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

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for your post.

 

[Memaw]

I agree but that works both ways and if one is on a forum such as this, one should be able to voice their opinion without being insulted, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

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

Oh my, here we go again. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

Please charitably discuss the news, not each other

All posts are to be charitable, do not make accusations about anyone, especially those you disagree with (both members and newsmakers.)

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The following may help shed some light on what The Tablet wrote about Cardinal Coccopalmerio. It is from a Feb. 21, 2017 interview Cardinal Coccopalmerio gave with the National Catholic Register.

One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?

I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection.

ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-coccopalmerio-explains-his-positions-on-catholics-in-irregular-uni

I see Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s point about a lack of fullness verses complete invalidity. It would seem to me that the same point about a lack of fullness verses invalidity is held by the Church regarding baptism and marriage…that being that they are not necessarily devoid of grace when they take place outside of the Catholic Church. The radical sanation of a marriage gives the indication of marriage validity from the time the vows were made, why couldn’t the same principle apply to an Anglican ordination?

 

[billy15]

The following may help shed some light on what The Tablet wrote about Cardinal Coccopalmerio. It is from a Feb. 21, 2017 interview Cardinal Coccopalmerio gave with the National Catholic Register.

One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?

Thanks for posting this; it certainly does shed some light on The Tablet article.

I think we can all agree that a lack of fullness with the Anglican communion (as well as the lack of fullness that is to be had in their ordination rite) does not mean there is nothing good happening there, or that it means nothing and is completely devoid of grace, as has been claimed by the Cardinal in The Tablet. There can be grace there, as we’ve seen in the sources I, and others, have posted in this thread.

However, at some point “rigidity” has to be seen as a good instead of a stumbling block. We cannot say rigidity is wrong in all times and all places. It is good to be unwavering on certain points; the martyrs, for example, were quite rigid in resisting Diocletian and other emperors and rulers who wanted them to renounce their beliefs; who wanted the martyrs to give a little “wiggle room”. In the same way, what it comes down to, is saying whether or not what appears to be bread on the altars in a Catholic or Anglican church is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ or not. It is either Jesus after the words of consecration, or it is not Jesus. There is no middle ground. Is this an absolute statement? Yes, but absolute statements are necessary sometimes. Knowing whether or not the Eucharist is or is not present on the altar is something we need to know before receiving it.

This is why the issue of Holy Orders is so integrally tied to this question of whether the Jesus is present on the altar and in the ciborium or He is not.1Lord, you asked why the principle of something like the radical sanation of a marriage couldn’t apply to Anglican orders. Well it couldn’t, I hold, because the principle isn’t analogous to the Anglican orders. The Cardinal in his interview with NCRegister says, "The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing…

So we have a hypothesis, and honestly that hypothesis hasn’t been clearly elucidated anywhere that I’ve seen, either here or elsewhere. That’s why Dr. Peters asked in his article on CWR “I… hold that Catholics must regard Anglican orders as null. I can scarcely see any counter argument, let alone a plausible one, here, but if someone wants to offer it, I would listen.” While people here and elsewhere have said that perhaps Leo XIII’s declaration wasn’t absolute, no one has shown an argument for why that is so; they’ve only provided an assertion with nothing to back it up. We have seen arguments given for maintaining fidelity to Pope Leo XIII’s exercise of the Magisterium by Dr. Peters, Ms. Caridi, J.C.L., Fr. Sullins, and Cardinal Ratzinger.

We have been provided with no arguments against this though. If there is an argument for not regarding Anglican orders as null and void, I hope that that argument can be posted here so that we may continue the discussion. There’s unfortunately been a lot of talk on this thread about some posters’ characters and some posters’ achievements; like Mr. Bay said, it’d be great to focus on the arguments and not each other. And I have yet to see an argument supporting Cardinal Cocopamerio’s comments or rebutting the arguments of the four people I just listed.

