Anglican Orders

[GKC]

Leo XIII did not invalidate Anglican orders. He declared and confirmed that they were invalid as a result of the various facts of the history of the Church of England. To give an analogy (and not to go down a rabbit hole here), John Paul II did not “excommunicate” Marcel Lefebvre, he officially confirmed that Lefebvre was already excommunicated.

Accurately stated. Though the actual words in Apostolicae Curae were Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s (mainly)

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Accurately stated. Though the actual words in Apostolicae Curae were Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s (mainly)

Whose signature is on it?

 

[rr1213]

This is likely an interesting thread, touching on a subject that is a long time hobby of mine. I’ll possibly make some comments, but right now, my wife is dragging me out the door, to go buy books. I’m not putting up much of a fight.

GKC

Lol. I wouldn’t put up much of a fight either if my wife was dragging me off to the bookstore. Hope you can participate upon your return…

 

[ChadS]

True. I think that what Anglicans offer most to the Catholic Church is the beautiful liturgy found in the BCP although, as you note, even that needs to be altered to bring it into conformity with Catholic teaching. Perhaps, a greater emphasis on other liturgies such as Evensong and choral singing could also be considered to be Anglican contributions. Not that the Church lacks these things–she doesn’t–but it could be argued that they are emphasized more in the Anglican bodies.

I think you’re right, it would be nice to have access to a parish that does things like Evensong or something like that occasionally. Yes, I could see that as a definite contribution to Catholicism and I would be interested in taking part in that as the opportunity offered.

ChadS

 

[GKC]

I don’t think the problem with Anglican Orders was a matter of breaking Apostolic Succession. While it might take considerable time and effort it would probably be possible to trace Anglican bishops back to around the time of Henry VIII and before who were validly and licitly ordained bishops.

I believe the problem began during the reign of Henry VIII’s successor Edvard VI during whose reign the Ordinal was changed, the new one being referred to the Edwardine Ordinal. The wording was changed so I don’t think that the form (one of the three requirements of a valid sacrament) was correct. This intentional change in wording may have meant that ordaining bishops did not have the correct intent. I don’t know if the matter was changed.

The ruling in Apostolicae Curae involved an interrelated finding of invalid form, and invalid intent. The form was as you state. The intent (this is a complicated point, see. Clark’s definitive ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENT) is assumed to be that of the bishops who consecrated Archbishop Parker, in 1559, using the Edwardine Ordinal. The two are inter-related since the assumed defect of form is also found in other Rites which the RCC does consider as conveying valid orders.

The matter was never in question, but until Pius XII defined it (with respect to Holy Orders), as the imposition of hands (SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS, 1947), it was a point of theoretical dispute.

And the use of the presumed invalid form, with the (derived) invalid intent, constituted a break in apostolic succession. Thus says the RCC.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Does it really matter if Leo XIII was speaking infallibly when he promulgated Apostolica Curae? Whether his pronouncement was infallible or not does not change the fact that the Anglicans had changed the words of ordination removing any mention of a sacrificial priesthood, this was long before the Anglicans had begun their descent into other sorts of nonsense. I think the change in wording was the problem and whether Leo XIII was speaking infallibly or not does not change the underlying issues. Even if a bishop is of a traditional bent and ordained priests using the 15-whatever edition of the Book of Common Prayer wouldn’t make that priest validly ordained if the bishop in question wasn’t validly ordained.

This is a very messy thicket to wade into trying to sort out what lines of Anglican holy orders retained or have valid episcopal lineages and which ones don’t. I don’t know how the Holy See will figure this all out with Anglicans and their ordinarys coming into full communion. I imagine some conversions of clergy could be de-railed if an Anglican priest is told he needs to be conditionally ordained to become Catholic – seeing that as an affront to his prior ministry.

By the way I think Cranmer and a subsequent Archbishop of Canterbury or two were actually Catholic priests and bishops before becoming leaders of the English Reformation.

