Anglicans/ Episcopalians: Do you know where i can trace the apostolic line?

[GKC]

Yes, but did the Catholic Bishop have the intent of consecrating a Catholic Bishop? I have seen this mentioned previously - do you contend that having the Catholic Bishop lay hands on you during your consecration somehow gave you “dual orders” in the Anglican and Catholic Churches?

Most likely he would say valid Catholic orders, and mean that there was no difference, I would guess.

As to such a RC bishop’s intent, in sacramental actions, absent some determining factor to the contrary, the action (assuming form and matter are valid) is taken to indicate valid intent.

GKC

 

[Padrej]

Yes, but did the Catholic Bishop have the intent of consecrating a Catholic Bishop? I have seen this mentioned previously - do you contend that having the Catholic Bishop lay hands on you during your consecration somehow gave you “dual orders” in the Anglican and Catholic Churches?

The “intent” was not to make a Catholic bishop but to give validity to the lines. There are no “dual orders.” You are either one or the other. By adding the Catholic lines it makes the process to Rome and reunion faster.
The move would facilitate a similar action as in this article:
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5113

 

[PaulinVA]

The “intent” was not to make a Catholic bishop but to give validity to the lines. There are no “dual orders.” You are either one or the other. By adding the Catholic lines it makes the process to Rome and reunion faster.
The move would facilitate a similar action as in this article:
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5113

Thanks you. I wasn’t being flip when I asked about dual orders. I know there aren’t any, but at the same time I am confused about a Catholic Bishop consecrating an Anglican Bishop.

 

[Padrej]

Thanks you. I wasn’t being flip when I asked about dual orders. I know there aren’t any, but at the same time I am confused about a Catholic Bishop consecrating an Anglican Bishop.

No offense taken
Blessings

 

[Theophorus]

I will be attending the beatification of Cardinal Newman next month

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So you’re saying that by ++Parker and company using the Edwardine ordinal, they were going out of their way to use a non-sacrificially-worded ordinal knowingly as they had the ability to use a pro-sacrificial ordinal at the time, right? But didn’t Saepius officio point out the fact that centuries before that the Catholics, also, didn’t have such sacrificial language in their own ordinals as well? So not mentioning sacrificial lingo doesn’t necessarily mean they went out of their way to create a non-sacrificial priesthood, right?

Recall that each time I mention the Bull, I connect the defect of form with the defect of intention. While there are 3-4 Rites which Rome sees as conveying valid orders, which share the “defect” (no mention of the sacrificing priesthood), the Bull makes a subtle connection with intent, and the two factors have to be taken together. The intent (as Clark says, of ++Parker’s consecrators), is revealed in the fact that they used that particular form, which was constructed by the particular people who wrote it, at that particular time, and specifically constructed to eliminate any mention of the sacrificing pristhood. By choosing to use such a form rather than to use the Pontificale Romanum, the consecrators of Parker showed their intent not to ordain a sacrificing priesthood.

Valid intent is not hard to achieve. The minimum required is facere quod facit ecclesia, to do what the Church does. This is not a high standard, and is why an atheist is able to validly baptize, without believing. If the Pontificale had been used, there would have been no method for Rome to determine what the consecrators’ intent was. But the use of that particular Ordinal form, constructed purposefully as it was (as Rome saw it) amounted to a method of determining that there was a contrary intent, a positive intent not to do what the Church does. The use of the Ordinal was judged a determinatio ex adiunctus, a means of determining intent indirectly, by examining context.

GKC

 

[GKC]

So you’re saying that by ++Parker and company using the Edwardine ordinal, they were going out of their way to use a non-sacrificially-worded ordinal knowingly as they had the ability to use a pro-sacrificial ordinal at the time, right? But didn’t Saepius officio point out the fact that centuries before that the Catholics, also, didn’t have such sacrificial language in their own ordinals as well? So not mentioning sacrificial lingo doesn’t necessarily mean they went out of their way to create a non-sacrificial priesthood, right?

The deliberate construction of a form, at that time, by those people (remember how much you get agitated about Bucer?) and the use of such a form, so constructed, was taken as positive intent not to do what the Church does: consecrate a sacrificing priesthood. It is likely that the logic would not have been applicable, had the Pontificale been used, or even if one of the older, pre-existing forms that also have that “defect” been used, such as the Ordinal of St. Hippolytus, or the formulary of St.Serapion. Clark addresses this idea, and makes the argument I am setting forth here. If one looks at the older rites and looks at them in their historical context, one has no doubt that they did not intend to specifically exclude the sacrificial priesthood. The context of the times provides a contextual determinatio ex adiunctus. The earlier rites have a context which permits a determination of a valid intent, in their use. The Edwardine Ordinal, does not (think Cranmer, Melancthon, Bucer). To use such a construct in that context provides a contextual determination of the intent of the sacramental action; specifically not to do what the Church does.

