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

[Rosebud77]

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.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the prescribed procedure that was first established under the pastoral provision enacted by Pope Saint John Paul II and put into practice by then Cardinal Seper, predecessor Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF.

The requirement is assuredly not many years of study by virtue of the pastoral provision but rather examination for any needed additional study and the granting of the papal rescript…the process takes weeks to months…not years.

 

[Memaw]

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the prescribed procedure that was first established under the pastoral provision enacted by Pope Saint John Paul II and put into practice by then Cardinal Seper, predecessor Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF.

The requirement is assuredly not many years of study by virtue of the pastoral provision but rather examination for any needed additional study and the granting of the papal rescript…the process takes weeks to months…not years.

You have reminded me repeatedly about my "lack of knowledge. " As a priest I would think you could be a bit more charitable than that!!! Some of us don’t claim to know everything but I have heard the process of Anglicans clergy becoming Catholic Priests discussed on EWTN several times by those who do have knowledge!!! I may not have degrees under my belt but I am not stupid!! They were working on the Anglican Ordinariat for several years and those Anglican Clergy must become Catholic in every way. Including ordained by a Catholic Bishop. No guesswork as to who may or may not have been “ordained” by a wayward Bishop. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Actually, i welcome the opportunity to explain these matters regarding, for example, Donum Veritatis, because there are severe failures in this forum that I have long noted in regard to understanding of these most basic principles.

There is quite evident need of correction, actually, from a competent ecclesiastical authority who has direct episcopal oversight and jurisdiction over this Catholic apostolate…because these erroneous sentiments will also touch upon how posters who are laity are to relate

• to His Excellency, their diocesan bishop, to whom they owe a particular deference and respect due to hierarchical office and ecclesiastical communion
• to the canonical pastor of the parish to which they belong and of whom they are canonical subjects
• theologians.

That these most basic and elementary points seem not to be known and practiced, however, forces me to agree with your sentiment…it would be shameful, indeed, for any lay person to address the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Cardinal President of Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, or the Cardinal Head of Dicastery of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in the terms and language that I have seen bandied about and published on this website.

This bears reporting to the ecclesiastical authority which has jurisdiction over this lay apostolate for an external review by them, the competent ecclesiastical authority…and not simply by this apostolate’s internal moderation mechanism.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You have reminded me repeatedly about my "lack of knowledge. " As a priest I would think you could be a bit more charitable than that!!! Some of us don’t claim to know everything but I have heard the process of Anglicans clergy becoming Catholic Priests discussed on EWTN several times by those who do have knowledge!!! I may not have degrees under my belt but I am not stupid!! They were working on the Anglican Ordinariat for several years and those Anglican Clergy must become Catholic in every way. Including ordained by a Catholic Bishop. No guesswork as to who may or may not have been “ordained” by a wayward Bishop. God Bless, Memaw

You are the one who has denigrated theological degrees in your earlier comments in this thread.

You have heard the process discussed on an American television network?

In my work, I have had association with the process going back to the pastoral provision since the 1980s…which was the first generation that predates the Ordinariates, of which you speak, by almost 30 years. My familiarity with this is intimate as well as long standing…let us be crystal clear.

Since you relate you have this knowledge you do, you will surely be able to explain then the particulars concerning the case, for example, of Graham Leonard’s conditional ordination, why the finding was what it was, what that was based upon, its implications, and what was the significance of conditional over absolute conferral by the ordaining prelate by determination of the Holy See.

Frankly, this pattern of behaviour reminds me of a first year, first day theology student trying to carry on an argument with a decades long professor of theology on a topic he has published in extensively. It is absurd.

I report the matter to the moderator and leave the matter to him…as regards the adjudication in the forum. However, this pattern of behaviour at what I thought was a respectable Catholic forum I look forward to discussing with the one who has ecclesiastical oversight over what was established as a Catholic apostolate of the Diocese of San Diego.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

This thread has wandered off topic, please return to the topic of the original post

Please charitably discuss the news, not each other

 

[abucs]

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

You have reported me twice now on this thread and I have yet to be contacted by a moderator. Perhaps this deserves some reflection on your part.

It is of course your choice to decide how to conduct yourself on this forum and what to demand of others who you choose to interact with. I sincerely suggest reading back over your posts in a charitable manner and assess the reaction you are fostering in others and whether it is anywhere close to the deference you demand.

 

[abucs]

Apologies moderator.

I replied to this poster before reading your general note above for all to return to the topic of the thread. This will be my last post on this particular thread.

Thankyou Rosebud and Memaw and God bless all.

 

[billy15]

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

Hey Meemaw, I just wanted to point out a couple of things about Steve’s post.

Remember that he originally said “As I write these next three posts, please understand that as a Catholic, I uphold the Catholic teaching on the matter.” So as for his point two, I think he’s simply pointing out that the Anglican Church has moved to remedy the situation, however their actions have not been successful. The situation hasn’t been fixed despite the steps they took. Steve also said the following, emphasis mine:

“Through [the Bonn 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.”

