Anglican Orders Valid - Pope Leo made factual Errors

[GKC]

It’s really not complicated at all. You can call yourself whatever you wish, it however doesn’t make it correct.

Well, Nella, that’s really sort of what the RCs say about us Anglicans, yes.

Like I say, the issue is complicated, and revolves around what is necessary for a valid sacrament, of which Holy Orders is one.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

Regardless of what any pope says, Anglican orders are valid and fully contained in Apostolic Succession. In 1534 during the Reformation in England, former Catholic bishops that broke from Rome to join in under the Archbishop of Canterbury were in the apostolic line just the same as those Cathlic bishops who stayed with Rome. Who has any power or say so whatsoever to even suggest differently?

Let me see if I understand this. Leo XIII was urged by French ecclesiatics to look at this important issue. He was moved to do so, and the impartial commission availed themselves of all the documents available. Documents which many may not know exist were made available to the commission.

The panel unanimously voted that the Orders were in fact invalid. Leo prayed very much over this matter, and then issued the Bull “Apostolicae Curae” 18986.

The Johan Dollinger that has been mentioned looked at this issue nearly 20 years before, without the documents available to the Commission. Dollinger was in fact a heretic, and had been excommunicated previously.

So, we would like to accuse the Holy Father of ill will, and bad faith. We would like to say, his commission did not have access to documents in the Archives which no one else had. We would like to say his panel had bad consciences and lied to the Holy Father. No, Leo prayerfully considered the unanimous negative position of the Commission, and yet, the Catholic Church is wrong?

You can believe what you want, “Roma dixit”. That’s it. End of discussion on the matter. Rome would re-ordained any one who would apply to Catholicism. To say Rome was afraid of what would happen if it found these Orders valid. Hopefully, he would be opening the door to all of the English Church to return. Leo would want the Commission to declare Anglican orders valid.

peace
mgrfin

 

[Nella]

Let me see if I understand this. Leo XIII was urged French ecclesiatics to look at this important issue. He was moved to do so, and the impartial commission availed themselves of all the documents available. Documents which many many not know exist.

The panel unanimously voted that the Orders were in fact invalid. Leo prayed very much over this matter, and then issued the Bull “Apostolicae Curae” 18986.

The Johan Dollinger that has been mentioned looked at this issue nearly 20 years before, with the documents available to the Commission. Dollinger was in fact a heretic, and had been excommunicated previously.

So, we would like to accuse the Holy Father of ill will, and bad faith. We would like to say, his commission did not have access to documents in the Archives which no one else had. He prayerfully considered the unanimous negative position of the Commission, and yet, the Catholic Church is wrong?

You can believe what you want, “Roma dixit”. That’s it. End of discussion on the matter. Rome would re-ordained any one who would apply to Catholicism. To say Rome was afraid of what would happen if it found these Orders valid. Hopefully, he would be opening the door to all of the English Church to return.

peace
mgrfin

This is all really hinging upon opinion. Why would Good Year want to endorse anything Firestone sells? Same idea.

 

[GKC]

mgrfin,

Sure I can believe what I want. So can you. But if you believe that what you posted (the history part) is accurate, you’re wrong. French ecclesiastics didn’t have anything to do with it. No one knows exactly how the 8 man commission voted, but the best evidence is that they split, half/half. And, in fact, Rome conditionally ordained two Anglican priests, within the past 50 years, which shows the point that the question can be complicated. I never said a word about His Holiness, and ill will. That would be Cardinal Vaughan. There were no particular papers available, that wouldn’t have been available 20 years before, except the votum, Ordines Anglicanis, prepared by Cardinal Vaughan’s 3 members of the commission. The primary area of study for the commission in the 10 working sessions it held, was history, esp. Cardinal Pole/Queen Mary, and two particular Anglican priests, later in the 17th century…

I’m going to try a little more cut and paste here, from a long discussion I had with another RC friend:

