Why are Priests not valid within Protestantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fish90

Guest
For instance, how does Anglicanism not have apostolic succession when the country was actually Catholic? Where there not any bishops who converted and ordained priests?

How does the apostolic succession work in such instances? The Pope does not approve Orthodox bishops, but they have apostolic succession. Also, the SSPX has valid priests.

Best,
fish90
 
Orthodox bishops are valid (i.e. they have valid apostolic succession), but they are not in communion. They’re valid but illicit, not unlike the SSPX.

The Anglican question is more complicated. I don’t know. Someone else will, I’m sure!
 
I would assume that any “first generation” Anglicans would have had proper Holy Orders and apostolic succession. The problem comes after that “first generation”.

Anglican’s were found to not have valid Holy Orders in the papal bull Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII because they were found to be lacing in form and intention (matter, form, and intention are all need for a sacrament to be valid). Therefore any bishops “consecrated” in the new Anglican church would have been invalid, meaning any further priests ordained and bishop’s consecrated would also be invalid.

Now that they’ve also “extended” them to women, claiming that nothing has changed, they have pretty much validated Pope Leo’s evaluation. It actually makes it even easier to see, as a women cannot receive Holy Orders, so any priests their women “bishop” “ordains” are invalid without question.

The Orthodox on the other hand have retained the proper form and intention, so even though we are separated we acknowledge that they still have proper orders and succession.

You cannot take away a Bishop’s apostolic succession. They could end up performing a sacrament wrong (like wrong matter, wrong form, or wrong intention) as to render it invalid though.
 
Let me take a stab at it. I think this is fairly close to what happened:
The Queen of England broke the chain of Apostolic Succession, when she appointed an invalidly consecrated person as bishop for her “new church”. He did not receive consecration via the laying on of hands from a validly consecrated bishop, which is the required way for the continuation of Apostolic Succession .

Before the queen did this—
----The links were maintained by legitimate ordinations of clergy in the Lutheran and other early Protestant Churches and some Sacraments (including Eucharist) were legitimately practiced , this possible because of valid Apostalic Succession (passing on of the authority bestowed on the Apostles by Jesus, from other validly ordained bishops).
---- This pretty much ended when Queen Elizabeth made a disastrous move with her declaration of the Act of Uniformity & Act of Supremacy in 1559. Until then, the clergy of some Protestant sects had the power, passed on in a direct line from Christ, to perform all seven Sacraments, including Eucharist.
This was lost only after the Queen’s decision. That much is fairly recent history, you can look it up for yourself, along with her reasons for doing so-(could not have Mary, Queen of Scots show up as the rightful Queen of England, could we ! )
This act declared Elizabeth to be the “supreme governess in all matters spiritual and temporal”. As a final separation from the line of spiritual authority extending back to Christ Himself, the queen’s “Established Church” (soon known as the Anglican Church) published its new creed, the Thirty-nine Articles (1562). This new creed rejected many doctrines held in truth by all Christians since the time of Christ. This completed the break with the Church Christ had established and which had been present in England since St Augustine brought it there in 597.
But the real damage was that the new Anglican Primate, Matthew Parker was appointed by the queen and invalidly consecrated as bishop of her church. **It is upon this invalid consecration that all bishops and ministers of the church of England (and all its derivatives !) have depended since. **This is the point where the Vicar of Christ’s leadership of the church was replaced with the queen’s, handed down to this day, to the reigning English sovereign.
Of course attendance at the “new” services was compulsory and clergy were required to have a “royal license” to preach. After this many English Catholics- priests and laity- died for their faith.
The history of England and Ireland can take it from here.
 
curlycool89 said:
I would assume that any “first generation” Anglicans would have had proper Holy Orders and apostolic succession. The problem comes after that “first generation”.

Anglican’s were found to not have valid Holy Orders in the papal bull Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII because they were found to be lacing in form and intention (matter, form, and intention are all need for a sacrament to be valid). Therefore any bishops “consecrated” in the new Anglican church would have been invalid, meaning any further priests ordained and bishop’s consecrated would also be invalid.

Now that they’ve also “extended” them to women, claiming that nothing has changed, they have pretty much validated Pope Leo’s evaluation. It actually makes it even easier to see, as a women cannot receive Holy Orders, so any priests their women “bishop” “ordains” are invalid without question.

The Orthodox on the other hand have retained the proper form and intention, so even though we are separated we acknowledge that they still have proper orders and succession.

