A question on Vatican Catholics accepting the Old Catholic's orders as valid

[Zacharias]

I was wondering if there some sort of official document on Vatican Catholics accepting the Old Catholic's orders as valid.

 

[Aymn27]

I was wondering if there some sort of official document on Vatican Catholics accepting the Old Catholic's orders as valid.

Yes, there is..I'll find it for you, but it refers to the Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic Churches....

 

[Aymn27]

I was wondering if there some sort of official document on Vatican Catholics accepting the Old Catholic's orders as valid.

Here's a link that answers your question..
http://www.blessedsacrament.com/theology/q52.html

 

[ps139]

With the OCC, the CC would examine them on a case-by-case basis. I tend to presume validity, but my opinion really doesn't matter either.

 

[gitlance]

My question is this.... talking with Father Rick and others, it becomes evident that the vast majority of Anglican/Episcopalian bishops have received the laying on of hands during ordination by an Old Catholic bishop. If this is truly the case, wouldn't that, in turn, mean that the RCC should re-examine its statement concerning Anglican holy orders?

As you know, I believe historically that the Anglican church has valid orders... and I don't think it's possible to historically and traditionally put up a good argument otherwise. But if you throw the laying on of hands by Old Catholics into the mix, you get an even stronger guarantee that our orders are valid, and perhaps Rome should look into that...

Any thoughts?

 

[Aymn27]

My question is this.... talking with Father Rick and others, it becomes evident that the vast majority of Anglican/Episcopalian bishops have received the laying on of hands during ordination by an Old Catholic bishop. If this is truly the case, wouldn't that, in turn, mean that the RCC should re-examine its statement concerning Anglican holy orders?

As you know, I believe historically that the Anglican church has valid orders... and I don't think it's possible to historically and traditionally put up a good argument otherwise. But if you throw the laying on of hands by Old Catholics into the mix, you get an even stronger guarantee that our orders are valid, and perhaps Rome should look into that...

Any thoughts?

I totally agree with you. With the OC orders thrown in the mix I would bet that most Anglican orders (from what I understand many Anglo-Catholics made sure they were "validly" ordained" would be considered valid if Rome investigated each. However, I believe they pretty much just assume invalid orders from all communions other than EO and make converts/incardants (sp?) "re-confirm"/"re-ordinate" so that they are positive that the sacraments are valid. Of course, as a Catholic, I don't believe Anglican orders were invalid in the first place!

 

[Iron Sun 254]

Rome won't look into it because they choose NOT to accept Anglican clergy as having valid Apostolic Succession. They don't want to accept what we do as being acceptable.

 

[benedictine]

You know, I wish someone in the Vatican would investigate that.

 

[ps139]

Hey guys,

I'd like to clear a few things up - actually just one thing. This statement, and ones like it,

If this is truly the case, wouldn't that, in turn, mean that the RCC should re-examine its statement concerning Anglican holy orders?

In the teaching of Rome, it is said that it is possible for valid Anglican orders. There is no blanket statement that "every clergyman of the Anglican Communion has invalid orders."

For the sake of not repeating myself, I am going to copy and paste something I wrote the other day re: this issue.
I want to make it clear that is not my intent to debate the validity of Anglican orders - I have no interest in doing so, and I am not inclined to break the no debate rules (and warn myself ) - I just want to clear up the Vatican perspective, because it seems there is a lot of misinformation on what my Church teaches:

We do not believe that every Anglican priest is necessarily invalid.

There are cases where we believe valid ordinations are possible. For instance, some ordinations use the same form (words) that we do. If the Catholic understanding of these words is not rejected by either the bishop ordaining, or the "ordainee," then the ordination may be valid in our eyes.

Also, I know that at some Anglican ordinations, Orthodox bishops are invited to make certain a true line of succession. If the form is proper, and there is an Orthodox bishop, it may very well be valid in our eyes. And if it is valid, and this priest becomes a bishop, and then ordains another Anglican priest, and everything else is correct, there is a good possibility that that priest may be validly ordained. The problem is that we really do not know.[/QUOTE]

So while the Vatican is not going to say "all Anglican orders are valid" they are not in the position to say that "All Anglican orders are invalid" either.

 

[Zacharias]

Here's a link that answers your question..
http://www.blessedsacrament.com/theology/q52.html

Thanks!

 

[PaladinValer]

Ps139, you bring up something I was going to contribute

It is, I believe, at least "semi-commonplace" for bishops from other apostolic churches to be present at ordinations, especially of ordinations of bishops, be they Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, etc.

It would seem therefore, as you've hinted, that a blanket statement is impossible from the lips of the pope. Even according therefore to the Vatican, there are some bishops (and therefore priests and deacons) in the Anglican Church that, to them, would have orders that are "valid if illicit."

 

[gitlance]

Hey guys! Thanks for your comments, especially you Ps139. I'm glad to hear the truth of the matter, because so many times it sounds like some Catholics believe our orders are invalid and they won't listen to reason, logic, and history.

I really appreciate all that you contributed!

