P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting, because I was thinking of the last several posts before that one.
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes, I have read it. And pondered it.
I find it unconvincing.
The rather lengthy document says very little about what is really the heart of the matter–paragraph XVI.
To summarize (that’s an understatement!) Pope Leo’s position, the Anglican Ordinal of 1560 denied the sacrificial role of the priest, but this was later added in 1662.
Aside: when I read the 16th century spelling, it reminds me of some posts here on CAF
Back to paragraph XVI:
The Anglican defense says nothing to directly address the issue that the reference to priesthood (as such) had been removed in 1560. Instead they basically say that a national church has a “right” to change the form of the sacraments as they see fit. Whether we agree or disagree with that idea, they are still not defending what they did, but merely asserting a right to do it.
They almost do this in paragraph XVII, wherein they quote the introduction to the Ordinal of 1560. While it speaks of a continuation of the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon from biblical times, it says nothing about the priesthood as sacrificial. It’s not what it does say, but what it fails to say. Given the historical context, the omission of any reference to the priest offering sacrifice is itself proof that the intention did not exist. This would not be true in any other century or context. At that moment (1560) and in that particular context the absence of a reference to a priest as one who offers the sacrifice constitutes a denial of the belief.
The Anglicans offer no evidence to show that in 1560 they believed that the priest offers the Holy Sacrifice. Instead, they point to evidence from other time-periods, mostly from the present (i.e. their present of 1897). They wrote nothing to convince me that in 1560 the intent of the Anglican bishops was to confer the priesthood–frankly, I cannot find any place where they even attempt this.
They say that in 1560 the intention was to continue the offices as they had been from ancient times. That’s all well and good, but we know that their understanding of those offices was incomplete. Also, the text from 1560 is very vague about what is being conferred and seems more to emphasize the legitimacy of the office (the idea of being tested, called and appointed) while saying near nothing about the office itself.
All the document really does is to prove Pope Leo was right.
Until now, I’ve never read the entire document (Saepius Officio, 1897). After reading it, I’m even more certain than before that:
- Pope Leo was correct in Apostolicae curae
- There is no reason why A.C. should be reconsidered in the present day.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Here’s the text from the 1560 Ordinal as quoted in Saepius Officio, 1897
“It is euident unto all men, diligently readinge holye
Scripture and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme there hathe
bene these ordres of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishoppes, Priestes, and
Deacons: which Offices were euermore had in suche reuerent estimacion,
that no man by his own private aucthoritie might presume to execute any of
them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen to have such
qualities as were requisite for the same; And also, by publique prayer, with
imposicion of hands, approued, and admitted thereunto. And therfore, to the
entent that these orders shoulde bee continued, and reuerentlye used and
estemed, in this Church of England; it is requysite that no man (not beyng at
thys presente Bisshope, Priest nor Deacon) shall execute anye of them,
excepte he be called, tryed, examined and admitted, accordynge to the form
hereafter folowinge.”
It reads like some posts on CAF, does it not? Let us all (Catholic and Anglican alike) thank God for spell-check.
“It is euident unto all men, diligently readinge holye
Scripture and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme there hathe
bene these ordres of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishoppes, Priestes, and
Deacons: which Offices were euermore had in suche reuerent estimacion,
that no man by his own private aucthoritie might presume to execute any of
them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen to have such
qualities as were requisite for the same; And also, by publique prayer, with
imposicion of hands, approued, and admitted thereunto. And therfore, to the
entent that these orders shoulde bee continued, and reuerentlye used and
estemed, in this Church of England; it is requysite that no man (not beyng at
thys presente Bisshope, Priest nor Deacon) shall execute anye of them,
excepte he be called, tryed, examined and admitted, accordynge to the form
hereafter folowinge.”
It reads like some posts on CAF, does it not? Let us all (Catholic and Anglican alike) thank God for spell-check.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Thank you, it’s late and I will have to give it more thought tomorrow. Generally speaking, their point as I understand it, is that it is unknown as to whether the Roman ordinals for many centuries had the nature of sacrifice in them as well, so if there is a question of the nature of Anglican Orders, we would have to have the same questions as to Roman Apostolicity.Yes, I have read it. And pondered it.
