Replies

A question to nobody in particular.

What do Anglicans/Episcopalians believe about Holy Orders?

The way this article sounds to me is that the bishop is able to make non-priests out of priests.

In the Catholic Church, we loosely use terms “de-frock,” “former priest,” etc., but what we really mean to say is this: once a man is validly ordained, he is a priest forever. When a man is validly ordained, if he is licitly ordained, he’s also incardinated and elevated to the clerical state from the lay state. But the clerical state is a hierarchical office of the Church. It’s different from “becoming a priest,” which is an ontological change to the person, a “mark on the soul” that is indelible and eternal.

Thus, when a priest is severely disciplined in the Catholic Church, he may be laicized, that is reduced from the clerical to the lay state. He loses his status as a member of the hierarchy of the Church. He may no longer publicly represent himself as a Catholic priest. He may not LAWFULLY say Mass, and he may not generally validly perform marriages or give absolution.

Yet, that mark on the soul remains. He is still a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

Even if he is excommunicated, and thus may not even receive the sacraments, he is still a priest forever. Should he celebrate Mass, it will be unlawful, it will heap ever more harm onto him, but the confection of the Blessed Sacrament, all things being equal, will occur.

At the most fundamental ontological level, you can’t make a non-priest from a priest in the Catholic Church.

How does that compare to what Anglicans/Episcopalians believe?