Anglican Orders

[GKC]

GKC - I seem to recall reading - from you maybe? - that if we accept the argument re the lack of form in Anglican ordination rites, we would have to admit the same problem in Catholic rites? Do you know what I am talking about? Could you tell me?

I think so, but it’s not something I would have advanced. It is a major part of Saepius Officio.

The difference would be in the origins of rites, both of which possess the same “defect” in that they fail to mention the sacrificial role of the orders (there is a slightly different point with respect to the rite for consecration to the episcopacy). In one case, there exist historical rites which the RCC holds as validly conveying valid orders (other points being valid) which possess the “defect” but that could not logically be assumed to have failed to mention that, due to a specific intent to change what the sacerdotal orders convey. On the other hand, there is the Edwardine Ordinal, which was constructed at a specific historical point, in a particular doctrinal atmosphere, by particular individuals (Cranmer, for example), with the intent (not using that word in a sacramental sense, since it is not a sacramental intention) to remove that concept from the office. That it was constructed, IOW, to do something other than what the Church historically had done, in ordaining a priest. The assumption then,stated in Apostolicae Curae, is that in later using this form, so constructed, the consecrators of ++Parker (not by this logic, necessarily the ordinand) manifested invalid sacramental intent. That is, all things being the same otherwise, had Parker been consecrated using the then current Pontificale Romanum, there would have been nothing to indicate the invalid interior sacramental intent that use of the Ordinal was assumed to manifest. The point is arguable, and it is well argued, to the contrary, in Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD chaps 3-10, in technical detail I would not assume to expound upon. The book is essential reading in this matter (to coin a phrase).

None the less, it manifestly is the teaching of the RCC that Anglican orders are null and void, and that, in fact, means, at a bare minimum, that for the RCC, Anglican orders are null and void. As, to the RCC, Orthodox orders are valid and illicit.

GKC

 

[Vince1022]

What do Anglicans have that us mere Catholics don’t already have?

Nothing.

 

[Vince1022]

Actually, this has been true since John Paul II (in the United States at least) pursuant to the pastoral provision. That resulted in a few Anglican Use parishes in the US which are in full communion with Rome. However, Pope Benedict’s proposals for the Ordinariate do have the potential to be much more expansive, and permanent, than John Paul’s earlier efforts in this area.

No, Benedict expanded this, in that under his recent directive Anglicans can join the full communion of the Catholic Church while maintaining their own “patrimony” and liturgical rites.

Under John Paul II, such “converts” were only allowed to celebrate the Catholic rites.

Benedict established “Personal Ordinariates” to facilitate such reception. This goes beyond anything John Paul II taught.

 

[Vince1022]

I think, at the very least, it falls under the Ordinary Magisterium.

See a passing mention in the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, by (then) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, para 11.

GKC

Oh, I don’t think the Catholic Encyclopedia is part of the Magisterium at all. Just a useful reference. I do think it’s accurate in the quote I cited though.

 

[GKC]

Oh, I don’t think the Catholic Encyclopedia is part of the Magisterium at all. Just a useful reference. I do think it’s accurate in the quote I cited though.

Nor do I think that,either. The “it” I was referring to was Apostolicae Cuare, not the Catholic Encyclopedia. Hence my reference to the mention of Apostolicae Curae in (then Cardinal) Ratzinger’s commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem.

GKC

 

[rr1213]

No, Benedict expanded this…

Correct, Benedict’s proposals go much further than John Paul’s pastoral provision.

… in that under his recent directive Anglicans can join the full communion of the Catholic Church while maintaining their own “patrimony” and liturgical rites.

Yes and no. The extent to which modifications will need to be made to the Anglican liturgies has not yet been determined.

Under John Paul II, such “converts” were only allowed to celebrate the Catholic rites.

Incorrect. The Vatican approved a modification of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for use by Anglican Use parishes in the United States. The modified liturgy is known as the Book of Divine Worship. I suspect, but do not know, that the Ordinariate will use something similar to this. You can review the book in PDF at the link below. A few years ago I compared the liturgy of the Mass in the Book of Divine Worship with the Rite I liturgy in the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. For the most part, the Liturgy of the Word was almost identical to the BCP. The Liturgy of the Eucharist, by necessity, refected the most changes but there was still a recognizable connection to the BCP.

BTW, the link is to Our Lady of the Atonement, which is the “flagship” parish of the Anglican Use and is most likely to be an extremely influencial parish in the new Ordinariate when it is finally established in the United States.

atonementonline.com/bodw.php

Benedict established “Personal Ordinariates” to facilitate such reception. This goes beyond anything John Paul II taught.

Correct.

 

[GKC]

Correct, Benedict’s proposals go much further than John Paul’s pastoral provision.

Yes and no. The extent to which modifications will need to be made to the Anglican liturgies has not yet been determined.