I find it unconvincing.
The rather lengthy document says very little about what is really the heart of the matter–paragraph XVI.
To summarize (that’s an understatement!) Pope Leo’s position, the Anglican Ordinal of 1560 denied the sacrificial role of the priest, but this was later added in 1662.
Aside: when I read the 16th century spelling, it reminds me of some posts here on CAF
Back to paragraph XVI:
The Anglican defense says nothing to directly address the issue that the reference to priesthood (as such) had been removed in 1560. Instead they basically say that a national church has a “right” to change the form of the sacraments as they see fit. Whether we agree or disagree with that idea, they are still not defending what they did, but merely asserting a right to do it.
They almost do this in paragraph XVII, wherein they quote the introduction to the Ordinal of 1560. While it speaks of a continuation of the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon from biblical times, it says nothing about the priesthood as sacrificial. It’s not what it does say, but what it fails to say. Given the historical context, the omission of any reference to the priest offering sacrifice is itself proof that the intention did not exist. This would not be true in any other century or context. At that moment (1560) and in that particular context the absence of a reference to a priest as one who offers the sacrifice constitutes a denial of the belief.
The Anglicans offer no evidence to show that in 1560 they believed that the priest offers the Holy Sacrifice. Instead, they point to evidence from other time-periods, mostly from the present (i.e. their present of 1897). They wrote nothing to convince me that in 1560 the intent of the Anglican bishops was to confer the priesthood–frankly, I cannot find any place where they even attempt this.
They say that in 1560 the intention was to continue the offices as they had been from ancient times. That’s all well and good, but we know that their understanding of those offices was incomplete. Also, the text from 1560 is very vague about what is being conferred and seems more to emphasize the legitimacy of the office (the idea of being tested, called and appointed) while saying near nothing about the office itself.
All the document really does is to prove Pope Leo was right.
Until now, I’ve never read the entire document (Saepius Officio, 1897). After reading it, I’m even more certain than before that:
By the way, I had to have 2 windows open and do a lot of switching back and forth when I wrote this post. Please forgive my poor attempts at prose.
- Pope Leo was correct in Apostolicae curae
- There is no reason why A.C. should be reconsidered in the present day.
Thanks again for at least reading it! I’ll have to check the paragraphs again with more certain points of discussion.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Not always easy being an Anglican…Guess they thought it was easier than LatinHere’s the text from the 1560 Ordinal as quoted in Saepius Officio, 1897
“It is euident unto all men, diligently readinge holye
Scripture and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme there hathe
bene these ordres of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishoppes, Priestes, and
Deacons: which Offices were euermore had in suche reuerent estimacion,
that no man by his own private aucthoritie might presume to execute any of
them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen to have such
qualities as were requisite for the same; And also, by publique prayer, with
imposicion of hands, approued, and admitted thereunto. And therfore, to the
entent that these orders shoulde bee continued, and reuerentlye used and
estemed, in this Church of England; it is requysite that no man (not beyng at
thys presente Bisshope, Priest nor Deacon) shall execute anye of them,
excepte he be called, tryed, examined and admitted, accordynge to the form
hereafter folowinge.”
It reads like some posts on CAF, does it not? Let us all (Catholic and Anglican alike) thank God for spell-check.
G
GKC
Guest
It asserts that one can certainly find Rites considered by the RCC to covey the sacrament of orders validly, which do not explicitly state the sacrificial role of the priesthood. Which is correct, and addresses the point of form. What it doe not do adequately address is the issue of intent. That intent being (again, per Clark’s explication in ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION), the sacramental intent at the consecration of ++Parker in 1559 (the form predates 1560). Dom Gregory Dix’s little book, THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDERS, which is likewise worth reading, neglects this point also. Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD does not.
All in all, a complex subject: historically, personally, politically, and theologically.
GKC
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Thanks GKC on the clarification. I believe the first of your recommended books are at a local university library. I’ll see if they will let me borrow it.
FrDavid96, thanks again for answering. I’ve been thinking about your 2 points.
Interesting how on your first point I have the inverse reaction. It reinforces my belief that Anglican Orders are indeed valid. But that that could be expected…
It is your second point which I have been pondering, for pastoral as well as theological reasons.
