Has any one of our Priests been received as a priest by the RCC without being re-orda

[gtsecc]

This would show that they do in fact consider our male orders valid.

[AveMaria]

Good question, and I've no idea, offhand. Hoping someone knows!

[benedictine]

I don't think so. They are usually re-ordained.

[benedictine]

And, of course, when they come to the Anglican church, we just recieve them into the Anglican Communion, and make them take a class on Anglicanism. Becouse, of course, their orders are just as valid as ours.

[gtsecc]

And, of course, when they come to the Anglican church, we just recieve them into the Anglican Communion, and make them take a class on Anglicanism. Becouse, of course, their orders are just as valid as ours.
Of course our orders are valid.
I and I think the RCC knows it.
That is why I am askign if they have ever recieved one of our Priests without reordination.

[Fish and Bread]

There isn't really extensive documentation that's widely available on that sort of thing, I don't think, but to the best of my knowledge Anglican priests who convert are always reordained upon becoming Roman Catholic priests. I would imagine that you could see exceptions in circumstances where an Anglican priest may have been original ordained in an Eastern Orthodox or Old Catholic Church, converted to Anglicanism, and then on to Roman Catholicism, since the EO and OCC orders are usually recognized by the RCC, but obviously those cases of several conversions by clergymen are fairly uncommon, as far as I'm aware.

The one thing I have heard of happening is Anglicans having sacraments only conditionally readministered. In other words, they could get reconfirmed and reordained with some words being inserted into the rite asking for God to only affect these sacraments if the prior ones were not valid. However, it is my understanding that even this is rare and requires a very understanding bishop and extensive research into the succession lines of the priest in question demonstrating a link to lines accepted by the RCC (i.e. not the original Church of England lines, which the RCC feels were broken).

Personally, I feel the lack of RCC acceptance of Anglican lines is mostly political. The RCC doesn't want to acknowledge that a widespread western church other than itself has valid sacraments, because they fear a mass exodus from their own church.

John

[Filia Mariae]

GTSecc,

Some have been conditionally ordained, as one might be conditionally baptized. To the best of my knowledge, none has been received as a priest without at least being conditionally ordained.

[benedictine]

Well, they see our orders as invalid, becouse they think that the succession was broken, becouse we used the edwardian ordinal, rather than the Roman ordinal. And, as I've I said before, all that is neccessary for ordination is intent and the laying on of hands. I'll contact a priest for further information.

[Father Rick]

Well, they see our orders as invalid, becouse they think that the succession was broken, becouse we used the edwardian ordinal, rather than the Roman ordinal. And, as I've I said before, all that is neccessary for ordination is intent and the laying on of hands. I'll contact a priest for further information.The issue for the RC's is that they believe the wording of the Edwardian Ordinal was changed because the intent was changed. They hold that since the intent was not to ordain in the catholic (little c) tradition, therefore the line is invalid.

The following is taken from http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws031113.htm
...An ordained Episcopalian minister would make a profession of faith and be received into the Catholic Church, and thereupon receive the sacrament of confirmation. He would then take appropriate courses which would enable him to minister as a Catholic priest. After proper examination by his Catholic bishop and with the permission of the Holy Father, he would then be ordained first as a Catholic transitional deacon and then as a priest.

The Episcopalian clergy would be ordained because the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of their holy orders, at least in the Catholic understanding of holy orders. Remember that in 1534 King Henry VIII severed the church in England from the rest of the Catholic Church and established himself as its head. For this reason, to this day, Queen Elizabeth II is the official head of the Church of England, and she appoints all bishops of the realm with the consent of parliament. After Henry VIII’s death, Edward VI, his son and successor, issued a new ordinal for the rites of ordination. The Edwardian Ordinal, composed by Archbishop Cranmer, who was heavily influenced by the Lutheran theologian Martin Bucer, changed the rites of ordination of the Roman Catholic Pontifical. The subsequent ordinations of the Church of England were declared invalid from the Catholic understanding of Holy Orders by Pope Julius III in a letter to Cardinal Reginald Pole (1554) and by Pope Paul IV in two letters (1555).

Pope Leo XIII in 1896 rendered the definitive judgment in his bull "Apostolicae Curae," stating that "the ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void." This decision was based on both the defect of form and intention in the Anglican rite. The Anglican rite purposely omitted the belief in the sacrificial priesthood exercised in the Mass and the Holy Eucharist. Concerning the defect of form, meaning the actual prayers used for ordination, Pope Leo declared, "Let this one argument serve for all: namely, these prayers [of ordination] have been deliberately stripped of everything which in the Catholic rite clearly sets forth the dignity and functions of the priesthood. It is, then, impossible for a form to be suitable and sufficient for a sacrament if it suppresses that which it ought distinctively to signify. The case is the same with Episcopal consecration. ... It follows that since the sacrament of orders and the true priesthood of Christ has been totally expunged from the Anglican rite, and since accordingly the priesthood is in no way conferred in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, it is equally impossible for the episcopate itself to be truly and properly conferred thereby; the more so because a chief function of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and for the sacrifice ... ."

Pope Leo concluded, "Hence not only is there in the whole ordinal no clear mention of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but as we have already indicated, every trace of these and similar things found in the prayers of the Catholic rite which were not completely rejected, was purposely removed and obliterated."

Pope Leo also noted the defect of intention: "If the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating what in fact the Church does and by Christ’s institution belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is evident, not only that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but even that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament." Therefore, any Episcopalian minister who desired to become a Catholic priest would have to be ordained as a deacon and a priest according to the rite of the Catholic Church.
...

[gtsecc]

I thought I was posting in the thread on weddings.

[fdrennen]

And, of course, when they come to the Anglican church, we just recieve them into the Anglican Communion, and make them take a class on Anglicanism. Becouse, of course, their orders are just as valid as ours.

I know of one case in the diocese of Newark where a former Roman Catholic Priest was rejected for ordination. I don't know the particulars but it's not automatic. They have to go through the same disernment process as anyone else.

[Filia Mariae]

The issue for the RC's is that they believe the wording of the Edwardian Ordinal was changed because the intent was changed. They hold that since the intent was not to ordain in the catholic (little c) tradition, therefore the line is invalid.

You are correct that for Catholics, the denial of a sacrificial priesthood is one issue with Anglican orders. The other major issue is the Anglican belief that women can be ordained.

[PaladinValer]

*
(Edited by moderator request, and subsequently deleted due to lack of need :))

[Colabomb]

You are correct that for Catholics, the denial of a sacrificial priesthood is one issue with Anglican orders. The other major issue is the Anglican belief that women can be ordained.
Sister, that is not an Anglican belief, but an ECUSA Belief. Worldwide Anglicanism (and we of conservative groups) does not believe in female Priests.

[PaladinValer]

Colabomb,

1. Most provinces of the Anglican Communion ordain women deacons
2. Roughly half I believe ordain women priests
3. Four (England will be the fifth, if the resolution passes) ordain women bishops.

You generalize a bit too much.

[benedictine]

I would like to point out to Carly( since as a non-Anglican, she probably doesn't know) that there are several Anglican churches in the US. Most( if not all but one) are "Continuing Anglicans."