Incorrect. The Vatican approved a modification of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for use by Anglican Use parishes in the United States. The modified liturgy is known as the Book of Divine Worship. I suspect, but do not know, that the Ordinariate will use something similar to this. You can review the book in PDF at the link below. A few years ago I compared the liturgy of the Mass in the Book of Divine Worship with the Rite I liturgy in the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. For the most part, the Liturgy of the Word was almost identical to the BCP. The Liturgy of the Eucharist, by necessity, refected the most changes but there was still a recognizable connection to the BCP.

BTW, the link is to Our Lady of the Atonement, which is the “flagship” parish of the Anglican Use and is most likely to be an extremely influencial parish in the new Ordinariate when it is finally established in the United States.

atonementonline.com/bodw.php

Correct.

I’ve done the same comparison of the BDW and the 79 Rite I. I’d guesstimate the identity is around 80 percent.

GKC

 

[ChadS]

Has anybody else seen this?

marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/11/statement-on-implementation-of.html

The announcement says that the Anglican priests and bishops coming into the ordinariate will be “ordained,” however it does not say whether the ordination will be conditional or not. Also, it lays out that lay people wishing to be received into the Catholic church will begin preparation at the beginning of Lent with reception anticipated at Easter and classes will apparently continue until Pentecost. The priests will also have theological preparation ongoing as necessary.

In my opinion, these types of preparation seems incredibly hasty. Are Anglicans really that much more knowledgeable about Catholicism and what makes their preparation so much more superior that they get a 40 day crash course prior to reception while other converts are required to do 9 months or more before they can convert.

This ordinariate, although it came about at the request of Anglo-Catholics, but it isn’t limited to them. Preparation and knowledge of Christianity varies across the Anglican communion just as it does across any other you can think of, but it seems that being Anglican is good enough to fast track into the Church.

ChadS

 

[BernadetteM]

As far as I know most of the Anglican priests coming into the Church have been Anglo Catholic and I would say that they are very well educated in the Catholic Faith. We don’t know at this point what each one will have to be educated on about all the doctrines of the Church and it will be on an individual basis. It will be up to the CDF to make those decisions. They are very orthodox in their beliefs, far more than some Catholic priests today who are straying from the orthodox beliefs of the Church.

They are very traditional in their outlook of liturgy and reverence towards the most Blessed Sacrament.

Some of the married priests have up to 6 children and some of the Anglican Use priests who have been Catholic priests for many years also have several children. They follow the Church teachings on all moral issues and most have sacrified dearly to become Catholic.

As far as the Mass goes, the Rite I although certainly much is from the BCP Rite I and some from the OF Mass in regards to some responses, they use the Gregorian/Sarum Use Canon. The same Canon used at the EF Mass.

As far as the future liturgy goes, at least in the US it appears that many would like the Anglican Missal to replace the liturgy they now use, using the Gregorian/Sarum Canon. That would include the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospel. They are awaiting to hear what the new liturgy will be and hopefully the Anglican Use priests will be consulted.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

Has anybody else seen this?

marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/11/statement-on-implementation-of.html

The announcement says that the Anglican priests and bishops coming into the ordinariate will be “ordained,” however it does not say whether the ordination will be conditional or not. Also, it lays out that lay people wishing to be received into the Catholic church will begin preparation at the beginning of Lent with reception anticipated at Easter and classes will apparently continue until Pentecost. The priests will also have theological preparation ongoing as necessary.

In my opinion, these types of preparation seems incredibly hasty. Are Anglicans really that much more knowledgeable about Catholicism and what makes their preparation so much more superior that they get a 40 day crash course prior to reception while other converts are required to do 9 months or more before they can convert.

This ordinariate, although it came about at the request of Anglo-Catholics, but it isn’t limited to them. Preparation and knowledge of Christianity varies across the Anglican communion just as it does across any other you can think of, but it seems that being Anglican is good enough to fast track into the Church.

ChadS

As to any potential ordinations, my bet is the majority, perhaps the overwhelming majority, will be absolute; a small number may be sub conditione, at best. But I would be happy to be surprised. I will be watching closely.

GKC

 

[ProVobis]

In my opinion, these types of preparation seems incredibly hasty. Are Anglicans really that much more knowledgeable about Catholicism and what makes their preparation so much more superior that they get a 40 day crash course prior to reception while other converts are required to do 9 months or more before they can convert.

Good and important point. From what I’ve been reading, many of them would seem to be okay if they just replaced the sign in front of their churches, and life could go on as normal. After all many of them already call themselves Anglican Catholics so they must know Catholicism.

 

[ProVobis]

They are very orthodox in** their **beliefs, far more than some Catholic priests today who are straying from the orthodox beliefs of the Church.

But are these beliefs necessarily in line with those taught by the Church? Do they agree with the Council of Trent, for example? Lutherans can be quite orthodox in their beliefs as well. No offense but I don’t know if I’d feel comfortable listening to an Anglican priest just having taken a crash course in Catholicism. Many of us cradle Catholics are confused enough already.

 

[magdalina]

But are these beliefs necessarily in line with those taught by the Church? Do they agree with the Council of Trent, for example? Lutherans can be quite orthodox in their beliefs as well. No offense but I don’t know if I’d feel comfortable listening to an Anglican priest just having taken a crash course in Catholicism. Many of us cradle Catholics are confused enough already.