“They” points to the Anglicans. They say the claim to validity has been reinstated, but they are of course mistaken. It doesn’t matter what the Anglicans say, but what the Catholic Church says. This was made clear in Apostolicae Curae and in Cardinal Ratzinger’s (as head of the CDF) “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei”, which was released in conjunction with Pope St. John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem.

So Steve is right; the Anglicans did modify the form of the Edwardine Rite in 1662, but by then they were too late, as the line of Apostolic Succession had already been interrupted. Pope Leo XIII explains in AC, specifically paragraph 26:

1. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

1. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That “form” consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.

---

1. …So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it…

Now, one can definitely argue that the Anglicans “should know better” than going to “wayward channels” like the Old Catholic Church, but we have to accept the fact that they are a few Anglican priests that have been validly, but illicitly, ordained, as in the case of Bishop Graham Leonard. As Fr. Sullins pointed out in his essay, “Perhaps, as an Anglican, one was blessed to be ordained by a Catholic bishop in apostolic succession, who spoke the Catholic words with Catholic intent; but again, perhaps not.” Bishop Leonard had his paperwork in order, which was why he was conditionally ordained, as Cardinal Hume noted:

While firmly restating the judgment of Apostolicae Curae that Anglican ordination is invalid, the Catholic Church takes account of the involvement, in some Anglican episcopal ordinations, of bishops of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht who are validly ordained. In particular and probably rare cases the authorities in Rome may judge that there is a “prudent doubt” concerning the invalidity of priestly ordination received by an individual Anglican minister ordain in this line of succession.

There are many complex factors which would need to be verified in each case. It is most unlikely that sufficient evidence will normally be available, but in Dr. Leonard’s case, very full documentation was available which enabled the authorities in Rome to reach a judgment, and in this particular case that judgment was that a “prudent doubt” exists.

 

[billy15]

Dr. Peters noted of this rare exception of conditional ordination as opposed to the typical absolute ordiantion of Anglican clergy in his essay on Cardinal Cocopalmerio’s comments, emphases mine:

…the only other accounting I can come up with for [Cardinal Cocopalmerio’s] remarks is that, while Anglican orders are themselves invalid, some Anglicans are nevertheless validly ordained—not in virtue of their Anglican orders, to be sure, but in virtue of a post-Edwardian reintroduction of valid orders (conferred by break-away Catholic bishops or Orthodox prelates), such that a given Anglican minister might, by doing an ‘ordination pedigree’ search, be able to trace his orders back to a prelate possessed of valid orders.

Such a query can be tedious, of course, and it might impact only a small number of Anglican ministers, but I think it only fair to acknowledge the possibility. (For what it’s worth, I think the Roman decision to ordain “absolutely” all Anglican ministers coming into full communion who wish to serve as priests—if applied without regard for the possibility that some could trace their orders to a bishop with valid orders—is problematic).** Maybe this unusual source of sacramental validity is what the prelate had in mind.**

So I agree with Dr. Peters. If what Cardinal Cocopalmerio had in mind with his comments are that there should be more time taken to find out whether or not an Anglican minister might have valid orders, that’s great. If this is not the intention of the comments, there is cause for concern. I think that Steve is right on with his conclusion from his third post: “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.”

So you’re still right, Meemaw, when you say, “every Anglican clergy that wants to become a Catholic Priest in the Anglican Ordinariate has to be ORDAINED by a valid Catholic Bishop.” The question is whether they are conditionally ordained (which is very rare, as made evident by Cardinal Hume’s and Dr. Peter’s responses) or absolutely ordained. Hope this helps clarify what Steve wrote.

 

[SteveLy]

Bishop Leonard had his paperwork in order which was why he was conditionally ordained, as Cardinal Hume noted:

Which leads us to the case of Bishop Scipione Rebiba, Bishop 1541 to 1577, and in the line of Apostolic Succession for 95% of Catholic Bishops, including Pope Francis. There’s no paperwork to show if he was ordained, who ordained him or what format was used.

And hence, in part, the Anglican response to AC that if the same rules were applied equally to Roman Catholics as they are to Anglicans, there would be no way to point with certainty to Catholic Validity.

Thanks for the engagement.

 

[Memaw]

MODERATOR NOTE

This thread has wandered off topic, please return to the topic of the original post

Please charitably discuss the news, not each other

THANK YOU!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Hey Meemaw, I just wanted to point out a couple of things about Steve’s post.

Remember that he originally said “As I write these next three posts, please understand that as a Catholic, I uphold the Catholic teaching on the matter.” So as for his point two, I think he’s simply pointing out that the Anglican Church has moved to remedy the situation, however their actions have not been successful. The situation hasn’t been fixed despite the steps they took. Steve also said the following, emphasis mine:

“Through [the Bonn 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.”

“They” points to the Anglicans. They say the claim to validity has been reinstated, but they are of course mistaken. It doesn’t matter what the Anglicans say, but what the Catholic Church says. This was made clear in Apostolicae Curae and in Cardinal Ratzinger’s (as head of the CDF) “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei”, which was released in conjunction with Pope St. John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem.

