Why are anglican orders invalid?

[GKC]

I agree with the above.

But one further consideration for RCs (not for Anglicans looking at the question) is the idea of the* nativa indoles ac spiritus*, which they posit the words of the form possess, in light of who wrote them, under what circumstances, and what they privately asserted as to the sacrifice of the Mass. This concept holds that the form, its words, and possibly the paper they appear on, are tainted with a particular character which permanently renders the form invalid, for any person to use, to confect the sacrament. Consider it an invidious analogy to the mark imposed by valid baptism. It holds that no change, to the specific expressed defect in the form (as in 1662) and without consideration of who might attempt to use it and the sacramental intent in doing so, the form fails.

No Anglican (I will dare to say, but who knows) accepts that particular sort of metaphysical approach. So, for an Anglican, this has no more authority than to assert the Pope possesses a personal charism of infallibility (as properly defined), based on the promulgation of the dogma at Vat I.

There are several ways to approach that subject, and one at least is suggested in the penultimate para in the linked article .It is one that I have seen more than one RC writer muse over. But what the teaching of the RCC on the subject is, is what it was declared to be in Apostolicae Curae. And as we all know, what the RCC has defined and declared, all faithful RCs should affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Hence I never attempt to change a RCs affirmation of such a thing, by arguing with the internals of the teaching. I may discuss them, and certainly suggest readings (books) that extend the subject beyond the theological dimension to the associated personalities, politics, and general history. And I may ponder what the implications of certain possibilities might be, if further definition were made available, currently. But the ruling is what it is, for those on whom it is binding.

Some folk take a different view of the matter (form, intent) of course.

 

[PJM]

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

NOT ONLY Anglicans, but ALL non-Catholic / Orthodox Christians.

The issue is DIRECT Apostolic Succession which HAS BEEN forfeited by them through their leaders decision to abandon the RCC [except for the Orthodox; because they retained the SAME-common-Faith -beliefs].

This schism, broke the lines necessary for the Seven Sacraments to be BOTH Valid and licit. In the case of the Orthodox [my understanding] is that their Sacraments, all 7 of them remain VALID, but are not also “licit.”

It would be necessary for them to abandon the Anglican-church and FULLY embrace the RCC. … Rome has set up Ordinaries to facilitate precisely such a move.

There sacraments [Baptism and Marriage being the exceptions, as in the case for most Protestants] cannot be “made” VALID & Licit outside of the RCC.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[GKC]

NOT ONLY Anglicans, but ALL non-Catholic / Orthodox Christians.

The issue is DIRECT Apostolic Succession which HAS BEEN forfeited by them through their leaders decision to abandon the RCC [except for the Orthodox; because they retained the SAME-common-Faith -beliefs].

This schism, broke the lines necessary for the Seven Sacraments to be BOTH Valid and licit. In the case of the Orthodox [my understanding] is that their Sacraments, all 7 of them remain VALID, but are not also “licit.”

It would be necessary for them to abandon the Anglican-church and FULLY embrace the RCC. … Rome has set up Ordinaries to facilitate precisely such a move.

There sacraments [Baptism and Marriage being the exceptions, as in the case for most Protestants] cannot be “made” VALID & Licit outside of the RCC.

God Bless you,
Patrick

The RCC recognizes other Churches than the Orthodox as possessing valid/illicit orders, other than the Orthodox, in particular, some of the Old Catholics and the PNCC.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s analogous to Catholics/Orthodox being unable to recognize same-sex ‘marriage’ performed by Anglicans or other protestants. The matter and form were changed against the Apostolic teaching. Even if one has a sex-change, it would still be invalid. If it turned out that one of the ‘married’ lied and was actually of the opposite gender, the Catholic Church would recognize this as possibly a ‘natural’ marriage (perhaps even sacramental, if both were Trinitarian-baptized) - kind of like recognizing some OldCath/PNCC/etc

 

[RyanBlack]

The RCC recognizes other Churches than the Orthodox as possessing valid/illicit orders, other than the Orthodox, in particular, some of the Old Catholics and the PNCC.

And the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[GKC]

And the Assyrian Church of the East.

Yep.

 

[Memaw]

Their orders must be valid to some extent otherwise my baptism would not have been recognised when I converted to Catholicism.

Not so, anyone can Baptize, as long as it is done properly. The Catholic Church says lay people can Baptize in danger of death. In fact I did Baptize a baby many years ago that was dropped by his older sister and he was unconscious and breathing irregularly, so I Baptized him and his mom called an ambulance. It was recorded. I knew how to do it properly. Thank God baby Leroy did survive a fractured skull. That’s why the Catholic Church recognized your Baptism. God Bless, Memaw

 

[KjetilK]

But one further consideration for RCs (not for Anglicans looking at the question) is the idea of the nativa indoles ac spiritus, which they posit the words of the form possess, in light of who wrote them, under what circumstances, and what they privately asserted as to the sacrifice of the Mass.