I have visited several Anglo-Catholic parishes since the Holy Father made his trip to the UK. Both are part of the Anglican Church in America, which is a part of the worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion. Currently, neither is in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The liturgies offered at these parishes were remarkably similar. The vast majority of Roman Catholics however, would find their rituals shocking and freakish. Both offered what appeared to be the Extraordinary Form High Mass, in formal Elizabethan English, ad orientem, with Latin hymns, kneelers, bells, incense and the Nicean Creed.

Once the contracts are signed, I would feel quite comfortable assisting an Anglican Use Catholic Mass at either of these parishes. Indeed, I hope to assist in their FIRST Catholic Masses.

Maggie

 

[Iotaunum]

The interior state of a given ordinand not being directly knowable, the determinatio ex adiunctus (the use of the form of the Edwardine Ordinal) supplies that insight, by the logic of the Bull. But once changed, in 1662, that method of determining the intent was absent. Given then a valid form, minister and matter, the normal presumption is that the intent is likewise valid, as stated. The determinatio ex adiunctius is absent.

GKC

Does this mean that you think the Anglican “bishops” at the time had the intention facere quod facit ecclesia? I think Pope Leo in the bull made reference to the intention being manifested in the rite itself, unless something proves otherwise, as would any contrary additions, or statements by the ordinand or the minister. I think we would all agree that the Anglicans had not the intention of doing what the Church does. They added the words “*for the office and work of a priest” * but the bull said that this merely shows that the Anglicans realised that the form was invalid and even if it did correct the form (which the Pope never went into) it was introduced too late as there were no valid orders left to confer it. Pope Leo also said that the Anglican ordinal had included “the errors of the English Reformation” and thus it could not be used to confer valid orders because the words used had a meaning completely different from what is required to confer the sacrament. So even a valid form can be rendered invalid by the addition of words which would show that the intention is not facere quod facit ecclesia, as in the examples of arian baptism formulae etc.

 

[GKC]

Does this mean that you think the Anglican “bishops” at the time had the intention facere quod facit ecclesia? I think Pope Leo in the bull made reference to the intention being manifested in the rite itself, unless something proves otherwise, as would any contrary additions, or statements by the ordinand or the minister. I think we would all agree that the Anglicans had not the intention of doing what the Church does. They added the words “*for the office and work of a priest” * but the bull said that this merely shows that the Anglicans realised that the form was invalid and even if it did correct the form (which the Pope never went into) it was introduced too late as there were no valid orders left to confer it. Pope Leo also said that the Anglican ordinal had included “the errors of the English Reformation” and thus it could not be used to confer valid orders because the words used had a meaning completely different from what is required to confer the sacrament. So even a valid form can be rendered invalid by the addition of words which would show that the intention is not facere quod facit ecclesia, as in the examples of arian baptism formulae etc.

Historically, the reason the words that were added (work of a priest) in 1662 had nothing to do with this particular controversy, but with an argument with the Church of Scotland over the office of bishop. Hence the addition in the Rite. Thus, the Letter contains a factual error, in its assumption of the reason for the change. Most current RC commentators are aware of this, as also in the case of the so-called Nag’s Head fable

And the Preface to the Rite already contain a number of references to the office of priest, as well as these words, at the opening:

IT is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church,—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by public Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration or Ordination.
And none shall be admitted a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop, except he be of the age which the Canon in that case provided may require.

This was the Preface, ab intio.

Certainly, all RCs should affirm the invalid intent, as per Leo. Anglicans may have a different view of the matter (so to speak). I do suggest Hughes’ books, for a discussion of what, if anything, the Anglicans might have been changing… And Clark’s, also, inter alia.

GKC

 

[Vince1022]

Nor do I think that,either. The “it” I was referring to was Apostolicae Cuare, not the Catholic Encyclopedia. Hence my reference to the mention of Apostolicae Curae in (then Cardinal) Ratzinger’s commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem.

GKC

Ah, I see. Thanks. Appreciate the clarification. Agreed.

 

[Vince1022]

C

Incorrect. The Vatican approved a modification of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for use by Anglican Use parishes in the United States. The modified liturgy is known as the Book of Divine Worship. I suspect, but do not know, that the Ordinariate will use something similar to this. You can review the book in PDF at the link below. A few years ago I compared the liturgy of the Mass in the Book of Divine Worship with the Rite I liturgy in the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. For the most part, the Liturgy of the Word was almost identical to the BCP. The Liturgy of the Eucharist, by necessity, refected the most changes but there was still a recognizable connection to the BCP.

BTW, the link is to Our Lady of the Atonement, which is the “flagship” parish of the Anglican Use and is most likely to be an extremely influencial parish in the new Ordinariate when it is finally established in the United States.

Thanks. I need to learn more about the specifics you refer to here. I admit I don’t know. But I appreciate your confirmation, as I posted, that the actions of Benedict went beyond the provisions granted by John Paul II. Which was my main point.