 

[benedictine]

I'm just wondering, but shouldn't a church, wether it's an Anglican church or the Catholic Church, set up a commission to examine this. I'm going to answer my own question, but I wanted your input. They wouldn't becouse neither side has an interest in doing so, one believes they are valid, the other has no need to see if they are valid.

 

[ps139]

It would seem therefore, as you've hinted, that a blanket statement is impossible from the lips of the pope. Even according therefore to the Vatican, there are some bishops (and therefore priests and deacons) in the Anglican Church that, to them, would have orders that are "valid if illicit."

Exactly. There is a lot more to it than I explained (the presence of EO bishops doesnt guarantee validity in our eyes, other things are required), but your conclusion is correct: the Vatican makes no blanket statement on this. All they can say is if things are considered illicit, but they can not make a blanket statement saying all Anglican orders are invalid.
Mind you, there are a good number of faithful Catholics who don't know this and will argue with you otherwise. If that happens send em over my way .

 

[ps139]

I'm just wondering, but shouldn't a church, wether it's an Anglican church or the Catholic Church, set up a commission to examine this. I'm going to answer my own question, but I wanted your input. They wouldn't becouse neither side has an interest in doing so, one believes they are valid, the other has no need to see if they are valid.

You are correct. Also, Rome has certain criteria that some Anglican bishops do not think necessary - so agreeing on exactly what makes an ordination valid would have to be accomplished before any sort of commission would be possible.

 

[Father Rick]

Well guys... sorry I missed out on the first part of this discussion, but it looks like ps139 gave some very accurate and helpful info.

Now, for the 'unofficial' but easiest document to show those Catholics who may have a question-- just tell them to read the back page of their Sunday missal the next time they are at mass. It has a list as to who may and may not receive communion. Listed there are the Antiochian, Syrian (the EO chuches) as well as the Polish National Catholic Church (the largest OC group in the US) with instructions that they are to receive 'according to their discipline' or some such wording.

The 'official' ruling recognizing the sacraments of these churches comes under Roman Canon 844-- although that does not specifically state which churches are/are not recognized, just that those churches not in communion with Rome with valid Succession may receive sacraments from and administer sacraments to Romans when necessary.

 

[PaladinValer]

Ps139, a new question for you:

If a person is Baptized/Confirmed by a valid if illicit bishop (or, if needs be, a priest or deacon), would they too not be welcome at your church's Communion tables?

I have a feeling the answer is "no," but I'm asking anyhow due to my sinful nature to cause trouble

 

[ps139]

Ps139, a new question for you:

If a person is Baptized/Confirmed by a valid if illicit bishop (or, if needs be, a priest or deacon), would they too not be welcome at your church's Communion tables?
I have a feeling the answer is "no," but I'm asking anyhow due to my sinful nature to cause trouble

Since we are in STR I'll assume that both the person and the bishop are Anglican.
It still would be "no." since our churches are not in Communion.
Part of saying "Amen" after Communion in my Church means you are affirming your Communion with Rome. So, thats also why someone like John Kerry, who is in material schism with Rome, was told by some that he could not receive - even though he is baptized & confirmed in my Church. I hope that makes sense.
There are exceptions to this rule, but you need the bishop's permission. With the Orthodox, I think with the bishop's permission they can receive. I would imagine this might be possible for an Anglican too, but neither instance is the norm, it has to be requested and approved.

 

[Irish Melkite]

Also, I know that at some Anglican ordinations, Orthodox bishops are invited to make certain a true line of succession.

PS,

While I'd agree with virtually everything else that you said, the participation of Orthodox hierarchs in Anglican ordinations is the ecclesiastical equivalent of an urban legend. Neither any canonically recognized Orthodox hierarch, nor any from the mainstream but "non-canonical" Churches in schism from canonical Orthodoxy, has been documented as participating in an Anglican ordination, presbyteral or episcopal.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish Melkite]

With the Orthodox, I think with the bishop's permission they can receive.

Actually, no permission is required for an Orthodox to receive the Mysteries of the Eucharist, Confession, or Anointing of the Sick from a Catholic priest. However, the Orthodox as a general rule will not do so, as their own hierarchs forbid them to do so. That is not true with respect to several of the Oriental Orthodox Churches who have formal or informal provisions between themselves and Rome to assure the availability of pastoral care for the faithful of both Churches in places where there may not be ready access to a clergyman of a person's own faith. The faithful of the Polish National Catholic Church may also receive the same sacraments in a Catholic Church without permission of the bishop. These rights are accorded by Canon Law, based on holdings by the Vatican affirming that the Orthodox Churches and the PNCC have valid orders, Apostolic Succession, and valid sacraments. (The PNCC findings and provisions apply solely to the PNCC's jurisdictions in the US, not to its jurisdictions in Europe, regarding which no such determinations have been made for a variety of reasons.)

As PS has indicated, permission is required for any others, including Anglicans, to do so. Canon Law spells out the circumstances under which such may be granted.

Many years,

Neil