Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church

[GKC]

IMHO, the OC and the PNCC really muddied the waters even more, making it virtually impossible to discern the validity of orders of each and every priest in the CoE. Thus, making it very difficult for Rome to comment on the matter.

It’s making me think that Rome is playing it safe by re-ordaining convert priests from CoE.

However, i feel that ordaining women will undermine, if not undo, what the OC and PNCC has done for CoE.

The potential of what the Dutch Touch might mean is an open question. Logically, I think it undercuts Apostolicae Curae. But until and unless there is a definitive statement from Rome, one will never know. What Rome might make of it, that is.

One could trace the episcopal lines of any given Anglican priest, to discern whether they run back to a Dutch Touch scenario, in the episcopal lines. Records are kept on such things. My late rector was ordained by an Anglican bishop, who was himself consecrated by one who had direct PNCC lines. Finding out such things would be a nuisance, but do-able.

I agree with your last statement. I often say that the idea of women’s ordination is a black hole at the center of contemporary Anglican orders, and will eventually render Apostolicae Curae a prematurely prescient document.

I do not expect any sub conditione ordinations of Anglicans moving to Rome, save the two (Hughes+ and Leonard+) that occurred some years back.

GKC

 

[choliks]

The potential of what the Dutch Touch might mean is an open question. Logically, I think it undercuts Apostolicae Curae. But until and unless there is a definitive statement from Rome, one will never know. What Rome might make of it, that is.

One could trace the episcopal lines of any given Anglican priest, to discern whether they run back to a Dutch Touch scenario, in the episcopal lines. Records are kept on such things. My late rector was ordained by an Anglican bishop, who was himself consecrated by one who had direct PNCC lines. Finding out such things would be a nuisance, but do-able.

I agree with your last statement. I often say that the idea of women’s ordination is a black hole at the center of contemporary Anglican orders, and will eventually render Apostolicae Curae a prematurely prescient document.

I do not expect any sub conditione ordinations of Anglicans moving to Rome, save the two (Hughes+ and Leonard+) that occurred some years back.

GKC

Did they use the Edwardine Ordinal when the OC and PNCC bishops participated in the consecration of bishops?

 

[GKC]

Did they use the Edwardine Ordinal when the OC and PNCC bishops participated in the consecration of bishops?

Yes. But the alleged defect in the ordinal had been “cured” ( for reasons unrelated to this issue), in 1662. There is nothing exceptional in the Ordinal as currently written.

And the formal OC participation began in 1932, that of the PNCC in 1946. As far as I know, it continues. Not that necessarily means anything.

GKC

 

[jinc1019]

The form wasn’t the issue from what I understand but the removal of the reference to the priest’s sacrificial office in the Edwardian ordinal was sufficient to convince the Catholic Church that they had lost the intention to do what the Catholic Church does, that is, to ordain a priest to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. The defect was in intention, not so much as form.

However, it must have touched a nerve somewhat with the Anglicans because Old Catholic bishops have been involved in Anglican ordinations so it’s possible, but not presumed, that there are indeed Anglican priests with valid orders.

However, the bull has not been rescinded so the Catholic Church still presumes Anglican clergy invalidly ordained and therefore converting priests are ordained in the absolute form, not conditionally. This may change.

Of course, there are Anglican branches who ordain women. There’s no way around those as women can never be priests.

But this is my point. How does the Catholic Church know what the intention was of any of the bishops actually performing the ordination? They don’t. All it took was one bishop who did intend on performing ordination the proper way with a priest who did want to be ordained in the traditional Catholic sense.

 

[jinc1019]

No, intent inheres in the sacramental action of the minister. It is the minister’s intent, in using the Edwardine ordinal, that Apostolicae Curae judged invalid. See Clark/ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION.

GKC

This is precisely right. Catholics are ASSUMING the intent of those involved and they can’t possibly do that.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m continually impressed with your posts… Very informative about my given religion.

I second that, although it’s not my religion.

 

[GKC]

I second that, although it’s not my religion.

I differ with you, there, but you are very kind.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

But this is my point. How does the Catholic Church know what the intention was of any of the bishops actually performing the ordination? They don’t. All it took was one bishop who did intend on performing ordination the proper way with a priest who did want to be ordained in the traditional Catholic sense.

I don’t try to tell the RCC how to conduct its business. But the *determinatio ex adiunctis *concept is how intent is determined, sacramentally, if there is reason (an invalid form, as it was judged, for example) exists.

GKC

 

[GKC]

This is precisely right. Catholics are ASSUMING the intent of those involved and they can’t possibly do that.

As I said, it’s up to the RCC as to how they determine these things. For whatever reason, it is certainly true that the RCC holds Anglican orders null and void, and all RCs should affirm it.

