Anglican orders not 'invalid' says Cardinal, opening way for revision of current Catholic position

[Memaw]

I agree that the issues cannot be narrowed to the validity of the Eucharist, but it remains a starting point. The celebration conducted by an Anglican priest, lacking Holy Orders obtained form outside of the Anglican Communion, could not truthfully be said to be an act of Transubstantiation. The elements of bread and wine would remain just that, bread and wine. The Cardinal is certainly correct that discussions with and about the Anglican Communion cannot be narrowed to the validity of their Orders, or Communion. But it cannot disregard the lack of validity.

I am unaware of much happening that has changed the Church’s long held requirements on the requirements for validity on both. I understand that A.C. was focused very tightly on the determination of validity of Anglican Orders, but the determination was made.

This would be no less true, and perhaps especially even more true, of the female Anglican clergy.

In addition, no level of extrapolation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement could lead to a denial of that statement. And the date of 1998 is intriguing, especially in regards to your statement mentioning Pope St John XXIII. I am unaware of any statements on his behalf in regards to the Anglican communion acquiring valid Holy Orders.

This statement really bothered me, “the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity’.” If the Eucharist isn’t valid there is NO Eucharist. Issue of the Eucharist?? Whatever does that mean? I am sooo happy the Holy Spirit guides our Church. My Mom always said, "It will all come out in the wash!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am unaware of much happening that has changed the Church’s long held requirements on the requirements for validity on both. I understand that A.C. was focused very tightly on the determination of validity of Anglican Orders, but the determination was made.

Until you actually get to the crux of the issue, you are going to be hampered in making any progress in your attempts in this field.

There are no shortage of academic papers that are available by scholars…did your professor not make you aware of them? That is a fundamental point contained in theological methodology…in the study of loci.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This statement really bothered me, “the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity’.” If the Eucharist isn’t valid there is NO Eucharist. Issue of the Eucharist?? Whatever does that mean? I am sooo happy the Holy Spirit guides our Church. My Mom always said, "It will all come out in the wash!! God Bless, Memaw

You have misunderstood His Eminence.

The validity of which he is speaking is the validity of apostolic succession precisely as it relates to the eucharistic presence.

Again, this is where the theological community almost THIRTY YEARS ago. If this is news, the person is seriously behind the times in their engagement with the theological community.
*I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.” /…/ *
As for what the Cardinal Prefect of the CDF means, you were the one repeatedly extolling having no degree whatsoever in theology – you should be able to interpret this effortlessly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So what is the theological separation of those that would render my analogy false.

I presume that you would agree with me that a Cardinal who questioned the canonization of Pope St John XXIII would rightly have their statement to that regard treated with suspicion, not only by the Holy See, but the faithful as well; but not one who questioned the veracity of Apostolicae Curae.

And yes, I am a student of theology. I have completed my M.A in Theology as well as most of the course work for ordination to the Diaconate.
Thus, please feel free to outline your reasoning as why the examples are not comparable.

If you are actually not able to work out yourself, while holding in your hand a Master of Arts in theology, why your analogies are unsustainable…I would suggest you pose the question to your own professors, as it should be informative to them about their programme – or better, pose it to the person responsible for diaconate formation in your diocese.

 

[Brendan]

If you are actually not able to work out yourself, while holding in your hand a Master of Arts in theology, why your analogies are unsustainable…I would suggest you pose the question to your own professors, as it should be informative to them about their programme – or better, pose it to the person responsible for diaconate formation in your diocese.

Please enlighten us.

 

[Brendan]

The validity of which he is speaking is the validity of apostolic succession precisely as it relates to the eucharistic presence.

Again, this is where the theological community almost THIRTY YEARS ago. If this is news, the person is seriously behind the times in their engagement with the theological community.

My class on the Sacraments of Initiation was conducted only two years ago. No mention was made of the lack of Orders not affecting the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. In fact, my professor was quite clear that valid Sacerdotal Orders was a specific requirement.