ChadS

True as to the last. The point at issue in Apostolicae Curae was not Cranmer. Nor, of course, was Pole’s status in doubt. However, Parker was Pole’s successor, and it was his consecration that (it appears) was the point of Apostolicae Curae. See, as I said, Clark, loc. cit.

I would be astounded if more than a small fraction of any Anglican clergy who enter the Ordinariates and are made RC priests, are accepted sub conditione. Absolute ordination is far more likely, though I’m interested in seeing how that plays out.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Lol. I wouldn’t put up much of a fight either if my wife was dragging me off to the bookstore. Hope you can participate upon your return…

Though in the last 2 weeks I’ve bought around 12 books, today turned out to be a trip for her only. We’re going again tomorrow.

For a book fanatic, having a fellow fanatic for a wife is a delight.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Whose signature is on it?

That would be the autograph of His Holiness, Leo XIII.

GKC

 

[GKC]

As noted already, the Pope has confirmed the invalidity of Anglican Orders. Since that declaration however, there have been efforts on the Anglican side to “reinvigorate” their orders through ordinations by schismatic bishops whose orders are presumably valid. In at least one situation, the Vatican instructed that an Anglican bishop (the former Anglican bishop of London) who was converting to the Catholic Church be ordained as a Catholic priest and that the ordination be done “conditionally”. In that case, the Vatican believed that there was at least enough evidence of the possibility of valid orders to justify a conditional ordination. Whether that would be the case with respect to the majority of Anglican orders, I don’t know. I doubt it though (although, as a former Anglican, I would be pleasantly surprised if their orders did turn out to be valid).

I would too, if Rome were to so rule. But, generally, there has been no comment on the over-all impact of OC/PNCC lines, which, since 1932, have been widely infused in Anglicanism.

And other points would have to be considered, in addition.

GKC

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That would be the autograph of His Holiness, Leo XIII.

GKC

So then it is safe to assume that he read it and agreed with it as it is issued under his name.

 

[GKC]

So then it is safe to assume that he read it and agreed with it as it is issued under his name.

Oh, absolutely. The point of the author’s name was merely a bit of historical info. I like that sort of thing. And the sad tale of this whole thing is full of historical, personal, political and theological details.

Wanna know the name of the other contributor to the wording?

GKC

 

[GKC]

The current Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) notes that it has been suggested by some that the condemnation of Anglican orders might belong to teachings taught infallibly via the Ordinary Magisterium. As the entry notes, it’s ambiguous.

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

 

[ProVobis]

True. I think that what Anglicans offer most to the Catholic Church is the beautiful liturgy found in the BCP although, as you note, even that needs to be altered to bring it into conformity with Catholic teaching.

But certainly there were other “beautiful” liturgies that were invalidated by the 1570 Quo Primum. Not that Quo Primum (or the Council of Trent, for that matter) hasn’t been tried to be overturned before but some will see this altering as the first step as resurrecting some of these other liturgies as well. Not that it would be a bad thing but just saying.

That said, there has always been a fascination with the British monarchy. In fact, the upcoming Prince William marriage is expected to draw over 1 billion watchers. And I’m sure we’ll hear something about the Anglican cleric situation from the secular news media then if not before then.

 

[Iotaunum]

Leo XIII did not invalidate Anglican orders. He declared and confirmed that they were invalid as a result of the various facts of the history of the Church of England. To give an analogy (and not to go down a rabbit hole here), John Paul II did not “excommunicate” Marcel Lefebvre, he officially confirmed that Lefebvre was already excommunicated.

Yes, Anglican Orders were invalid before Leo XIII wrote Apostolicae Curae, but unfortunately your analogy is false, since Archbishop Lefebvre was never excommunicated according to Canon Law (1323, §4, 1323, 70 -1324, §3; §1, 80).

As for Anglican Orders, they are completely null and void, and even if a valid Bishop ordained, or took part in the ordination of an Anglican it would still be valid due to the obvious defect in intention necessary to confer/recieve the sacrament - not getting in to the matter/form.