 

[billy15]

So back to the hypothesis. Let’s say there is a clearly elucidated hypothesis. As the Cardinal said, it could be something, or it could be nothing. As I haven’t been shown anything to support the contention that the Edwardine rite of ordination might be valid in some cases, I would have to say that the “hypothesis” amounts to nothing in light of what many others have said in accord with Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae. As I understand it, something like a radical sanation can’t be applied to this situation of Anglican priests because there is not only a defect of form with the Edwardine rite, but also a “defect of intention”, as Leo XIII describes in AC 33:

With this inherent defect of “form” (in the Edwardine rite used by Anglicans) is joined the defect of “intention”… 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.

I think that’s why it has to be either “all or nothing” considering Anglican orders as someone can’t be “partially ordained”. In the same way you can’t have Jesus “kind of” be there when attempting to confect the Eucharist. Jesus is either **there ** on the altar after the words of consecration, or He is not there. This whole talk of trying to get around the clear words of Leo XIII (“we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”) sounds a lot like the legalism of the Pharisees to me. The Pharisees were always looking for loopholes, and they used those loopholes to get around the difficult demands of the Torah. One Evangelical Christian commentator puts it like this, and I think it’s pertinent to what’s happening in this situation:

Another type of legalism is that which looks for a loophole in order to get out of obedience to Christ’s law. True legalists look for a way out of obedience like a legalistic lawyer who seeks to find a loophole in the wording of a contract. It is a legalistic attorney who studies to find a technicality within a document which creates a loophole. A legalist would emphasize the letter of the command in order to absolve themselves of obeying the intended meaning."

The words of Leo XIII are clear. Since the Church is one with Christ, we are to hold that which is to be definitely held as declared by that same Church, as if it came from Jesus Himself… because it does come from Jesus Himself! Let’s stop trying to work around those teachings (like in AC) and recognize that we as Catholics have extended many olive branches, i.e. the three Anglican Ordinariates. If Anglicans see AC as a stumbling block to reunion, perhaps it’s time they search deep inside themselves, and truly try to listen to the Holy Spirit that calls them to reintegration with the One, True Church and the Chair of Peter. It’s not the Catholic Church that needs to compromise anymore, this time it’s the Anglicans that have to make the move if they want reconciliation and full communion.

 

[Fiasco]

…
…there is not only a defect of form with the Edwardine rite, but also a “defect of intention”, as Leo XIII describes in AC 33:

Surely Archbishop Cranmer’s intention is obvious.

The words of Leo XIII are clear. Since the Church is one with Christ, we are to hold that which is to be definitely held as declared by that same Church, as if it came from Jesus Himself…

…It’s not the Catholic Church that needs to compromise anymore, this time it’s the Anglicans that have to make the move if they want reconciliation and full communion.

Ecumenism at any price would consign the Church into spiritual bankruptcy. Thank Goodness the Holy Spirit won’t permit that, but individual Catholics can be misled to try the false ecumenism.

 

[Memaw]

So back to the hypothesis. Let’s say there is a clearly elucidated hypothesis. As the Cardinal said, it could be something, or it could be nothing. As I haven’t been shown anything to support the contention that the Edwardine rite of ordination might be valid in some cases, I would have to say that the “hypothesis” amounts to nothing in light of what many others have said in accord with Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae. As I understand it, something like a radical sanation can’t be applied to this situation of Anglican priests because there is not only a defect of form with the Edwardine rite, but also a “defect of intention”, as Leo XIII describes in AC 33:

I think that’s why it has to be either “all or nothing” considering Anglican orders as someone can’t be “partially ordained”. In the same way you can’t have Jesus “kind of” be there when attempting to confect the Eucharist. Jesus is either **there ** on the altar after the words of consecration, or He is not there. This whole talk of trying to get around the clear words of Leo XIII (“we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”) sounds a lot like the legalism of the Pharisees to me. The Pharisees were always looking for loopholes, and they used those loopholes to get around the difficult demands of the Torah. One Evangelical Christian commentator puts it like this, and I think it’s pertinent to what’s happening in this situation:

The words of Leo XIII are clear. Since the Church is one with Christ, we are to hold that which is to be definitely held as declared by that same Church, as if it came from Jesus Himself… because it does come from Jesus Himself! Let’s stop trying to work around those teachings (like in AC) and recognize that we as Catholics have extended many olive branches, i.e. the three Anglican Ordinariates. If Anglicans see AC as a stumbling block to reunion, perhaps it’s time they search deep inside themselves, and truly try to listen to the Holy Spirit that calls them to reintegration with the One, True Church and the Chair of Peter. It’s not the Catholic Church that needs to compromise anymore, this time it’s the Anglicans that have to make the move if they want reconciliation and full communion.

