Both cites include people saying “I was a member of a RCC and I did the sacraments ‘communion, then confession, then confirmation’”
I never said it was widespread, I just said other people experienced the same order I did. Come on man, you’re better than this.
[nitpick]
thee, not “ye.” And “nunnery” in the context is more likely the slang word for “whorehouse.”
[/nitpick]
Adult (meaning above the usual age for confirmation) converts to Catholicism will typically have their baptism, confirmation, and first Eucharist all in the same ceremony, in that order. So in that case, you would have confirmation before first Eucharist, if only by a few minutes.
Since so far mostly Catholic nuns/monks have been mentioned, I wanted to point out that Protestants also have orders still working. Most of the purely contemplative have gone, leaving those who work activly in teaching, for the poor and in 3rd world countries.
Here’s the German wikipedia list
Do these married priests have to stop coitus or can they merrily keep at it happy in the knowledge that they’re exploiting the biggest loophole in the catholic church?
Of course not. The expectation that Latin Rite priests will be single and celibate is a Law of the (Roman Catholic) Church, not a tenet of faith – “company policy” as it were – from which the Pope can dispense an individual for good reason. Even within Catholicism the Eastern Rite churches in communion with the Pope have married clergy. The actual clerical vow is to chastity, not to celibacy – meaning no sex outside marriage. Since most priests are unmarried, it amounts to a vow of celibacy fror them.
Eastern Rite Catholic and Orthodox secular priests typically are married. (The rule is that priests may not contract marriage, barring very rare dispensation, but married men may be ordained.) In both traditions as well as the Roman Rite, some priests are “regular” (monastic; the term means “under a rule”) clergy from religious orders, and are celibate by virtue of their monastic vows, distinct from what may be the rule for priesthood.
Anglican priests, by the way, may marry unless a member of a religious order vowed to celibacy – of which there are a few. For several years the two priests of our (Episcopal) parish church were a married couple.
However, a number of Anglican priests joined the RCC some years ago, due to disagreements with the evolution of the Anglican church. I don’t think they had to be ordained again.
Maybe Leo XIII view has been overuled since?
Polycarp, could you weight in about this?
In the Episcopal Church, the path to ordination as a priest normally starts with a formal discernment process. This usually involves a series of meetings and interviews with a Discernment Committee made up of clergy and lay people of the parish or diocese. If married, the candidate’s spouse will also appear before the Discernment Committee.
At the end of the Committee’s work, they will make a recommendation to the local Bishop and the diocesan Committee on Ministry as to whether or not the candidate should proceed. If the bishop and CoM consent, the candidate becomes a “postulant.”
At this point, the Postulant will be instructed to obtain their Masters of Divinity degree at an accredited seminary approved by the postulant’s bishop. There are ten seminaries in the US accredited by the Episcopal Church, but some bishops prefer some over others. The postulant obtain a Masters at a non-Episcopal seminary, but will then have to obtain a Certificate in Anglican Studies from an Episcopal Seminary to be ordained in the Episcopal Church. Seminary is generally a three-year program.
After meeting all these requirements, the postulant must again receive approval from the Bishop and the Diocesan Standing Committee to proceed with ordination.
When ordination occurs, the person is ordained as a Deacon in the church, which is an ordained order of clergy. After at least six months in the diaconate, the person is then eligible to be ordained as a priest. Some clergy choose to remain a deacon longer, or indefinitely.
So from your first meeting with the Discernment Committee until your ordination is at least four years (assuming you don’t already have an MDiv), and that’s only if your Bishop is really motivated to push you through the process quickly. And no matter how badly you want to wear a collar, there are plenty of potential roadblocks – not the least of which is your Bishop who can single-handedly prevent you from going anywhere in the process.
The Nun’s Story is an excellent book that gives the reader is a detailed look at the process of becoming a nun. The movie of the same name stars Audrey Hepburn and is equally good.
I have an Australian friend whose son was confirmed before First Communion. I was surprised at that and told him so. He replied that Ozzies were now routinely being confirmed first. I’m not sure why, nor do I know where Penance fits in in the Australian order.
In our parish, they seem to switch the Reconciliation(Penance)/First Communion order every couple of years - two of my boys had Penance first, the other did Communion first. It might be tied to the bishop (who I think changed between #1 and #2).
Re: married RC priests - they can’t remarry if the spouse dies. This came up in a sermon one Sunday where the priest kind of went off on a lot of the rules (celibacy, ordination of women (noting that his #1 candidate for the seminary in our parish was a woman), etc (Father Gerry was way too liberal for our bishop, and has since retired at age 70 or so)). He noted that our deacon would not be able to remarry should his wife die unless he gave up his orders, which he considered a travesty (and I’d have to agree).
