Anglican reservation of Eucharist - how do Catholics balance the risks of sacrilege and idolatry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKMotley said:
Form and intent, as determined using the form (determinatio ex adiunctis) to determine the intent.

Google Apostolicae Curae, for the RC position. There is a lot of history, personalities and politics behind the whole, sad subject.
Click to expand...
In short though, the Church’s position is not an exercise of power or spite, but an impartial evaluation of the facts (of the Anglican ordination) with respect to Catholic doctrine, just as she might adjucate the validity of any of her own sacraments. For example, marriage “annulments” are based on the premise that a sacrament can appear to happen but not really happen. The Church has no authority to declare a marriage invalid through her own powers, but simply to rule on whether a sacrament occurred.

I note your “There is a lot of history, personalities and politics behind the whole, sad subject.”. Accepted, but I don’t think you are suggesting the ruling of Apostolicae Curae was itself not objective? As I recall, the Catholic Church did not actively seek to declare Anglican orders void, but was pushed to it by Anglo-Catholics wanting a declaration that they are valid, and then only after a deep investigation.

 
Last edited:
Your assumption is incorrect, as to the reason Apostolicae Curae was formulated. The best l account of the history is found in Fr. John J. Hughes ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, a book I’;ve recommended many times, in the roughly 14 years I’ve been discussing the subject on this board in this and it’s previous incarnations.

And this was submitted accidentally, without the body of the post. I’ll be back.
 
Last edited:
Hughes is mentioned, briefly in the wiki article linked. He, like Graham Leonard, also mentioned, were former Anglican clergy, ordained sub-conditione, as Roman Catholic priests, the only two such known, post Apostolicae Curae.

Apostolicae Curae was born out of 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 Anglo-Catholic. The two became friends, 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 Christendom? 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. 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 system 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 topic to raise for possible discussion was Anglican orders. He was optimistic that it would be a good starting point. Halifax was not convinced, but in 1893/1894, Portal published a little paper anyway, concluding that Anglican Orders were probably invalid, but should be discussed.

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 Portal’s paper got a good reception, 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.

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. Cardinal Vaughan wrote to and visited the Pope, and shifted the idea to a Roman commission to examine the issue of whether the Roman Catholic Church had had a consistent policy with regard to Anglican clergy, and if so, was that policy a good one or should it be changed. Cardinal Vaughan convinced the Pope that what the issue really consisted of was Anglicans who worried about the validity of their orders and wanted the Roman Catholic Church to validate them. Not so.

(continued)
 
What eventually came of the idea that Portal and Halifax had, to initiate some joint talks, using the subject of Anglican Orders as a beginning, became, thanks to the machinations of Cardinal Vaughn, a Romans only commission to examine the questions of how the Roman Catholic Church had treated the issue of Anglican Orders historically, primarily in the case of convert Anglican priests, and whether this was a good policy, or should it be changed. A six man, later increased to eight, man commission, 3 selected by Cardinal Vaughn, were assigned to study the case and make some recommendations. The issue would be finally decided by a commission of Cardinals of the Holy Office, under the Pope.

Passing over a few points here ( I have to get ready for Mass), the commissioners met first on 24 Mar 1896, for a procedural meeting. There were 10 other working meetings, and a final procedural one, on 7 May. The 10 working sessions lasted approx. 3 hours each, as far as can be shown. Of the roughly 30 hours thus spent discussing Anglican orders, 19 had been taken up with historical questions. Halfway through the 8th meeting, the subject of the adequacy of the Edwardine Ordinal was taken up. There is no evidence of discussion of intent, from available records and memos (the archives of the Vatican, through Leo XIII, including the papers of the Commission, were opened by JP II in 1978). The Commission wound up its work and passed its recommendations to the Cardinals who were to advise Leo.

And that, for the moment, is all I’ll dig out of my files of previous posts. What Hughes’ book shows, better than any other source I’ve found over the years, is a detailed account of what happened, and who did what. I strongly recommend it. As likewise his follow-on book, STEWARDS OF THE LORD, which is more concerned with theological points of the case.

One concluding point I always make. Apostolicae Curae states that Anglican orders are null and void and all and any RCs should affirm that at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Anglicans need not do so, and mostly don’t.

The story is long, and sad, and involves a lot of history, personalities, and politics.
 
That, and the location of the start button, directly below the reply button, on my screen…
 
jimXroberts said:
There has been a great deal of debate as to whether Christ is truly present in the sacred elements consecrated by an Anglican priest who believes he has the authority to do so.
Click to expand...
If he is not a validly ordained priest (and my understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that Anglican orders are null and void) then how can the Eucharist be valid regardless of whether the person believes he has the authority to consecrate the host or not?
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
So assuming like most Catholics you lack certainty on these possibilities, what to do?
Click to expand...
You do not worship before the tabernacle in the Anglican Church.

It’s not difficult.

As I’ve already stated, you aren’t required to do so even in the Catholic Church.
 
GKMotley said:
Tell me about the Old Catholics. Those, that is, that the RCC does recognize as possessing valid/illicit orders. If any remain.
Click to expand...
They broke off after Vatican I.

Along with Papal infallibility, they claimed (roughly) that the centering of power in Rome violated a claimed ancient grant of self-governance/discipline Utrecht diocese.