In addition, Sacramentology class on Holy Orders noted a requirement for valid Apostolic Succession. The Anglican Communion was specifically mentioned as a case for loss of Holy Orders. This class was done in the Fall of 2014. What has changed since then

You mentioned some scholarly works that dealt with this, could you please offer them so that I might continue my research.

 

[Tim_D]

If you are actually not able to work out yourself, while holding in your hand a Master of Arts in theology, why your analogies are unsustainable…I would suggest you pose the question to your own professors, as it should be informative to them about their programme – or better, pose it to the person responsible for diaconate formation in your diocese.

Wow…is charity no longer a virtue?

 

[Brendan]

As an FYI to all, this is the document we covered in my class, relative to the Anglican Communion

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/anglican/anglican-orders-in-catholic-church.cfm

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As an FYI to all, this is the document we covered in my class, relative to the Anglican Communion

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/anglican/anglican-orders-in-catholic-church.cfm

Actually, it is a good document…for three decades ago.

I would suggest you begin by examining the works of His Excellency, the Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore, whose efforts in the United States are highly prized by PCPCU. You can find them here under Bishop Madden

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/ecumenical-documents-and-news-releases.cfm

Beyond that, you should read in-depth From Conflict to Communion. In no small part, that work was the reason that both Gerhard Müller and Kurt Koch were brought to Rome by Pope Benedict – and were both raised to the dignity of the Cardinalate, to the joy of all working in ecumenism.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

From Conflict to Communion is the preparatory document for the current Catholic Lutheran joint commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation…and sums up well where we have arrived in our journey from conflict to communion…

• why we as Catholics embrace Martin Luther as “Witness of Jesus Christ” and as “Witness of the Gospel”
• why Pope Benedict made Erfurt part of his pilgrimage when he went home to Germany.

His Excellency was also the force behind Declaration on the Way…which you will find here:

usccb.org/news/2015/15-147.cfm

It was done under and, of course, in collaboration with PCPCU.

 

[billy15]

Thanks to all for the recently posted documents. I’ve read a few of these documents already.

Concerning the article Brendan posted, I thought this from the conclusion of the article was intriguing:

Anew context for the resolution of pending problems between the Churches is thus in the making. This context is now posing new questions… To what extent the new context allows for new approaches to the apostolic letter Apostolicæ Curæ and to its conclusion is a question that deserves discussion. To what extent this context has also been negatively affected by the ordination of women in the Anglican Communion is itself a point that should receive careful examination.

Many talk a lot about ecumenism, yet we see that certain ecclesial communities like the Anglicans keep breaking with Sacred Tradition, contradicting revelation, yet they keep hoping for true unity. That is a clear example of how one might be talking out of both sides of their mouth. Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a former Anglican priest, had some excellent points on this earlier in the year in an essay titled Time for Some Ecumenical Common Sense:

I see in the wave of ecumenical “dialogues” that are going on, that one presentation is entitled, “From Conflict to Communion.” Hmm. Surely we need to resolve the conflict before going on to communion?

The elephant in the room is the fact that the mainline Lutherans and Anglicans don’t really give two hoots about ecumenism, and they should be called on this.

**Time and again the ecumenists on the Catholic side of the table have said, “If you ordain women priests this will present a serious obstacle to re-union.” They did it anyway. “If you endorse same sex marriage this will provide a serious obstacle to communion. ” They did it anyway. “If you have women bishops, if you have gay clergy, if you have re marriage after divorce, if you endorse abortion, if you condone cohabitation…these present a serious obstacle to re-union.”

They do it anyway. Then they all sit down at the ecumenical dialogues again and pretend none of this has happened.**

Surely part of the dialogue should involve some plain speaking and common sense. Catholics should ask a few tough questions like, “We said all these things would put obstacles in the path to unity. Why did you do them anyway and what are you going to do about this?”

