Validity of Orders & the Real Presence

The matter of validity of orders is in fact a question for the Roman Church, in that what is now the Anglican church was once the Catholic church under the jurisdiction of Rome.

As far as the "real presence" let's use the Roman term "transubstantiation" to describe it.

That the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation at the blessing of the priest is the unanimous and universal belief of Christianity and has been since the beginning. There has never been any need to challenge that fact or attempt to redefine it.

Decanus said:

I don't think it is a matter purely for the RCC as it affects Anglicans and so it is also a question for them to state why the RC position is incorrect on the validity of their orders.

I'm intrigued that you have chosen to use the term 'transubstantiation' since this is not the Orthodox position and not all Anglicans accept it either. Transubstantiation was a later development in the RCC.

Click to expand...

The term "transubstantiation" to describe the change is the "later development", not the idea of the change itself. There is no difference in the concept of the change between the Roman and Orthodox Churches.

From the Confession of Dositheus, Synod of Jerusalem:

He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

HTacianas said:

The matter of validity of orders is in fact a question for the Roman Church, in that what is now the Anglican church was once the Catholic church under the jurisdiction of Rome.

Click to expand...

The Anglican Church was once under the jurisdiction of Rome, but that does not mean they have authority to decide the validity of our orders.

As far as the "real presence" let's use the Roman term "transubstantiation" to describe it.

That the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation at the blessing of the priest is the unanimous and universal belief of Christianity and has been since the beginning. There has never been any need to challenge that fact or attempt to redefine it.

Click to expand...

That may be the Orthodox position, but it is not the Anglican one. Can you please not teach in this forum?

Decanus said:

Hi guys,
So this is a bit of a two part question. Being raised in the Roman Church, we were always made aware that the Romans had valid orders and the real presence of Christ in the eucharist (as well as the Orthodox), and that Anglicans do not have either. This kind of ingraining into RC's minds can often be a stumbling block for them leaving the Church for fear that other Churches, in this case the Anglican Church, do not have the real presence or valid orders.

Often cited on the roman side was the Popes bull that declared Anglican orders utterly null and void. Another argument used to prove this point is that during King Edwards reign the understanding of what the priesthood is changed and that therefore meant that the orders ceased to be valid. Apart from saying 'why would we care what the RC's think", what would be an Anglicans response to that be? How would you convince somebody that Anglicans still have valid orders and that they also hold to the real presence.

Also, I was wondering how you yourselves viewed the real presence and how you feel that others within the Anglican Church hold different views on this crucial belief? Some may see the disunity in belief on the real presence to be worrying.

Thank you and I look forward to your replies and thoughts.

Click to expand...

Honestly I think a large part of the Anglican response to Rome's opinion of our orders would be "who cares what Rome think." Would Romans care if we declared that their priests weren't priests? But I would also argue that Romans themselves saw nothing wrong with the Edwardian ordinal during the brief Catholic Restoration under Bloody Mary. But as far as internal stuff is concerned, we feel that we maintained the needed form for the proper ordination of priests and deacons. And in the Church of England at least, my understanding is that since 1931 all Church of England bishops were ordained by at least one bishop of the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, whose's orders are recognized by Rome.

The real presence is a bit trickier. There is a difference of opinion on the real presence, but from what I understand we all agree Christ is present, just not how he is present. Some of us believe in a corporal presence, which tends to be a higher church view, though most stop short of transubstantiation. I personally hold this view, believing that Christ is physically present in the Bread and Wine, but not trying to explain how. The view that honestly is probably better supported by the Articles is more of a pneumatic presence, where Christ is made present spiritually. I don't understand it, so I'm not going to try to explain it.

My answer is rather offhand, because I have not bothered to study the issue as much as I might have. However, I believe that the following is correct and I submit it to you for your consideration..

1. The Roman Church took 300 years before announcing its ruling against Anglican Orders. Why would that be? More to the point, why was it issued when it was?

The mid- to late 19th century was the period when the Papacy was losing its place in Western life, not to the Reformation but to Secular forces such as National Independence Movements, popular democracy, Darwinism, Socialism, and etc.

The Pope could no longer dictate who should be the ruler in European nations. An historic role was passing away. As a result, she fought back with several edicts that were reflective of her effort to counter these modern forces. The Papal Infallibility decision is well known, but many people fail to see the ruling on Anglican Orders as being part of the same reaction.

2. The determination on Anglican Orders held that the ceremony by which bishops were consecrated failed, beginning in the 16th century, to include certain wording sufficient to Roman thinking about the nature of the priesthood, BUT it was the same wording as had been used by the pre-Reformation Catholic Church.

3. What exactly was the wording used to consecrate every one of the bishops, Roman, Eastern, and otherwise, during the first several centuries of church history? Of course, no one can say.

