A. Yes (in general).Do Anglicans recognize RC orders as valid?
Must an Anglican ordained priest give assent to the 39 articles?
So is this excerpt wrong in its points?A. Yes (in general).
B. No, Not unless he is in some jurisdiction that requires it, as (in theory, not in practice) it is required of clergy in the Church of England, IAW the Parliamentary Subscription Act of 1571. The CoE, being an Erastian Church, can set requirements like that. And can ignore them, too.
Article 25, titled “Of the Sacraments,” presents the Anglican assessment of the nature of the seven sacraments traditionally recognized by Catholic Christianity. In a characteristic Anglican compromise, it charts a middle course between the Catholic teaching that all seven are valid and objective means of grace, and the radical Protestant rejection of all sacraments as mere ordinances or customs. While substantially agreeing with the Catholic understanding of the sacramental nature of baptism and the Eucharist, of the remaining Catholic sacraments, Article 25 states:
Code:**Those five commonly called Sacraments—that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction—are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.**
Here the emerging Church of England unmistakably asserted that the ordination of deacons and priests lacks any divinely ordained sign or ceremony, and, thus, does not confer sacramental grace. Apostolicae Curae specifically inquires whether the Anglican Ordinal meets the standard for conveying a sacrament 13 and comes to the same conclusion. The Catholic Church’s imposition of ordination on Anglican clergy converts as if it never occurred before, then, simply recognizes and agrees with the Church of England regarding this central Anglican teaching. Consistent with this recognition, convert Anglican priests also receive confirmation and are re-ordained as deacons. 14
The specific concern of Apostolicae Curae, that the Edwardian Ordinal drafted by Archbishop Cranmer lacked both the form and intent of Catholic ordination, is emphatically confirmed by the content of that rite itself, and contemporaneous expressions of Cranmer’s doctrinal views. Even the most motivated ecumenists have seldom claimed otherwise. “The eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood,” wrote Cranmer in 1550, the year before he revised the Ordinal, “is not to be understood simply and plainly, as the words do properly signify, that we do eat and drink him with our mouths; but it is a figurative speech spiritually to be understood.” 15 Consequently “Christ made no such difference between the priest and the layman that the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ for the layman … but the difference between the priest and the layman in this matter is only in the ministration.” 16
With regard to the crucial question of the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Cranmer ordination rite clearly not only did not intend to do, but intended not to do, what the Catholic Church did. The Real Presence was not simply glossed over, it was explicitly rejected. The ministers of the Church of England were intended to be ministers of the Word, by speech in preaching, and by act in symbolic sacraments, and not priests of the true, substantive Body and Blood of Christ.
Historical and theological arguments to the contrary are present in both Anglican and Catholic discourse, but they have failed to carry the day in both communions. There are many theological convictions for which a minority opinion may be the correct one, but on this point, that cannot be the case. Ordination is not a matter of private devotion or opinion, but a public act of the Church. Those Catholics and Anglicans who wish to affirm the Catholic validity of Anglican orders are thus caught in a kind of double bind. Their thinking, no matter how convincing it may be, has not won the agreement of their churches, which, after all, are the ones implementing the ordinations in question. This sociological vise squeezes all who hold such opinions in the two communions, but none more tightly than those Anglicans who hold the most Catholic convictions.
No. In fact, given the strictures of Apostolicae Curae, I see no way that the RCC could backtrack and accept even the Anglicans who do not attempt to ordain an invalid sacramental subject to orders, as valid. Certainly nothing since 1896, and before roughly 1978, revealed any tendency to such a thing. But, assuming it were possible to negate the judgement in AC, for invalid form/invalid intent (as stated at the time), the Anglicans who do attempt female ordination would have to be excluded, for attempting to ordain to invalid subjects, and likely would be further faulted for having an invalid sacramental intent, on any of their ordinations at all.So if we accept Anglican orders as valid, would we have to accept the ordinations of female priests also? If no, why not?