*Some history then. It starts, in this sense, in 1890. A chance meeting on the island of Maderia in 1890, of a British nobleman, Charles Lindley,Second Viscount Halifax, and a young French priest, the Abbe Portal. Halifax was a fervent and saintly (oh yes he was) Anglo-Catholic, of the type referred to as “Anglo-Paplist” (which is sort of an Anglo-Catholic on steroids). The two became friendly, and began to converse on various matters. Eventually Halifax and Portal reached a conclusion that it would be a good thing to try to do something about that little matter of the 17th chapter of John. What might be done to achieve reunion of Chistendom? Specifically, what might be done to heal the split between Rome and the CoE? They talked it over. The game plan was to pick a topic which might permit of mutual discussion between the Churches, and see if they could get anyone to come and reason together. It was a modest plan, for a daunting goal. But maybe if each side learned a little of the other, something might happen. And both sides were in remarkable ignorance of each other. Couldn’t hurt. In fact, it was a fore-runner of the sysytem set up 70 years later by Pope Paul VI and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission. That group is a more or less useless today, but it began with great hopes and in the spirit of what Halifax and Portal hoped for back then.

Early in 1892, Portal suggested that a good topic to raise for possible discussion was Anglican orders. He was optimistic that it would be a good starting point. Halifax was not, but in 1893/1894, Portal published a little paper anyway, concluding that Anglican Orders were probably invalid, but should be discussed.

It has to be emphasized that for both Portal and Halifax, the question of Anglican orders was a means to an end, to initiate talks between theologians of each church. And his little paper got a good reception, and some chatter began. Other papers appeared. RCs and Anglicans were interested, from their respective traditions. And in 1894, Portal was summoned to Rome, for an audience with Cardinal Rampolla, the Vatican Secretary of State, who took Portal to see His Holiness, Leo XIII. Leo was interested. Suggestions were made about letters from the Vatican to the CoE, suggesting talks. Halifax got to speak to the Pope. Things were looking good for the project, so far.

Didn’t continue, though. Back in England, Archbishop Benson, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was cool to the idea (the Archbishop of York, the other primate of the CoE was more positive). And, fatally, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the chief RC prelate in the country, was far from cool toward it. He was red hot opposed. *

And that’s how it started. It’s history, frater.

You sure are hard to talk to.

GKC

An Anglican, in any language.

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

.

I cheated a bit. I got my facts from the Catholic encyclopedia. They said it was an unanimous vote.

I’m very easy to talk to. Do you know any Brooklynese?

mgrfin

 

[GKC]

I cheated a bit. I got my facts from the Catholic encyclopedia. They said it was an unanimous vote.

I’m very easy to talk to. Do you know any Brooklynese?

mgrfin

Only dese and dose. And dem. I probably don’t have the accent right.

But I didn’t really cheat, myself. *Apostolicae Curae *is sort of a hobby of mine, and I’ve studied it a lot. Buy books on, like that. Been doing it for a few years.

GKC

insert Latin phrase here.

 

[mgrfin]

Only dese and dose. And dem. I probably don’t have the accent right.

But I didn’t really cheat, myself. *Apostolicae Curae *is sort of a hobby of mine, and I’ve studied it a lot. Buy books on, like that. Been doing it for a few years.

GKC

insert Latin phrase here.

they haven’t been saying 'dese, dems and dose since the Dead End Kids were pups. The Jesuits got me out of that a long time ago. Maybe you could get into the Vatican archives to see the documentation first hand.?

PAX
mgrfin

 

[GKC]

they haven’t been saying 'dese, dems and dose since the Dead End Kids were pups. The Jesuits got me out of that a long time ago. Maybe you could get into the Vatican archives to see the documentation first hand.?

PAX
mgrfin

Figures, I’m about the age of the Dead End Kids.

If I could, I would. Heck, I’d just like to wander around the Vatican.

But remember, I’m talking about the the eight man commission, not the meeting of the Cardinals. The votes of the commission can be guessed roughly from later statements and writings of most of them. Also, Monsignor Merry del Val, the Commission secretary and Cardinal Vaughan’s handyman, wrote a letter in 1910, in which he remembered the vote as being 4 for invalidity, 2 for validity, and 2 for possible validity (which would have resulted in *sub conditione *ordinations, regularly, of any Anglicans priests coming over). He also stated that one commission member recalled the vote as 4, 3 and 1. He also noted that the decision of the commission really had no bearing on the matter in the end, since it was only a recommendation of what were supposed to be experts, to the Cardinals.

The full text of Merry del Val’s letter is included in Fr. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

Figures, I’m about the age of the Dead End Kids.

If I could, I would. Heck, I’d just like to wander around the Vatican.

But remember, I’m talking about the the eight man commission, not the meeting of the Cardinals. The votes of the commission can be guessed roughly from later statements and writings of most of them. Also, Monsignor Merry del Val, the Commission secretary and Cardinal Vaughan’s handyman, wrote a letter in 1910, in which he remembered the vote as being 4 for invalidity, 2 for validity, and 2 for possible validity (which would have resulted in *sub conditione *ordinations, regularly, of any Anglicans priests coming over). He also stated that one commission member recalled the vote as 4, 3 and 1. He also noted that the decision of the commission really had no bearing on the matter in the end, since it was only a recommendation of what were supposed to be experts, to the Cardinals.

The full text of Merry del Val’s letter is included in Fr. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID.

GKC

Maybe you ought to send it to the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia, and include it in a post here. It would make interesting reading. The book is a bit pricey for me.

peace
mgrfin

 

[AJV]

Figures, I’m about the age of the Dead End Kids.

If I could, I would. Heck, I’d just like to wander around the Vatican.

But remember, I’m talking about the the eight man commission, not the meeting of the Cardinals. The votes of the commission can be guessed roughly from later statements and writings of most of them. Also, Monsignor Merry del Val, the Commission secretary and Cardinal Vaughan’s handyman, wrote a letter in 1910, in which he remembered the vote as being 4 for invalidity, 2 for validity, and 2 for possible validity (which would have resulted in *sub conditione *ordinations, regularly, of any Anglicans priests coming over). He also stated that one commission member recalled the vote as 4, 3 and 1. He also noted that the decision of the commission really had no bearing on the matter in the end, since it was only a recommendation of what were supposed to be experts, to the Cardinals.

The full text of Merry del Val’s letter is included in Fr. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID.

GKC

Wasn’t it Moyes to Merry del Val? I don’t have the book right now in front of me but IIRC, he had said that Scannell was doubtful validity while Fleming said he was certain validity.

 

[AJV]

I cheated a bit. I got my facts from the Catholic encyclopedia. They said it was an unanimous vote.

I’m very easy to talk to. Do you know any Brooklynese?

mgrfin

mgrfin, they said that the cardinals had the unnamimous vote (thoguh I think some Cardinals were missing and certainly great suspicion has been drawn to the non-attendance of Cardinal Rampola who, it is said, was inclined favourably) Even the Cath. Encyc. notes that the Comission vote was split- that was common knowledge even in the absence of the archives which were only opened much later.

 

[AJV]

It’s really not complicated at all. You can call yourself whatever you wish, it however doesn’t make it correct.

That is so. But it cannot be reduced I think, to *merely *a case of pettiness since the Catholic Church does acknowledge sacraments outside her visible confines. And this has in the past created end number of problems what with vagante bishops running around, but this doctrine has never been dropped.

Regardless of what any pope says, Anglican orders are valid and fully contained in Apostolic Succession. In 1534 during the Reformation in England, former Catholic bishops that broke from Rome to join in under the Archbishop of Canterbury were in the apostolic line just the same as those Cathlic bishops who stayed with Rome. Who has any power or say so whatsoever to even suggest differently?

I’ll leave aside the later issue of whether Parker was validly ordained or not to the episcopate. The Church acknowledged all the bishops at the time of the Herician schism as valid. If they had not changed the Ordinal and had continued using it, there would be no question that the ordersof those following were valid.

However a change was made and when such changes are made, the Church does have a right and to use your terminology, according to Catholics, the power as well, to examine the changes and declare whether they were valid or not, because it is not sufficient just to lay hands on someone and say anything one pleases. It is NOT necessary, mind you, for the words to be used to be the same as what the Catholic Church uses. The Church’s contention is that until 1662 there was no mention of the order being conferred accompanying the laying on of hands, and that the intention of the reformers as manifested in the Ordinal was not to ordain sacrificing priests or high priests of the New Covenant.

The judgment of Apostolicae Curae, though settling myriads of other squabbles and topics such as reunion, is also, if one thinks about it, primarily for the benefit of what to do with Anglican clergy who reconcile to the Catholic Church.

 

[mgrfin]

I do not think the Church expects Anglicans to abide by or accept Apostolicae Curae.

