Anglican valid orders

I’m studying to be an anglican priest… when Iget ordained there will be 2 bishops from the pncc there. Now I believe that without them there I will still be a priest. Would like to know with the two bishops there would the Catholic Church recognize my order as valid? It doesn’t matter either way just want to know.

That is the question of the Polish Pat (analogous to the Dutch Touch). And, AFAIK, and I’ve been interested in the general subject for 15-18 years, the RCC has made no definitive statement on that point, with respect to the judgement made on Anglican orders, in Apostolicae Curae. By the logic found in Ott’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p.458, it would seem that you would receive the sacrament of Orders validly, assuming all other aspect of the sacramental action were equally valid. But there is nothing I know of to point at.


There is no ontological change in the candidate during the ordination liturgy.

Whether that be so or no, it is not the question the OP posed.


From the Augustinian perspective, it depends if the PNCC bishops will lay hands on you, and their lineage is valid, and the text they say when laying hands on you acceptable. From the Cyrillic perspective, no.

Well, looks like Holy Orders is not one shared yet:

Dialogue with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, with the approval of the Holy See, led in 1996 to an arrangement that Laurence J. Orzell has called “limited inter-communion”.[12] What this means is that the Catholic Church recognises the validity of the sacraments of the PNCC, making applicable to its members the provisions of canon 844 §§2–3 of the Code of Canon Law. This canon allows Catholics who are unable to approach a Catholic minister to receive, under certain conditions, the sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from “non-Catholic ministers, ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid”, and declares it licit for Catholic priests to administer the same three sacraments to members of churches which the Holy See judges to be in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as the Eastern Churches, if they ask for the sacraments of their own accord and are properly disposed.[13] Obstacles to full communion include different understandings regarding the role of the Pope, the level of involvement of the laity in church governance and the PNCC reception of some former Roman Catholic clergy, most of whom subsequently married.[13]

I don’t know but howIunderstand it is that pope Leo picked four cardinals to reseach Anglican oders.Results were a tie two for and two not…Leo was thebtie braker with a no .For two to say yes there had to be something there the other two didn’t see the paper Iread said that it might been polictical. Leo was afraid if he said yes he would lose the church to the COE…I think with great respect for the Catholic Church they were wrong and anglicans have valid oders.Thats want I think but the CC and others think I’m worng.


RCC teaches ex opere operato. C of E does not.

I am not sure if the story about Pope Leo is correct, I will wait for GKC’s weighing in on it.

Be that as it may, Pope Leo is the head bishop, and his decision stands, like it or not.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury said or decided something you do not like or agree with…are you bound to obey or reject it?

But who is to decide whether the AC has valid orders-the Pope or the Anglicans making a declaration for themselves they have valid orders?

I agree that they would be valid. But they would be illicit. And since it ‘doesn’t matter either way’, why are you worried about it?:confused:

Pretty sure that is an implicit teaching of the C of E, even if not explicit. The idea that the state of a priest’s soul affects the sacraments is certainly foreign to my Anglican upbringing.

Historically, that is not what happened. For complicated reasons not usually related in this sort of discussion, there was appointed a commission of first 6,then 8 RC clergy, to examine the question of what the historic RCC attitude toward Anglican orders had been and whether they should be a change in that. The commissioners were 4 English RC clergy, 3 selected by Archbishop Cardinal Vaughan, the others from European countries.

The results of their deliberations were not made public, but are discernible from info leaked over the years - possibly 4 each, for valid-invalid, or, more likely, 2 for valid, 2 for possibly valid, 4 for invalid. Cardinal Vaughan’s 3 selectees were solidly for invalid.

After 10 meetings, the commissioners’ deliberations were ended, and they made a report. After which, the matter went to a group of Cardinals,under the Holy Office for final deliberation. The Cardinals met once, after about a month of maneuverings, primarily by Cardinal Vaughan and his representatives, on Thursday, 16 July 1896. This was a Feria V meeting, under the personal presidency of the Pope, which lends greater solemnity and authority to the final decision. An unusual effort to have the maximum number of Cardinals in attendance resulted in an ill Cardinal (Mertel) being carried into the meeting. But there was one notable absence: Cardinal Rampolla, the Cardinal Sec. of State, the only high Vatican official to have shown any favor to the general idea of valid Anglican orders from the first, was not present.

The Cardinals sat for about 2-3 hours. The unanimous vote, in brief, was that Anglican orders were invalid. Apostolicae Curae, written by Monsignor Merry Del Val, who had served as the original Commission secretary, and had worked closely with Cardinal Vaughan throughout, and Dom Francis Gasquet, from the Commission. Or perhaps primarily by Cardinal Mazella, Prefect of the Holy Office, who drafted the original of the Bull (authorities differ). Leo annotated it, for the final version. And it was issued on 13 Sep, 1896. Much history is compressed here. The best resource on this subject, as on the detailed history of Apostolicae Curae generally, is found in Fr. John J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID.

The correct attitude to take toward the judgement is that it is certainly binding on RCs, at the appropriate level of theological certainty, and should be affirmed by them. Anglicans, of course, may take another view of the matter (or the form, or intent).


Certainly, by that logic, they would be illicit, as are the PNCC, or OCs/Utrecht orders.

What makes you think I worry about it?


Leo was not particularly worried about that, but something related was in Cardinal Vaughan’s mind. He saw that there was an upsurge in the CoE of the Anglo-Catholic wing (Halifax was a leader of this group). Cardinal Vaughan was concerned that a declaration of validity would discourage such Anglo-Catholics from making the final leap to Rome; conversely, that a declaration of invalidity would cause a surge in conversions. He expressed this latter point publicly, and to the Pope.It did not transpire as he expected.


By denying that the C of E teaches ex opere operato, I am not thereby endorsing that the C of E teaches donatism. The C of E clearly teaches that Holy Orders are a legal function, and that it is the church’s job to discern those who are called and train and install them as ministers. They are not invested with sacerdotal powers by the laying on of hands.

Notice that the priest is charged after his ordination to “take thou authority” to preach the word and administer the sacraments. The celebration of the sacraments according to the C of E is a matter of discipline, not a charisma that can be confected on a man.

Is’nt that what Rome is doing making anglican priest Catholic? What worng with married priests? Know a marriedpriest in wisconsin and in tv interview the parishers say that there no difference than a single one. That always there when needed. If the CC change the rule they may not have a priest shortage.It might work but have to think about Anglican, lutherans and others that allow marriage and have a shortage.

Is’nt that what Rome is doing making anglican priest Catholic? What worng with married priests? Know a marriedpriest in wisconsin and in tv interview the parishers say that there no difference than a single one. That always there when needed. If the CC change the rule they may not have a priest shortage.It might work but have to think about Anglican, lutherans and others that allow marriage and have a shortage.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit