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

[GKC]

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.

Are you familiar with Saepius Officio?

 

[GKC]

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.

Pretty good precis.

The full story of how he acquired the defensor fidei title is interesting.

 

[GKC]

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.

Father,

As one who has had a minor hobby of the long and rather sad story of the birth of Apostolicae curae, and matters following, I would greatly appreciate the facts of the ordination, sub conditione, of the one-time Anglican Bishop of London. I have read theories, but would greatly appreciate your understanding. The closing points in your para 4 are the sort of things I am thinking of, as well as the somewhat parallel case of Fr. J. J. Hughes

 

[GKC]

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.

The thread has such a head of steam that it is pointless to try to fine-tune various details. But let me try just once. The Agreement of Bonn, in 1931, was the outcome of a history of ecumenical meetings between the Church of England and the OCs/Utrecht, stretching back to the 1870s, aiming, eventually, at full intercommunion of the two Churches. One aspect of that was joint episcopal consecrations, which began in 1932. It was not a question of importing an OC Bishop. Anglican Bishops were invited as co-consecrators for OC bishops, and vice-versa, as the occasion was appropriate, which was not at every such consecration. More on the subject can be found in C. B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT: ITS ORIGINS AND HISTORY and J. J. Hughes STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II.

As to a valid form, the question of whether the cure found in the 1662 BCP (for it was indeed the 1662 form used in the Anglican consecrations, with OC bishops as co-consecrators) included removing the assumed nativa indoles ac spiritus of the Edwardine Ordinal, and made it a valid sacramental form. Details like that make me yearn for a definitive RC statement on the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat, just for clarity.

There are a number of such points that I think the juggernaut of the thread gets a little askew, but what the heck.

 

[commenter]

… Details like that make me yearn for a definitive RC statement on the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat, just for clarity…

By the way, there are many instances where Catholics yearn for a definitive RC statement, about lots of things other than ecumenism. I think the Magisterium is reliable when it issues definitive statements, but sometimes Rome doesn’t yet know the answer, and knows it doesn’t know the answer. The situation may be clearer in the future, as more is learned about circumstances in the past, which may have changed since then. A more definitive statement may come about later. Or not.

Non Catholics make the assumption that the Vatican has solemnly defined every detail of every facet of religion, including the vertical air speed of the Assumption.

 

[GKC]

By the way, there are many instances where Catholics yearn for a definitive RC statement, about lots of things other than ecumenism. I think the Magisterium is reliable when it issues definitive statements, but sometimes Rome doesn’t yet know the answer, and knows it doesn’t know the answer. The situation may be clearer in the future, as more is learned about circumstances in the past, which may have changed since then. A more definitive statement may come about later. Or not.

Non Catholics make the assumption that the Vatican has solemnly defined every detail of every facet of religion, including the vertical air speed of the Assumption.

I’m patient.

 

[Randolph]

The thread has such a head of steam that it is pointless to try to fine-tune various details. But let me try just once. The Agreement of Bonn, in 1931, was the outcome of a history of ecumenical meetings between the Church of England and the OCs/Utrecht, stretching back to the 1870s, aiming, eventually, at full intercommunion of the two Churches. One aspect of that was joint episcopal consecrations, which began in 1932. It was not a question of importing an OC Bishop. Anglican Bishops were invited as co-consecrators for OC bishops, and vice-versa, as the occasion was appropriate, which was not at every such consecration. More on the subject can be found in C. B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT: ITS ORIGINS AND HISTORY and J. J. Hughes STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II.

As to a valid form, the question of whether the cure found in the 1662 BCP (for it was indeed the 1662 form used in the Anglican consecrations, with OC bishops as co-consecrators) included removing the assumed nativa indoles ac spiritus of the Edwardine Ordinal, and made it a valid sacramental form. Details like that make me yearn for a definitive RC statement on the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat, just for clarity.

There are a number of such points that I think the juggernaut of the thread gets a little askew, but what the heck.

GKC. Thank you for making your points respectful and with charity. You allowed facts, reason, truth and merits to speak for themselves. This is such a welcoming relief after seeing posters here being dimissed and lectured for not having fancy theology degrees or pastoral experience. I can’t see that kind of unbecoming and unkind behaviors are at all fruitful and productive. Certainly, that was not what Jesus had in mind when he taught the apostles to be “fishers of men”.

Faith, reason and truth win the day–certainly not necessarily titles and fancy theology degrees. I have very much enjoyed your posts, and am looking forward to your future posts.

 

[Mark121359]

Father Gerald Murray gives his take on this subject over at The Catholic Thing. Here is the link.