Ty for taking the time to reply to my questions.No. In fact, given the strictures of Apostolicae Curae, I see no way that the RCC could backtrack and accept even the Anglicans who do not attempt to ordain an invalid sacramental subject to orders, as valid. Certainly nothing since 1896, and before roughly 1978, revealed any tendency to such a thing. But, assuming it were possible to negate the judgement in AC, for invalid form/invalid intent (as stated at the time), the Anglicans who do attempt female ordination would have to be excluded, for attempting to ordain to invalid subjects, and likely would be further faulted for having an invalid sacramental intent, on any of their ordinations at all.
Attempted female ordination, makes Apostolicae Curae prescient by around 80+ years, where it is attempted. In a way.
Not exactly. It certainly reflects the logic in Apostolicae Curae. But as far as it is looking to the Articles, it is looking at something that does not bind Anglicans generally.So is this excerpt wrong in its points?
Sure. The real question would be can I do it accurately.GKC, can you answer the questions that I posted?
You are very welcome. Been dealing with the topic since the first days I started posting here.Ty for taking the time to reply to my questions.
But it does bind Anglican ministers, correct? Just a few more excerpts that I am posting for others, that I found interesting, from the same article.Not exactly. It certainly reflects the logic in Apostolicae Curae. But as far as it is looking to the Articles, it is looking at something that does not bind Anglicans generally.
The bolded para reflects a general Anglican tendency to divide the 7 sacraments into those established by Christ (the Domincal 2: Baptism and the Eucharist) and 5 more. The motley range of Anglicanism looks at the 5 in different ways. The motley range of Anglicanism looks at the Articles in a similar fashion.
Go ahead. Ask me how many sacraments there are. And if they convey grace.
The bulk of the quoted article is a repetition of much of the logic in AC, though it uses Cranmer’s name a lot. It seems to assert that Cranmer’s opinion, as stated in his quotes there, would be reflected in his intent in composing the Ordinal. But the composition of the Ordinal is not a sacramental action and that intent is not a sacramental intent. The question would have to be what was the sacramental intent that could invalidate Anglican Orders. And that would be the intent of a minister, in the sacramental action.
The form of the Ordinal is not in itself exceptional, the RCC recognizes other rites as validly confecting the sacrament of Orders, which have essentially the same form. Hence the judgement in AC is an composite one, based on an intertwined assessment of sacramental form and sacramental intent. I suggest Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. And for counter discussion, J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. These books are absolutely the best on the subject I have found, in around 18 years of reading on the topic.
Complicated subject.
Mutual Invalidity
The preoccupation with the Catholic rejection of Anglican orders in the past century has been accompanied by forgetfulness regarding the equally strong Anglican rejection of Catholic orders. Yet, the recognition that Anglican orders are not Catholic ones is not just a Roman Catholic pronouncement; it is also Anglican doctrine. Long before Pope Leo XIII declared, in 1893, that Anglican orders were deficient from a Catholic perspective, 11 Queen Elizabeth I, in 1570, declared the Catholic view of orders deficient from an Anglican perspective.
The central points of Anglican belief are stated in the Articles of Religion, which were articulated and revised over a period of several decades during the tumultuous 16th century. Although Catholic-minded Anglicans since the Oxford Movement of the 1830s have often questioned them, the Articles were clearly intended to be an authoritative statement of Anglican belief. Though today, they do not carry the same kind of juridical authority as Roman Catholic doctrine, originally they carried even more. Conformity to them among the clergy was originally enforced on pain of death. Until the 19th century, it was a requirement for civil office in England. They have been included in every edition of the Book of Common Prayer in Great Britain and North America up to the present day, and are routinely cited by participants in Anglican theological discourse as representing the mind of the church.
