Anglican vs. Post-Vatican II Ordination Rites

[charles223]

Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae held that the form of the Anglican ordination rites were invalid because the sacramental powers of the priest and the bishop were deleted from the rites. Pope Paul VI also deleted the priestly and episcopal powers in the post-Vatican II ordination rites. Why is the form of the new ordination rites not also invalid? How do the new ordination rites compare with Eastern and more ancient Western ordination rites?

 

[GKC]

charles223:

Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae held that the form of the Anglican ordination rites were invalid because the sacramental powers of the priest and the bishop were deleted from the rites. Pope Paul VI also deleted the priestly and episcopal powers in the post-Vatican II ordination rites. Why is the form of the new ordination rites not also invalid? How do the new ordination rites compare with Eastern and more ancient Western ordination rites?

Greetings Charles223,

I’m Anglo-Catholic and the subject of *Apostolicae Curae * is one of some interest to me. Anglicans, in rebutting the assertions of AC, often point out the number of historic ordination rites that do not mention the sacramental roles of the priest, yet are considered by Rome as conferring valid orders. The reply, as I understand it, is that in the given historical circumstances in which the Anglican Ordinal was composed, the active step of removing the mention of the sacerdotal function of the priest, as found in the RC Pontifical then in use, was taken as evidence of the intent of the framers of the Ordinal to deny that priestly function. Anglicans disagree with that, too, but there you are. Hence, unless you are worried that Paul VI was really intending to deny the sacerdotal function of Holy Orders (what AC alleged of the Anglican Ordinal), not to worry.

Anyone interested in the sad subject of AC might enjoy visiting this site, ACCIPE POTESTATEM. There’s a good comparision of the *Pontificale Romanum * in use in the 1500s and the current revised version, alomg with the Anglican Ordinal.

angelfire.com/nj/malleus/

GKC

 

[charles223]

GKC,

Thanks for the reply and the link. In other words, the intent of the framers of the Anglican Ordinal in deleting the sacramental powers of a priest and a bishop was to change the meaning of “priest” and “bishop”, while Paul VI had no intention of changing the meaning of those words when he made his deletions. I believe that Paul VI made his deletions for ecumenical reasons but intended to retain the full Catholic meaning of those two words.

 

[GKC]

charles223:

GKC,

Thanks for the reply and the link. In other words, the intent of the framers of the Anglican Ordinal in deleting the sacramental powers of a priest and a bishop was to change the meaning of “priest” and “bishop”, while Paul VI had no intention of changing the meaning of those words when he made his deletions. I believe that Paul VI made his deletions for ecumenical reasons but intended to retain the full Catholic meaning of those two words.

Yes, that is the logic of Apostolicae Curae, with respect to the Anglican Ordinal. The subject is one that has occasioned much discussion. Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is a good RC exposition. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are good presentations of the Anglican counter-arguements.

It is a sad subject.

GKC

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Remember that those who changed the wording in the Anglican Ordinal did so specifically to oppose Rome and also did so without the popes permission. Paul VI did so with the permission of the pope.

 

[GKC]

Br. Rich SFO:

Remember that those who changed the wording in the Anglican Ordinal did so specifically to oppose Rome and also did so without the popes permission. Paul VI did so with the permission of the pope.

Yes. The first sentence is a fair restatement of what I said was the logic of Rome’s position, above; that the historical circumstances and individuals involved, rendered the *nativa indoles ac spiritus * of the Ordinal inadequate. Anglicans disagree. And surely only a sedavacantist need worry about Paul VI’s motives.

GKC

 

[charles223]

Originally Posted by Br. Rich SFO
Remember that those who changed the wording in the Anglican Ordinal did so specifically to oppose Rome and also did so without the popes permission. Paul VI did so with the permission of the pope.

An ordination rite that lacked Papal permission would not necessarily be invalid. I am sure that any changes the Eastern Orthodox have made in their Ordinals since the schism have not been considered invalid by Rome even though those changes have been made without the Pope’s permission. The Anglicans’ opposition to Rome was only relevant to the issue of the validity of the form of the Anglican Ordinal because they opposed Rome’s understanding of what it means to be a priest or a bishop.

GKC, do you think Paul VI deleted the sacramental powers of the priest and the bishop in the Ordinal in order to heal the wounds of Apostolicae Curae with the Anglicans?

 

[GKC]

charles223:

An ordination rite that lacked Papal permission would not necessarily be invalid. I am sure that any changes the Eastern Orthodox have made in their Ordinals since the schism have not been considered invalid by Rome even though those changes have been made without the Pope’s permission. The Anglicans’ opposition to Rome was only relevant to the issue of the validity of the form of the Anglican Ordinal because they opposed Rome’s understanding of what it means to be a priest or a bishop.

GKC, do you think Paul VI deleted the sacramental powers of the priest and the bishop in the Ordinal in order to heal the wounds of Apostolicae Curae with the Anglicans?

Greetings, Charles 223,

You are correct about the issue of Papal permission. Many rites which Rome accepts as perfectly valid were developed without reference to any Papal authority. There’s a privately printed paper (HOLY ORDERS, HOLY SACRAMENTS, D. J. Lula), that lists a good number of them. As you say about the Orthodox, the issue wasn’t the Papacy at all, it was Rome’s judgement, not so much on the form (that point is usually finessed in current discussion), but the intent that produced the form; was it or was it not to do that which the Church does. Anglicans say it was, Rome says no. It’s a complicated issue.

As to Pope Paul, it’s more accurate to say the rite initiated under him did not mention the sacerdotal powers of the priesthood, not that they were omitted. Whether mentioned or not, they are conveyed, either through the revised Pontifical, or (as we Anglican’s say) through the Ordinal. But I certainly don’t think that anything done or not done with respect to the revised Pontifical was done with Anglicans in mind, in the slightest. Even though relations between the world wide Anglican Communion and the RCC were looking good in those days. Pope Paul VI and the then Archbishop of Canterbury (oh, for those days) Michael Ramsey were on good terms. That was when the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission was started, with such high hopes.

Ah, well.

GKC