Thank you Billy15,
I would like to add a bit;

I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever said ALL or Nothing when it comes to other denominations celebrating their communion service. We do believe in Spiritual Communion. “Different levels of communion,” does not mean different levels of “ordination” for the validity of the Holy Eucharist. Sacraments of Baptism and Marriage are different than Holy Orders. Even a lay person can Baptize in case of emergency. The vow of Marriage is between a man and a women, and that is why Radical Sanation applies here. It was applied where priest were not available to many people who wanted to marry. But as soon as a priest was available he would “Bless” the original Marriage. The priest is a witness for the Church. Sacrament of Holy Orders is passed down in Apostolic Succession from the Apostles by the “Laying on of the Hands,” God help us if we try to “water down” the Sacrament of Holy Orders in any way!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[billy15]

Thank you Billy15,
I would like to add a bit;

I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever said ALL or Nothing when it comes to other denominations celebrating their communion service. We do believe in Spiritual Communion. “Different levels of communion,” does not mean different levels of “ordination” for the validity of the Holy Eucharist. Sacraments of Baptism and Marriage are different than Holy Orders. Even a lay person can Baptize in case of emergency. The vow of Marriage is between a man and a women, and that is why Radical Sanation applies here. It was applied where priest were not available to many people who wanted to marry. But as soon as a priest was available he would “Bless” the original Marriage. The priest is a witness for the Church. Sacrament of Holy Orders is passed down in Apostolic Succession from the Apostles by the “Laying on of the Hands,” God help us if we try to “water down” the Sacrament of Holy Orders in any way!! God Bless, Memaw

Thanks Meemaw. I understand what you’re saying. We certainly believe in spiritual communion, and I’m sure there are some Anglicans (High Church/Anglo-Catholics) who really are uniting their hearts to Jesus in a way similar to how we Catholics receive spiritual Communion. By saying “all or nothing” regarding Holy Orders, I was pretty much saying the point you got across: “we can’t ‘water down’ the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

 

[SteveLy]

I will write a more thorough line of reasoning for those who care. If you check my profile, you will see I have reason for a little research and knowledge of the topic. As I write these next three posts, please understand that as a Catholic, I uphold the Catholic teaching on the matter.

While I have done some research, I would not consider myself an expert.

So as to not be too long, I’ll break this into three posts. First, it might be helpful to look at a story for perspective. A Catholic couple in college decides to take a vacation to Jamaica. While there, they get married by a civil magistrate on the beach. They do not have a valid Catholic marriage, but a valid civil one.(i.e. Something happened, but not a valid Catholic marriage). A few years later they decide to have the marriage validated in order to have their children baptized, so they go to the Priest and have their marriage blessed.

The following can be stated absolutely truthfully:

1. The couple did not have a valid Catholic wedding.
2. The couple has a valid Catholic marriage today.

Basically, those saying the Anglican Church, or some Anglican Priests have valid Orders is that since AC in 1896 there were events which took place which straightened the situation out. Just like the couple.

So a person following this line of reasoning could say:

1. Anglicans did not have valid Orders in 1896.
2. Some Anglican Priests have valid Orders today.

 

[SteveLy]

An abbreviated history:
King Henry VIII “Defender of the Faith” separated the English Church from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534. For purposes of this post he didn’t change much about the Church except persecution of the Catholic clergy who would not submit to him. Henry died in 1547.
His son 9 year old son Edward was made king in early 1548. A ruling council was formed to assist the king with decision making including ecclesiastical matters. 1552 a new Book of Common Prayer written by Thomas Cranmer was published which changed the faith towards Protestantism, including the Ordinal (ceremony to Ordain clergy).

1662 a new revision of the Book of Common Prayer reinstituted many of the Catholic aspects of the faith including changing the Ordinal.