You cannot take away a Bishop’s apostolic succession. They could end up performing a sacrament wrong (like wrong matter, wrong form, or wrong intention) as to render it invalid though.
Click to expand...
thanks for this info curlycool. lest someone might ask what matter, form and intention of the Sacrament of Holy Orders are: Matter is the Imposition of Hands by the Ordaining Prelate: Form are the Words which come after the imposition of hands; and the Intention is that of following the Intention of the Church in the discharge of the Sacrament.
 
Ferds_Guiang said:
thanks for this info curlycool. lest someone might ask what matter, form and intention of the Sacrament of Holy Orders are: Matter is the Imposition of Hands by the Ordaining Prelate: Form are the Words which come after the imposition of hands; and the Intention is that of following the Intention of the Church in the discharge of the Sacrament.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the other half of the equation for matter. On the one side it requires a valid Bishop with valid Holy Orders to lay on hands, and on the other side it requires a baptized male to receive the sacrament.
 
curlycool89 said:
Don’t forget the other half of the equation for matter. On the one side it requires a valid Bishop with valid Holy Orders to lay on hands, and on the other side it requires a baptized male to receive the sacrament.
Click to expand...
There is no “other half” of the matter. The matter for Holy Orders is the laying on of hands by the ordaining bishop, period. This was settled definitively in Sacramentum Ordinis by Pope Pius XII in 1947.
 
Just_Lurking said:
There is no “other half” of the matter. The matter for Holy Orders is the laying on of hands by the ordaining bishop, period. This was settled definitively in Sacramentum Ordinis by Pope Pius XII in 1947.
Click to expand...
Maybe not “officially”, but the laying on of hands can only be validly received by a baptized (baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments) male (only males can receive Holy Orders). If not official, it is a de facto requirement.
 
Here’s what I am thinking.

England is Catholic and then turns to following the Church of England. Validly ordained Priests and Bishops may have joined the Church of England. These Bishops could then have valid ordinations of new Priests and Bishops and so have apostolic succession.

Was is that Anglican clergy ordained by the Mathew Parker and so ended apostolic succession or was it the result of valid bishops leaving?

Best,
fish90
 
fish90 said:
For instance, how does Anglicanism not have apostolic succession when the country was actually Catholic? Where there not any bishops who converted and ordained priests?

How does the apostolic succession work in such instances? The Pope does not approve Orthodox bishops, but they have apostolic succession. Also, the SSPX has valid priests.

Best,
fish90
Click to expand...
My Reformation Theory
 
fish90 said:
Here’s what I am thinking.

England is Catholic and then turns to following the Church of England. Validly ordained Priests and Bishops may have joined the Church of England. These Bishops could then have valid ordinations of new Priests and Bishops and so have apostolic succession.

Was is that Anglican clergy ordained by the Mathew Parker and so ended apostolic succession or was it the result of valid bishops leaving?

Best,
fish90
Click to expand...
In the judgment of Pope Leo XIII, the Church of England changed its understanding of the sacrament of ordination sufficiently that future ordinations became invalid. Thus, while the CoE started with valid bishops and priests, once those died no more could be ordained.

I believe some Anglo-Catholic types are careful to make sure they do have valid orders, but most Anglican bishops and priests at this time would not.

Usagi
 
Just_Lurking said:
It’s an official requirement, but one that has nothing to do with the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Click to expand...
Volume 15
Issue 2
Quick Questions
Table of Contents
**Q:“ **
**On television I heard a woman state that she believes women should be priests, and that she was upset when she read the latest encyclical Pope John Paul issued about how Catholics cannot receive communion in a non-Catholic church. As a revert Catholic, I thought when you become Catholic you accept the Church’s teachings without open disagreement. Am I alone in this thinking? **

**A: **
Your thinking is correct, and you are certainly not alone, although you may not often see other non-dissenting Catholics on mainstream television.

Regarding the issues the woman mentioned, John Paul II definitively ruled out the possibility that the Church had the authority to ordain women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. However much this lady might hope for the ordination of women, it won’t happen because the Church can’t ordain women.*** Men are the valid “matter” for the sacrament of holy orders, just as surely as water is for baptism and wine for the precious blood.***

As for receiving communion in a Protestant church, Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a sign of unity. This is one of the reasons that Protestants can’t ordinarily receive Communion in Catholic churches. The same holds true in the opposite direction: For a Catholic to receive Protestant communion would not only give the impression that the Protestant version is valid, but it would also create a false sense of unity.