Why are Catholics continually chastised for not being “open” to unity (as with Apostolicæ Curæ when the above shows how Anglicans show a blatant disregard for true unity in the decisions they have made in recent decades?

Furthermore, it would seem that in reading AC, it’s apparent that Pope Leo XIII (while having engaged in a massive study prior to the document’s promulgation) did not make an entirely new judgement in declaring definitively that Anglican orders were null and void, but that he was reiterating what his predecessors had already declared; namely, Popes Julius III, Paul IV and Clement XI:

1. The authorities which We have quoted of Julius III and Paul IV clearly show the origin of the rule, which has now been constantly observed for more than three centuries, of treating ordinations according to the Edwardine rite as null and void, a rule which is abundantly testified by many instances, even in this City, in which such ordinations have been repeated unconditionally according to the Catholic rite.

---

1. Thereupon Clement XI, with the unanimous vote of the Cardinals concerned, issued the following decree on Thursday, 17 April 1704: 'John Clement Gordon is to be ordained completely and unconditionally to all the orders, including sacred orders and especially the priesthood…

Several Popes, past and present, have spoke on this issue, not just Leo XIII. So here are my questions I’d like to ask to those who have degrees in theology:

Canon lawyer Cathy Caridi, J.C.L., says the following about Anglican orders:

…the Catholic Church… asserted that the ordinations of Anglican clergy were ipso facto invalid. …Leo XIII established a commission to investigate the matter further.

The results… formed the basis for AC. The commission found that the ordination ritual contained in the new Edwardine Ordinal… was substantially different enough that its administration did not confer the true sacrament of holy orders.

---

In the 20th century, scholars began to revisit the issue… but in 1998 the Church officially laid this matter to rest. Pope John Paul II issued Ad Tuendam Fidem, primarily to assert that there are some doctrinal issues which the Church holds are not open to debate. Within a few weeks, a companion document was issued by the CDF then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. [It] provided a list of many theological issues which the Church holds to have already been settled once and for all. One of the examples of matters listed as… “to be held definitively,” is the invalidity of Anglican orders. This means that Catholic theologians, even in good faith, may not entertain discussions about the possibility that Leo XIII’s commission erred on this issue. The matter is closed.

In light of this, I ask:

1. Did Leo XIII err on this issue of the validity of Anglican orders?
2. Leo XIII declared in AC 15, “…the Edwardine rite as null and void, a rule which is abundantly testified by many instances”. Have Anglicans adopted another ordination rite, different from the Edwardine rite, in recent years?
3. If they have not done so, then how could an ordination made in this rite be valid if, as AC 33 states, there is an “intrinsic defect of form” and “defect of intention?”

 

[Memaw]

Wow…is charity no longer a virtue?

Evidently not these days. Some people are very good at putting others down but not so good at helping them understand. My mom always said, "Don’t let your brains only go to your head, keep it in your heart. She would tell us that when we started bragging about our grades. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Evidently not these days. Some people are very good at putting others down but not so good at helping them understand. My mom always said, "Don’t let your brains only go to your head, keep it in your heart. She would tell us that when we started bragging about our grades. God Bless, Memaw

I don’t think it takes a “degree” of any kind to understand this. I go with the POPES !!

(Quote)
In the 20th century, scholars began to revisit the issue… but in 1998 the Church officially laid this matter to rest. Pope John Paul II issued Ad Tuendam Fidem, primarily to assert that there are some doctrinal issues which the Church holds are not open to debate. Within a few weeks, a companion document was issued by the CDF then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. [It] provided a list of many theological issues which the Church holds to have already been settled once and for all. One of the examples of matters listed as… “to be held definitively,” is the invalidity of Anglican orders. This means that Catholic theologians, even in good faith, may not entertain discussions about the possibility that Leo XIII’s commission erred on this issue. The matter is closed.