Peace, Mark

 

[GKC]

GKC. Thank you for making your points respectful and with charity. You allowed facts, reason, truth and merits to speak for themselves. This is such a welcoming relief after seeing posters here being dimissed and lectured for not having fancy theology degrees or pastoral experience. I can’t see that kind of unbecoming and unkind behaviors are at all fruitful and productive. Certainly, that was not what Jesus had in mind when he taught the apostles to be “fishers of men”.

Faith, reason and truth win the day–certainly not necessarily titles and fancy theology degrees. I have very much enjoyed your posts, and am looking forward to your future posts.

I thank you very much for your kind words. As I have stated, *Apostolicae curae *, its history in a number of respects, is one of a number of “hobbies” that I pursue, in this case for something nigh 20 years, which, cumulatively, over my longer than that lifetime, has resulted in my being owned by something like 30,000 books, on this and that. Culling that mountain provides me with the bulk of what I post, over the past 20 years or so.

Which postings I’ve tried to purge of overly snarky components. Mainly, that is (I can think of one or two that I can get into the snark mood on, eventually). Partially I do this by sticking to what I find to be the historical facts on a given point, and partially by not entering into a full, unfettered discussion, in open venues, and not overtly attempting to convert someone. Fact based irenicism is the goal.

That being so (or, that being the aim), I can still appreciate the sort of postings you are condemning. If a given poster presents a position based on authority, experience, learning, title, position, in whatever terms, I can’t see that such is to be categorically dismissed, if the tone of the expression be other than irenic. There still remains the meat of whatever is being conveyed, as well as the need to ponder the trimmings. I learn where I can and argumentum ad verecundiam can still be a valid one. IMO. But in my case, the facts I think I know have to speak for themselves. I have no other than bibliographic authority or expertise. Some folk have life experience, teaching authority, etc. I don’t. In this sort of case, at least.

Thank you again. I hope I can continue to merit this sort of reaction.

 

[Memaw]

GKC. Thank you for making your points respectful and with charity. You allowed facts, reason, truth and merits to speak for themselves. This is such a welcoming relief after seeing posters here being dimissed and lectured for not having fancy theology degrees or pastoral experience. I can’t see that kind of unbecoming and unkind behaviors are at all fruitful and productive. Certainly, that was not what Jesus had in mind when he taught the apostles to be “fishers of men”.

Faith, reason and truth win the day–certainly not necessarily titles and fancy theology degrees. I have very much enjoyed your posts, and am looking forward to your future posts.

AMEN !! God Bless, Memaw

 

[tafan]

GKC:

That being so (or, that being the aim), I can still appreciate the sort of postings you are condemning. If a given poster presents a position based on authority, experience, learning, title, position, in whatever terms, I can’t see that such is to be categorically dismissed, if the tone of the expression be other than irenic. There still remains the meat of whatever is being conveyed, as well as the need to ponder the trimmings. I learn where I can and argumentum ad verecundiam can still be a valid one. IMO. But in my case, the facts I think I know have to speak for themselves. I have no other than bibliographic authority or expertise. Some folk have life experience, teaching authority, etc. I don’t. In this sort of case, at least.

I agree with this, unfortunately it does not apply on this thread. On the first page, people expressed confusion and for the most part simply said they did not understand. Post 16 was the answer: The claim was that the Cardinal referenced in the OP made his points with good precision, a “parallel point made by Cardinal Ratzinger” was referenced with no detail to give an air of authority, and then those who were expressing confusion were simply told they were decades behind the theological academic community.

Post 16 is where this thread got off track. The poster went on the attack after that and made complaint after complaint, but he was at fault IMO.

Sorry for the thread drift, but this has been a frustrating thread to read despite my interest in the topic.

I appreciate your clarifications a great deal.

 

[GKC]

I agree with this, unfortunately it does not apply on this thread. On the first page, people expressed confusion and for the most part simply said they did not understand. Post 16 was the answer: The claim was that the Cardinal referenced in the OP made his points with good precision, a “parallel point made by Cardinal Ratzinger” was referenced with no detail to give an air of authority, and then those who were expressing confusion were simply told they were decades behind the theological academic community.

Post 16 is where this thread got off track. The poster went on the attack after that and made complaint after complaint, but he was at fault IMO.

Sorry for the thread drift, but this has been a frustrating thread to read despite my interest in the topic.

I appreciate your clarifications a great deal.

I am glad to be of service, to the extent I can. Thanks.

 

[pianistclare]

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

I’m surprised that people who are always touting respect to the clergy and the Church would say such a thing.
St John Vianney must be very sad at this thread and it’s tone towards Our Lady’s sons.

It would be nice if people got BACK on topic, and stopped pointing fingers at one another, as the Mod has suggested.