Should We See Anglican Holy Orders As Valid?

[jeffpugh]

What do you mean about Canada?

[the 13th papist]

Canada is going through some crazy things rght now. The bible is considered hate speech, the Anglicans are ordaining women and openly homosexual men. I heard that one of the ministers was in an openly homosexual relationship.

Something i forget on my last post, somebody was talking about how Anglican ordination isn't okay for the Catholic church but isn't bad for them, or something like that. But that is to deny that there are objective truths. SOmebody else objected to the use of "Roman Catholic", which refers to a particular Rite of the Catholic Church. I am Roman Catholic, whereas somebody else might belong to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='the 13th papist' post='1433359' date='Dec 12 2007, 04:35 PM']Because the Anglican Church separated from the Holy See and had the King placed as the head of the Church, they no longer have Apostolic suggession. If they do not have Apostolic succession then they cannot have valid sacraments, thins includes ordination and the Eucharist, but does not include baptism, which is universal.

The church has even decalred that The Anglican and other protestant churches are not rightly "churches" becaus they do not have apostolic succesion. (Unitatis Redintigratio) Thery are called "ecclesial communities".

On a practical note, do the results of Anglican holy orders look the same as lets say Catolic or the Orthodox Churches? I know the Catholic Church in America has had its problems as far as the sex abuse scandal, but look at Canada. One of my Proffessors used to be and Anglican minister in Canada and is now a classics proffessor.[/quote]
Just to bump up, and to clarify something, it was not the king becoming the head which invalidated the orders, it was the protestantization of the the orders which broke the chain. As soon as the understanding of the Eucharist was redefined, the priesthood was redefined, thus, after a generation of bishops, there was no real apostolic heritage left. Despite the fact the Bishops knuckled under Henry VIII, it didn't invalidate them, just made their celebration of the sacraments illicit.

[N/A Gone]

Did I inspire this?

[CatherineM]

I guess my take on how we view things is kind of practical. We don't re-baptize Anglicans who convert to Catholicism, but we do re-ordain Anglican ministers when they become Catholic priests.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1559705' date='Jun 5 2008, 12:31 PM']I guess my take on how we view things is kind of practical. We don't re-baptize Anglicans who convert to Catholicism, but we do re-ordain Anglican ministers when they become Catholic priests.[/quote]

Actually, unless I'm mistaken (and I might be) we [i]conditionally[/i] ordain Anglican priests who become Catholic priests. This is significant (if it is true) because it would mean not that we say their orders are invalid, but rather, that we say we have little practical way of knowing which priest's, if any, [i]are[/i] valid.

It is my understanding that the issue with the alterations in the rite of ordination is not, strictly speaking, one of the "form" of the sacrament, but rather, one of intent. The altered form can still be technically valid but the fact of alteration can indicate a historic change in intent. If that is the case, then it becomes very difficult to determine which bishops were ordaining with the intent to "do as the Church does" and which were ordaining with the intent to do otherwise than the Church does. This questionability leads to our practice of conditionally ordaining.

I didn't actually read the extent of this discussion, so forgive if what I have said above has already been elucidated.

Pax,

Jeff

[thequeensindian]

FWIW, many Anglican priests nowadays can trace their orders through Old Catholic bishops, which Rome views as valid. Hence the conditional ordination, I suppose.

If you would like to know exactly what is said during an ordination in the Episcopal Church, you can look it up by googling "book of common prayer".

Most Episcopalians probably don't care what the Catholic Church says on this topic. We know our orders are valid, just as you know that yours are.

[CatherineM]

I just based my understanding on having sung at ordinations when formerly Protestant ministers were ordained as priests. I don't know if they were conditional or not. It may depend on which denomination they are coming from.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='thequeensindian' post='1561566' date='Jun 6 2008, 09:00 PM']FWIW, many Anglican priests nowadays can trace their orders through Old Catholic bishops, which Rome views as valid. Hence the conditional ordination, I suppose.

If you would like to know exactly what is said during an ordination in the Episcopal Church, you can look it up by googling "book of common prayer".

Most Episcopalians probably don't care what the Catholic Church says on this topic. We know our orders are valid, just as you know that yours are.[/quote]

Unfortunately, you'll find that in the Book of Common Prayer, there is written a statement that the Eucharist is not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Thus, their ordinations may seem Roman in some way, but the lineage was lost because the nature of the priesthood was altered... no Eucharistic [i]sacrifice [/i]means no priesthood at all. No priesthood means not doing as the Church intends, meaning no apostolic authority passed on.

Also, some anglican clergy may be able to trace their lineage back to some old Roman bishops. This may be true, but it's not enough that they had laying on of hands in an illicit (and invalid) way by valid clergy, but the actual intent, formula, understanding of the Eucharist, etc must be there. It's only an historical lineage, not an apostolic.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Sacred Music Man

[thequeensindian]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1564278' date='Jun 9 2008, 12:11 AM']Unfortunately, you'll find that in the Book of Common Prayer, there is written a statement that the Eucharist is not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Thus, their ordinations may seem Roman in some way, but the lineage was lost because the nature of the priesthood was altered... no Eucharistic [i]sacrifice [/i]means no priesthood at all. No priesthood means not doing as the Church intends, meaning no apostolic authority passed on.[/quote]

Did you find that statement in the section titled "Historic Documents"? That sounds like something from the Puritan period. If you'll read the catechism in the BCP, the section on the sacrements, you'll see that's not what the Episcopal Church teaches. We have not defined transubstantiation as narrowly as the Catholic Church, but we do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Addressing the opening post, should Catholics see Anglican Holy Orders as valid? Of course not. Catholics are required to believe (or give assent to) whatever the Catholic Church tells them to believe, and the CC says they aren't. Rome has spoken, the issue is closed. If the question were, ARE Anglican Holy Orders valid, I would certainly say they are. But we can continue to treat each other with charity while disagreeing on something like this. I love my Catholic brethren, even though I don't agree with everything you say or do.