Why are anglican orders invalid?

[Duane1966]

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

Yes. But in light of Article 31, clearly calling the priest sacerdos, is an oxymoron. Especially at that time, said priest would have sworn fidelity to the 39 Articles. Since Article 31 clearly states that the Mass is not a sacrifice, but blasphemous, what sacrifice would an Anglican priest be offering?

 

[GKC]

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

Depends on which one you are thinking of. As to every one of them that I have experience with, yes.

 

[GKC]

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

Reminds me of Belloc, but with footnotes.

 

[Memaw]

Basically, they changed the ordination rite to the extent that it was no longer valid.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 Obviously, the Anglicans would not agree that the orders are no longer valid (and the consequences that flow from that).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

AMEN, I agree , the whole situation was studied by Pope Leo XIII and found to be invalid. Many sad things happened to Christians during and after the Reformation and still is. So much division!! I pray for unity every day. That is what Jesus prayed for in the beginning. The TRUTH will set you free. God Bless. Memaw

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

Thanks for the additional background. I figured that the Anglicans wouldn’t take Pope Leo’s word for it. It’s good to hear some of the reasons for that.

 

[Joe_5859]

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

It’s less an issue of sacramental understanding than of properly passing on apostolic lineage.

If Pope Leo is correct that apostolic succession was broken, then it doesn’t matter if an Anglican priest or bishop comes to the Catholic view. That wouldn’t immediately make them a valid priest or bishop anymore than it would make me one. They would have to be validly ordained by one who is still in the Apostolic line (i.e. a Catholic bishop).

We see this happening in the Anglican ordinariate. Some whole Anglican/Episcopalian parishes are being brought in to the Catholic Church (including the priest). But the priest still has to be ordained via the Catholic rite. The Catholic Church does not say that he’s automatically a Catholic priest simply by fact of now entering the Catholic Church.

 

[GKC]

It’s less an issue of sacramental understanding than of properly passing on apostolic lineage.

If Pope Leo is correct that apostolic succession was broken, then it doesn’t matter if an Anglican priest or bishop comes to the Catholic view. That wouldn’t immediately make them a valid priest or bishop anymore than it would make me one. They would have to be validly ordained by one who is still in the Apostolic line (i.e. a Catholic bishop).

We see this happening in the Anglican ordinariate. Some whole Anglican/Episcopalian parishes are being brought in to the Catholic Church (including the priest). But the priest still has to be ordained via the Catholic rite. The Catholic Church does not say that he’s automatically a Catholic priest simply by fact of now entering the Catholic Church.

Which is one reason why the question of the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat as discussed above might be of interest. Or not.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes. But in light of Article 31, clearly calling the priest sacerdos, is an oxymoron. Especially at that time, said priest would have sworn fidelity to the 39 Articles. Since Article 31 clearly states that the Mass is not a sacrifice, but blasphemous, what sacrifice would an Anglican priest be offering?

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. That’s why the title of Article XXXI is Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross; they were worried that Rome taught (a) that there was more than one oblation, and (b) that this sacrifice was somehow incomplete without the action of other priests at other altars. The text of the article is interesting in its condemnation of “the sacrifices of Masses”, in the plural.

Furthermore, it’s vital to note that the Prayer Book’s own Communion Service contains two important references to sacrifice in the prayer after communion (which has the function of the second half of the Roman Canon, as the Prayer Book has the communion itself immediately after the consecration of the elements). The eucharistic service in general is referred to as, “this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”; sacrificium laudis is a fairly standard Patristic reference to the eucharist. Secondly, the same prayer in strongly Pauline terms describes the congregation as a sacrifice: “And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee”.

The Prayer Book’s doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice isn’t the same as mainstream Tridentine Catholicism, but it isn’t in itself anti-sacrificial. Both the eucharistic service in general and the persons who receive the body and blood of the Lord are considered to be in some sense sacrificial. Combined with the above mentioned use of sacerdos in the 1560 LPP, it’s fair to say that Article XXXI cannot be read as a total rejection of Christian sacrificial worship.

 

[GKC]

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. That’s why the title of Article XXXI is Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross; they were worried that Rome taught (a) that there was more than one oblation, and (b) that this sacrifice was somehow incomplete without the action of other priests at other altars. The text of the article is interesting in its condemnation of “the sacrifices of Masses”, in the plural.

Furthermore, it’s vital to note that the Prayer Book’s own Communion Service contains two important references to sacrifice in the prayer after communion (which has the function of the second half of the Roman Canon, as the Prayer Book has the communion itself immediately after the consecration of the elements). The eucharistic service in general is referred to as, “this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”; sacrificium laudis is a fairly standard Patristic reference to the eucharist. Secondly, the same prayer in strongly Pauline terms describes the congregation as a sacrifice: “And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee”.

