www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Anglican Bishops becoming Catholic

I wanted to have posted this question on the other thread, but wasn't able to because it was closed.
In this case of Bishop Lipscombe, for example. He is a married and ordained bishop in the Anglican church. Upon his conversion, I can only guess that he will eventually be reintegrated as a Catholic Priest. It goes without saying that he will not be reintegrated as a bishop. However, what can we say about his orders? Does the church recognize his priestly orders as valid, but consider that his episcopal orders were invalid and illicit?
Or are his episcopal orders considered illicit but valid. In which case, are we now going to pretend that he was never ordained a bishop when, in fact, he was?
If we consider his episcopal ordination invalid, then so should we consider Rowan Williams ordination invalid. When he meets the Pope, does HH refer to him as Fr. Rowan Williams? Does the CC refer to him as Archbishop as a matter of courtesy, but "not really mean it?".
I mean no offense to anybody, nor do I mean to start a nasty argument. Just wondering what the Church's position is in regards to this, as I have heard conflicting theories.

God Bless!

The Catholic Church views most (not all) Anglican Orders invalid. This includes the Priesthood, or Deaconate.

This was because of the Edwardian Ordinal. The Ordinal has since been changed again, and now could pass on Apostolic succession, but they had lost it before then.

However, due to Old Catholic Lines, some Anglican Orders are Valid.

I do not know the Episcopal line of either Liscomb or Williams.

I do know that if they did not have Old Catholic Lineage, then they don't have Valid Apostolic Succession.

Nevertheless, as a Matter of course, all Clergy are referred to by the title binding on them in their Church. Thus, even Lutheran Bishops are addressed as Bishop or Reverend, and in fact, Mormon Bishops ( the equivalent of a local Priest) would be addressed as "Bishop Johnson" or so.

Just as the Mormon President would be addressed as "President Hinkely" , and just as a Jewish Rabbi would be addressed as "Rabbi Berwitz."

Just to name some examples.

When The Pope calls Rowan Williams "ArchBishop Of Canterbury" it sin recognition of his position within his own Church, not a point of valid ordination.

There is no "pretending" in the matter. Anglican Orders are viewed as invalid, so it is not a matter of pretending we don't recognize what "really was".

If and when Bp. Lipscombe is integrated into ministry in the Catholic Church, it will be after his ordination to the diaconate and presbyterate. I am not sure, but I believe Graham Leonard (former bishop of London) alone was ordained "conditionally" after appealing to Old Catholic involvement in his apostolic succession. Otherwise ordination is outright.

In fact Lipscombe may not pursue priestly ordination - there is precedent for that.

From Dr. William Tighe [kendallharmon.net]


In fact Abp Rowan Williams is the leader of an ecclesial community that is organized episcopally. In a real sense he IS a bishop by rank and order, but a Catholic would make the distinction that the office in Anglicanism is without sacramental foundation.

On the issue of honorifics, when Pope Benedict meets with Abp Rowan the courtesy is to extend to the visiting party the title that they give themselves. If Catholics refused to offer this courtesy it would then make no sense to call him "Father Rowan" either...

But I digress, it is a respect and courtesy offered to parties (even with whom we disagree) as the common praxis. The same would be done when meeting the Dali Lama, for example. Given some of the things we used to call each other, I think this is a positive step!

Everyone above is right. Anglican "bishops" are no more bishops than I am Pope of Rome, but they are addressed as such officially by the Church because their own denomination refers to them as such.

Alexis

As stated above, some Anglicans DO in fact have valid orders (by Catholic standards) since the Old Catholic Bishops (of the Utrecht schism after Vatican I) participated in the consecration of many Protestant Episcopal and a few Anglican bishops.

However, it is a wee bit confusing trying to figure out who does and who doesn't. I suppose the Curia will soon have to pull out the big diagram board if more Anglicans keep coming over. LOL.

Filipe,
Anglican Orders as of late have been viewed as null and void.
They have to be looked at individually because some can trace t their orders via the Old Catholic Church.
Stephanos I

I read last night that the Charismatic Episcopal Church went through a "re-ordination" ceremony with an excommunicated Brazilian RC Bishop. The rite followed the Tridentine ceremony and their Eucharistic liturgy was changed to reflect a Catholic interpretation of the sacrament.