Well, that just seems as ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’ It should be quite clear, both from the expressely articulated intention of Henry Theoroe John van Vlijmen, the Old Catholic Bishop of Haarlem, and from the various statements made by Anglican bodies, that the intention is indeed that the ordained priest (and consecrated bishop) is indeed a priest, Lt. sacerdos. We also see this in the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, btw. In article XXIII, the terms used are sacerdos in Latin and Priester in German.

And as for the idea expressed, that the ‘private opinion’ of the person writing a formula has any ‘effect’ on the document in question, I would have to say that it sounds absolutely ridiculous. It means that there isn’t an entire document ever written that can be interpreted in a way not envisioned by the person writing it. When it comes to personal writings, that’s probably fine. But when it comes to joint statements (for example a piece of legislation), where the person writing doesn’t ‘own’ the text, it becomes ridiculous. To paraphrase St. Thomas More: “A text means what its words say.” Or, as Dom Gregory Dix said, concerning the issue at hand: “It is a commonplace of all theology, Roman or Anglican, that no public formulary can be or ought to be interpreted by the private sense attached to it by the compilers.”

 

[GKC]

Well, that just seems as ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’ It should be quite clear, both from the expressely articulated intention of Henry Theoroe John van Vlijmen, the Old Catholic Bishop of Haarlem, and from the various statements made by Anglican bodies, that the intention is indeed that the ordained priest (and consecrated bishop) is indeed a priest, Lt. sacerdos. We also see this in the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, btw. In article XXIII, the terms used are sacerdos in Latin and Priester in German.

And as for the idea expressed, that the ‘private opinion’ of the person writing a formula has any ‘effect’ on the document in question, I would have to say that it sounds absolutely ridiculous. It means that there isn’t an entire document ever written that can be interpreted in a way not envisioned by the person writing it. When it comes to personal writings, that’s probably fine. But when it comes to joint statements (for example a piece of legislation), where the person writing doesn’t ‘own’ the text, it becomes ridiculous. To paraphrase St. Thomas More: “A text means what its words say.” Or, as Dom Gregory Dix said, concerning the issue at hand: “It is a commonplace of all theology, Roman or Anglican, that no public formulary can be or ought to be interpreted by the private sense attached to it by the compilers.”

Yep. But that’s how the cards were dealt, in Apostolicae Curae.

I never try to argue against the RC interpretation of the RC document, in the RC terms.

I do, sometimes, express some curiosity.

Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are recommended reading.

 

[GKC]

Not so, anyone can Baptize, as long as it is done properly. The Catholic Church says lay people can Baptize in danger of death. In fact I did Baptize a baby many years ago that was dropped by his older sister and he was unconscious and breathing irregularly, so I Baptized him and his mom called an ambulance. It was recorded. I knew how to do it properly. Thank God baby Leroy did survive a fractured skull. That’s why the Catholic Church recognized your Baptism. God Bless, Memaw

Yep.

 

[Padres1969]

Yep. But that’s how the cards were dealt, in Apostolicae Curae.

I never try to argue against the RC interpretation of the RC document, in the RC terms.

I do, sometimes, express some curiosity.

Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are recommended reading.

I have to admit. I’m intrigued if just by the dust jacket…

*“This book presents, for the first time, all the available information on the maneuvers which preceded the condemnation by the bull Apostolicae Curae. For Roman Catholics it is disturbing reading…” *

 

[GKC]

I have to admit. I’m intrigued if just by the dust jacket…

*“This book presents, for the first time, all the available information on the maneuvers which preceded the condemnation by the bull Apostolicae Curae. For Roman Catholics it is disturbing reading…” *

A little inflammatory, that. But, yep, on the dust jacket of ABSOLUTELY NULL. Which is the most systematic, complete account of the history (who did what, when) on the subject that I know of. It deals a lot in the history, personalities (admirable and less so) and politics of the long, sad affair.

STEWARDS deals with some theology. A possible look at another interpretation of what was going on on folks’ minds, back in the 16th century.

 

[PJM]

The RCC recognizes other Churches than the Orthodox as possessing valid/illicit orders, other than the Orthodox, in particular, some of the Old Catholics and the PNCC.

True, 23 in all, and ALL Faithful to ROME:thumbsup:

 

[Padres1969]

True, 23 in all, and ALL Faithful to ROME:thumbsup:

Not all the churches the RCC recognizes as having valid orders though are in communion to (or as you put it faithful to) Rome. Just to be clear

 

[GKC]

True, 23 in all, and ALL Faithful to ROME:thumbsup:

No. I’m speaking of Churches that Rome recognizes as possessing valid/illicit orders. Such as the ones listed above, not the sui iuris Churches in communion with Rome.

 

[commenter]

Yes, that is the claim made in Apostolicae curae. You have successfully stated that argument. But, as we can see, not all agree there, and the ordinal was changed again in the 17th century, meaning that the form was ‘rectified’ (if we assume that it needed to be rectified, a view not universally shared).