Me, I study the long, sad history of Apostolicae Curae, all its personal, political and theological factors, and I don’t.

Anglicans can do such things.

GKC

 

[runningdude]

But this is my point. How does the Catholic Church know what the intention was of any of the bishops actually performing the ordination? They don’t. All it took was one bishop who did intend on performing ordination the proper way with a priest who did want to be ordained in the traditional Catholic sense.

When the Catholic Church ordains a bishop, great care is taken to ensure proper form and intent. Permission is given from the Pope, and a minimum of two bishop concelebrate the ordination. When there is doubt about ordained converts accepted to the Catholic priesthood, they are conditionally ordained before being being their ministry. Everything is scrupulously documented.

The Anglican Ordinations were similarly documented in their time. The Catholic Church examined the records available, and found that the intentions were invalid. Even at the time of the ordinations, the Catholic Church condemned the ordinations as invalid, and any Anglican ministers who converted were ordained as though for the first time. The Church always rejected Anglican holy orders; Apostolicea Curae was simply a confirmation that the 200+ years of rejecting them was indeed proper.

There have always been exceptions of properly ordained individuals ending up within the Anglican Commune. Where documentation exists, these have been acknowledged as valid; however the documentation reveals that the vast majority of Anglican ministers and bishops were never properly ordained. At the time of Apostolicea Curae, there were small waves of converts into Catholicism by those who were shocked to learn this, while most Anglican celebrated what they thought was an obvious ruling that Anglican ministers were not Catholic priests.

Today, leaders of very traditional Anglican groups have converted to Catholicism, having had to accept the painful truth that they were not not properly ordained. It is disrespectful to these converts to go around asserting that Anglican ministers are properly ordained, when the historical record clearly shows they are not.

 

[GKC]

When the Catholic Church ordains a bishop, great care is taken to ensure proper form and intent. Permission is given from the Pope, and a minimum of two bishop concelebrate the ordination. When there is doubt about ordained converts accepted to the Catholic priesthood, they are conditionally ordained before being being their ministry. Everything is scrupulously documented.

The Anglican Ordinations were similarly documented in their time. The Catholic Church examined the records available, and found that the intentions were invalid. Even at the time of the ordinations, the Catholic Church condemned the ordinations as invalid, and any Anglican ministers who converted were ordained as though for the first time. The Church always rejected Anglican holy orders; Apostolicea Curae was simply a confirmation that the 200+ years of rejecting them was indeed proper.

There have always been exceptions of properly ordained individuals ending up within the Anglican Commune. Where documentation exists, these have been acknowledged as valid; however the documentation reveals that the vast majority of Anglican ministers and bishops were never properly ordained. At the time of Apostolicea Curae, there were small waves of converts into Catholicism by those who were shocked to learn this, while most Anglican celebrated what they thought was an obvious ruling that Anglican ministers were not Catholic priests.

Today, leaders of very traditional Anglican groups have converted to Catholicism, having had to accept the painful truth that they were not not properly ordained. It is disrespectful to these converts to go around asserting that Anglican ministers are properly ordained, when the historical record clearly shows they are not.

The best, most complete account of the historical record relating to the long and sad tale that culminated in Apostolicae Curae, beginning with the first meeting of Viscount Halifax and the Abbe Portal, that I know of, is found in Fr. John J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. I highly recommend it for a balanced account of the happenings. Details are illuminating.

For the best exposition of the theological case for the Anglican position, I recommend Fr. Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD. Fr. Hughes is an interesting character in the issue of Anglican orders, being the first Anglican priest to be ordained sub conditione (as far as is known), after the issuance of Apostolicae Curae (Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s words, assisted by Dom Francis Gasquet, for Leo XIII’s signature).

For the best exposition of what the RC position was, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION.

The story of *Apostolicae Curae *is long, sad, and complex and involves history, theology, politics and personalities. It’s been a hobby of mine for over 10 years. One thing definitive can be said of the tale. It declares Anglican orders null and void, and all RCs should affirm that, at the requisite level of theological certainty.

Anglicans need not.

GKC

 

[jinc1019]

The best, most complete account of the historical record relating to the long and sad tale that culminated in Apostolicae Curae, beginning with the first meeting of Viscount Halifax and the Abbe Portal, that I know of, is found in Fr. John J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. I highly recommend it for a balanced account of the happenings. Details are illuminating.

For the best exposition of the theological case for the Anglican position, I recommend Fr. Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD. Fr. Hughes is an interesting character in the issue of Anglican orders, being the first Anglican priest to be ordained sub conditione (as far as is known), after the issuance of Apostolicae Curae (Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val’s words, assisted by Dom Francis Gasquet, for Leo XIII’s signature).

