Why doesn't the Anglican Church have a valid sacrament of Holy Orders?

[GailMac4]

Because when they spit with Rome when they formed. When the last validly ordained priest died, so did their validity as to their Holy Orders. The only Sacrament they had to give was Baptism, same as any layslob like me or you. The Church had to sneak priests into England for years as the Church there was outlawed. There were hundreds and hundreds of Martyrs. Since they’d split with Rome, the ability to Ordain ended, so those Anglicans who try to claim they maintained Ordination and or Apostolic succession are sadly fooled. Hope this helps.

Peace,

Gail

 

[GKC]

Because when they spit with Rome when they formed. When the last validly ordained priest died, so did their validity as to their Holy Orders. The only Sacrament they had to give was Baptism, same as any layslob like me or you. The Church had to sneak priests into England for years as the Church there was outlawed. There were hundreds and hundreds of Martyrs. Since they’d split with Rome, the ability to Ordain ended, so those Anglicans who try to claim they maintained Ordination and or Apostolic succession are sadly fooled. Hope this helps.

Peace,

Gail

No, that is not what *Apostolicae Curae *says, though it is a common misunderstanding. The point had nothing to do with the split, which would have resulted in (in Rome’s eyes) valid but illicit orders in Anglicanism, if nothing else had happened. What Rome says actually happened, you can find way back up there, in one of my first posts.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Hi GailMac4,

Because when they split with Rome when they formed. When the last validly ordained priest died, so did their validity as to their Holy Orders.

Just out of curiosity, what denomination are you?

 

[GKC]

Hi GailMac4,

Just out of curiosity, what denomination are you?

Is there any doubt?

Ok, I’ll wait and see.

GKC

 

[GailMac4]

Dear Peter J - Christian, Catholic, Roman rite. And I don’t consider it a “denomination.”

Peace,

Gail

 

[Peter_J]

Dear Peter J - Christian, Catholic, Roman rite. And I don’t consider it a “denomination.”

Peace,

Gail

Don’t worry, I don’t consider the Catholic Church a “denomination” either. But I am a little surprised to hear that you belong to it, given your last post. (GKC already made the point about Apostolicae Curae, so I guess there’s no need for me to repeat it here.)

Welcome to the thread!

 

[GKC]

Don’t worry, I don’t consider the Catholic Church a “denomination” either. But I am a little surprised to hear that you belong to it, given your last post. (GKC already made the point about Apostolicae Curae, so I guess there’s no need for me to repeat it here.)

Welcome to the thread!

That misunderstanding of the issue of Anglican orders is, as I said, a common one, among RCs, and others, for that matter. I was in no doubt about the proper Church for GailMac4. Internal evidence was conclusive.

GKC

 

[manualman]

Most catholics don’t know the details and history of our OWN theology, much less that of offshoot communities.

When the Church of England split from Rome, most of their bishops went along too. Ordinarily, that would have allowed the continuance of Apostolic Succession just like the Orthodox have (since bishops can validly consecrate new bishops). But in simpler terms, there was a period when there was a terminal defect in the ordination rite of bishops. That defect lasted so long that all the validly ordained bishops died out. Once that happened, it doesn’t matter if the ordination rite is fixed. Illegitimate bishops can’t consecrate new bishops any better than I can, regardless of the rubrics and rites used.

It should be noted that GKC doesn’t actually agree with the Catholic position and deserves some major kudos for being honest enough to so thoroughly and correctly explaining a position he disagrees with!

As far as married Anglican priests converting, the Pastoral Provision was implemented in most places as an acknowledgement that through no fault of his own, a great and holy man of God could potentially grow up Anglican, get married, discern a call to priesthood, get ordained Anglican and THEN discern that God intended there to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and that that body is actually the Catholic church. The bishops made a judgement that it made sense to waive the usual disciplinary requirement of celibacy because said holy man could not have been obedient to it when he did his vocational discernment. Really it is a matter of charity.

 

[manualman]

An interesting conundrum being studiously ignored by Rome is that of Anglican bishops ordained by recent schismatic catholic bishops in possession of valid Holy Orders.

We need an emoticon of a metal can with lots of wiggly worms coming out the top!

 

[GKC]

An interesting conundrum being studiously ignored by Rome is that of Anglican bishops ordained by recent schismatic catholic bishops in possession of valid Holy Orders.

We need an emoticon of a metal can with lots of wiggly worms coming out the top!

As I said somewhere else (in fact a lot of somewhere elses, sometimes else) there is the logical point, arising from the inter-communion and joint consecration of Anglican Commmunion bishops, starting in 1932 with the Old Catholics of Utrecht, and with the PNCC in 1946. Logic would suggest this represents an infusion of orders into the Anglican episocpacy which are valid, though illicit, and capable of transmitting orders, similarly, by the logic holding in the RCC.