What remains, then, is the question of intent (which was perhaps the most important point in Apostolicae curae). But, assuming that Apostolicae curae was correct, you cannot coherently hold that this still applies. In the 20th century the Dutch Old Catholics participated in the consecrations of the bishops. Here is what one of them, Henry Theoroe John van Vlijmen, the Old Catholic Bishop of Haarlem, had to say on the matter of intent:

He declared that when he, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, laid his hands upon the bishop elect, and said the formula, “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum,” he “formally intended to confer . . . the order of the episcopate according to the mind of our holy mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church . . . and to impart the same episcopal character which . . . we bishops of the Old Catholic Church possess, that is, the fullness of priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same, in the precise sense in which the fullness of the priesthood has been understood everywhere, always, and by all.” (Emphasis in original.) He then went on to say that the reason for this participation was “to mingle as two streams the episcopal succession which has come down from the Apostles, namely that derived through the bishops of the Old Catholic Church and that which has come down through the Anglican hierarchy until the present time.”

What we see here, then, are three important things: (1) Neither the Old Catholics nor the Church of England believed that either lacked valid orders (believing that the succession if both came “down from the Apostles”); (2) they did so as a sign of communion (“to mingle as two streams…”); and (3) the consecration was valid if we follow the logic behind the Roman Catholic view of episcopal consecration.

As for the point of what the Church of England teaches on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, consider the 1979 Elucidation of the statement on ministry and ordination in the documents from the Anglican-Catholic dialogue (ARCIC):

[The] ordained ministry is called priestly principally because it has a particular sacramental relationship with Christ as High Priest. At the eucharist Christ’s people do what he commanded in memory of himself and Christ unites them sacramentally with himself in his self-offering. But in this action it is only the ordained minister who presides at the eucharist, in which, in the name of Christ and on behalf of his Church, he recites the narrative of the institution of the Last Supper, and invokes the Holy Spirit upon the gifts.

And in Five Affirmations on the Eucharist as Sacrifice, the American Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue (ARC/USA) affirms that “only a validly ordained priest can be the minister who, in the person of Christ, brings into being the sacrament of the Eucharist and offers sacramentally the redemptive sacrifice of Christ which God offers us,” and concludes that “in the light of these five affirmations ARC/USA records its conclusions that the eucharist as sacrifice is not an issue that divides our two Churches.” (Emphasis added)

So no, the situation in 1896, as described in Apostolicae curae no longer exist (if it ever did).

But maybe you are a better judge than the Anglican churches on what constitutues Anglican theology.

“Apostolicae Curae” was issued at a certain level of Church authority. It still is in effect until that level of authority declares it to be superceded by subsequent events. Various ecumenical committees have no authority, as such. If you don’t accept the jurisdiction of the papacy, why bother to refute it, or show that the **pope’s viewpoint ** has been overturned by later developments? From an Anglican or Protestant viewpoint, that pope had no authority in the first place.

 

[GKC]

“Apostolicae Curae” was issued at a certain level of Church authority. It still is in effect until that level of authority declares it to be superceded by subsequent events. Various ecumenical committees have no authority, as such. If you don’t accept the jurisdiction of the papacy, why bother to refute it, or show that the **pope’s viewpoint ** has been overturned by later developments? From an Anglican or Protestant viewpoint, that pope had no authority in the first place.

Not necessarily, on that last point. He has the authority to declare that, in the RCC’s eyes, Anglican orders are not valid.

 

[KjetilK]

“Apostolicae Curae” was issued at a certain level of Church authority. It still is in effect until that level of authority declares it to be superceded by subsequent events.

Yes, it is binding on Roman Catholics. But it is still a judgement of a historical nature. And the supposed historical situation described in the document no longer exists.

 

[Picky_Picky]

“Apostolicae Curae” was issued at a certain level of Church authority. It still is in effect until that level of authority declares it to be superceded by subsequent events. Various ecumenical committees have no authority, as such. If you don’t accept the jurisdiction of the papacy, why bother to refute it, or show that the **pope’s viewpoint ** has been overturned by later developments? From an Anglican or Protestant viewpoint, that pope had no authority in the first place.

My impression is that Anglicans generally (nod in direction of motleyness) don’t bother to refute it, but it has some interest in a setting like this where people may like to debate it, and where people who don’t accept the jurisdiction of eachother’s churches nonetheless like to attempt to refute eachother’s positions.

 

[Memaw]

My impression is that Anglicans generally (nod in direction of motleyness) don’t bother to refute it, but it has some interest in a setting like this where people may like to debate it, and where people who don’t accept the jurisdiction of eachother’s churches nonetheless like to attempt to refute eachother’s positions.

The TRUTH is the Truth even if nobody believes it and a lie is STILL a lie, even if everybody believes it. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. Shouldn’t we ALL seek the TRUTH. Jesus said, “I AM the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE”. God Bless, Memaw