FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: With all the schisms and sects...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
When was it taught that priests in schism cannot perform a valid mass? I was just thinking about the Church of England and how Henry VIII saw himself and his brand of protestantism to be entirely Catholic. Being such a devout Catholic for so long, wouldn't he have been aware of such laws that would have rendered his church godless?
(11-30-2012, 05:25 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: [ -> ]When was it taught that priests in schism cannot perform a valid mass? I was just thinking about the Church of England and how Henry VIII saw himself and his brand of protestantism to be entirely Catholic. Being such a devout Catholic for so long, wouldn't he have been aware of such laws that would have rendered his church godless?

This is an interesting question.  I've subscribed to see what others come up with.
(11-30-2012, 05:25 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: [ -> ]When was it taught that priests in schism cannot perform a valid mass?

Never, that I am aware of. Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae stated the Eastern Orthodox had valid sacraments and stated the reason the Church of England did not have valid holy orders was not because they were in schism but because the intention and form of Anglican ordination rites. 
I don't believe it's ever been said, though the mass of a schismatic would always be illicit (I think) because they have no jurisdiction.  Right?
I hope that someone here can post an overwhelming amount of information in regards to this subject.
(11-30-2012, 09:05 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: [ -> ]I hope that someone here can post an overwhelming amount of information in regards to this subject.

All that is required for a valid sacrament is form, matter, and intention. That is how a schismatic or even a Satanic priest can confect the sacraments.
(11-30-2012, 05:25 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: [ -> ]When was it taught that priests in schism cannot perform a valid mass? I was just thinking about the Church of England and how Henry VIII saw himself and his brand of protestantism to be entirely Catholic. Being such a devout Catholic for so long, wouldn't he have been aware of such laws that would have rendered his church godless?

Never! As long as there were validly ordained priests in Henry's Church (throughout his reign, undoubtedly, since the ritual was unchanged and I have little doubt the ordaining bishops had the proper intention, even if they were mislead) there was a valid Mass being celebrated.
So, as long as the priests were ordained by bishops (who were in good standing with Rome) the mass was valid? And any ordinations performed by bishops who were excommunicated were not valid? So, basically, all the Roman Catholic clergy-turned Anglican- of Henry's time were performing valid masses but once there weren't any bishops in good standing with Rome, all the future priests were performing non-valid/illicit masses. Is this correct?

Were all clergy members excommunicated for moving over to the Church of England?

Does this also mean that if he confessed to a validly ordained member of the clergy (who was once Roman and either excommunicated or not) before his death that he was forgiven and may very well be in purgatory on his way to heaven?
(11-30-2012, 10:51 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: [ -> ]So, as long as the priests were ordained by bishops (who were in good standing with Rome) the mass was valid? And any ordinations performed by bishops who were excommunicated were not valid? So, basically, all the Roman Catholic clergy-turned Anglican- of Henry's time were performing valid masses but once there weren't any bishops in good standing with Rome, all the future priests were performing non-valid/illicit masses. Is this correct?

Were all clergy members excommunicated for moving over to the Church of England?

Does this also mean that if he confessed to a validly ordained member of the clergy (who was once Roman and either excommunicated or not) before his death that he was forgiven and may very well be in purgatory on his way to heaven?

You don't have to be in communion with the Catholic Church to have valid sacraments. The Church from it's earliest days stated that baptisms preformed by heretics are valid provided they have proper intention, matter, and form. The same is true for all sacraments. 

The reason for the invalidity of Anglican holy orders is because the ordination ritual was changed under Edward VI in a way that denied the holy sacrifice (thus lacking proper intention).
(11-30-2012, 10:51 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: [ -> ]So, as long as the priests were ordained by bishops (who were in good standing with Rome) the mass was valid?

It's even beyond that. The ordaining bishops don't have to be in any good standing with Rome.
Quote:And any ordinations performed by bishops who were excommunicated were not valid?

No, they were valid.
Quote:So, basically, all the Roman Catholic clergy-turned Anglican- of Henry's time were performing valid masses but once there weren't any bishops in good standing with Rome, all the future priests were performing non-valid/illicit masses. Is this correct?

No, it is incorrect. Excommunication has nothing to do with the validity of orders.
Quote:Were all clergy members excommunicated for moving over to the Church of England?

Not sure.
Quote:Does this also mean that if he confessed to a validly ordained member of the clergy (who was once Roman and either excommunicated or not) before his death that he was forgiven and may very well be in purgatory on his way to heaven?

I don't know who he is, but maybe.
Pages: 1 2 3