But I know of no definitive statement on the matter from the RCC, so I don’t insist on it.

My own parish priest was ordained in 1997 (IIRC) by a bishop whose chief consecrator had a PNCC co-consecrator, in 1962.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Most catholics don’t know the details and history of our OWN theology, much less that of offshoot communities.

When the Church of England split from Rome, most of their bishops went along too. Ordinarily, that would have allowed the continuance of Apostolic Succession just like the Orthodox have (since bishops can validly consecrate new bishops). But in simpler terms, there was a period when there was a terminal defect in the ordination rite of bishops. That defect lasted so long that all the validly ordained bishops died out. Once that happened, it doesn’t matter if the ordination rite is fixed. Illegitimate bishops can’t consecrate new bishops any better than I can, regardless of the rubrics and rites used.

It should be noted that GKC doesn’t actually agree with the Catholic position and deserves some major kudos for being honest enough to so thoroughly and correctly explaining a position he disagrees with!

As far as married Anglican priests converting, the Pastoral Provision was implemented in most places as an acknowledgement that through no fault of his own, a great and holy man of God could potentially grow up Anglican, get married, discern a call to priesthood, get ordained Anglican and THEN discern that God intended there to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and that that body is actually the Catholic church. The bishops made a judgement that it made sense to waive the usual disciplinary requirement of celibacy because said holy man could not have been obedient to it when he did his vocational discernment. Really it is a matter of charity.

Just like the issue itself, my opinion of what was going on in *l’affaire Apostolicae Curae * is complicated and complex. But generally, what you say is correct; I don’t. The history, theology, personalities and politics of this sad subject have been a hobby of mine, along with other often contentious points, for about 10 years, and my reference shelf on it is quite long. Thanks for noticing.

One can also note, with respect to the Pastoral Provision, and AC in general, that two known cases of ordination of former Anglican priests/bishop have been performed sub conditione, and points such as the Dutch Touch played a part in the reckoning.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

That misunderstanding of the issue of Anglican orders is, as I said, a common one, among RCs, and others, for that matter.

Most catholics don’t know the details and history of our OWN theology, much less that of offshoot communities.

Good points.

To be honest, I think I am sometimes guilty of automatically assuming that Catholics have a better understanding of our faith than Protestants do of theirs.

 

[Peter_J]

An interesting conundrum being studiously ignored by Rome is that of Anglican bishops ordained by recent schismatic catholic bishops in possession of valid Holy Orders.

We need an emoticon of a metal can with lots of wiggly worms coming out the top!

True. But perhaps it is best left as an open question for the time being – hence continuing to conditionally re-ordain in cases where there’s the possibility that the first ordination was valid.

 

[GailMac4]

Dear GKC and Manualman - I’m sitting at a table holding a hand of cards. Two are aces and the rest are stinko. Do you think if I stare at the stinko cards in my hand long enough they might turn into aces?

What you guys are ignoring is the 250 years (and then some) of blood split by the Anglican/Episcopalian “church.” Please don’t even think there are valid orders in the Anglican “church.” The murderous rampage and the sacking of the Church done throughout England, etc. during that time speaks more eloquently then any of you well-educated dolts can. Martyrs blood! That’s what the Anglican church had it’s start in. Perhaps you both need to check the history of your supposed church a little better. There you will find the facts about your bloody past. Perhaps you can get some of your revisionists to work out that little blot in the past of your “church” but that’s an awful lot of blood to revise away. Reeeeeally, indeed! I’ll pray for you guys to Sts. Thomas More and Bp. John Fisher and let them take it from there. Maybe they’ll help you see the real history of the Church.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. One other point to ponder - you shall know them by their works…ring any bells?

 

[GKC]

Dear GKC and Manualman - I’m sitting at a table holding a hand of cards. Two are aces and the rest are stinko. Do you think if I stare at the stinko cards in my hand long enough they might turn into aces?

What you guys are ignoring is the 250 years (and then some) of blood split by the Anglican/Episcopalian “church.” Please don’t even think there are valid orders in the Anglican “church.” The murderous rampage and the sacking of the Church done throughout England, etc. during that time speaks more eloquently then any of you well-educated dolts can. Martyrs blood! That’s what the Anglican church had it’s start in. Perhaps you both need to check the history of your supposed church a little better. There you will find the facts about your bloody past. Perhaps you can get some of your revisionists to work out that little blot in the past of your “church” but that’s an awful lot of blood to revise away. Reeeeeally, indeed! I’ll pray for you guys to Sts. Thomas More and Bp. John Fisher and let them take it from there. Maybe they’ll help you see the real history of the Church.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. One other point to ponder - you shall know them by their works…ring any bells?