Intent, in the sacramental action, is simple to attribute, impossible to determine. So, as long as form, matter, etc, are valid, reflect what the Church does, the Church assumes the intent is the same. Otherwise, one would never know if one had received a validly confected Eucharist. But if the form is not valid, and its use suggests a contextual look inside the intent, then the intent can be determined to be invalid.

Yes, Saepius Officio used that line of defense. It doesn’t meet the objection fully.

GKC

 

[StevieD]

Reading you loud and clear.

Indeed.

 

[GKC]

Indeed.

Hmmm. Gotta get more subtle.

GKC

 

[StevieD]

The deliberate construction of a form, at that time, by those people (remember how much you get agitated about Bucer?) and the use of such a form, so constructed, was taken as positive intent not to do what the Church does: consecrate a sacrificing priesthood. It is likely that the logic would not have been applicable, had the Pontificale been used, or even if one of the older, pre-existing forms that also have that “defect” been used, such as the Ordinal of St. Hippolytus, or the formulary of St.Serapion. Clark addresses this idea, and makes the argument I am setting forth here. If one looks at the older rites and looks at them in their historical context, one has no doubt that they did not intend to specifically exclude the sacrificial priesthood. The context of the times provides a contextual determinatio ex adiunctus. The earlier rites have a context which permits a determination of a valid intent, in their use. The Edwardine Ordinal, does not (think Cranmer, Melancthon, Bucer). To use such a construct in that context provides a contextual determination of the intent of the sacramental action; specifically not to do what the Church does.

Intent, in the sacramental action, is simple to attribute, impossible to determine. So, as long as form, matter, etc, are valid, reflect what the Church does, the Church assumes the intent is the same. Otherwise, one would never know if one had received a validly confected Eucharist. But if the form is not valid, and its use suggests a contextual look inside the intent, then the intent can be determined to be invalid.

Yes, Saepius Officio used that line of defense. It doesn’t meet the objection fully.

GKC

Now folks, GKC has explained several times that this matter is probably too complex for anyone but him to fully grasp so why don’t we give him a break. Yep! indeed!

 

[GKC]

Now folks, GKC has explained several times that this matter is probably too complex for anyone but him to fully grasp so why don’t we give him a break. Yep! indeed!

Nah, it’s simple. Just that no one around, save me, has studied it. Explaining it adds meaning to my existence.

GKC

 

[StevieD]

Nah, it’s simple. Just that no one around, save me, has studied it. Explaining it adds meaning to my existence.

GKC

Wikipedia is great isn’t it?

 

[GKC]

Wikipedia is great isn’t it?

I wouldn’t know, never looked. But the 10+ or so books on the subject I have are very useful, Hughes’ two and Clark’s one, esp. Plus the correspondence I’ve had with Joe. Still would like to find Messenger’s 2 volumes.

Wiki isn’t me. The 20,000+ books in my library, focused on the 20 or so subject areas I concentrate on, are me.

GKC

 

[StevieD]

I wouldn’t know, never looked. But the 10+ or so books on the subject I have are very useful, Hughes’ two and Clark’s one, esp. Plus the correspondence I’ve had with Joe. Still would like to find Messenger’s 2 volumes.

Wiki isn’t me. The 20,000+ books in my library, focused on the 20 or so subject areas I concentrate on, are me.

GKC

Joke! But then those who know me would know that! Indeed.

(Actually I did suspect, having seen the entry on Apostolicae Curae - which I recommend -to those confused by your responses, that you had either written it or cut and pasted it. Perhaps you could improve it?)

 

[GKC]

Joke! But then those who know me would know that! Indeed.

(Actually I did suspect, having seen the entry on Apostolicae Curae - which I recommend -to those confused by your responses, that you had either written it or cut and pasted it. Perhaps you could improve it?)

Joke acknowledged. I’m not thin-skinned, as those who know me, know. But I often do take any opportunity to tell my tale.

I don’t know if I could improve it; I truly haven’t looked. But I doubt it. I have a friend who likely could.

I looked at the wiki on Chesterton, once, and thought I could do better, but that’s not my job/interest.

GKC

 

[StevieD]

Joke acknowledged. I’m not thin-skinned, as those who know me, know. But I often do take any opportunity to tell my tale.

I don’t know if I could improve it; I truly haven’t looked. But I doubt it. I have a friend who likely could.

I looked at the wiki on Chesterton, once, and thought I could do better, but that’s not my job/interest.

GKC

The entry does have some interesting things to say about the more positive attitude of Cardinal Heenan (dec’d Archbishop of Westminster) to Anglican orders and Graham Leonard’s request for assurances about his ‘pre-Catholic’ orders, which he found to be acceptable. Pope Leo (or Cardinal Merry del Val as you claim) didn’t get it wrong because we are now in a situation where some Anglicans don’t recognise the orders of other Anglicans, females. Had the decision gone the other way (all valid) then the Church would have put itself in the situation of recognising the orders of females and of those who would not consider themselves to be priests at all but as Protestant ministers.This would have resulted in confusion and some resentment.
The decision could really only go one way though the then Pope appears to have ‘bent over backwards’ to give the matter a good hearing.

