L
liturgyluver
Guest
Apologies, I misread your reply. Yes that’s right, it was during the reign of Edward VI that the ordination rite became invalid.
- Status
J
jimrob
Guest
Between 1533 and 1547, the Church in England was in schism, but its orders were regarded as valid by Rome. From 1547 to 1553, the Church in England adopted some Calvinist practices and Rome disowned its orders. From 1553 to 1558, the Church in England was briefly reunited with Rome and any irregularities were overlooked - apart from those burned at the stake. After 1558, what had become the Church of England was regarded as a bunch of heretics and their arrangements for ordination became irrelevant. Pope Leo XIII stated that Anglican Orders were utterly null and void (although we have the safety net that this was said in a papal bull, not ex cathedra).
The truth of the matter is that there were irregularities in the manner of ordination throughout the middle ages. The requirements for ordaining priests and bishops were not always met and any accusations of failure directed at the bishops of the Church of England and their worldwide Communion could easily be directed at other parts of the Church.
A further complication is that various schismatic groups - in particular the “Old Catholic” churches who subscribed to the Union of Utrecht - are in communion with the Anglican Churches, but have orders that are recognised as valid by Rome. Many Anglican priests have been ordained at ceremonies where one of those presiding was an “Old Catholic” bishop making their orders putatively valid (although not for women
)
The practice for Anglican priests wishing to become Catholic priests is that they need to be ordained again. Under the previous regime, that involved a period of around 4 years of training and working through the various stages of pre-ordination and diaconate. Under the dispensation granted to the Ordinariate, the process is considerably faster.
The truth of the matter is that there were irregularities in the manner of ordination throughout the middle ages. The requirements for ordaining priests and bishops were not always met and any accusations of failure directed at the bishops of the Church of England and their worldwide Communion could easily be directed at other parts of the Church.
A further complication is that various schismatic groups - in particular the “Old Catholic” churches who subscribed to the Union of Utrecht - are in communion with the Anglican Churches, but have orders that are recognised as valid by Rome. Many Anglican priests have been ordained at ceremonies where one of those presiding was an “Old Catholic” bishop making their orders putatively valid (although not for women
)The practice for Anglican priests wishing to become Catholic priests is that they need to be ordained again. Under the previous regime, that involved a period of around 4 years of training and working through the various stages of pre-ordination and diaconate. Under the dispensation granted to the Ordinariate, the process is considerably faster.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Edward VI, we’ve had eight Edwards so far.
B
Brendan
Guest
On a side note, the US bishops voted at their recent conference in Baltimore to establish an Ordinature effective Jan 1, 2012.
Subject to approval by the Holy See and the appointment of a bishop (again by the Holy See).
That should be forthcoming, as the bishops were acting on a proposal from Rome when they voted.
So while it is still in the ‘potential’ stage ( ala Aquinas
), it is nearing actuality.communio.stblogs.org/2011/11/anglican-ordinariate-for-us-to.html
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Good news. Thanks for sharing.On a side note, the US bishops voted at their recent conference in Baltimore to establish an Ordinature effective Jan 1, 2012.
Subject to approval by the Holy See and the appointment of a bishop (again by the Holy See).
That should be forthcoming, as the bishops were acting on a proposal from Rome when they voted.
So while it is still in the ‘potential’ stage ( ala Aquinas
communio.stblogs.org/2011/11/anglican-ordinariate-for-us-to.html
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
How come it became invalid?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It’s a rather lengthy explanation that I will attempt to summarize in a few sentences.
Basically, under England’s King Edward VI the Anglican community revised its rituals and composed a new ritual to replace the rite of Ordination. The purpose here was to remove the idea of “priesthood” from the office of Anglican minister and replace it with something new–namely a protestant idea of a minister of the word. Since the bishops (remember that at the time they were validly ordained bishops) installed new ministers according to this rite, they did not intend to “ordain priests” indeed, they specifically intended not-to-ordain-priests. The same applied to their concept of “bishop.” That’s how/when Apostolic Succession ceased to exist in the Anglican community. Any attempt to ordain bishops or priests with this new ritual were then invalid attempts at ordinations and not valid ordinations–even though, at first, the bishops performing these ceremonies were valid bishops.
