Anglican Use, the sacraments, and validity

[GKC]

To be clear, the Bull Apostolicae Curae declared that Anglican orders were invalid due to a defect in the Rite of Ordination (Ordinal) which was not remedied by the context in which the rite was administered. Since this extinguished Anglican orders, the correction of the defect in the Ordinal in 1662 was too late - there were no longer any orders to pass on.

It is possible that at least some Anglican clergy, however, are in valid orders. The reason is that there were ordinations and consecrations by Old Catholic clergy of Anglican clergy at various times and places over the last 80 or so years. These Old Catholics did have valid orders. It is at least possible that - while not possessing the extinguished Anglican orders - some Anglican clergy may be in orders in the lineage of the Old Catholics.

.

The judgement of Apostolicae curae depends on an intertwined judgement on the sacramental form of the Edwardine ordinal and on the sacramental intent of the consecrators of ++Parker, in using that form (see Clark/ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION). Both must be considered together.

The possible impact of the OC/Utrecht Dutch touch is something that might, indeed be considered (it relates to joint consecrations of Anglican/OC bishops, not individual priestly ordinations by OC bishops), but remains a subject on which the RCC has not made a definitive statement. Gets a lot of discussion around here, though.

GKC

 

[GKC]

All Church of England clergy, I believe, in addition to their Anglican lines, can trace their ordination back through Old Catholic lines.

Likely so, and if so, could be demonstrated. Whatever that might ultimately mean.

GKC

 

[GKC]

True enough. While they may be valid, they are illicit (not legal) and therefore a sacrilege. OC bishops lacked jurisdiction.

Certainly, illicit,as are the OC orders, in the eyes of the RCC, also. Sacrilege, I still await a formal declaration on.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Overall, however, Fr. Rob’s a good man and a pretty orthodox priest AFAIK. He’s also cheeky, funny, does the AU Mass (low and high) very well. And most people at the parish are amicable, and have accepted Catholic teaching. Some have studied it in great depth. They put cradle Catholics to shame, most of the time.

And then stupid, small issues like this come up, and… ehehehehe…

I’d figured I’d find you here.

As St. Barnabas was originally an Oxford Movement parish, owned by the local Episcopal diocese, it’s not exactly that strange. But the Episcopalian pastor - I believe, Fr. Ray? I could be wrong - is only using the the sanctuary because he doesn’t have one of his own, and Fr. Ray still has a Latino congregation. As I understand it, they were both using it when they were both Episcopal, and they’ll continue to do so for the time being.

Fr. Rob says that when he - er, my understanding of his words, not his words per se - confected the sacraments as an Episcopal priest, they were also valid, then, as now. So I suspect he feels Fr. Ray is also confecting the sacraments.

@ JoeCa: I tossed that point to him. I don’t remember what he said. I don’t recall him addressing it, or caring about it.

But maybe I am just getting my stomach all in a knot over something that’s a non-issue. After all, what was it our Holy Father called some Protestant not long ago… Brother Bishop? I dunno… In any case, I don’t plan to bring it up to Fr. Rob again. He apparently feels very strongly about it, and it doesn’t seem like starting a schism over.

@ PickyPicky: I do not suspect this also applies to Episcopalian priests. Maybe it does.

Logically, it would.

GKC

 

[GKC]

The poster stated that the Episcopal minister and his congregation are using the church for their services as well, with permission. They aren’t celebrating at the same time.
I suspect that the other minister is not Episcopalian but part of an off-shoot continuing Anglican parish, if he’s not already in the process of being a member of the Ordinariate.

That is possible, but I don’t see a reason to assume that.

GKC

 

[FrDavid96]

The judgement of Apostolicae curae depends on an intertwined judgement on the sacramental form of the Edwardine ordinal and on the sacramental intent of the consecrators of ++Parker, in using that form (see Clark/ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION). Both must be considered together.