Thank you for your interest in history.

GKC

 

[manualman]

Gailmac,

For the record, I’m most convincedly catholic. I just happen to be one who wants to understand principles behind doctrines. GKC disagrees with AC, I think it fairly reasoned. But we can have a respectful dialogue.

I certainly understand how emotions can run high when the subject turns to schism. But you simply must face up to the fact that if blood guilt disproves the authenticity of a church then BOTH catholic and Anglicans are waaaay up a creek with no paddle.

It would be nice and tidy of God had made all the people and leaders of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church spotless and perfect in all their behavior. It sure would be easiest that way to find her, wouldn’t it? You’ll need to ask HIM why the history of the Church is only LESS bloody and sinful than the history of garden variety unredeemed humanity.

If the Anglicans lost spostolic succession, it isn’t because of personal sin (i.e. murder), it is because they quit following the sacred Tradition for passing it on.

 

[Peter_J]

I certainly understand how emotions can run high when the subject turns to schism. But you simply must face up to the fact that if blood guilt disproves the authenticity of a church then BOTH catholic and Anglicans are waaaay up a creek with no paddle.

Yeah. I tend to start tuning out whenever I hear either side, Catholic or Protestant (or Anglican in this case) claim that they can prove they are the right side based on the sinfulness of members of the other side.

 

[GailMac4]

Dear Manualman - you state:

Gailmac,

For the record, I’m most convincedly catholic. I just happen to be one who wants to understand principles behind doctrines. GKC disagrees with AC, I think it fairly reasoned. But we can have a respectful dialogue.

I certainly understand how emotions can run high when the subject turns to schism. But you simply must face up to the fact that if blood guilt disproves the authenticity of a church then BOTH catholic and Anglicans are waaaay up a creek with no paddle.

Well, I suppose you could admit that Judas sat at the last supper and dipped his morsel into the Blood and fled and the next thing that happened was…necessary. But is it necessary for you to remain affiliated with a sect that thinks it’s murderous past can be easily reasoned away? Or would you prefer to be Catholic and renounce all that nonsense? Seems like a much simplier solution to your dilemma than remaining away. I mean how many long-winded arguements have you lived with thus far in your spiritual journey? Are you tired of having to justify your personal affiliations over and over and over and over and over again to what? Preserve a “heiritage” that had it’s start with what? !!!

I agree that you see the “personal sins” part clearly, but you remain away from the Church and try to hide behind ten-dollar words to stay away from the Church that God built. What are you afraid of? Bringing you personal sins to God in the Sacrament of Mercy, Confession? Well, let me tell you how it goes…He pours out His Precious Blood on your poor soul and restores your Baptismal grace, and if you’re lucky the Confessor you get might give you a little spiritual direction or two and…hmmmmmmm…God might get His peace with your poor soul. Can you give Him that?

But if you prefer, you can remain afflilitated with a stinking can-o-worms for the rest of you life.

God bless you man. Please don’t keep God waiting.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Peter_J]

I give you thanks, O God, that I am not like the rest of people - grasping, crooked, adulterous.

• Luke 18:11 (prayer of the Pharisee)

 

[BrianH]

Well, I suppose you could admit that Judas sat at the last supper and dipped his morsel into the Blood and fled and the next thing that happened was…necessary. But is it necessary for you to remain affiliated with a sect that thinks it’s murderous past can be easily reasoned away? Or would you prefer to be Catholic and renounce all that nonsense? Seems like a much simplier solution to your dilemma than remaining away. I mean how many long-winded arguements have you lived with thus far in your spiritual journey? Are you tired of having to justify your personal affiliations over and over and over and over and over again to what? Preserve a “heiritage” that had it’s start with what? !!!

I agree that you see the “personal sins” part clearly, but you remain away from the Church and try to hide behind ten-dollar words to stay away from the Church that God built. What are you afraid of? Bringing you personal sins to God in the Sacrament of Mercy, Confession? Well, let me tell you how it goes…He pours out His Precious Blood on your poor soul and restores your Baptismal grace, and if you’re lucky the Confessor you get might give you a little spiritual direction or two and…hmmmmmmm…God might get His peace with your poor soul. Can you give Him that?

But if you prefer, you can remain afflilitated with a stinking can-o-worms for the rest of you life.

God bless you man. Please don’t keep God waiting.

Peace,

Gail
Yesterday 3:17 pm