So there are some Anglicans and Episcopalians who are in "valid" orders.

God bless,

Gordo

Dear Friends,

And not only the relationship between Anglicans and the Old Catholic Church.

The Assyrian Church of the East accepts Anglican Orders and one Anglican bishop living near me regularly distributes Communion at Assyrian liturgies. Assyrian Bishops tend to be present at Anglican ordinations up here too.


Alex

The situation is very messy. Some Anglican bishops and priests
have valid orders by reason of having valid but illicit consec-
rators, but never because of their purely Anglican consecrators.
Angicanism is totally a Protestant sect, who for the last four
hundred years loudly and proudly denied that ordination to the
priesthood is a sacrament, as they have loudly and proudly denied
that their priests at Holy Communion change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. They are little more than
another Calvinist denomination, whatever a small minority of them
might claim.

Every case must be judged on its individual merits, and that is
Rome's business. Certainly no ex-Anglican priest should be admitted to the Catholic priesthood without at least conditional
reordination, for who can tell what his consecrator intended?

Edmac

The situation is very messy.

This is true.


Some Anglican bishops and priests
have valid orders by reason of having valid but illicit consec-
rators, but never because of their purely Anglican consecrators.

This also is true.




Angicanism is totally a Protestant sect, who for the last four
hundred years loudly and proudly denied that ordination to the
priesthood is a sacrament,


This isn't quiet true, and although soem within the Anglican Churhc did make such a denial, not all did. Henry Tudor (the Eighth) certianly saw it as Sacramental, as did Cranmer. The Original Ordinations where seen as Sacramentlaly vlaid as well, even by ROme,. It wans't until the Edwardian Ordinal that such was changed, and een then the Anglicans themselves saw it as a Sacramental office. In the same vien, Some Lutherans see their Ordinaitons as such.



as they have loudly and proudly denied
that their priests at Holy Communion change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.


Actually, along with the Lutherans, the official position adopted under the Elizabethian Settlement is COnsubstantiation. And as with Lutheran theology, Anglcians beelive the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jeuss CHrist, and recognise the Sacrament as such. THey simply assert ( In the 39 aritlces, and other places) that the bread and wine do nto change Charecter, btu spiritualy possess these attributed upon the concecration.

Of coruse, Anglcians have always been a divided lot, and many within the Anglican Communion did deny the ral PReasence of CHrist JEsus in the Host.

Even Amongst the Clergy.

However, many others even form day one taught Transubstantiation.

ANd the majority until recnelty taught COnsubstantiaion.



They are little more than
another Calvinist denomination, whatever a small minority of them
might claim.


Except not all Anglicans held to Calvinism even from the itme of Elizabeth the FIrts, and surley they didn't under Henry the 8th.

PRotestant I won't contest, but Calvinism, though rife in certian quarters of the Anglican CHruhc, was never Omnipreasent.

And lthis was particulalry true after the Civil War and Cromwell mae Calvinism unpopular iN England.



Every case must be judged on its individual merits, and that is
Rome's business.

THis I concure with.

Certainly no ex-Anglican priest should be admitted to the Catholic priesthood without at least conditional
reordination, for who can tell what his consecrator intended?

I'll go with this as well.

The essential point is that the Anglican "church" never has not and never has had any unity of belief. It has always been
a hodge-podge, including people sort-of, kind-of Catholic in
their beliefs along with people violently Protesant in theirs.
All at one and the same time. Over the centuries, the latter
became the dominant element. What Cramner or Laud or Jeremy Taylor belived has nothing to do with what the the Anglican
"church" professes today - whatever that may be. This is not to
deny that the Anglican communion has not produced many good and
holy people - saints,even. But it did so in spite of their
confessional confusion by the grace of the Holy Spirit who
blows where He listeth. Anglicanism has since the days of
Elizabeth I been rabidly anti-Catholic and for good reason.
Catholicism denies that a secular ruler, who may be an atheist
or worse, can be the supreme governor of the church, whereas this
is THE basic doctrine of Anglicanism. The embarrasing reality that since the murder of Charles I no English king has had any
great authority over their church or anything else is happily disregarded, as is the fact that most Anglicans are not now
subjects of the English Monarch and thus have no governor at all.