 

[GKC]

Yes, Anglican Orders were invalid before Leo XIII wrote Apostolicae Curae, but unfortunately your analogy is false, since Archbishop Lefebvre was never excommunicated according to Canon Law (1323, §4, 1323, 70 -1324, §3; §1, 80).

As for Anglican Orders, they are completely null and void, and even if a valid Bishop ordained, or took part in the ordination of an Anglican it would still be valid due to the obvious defect in intention necessary to confer/recieve the sacrament - not getting in to the matter/form.

The intent was only assumed to be invalid, with respect to the consecration of Parker, and that due to an assumption based on a determinatio ex adiunctis; the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, assumed to be an invalid form, not per se, but by virtue of its being constructed, in that manner, at that time, by those who wrote it.

Intent (say, as in other instances, post 1662), is an interior condition, as Apostolicae Curae notes. And absent something permitting the determinatio ex adiunctis, and given a valid form, minister and matter, the intent in the confection of a sacrament is assumed to be facere quod facit ecclesia..

GKC

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Accurately stated. Though the actual words in Apostolicae Curae were Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s (mainly)

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Whose signature is on it?

That would be the autograph of His Holiness, Leo XIII.

GKC

So then it is safe to assume that he read it and agreed with it as it is issued under his name.

Oh, absolutely. The point of the author’s name was merely a bit of historical info. I like that sort of thing. And the sad tale of this whole thing is full of historical, personal, political and theological details.

Wanna know the name of the other contributor to the wording?

GKC

Wouldn’t it be quite correct to say that many “papal” documents are written by one or more ghost writers but of course no Pope is going to let any document be released in his name with out at first reading it and agreeing with its contents?

 

[GKC]

Wouldn’t it be quite correct to say that many “papal” documents are written by one or more ghost writers but of course no Pope is going to let any document be released in his name with out at first reading it and agreeing with its contents?

Sure. Which, again, is not the point. The point is that there is a story that goes along with the Bull. It’s a hobby of mine.

GKC

 

[Iotaunum]

The intent was only assumed to be invalid, with respect to the consecration of Parker, and that due to an assumption based on a determinatio ex adiunctis; the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, assumed to be an invalid form, not per se, but by virtue of its being constructed, in that manner, at that time, by those who wrote it.

Intent (say, as in other instances, post 1662), is an interior condition, as Apostolicae Curae notes. And absent something permitting the determinatio ex adiunctis, and given a valid form, minister and matter, the intent in the confection of a sacrament is assumed to be facere quod facit ecclesia..

GKC

I disagree. It was not merely the consecration of Parker which was assumed to be invalid (though it was) but the actual rite itself, as Pope Leo XIII explains:

"With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, 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."

As Leo XIII explains, the church does not judge the internal intention of the Minister, but is bound to judge "so far as it is manifested externally" St Thomas Aquinas also explains in the Summa that: “In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed exteriorly on the part of the minister.”

Thus, the defect of intention was contained in the externals of the rite itself. All Anglicans therefore using this rite suffer from the same defective intention as did Parker.

However, what I was saying about the rites today: some Anglicans claim that the intoduction of “Old Catholic” or “orthodox” Bishops make their orders valid. However, I was explaining that even if the Minister was a validly ordained Catholic Bishop who decided to ordain Anlgican “priests” (and this is unlikely, not to mention the fact that his intention would be suspect at best) then the defect of intention on the part of the “ordinand” would invalidate the ordination. What Anglican would have the intention of recieving the full powers of the Priesthood to consecrate the eucharist, forgive sins etc.

Since their intention is not to recieve the powers of the Priesthood as the Church understands them, then this defective intention reneders the ordination null. The candidate must understand and intend to become a Priest and recieve the powers of the Priesthood ( which protestants - anglicans included- do not) and the Minister must be validly ordained, use the correct matter and form and have the correct intention (at least external intention in which the bishop wishes to accomplish the external ceremonies and rites- in which case he is assumed by the Church to have the intention of “doing what the Church does” even if he feels interiorly that it is not anything special or supernatural).