Beyond that, when you realize that non-Catholic churches don’t have a valid Eucharist, you have to wonder why any Catholic would want to receive communion in Protestant churches. Perhaps what this woman really lacks is an adequate appreciation of what we as Catholics have in the Blessed Sacrament."

It goes without saying baptism is a prerequirement also for holy orders
 
steve_b said:
Men are the valid “matter” for the sacrament of holy orders, just as surely as water is for baptism and wine for the precious blood.
Click to expand...
Here is what Pope Pius XII said in 1947 (see here):
4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.
As far as I can tell, the idea that the recipient of Holy Orders is the “matter” is something that armchair theologians came up with in the past decade as a glib attempt to pass over the deep issues that are involved in whether women can receive Holy Orders. Real, credentialed, Catholic theologians with Doctorates in Sacred Theology have written entire books on this issue. So you have to expect that anyone who thinks the entire question can be dismissed in a few sentence response in This Rock is going to be completely ignorant of even the most basic sacramental theology regarding the importance of matter in the sacraments making visible and tangible the invisible grace of God.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Here is what Pope Pius XII said in 1947 (see here):
4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.
As far as I can tell, the idea that the recipient of Holy Orders is the “matter” is something that armchair theologians came up with in the past decade as a glib attempt to pass over the deep issues that are involved in whether women can receive Holy Orders. Real, credentialed, Catholic theologians with Doctorates in Sacred Theology have written entire books on this issue. So you have to expect that anyone who thinks the entire question can be dismissed in a few sentence response in This Rock is going to be completely ignorant of even the most basic sacramental theology regarding the importance of matter in the sacraments making visible and tangible the invisible grace of God.
Click to expand...
Are you pro womens ordination?

Let me ask, Is there matter (that which is to be consecrated) which if used for the Eucharistic elements, would make the Eucharist invalid because the matter is invalid?

If you say yes, then can’t that be the same as the example used by “This Rock” for the recipient of the sacrament as matter?

If you don’t like the word matter the way it was used in the explanation, then I won’t push it. Forget I used the quote. Use another word. 😉

Bottomline, The Church has said women can’t be ordained. Even if a bishop tried to ordain a woman by laying on hands, it would be invalid. Therefore, it’s NOT just laying on hands.

Paul VI in 1976 Inter Insigniores, wrote about it
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

JPII 1994 wrote about it
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Canon law. #1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

CCC #**1577 **“Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

I hope this didn’t get us off track
 
The answer is simple. It’s because they don’t have valid apostolic succession.
 
steve_b said:
Let me ask, Is there matter (that which is to be consecrated) which if used for the Eucharistic elements, would make the Eucharist invalid because the matter is invalid?

If you say yes, then can’t that be the same as the example used by “This Rock” for the recipient of the sacrament as matter?
Click to expand...
By this logic, men and women are valid matter for the sacrament of Baptism. But the example in This Rock says water is the proper matter for baptism. Which is it?
steve_b said:
If you don’t like the word matter the way it was used in the explanation, then I won’t push it. Forget I used the quote. Use another word. 😉
Click to expand...
Catholic sacramental theology is a very complex subject. I stand by my assertion that anyone who claims that the man being ordained is the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders is so misinformed as to be a completely unreliable source of information.
steve_b said:
Bottomline, The Church has said women can’t be ordained. Even if a bishop tried to ordain a woman by laying on hands, it would be invalid. Therefore, it’s NOT just laying on hands.
Click to expand...
A sacrament can be invalid for any number of reasons. But for the sacrament of Holy Orders to be invalid due to invalid matter, it would take something like the bishop having his hands cut off and then trying to ordain someone with prosthetic hands.
steve_b said:
Paul VI in 1976 Inter Insigniores, wrote about it
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm
Click to expand...
If you’ve read Inter Insigniores, then you’ll know that the issue of whether deaconesses in the early Church received the sacrament of Holy Orders is still an open theological question.
 
Does anyone have a good comparison of the Edwardine Ordinal and the Catholic Ordination process that were each in place at the same time in the two churches? I am trying to get a better understanding about why Anglican orders were judged to be deficient by the Holy See. I understand that Eastern Orthodox Holy orders are recognized but that Anglican orders are not because of this defect of form (and I think intent?).

Would anyone maybe have a side by side comparison of the Catholic Vs. Anglican ordination processes that were both in place around the time that the Catholic Church proclaimed that the Anglican Church had lost valid Holy Orders? Really struggling to find clear explanations on this. Thanks.

I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, mods please move this if it needs to be somewhere else

I am not challenging Church teaching, but only trying to gain better understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top