# A Question for Roman Catholics **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 9, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943 "2011-01-09T02:32:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/61 "2011-01-10T16:55:16Z")
Yes, or an extraordinary minister. But she would not be a deacon. As for deaconesses, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are churches that have women serving in a deacon role, but strictly speaking it’s not canon. (I rather hope there are; the more we thumb our noses at stupid patriarchal hierarchies the better.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/62 "2011-01-10T17:07:11Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > I have a female friend, a devout Roman Catholic, who regularly carries communion to people in the hospital. I don’t know whetehr she’d be referred to as a Lay Minister, but she certainly gives Holy Communion to people. She might be called a Lay Minister or a Eucharistic Minister. Technically, she’s a extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, a provision made possible by Canon 230 ß3: > [@](#): > > Where the needs of the Church require and ministers are not available, lay people, even though they are not lectors or acolytes, can supply certain of their functions, that is, exercise the ministry of the word, preside over liturgical prayers, confer baptism and distribute Holy Communion, in accordance with the provisions of the law. Note that “distribute Holy Communion,” does NOT mean that they may consecrate the Holy Eucharist: > [@Can. 900 ß1](#): > > The only minister who, in the person of Christ, can bring into being the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest. ---
**Author:** ![Lissla\_Lissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lissla\_Lissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissla_Lissar)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/63 "2011-01-10T22:33:37Z")
**Nava’s** right- when we joined the RCC, we had to go to Confession and declare that we believed what the RCC teaches and preaches, but there was no rebaptism. We did receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, which I guess means the Anglican confirmation isn’t valid in the RCC. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/64 "2011-01-13T00:58:28Z")
There is a reference in one of the Epistles to “deaconesses”, but there’s some debate about precisely what that means, and whether it’s a full equivalent of a male deacon. The current Catholic teaching, though, is that the deaconesses of old were more like what we now call lay ministers, helping out the Church in various ways without the sacramental significance of ordination. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/65 "2011-01-13T01:46:11Z")
Yeah-huh, sure they were. Whatever helps you sleep at night, hierarchy. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/66 "2011-01-13T12:59:49Z")
The line of questioning is about what are the actual regs in place in the RCC. Not what we’d rather wish them to be. ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/67 "2011-01-13T13:51:54Z")
> [@Lissla\_Lissar](#): > > **Nava’s** right- when we joined the RCC, we had to go to Confession and declare that we believed what the RCC teaches and preaches, but there was no rebaptism. We did receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, which I guess means the Anglican confirmation isn’t valid in the RCC. What about the Anglican parishes who are coming into the Catholic Church? If i understand correctly, their priests and bishops are coming with them. Do they all have to be re-Confirmed and re-Ordained? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/68 "2011-01-13T15:25:07Z")
> [@Beniamino](#): > > What about the Anglican parishes who are coming into the Catholic Church? If i understand correctly, their priests and bishops are coming with them. Do they all have to be re-Confirmed and re-Ordained? Prudence dictates that the answer is ‘yes.’ There is no question that Anglican baptism is valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. But as a result of Anglican history, there is (in the Catholic view) prudent doubt about the validity of any particular ordination, because of the lack of valid apostolic succession. When Henry VIII demanded that the Catholic Church annul his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon; Pope Clement VII refused. Henry respond by compelling Parliament to pass the the Act of Supremacy, declaring him the one and only supreme head on earth of the Church in England. With one exception, all the bishops in England went along with this, giving an Oath of Supremacy to Henry’s rule. This did not erase their valid ordained state, but it placed them in schism with the Catholic Church. When Henry died, his son Edward VI (then nine years old) gained the throne. Edward Seymour was installed as regent, and made 1st Duke of Somerset; he continued the attacks on clergy. The liturgy was reworded and replaced, with a new ordinal having Protestant ministers replacing priests and all the sacraments being redefined and reworded. At this point, the Church of England became not simply schismatic but invalid. Any “ordinations” done under these forms were not simply without permission, but not at all valid. Edward’s death at age 15 saw a slight reversal of the trend. He and his court had attempted to ensure that Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant, would inherit the throne, but the widespread attacks against the forms and rituals of the Church had not been popular, and she held the throne for less than two weeks before being deposed by Mary I, Edward’s half-sister. She attempted to restore Catholicism, repealing the Protestant laws that were passed by Henry, and restored union with Rome. Ordinations that took place subsequent to this were valid. When Mary died childless, however, the succession fell to her half-sister Elizabeth I, who was Protestant. Elizabeth renewed her father’s Oath of Supremacy, and restored the changed ordinals and texts for sacraments that Edward had promulgated. This time, many bishops did not go along. When Elizabeth elevated Matthew Parker to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, none of the four co-consecrators were valid bishops in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The line of bishops succeding from Parker is, then, void in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and (with one possible exception as the result of a possibly apocryphal visit from an Eastern Rite bishop who may have ordained some bishops) the Anglican Church does not have a valid line of Apostolic succession, even though it’s possible that some individuals may be validly ordained. But since there’s no way to know, the prudent choice with such priests is to conditionally ordain them. This recognizes that the Sacrament of Orders can only be given once, and if it was validly given before has no effect this time, but if it was not, validly confers it now. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/69 "2011-01-13T15:59:56Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Just to be perfectly clear, the term “lay minister” was not used. He may have phrased it differently, however, by saying something like “I am a minister in the Catholic Church” as opposed to “Catholic minister.” I am not a Southern Baptist nor have I ever been one. I think someone else mentioned this upthread. He could have meant the **c** atholic church as opposed to the **C** atholic church. Many protestants churches refer to themselves belonging the catholic church. See the [Nicene Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed), which refers to the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”, is a creed used in the liturgy of a number or protestant denominations and non-denominational churches. In this manner it is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church, but the universal body of believers in Christ (all denominations). ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/70 "2011-01-13T20:04:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Prudence dictates that the answer is ‘yes.’ > > There is no question that Anglican baptism is valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. But as a result of Anglican history, there is (in the Catholic view) prudent doubt about the validity of any particular ordination, because of the lack of valid apostolic succession. > > When Henry VIII demanded that the Catholic Church annul his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon; Pope Clement VII refused. Henry respond by compelling Parliament to pass the the Act of Supremacy, declaring him the one and only supreme head on earth of the Church in England. With one exception, all the bishops in England went along with this, giving an Oath of Supremacy to Henry’s rule. This did not erase their valid ordained state, but it placed them in schism with the Catholic Church. > > When Henry died, his son Edward VI (then nine years old) gained the throne. Edward Seymour was installed as regent, and made 1st Duke of Somerset; he continued the attacks on clergy. The liturgy was reworded and replaced, with a new ordinal having Protestant ministers replacing priests and all the sacraments being redefined and reworded. At this point, the Church of England became not simply schismatic but invalid. Any “ordinations” done under these forms were not simply without permission, but not at all valid. > > Edward’s death at age 15 saw a slight reversal of the trend. He and his court had attempted to ensure that Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant, would inherit the throne, but the widespread attacks against the forms and rituals of the Church had not been popular, and she held the throne for less than two weeks before being deposed by Mary I, Edward’s half-sister. She attempted to restore Catholicism, repealing the Protestant laws that were passed by Henry, and restored union with Rome. Ordinations that took place subsequent to this were valid. > > When Mary died childless, however, the succession fell to her half-sister Elizabeth I, who was Protestant. Elizabeth renewed her father’s Oath of Supremacy, and restored the changed ordinals and texts for sacraments that Edward had promulgated. This time, many bishops did not go along. When Elizabeth elevated Matthew Parker to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, none of the four co-consecrators were valid bishops in the eyes of the Catholic Church. > > The line of bishops succeding from Parker is, then, void in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and (with one possible exception as the result of a possibly apocryphal visit from an Eastern Rite bishop who may have ordained some bishops) the Anglican Church does not have a valid line of Apostolic succession, even though it’s possible that some individuals may be validly ordained. But since there’s no way to know, the prudent choice with such priests is to conditionally ordain them. This recognizes that the Sacrament of Orders can only be given once, and if it was validly given before has no effect this time, but if it was not, validly confers it now. **Bricker** is of course a devout Catholic, and explaining this from the Catholic perspective. To avoid a flame war in GQ, I’ll simply say to take the above, oher than as the response for the question asked, about the need for reordination of Anglican bishops and priests becoming Catholic, with a ;arge grain of salt.. I’d add that a former contact of mine, a woman with a Catholic theology degree and contacts at the Pontifical University, said that opinions were divided on the validity of some Anglican ordinations outside England, notably in America where every bishop has had (in Roman eyes valid) Old Catholic orders transmitted to him. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/71 "2011-01-13T20:13:43Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **Bricker** is of course a devout Catholic, and explaining this from the Catholic perspective. To avoid a flame war in GQ, I’ll simply say to take the above, oher than as the response for the question asked, about the need for reordination of Anglican bishops and priests becoming Catholic, with a ;arge grain of salt.. Why? There’s no doubt that Parker was ordained using the Edwardine Ordinal, which isn’t recognized as valid by the Catholic church. I don’t see how Bricker said anything factually incorrect in his post. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/72 "2011-01-13T20:58:51Z")