 

[GKC]

I disagree. It was not merely the consecration of Parker which was assumed to be invalid (though it was) but the actual rite itself, as Pope Leo XIII explains:

"With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, 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."

As Leo XIII explains, the church does not judge the internal intention of the Minister, but is bound to judge "so far as it is manifested externally" St Thomas Aquinas also explains in the Summa that: “In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed exteriorly on the part of the minister.”

Thus, the defect of intention was contained in the externals of the rite itself. All Anglicans therefore using this rite suffer from the same defective intention as did Parker.

However, what I was saying about the rites today: some Anglicans claim that the intoduction of “Old Catholic” or “orthodox” Bishops make their orders valid. However, I was explaining that even if the Minister was a validly ordained Catholic Bishop who decided to ordain Anlgican “priests” (and this is unlikely, not to mention the fact that his intention would be suspect at best) then the defect of intention on the part of the “ordinand” would invalidate the ordination. What Anglican would have the intention of recieving the full powers of the Priesthood to consecrate the eucharist, forgive sins etc.

Since their intention is not to recieve the powers of the Priesthood as the Church understands them, then this defective intention reneders the ordination null. The candidate must understand and intend to become a Priest and recieve the powers of the Priesthood ( which protestants - anglicans included- do not) and the Minister must be validly ordained, use the correct matter and form and have the correct intention (at least external intention in which the bishop wishes to accomplish the external ceremonies and rites- in which case he is assumed by the Church to have the intention of “doing what the Church does” even if he feels interiorly that it is not anything special or supernatural).

Yes, I’m familiar with the wording and logic of Apostolicae Curae. But the intention of the sacramental act inheres in the individual in each sacramental action, whether the minister or the recipient of the grace conveyed. And each must be judged on the basis of each individual action. It was, as stated in the Bull, the inter-relationship of the form and intent, not in itself exceptional (the point of Sapius Officio, a response to Apostolicae Curae from the two CoE Archbishops), that was the basis of the judgment. 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.

I’m better known in another forum, so let me state that in no sense am I saying that the RCC does not judge Anglican orders null and void. That certainly is what the Bull states and certainly is what any RC should affirm, without reservation. But it is a complicated, sad, and fascinating subject. Even without considering just what the theological details are and what they might mean. I always suggest Fr. J. J. Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, for the history, from the meeting of the Abbe Portal and Lord Halifax, in 1890 and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for the best theological exposition of an Anglican case, centering on the then prevalent theology of the eucharistic sacrifice. Likewise, (then Jesuit Father) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best presentation of the contrary. And all this without considering the possible impact of OC/PNCC co-consecrations with Anglicans, of Anglican bishops, beginning in 1932, after the Agreement of Bonn; another, but slightly different, fascinating point.

One point I also disagree with. The use of the Edwardine Ordinal might suggest (and was so judged) invalid intent, but does not, in itself, contain invalid intent, which inheres in an individual, in a given sacramental action. Absent the form so judged, there is no ancillary insight to the interior intent. Hence (partially) the two cases of sub conditione ordinations known, since 1896.

None of which means I’m suggesting you should change your mind. Or that the RCC should either. I never try to make anyone think like an Anglican (esp. lately). But sometimes I try to show what an Anglican might think.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

One point I also disagree with. The use of the Edwardine Ordinal might suggest (and was so judged) invalid intent, but does not, in itself, contain invalid intent, which inheres in an individual, in a given sacramental action. Absent the form so judged, there is no ancillary insight to the interior intent. Hence (partially) the two cases of sub conditione ordinations known, since 1896.

None of which means I’m suggesting you should change your mind. Or that the RCC should either. I never try to make anyone think like an Anglican (esp. lately). But sometimes I try to show what an Anglican might think.

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?