I agree with you on that, but if particular clerics are pro-Rome, I am sure it bothers them.

I wouldn’t want my Orders called into question.

In addition, Catholic believe that the issue has been resolved.
Roma dixit, skip it.

BTW, People quoting Johan Dollinger: Dollinger was excommunicted some 20 years before the papal bull. I would hardly accept much of what he had to say on this issue. Of course, he would be in favor of a positive response.

mgrfin
peace

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

Sure I can believe what I want. So can you. But if you believe that what you posted (the history part) is accurate, you’re wrong. French ecclesiastics didn’t have anything to do with it. No one knows exactly how the 8 man commission voted, but the best evidence is that they split, half/half. And, in fact, Rome conditionally ordained two Anglican priests, within the past 50 years, which shows the point that the question can be complicated. I never said a word about His Holiness, and ill will. That would be Cardinal Vaughan. There were no particular papers available, that wouldn’t have been available 20 years before, except the votum, Ordines Anglicanis, prepared by Cardinal Vaughan’s 3 members of the commission. The primary area of study for the commission in the 10 working sessions it held, was history, esp. Cardinal Pole/Queen Mary, and two particular Anglican priests, later in the 17th century…

I’m going to try a little more cut and paste here, from a long discussion I had with another RC friend:

*Some history then. It starts, in this sense, in 1890. A chance meeting on the island of Maderia in 1890, of a British nobleman, Charles Lindley,Second Viscount Halifax, and a young French priest, the Abbe Portal. Halifax was a fervent and saintly (oh yes he was) Anglo-Catholic, of the type referred to as “Anglo-Paplist” (which is sort of an Anglo-Catholic on steroids). The two became friendly, and began to converse on various matters. Eventually Halifax and Portal reached a conclusion that it would be a good thing to try to do something about that little matter of the 17th chapter of John. What might be done to achieve reunion of Chistendom? Specifically, what might be done to heal the split between Rome and the CoE? They talked it over. The game plan was to pick a topic which might permit of mutual discussion between the Churches, and see if they could get anyone to come and reason together. It was a modest plan, for a daunting goal. But maybe if each side learned a little of the other, something might happen. And both sides were in remarkable ignorance of each other. Couldn’t hurt. In fact, it was a fore-runner of the sysytem set up 70 years later by Pope Paul VI and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission. That group is a more or less useless today, but it began with great hopes and in the spirit of what Halifax and Portal hoped for back then.

Early in 1892, Portal suggested that a good topic to raise for possible discussion was Anglican orders. He was optimistic that it would be a good starting point. Halifax was not, but in 1893/1894, Portal published a little paper anyway, concluding that Anglican Orders were probably invalid, but should be discussed.

It has to be emphasized that for both Portal and Halifax, the question of Anglican orders was a means to an end, to initiate talks between theologians of each church. And his little paper got a good reception, and some chatter began. Other papers appeared. RCs and Anglicans were interested, from their respective traditions. And in 1894, Portal was summoned to Rome, for an audience with Cardinal Rampolla, the Vatican Secretary of State, who took Portal to see His Holiness, Leo XIII. Leo was interested. Suggestions were made about letters from the Vatican to the CoE, suggesting talks. Halifax got to speak to the Pope. Things were looking good for the project, so far.

Didn’t continue, though. Back in England, Archbishop Benson, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was cool to the idea (the Archbishop of York, the other primate of the CoE was more positive). And, fatally, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the chief RC prelate in the country, was far from cool toward it. He was red hot opposed. *

And that’s how it started. It’s history, frater.

You sure are hard to talk to.

GKC

An Anglican, in any language.

Just an historical point to correct something that has been said.
It has been reported that Rome has admitted some 75 Anglican priests into the Catholic Church in USA, since Vatican 2. All of them were re-conditionally ordained. More than that, most if not all spent several years studying in catholic seminaries.

Special permission is already in place for any anglican priest wishing to join the Catholic Church. I know of one in San Bernardino, and one in the SanFrancisco area.

mgrfin
peace

 

[Filiuscanimaris]

They call us stupid, ignorant, unwilling to accept their rightful protestant opinion, after beheading us, hanging us, disgorging us, and draw and quartering us while we were still alive.