The Prayer Book’s doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice isn’t the same as mainstream Tridentine Catholicism, but it isn’t in itself anti-sacrificial. Both the eucharistic service in general and the persons who receive the body and blood of the Lord are considered to be in some sense sacrificial. Combined with the above mentioned use of sacerdos in the 1560 LPP, it’s fair to say that Article XXXI cannot be read as a total rejection of Christian sacrificial worship.

And, speaking more generally than as to the Prayer Book language, on the Anglo-Catholic side of the aisle, the sacrifice of the Mass is recognized, not as a repetition, additional, other, successive, or later sacrifice, but the as the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice, offered and completed once at Calvary, offered eternally before the Throne, beyond temporal limitations; time and eternity meeting at the altar, at the hands and words of the alter Christus. The Sacrifice of the Mass is one, eternally. And we are brought to it, in the Mass.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Depends on which one you are thinking of. As to every one of them that I have experience with, yes.

What he means by “sacerdotal priesthood” is one whose duty it is to ask God to transform the elements

 

[GKC]

What he means by “sacerdotal priesthood” is one whose duty it is to ask God to transform the elements

Yep. To the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Yeoman]

I’m glad to see GKC here, as I always enjoy his posts.

Not to turn this thread, but by observation there are those in the Anglican Communion for whom this question is very important, and there are those for whom it has no importance at all. The Anglican Communion is interesting in these regards in that there are those who are fully protestant in outlook, and those who will claim to be Catholic. Which raises this question.

Is there a theological reason that those Anglicans who are Catholic in outlook, and who believe that their parish has valid Holy Orders as Catholics define them, simply don’t erase all doubt and become Catholic? In my community, for example, there is an Anglo Catholic Church and an Anglican Church, neither of which we Catholics would recognize as being Catholic, but which feel themselves to be Catholic? If there’s no theological reason to remain separate, it seems to me sort of risky, salvation wise, not to come on in?

So why not? It’s often confused me.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’m glad to see GKC here, as I always enjoy his posts.

Not to turn this thread, but by observation there are those in the Anglican Communion for whom this question is very important, and there are those for whom it has no importance at all. The Anglican Communion is interesting in these regards in that there are those who are fully protestant in outlook, and those who will claim to be Catholic. Which raises this question.

Is there a theological reason that those Anglicans who are Catholic in outlook, and who believe that their parish has valid Holy Orders as Catholics define them, simply don’t erase all doubt and become Catholic? In my community, for example, there is an Anglo Catholic Church and an Anglican Church, neither of which we Catholics would recognize as being Catholic, but which feel themselves to be Catholic? If there’s no theological reason to remain separate, it seems to me sort of risky, salvation wise, not to come on in?

So why not? It’s often confused me.

But, of course, there are theological differences between Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics. All the issues around the papacy, for a start,

 

[GKC]

I’m glad to see GKC here, as I always enjoy his posts.

Not to turn this thread, but by observation there are those in the Anglican Communion for whom this question is very important, and there are those for whom it has no importance at all. The Anglican Communion is interesting in these regards in that there are those who are fully protestant in outlook, and those who will claim to be Catholic. Which raises this question.

Is there a theological reason that those Anglicans who are Catholic in outlook, and who believe that their parish has valid Holy Orders as Catholics define them, simply don’t erase all doubt and become Catholic? In my community, for example, there is an Anglo Catholic Church and an Anglican Church, neither of which we Catholics would recognize as being Catholic, but which feel themselves to be Catholic? If there’s no theological reason to remain separate, it seems to me sort of risky, salvation wise, not to come on in?

So why not? It’s often confused me.

See Picky Picky’s post above. And what doubt?

And thanks.

 

[Padres1969]

I’m glad to see GKC here, as I always enjoy his posts.

Not to turn this thread, but by observation there are those in the Anglican Communion for whom this question is very important, and there are those for whom it has no importance at all. The Anglican Communion is interesting in these regards in that there are those who are fully protestant in outlook, and those who will claim to be Catholic. Which raises this question.

Is there a theological reason that those Anglicans who are Catholic in outlook, and who believe that their parish has valid Holy Orders as Catholics define them, simply don’t erase all doubt and become Catholic? In my community, for example, there is an Anglo Catholic Church and an Anglican Church, neither of which we Catholics would recognize as being Catholic, but which feel themselves to be Catholic? If there’s no theological reason to remain separate, it seems to me sort of risky, salvation wise, not to come on in?

So why not? It’s often confused me.

As Picky Picky and GKC stated there’s plenty of theological and social reasons that Anglo-Catholic or High Church Anglicans don’t simply become Roman Catholic.

And as GKC stated, doubt?

 

[Yeoman]

See Picky Picky’s post above. And what doubt?

And thanks.

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?

 

[Yeoman]

As Picky Picky and GKC stated there’s plenty of theological and social reasons that Anglo-Catholic or High Church Anglicans don’t simply become Roman Catholic. ?

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.

 

[Picky_Picky]

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?

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.

 

[GKC]

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?

For those for whom a doubt exists, perhaps a move would be judicious. I rarely encounter an Anglo-Catholic who fits that description.

 

[GKC]

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.

Yep.