Pope Leo XIII explained this in much greater detail in 1896 in Apostolicae Curae
Here’s a link to the full text
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
L
liturgyluver
Guest
Thanks for posting the Bull here. I don’t think there is any doubt though that they were conferring the office of preisthood as the rite itself in the original prayer book is called “The form of ordering of priests”. Rather it was because no explicit mention was made at the moment of the laying on of hands of the grade of Ministry being conferred that made the rite defective. This was changed and made explicit in the 1662 prayer book.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
I thought this had happened already? I read something recently from Cardinal Wuerlabout this. One of the previous Anglican bishops is the Ordinary, but he is not yet a Catholic bishop. So, as you said, as the Anglican priests convert and are approved as Catholic priests, they will need to be ordainded by a Catholic bishop. I believe the priest who want to become Catholic priests must attend an abbreviated seminary course that is currently held in TX somewhere. I’ll have to find the article.
Here’s a link to the news release on the USCCB site: usccb.org/news/2011/11-228.cfm
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Thanks for the link to the article.
The Ordinariate for the US will become official on January 1. In the UK, it’s already a reality.
According to the USCCB article, an Ordinary for the US has not yet been named. If anyone has updates on this, please post. Again, according to the USCCB, the new Ordinary will be named on January 1 (usccb.org/about/leadership/usccb-general-assembly/anglicanorum-coetibus-apostolic-constitution-questions-answers.cfm)
In the UK, yes, the Ordinary is a former Anglican “bishop” who is now a validly ordained priest–Monsignor Keith Newton.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Here is the article I first read.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-wuerl-says-us-anglican-ordinariate-will-begin-jan.-1/
catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-wuerl-says-us-anglican-ordinariate-will-begin-jan.-1/
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It depends upon which aspect of the overall question we’re discussing.
The omission of any mention of the priesthood from the laying-on-of-hands is only part of the issue. The overall one is the denial of the priesthood itself, which is expressed by this omission (despite the title of the ritual).
I’ve been looking through Apostolicae Curae for a good summary, and this is the best I could find, without piecing together different sentences from different paragraphs:
- With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I read it just now. Thanks.
I don’t see anything about an Ordinary being named though.
If you know who the Ordinary will be, do you have any other sources to share?’
C
chevalier
Guest
[Never mind.]
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
I don’t know who it is for the US.I think I was confusing the announcement in England/Wales with the article quoting Cardinal Wuerl.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
This may, of course, happen when an individual former Protestant minister may be received in to the Catholic Church and wants to become a priest. I don’t doubt it. When the Ordinariate was established in England a significant number of Anglican ministers were ordained as Catholic priests when they came in to the Catholic Church. They did not, as far as I’m aware, undertake a fast-track seminary course.
B
bmonk
Guest
Not quite. As long as the intent is to remain in the church, and do “as the church intends”, such deficiencies can be supplied. However, in making it their intent to leave the Catholic communion, they open themselves to much more danger.
I see a similar grace operating in my own case. As long as I submit to the Church, I can trust in the guidance of the Spirit on the Church to keep me from major error, or to correct such errors as may exist. However, when I decide to set out on my own, I remove myself from that guidance and protection–and so I had better be darn sure of what I am choosing.
C
Chatter163
Guest
Part of the problem with the Anglican Ordinal was the omission of the porrection of the instruments, a part of the rite that gave clarity to the Catholic understanding of priestly ordination.
Ordinands were given a chalice and paten, and the bishop stated that they were being given authority to offer Masses for the quick and the dead. Their hands were annointed with chrism. These acts were omitted in the Ordinal because there was a desire to deny the sacrifical nature of the Eucharist and the priesthood. In fact, soon after, the 39 Articles of the Church of England explcitly denied this, as well as transubstantiation and many other aspects of the Catholic faith. All of this resulted in, among other things, the excommunication of Elizabeth I in 1570.
Now, before others bring it up, I am aware that some (but not all) High Church Anglicans began to include these ceremonies in their ordinations beginning in the early 20th century (after Apostolicae Curae). I am also aware of the participation of Old Catholic bishops in some (but certainly not all) Anglican ordinations (primarily of bishops–few priests had this happen), the so-called “Dutch Touch” for High Church ordinations, beginning in the WWI era. However, the succession had already, and long before, been broken.
I am also aware of the response of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1897, Saepius Officio, which pointed out that several parts of the modern Roman ordination rite, including the porrection of the instruments, had not existed in the earliest sacramentaries of the Church. The Anglican archbishops, therefore, objected to this criteria applied by Pope Leo XIII. However, the issue with the removal of these important parts of the rite is the intent of their deletion from the rite–and therefore the intent of the bishops performing the ordinations.