So Steve is right; the Anglicans did modify the form of the Edwardine Rite in 1662, but by then they were too late, as the line of Apostolic Succession had already been interrupted. Pope Leo XIII explains in AC, specifically paragraph 26:

Now, one can definitely argue that the Anglicans “should know better” than going to “wayward channels” like the Old Catholic Church, but we have to accept the fact that they are a few Anglican priests that have been validly, but illicitly, ordained, as in the case of Bishop Graham Leonard. As Fr. Sullins pointed out in his essay, “Perhaps, as an Anglican, one was blessed to be ordained by a Catholic bishop in apostolic succession, who spoke the Catholic words with Catholic intent; but again, perhaps not.” Bishop Leonard had his paperwork in order, which was why he was conditionally ordained, as Cardinal Hume noted:

Thank you very much, I know I’m not an “expert” on this but I do trust the Popes. I realize that the “Old Catholic” Church has ordained illicitly, (heard about that many years ago). but those who were “ordained” in that manner are still not able to function as Catholic priests until they are Ordained licitly by a Valid Catholic Bishop. While some may not give much credit to our EWTN Catholic Television network, I have watched panels of Anglican Clergy discuss what they HAVE gone thru in the process of becoming validly ordained Catholic Priests. Not one said they were accepted as Catholic Priest because their ordination “might” be valid. God Bless, Memaw

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Roman Catholic priests who wish to become an Anglican (or Episcopalian) priest are not re-ordained. They are received. Their sacramental orders are acknowledged.

 

[SteveLy]

Just one more point of clarification. For purposes of this discussion, AC did 2 things:

1. It notified the Anglican Communion the RCC considered their Orders “null and void”.
2. It gave the formula to the world of how to have valid Orders. Proper form, intent (often demonstrated by the form), and laying on of hands by a valid Bishop.

My two earlier examples of Bishops Costa and Milingo demonstrate validity is not affected by excommunication or heresy as long as form and intent are present.

From a formulary standpoint, and purposes of this discussion, whether the Anglican Communion existed prior to the consecration with the first Old Catholic Bishop is immaterial. What causes valid Succession are the three things coming together at one point.

From the standpoint of Anglicans who rely on the Old Catholic consecrations as basis of validity, the Anglican Church could have been formed the morning of the first consecration. What was important is there was a valid Bishop, using a valid ordinal (form) with the intent of making a Bishop. At that point, Succession would have been passed on.

From a practical standpoint, with the knowledge and directive of AC, I would think if the Anglicans went to the trouble of bringing an Old Catholic Bishop over, they would have ensured the other two parts were in line. It is not so much that the Anglican Ordinal was “corrected” in 1662, but that a valid ordinal was used by the Old Catholic Bishop at the time of those 1932 and subsequent consecrations.

And so, taking this all into consideration, we may be able to more easily accept Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s statement that “something happened”.

Thanks for the discussion.

\p.s. I am sorry this topic causes such consternation to some. I’ve started another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14652216&posted=1#post14652216 where we can discuss that more deeply if you wish.

 

[Yeoman]

Where is GKC when we need him? I am not sure if he could be of some help.

Does he no longer post?

That’s be a shame as I always really enjoyed his posts.

 

[GKC]

Where is GKC when we need him? I am not sure if he could be of some help.

I’m not sure, either.

 

[GKC]

You have to remember the Edwardian Ordinal was for a period of time and corrected prior to 1896. Following AC in 1896 the continuity was largely taken care of by Union of Ultrecht bishops attending Anglican Bishop Consecrations, and various other lines of succession (such as the Brazilian RCC with Archbishop Carlos Duarte) Costa introduced in the 1950’s.

Largely these are discounted by the RCC as “Vagrantes” because some successors had succession but not necessarily large churches.

I know the total lack of recognition is a stumbling block for some Anglican Priests. If for no other reason than a sacrament cannot be repeated and should their ordination be valid but illicit, they have a concern over repeating the sacrament. Should the RCC decide to have “conditional ordinations” of Anglican Priests who come over, which by nature would only be men, I think several would be open to entering full communion.

As suggested, GKC would probably have more thorough info.

Well, there is the point that two Anglican priests have been in recent times, ordained
sub conditione, not absolutely, as RC priests, but the implication of the process followed after Anglicanorum coetibus shows that was not a straw in the wind. Not that I expected anything else. Was not surprised.

The Ordinalwas cured in the 1662 BCP, for reasons that had nothing to do with this point. But what that might mean, technically, as to the AC judgement, is cloudy.

 

[GKC]

What it really comes down to is whether an excommunicated bishoped validily can ordain someone, because that is basically what happened in the anglican church and some lutheran churches during the reformation. They claim they have preserved the apostolic succession in this way.

Does anyone know why the Church sees orthodox orders as valid but not anglicans?

Actually, they can, per Ott, p. 458. All sorts of validly consecrated bishops can validly, if not licitly, do stuff.

As to your last question, the answer, from the theological standpoint, is in Apostolicae curae.

 

[GKC]

Does he no longer post?

That’s be a shame as I always really enjoyed his posts.

No such luck. But he is out the door, right now.

Lots of knowledgeable people in this thread.