 

[GKC]

The entry does have some interesting things to say about the more positive attitude of Cardinal Heenan (dec’d Archbishop of Westminster) to Anglican orders and Graham Leonard’s request for assurances about his ‘pre-Catholic’ orders, which he found to be acceptable. Pope Leo (or Cardinal Merry del Val as you claim) didn’t get it wrong because we are now in a situation where some Anglicans don’t recognise the orders of other Anglicans, females. Had the decision gone the other way (all valid) then the Church would have put itself in the situation of recognising the orders of females and of those who would not consider themselves to be priests at all but as Protestant ministers.This would have resulted in confusion and some resentment.
The decision could really only go one way though the then Pope appears to have ‘bent over backwards’ to give the matter a good hearing.

No, no. Raphael Merry del Val wrote the Bull, after the Cardinals meeting. No claim, fact. With a bit of assistance from Mgr. Vincenzo Tarozzi, a Latinist, and more from Dom Francis Aidan Gasquet.

No, that would not have been the case. Anglicans orders were judged invalid on intent/form. If found valid, nothing would have prevented a later unambiguous determination of invalid matter, once they started laying hands on hairspray.

The decision on the validity of Anglican orders was a fixed deal, from the first. Not that it might not have been correct, as to the end result. But the answer was a foregone conclusion. The mover and shaker was Cardinal Vaughan. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID is a 340+ page book, covering the history, who did what, beginning with the first meeting of Halifax and Portal, in 1890, in far more detail than any other treatment I have ever seen, massively documented. I do recommend it.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s not that the matter is too complex, GKC’s explanations are so “high-fallootin’” as my mom might say, that I’ve read his post twice now and still, as my sixth graders would say, “don’t get it?”

Right now I’m getting my classroom ready, materials, curriculum, and wits together for 28 sixth graders to come waltzing into my room Thursday so I don’t know if I could handle a Dick and Jane book right now.

Ok, back to re-reading GKC’s post for a third time…:hypno::hypno::jrbirdman:

Now folks, GKC has explained several times that this matter is probably too complex for anyone but him to fully grasp so why don’t we give him a break. Yep! indeed!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I need to go to Iraq and dig in the desert for a GKC Rosetta Stone!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**Ok, now I’m going to do my best to understand this bad-boy…

So you’re saying that the Catholic Church would never have questioned the intent of a group using the earlier ordinals because in those earlier days there was an implicit sacrificial character to the office of the priesthood anyway, it was understood as a given and didn’t need to be explicitly laid-out in an ordinal.

But in the time of “those people” Bucer and Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and company, there was an explicit sentiment by all that the priesthood was NOT sacrificial but more of a memorial function so the same level of trust or leniency with the verbage that one might have given the earlier ordinals in medievel times would not be granted to these guys because of their protestant teachings at the time. So the intent is anti-sacrificial and defective for its time due to the sentiment and teachings of the group involved at the time. Is that what you’re saying?

So is your thesis, if I understand you correctly, that intent is so difficult to ascertain from the consecrators and people of that age that you just assume that the intent is the same as the form/matter? So your thesis is that the Church of England did have a valid transmission of orders, absolutely, because to try to assume to know their intent would leave a Donatist slant to the ordinations? It would try to get into the heads of the consecrators and participants, something one could never due, and it leaves too much assumption to the intent because of the protestant leanings of the day? You’re saying that the consecrations were valid and disagreeing with the Pope…right?

Forgive my comprehension skills today. I’m working on 0.0001% of my brain LOL!

**

The deliberate construction of a form, at that time, by those people (remember how much you get agitated about Bucer?) and the use of such a form, so constructed, was taken as positive intent not to do what the Church does: consecrate a sacrificing priesthood. It is likely that the logic would not have been applicable, had the Pontificale been used, or even if one of the older, pre-existing forms that also have that “defect” been used, such as the Ordinal of St. Hippolytus, or the formulary of St.Serapion. Clark addresses this idea, and makes the argument I am setting forth here. If one looks at the older rites and looks at them in their historical context, one has no doubt that they did not intend to specifically exclude the sacrificial priesthood. The context of the times provides a contextual determinatio ex adiunctus. The earlier rites have a context which permits a determination of a valid intent, in their use. The Edwardine Ordinal, does not (think Cranmer, Melancthon, Bucer). To use such a construct in that context provides a contextual determination of the intent of the sacramental action; specifically not to do what the Church does.

Intent, in the sacramental action, is simple to attribute, impossible to determine. So, as long as form, matter, etc, are valid, reflect what the Church does, the Church assumes the intent is the same. Otherwise, one would never know if one had received a validly confected Eucharist. But if the form is not valid, and its use suggests a contextual look inside the intent, then the intent can be determined to be invalid.

Yes, Saepius Officio used that line of defense. It doesn’t meet the objection fully.

GKC