Why not? Would there not be a reason “to reconsider” Anglican Orders if there were new information during the time between the document which would cause you to not feel the need to reconsider and the present time which changed the situation?
The new information, in this case the claimed reintroduction of valid succession through churches acknowledged by Rome, being introduced in the time between 1896 and now. You could very rightly say “the church has chosen not to address it, so I won’t”. But let’s presume for the sake of dialogue it is ok to address it. What if it turned out that Anglicanism corrected the deficiencies in form and matter and now has valid succession, even if Pope Leo was correct in 1896.
We know reception of the sacraments is vital to the life of a Christian. Even to the degree that refusing the opportunity when available is a confessable sin (Sunday Obligation).
From a pastoral sense, my thought is, what if a clergy member were telling people to not receive the sacraments because they were not valid, but they actually were valid and information readily available demonstrating such. Would that produce culpability for the clergy person? We know Paul says clergy will be held to a higher standard of conduct and teaching. Wouldn’t a Deacon, Priest, Bishop be obligated to see if God has done some other work to re-institute the sacraments in a body of believers if there is substantial evidence that it “might have” occurred?
What harm would there be to conduct an investigation as to whether this additional information had merit? I am speaking individually for any given member of the clergy, not the RC church as a whole; too many political issues surrounding that…There could be great benefit. Were it found that there was still some defect, it would benefit Anglicans and those considering Anglicanism to know that the situation has not changed and they would have to find another church.
But, if it is had changed, there would be huge pastoral benefits to the worldwide church. What joy there would be that another avenue would be available for people to receive grace!
I understand that on this forum you can’t really profess anything that would appear contrary to church teaching, so please consider all the above to be hypothetical as it is meant.
G
GKC
Guest
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That’s the point being made in paragraph XVII.
The reason I find it unconvincing is that the situations are not parallel.
We all know that in 1560 in England, there was a movement to deny the sacrificial role of the priest (yes, I’m painting with a broad brush here, to say the least). The 1560 Ordinal was a direct result of that movement.
That puts the 1560 Ordinal into a specific context. Do other forms of ordination lack the same language? That’s certainly been proven; and is not in dispute. But those other forms do not have the same context. They were not composed by people whom we know were denying (quite actively) the sacerdotal functions.
That’s why we cannot compare the lack of sacerdotal references in the 1560 Ordinal to the the same absence in rites of other places and other time periods. Those other rites were comped for very different reasons; not the reason of denying the sacrificial role of the priest.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
This is the same reason both the Orthodox Churches in India, and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church requires Marthoma Church (in full communion with Anglican Church) clergy to be fully ordained upon reception. They removed the original language of ordination and substituted a ministerial non-sacrifical rite, and purposely some steps self-removed from the Apostolic practice.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Any new information would have to be contemporary with the 1560 Ordinal.
If such information existed, it would have surfaced by now. The overwhelming historical evidence from the time period points to a denial of the priesthood. Any documentation that might exist would necessarily be obscure after nearly 500 years. Maybe some historian discovers a letter tucked away in some library book unused since the 1500s, or something along those lines. That’s possible (it’s not impossible), but it could never be enough to outweigh the huge body of evidence that clearly denies the priesthood.
Of course, that’s relevant. I know exactly what you mean.
The tone of the 1897 Anglican position is clear that they assert that their attempts at ordination were (and “are” in 1897) valid. What happened between 1897 and 1933 to cause them to change this assertion? Did Anglicans actually deny that they had valid ordinations in 1933 and therefore looked to correct what had been missing for 3 centuries? Overtly, they certainly did not. I know that some more recent documents have begun to surface suggesting that very idea.
This does not convince me. If Anglicans truly acknowledged that they had lost Succession and needed to restore it, they would have had all their bishops validly ordained, not just the new ones; and then validly ordained all their priests and deacons as well! Instead, they clearly intended to continue the same offices which they had from 1560 to 1933. After all, it could take quite a long time for that valid succession to finally completely replace the earlier offices. Let’s say a young bishop is ordained in early 1933. He might live to be 87 and still ordain a young (25) priest in 1985. That priest might go on functioning until he died at age 90 in the year 2050.
