Anglican Orders Valid or Not? Anglican Eucharist, Valid or Not?

Today I post two articles, one written by a former Anglican minister and the other by a current Anglican minister. As a Catholic I believe the Catholic pronouncement that Anglican orders are not valid, by extension therefore the Anglican Eucharist is not valid and the reasons they are not.

The substance of this post is near to my heart as my daughter is married to a man who is an Epsicopalian and the son of a very Holy Episcopalian priest. Are Anglican Orders Valid, and Is Anglican Eucharist Valid or not?

First I present the link to the Anglican view on Holy Orders...

The Validity of Anglican Orders

By the Reverend William J. Alberts

IT is a not unusual experience for an Anglican, entering a Roman Catholic Church, to find, prominently displayed in a tract case, some pamphlet attacking the validity of Anglican Orders. In fact, this is one of the favorite topics of Roman authors.
Controversy is frequently unpleasant and always a possible source of that vicious lack of charity which every Christian ought to try to avoid. Nevertheless, necessity is laid upon us to try to present our answer to the charges which Roman Catholics make against the validity of our Orders, and consequently against the Catholic heritage of our beloved Church and the validity of our Sacraments.

Let it be stated at once that this article will not be exhaustive, nor will it be able within its brief compass to give detailed references. All it will attempt is a statement of the main Roman Catholic objections to the validity of our orders and to indicate a brief reply to them.

According to generally accepted Catholic practice no sacraments are valid in which there is a defect of matter, form, or intention. By 'matter' is meant some external thing which is used in conjunction with the administration of a particular sacrament. An example of such matter would be the water used in Holy Baptism. By 'form' is meant the words which give signification to the use to which the matter is being put. An example of 'form' would be the words 'John, I baptize thee, in the Name, etc.,' at Baptism. By 'intention' is meant that in conferring a sacrament the minister must have at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does. Any supposed sacramental rite which was deficient in one or more of these three requisites would be invalid and would lack the assurance which Catholic Sacraments give: that they are the very means by which God bestows upon His children the particular grace for which the Sacrament was instituted.

The guarantor of sacramental grace is, humanly speaking, the Episcopate: no Bishop, no Church, no Sacraments, no divinely assured salvation. It is therefore of utmost importance that we be assured that our orders of ministers are valid, that is to say, that they are the same which our Lord gave to the Apostles and which the Apostles transmitted to other fit men to be the means of continuing in union with the divine Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Continue reading here...

And now for the Catholic view on why the Anglican Eucharist is not valid...

Do Anglicans Have a Valid Eucharist?
by Dr. Taylor Marshall

...I received an email from Harry after the EWTN The Journey Home interview on July 2 asking this same question: Do Anglicans have a valid Mass?

Here's the short answer: No, Anglicans or Episcopalians (the tradition deriving from Henry VIII's Church of England) do not have a valid Eucharist. This question was settled by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII in his papal bull Apostolicae Curae on the nullity of Anglican orders, issued 18 September, 1896.

There are two reasons for the nullity of Anglican Holy Orders. After explaining these two reasons, I'll respond to the objection that Anglicans/Episcopalians have since "revitalized" their Apostolic Succession through the intervention of schismatic bishops of the Old Catholic/Orthodox/Polish National Catholic communities.

There are two reasons for the invalidity of Anglican Orders and Eucharist:

First Reason Against Anglican Eucharist: Invalid Form of Priestly Ordination
In 1550, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (a convinced Protestant) changed the ordination rite for bishops, priests, and deacons. Sacerdotal language was removed and the Roman form was abolished. Without valid bishops, you don't have valid priests. Without valid priests, you don't have valid Eucharists. If you don't have valid Eucharists, you don't have the Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament...
continue here...

A great thanks to Stephanie A. Mann whose blog Supremacy and Survival: The English Reformation has been a treasure trouve of historical facts on the Reformation in England.

One question of my own I must add, "Why should Anglicans worry so much about the validity and sucession of their Orders if they are not part of the Catholic Church?"