4. Finally, and as is fairly well-known, most Anglican bishops today have Old Catholic and/or Eastern Orthodox consecrators in their lineage an the Roman Catholic Church officially considers the bishops of those churches to have valid Apostolic Succession, leaving the Roman Church sometimes to argue that if you do not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as Pope, that in itself invalidates the orders. At that point I lose the last bit of interest I might have in that church's claims.

As I understand it, the crux of the Roman argument that our orders are invalid is their view that we do not intend to do the same thing that they intend in ordination; that our understanding of ordination is insufficient and that this mars the sacrament.

I would argue that in fact they are probably partly correct; we do not intend to do precisely what Rome says she intends to do in ordination, but have a different theology of orders (leaving aside here the issue of women's ordination, but assuming for the moment that we are talking about men ordaining men). But I would argue that our intention is to make valid deacons, priests and bishops for our own church, and that that we do perfectly validly within the structures of ministry which we hold. I don't see our clergy as interchangeable.

The question is: what makes orders valid? I don't believe that holding an identical theology of orders to that of Rome is required.

Decanus said:

This kind of ingraining into RC's minds can often be a stumbling block for them leaving the Church for fear that other Churches, in this case the Anglican Church, do not have the real presence or valid orders.

Click to expand...

Others have spoken to the question of apostolic succession. I'm not a historian, so I don't have much to add there.

But I do want to speak to this linking of real presence with valid orders. I don't think real presence depends on valid orders. It is God who acts, who chooses to be present. We don't somehow conjure up God by saying the right words with the right rituals. Even if we weren't in apostolic succession at all, and even if we said the wrong words at the prayer of consecration over the elements -- even so, when we gather with bread and wine in worship, God comes to be present with us in the bread and wine. I think God's real presence is there in communion in Methodist and Presbyterian churches, even though they don't attempt to maintain apostolic succession. I think God is present in Baptist communion as well, even though the Baptists don't think communion is sacramental. I love the liturgy and the rituals of my church, but God isn't dependent on the correctness of our rituals. Grace, not magic.

Arcangl86 said:

The Anglican Church was once under the jurisdiction of Rome, but that does not mean they have authority to decide the validity of our orders.

That may be the Orthodox position, but it is not the Anglican one. Can you please not teach in this forum?


Honestly I think a large part of the Anglican response to Rome's opinion of our orders would be "who cares what Rome think." Would Romans care if we declared that their priests weren't priests? But I would also argue that Romans themselves saw nothing wrong with the Edwardian ordinal during the brief Catholic Restoration under Bloody Mary. But as far as internal stuff is concerned, we feel that we maintained the needed form for the proper ordination of priests and deacons. And in the Church of England at least, my understanding is that since 1931 all Church of England bishops were ordained by at least one bishop of the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, whose's orders are recognized by Rome.

The real presence is a bit trickier. There is a difference of opinion on the real presence, but from what I understand we all agree Christ is present, just not how he is present. Some of us believe in a corporal presence, which tends to be a higher church view, though most stop short of transubstantiation. I personally hold this view, believing that Christ is physically present in the Bread and Wine, but not trying to explain how. The view that honestly is probably better supported by the Articles is more of a pneumatic presence, where Christ is made present spiritually. I don't understand it, so I'm not going to try to explain it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying this. I am fairly new to the Anglican Church (having been raised Roman Catholic) and, unfortunately, I am finding these two claims by the Roman Catholic Church difficult to dismiss, having been brainwashed into thinking these things about the Anglican Church. In a way, I am glad that I did not brainwash my own children into believing these things.

But I totally agree with you, regarding the presence of Christ being spiritual.

April Angel said:

Thank you for clarifying this. I am fairly new to the Anglican Church (having been raised Roman Catholic) and, unfortunately, I am finding these two claims by the Roman Catholic Church difficult to dismiss, having been brainwashed into thinking these things about the Anglican Church. In a way, I am glad that I did not brainwash my own children into believing these things.

But I totally agree with you, regarding the presence of Christ being spiritual.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of converts from Rome in Catholicism and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them had the same difficulty. May I ask, do you consider yourself more Protesant or Catholic because that can change what I suggest.

I'm not sure. I just like going to the service on Sunday. I think I prefer the more Catholic service to the Evangelical ones. In England, the sway seems to be more towards Evangelical rather than Protestant. The other side are higher Anglicans which have church services which are more similar to Roman Catholic. I also love saying the rosary, so I suppose that makes me more Anglican Catholic.

April Angel said:

I'm not sure. I just like going to the service on Sunday. I think I prefer the more Catholic service to the Evangelical ones. In England, the sway seems to be more towards Evangelical rather than Protestant. The other side are higher Anglicans which have church services which are more similar to Roman Catholic. I also love saying the rosary, so I suppose that makes me more Anglican Catholic.

Click to expand...

One thing that might be helpful for you is to see if there is a local priest nearby who is a member of the Society of Catholic Priests. They might be able to address your concerns.

We obviously believe that our orders are valid, otherwise we would not have ordinations! That’s what’s important to us.

Other churches may do things differently, and that works for them.