(Quote)
Time and again the ecumenists on the Catholic side of the table have said, “If you ordain women priests this will present a serious obstacle to re-union.” They did it anyway. “If you endorse same sex marriage this will provide a serious obstacle to communion. ” They did it anyway. “If you have women bishops, if you have gay clergy, if you have re marriage after divorce, if you endorse abortion, if you condone cohabitation…these present a serious obstacle to re-union.”
They do it anyway. Then they all sit down at the ecumenical dialogues again and pretend none of this has happened.

Surely part of the dialogue should involve some plain speaking and common sense.
Catholics should ask a few tough questions like, “We said all these things would put obstacles in the path to unity. Why did you do them anyway and what are you going to do about this?”

Thanks Billy15, I agree, a good dose of plain speaking and common sense along with a lot of Humility , goes a LONG way. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Wandile]

What the heck is going on???

The heterodox have taken over

 

[Wandile]

Dubai is a country.

Let us be clear: judgments and actions concerning Cardinals, such as His Eminence he emeritus Archbishop of Boston who became Archpriest of Saint Mary Major, are exclusively the domain of His Holiness. As the Supreme Legislator, such matters are reserved to his very person. So that is beyond the purview of everyone who is not the Pope.

As for the second point in bold, it means exactly that, in virtue of being a prelate, he is indeed beyond question or critique by those who have a lesser dignity and lesser stature than the prelate.

Clericalism at its highest

 

[Tim_D]

Thanks to all for the recently posted documents. I’ve read a few of these documents already.

Concerning the article Brendan posted, I thought this from the conclusion of the article was intriguing:

Many talk a lot about ecumenism, yet we see that certain ecclesial communities like the Anglicans keep breaking with Sacred Tradition, contradicting revelation, yet they keep hoping for true unity. That is a clear example of how one might be talking out of both sides of their mouth. Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a former Anglican priest, had some excellent points on this earlier in the year in an essay titled Time for Some Ecumenical Common Sense:

Why are Catholics continually chastised for not being “open” to unity (as with Apostolicæ Curæ when the above shows how Anglicans show a blatant disregard for true unity in the decisions they have made in recent decades?

Furthermore, it would seem that in reading AC, it’s apparent that Pope Leo XIII (while having engaged in a massive study prior to the document’s promulgation) did not make an entirely new judgement in declaring definitively that Anglican orders were null and void, but that he was reiterating what his predecessors had already declared; namely, Popes Julius III, Paul IV and Clement XI:

Several Popes, past and present, have spoke on this issue, not just Leo XIII. So here are my questions I’d like to ask to those who have degrees in theology:

Canon lawyer Cathy Caridi, J.C.L., says the following about Anglican orders:

In light of this, I ask:

1. Did Leo XIII err on this issue of the validity of Anglican orders?
2. Leo XIII declared in AC 15, “…the Edwardine rite as null and void, a rule which is abundantly testified by many instances”. Have Anglicans adopted another ordination rite, different from the Edwardine rite, in recent years?
3. If they have not done so, then how could an ordination made in this rite be valid if, as AC 33 states, there is an “intrinsic defect of form” and “defect of intention?”

This is an excellent post. The only thing I will add is that Pope Leo’s Apostolicæ Curæ was met without much controversy in England. One commentator noted that it would have been far more controversial had the pope declared that Anglican orders WERE valid, for then the Anglicans would have found themselves uncomfortably close to Rome, a situation they did not desire.

 

[Randolph]

Wow…is charity no longer a virtue?

Some people are so caught up in the dangerous cycle of highmindedness that they reduce themselves to living in a cocoon devoid of any common sense and common decency. Their own arrogance blinds them from being able to see their own imperfections, and they take great comfort and assurance in finding faults–imaginary or otherwise–in others. It is a disease. They love titles and fancy degrees. And they often remind us that. Although they assure themselves of having great command of the virtues of charity and humility, it is in their words and deeds that scream out their understanding to the contrary. The beatitude: “The meek shall inherit the earth” somehow has little or no relevance to them. To them, catholism is really more of a mental exercise of intelligence and exclusion, rather than God’s grand love for men and His plan for salvation for them.