I think that the impetus to the sermon was the acceptance of a married Lutheran minister into the RC priesthood. Gerry expressed that the main regret in his priesthood was not having any children.
This is something Cunctator would know, being Australian and Catholic. Let’s hope he comes to this thread.
Apostolicae Curae, Leo XIII’s motu proprio, remains in effect. But it’s important to notice what question it answers – whether orders in the Church of England are valid from the Catholic perspective (no). There are several arguments adduced to demonstrate this (including one, the traditio porrectionis, that, if valid, would negate all Catholic orders), but the key point is that the Ordinal of Edward VI did not, in Pope Leo’s opinion, do what was necessary to properly ordain a priest or bishop – meaning that on the death of the last validly ordained bishop from before adoption of the Ordinal, there waws nobody in the Church of England that, in the Catholic view, could transmit valid orders, even if, as happened, the Ordinal was revised.
It does not, however, assert that all Anglican orders everywhere are ipso facto invalid, just that those depending on the Church of England transmitting orders through the Early Reformation period are not. Notably, every American bishop can trace his lineage through the Polish National Catholic Church, which has orders that (Roman) Catholics recognize as valid. The same thing is true in the Philippines (different church, same prcoess) and may very well be true in quite a few countries, notably in Europe where the Old Catholics are a small but widespread group with orders Catholicism regards as valid. If an Anglican priest converts and his new Catholic bishop reviews his ordinaation and finds his Anglican orders were, or likely were, valid, he will either not be reordained or will be conditionally (re)ordained – “If thou art not already a priest in the Church of God, I now ordain thee…”
Source: a scholarly Catholic woman with ties to the Pontifical University who researched it out when an argument about Catholic views on Anglican orders broke out on Christian Forums. I may with quite a bit of difficulty be able to find and link to her posts and the material she referenced, but would greatly appreciate having my summary do what is needed.
(Note: ?This intentionaly sidesteps the ordination of women in Anglican churches such as the Episcopal Church, which are according to Catholicism ipso facto not valid.)
[QUOTE=Hypnagogic Jerk]
This is something Cunctator would know, being Australian and Catholic. Let’s hope he comes to this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Latin rite or Eastern rites? I don’t know much about the practices of the Eastern rites.
For Latin rite Catholic children in Australia, I don’t think there’s an officially prescribed order, and practice can vary a bit from diocese to diocese. The most common practice for a number of years was Penance and Communion in 2nd class (ages 7-8), followed by Confirmation in 4th class (ages 9-10). This still seems to be the norm in most schools/parishes that I know of, although Confirmation can sometimes be pushed out a bit later into 5th class (ages 10-11) or even 6th class (ages 11-12).
However there has also been an argument in recent years that Confirmation should follow Penance. This is based on canons 889-891 of Canon Law, which basically say that:
The counter argument is that canon 777 notes the parish priest’s duty to ensure that children are properly prepared for first Confession, first Communion, and Confirmation - and this is the order given in the Code.
So I don’t know whether there’s any authoritative answer.
[tangent]
I’m just reading along on the rest of the thread - nothing to add, just reading to combat my own ignorance - but I have to nitpick this nitpick: in the context of the rest of the speech, talking about never believing men, exhortations against marriage and ‘wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?’ it’s pretty certain that Hamlet actually did mean nunnery.
There’s not even any evidence that nunnery as a slang term for brothel was used at the time Shakespeare was writing; of course that doesn’t mean it was never used, and there is evidence for it being used much later, but it adds some extra doubt to the brothel interpretation.
[/tangent]
Quoth Polycarp:
Just to be clear: I presume by this that you mean every Anglican American bishop?
And cunctator, I don’t know the specific justification for it, but in the US, Confirmation usually comes some time in the early teens. Possibly the American bishops do not consider “age of reason” and “age of discretion” as synonymous?
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Notably, every American bishop can trace his lineage through the Polish National Catholic Church, which has orders that (Roman) Catholics recognize as valid.
[/QUOTE]
I thought the US Episcopal church traced their apostolic succession through the Scottish Episcopal church? Where did the Polish connexion come from?
We got one bishop, our first one, from the Scottish church. All our bishops now do have a lineage from him, because he did participate in the consecrations of later bishops. But we were in full communion with the PNCC between 1942 and 1972, and their Prime Bishop participated in consecrating our Presiding Bishops, who were the primary consecrators of all bishops during their terms of office. I brought up the Polish connection because the RCC does consider PNCC orders valid, so from the point of view of dealing with RCC issues, it becomes useful.
Every Episcopal Church bishop, yes. (There’s at least one “Continuing Anglican” bishop who doesn’t fit the definition.) In the context of the paragraph, bishops in the Anglican Communion, I’d figured just saying “American” would be clear.
Northern Piper, please clean out your PM box. I would like to send you a private message.