The bottom line is that if Anglicans truly acknowledged that they needed to restore Apostolic Succession in 1933, they did nothing to fix the problem as it affected about a century’s worth of people.
Admittedly, by 1933, Anglicans (at least in general) were once again affirming the sacrificial role of the priest, however, by the time this happened, their offices of bishop/priest/deacon had already been lost. There were not attempting to restore anything, but to continue what they had before 1933.
I just cannot accept the statement (in my own words) of “we intended to restore that which we unequivocally assert never to have lost in the first place.”
I think I’m hitting the max size for a post so I’ll address the rest in the next post.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
For me, this is not just a hypothetical. I deal with the is real life. For example, when I receive a former Anglican into the Church, I confirm that person.
I disagree with the idea that information proving validity is “readily available” and I also disagree that there is “substantial evidence.”
I accept that the Catholic Church has determined that Anglican attempts at ordination are invalid. I accept the authority of the Church to make that decision. It is not up to me to go around determining whether or not some particular community has valid ordination.
That is not an argument from authority. It’s an argument that the legitimate authority exists, and that authority has made its decision.
As a Catholic priest, I see things from precisely the opposite viewpoint from what you’re describing. I must ask myself “who am I to tell a person that an attempt at a sacrament is valid when the Church Catholic tells me that it is an invalid attempt?”
That investigation is not mine to make.
I can discuss it. I can study the situation. I can even propose the idea. But I can do so only from a scholarly perspective.
Whatever conclusions I might make would have no practical effect.
And that’s exactly what the Catholic Church does say. Nothing has changed.
I would not want to present anything contrary to Church teaching. I am not writing these posts simply because the Catholic Church holds a position and I am trying to prop-up that position.
That’s what I do not understand about the posts I read here by Anglicans (some posts). This is not about supporting the party line. I can assure you that I am not sitting here thinking to myself “gee, I really want to say that Anglican attempts at ordination are valid, but my bishop might read this and then I’d be in trouble…” That idea surfaces quite often on these CAF forums.
I can assure you that there are Catholic priests who want to affirm that Anglican attempts at ordination are valid. I can also assure you that many of them have no qualms about expressing that idea—yes, even in the presence of their own bishops. I am not one of them.
Back to your last point.
As I see things, the establishment of the Anglican Ordinariates re-affirms the Catholic teaching that Anglican attempts at ordination are null.
Pope Benedict had an opportunity to re-open the question. He decided to leave it closed. Now, I don’t pretend to know what was in his mind at the moment, but I can certainly read his actions. I cannot imagine that HH Benedict did not give some consideration to the question when he wrote Anglicanorum Coetibus. Even though I had no personal interaction with him (insert laughs here), the idea that he would have missed something so painfully obvious would be to say that he was incompetent.
In Anglicanorum Coetibus (and the surrounding context) he had a perfect opportunity to re-open the issue of validity. I cannot imagine that he would have said (or considered saying) that all Anglican clergy should simply be accepted on nothing more than the basis of documenting their attempted ordinations. However, if he thought that there might be even a possibility that some might have valid ordinations he would have made at least a minimal effort to address the subject.
The “welcoming” value of such a gesture would have been tremendous. Just one simple sentence expressing that the Holy See would consider the possibility of conditional ordination on an individual basis would have been immensely positive. I also personally think that it would have moved many Anglican clergy who might be considering the Ordinariates to make that move.
Nevertheless, he did not. My personal conclusion is that he realized he could not do it. I cannot imagine that he overlooked the issue. His silence on the topic speaks volumes.
I do think that if HH Benedict thought that there was a possibility of reconsidering the question, he would have addressed it in A.C. or in some followup act. The plain fact is that he did not do it, and neither has Pope Francis. It’s also noteworthy that HH Francis did make changes to the legislation governing the Ordinariates; therefore we know that the overall topic is something that he did think about. Yet, we have not even the slightest hint from HH Francis that the question of validity might be re-considered. Likewise, his silence speaks volumes.
Might the Holy See consider an individual petition from an Anglican cleric for conditional ordination? I think they would consider it, yes. I know they have in the past. I do not know of any recent examples, but neither would I know even if it did happen. The few ordinations that I do know about have not been conditional, as far as I know.
