Why are Priests not valid within Protestantism

[Poco]

You might find some useful information in this thread.

I hope this helps!

 

[Palaeologos]

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 .

You’re referring, of course, to Matthew Parker. It’s believed that William Barlow, one of four consecrating bishops, was not properly consecrated. I don’t know, though, of evidence that Miles Coverdale, John Scory, and John Hodgkins were also invalidly consecrated. In any case, were the same thing to occur within the Roman Catholic line of succession, the principle of “ecclesia supplit” would be advanced, no?

I have always found Leo XIII’s contention that the C of E did not intend to consecrate bishops rather puzzling. How would he have known?!

 

[Palaeologos]

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.

Or–more realistically–by “licensing” them to celebrate the Eucharist, as the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney seems to want to do.

 

[ccolley]

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.

Christ is bridegroom…the Church is bride…
Women can’t be bridegrooms…only brides…
CC
[SIGN]If you are Catholic…thank a priest!
[/SIGN]

 

[mdcpensive1]

Protestantism does not have direct ties back to the Chair of Peter. The Church has the Chair of Peter and Protestantism is not in union with the Church. Therefore it cannot have the priesthood that is required to offer the Sacrifice of Christ as a part of the share of the Ministerial Priesthood that is the tradition of the Church. Priesthood ala Bishops are an office that is in Christ’s Church, not outside it. There was one priesthood and that is in Christ’s Church He founded, not what other men think it is. The Eucharist and Christ’s Church is only found where the valid Bishop is. (St. Ignatius of Antioch)

 

[Palaeologos]

Protestantism does not have direct ties back to the Chair of Peter. The Church has the Chair of Peter and Protestantism is not in union with the Church. Therefore it cannot have the priesthood that is required to offer the Sacrifice of Christ as a part of the share of the Ministerial Priesthood that is the tradition of the Church. Priesthood ala Bishops are an office that is in Christ’s Church, not outside it. There was one priesthood and that is in Christ’s Church He founded, not what other men think it is. The Eucharist and Christ’s Church is only found where the valid Bishop is. (St. Ignatius of Antioch)

I don’t think that works. The Orthodox Church is recognized as a church with valid Apostolic Succession, even though they are not in union with the Catholic Church. The same goes for the Polish National Catholic Church, and some of the Old Catholic jurisdictions (the ones that haven’t yet started to ordain women, that is). So clearly union with the Roman See is not a requirement for the validity of orders.

 

[LilyM]

You’re referring, of course, to Matthew Parker. It’s believed that William Barlow, one of four consecrating bishops, was not properly consecrated. I don’t know, though, of evidence that Miles Coverdale, John Scory, and John Hodgkins were also invalidly consecrated. In any case, were the same thing to occur within the Roman Catholic line of succession, the principle of “ecclesia supplit” would be advanced, no?

I have always found Leo XIII’s contention that the C of E did not intend to consecrate bishops rather puzzling. How would he have known?!

Remember that validity of the consecration of the ordaining bishop is only one part of the story, the other facets being correct matter, form, and intention when celebrating the sacrament of ordination.

If a validly consecrated bishop tried to ordain women, for example, such an ordination would be invalid even if the Bishop himself were validly consecrated. And it has been taught that the Anglican view of the sacrament is sufficiently different to render the intention of these four bishops invalid, regardless of whether they themselves were validly consecrated.

Now surely it’s up to the Church through which Christ give us the sacraments to determine what makes for valid intention, and under what circumstances.

And since the topic of the sacraments is clearly a matter of faith and morals, the Church’s decision on the matter is binding in the same manner as their decision on the ordiantion of women. ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est’, as St Augustine said - ‘Rome has spoken, the case is closed’.