AnnBarnhardt Vendee PT1

The message that I have pronounced has begun to be heard in this country it seems, Ann Barnhardt has given a voice to what I have been writing for the last 5 years.



“Where is the New Theology Leading Us?”

by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

In a recent book, Conversion et gràce chez S. Thomas d’Aquin1 (“Conversion and Grace in St. Thomas Aquinas”), Father Henri Boulliard writes, “Since spirit evolves, an unchanging truth can only maintain itself by virtue of a simultaneous and co-relative evolution of all ideas, each proportionate to the other. A theology which is not current [does not keep changing — SMR] will be a false theology.”2

And in the pages preceding and following [the above quotation], the author demonstrates that the theology of St. Thomas, in several of its most important sections, is not current. For example, St. Thomas’ idea of sanctifying grace was as a form (a basic principle of supernatural operations which the infused virtues and the seven gifts have as their principle). “The ideas employed by St. Thomas are simply Aristotelian notions applied to theology.”3

And further: “By renouncing the Aristotelian system, modern thought abandoned the ideas, design and dialectical opposites which only made sense as functions of that system.”4 Thus modern thought abandoned the notion of form.

How then can the reader evade the conclusion, namely that, since it is no longer current, the theology of St. Thomas is a false theology?

But then why have the Popes so often instructed us to follow the doctrine of St. Thomas? Why does the Church say in her Code of Canon Law, Can. 1366, n.2:

“The professors should by all means treat of the rational philosophy and theology, and the training of the students in these subjects according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas), and should hold these as “sacred”?5

Further, how can “an unchanging truth” maintain itself if the two notions united by the verb to be, are essentially variable or changeable?

An unchangeable relationship can only be conceived of as such if there is something unchangeable in the two terms that it unites. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, it’s like saying that the waves of the sea can be stapled together.

Of course, the two ideas that are united in an unchangeable affirmation are sometimes at first confused and then distinguished one from the other, such as the ideas of nature, of person, substance, accident, transubstantiation, the Real Presence, sin, original sin, grace, etc. But if these are not fundamentally unchangeable, how then will the affirmation which unites them by the verb “to be” be unchangeable? How can one hold that the Real Presence of the substance of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist requires transubstantiation if the ideas are fundamentally variable? How can one assert that original sin occurred in us through a willed fault of the first man, if the notion of original sin is essentially unstable? How can one hold that the particular judgment after death is eternally irrevocable, if these ideas are said to change? Finally, how can one maintain that all of these propositions are invariably true if the idea of truth itself must change, and if one must substitute for the traditional definition of truth (the conformity of judgment to intuitive reality and to its immutable laws) what has been proposed in recent years by the philosophy of action: the conformity of judgment to the exigencies of action, or to human life, which is always evolving? More of this excellent refutation by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

As I read this article I was struck by the idea, false idea, that truth changes(!) Truth being God. This supposition suggests that God changes, and that things which were sins say in the middle ages are no longer sinful. So these who then died in a state of mortal sin then were lost to hell, but now that the "New Theology" allows that these things are now accepted and one can be saved. This mistaken belief that abortion, homosexuality and other "previously" unacceptable acts are now acceptable therefore do not have to be forgiven. What a boon for satan!


Editor’s note: Catholic Family News proudly presents its exclusive English translation of Father Garrigou-Lagrange’s landmark work, “La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?”, which was first published in 1946 in Rome’s Angelicum, one of the most prestigious theological journals in the world. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. one of the greatest Thomistic theologians of this century, warned that the “New Theology” of Maurice Blondel, Henri de Lubac, etc. is nothing more than a revitalized Modernism. This same new theology was subsequently deounced by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. This article, because of its in-depth nature, is meant not only to be read, but studied. It is hoped that the publication of this work will help dispel the widespread confusion of our time, especially since, by admission of its own adherents, this modernist “new theology” has become “the official theology of Vatican II”. (See Si Si No No series "They Think They Have Won" on “The New Theology”)


