946, through the 1970s, the same sort of joint episcopal consecrations of PNCC and Anglican bishops took place as was begun with the OCs, in 1932.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

And, post 1946, through the 1970s, the same sort of joint episcopal consecrations of PNCC and Anglican bishops took place as was begun with the OCs, in 1932.

Commonly, and irreverently, referred to as the “Dutch touch” and the “Polish pat.”

 

[GKC]

Commonly, and irreverently, referred to as the “Dutch touch” and the “Polish pat.”

Yep.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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

Not sure, they just had the chart up front but didn’t give us a copy, unfortunately.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Commonly, and irreverently, referred to as the “Dutch touch” and the “Polish pat.”

I have heard of the Dutch touch but not the Polish pat. yes, those are irreverent terms.

 

[GKC]

I have heard of the Dutch touch but not the Polish pat. yes, those are irreverent terms.

The Dutch Touch was coined by a former CoE priest, now a RC priest. I use both terms myself. Irreverence not the intent. Just a light …mmm… touch.

 

[total_Catholic]

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.

This is from 2011, but just shows which of the two churches actually has more adherents in golly ole England. Carry on.

worldaffairsjournal.org/article/still-here-case-british-catholics

 

[Padres1969]

**This is from 2011, but just shows which of the two churches actually has more adherents in golly ole England. Carry on.
**
worldaffairsjournal.org/article/still-here-case-british-catholics

Actually it doesn’t. There are 25 million Anglicans, and 4.2 million Catholics. If you’re referring to the 1.7 million Anglicans they say regularly attend mass, they don’t provide a comparable number of that 4.2 million total Catholics who are actually practicing. But presumably the numbers will be similar as they are across Europe.

But it’s not really relevant given the thread topic.

 

[Duane1966]

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

But the situation still exists today, and has in essence existed since the formulation of the 39 Articles.

 

[Duane1966]

Even if a proper understanding of the priesthood and sacraments were reinstated?

Wouldn’t be Anglicanism then would it?

 

[GKC]

Wouldn’t be Anglicanism then would it?

Sure. Motley is the word for Anglicanism. You’ll find all sorts of opinions on priesthood and the sacraments. Anglo-Catholics are particularly interesting.

 

[GKC]

But the situation still exists today, and has in essence existed since the formulation of the 39 Articles.

Which are not necessarily normative for Anglicans, save, in a technical sense, for clergy of the Church of England, IAW the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription.

 

[Duane1966]

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.

Except one thing they chose to ignore was, there was no doubt that even if the language of those early rites were ambiguous, everyone knew that those being ordained by those early rites were sacrificial priests. The exact opposite can be said of Anglican ordination with the Edwardinal form. Everyone knew that the Anglican priesthood was not intended, nor ever meant to be a sacrificial priesthood, hence a clear break from ancient Christianity. Perhaps Anglican Archdeacon Taylor of Liverpool responding to Saepius Officio sums it up best:

With all due respect for the eminent prelates who have sent it forth, I cannot but regard it as altogether unsatisfactory and unworthy of the occasion. Far better to have left the Bull unanswered altogether. Their lengthy document contains a great amount of theological and liturgical research,*** but it simply omits altogether the real point at issue.*** The question is plainly stated in the words of the Papal Bull, but is passed over by proving what no one denies, namely, that the Reformers intended to continue the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons in the Church. This is not the question; but whether they intended that the priest should discharge precisely the same functions as before. The argument of the Bull is simple, intelligible, and, on the premises laid down, CONCLUSIVE; and we owe the Pope a debt of gratitude for so clearly proving the thoroughly Protestant character of our Church.

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.

One major problem that sinks what they say. Every Anglican priest has been reordained when converting and becoming an RCC priest, since the birth of Anglicanism.

Your mileage on accepting any of that if you’re Roman Catholic will of course vary, but their raised points are IMO compelling.

And yet their points did not address the question, because everyone knows that there was a clear intent not to have a sacerdotal priesthood. And this is proven by Article 31.

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.

Except we know that the historic Episcopate was sacerdotal in nature. How has Anglicanism continued that in with respect to Article 31?

You will not agree with what this Anglican deacon said, but I found it sums up quite accurately what happened. Found in the book ***Elizabeth, i, pp. 121-123 (Everyman’s Library edition), by James Anthony Froude. ***

A Catholic bishop holds his office by a tenure untouched by the accidents of time. Dynasties may change — nations may lose their liberties — the firm fabric of society itself may be swept away in the torrent of revolution — the Catholic prelate remains at his post. When he dies, another takes his place. And when the waters sink into their beds, the quiet form is seen standing where it stood before — the thing itself rooted like a rock on the adamantine basements of the world.

The Anglican hierarchy, far unlike its rival, was a child of compromise. It drew its life from Elizabeth’s throne, and had Elizabeth fallen, it would have crumbled into sand. The Church of England was a limb lopped off from the Catholic trunk. It was cut away from the stream by which its vascular system had been fed, and the life of it, as an independent and corporate existence, was gone forever. But it had been taken up and grafted upon the state. If not what it had been, it could retain the form of what it had been, the form which made it respectable, without the power which made it dangerous. The image, in its outward aspect, could be made to correspond with the parent tree. And to sustain the illusion it was necessary to provide bishops who could appear to have inherited their power by the approved method, as successors of the apostles.

 

[Duane1966]

Which are not necessarily normative for Anglicans, save, in a technical sense, for clergy of the Church of England, IAW the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription.

Can you honestly say that it is a sacerdotal priesthood as can be seen in the other ancient churches?

 

[Picky_Picky]

@Duane: Froude — controversial now as then. But boy, could he write!

 

[Novocastrian]

Can you honestly say that it is a sacerdotal priesthood as can be seen in the other ancient churches?

The 1560 Liber Precarum Publicum, the official translation of Elizabeth’s 1559 BCP, uses sacerdos for priest.