The possible impact of the OC/Utrecht Dutch touch is something that might, indeed be considered (it relates to joint consecrations of Anglican/OC bishops, not individual priestly ordinations by OC bishops), but remains a subject on which the RCC has not made a definitive statement. Gets a lot of discussion around here, though.

GKC

I’ll grant that there has been no “definitive statement” but there has been 80 years of precedent that the Church sees no reason to reconsider Apostolicae Curae, nor any reason to consider that the Dutch Touch had any effect on attempted ordinations. While there is no single, written document, the practice of 80 years shows that the Church sees no reason to reconsider the issue.

Most especially, given that Anglicanorum Coetibus does not even so much as envision the possibility that some Anglican clergy might have been validly ordained is a reasonably clear indication that, in the mind of the Church, there’s nothing to consider in the first place.

The whole Dutch Touch subject is really nothing more than something being discussed in academic circles (and yes, online in less than academic settings). The Church has never given that position the time of day.

 

[GKC]

I’ll grant that there has been no “definitive statement” but there has been 80 years of precedent that the Church sees no reason to reconsider Apostolicae Curae, nor any reason to consider that the Dutch Touch had any effect on attempted ordinations. While there is no single, written document, the practice of 80 years shows that the Church sees no reason to reconsider the issue.

Most especially, given that Anglicanorum Coetibus does not even so much as envision the possibility that some Anglican clergy might have been validly ordained is a reasonably clear indication that, in the mind of the Church, there’s nothing to consider in the first place.

The whole Dutch Touch subject is really nothing more than something being discussed in academic circles (and yes, online in less than academic settings). The Church has never given that position the time of day.

Which does not affect my 'satiable curiosity at all.

And there is the suggestion that the subject played at least a part in the sub conditione ordination of Fr. J. J. Hughes, as he mentions in his auto-bio, and (slightly differently) in the case of Fr. Graham Leonard.

I myself make no assumptions on the subject. But I am very familiar with it. And curious.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Logically, it would.

GKC

Can you lay out your logic for me please?

 

[GKC]

Can you lay out your logic for me please?

That Episcopal clergy also possess OC/PNCC lines? I think that was what I was saying, anyway.

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

I frequent an Anglican Use parish used by both an Anglican Use priest and an Episcopal priest. I do not wish to refer to the Episcopal as a “priest” - nor as “Father” - however, because he is not, properly. I would feel as if i were affirming his invalid sacraments.

I brought this up to Fr. Rob, who is Anglican Use Catholic. He said something I found very strange, and we talked about it at length. GKC and other Anglo-Catholics have probably hashed it out to death, the validity of Anglican orders. But Fr. Rob said that the sacraments of the Anglican churches are valid for them, but not for us as Catholics.

To elaborate, I don’t think he was trying to say they think their sacraments are valid, but we don’t; but that their sacraments are objectively valid - for them. But not for Catholics in communion with Rome. I believe he was saying this because he was trying to affirm that Anglican orders are valid.

And who knows? Maybe they are. But as a Catholic, unless Rome says otherwise, I think I must recognise the opposite as being true. And if their orders are not valid, their sacraments are not, either, for anyone, not even Anglicans. They’re puppetry, or ought to be seen as such. At least, if I understand correctly.

Can someone try to explain what it means to say Anglican sacraments are valid for Anglicans, but not for Catholics? It sounds completely* wrong.*

And while we’re at it, should I continue to go to this parish and talk to and discuss this sort of thing with this priest? What do you think?

I think it would just be a matter of common courtesy to call an Anglican cleric what he wishes to be called.

I have a Baptist uncle who works as a glazier. He was installing stained glass in a Catholic parish in Waco Tx. and he called the pastor “young man” quite disrespectfully. Not only rude, but biting the hand that was feeding him. Don’t want to be like my uncle, do we?

 

[Peter_J]

Good point, andrewstx, although the issue isn’t very easy to resolve. Just consider if I insisted that you call me Maestro.

(Although, in the case you mention, if he had religious objections to calling anyone Father, he could have used “Reverend”.)