Until recently, there was never any dispute about their orders.

Over time, they would create the bishops for the Polish National Church in the US (PNC), as polish groups/priests/parishes broke away over what could fairly be described as bigotry and abuse from german and Irish bishops.

They have participated in a number (i think the count is disputed, ranging from "a couple’ to “many”) of Anglican episcopal ordinations, which would have created Anglican bishops
with orders and Anglican priests with the same (in both cases, assuming the proper understanding of the sacrament on the Anglican side as well). This is referred to as “the Dutch touch.”

Over the last decade (two decades?), though, they have lost their understanding, and now think that they can ordain women as priests. This flawed understanding leaves a bishop that thinks this way unable to confer orders, as he fundamentally misunderstands the sacrament.

The PNC has broken communion with them over this issue.

I’m not aware of any comment from Rome since this dive into heresy. I assume that any of their bishops that maintained the orthodox understanding would have split, so I would be surprised if there are any today (although I suppose that those ordained prior to this error would retain their orders, but be unable to confer new orders, but we’re now way above my pay grade).

In turn, I assume that their priests ordained before this can consecrate the Eucharist and validly hear confessions.
Brendan_64 said:
If he is not a validly ordained priest (and my understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that Anglican orders are null and void) then how can the Eucharist be valid regardless of whether the person believes he has the authority to consecrate the host or not?
Click to expand...
An interesting variant of that was an Orthodox Church (ROC?) that told it’s faithful to commune at Cafe when Orthodox liturgy wasn’t available–and that, unlike the Anglicans around them, they would receive the Actual Presence! (I don’t have cites handy, but this has been thoroughly hashed out on the forums over at byzcath.org . . .)
 
I asked unskillfully. My apology. Me and the OCs are old buds, as to their origin and history, interaction with Anglicans, Agreement of Bonn, and post 1932, joint episcopal consecrations. Hughes/STEWARDS OF THE LORD, appendix II, has a good overview of the history and lists 6 occasions of joint consecrations between June 1932 and May 1964. The process continues to this day and one doubtless could arrive at a more recent number of Anglican bishops (theoretically) infused with valid/illicit orders, who then spread them further in the normal exercise of consecrating/ordaining Anglican bishops/priests, in the usual fashion. Moss/THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT is also useful. I’m aware of the relationship of the PNCC to the Episcopal Church, which gives us the Polish Pat to parallel the Dutch Touch. The PNCC/Union of Scranton is currently in discussion with some of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions as to what it all might mean, going forward. I’m a curious watcher

And I suspect that you are correct as to OC clergy ordained pre the innovations. And I assume referring to “flawed understanding” would be a way of referring to the valid sacramental intent in the sacramental action, that is an intent facere quod facit ecclesia, which would not be present.

Anyway, above my pay grade, with yours stacked on top of that.
 
Last edited:
@GKMotley. Thanks so much for correcting my mis-information on the origins of Apostolicae Curae. A fascinating story, and yes, sad in many ways. I do love the English educated and religiously minded classes of this era, and many of their works! I am currently reading Dr Pusey’s translation of Augstine’s Confessions.
 
Last edited:
You are very welcome.

By coincidence, I was glancing over (not reading) a selection of Pusey’s writings yesterday.
 
dochawk said:
Over the last decade (two decades?), though, they have lost their understanding, and now think that they can ordain women as priests. This flawed understanding leaves a bishop that thinks this way unable to confer orders, as he fundamentally misunderstands the sacrament.
Click to expand...
I did not know this. If I, for example, if was to baptise someone in risk of death and I intended to do what the Church intends, and used the right words and actions, but I also believed baptism would wash away the sins of the parents, would the baptism be valid? Because that’s how I would see a bishop who believed women could be validly ordained ordaining a man. I would have thought before your comment that the ‘extra’ belief did not matter for validity. Maybe I should start a new thread!
 
There has to be some minimum of understanding of what the Church intends, or else some absolute non- understanding, as in the case of an atheist baptizing, sincerely meaning to do whatever the Church believes about the sacrament, but having no idea of what it might be. At the level of ordaining, It is hard to believe that, given a valid minister of the sacrament, there wouldn’t be an understanding of what the Church says is a valid recipient and adding “but I think that is wrong”. Hence, not intending to do what the Church intends, in the action. An invalid sacramental factor (recipient) can be used, determinatio ex adiunctus, to judge validity of sacramental intent.

I think.
 
FiveLinden said:
would the baptism be valid?
Click to expand...
Baptism is a thing of its own. As I understand it (but someone else will have to provide the details), a non-christian may baptise under at least some circumstances . . . yes, it probably deserves its own thread if you can’t find it in the archives.
 
I would think one could venerate a host representing Jesus, even if by our teaching He is not fully present, with the same outward devotion as one could venerate a statue which is certainly no more than plaster and paint. If the first is “sacrilege” then so is the second (which many people claim it is, and we defend).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
As long as other sacramental factors are valid, and there is no reason to judge that the intent is not valid, yes. The baptism would be valid. This would be under conditions where the normal minister of the sacrament, either clergy or a authoritatively designated person, was not available, and there was a question of life and death.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top