Mid 1800’s many clergy including and John Henry Neumann revived interest in “Catholicity” of Anglican Orders.

1896 Pope Leo XIII addressed the situation of validity of Anglican Orders and for a variety of reasons declared them “null and void”. The Anglicans responded basically that if the same standard were used to review the Catholic line of Succession, the Catholic Orders would also have to be declared “null and void” as well, which they (the Anglicans) stated, would be ridiculous.

 

[SteveLy]

20th Century to present:
Following these events, the Anglican Communion entered an intercommunion agreement called the “Bonn Agreement” in 1931 with the Old Catholic Churches / Union of Ultrecht whose Orders are recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Through this agreement, Anglican Bishop Consecrations were also attended by an Old Catholic Bishop with Valid Orders. Having corrected the “form” in 1662, and “intent” following 1896, the claim to validity has been reinstated they say.

In addition, the Former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Brazil, Carlos Duarte Costa started the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. Following his excommunication, he Ordained 11 Bishops including Bishop Salomao Ferraz, who was received back into the Roman Church by Pope John XXIII in 1958, without any repetition of the consecration rite, as a married bishop.

Another Catholic Bishop, Emmanuel Milingo of Zambia, also left the Roman Catholic Church and was later laicized for his activities. Prior to laicization Milingo ordained Bishops including Peter Paul Brennan of the Old Catholic Union. Brennan’s Ordination was commented upon by the Vatican Press Office. The Reverend Ciro Benedettini of the Holy See Press Office, who was responsible for publicly issuing the press conference communique on Milingo, told reporters that any ordinations that the excommunicated Milingo had performed prior to his laicization were “illicit but valid”, while any subsequent ordinations would be invalid. Though the downline as it were, was already set.

Both Costa’s and Milingo’s line have made their way into some smaller, and sometimes larger Anglican bodies. Due to the varied nature of some of these ordinations (the Vagrante’s issue) and the seemingly declining orthodoxy of some Independent or non-Catholic churches which have received the (seemingly valid, though illicit) Succession, as stated above, the Vatican has decided not to recognize the Holy Orders though they very well may fit the tenets of “form and intention” set out by Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae.

I would think the same applies to modern Anglicanism as it continues its march away from orthodoxy. In short, there is no benefit to the Catholic Church to recognize Holy Orders of groups which have strayed from the theology of the Catholic Church. To recognize Anglican Orders, they would also then have to deal with many other groups who would claim validity though the teachings are quite different.

And so, once again we can state:

1. The Catholic Church declared Anglican Orders “null and void” in 1896.
2. The Anglican Church has taken action to remedy the invalidity.
3. For a variety of reasons, the Catholic Church has chosen to deal with the situation by inviting Anglican Clergy into the three Anglican Ordinariates to continue their ministry should they so desire.

Hope this clears it up for some.

 

[tafan]

Edited. . . Thought better not to say

 

[abucs]

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. … The forum rules make it abundantly clear that to even question authority is strictly and absolutely forbidden

Deference is for those who have gained the respect of people they interact with and historically people hiding behind a self proclaimed authority have tried to close down discussion and have done much damage to this world.

As Christians the obvious example we have is the Pharisee treatment of Jesus through the unquestioned authority of the Sanhedrin. People who demanded deference and forbade even being questioned by those human beings they saw as lessor or inferior. In all Creation God chose this sin to be the one he would highlight for all time as man’s failure for which he needs eternal repentence.

Sometimes such people have claimed and hid behind such an authority because they are unable either intellectually or with charity to discuss issues with others.

In general I think we can agree that if people want the deference of others, they shouldn’t go about it in exactly the wrong way and such people should consider the direction to which they have chosen.

May we both pray for the Pharisees of Jesus’ day who sinned against our Lord and for the cultural Pharisees amongst us even down to this day.

 

[Memaw]

From steveLy’s post 113

And so, once again we can state:

1. The Catholic Church declared Anglican Orders “null and void” in 1896.
2. The Anglican Church has taken action to remedy the invalidity.
3. For a variety of reasons, the Catholic Church has chosen to deal with the situation by inviting Anglican Clergy into the three Anglican Ordinariates to continue their ministry should they so desire.