These rites were removed precisely because they unambiguously demonstrated the Catholic doctrine of the sacrificial nature of the Mass and of the priesthood. The priest’s hands are holy precisely because with them he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the same Sacrifice as that of Calvary. The Anglican Ordinal intentionally hedged on this sacramental understanding. Moreover, the 39 Articles and countless sunbsequent events of history made quite apparent the influence of Calvinism, and that the Ordinal clearly did NOT intend what the Catholic Church had done for centuries. It is one thing when the patristic rites had not yet developed these aspects of the ordination ritual; it is entirely another matter when, after centuries of carrying them out, a new form deliberately removes them because it doubts the nature of the priesthood. And until the Oxford Movement of the 19th century, Anglican liturgy, with its infrequent celebrations of “Holy Communion” reflected this newer belief. (The term Mass was not used again until the Movement, and even then only by those who called themselves Anglo-Catholics.). Even after the Movement, Anglican forumulas were (and remain) ambiguous enough to allow either a Catholic or Protestant interpretation.
Ordinands were given a chalice and paten, and the bishop stated that they were being given authority to offer Masses for the quick and the dead. Their hands were annointed with chrism. These acts were omitted in the Ordinal because there was a desire to deny the sacrifical nature of the Eucharist and the priesthood. In fact, soon after, the 39 Articles of the Church of England explcitly denied this, as well as transubstantiation and many other aspects of the Catholic faith. All of this resulted in, among other things, the excommunication of Elizabeth I in 1570.
Now, before others bring it up, I am aware that some (but not all) High Church Anglicans began to include these ceremonies in their ordinations beginning in the early 20th century (after Apostolicae Curae). I am also aware of the participation of Old Catholic bishops in some (but certainly not all) Anglican ordinations (primarily of bishops–few priests had this happen), the so-called “Dutch Touch” for High Church ordinations, beginning in the WWI era. However, the succession had already, and long before, been broken.
I am also aware of the response of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1897, Saepius Officio, which pointed out that several parts of the modern Roman ordination rite, including the porrection of the instruments, had not existed in the earliest sacramentaries of the Church. The Anglican archbishops, therefore, objected to this criteria applied by Pope Leo XIII. However, the issue with the removal of these important parts of the rite is the intent of their deletion from the rite–and therefore the intent of the bishops performing the ordinations.
These rites were removed precisely because they unambiguously demonstrated the Catholic doctrine of the sacrificial nature of the Mass and of the priesthood. The priest’s hands are holy precisely because with them he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the same Sacrifice as that of Calvary. The Anglican Ordinal intentionally hedged on this sacramental understanding. Moreover, the 39 Articles and countless sunbsequent events of history made quite apparent the influence of Calvinism, and that the Ordinal clearly did NOT intend what the Catholic Church had done for centuries. It is one thing when the patristic rites had not yet developed these aspects of the ordination ritual; it is entirely another matter when, after centuries of carrying them out, a new form deliberately removes them because it doubts the nature of the priesthood. And until the Oxford Movement of the 19th century, Anglican liturgy, with its infrequent celebrations of “Holy Communion” reflected this newer belief. (The term Mass was not used again until the Movement, and even then only by those who called themselves Anglo-Catholics.). Even after the Movement, Anglican forumulas were (and remain) ambiguous enough to allow either a Catholic or Protestant interpretation.
B
BernadetteM
Guest
We won’t know that until January 1, 2012 when the erection of the Ordinariate is announced. I know that all the Anglicans and Anglican Use priests and laity are anxiously waiting to hear who the Ordinarary will be. It seems many have their favorites, however, the Holy Spirit will be the One who makes the final decision, or at least that is my understanding of how God works.
God Bless
Bernadette
F
FrDavid96
Guest
We don’t really have a vocabulary to describe this. “Abbreviated Seminary” or “fast track Seminary” aren’t the best way to describe this, but our vocabulary is limited for the moment. “Orientation” might one way to describe it. They do need to experience some “training” before they are ordained priests–although naturally, it is nowhere near the level necessary for one who goes through the typical seminary process. Most of what they need to know, they already do know.
I’m personally not comfortable with using the word “seminary” even if we qualify that as being shorter than usual.
Here’s how it’s worded on the USCCB website “Anglican priests seeking to enter the Catholic Church under an ordinariate may apply to be ordained as Catholic priests after a period of preparation.”
usccb.org/about/leadership/usccb-general-assembly/anglicanorum-coetibus-apostolic-constitution-questions-answers.cfm
- Status