For the best exposition of what the RC position was, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION.

The story of *Apostolicae Curae *is long, sad, and complex and involves history, theology, politics and personalities. It’s been a hobby of mine for over 10 years. One thing definitive can be said of the tale. It declares Anglican orders null and void, and all RCs should affirm that, at the requisite level of theological certainty.

Anglicans need not.

GKC

Great recommendations.

I have a question for you GKC, just out of curiosity, what is your personal opinion, based on the evidence you have found and your beliefs, of the validity of Anglican Orders? Obviously, you believe they are valid, but why?

 

[jinc1019]

When the Catholic Church ordains a bishop, great care is taken to ensure proper form and intent. Permission is given from the Pope, and a minimum of two bishop concelebrate the ordination. When there is doubt about ordained converts accepted to the Catholic priesthood, they are conditionally ordained before being being their ministry. Everything is scrupulously documented.

The Anglican Ordinations were similarly documented in their time. The Catholic Church examined the records available, and found that the intentions were invalid. Even at the time of the ordinations, the Catholic Church condemned the ordinations as invalid, and any Anglican ministers who converted were ordained as though for the first time. The Church always rejected Anglican holy orders; Apostolicea Curae was simply a confirmation that the 200+ years of rejecting them was indeed proper.

There have always been exceptions of properly ordained individuals ending up within the Anglican Commune. Where documentation exists, these have been acknowledged as valid; however the documentation reveals that the vast majority of Anglican ministers and bishops were never properly ordained. At the time of Apostolicea Curae, there were small waves of converts into Catholicism by those who were shocked to learn this, while most Anglican celebrated what they thought was an obvious ruling that Anglican ministers were not Catholic priests.

Today, leaders of very traditional Anglican groups have converted to Catholicism, having had to accept the painful truth that they were not not properly ordained. It is disrespectful to these converts to go around asserting that Anglican ministers are properly ordained, when the historical record clearly shows they are not.

The historical record from the Catholic perspective. Further, you throw around the term “historic record” quite a lot without a source or example of a situation where an Anglican bishop would have been found to have validly ordained a priest.

Also, to suggest that there is some record that exists that divulges the sometimes very secret opinions of individuals is absurd. It is unreasonable to assume that bishops who had been, in some situations, for decades believing in the traditional rites all of sudden would stop believing in those things because higher Anglican authorities decided to abandon it based on the wishes of a king. The Catholic Church cannot possibly know what all of those bishops believed. In fact, it would have been political suicide to go against the king, and possibly worse, so even public statements and pronouncements cannot be considered good evidence in a lot of cases.

Catholics jump to a lot of conclusions on this issue without a full understanding of what truly occurred. And this is coming from someone who is NOT Anglican, Episcopalian, or Methodist.

Now, the argument has been made that it doesn’t matter what the individual intent of the bishop is. I don’t agree at all. If a bishop had validly been ordained, it matters very much what the individual intent of the bishop was from the Catholic perspective because that, not some written piece of paper from higher authorities in the Anglican Church, should decide a valid ordination.

It is entirely possible that throughout history, bishops in the Catholic Church ordained ministers when they themselves, as well the person being ordained, didn’t believe in everything in the ordinal rites. Are you saying all of them were invalidly ordained as well? And what about all of the other people in that line who were “invalidly” ordained?

 

[GKC]

Great recommendations.

I have a question for you GKC, just out of curiosity, what is your personal opinion, based on the evidence you have found and your beliefs, of the validity of Anglican Orders? Obviously, you believe they are valid, but why?

I believe, as did half the 8 man commission, that there was a case for concluding validity, or possible validity, not for a blanket condemnation, even using the standards that would apply in a neutral examination. Not that, from such a standard, validity would be a slam-dunk, but that it was reasonable to make a assumption of possible validity. That is, the sort of situation that got Hughes+ and Leonard+ sub conditione ordinations. Further to that point, having some knowledge of the politics and personalities involved, I would not call the case a neutrally judged one. Nor a very extensively researched or discussed one, from the opening of the commission 24 mar 1896. And I am struck with the differences in the behavior of Lord Halifax and Herbert, Cardinal Vaughan, in the whole affair.

One further point. I find the approach Fr. Hughes takes in STEWARDS OF THE LORD, as to a possible theological exposition of an Anglican case, convincing. But then, I would. you know what I say as to what a RC should affirm. What the Church teaches.

Again,I recommend these books ( Clark’s and Hughes’), for the best intro to the case, and to the two sides in it.

And I find the Dutch Touch intriguing.

GKC