Edmac

Edmac wrote:


It was not until the Civil War and the so-called Glorious Revolution that the ultra-Protestant party became dominant.

While Cranmer was most certainly a Calvinist. I would be careful about labelling the other two as such. If you want a better understanding of Archbishop Laud, look at his polemic against St. Robert Bellarmine. Protestant he was, but Laud had some very 'high' ideas about the church and the sacraments. He was in many ways a martyr for the Anglican episcopacy.

Anglicans have always been a wide mixture of several different confessions and the basic three party division (Low Church, Broad Chuch, High Church) has always applied since the days of Elizabeth. However, since the Victorian-era the Low Church party has become the Evangelical faction, the Broad Church party the Liberal faction, and the High Church party the Anglo-Catholic and Anglo-Papalist factions.

The famous English Catholic novelist Evelyn Waugh once quipped, "No one from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung can be certain that he is not an Anglican."

Dear Friends,

There is no consistent "Anglicanism" today or in history. Anglicans themselves admit to there being "Low Church" Evangelicals along with "High Church" Anglo-Catholics in their parishes ("Low and Lazy," "MIddle and Hazy" and "High and Crazy").

There are several High Church Anglican parishes in Toronto, including St Bartholomew's and St Mary Magdalene's that are ANYTHING but Protestant. In fact, if you went into them, as I have, you'd say that the RCC has become culturally Protestant.

St Mary Magdalene's actually carry a statue of Mary in procession through the streets of Toronto in May (they also have a sign on their front door saying that they are not Protestant etc.). They ignore the 39 articles of religion.

Many of these Anglicans also accept the Pope as "First among equals" and others go further (Anglican Papalists).

And it is relatively easy for an Anglican priest concerned about valid orders to obtain them these days.

Pere Lamy, a very holy French Catholic priest (who prayed the Rosary constantly throughout the day and was a miracle-worker) devoted himself to Anglican-Catholic reunion.

He was in contact with the Anglicans of the Tractarian Movement who were especially devoted to Eucharistic Adoration.

And Pere Lamy always said, "Even if the Anglicans don't have valid Orders, they really do pray to our Lord in the Eucharist . . . There are many among them that are more blameless than we."

Ultimately, God will judge according to how we responded to the Grace we receive and not according to what might be our prideful view that we are the "true Church."

True Faith without sincere living of it avails nothing.

Alex

Well said, Alex, especially your last line. I greatly respect orthodox Anglicans, and admire the Anglo-Catholics.

Dear Byzantophile,

Certainly, all this is fodder for discussion, but I believe William Laud (known as "Blessed William Laud" among Anglican Catholics) was no Protestant, at least, not in the sense that we know "Protestantism" today.

Laud was tried for his "Romish" practices such as his insistence on having statues of the Virgin Mary and the Saints (several of which still stand at Oxford today), genuflecting in Church, having Crucifixes and the like. He died for defending the Catholic heritage of the Church of England and Charles I died for episcopacy as well. There is an article by a French RC priest, Fr. Roulx, who insists that Charles I should be canonized a saint by Rome . . .

He and Launcelot Andrewes et al. accepted the RCC as a "true Church" along with their own and the "Greek Church." "Puritan" was the term they used for what I believe is our understanding of "Protestant" today. And they actually used the term "Orthodox" for their brand of Anglicanism.

Thus, whenever King Charles I was asked to appoint new bishops, he received a list from Laud where each candidate had either a "P" for Puritan or an "O" for "Orthodox" beside their names - and Charles always chose from among the "Orthodox" and even publicly said he was the protector of the "Orthodox Church of England." Charles was unwilling to persecute Catholics but Parliament was Parliament. To this day, there are those Protestants who say Charles I died as a Roman Catholic. The Anglican devotional Society of King Charles the Martyr (of which I am a member) counts Catholics among its ranks and the Founder, Mrs. Greville-Nugent, became an RC.

I don't know much about US Episcopalians, but the Anglicans up here can be downright "Romish" if they've a mind to be .

(I chuckled when I saw my mother's old Baptismal Certificate - she was baptized an RC and the English version stated, "Romish Church.")

And those Anglicans won't do a thing to emasculate themselves of their "Romishness" either . . .

Alex