 

[TarkanAttila]

Why would you think what you think?

If Father does mean that the Anglicans think their sacraments are valid when they actually are not, he is correct.

If Father thinks Anglican sacraments are objectively valid for Anglicans while objectively invalid for Catholics he would be wrong.

There is no reason just from the face value of the statements that he means one or the other. Charity therefore requires us to presume, in the absence of further details or clarification, that Father holds the correct, not the wrong, meaning.

So in charity to Father, why do you believe he holds one meaning (the wrong one), instead of presuming he holds the orthodox position?

See post #12. In brief, he says he had validly confected sacraments as an Anglican priest. And he does now, also.

First, not all sacraments require an ordained minister. Baptism and Marriage do not. Therefore I hope everyone can agree that we limit the discussion to those sacraments which do require valid ordination: Confirmation, Confession, Holy Orders, Anointing, and of course the Eucharist.

Well, yes. But 5 of 7 sacraments. (Actually, 3 of 7, because only bishops can confirm or ordain, ordinarily.)

I’m sure that when he became an Anglican cleric he believed that it was valid (of course he did, because otherwise he would not have done it). That makes this a very sensitive topic. It took a lot of courage and conviction, and yes faith, to do what he did by being validly ordained by a Catholic bishop.

And I imagine it would take just as much to admit your ordination was not valid for so many decades. No one likes to admit they’ve been grossly wrong for so long. It’s crushing to admit that. Which is a reason I won’t press the issue - and also because I’m a layman, and at a disadvantage.

Logically, it would.

GKC

Then why would he submit to an absolute ordination, and not merely a conditional one?

 

[GKC]

See post #12. In brief, he says he had validly confected sacraments as an Anglican priest. And he does now, also.

Well, yes. But 5 of 7 sacraments. (Actually, 3 of 7, because only bishops can confirm or ordain, ordinarily.)

And I imagine it would take just as much to admit your ordination was not valid for so many decades. No one likes to admit they’ve been grossly wrong for so long. It’s crushing to admit that. Which is a reason I won’t press the issue - and also because I’m a layman, and at a disadvantage.

Then why would he submit to an absolute ordination, and not merely a conditional one?

I’m beginning to think I misunderstood the question. I suggest ignoring what I said, there, unless I show a better grasp of the context.

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

Good point, andrewstx, although the issue isn’t very easy to resolve. Just consider if I insisted that you call me Maestro.

(Although, in the case you mention, if he had religious objections to calling anyone Father, he could have used “Reverend”.)

Episcopalians hate the term “reverend” and only use it in writing They prefer to be called Father or Mister. I think mister is a good name for the OP to use.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Episcopalians hate the term “reverend” and only use it in writing They prefer to be called Father or Mister. I think mister is a good name for the OP to use.

OK… I was also going to try “pastor”… but Mr, you say?

Also, while I suspect Fr. Rayburn (?) is more orthodox than the typical Episcopal priest - remember, it is an Oxford Movement parish we’re speaking about - he has had plenty of time to “come over” - heck, it took Fr. Rob and congregation seven years, and Fr. Rob only just became a legitimate Catholic priest a year ago.

 

[Picky_Picky]

That Episcopal clergy also possess OC/PNCC lines? I think that was what I was saying, anyway.

GKC

Sorry, yes, but my uninformed impression was that the gift of OC/PNCC lines was not so widespread as to be present in all Episcopal ordinations, whereas I believe it to be present in all CofE ordinations. But I expect to be corrected.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Episcopalians hate the term “reverend” and only use it in writing They prefer to be called Father or Mister. I think mister is a good name for the OP to use.

Certainly in England “reverend” is not accepted as a form of address in mainstream denominations (we think it an adjective, like “honourable” or “venerable”). As a non-Anglican I would call my local priest Father if I knew that was his preference, or Mr Surname, or just Forename if I were on friendly terms with him. Of course if he’s an incumbent that makes it easier: call him Rector or Vicar.