Of course, there’s now also the problem that the Anglican church recognizes ordination of women, while the Roman Catholic church does not. In the eyes of the RCC, ordination of a female bishop breaks the chain of apostolic succession, so any priests she ordains (even male ones) certainly would not be regarded as valid by Rome. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/73 "2011-01-13T21:40:44Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Why? There’s no doubt that Parker was ordained using the Edwardine Ordinal, which isn’t recognized as valid by the Catholic church. I don’t see how Bricker said anything factually incorrect in his post. Read what I wrote; I agree with you. But **Bricker** ’s summary is as accurate in fact but misleading in implication as “Canada went to war with Bulgaria in 1914 because the heir to the Hungarian throne had been assassinated.” ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/74 "2011-01-13T22:07:53Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I have a question about that: does it mean you can’t be baptized again? I know many Protestant denominations allow a rebaptizing, not because it necessarily has spiritual significance, but as an outward sign of rededicating yourself to the faith. > > Also, I know a lot of Protestants get you baptized again because they believe a baptism must involve immersion. They aren’t baptizing you a second time–they believe the sprinkle style baptism (or infant baptism in general) is biblically invalid. There are two things at play in terms of Protestants recognizing the baptisms of other denominations. One is that some denominations baptize only adults. Here, adult means a person who is over the age of reason or is capable of expressing an intelligent understanding of the basics of what it means to be a Christian and indicating a desire for baptism, so in this case, an “adult” could be 12 years old. Churches that only baptize adults may not recognize infant baptism, considering it void, and require that the person be baptized. An adult baptism performed by a church that also baptizes infants is probably ok with them. There may be churches that recognize infant baptism but do not perform it themselves. Another is that some denominations require baptism to be by immersion, and do not recognize baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and so a person baptized by one of those methods must be baptized by immersion for it to “count”. Some may perform it only by immersion, but recognize other methods. ---
**Author:** ![Mornac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e36b37/32.png) [@Mornac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mornac)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/75 "2011-01-13T22:28:56Z")
[Former Anglican bishops studying to become Catholic priests](http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-anglican-bishops-studying-to-become-catholic-priests/) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/76 "2011-01-14T01:12:08Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Read what I wrote; I agree with you. But **Bricker** ’s summary is as accurate in fact but misleading in implication as “Canada went to war with Bulgaria in 1914 because the heir to the Hungarian throne had been assassinated.” I don’t really see what’s either inaccurate or offensive about his post, but I’ll take your word for it that you’re offended. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/77 "2011-01-14T03:31:57Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **Bricker** is of course a devout Catholic, and explaining this from the Catholic perspective. To avoid a flame war in GQ, I’ll simply say to take the above, oher than as the response for the question asked, about the need for reordination of Anglican bishops and priests becoming Catholic, with a ;arge grain of salt.. > > I’d add that a former contact of mine, a woman with a Catholic theology degree and contacts at the Pontifical University, said that opinions were divided on the validity of some Anglican ordinations outside England, notably in America where every bishop has had (in Roman eyes valid) Old Catholic orders transmitted to him. I meant no offense; I tried to sprinkle my answer liberally with “…in the eyes of the Catholic Church…” to signal that this answer was intended to reflect Roman Catholic thinking and not some overarching truthiness. Obviously Anglicans view their own orders as valid, and I acknowledged that there are Anglicans who (in the Catholic view) hold valid orders. Again, no offense intended. ---
**Author:** ![GiantRat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@GiantRat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GiantRat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/78 "2011-01-14T04:32:07Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > … Here, adult means a person who is over the age of reason or is capable of expressing an intelligent understanding of the basics of what it means to be a Christian and indicating a desire for baptism, so in this case, an “adult” could be 12 years old… [snippedy-doo-dah’d] What about the mentally incompetent? I mean, someone who cannot and never will be capable of understanding even the basic tenets of the faith? Limbo party? ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/79 "2011-01-14T12:12:36Z")
> [@Mornac](#): > > [Former Anglican bishops studying to become Catholic priests](http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-anglican-bishops-studying-to-become-catholic-priests/) I guess that answers that question. I would hope they are made bishops soon thereafter; it has to be somewhat humbling to go from heading a diocese to being a parish priest. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/80 "2011-01-14T20:02:16Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > “Baptized as a Southern Baptist?” How’s that work? Douse his corpse in red-eye gravy? Well, first thing would be full immersion - no sprinkles or pouring counts. Second, would probably be by a Southern Baptist minister in a Southern Baptist church. Of course, after death that would be a bit difficult. > [@Polycarp](#): > > Read what I wrote; I agree with you. But **Bricker** ’s summary is as accurate in fact but misleading in implication as “Canada went to war with Bulgaria in 1914 because the heir to the Hungarian throne had been assassinated.” I assume that’s supposed to be an analogy to World War I, but I don’t follow. It’s kind of like a duck wearing a hat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943.md?page=5)