My response.
The Anglican Church has gone to wayward channels, (Old Catholic Church) to try to get the Sacrament of Holy Orders.They know better!!! OR Should! and they went on to do their women and gay ordination thing. I do not see where that is a “remedy”
If I am not mistaken I believe every Anglican clergy that wants to become a Catholic Priest in the Anglican Ordinariat has to be ORDAINED by a valid Catholic Bishop. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Deference is for those who have gained the respect of people they interact with and historically people hiding behind a self proclaimed authority have tried to close down discussion and have done much damage to this world.

As Christians the obvious example we have is the Pharisee treatment of Jesus through the unquestioned authority of the Sanhedrin. People who demanded deference and forbade even being questioned by those human beings they saw as lessor or inferior. In all Creation God chose this sin to be the one he would highlight for all time as man’s failure for which he needs eternal repentance.

Sometimes such people have claimed and hid behind such an authority because they are unable either intellectually or with charity to discuss issues with others.

In general I think we can agree that if people want the deference of others, they shouldn’t go about it in exactly the wrong way and such people should consider the direction to which they have chosen.

May we both pray for the Pharisees of Jesus’ day who sinned against our Lord and for the cultural Pharisees amongst us even down to this day.

AMEN!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

I will write a more thorough line of reasoning for those who care. If you check my profile, you will see I have reason for a little research and knowledge of the topic. As I write these next three posts, please understand that as a Catholic, I uphold the Catholic teaching on the matter.

While I have done some research, I would not consider myself an expert.

So as to not be too long, I’ll break this into three posts. First, it might be helpful to look at a story for perspective. A Catholic couple in college decides to take a vacation to Jamaica. While there, they get married by a civil magistrate on the beach. They do not have a valid Catholic marriage, but a valid civil one.(i.e. Something happened, but not a valid Catholic marriage). A few years later they decide to have the marriage validated in order to have their children baptized, so they go to the Priest and have their marriage blessed.

The following can be stated absolutely truthfully:

1. The couple did not have a valid Catholic wedding.
2. The couple has a valid Catholic marriage today.

Basically, those saying the Anglican Church, or some Anglican Priests have valid Orders is that since AC in 1896 there were events which took place which straightened the situation out. Just like the couple.

So a person following this line of reasoning could say:

1. Anglicans did not have valid Orders in 1896.
2. Some Anglican Priests have valid Orders today.

There is NO comparison between Marriage and valid Catholic Holy Orders. They are both Sacraments of course but as I said before, having a Marriage Blessed requires repeating the marriage vows. To become a validly ordained Catholic Priest requires many years of study and a Valid Catholic Bishop to to ordain him with “Laying on of the Hands.” God Bless, Memaw

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Deference is for those who have gained the respect of people they interact with and historically people hiding behind a self proclaimed authority have tried to close down discussion and have done much damage to this world.

No.

Deference is mandated by eccleiastical authority and the Church’s divine constitution and particularly as it relates to the hierarchy.

As stated by the CDF in Donum Veritatis

*22. Collaboration between the theologian and the Magisterium occurs in a special way when the theologian receives the canonical mission or the mandate to teach. In a certain sense, such collaboration becomes a participation in the work of the Magisterium, linked, as it then is, by a juridic bond. The theologian’s code of conduct, which obviously has its origin in the service of the Word of God, is here reinforced by the commitment the theologian assumes in accepting his office, making the profession of faith, and taking the oath of fidelity.

**From this moment on, the theologian is officially charged with the task of presenting and illustrating the doctrine of the faith in its integrity and with full accuracy. ***

Donum Veritatis demands of the faithful obsequium religiosum from a Cathollic. The post is reported to a moderator for moderator intervention

I have previously provided to the forum both documentation that I am a priest and that I hold the prescribed mandate as a theologian

 

[Memaw]

I wasn’t talking about Catholic priests who abandon their priesthood. I was referring to Anglican clergy who wanted to become Catholic Priests!! They have to be ordained by a valid Catholic Bishop. God Bless, Memaw