 

[GKC]

Sorry, yes, but my uninformed impression was that the gift of OC/PNCC lines was not so widespread as to be present in all Episcopal ordinations, whereas I believe it to be present in all CofE ordinations. But I expect to be corrected.

I would expect a higher concentration of OC types in the CoE, and of PNCC in TEC, but it’s everywhere. Hughes’ Appendix II to his STEWARDS OF THE LORD lists the PNCC joint consecrations he is aware of, in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, from 1946-1963. My late rector had such lines.

And, wherever they might originate, they propagate, as Bishops from one Anglican Church participate in consecrations of Bishops from other Churches, in and out of the Communion. By coincidence, I watched a video last night of the participation in laying on of hands of 8 Anglican Communion Primates, on the new Archbishop of the ACNA. Not including Cantuar, of course, but he sent a nice note. And, curiously, in a nice ecumenical gesture, the RC Bishop of the local diocese gifted the new Archbishop with an episcopal crozier.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

I would expect a higher concentration of OC types in the CoE, and of PNCC in TEC, but it’s everywhere. Hughes’ Appendix II to his STEWARDS OF THE LORD lists the PNCC joint consecrations he is aware of, in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, from 1946-1963. My late rector had such lines.

And, wherever they might originate, they propagate, as Bishops from one Anglican Church participate in consecrations of Bishops from other Churches, in and out of the Communion. By coincidence, I watched a video last night of the participation in laying on of hands of 8 Anglican Communion Primates, on the new Archbishop of the ACNA. Not including Cantuar, of course, but he sent a nice note. And, curiously, in a nice ecumenical gesture, the RC Bishop of the local diocese gifted the new Archbishop with an episcopal crozier.

GKC

Right – corrected as expected – I hadn’t realised it dated in N America from as early as 1946. Yep, it will have done a fair bit of propagating in 70 years.

++Justin sent a pleasant note to the last Gafcon get-together, I recall. He evidently thinks getting in a huff about things is not the most productive way forward. And a nice gesture from the RC bishop. I remember being impressed with seeing the bishop of the Lutherans in Britain and the (now Cardinal) Archbishop of Westminster reading from the Scriptures at ++Justin’s installation. Church leaders seem on the whole less likely than their followers to adopt the standoff-ish attitudes we so frequently see. (What, here?)

 

[FrDavid96]

OK… I was also going to try “pastor”… but Mr, you say?

Also, while I suspect Fr. Rayburn (?) is more orthodox than the typical Episcopal priest - remember, it is an Oxford Movement parish we’re speaking about - he has had plenty of time to “come over” - heck, it took Fr. Rob and congregation seven years, and Fr. Rob only just became a legitimate Catholic priest a year ago.

Coming from a Catholic priest: call him what he wants to be called. Over the years, I’ve experienced different Episcopalian clergy preferring different forms of address.

The same can be said even for Catholic priests. Father John Smith might be “Father Smith” or “Father John” or just “Father” or even Monsignor John Smith who preferred to be called “Father Smith.”

The local Episcopalian prefers to be called simply by his first name, unless it’s a formal setting. That’s his preference. Others I’ve known prefer different titles. Use whatever he prefers.

From my perspective, I don’t mind if someone get it wrong. I don’t mind if someone accidentally says “reverend” or “pastor” or even “preacher.” What I do mind is that when I say “hi, I’m Father …” and the response is “I’ll just call you…” That’s when it grates on my nerves.

Imagine someone named James who hates the name Jimmy. If someone says “I’ll just call you Jimmy anyway” that’s disrespectful.

Call him what he prefers. You’re not making any kind of theological statements by doing that. If he prefers to be addressed as “Father” then go ahead and call him that. If you intentionally omit it, he will notice.

Don’t call him “Mister” unless that’s a preference that you know he’s expressed. Yes, some want this (and surely it’s more British than American). But those who do not will (most likely) take it as an insult that you are making it a point of telling him that you do not regard him as any kind of clergy at all.