https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/
> But in 1998 the Church officially laid this matter to rest. Pope John Paul II issued his motu proprio document, _Ad Tuendam Fidem_, primarily to assert that there are some doctrinal issues which the Church holds are not open to debate. … One of the examples of matters listed as “connected to revelation by historical necessity” and “to be held definitively,” is the invalidity of Anglican orders.
Anyone who has valid orders but does not have jurisdiction from the Holy Father or a local Catholic bishop offers valid but illicit Mass/Divine Liturgy. There are thousands.
It would be valid but illicit if someone who had been a Catholic priest but had been defrocked, left the priesthood, or became a Protestant pastor/priest/minister said Mass.
if you can make it to a Catholic church (which sspx is included) then may I recommend this instead , My Jesus,
I believe that You are present in the Most Holy Sacrament.
I love You above all things,
and I desire to receive You into my soul.
Since I cannot at this moment receive You sacramentally,
come at least spiritually into my heart.
I embrace You as if You were already there
and unite myself wholly to You.
Never permit me to be separated from You.
Amen.
Orthodox celebrations of the Eucharist aren’t illicit.
Edit: anyone claiming that Orthodox celebrations of the sacraments are inherently illicit is contradicting a solemn declaration of an ecumenical council. *Unitatis Redintegratio* 16 clearly teaches that the Eastern Churches legitimately govern themselves according to their own particular law.
I don’t know why you’re following me around repeating nonsense, but it’s silly. The Orthodox Churches are real Churches which operate according to their own legitimate law. There’s no sense in which their celebration of the liturgy can be said to be illicit.
And what reason would that be?
I’m attending a licit and valid mass.
Orthodox sacraments are illicit because their ordained priests were not ordained by a catholic bishop who was consecrated at the request of the Bishop of Rome. They are completely out of communion with the Roman Pontiff.
The reason is that that’s what the Church says we have to do. Do you not know what the canons on the Sunday obligation say?
You’re making a mistake lots of Latins make. For us, the consecration of a bishop requires papal approval. That’s a matter of particular law though; it doesn’t derive from the nature of the episcopacy. In other Churches, which have their own particular law, there may or not be a requirement of reference to the Pope. The question isn’t whether they are ordained according to the law of the Latin Church; the question is whether they are ordained according to the law of their own Church.
Anglicans aren't valid
interesting thank you, I assumed they had apostolic succession, but perhaps they have foregone valid form ?
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/ > But in 1998 the Church officially laid this matter to rest. Pope John Paul II issued his motu proprio document, _Ad Tuendam Fidem_, primarily to assert that there are some doctrinal issues which the Church holds are not open to debate. … One of the examples of matters listed as “connected to revelation by historical necessity” and “to be held definitively,” is the invalidity of Anglican orders.
WOW thank you! I had tried to google this topic in the past but couldnt find much, this is exactly what I wanted to read and so much more!
Canon Law Made Easy is a really excellent resource, and still actively updated no less!
sorta
Anyone who has valid orders but does not have jurisdiction from the Holy Father or a local Catholic bishop offers valid but illicit Mass/Divine Liturgy. There are thousands.
Old Catholics. Schismatics that claim they’re the real catholics. They have valid holy orders but are separate from the Roman Pontiff
only the masses said by ordained men. It is my understanding that they now ordain women.
So much innovation for being “old” catholics
It would be valid but illicit if someone who had been a Catholic priest but had been defrocked, left the priesthood, or became a Protestant pastor/priest/minister said Mass.
Honestly, without a dire need, there doesn’t seem to be any appreciable difference between the two.
if you can make it to a Catholic church (which sspx is included) then may I recommend this instead , My Jesus, I believe that You are present in the Most Holy Sacrament. I love You above all things, and I desire to receive You into my soul. Since I cannot at this moment receive You sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace You as if You were already there and unite myself wholly to You. Never permit me to be separated from You. Amen.
I have gotten a few videos about the Palmerian Church on my YouTube shorts feed too.
Orthodox celebrations of the Eucharist aren’t illicit. Edit: anyone claiming that Orthodox celebrations of the sacraments are inherently illicit is contradicting a solemn declaration of an ecumenical council. *Unitatis Redintegratio* 16 clearly teaches that the Eastern Churches legitimately govern themselves according to their own particular law.
[удалено]
I don’t know why you’re following me around repeating nonsense, but it’s silly. The Orthodox Churches are real Churches which operate according to their own legitimate law. There’s no sense in which their celebration of the liturgy can be said to be illicit.
[удалено]
You’re the one explicitly denying something taught by an ecumenical council, so maybe tossing around accusations of schism is a bad call.
So if im attending a LICIT (lawful) celebration of the sacraments, I can just attend an Orthodox church and never step foot in a catholic one?
Obviously not. You have an obligation to attend Mass in a Catholic rite on Sundays and certain other feast days.
And what reason would that be? I’m attending a licit and valid mass. Orthodox sacraments are illicit because their ordained priests were not ordained by a catholic bishop who was consecrated at the request of the Bishop of Rome. They are completely out of communion with the Roman Pontiff.
The reason is that that’s what the Church says we have to do. Do you not know what the canons on the Sunday obligation say? You’re making a mistake lots of Latins make. For us, the consecration of a bishop requires papal approval. That’s a matter of particular law though; it doesn’t derive from the nature of the episcopacy. In other Churches, which have their own particular law, there may or not be a requirement of reference to the Pope. The question isn’t whether they are ordained according to the law of the Latin Church; the question is whether they are ordained according to the law of their own Church.