I’ve been typing for a while (off and on as I go about my office work). I should hit “submit” now because I don’t know what’s been posted in the last few hours.
G
GKC
Guest
I assume that the reference to the year of 1933 and the idea that Anglicans had realized that they need to Do Something, re: Orders is referring to the OCs/Utrecht and Anglican agreement of Bonn in 1931, and the subsequent joint episcopal consecrations that would logically, per Ott, have infused valid/illicit orders into Anglicanism.Any new information would have to be contemporary with the 1560 Ordinal.
If such information existed, it would have surfaced by now. The overwhelming historical evidence from the time period points to a denial of the priesthood. Any documentation that might exist would necessarily be obscure after nearly 500 years. Maybe some historian discovers a letter tucked away in some library book unused since the 1500s, or something along those lines. That’s possible (it’s not impossible), but it could never be enough to outweigh the huge body of evidence that clearly denies the priesthood.
Of course, that’s relevant. I know exactly what you mean.
The tone of the 1897 Anglican position is clear that they assert that their attempts at ordination were (and “are” in 1897) valid. What happened between 1897 and 1933 to cause them to change this assertion? Did Anglicans actually deny that they had valid ordinations in 1933 and therefore looked to correct what had been missing for 3 centuries? Overtly, they certainly did not. I know that some more recent documents have begun to surface suggesting that very idea.
This does not convince me. If Anglicans truly acknowledged that they had lost Succession and needed to restore it, they would have had all their bishops validly ordained, not just the new ones; and then validly ordained all their priests and deacons as well! Instead, they clearly intended to continue the same offices which they had from 1560 to 1933. After all, it could take quite a long time for that valid succession to finally completely replace the earlier offices. Let’s say a young bishop is ordained in early 1933. He might live to be 87 and still ordain a young (25) priest in 1985. That priest might go on functioning until he died at age 90 in the year 2050.
The bottom line is that if Anglicans truly acknowledged that they needed to restore Apostolic Succession in 1933, they did nothing to fix the problem as it affected about a century’s worth of people.
Admittedly, by 1933, Anglicans (at least in general) were once again affirming the sacrificial role of the priest, however, by the time this happened, their offices of bishop/priest/deacon had already been lost. There were not attempting to restore anything, but to continue what they had before 1933.
I just cannot accept the statement (in my own words) of “we intended to restore that which we unequivocally assert never to have lost in the first place.”
I think I’m hitting the max size for a post so I’ll address the rest in the next post.
The Agreement of Bonn was a result of long on-going explorations of inter-communion between the OCs and the Anglicans, going back to around 25-30 years prior to 1897 (see Moss/THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT). The agreement was not reached, with the idea of end-running AC.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The exact dates are not something I have committed to memory. Frankly, I did an internet search for “Dutch Touch” and that gave me the year 1933. I think you’re familiar with the source, Father J.H. (I’ll avoid using his name because he’s not participating here).
In my mind at the moment, I was thinking of the “Dutch Touch” and not the Bonn agreement directly. I merely used “1933” to place a marker in the timeline. In any case, they’re closely related.
What you wrote here (what I just quoted) is actually exactly what I meant when I wrote my earlier post.
As I see it, I don’t think that the Anglicans did “realized that they need to Do Something.”
As I see it, it’s quite the opposite. They felt that they did not need to do anything with regard to restoring Apostolic Succession. The Dutch Touch was not meant to supply that which had been lacking, but instead to augment that which already existed.
Your closing comment “The agreement was not reached, with the idea of end-running AC.” is precisely my point. Neither the agreement, nor the Dutch Touch which resulted from it, was intended to restore Apostolic Succession.
Now, Father J.H. claims to have uncovered some evidence that it was indeed the intention to restore Succession. I take him at his word. However, even if it’s true (again, I take his word for it) it happened in secret. One can hardly say that an entire worldwide community intended to do something, but at the same time did it in secret. If they truly understood that they had lost Succession and needed to somehow restore it, then surely this would have been communicated to the worldwide body. The alternative is that they would have allowed more than 100 years to pass until the last invalidly ordained priest finally died; waiting for decades for the invalid to be ever-so-slowly replaced by the valid. In the meantime, they would be allowing what they themselves understand to be invalid attempts at Eucharist and Confirmation and Confession, and even Ordination (by pre-1933 bishops) to continue unchecked. That would make them hypocrites, and I vehemently reject that.