On the anniversary of the Martyrdom of The Imperial Family of Russia

Today is the anniversary of the martyrdom of the Imperial Romanov family. Just as the Royal Family of France was a nuclear family in today's terminology so was the Romanov family. Both were similar in many respects, both the Queen-Martyr and the Empress-Martyr were from a German speaking country. Both were initially welcomed by their people and came to be despised by those same people due to calumny and misinformation. Both were accused and re-accused of performing sexual outrages. Both families had strong loving unions, and each could not bear the thought of life without their spouse. The forces which persecuted them thought nothing of killing them in order to obtain their avowed goal a godless nation. I can truly say that I see the hands of satan in this. We remember also that it was only a year prior that Our Lady appeared to the Children of Fatima and asked for the prayers for the Conversion of Russia. How else to delay this conversion if not by destroying all religion in Russia?

There are many blogs which have remembered this date, July 17, 1918 at 2:30, as it was on this date at that time that the Tsar and his family were brutally killed in Ekaterinburg. Below are a few.

Here is afar better site at which to review the photos of this family. And here is link for A Conservative Blog for Peace...

This is a list of my past entries.
The Russian Supreme Court Rehabilitates the Romanovs

Imperial Crown of Russia

Geneticists Obtained Genetic Code from a DNA Sample of Tsar St Nikolai II

90 years since the Murder of the Tsar and the Imperial Family

God Save the Tsar

Боже, Царя Храни, God Save the Tsar

This site A Glint of Gold is devoted to hand tinting the photos of the Romanovs. This is special!


On the anniversary of the martyrdom of the 16 Carmelites

Here then is a list of the martyrs, "16 Carmelite Martyrs of Compiègne..."

Tea at Trianon has a redirect to the real cause of the end of the terror in France, the Martyrdom of the 16 Carmelites. What remarkable faith and bravery they showed in the face of death. This is the definition of Moral Courage. That is standing up for the right even though it would be far easier to just give in. The terror was about to end. I have always been fascinated by these women religious, I am sure their prayers and their martyrdom were a factor in ending the terror.


Blessed Teresa of Saint Augustine
and Companions virgins and martyrs
Carmelite Martyrs of Compiégne

Guillotined at the Place du Trône Renversé (now called Place de la Nation), Paris, 17July, 1794. They are the first sufferers under the French Revolution on whom the Holy See has passed judgment, and were solemnly beatified 27 May, 1906. Before their execution they knelt and chanted the "Veni Creator", as at a profession, after which they all renewed aloud their baptismal and religious vows. The novice was executed first and the prioress last. Absolute silence prevailed the whole time that the executions were proceeding. The heads and bodies of the martyrs were interred in a deep sand-pit about thirty feet square in a cemetery at Picpus. As this sand-pit was the receptacle of the bodies of 1298 victims of the Revolution, there seems to be no hope of their relics being recovered. Their names are as follows:

Madeleine-Claudine Ledoine (Mother Teresa of St. Augustine), prioress, b. in Paris, 22 Sept., 1752, professed 16 or 17 May, 1775;

Marie-Anne (or Antoinette) Brideau (Mother St. Louis), sub-prioress, b. at Belfort, 7 Dec., 1752, professed 3 Sept, 1771;

Marie-Anne Piedcourt (Sister of Jesus Crucified), choir-nun, b. 1715, professed 1737; on mounting the scaffold she said "I forgive you as heartily as I wish God to forgive me";

Anne-Marie-Madeleine Thouret (Sister Charlotte of the Resurrection), sacristan, b. at Mouy, 16 Sept., 1715, professed 19 Aug., 1740, twice sub-prioress in 1764 and 1778.