Someone will have to tell me how to put “quotes” about such as the above.

That the Protestants treated our forebears in such a manner is not to the point. At least they had the “courage of their convictions”. Our martyrs accepted their fate, and many of them are canonised Saints. We even have a hymn which says “That we like them could die for Thee”.

But we Catholics consider ourselves very fortunate to have the certainty of knowing that when Peter speaks “ex cathedra”, the argument is over.

No amount of backsliding by some prelates since, or scandals can take that away from us. They have even had to concede that the Mass of all Time was never forbidden, so not everything which comes from even a Pope’s mouth is infallible, only his ex cathedra statements.

Causa finita est.

 

[GKC]

Just an historical point to correct something that has been said.
It has been reported that Rome has admitted some 75 Anglican priests into the Catholic Church in USA, since Vatican 2. All of them were re-conditionally ordained. More than that, most if not all spent several years studying in catholic seminaries.

Special permission is already in place for any anglican priest wishing to join the Catholic Church. I know of one in San Bernardino, and one in the SanFrancisco area.

mgrfin
peace

As far as I know, and I am not unread in the area, only 2 Anglican priests have been accepted *sub conditione *since
*Apostolicae Curae *was issued: Graham Leonard, one time Anglican bishop of London, and (a name you’ve heard me mention before) Fr. J. J. Hughes.

It is certainly true that under the Pastoral Provision, a number of American Anglican priests have been ordained RC priests, but these have all been ordained absolutely. Seventy five sounds about right. All priests who celebrate the Anglican Rite are in this category.

And other priests, not Anglican, can also apply under the Pastoral Provision. I have a friend, a former Charismatic Episcopal priest, who is well on his way to approval.

Trust me on this.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Wasn’t it Moyes to Merry del Val? I don’t have the book right now in front of me but IIRC, he had said that Scannell was doubtful validity while Fleming said he was certain validity.

It was as you say, but Merry del Val responding to Moyes (and greetings, AJV. It is a delight to find some one who knows Hughes)

Addendum: I think ++Parker can be shown to be validly ordained.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Maybe you ought to send it to the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia, and include it in a post here. It would make interesting reading. The book is a bit pricey for me.

peace
mgrfin

If you mean the on-line version, I don’t think that’s being edited these days.

GKC

 

[GKC]

As far as I know, and I am not unread in the area, only 2 Anglican priests have been accepted *sub conditione *since
*Apostolicae Curae *was issued: Graham Leonard, one time Anglican bishop of London, and (a name you’ve heard me mention before) Fr. J. J. Hughes.

It is certainly true that under the Pastoral Provision, a number of American Anglican priests have been ordained RC priests, but these have all been ordained absolutely. Seventy five sounds about right. All priests who celebrate the Anglican Rite are in this category.

And other priests, not Anglican, can also apply under the Pastoral Provision. I have a friend, a former Charismatic Episcopal priest, who is well on his way to approval.

Trust me on this.

GKC

Make that* Anglican Use*. Coffee first, then type.

GKC

Anglican typo

 

[Contarini]

Regardless of what any pope says, Anglican orders are valid and fully contained in Apostolic Succession. In 1534 during the Reformation in England, former Catholic bishops that broke from Rome to join in under the Archbishop of Canterbury were in the apostolic line just the same as those Cathlic bishops who stayed with Rome. Who has any power or say so whatsoever to even suggest differently?

But 1534 is not the point where we lost valid orders, according to Rome. It’s the Edwardian Ordinal, particularly as used under Elizabeth (since under Edward many or most of the bishops had presumably still been ordained under the old Ordinal), that caused the trouble in their eyes.

I think it’s a fair point. The BCP liturgies clearly do not envision exactly the same role for priests and bishops as that maintained by the RCC. My main objection to the RC position (other than the practical, experiential one that I have received the Eucharist many times in the Episcopal Church and firmly believe that I was receiving Jesus) is that the RCC currently accepts baptisms as valid even if the operative understanding of baptism was deficient. “Intending to do what the Church does” seems to mean in that case “intending to perform the rite of the Church called X and accomplishing whatever you think the Church accomplishes in that rite” rather than “intending to do precisely what the Catholic Church thinks this rite does.” Why should this not apply equally to ordination?

Edwin