If they truly and sincerely believed that they were restoring Succession, it necessarily follows that they would first need to accept that such Succession had been lost. We know with certainty that they did not do this.
As a parallel example: a few years ago, remember hearing about the episcopal ordination of a new Latin Rite bishop. He chose to have an Eastern Catholic bishop as one of the co-consecrators, because they were longtime friends. Now, we can see that as a gesture of unity. No one thought that it was necessary for an Eastern bishop to infuse valid Succession. (Of course not, even in the reverse, and I’ve seen that too, that would be absurd). The intention there was to ordain a new bishop in precisely the same way that any other Catholic episcopal ordination happens. Nothing changed.
The Dutch Touch does exactly the same thing (in principle, but not in sacramental terms). Nothing changes. It was an Anglican attempt at episcopal ordination which did exactly what every other Anglican attempt at episcopal ordination had done since c. 1560.
At the risk of caricature, the Dutch Touch can be summarized by saying “we brought Apostolic Succession into the Anglican Communion, but we surely did not need to do it, because we absolutely insist that we had it already.”
I cannot fathom how someone can say (with credibility) “we restored what we had never lost.”
M
manualman
Guest
Just to make sure I’m following here, the earlier catholic ordination examples that lacked explicit reference to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood occurred in times and places in which there is no reason to suspect that the ordaining bishop actually disbelieved in the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. In short, any deficiency in the words is covered because the bishop there is understood to have intended to “do as the church does” in ordaining the new bishop.
By contrast, the Anglican ordinal in question had the sacrificial nature of the priesthood deliberately stripped out and the decision of the bishop to use that ordinal within the context of KNOWING that is why it was stripped out, is judged to be adequate evidence to demonstrate that the bishop’s intent was NOT to “do as the church does” in the ordination, but to be something different (and in the bishop’s mind improved) compared to what the church does.
Ordination is not a magic spell that works if performed correctly, it’s a gift of Grace given by God through the church. It doesn’t happen if the bishop in question diverges from the church in what he means ordination to be.
I wonder then at the implications for mass and confession. If a catholic priest hypothetically quit believing in the Real Presence, but for a time went on celebrating mass while no longer “intending to do what the church does” at consecration, is the Eucharist actually present? Hmmmmm…
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes. Although I would not use the word “deficiency” because that word connotes that something is substantially lacking. It is not that those words are deficient; it’s simply that given the time and place, those words were deemed appropriate.
In short, yes. They intended something new and different. A novelty.
Right. Only I would urge some caution that there’s a difference between an absence of full intent on the one hand and a deliberate intent to do something contrary on the other hand.
This is what the Church calls “virtual intent.” Yes, the sacraments would still be valid. At least in most cases it would be. I’ll get to that in a moment.
In order for the sacrament not to be valid (more accurately, “an invalid attempt”) the priest must actually intend not-to-do as the Church does.
As I see things, a priest must have some intention. He must either intend to do as the Church does, or he must intend not-to-do as the Church. I cannot imagine a situation where an individual has absolutely no intention at all. I can’t see a human being (in possession of his faculties) who has a complete lack of any intention. Even the slightest intention to “do as the Church” is minimally sufficient. Again, that’s called virtual intent. For the sacrament not-to-happen, a priest must have an intention “not to do as the Church does.” An example of this might be a priest who is threatened with physical force because someone wants to steal the Eucharist for profane purposes. Or even a real priest who is portraying a fictional priest in a movie (not very likely to happen). A more realistic example is a priest who’s doing altar boy training. He might be teaching them when to ring the bells. Now, common sense says that he should not do that while holding a host between his fingers, but it might happen. Another example is even a priest who has extra hosts on the altar during Mass, but intends not to consecrate them (I once knew a priest who kept some spare hosts under the missal stand “just in case.” Not, again not, a sound practice).