Marie-Antoniette or Anne Hanisset (Sister Teresa of the Holy Heart of Mary), b. at Rheims in 1740 or 1742, professed in 1764;

Marie-Françoise Gabrielle de Croissy (Mother Henriette of Jesus), b. in Paris, 18 June, 1745, professed 22 Feb., 1764, prioress from 1779 to 1785;

Marie-Gabrielle Trézel (Sister Teresa of St. Ignatius), choir-nun, b. at Compiègne, 4 April, 1743, professed 12 Dec., 1771;

Rose-Chrétien de la Neuville, widow, choir-nun (Sister Julia Louisa of Jesus), b. at Loreau (or Evreux), in 1741, professed probably in 1777;

Anne Petras (Sister Mary Henrietta of Providence), choir-nun, b. at Cajarc (Lot), 17 June, 1760, professed 22 Oct., 1786.

Concerning Sister Euphrasia of the Immaculate Conception accounts vary. Miss Willson says that her name was Marie Claude Cyprienne Brard, and that she was born 12 May, 1736; Pierre, that her name was Catherine Charlotte Brard, and that she was born 7 Sept., 1736. She was born at Bourth, and professed in 1757;

Marie-Geneviève Meunier (Sister Constance), novice, b. 28 May, 1765, or 1766, at St. Denis, received the habit 16 Dec., 1788. She mounted the scaffold singing "Laudate Dominum".

In addition to the above, three lay sisters suffered and two tourières. The lay sisters are:

Angélique Roussel (Sister Mary of the Holy Ghost), lay sister, b. at Fresnes, 4 August, 1742, professed 14 May, 1769;

Marie Dufour (Sister St. Martha), lay sister, b. at Beaune, 1 or 2 Oct., 1742, entered the community in 1772;

Julie or Juliette Vérolot (Sister St. Francis Xavier), lay sister, b. at Laignes or Lignières, 11 Jan., 1764, professed 12 Jan., 1789.

The two tourières, who were not Carmelites at all, but merely servants of the nunnery were: Catherine and Teresa Soiron, b. respectively on 2 Feb., 1742 and 23 Jan., 1748 at Compiègne, both of whom had been in the service of the community since 1772.

from the Carmelite website found here...

Dieu Le Roy.

Thanks to Elena-Maria.


The Vision of Hell: July 13, 1917

"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go..."
Our Lady of Fatima to the children .

Below the children after they had seen hell.

On July 13, 1917, Sister Luca asked Our Lady at Fatima, “What does Your Excellency want of me.”

The Lady replied, “I want you to come here on the 13th of next month, to continue to pray the Rosary every day in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only She can help you.”

Reassured by the beauty and heavenly presence of the Lady, Lucia once more felt grounded in reality. “I would like to ask You to tell us who You are, and to work a miracle so that everybody will believe that You are appearing to us.” Given the mockery and incredulity of family and friends, this was a heartfelt request.

“Continue to come here every month,” the Lady answered. “In October I will tell you who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle for all to see and believe.”

Lucia asked the Lady to heal Maria Carreira’s crippled son, John. The Lady replied that he would remain crippled, and live in poverty, and added a requirement that he pray the Rosary with his family every day. Lucia then inquired about a sick woman who wanted to be taken to Heaven. The Lady answered, “Tell her not to be in a hurry. Tell her I know very well when I shall come to fetch her.”

The Lady told Lucia” it was necessary for such people to pray the Rosary in order to obtain these graces during the year.” She continued:

“Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially whenever you make some sacrifice: ‘ O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.’”

“As Our Lady spoke these last words (Lucia said), She opened Her hands once more, as She had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals.”

At this moment Ti Marto observed that “Lucia took a deep breath, went pale as death, and we heard her cry out in terror to Our Lady, calling Her by name.”

Lucia continued: “Terrified and as if to plead for succor, we looked up at Our Lady, who said to us, so kindly and so sadly:

‘You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end, but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

‘To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.

‘In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world. In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc. …”

“Do not tell this to anybody,’the Lady told the children.

Then, in answer to Lucia’s question, She said, “Francisco, yes, you may tell him.” Then She taught them a prayer:

“When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: O my Jesus, forgive us, and deliver us from the fire of hell. Take all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need.”

After a silence, Lucia asked: “Is there anything more that You want of me?” The Lady said: “No, I do not want anything more of you today.”