Yes, yes, yes… they will insist and argue with great zeal that they know it, and their wisdom is beyond the reach and critique of common men. But if they are who they think they are, the merits of their knowledge and wisdom would withstand critical analyses, and would even shine brighter because of them. History has taught us that truth and goodness communicated themselves, and stood tall amid fierce criticisms or even falsehood. History also has highlighted again and again the age old tactic often used by the highminded to shut out debates, or any type of meaningful discussions, when being challenged. Most importantly, history has taught us that men of wisdom possesed great humility and communicated correctly to people. St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua and St. Augustine of Hippo came to mind.

The Church rejects blind obedience. God gave us the gift of intellect, and all the senses and faculty so that we, along with our free will, can discern them. It would be best if the highminded get themselves out of their cocoon, and go back to the Gospels and learn from Jesus Himself what it takes to be “fishers of men”.

 

[Tim_D]

From Father Dwight Longenecker, a former Anglican minister and now a convert and Catholic priest:

"Nobody was ever suggesting that in an Anglican ordination nothing has happened and that everything is completely worthless.

Leo XIII’s definition does not seek to define what has happened in an Anglican ordination. It seeks to define what has not happened. What has not happened is Catholic ordination.

The question then remains–if Anglican orders are not Catholic orders what are they?
But that should be for the Anglicans to tell us–not for us to tell them.

We tell them–“Your orders are not valid Catholic orders. Now you tell us what you think they are.”

And that is where the problem becomes even more confusing because the Anglicans themselves don’t know what their own priesthood is.

They have no shared ecclesiology, no shared sacramental theology, and no shared theology of ministry or ordination.

An Anglo Catholic will pretend that he is “a Catholic but in the Anglican Church.” He believes he is a sacrificing priest confecting a true sacrament.

But an Evangelical Anglican will strenuously deny that he is a sacrificing priest and will intentionally repudiate such an idea that he is any kind of priest at all. Indeed he will insist that he is a “minister of God’s word.”–and so he is.

Meanwhile a modernist Anglican will say, “Priesthood! What a concept! Does anyone believe in that sort of thing nowadays?” As one modernist Anglican priest once said to me, “I see myself sort of like the shaman of the tribe.”

 

[abucs]

Frankly, I am horrified by the lack of the most basic knowledge of theology and ecclesiology which I encounter on this website. It hardly deserves the name “Catholic Answers” at all.

It is as if people here are decades behind where we currently are, both as a theological community in the academy and above all the dicasteries, which people here seem ignorant about, even at the most fundamental level.

Reading and engaging this forum, I have essentially concluded, is simply a waste of time.

Perhaps you have moved in the wrong direction and need to reconsider where you think you’re at with respect to the body of the church?

---

I would like to know why a longish post of mine on this thread was taken down without explanation and why two other posts from people thanking me for that post, who themselves inserted my post in their thankyou posts also were taken down.

 

[Memaw]

Does that mean we have to tip-toe around when responding.?? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Perhaps you have moved in the wrong direction and need to reconsider where you think you’re at with respect to the body of the church?

---

I would like to know why a longish post of mine on this thread was taken down without explanation and why two other posts from people thanking me for that post, who themselves inserted my post in their thankyou posts also were taken down.

For your first point: As a theologian, I have worked, and do work, in collaboration with the dicasteries of the Holy See…and everyone posting owes deference to the dicasteries…everyone. I am honoured for the opportunities that I have been given across my life. When one is in collaboration with the Holy See, there is no need to “reconsider” – and to even suggest that is both an insult and a want of deference to the Holy See.

For your second point: you are in violation of forum rule by even asking that question and you are reported to the moderator. The forum rules make it abundantly clear that to even question authority is strictly and absolutely forbidden