With regard to the topic at hand, the bishops following the Ordinal of 1560 had an express intention to do something completely different from “what the Church does.” They intended to install ministers who were specifically not-priests and likewise to install bishoppes who were not-sacerdos and who would not later ordain sacerdos.
The topic of “intention” while certainly central to the topic here really ought to be discussed in a different thread if one wants to discuss it viz. Eucharist or Confession. I fear we might derail this thread if we expand the topic of intent to the Eucharist. Maybe not, but I’d be much more comfortable discussing it in a new thread.
G
GKC
Guest
This seems to me to be a reasonable RC position, much of which I agree with, logically… And yes, I’m familiar with Fr. J. H.
The joint episcopal consecrations began 24 June 1932. And it remains an open question, in my mind, why, assuming all other sacramental factors were valid, that the Dutch touch would not infuse valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, per Ott. Sacramental intent should, in that case, (it would seem) need to be judged without reference to the use of the cured form (post 1662), to serve as a determinatio ex adiunctis. Sacramental intent would have to revert to the interior state which Apostolicae curae says is the normal way of looking at it; valid, if other visible sacramental actions are not exceptional. And that sacramental intent has to be the sacramental intent within the sacramental action: what the minister of the sacrament of Orders/consecration sacramentally intended, in that action.
Per your penultimate para, I agree; that is what I think would have been said, if someone asked at the time. But I don’t know it for certain. I do know what one of the OC bishops stated, as his formal intent in the sacramental action in 1932: that he "formally intended to confer… the order of the episcopate according to the mind of our holy mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church… and to impart the same episcopal character which …we bishops of the Old Catholic Church possess, that is, the fullness of the priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same… (emphasis in the original. And that the reason was “to mingle as two streams the episcopal succession which has come down from the Apostles, namely that derived through the bishops of the Old Catholic Church and that which has come down through the Anglican hierarchy until the present time.” Which suggests that one party at least was not thinking of restoring a lost succession.
None of which means I think the RCC is likely to revisit the question. That time is past. But I also think that while all RCs should affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty, what Apostolicae curae declares and what the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem reinforces, Anglicans may have a different view of the matter (and the form and the intent). It doesn’t bother me. If the RCC specifically teaches, at a similar level of certainty, that the Dutch Touch was null and void (and I am still looking for such a declaration), that wouldn’t bother me either. But that the RCC teaches that Anglican Orders (per Apostolicae curae) are null and void, I have no doubt.
GKC
The joint episcopal consecrations began 24 June 1932. And it remains an open question, in my mind, why, assuming all other sacramental factors were valid, that the Dutch touch would not infuse valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, per Ott. Sacramental intent should, in that case, (it would seem) need to be judged without reference to the use of the cured form (post 1662), to serve as a determinatio ex adiunctis. Sacramental intent would have to revert to the interior state which Apostolicae curae says is the normal way of looking at it; valid, if other visible sacramental actions are not exceptional. And that sacramental intent has to be the sacramental intent within the sacramental action: what the minister of the sacrament of Orders/consecration sacramentally intended, in that action.
Per your penultimate para, I agree; that is what I think would have been said, if someone asked at the time. But I don’t know it for certain. I do know what one of the OC bishops stated, as his formal intent in the sacramental action in 1932: that he "formally intended to confer… the order of the episcopate according to the mind of our holy mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church… and to impart the same episcopal character which …we bishops of the Old Catholic Church possess, that is, the fullness of the priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same… (emphasis in the original. And that the reason was “to mingle as two streams the episcopal succession which has come down from the Apostles, namely that derived through the bishops of the Old Catholic Church and that which has come down through the Anglican hierarchy until the present time.” Which suggests that one party at least was not thinking of restoring a lost succession.
None of which means I think the RCC is likely to revisit the question. That time is past. But I also think that while all RCs should affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty, what Apostolicae curae declares and what the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem reinforces, Anglicans may have a different view of the matter (and the form and the intent). It doesn’t bother me. If the RCC specifically teaches, at a similar level of certainty, that the Dutch Touch was null and void (and I am still looking for such a declaration), that wouldn’t bother me either. But that the RCC teaches that Anglican Orders (per Apostolicae curae) are null and void, I have no doubt.
GKC
- Status