Initially intended to affirm Catholic teaching in the face of the Lutheran reform, in successive revisions, the Articles came to adopt Protestant, and even explicitly anti-Catholic, views. Beginning with six articles stating points of Catholic doctrine by King Henry VIII in 1536, they had been expanded to 42 articles incorporating Lutheran ideas by Henry’s Protestant-leaning son, Edward VI, by 1552. These were eventually pared to 39 articles in 1570—following a convocation and the excommunication of the Pope by Queen Elizabeth. As John Henry Newman observed following his famous, but failed, attempt to interpret the Articles in a Catholic sense, “{i}t is notorious that the Articles were drawn up by Protestants, and intended for the establishment of Protestantism.” 12
Catholic Conversion and Catholic Orders
Anglo-Catholic disappointment over the Catholic annulment of their orders is especially ironic since it involves the elevation of subjective opinion and experience above the teachings of both churches involved. The implication that the sincerity or personal faith of the ordinand affects the validity of his ordination embodies the very error which Leo XIII contended against on a larger scale. Condemned by Leo’s successor only a decade after Apostolicae Curae as “immanentism,” this view—a central tenet of the errors of Protestantism and modernism—held that “the truth of Christian dogma does not reside in their authoritative formulation, but in the believers’ inner spiritual experience.” 17 Anglo-Catholics have consistently affirmed the broader principle of the objectivity of the sacraments that is expressed in this proscription, commonly with an explicit recognition that a subjective lack of faith does not invalidate a sacrament (though it may impair its effects).
It is only with a certain inconsistency, therefore, that an Anglo-Catholic can appeal to his personal experience of grace, or depth of conviction, or power in ministry, to counter the negative papal judgment on the validity of his ordination. If an objectively sufficient sacrament is valid, even in the face of deficient faith, then an objectively deficient sacrament is still invalid, even in the face of a sufficiency of faith on the part of the recipient. No matter what I may believe about my orders, if the one ordaining (which is the church, not an individual) disagrees, it is the ordainer’s belief that is dispositive, not mine.
Moreover, as the sacrament it affects, the purpose of the ritual of ordination is not to serve the one being ordained, but the community of believers he is being set aside to serve. The objective character imposed on a man by ordination does not become his personal possession which he can carry and use at will. In this respect, Anglican priests who wish to be conditionally ordained, or even only recognized upon becoming Catholic, are similar to Catholic priests who have defected to marry, but still want to function as priests.
Objections to re-ordination by an Anglican priest converting to the Catholic Ordinariate compound this inconsistency even further. It is certainly the case that, in ordaining a priest, the Episcopal Church (for example) has never thought that it was making him or her a Roman Catholic priest. Indeed, most priest converts are inhibited by their bishop for abandoning the communion of ECUSA. Since ordination is by definition not a private, personal affair, but an action of the church, why would anyone expect the Roman Catholic Church, in receiving a convert priest, to confer a status on their Anglican ordination that the Episcopal Church did not intend in the first place?
It is hard to see by what convolution of reason one could feel the necessity for Catholic ordination while simultaneously agreeing with the Episcopal Church, rather than the Catholic Church, about the status of Episcopalian ordination. Surely, someone who recognizes the deficiencies of Anglicanism enough to be led to come into full communion with the Roman Church cannot expect that Church to recognize Anglican orders as a rule. **Can anyone blame the Curia for having reservations about the judgment of the Episcopalian bishops in such a matter? Would one advocate that Rome must accede to the validity of the Episcopalian ordination of female priests, or openly gay bishops? By what kind of contradiction can someone privately reject those ordinations, and then turn around and ask the Roman Catholic Church to accept his own ordination established under the exact same ritual and authority?
Perhaps, as an Anglican, one was blessed to be ordained by a Catholic bishop in apostolic succession, who spoke the Catholic words with Catholic intent; but again, perhaps not. How is the Roman Church to decide, in each instance, which Anglican ordinations may be valid (or, technically, licit) and which are not? The Catholic Church has wisely and reasonably chosen to decline to be in the untenable position of making fine distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable ordination practices in the polity and ritual of another church, on grounds that the other church does not itself recognize.**
I don’t require accuracy in posts from myself, how should I require accuracy from you? But keeping our interest** is** a requirement.Sure. The real question would be can I do it accurately.
No, if by it you mean the Articles… It does not bind Anglican priests. Or ministers, if you can find them. It binds no one, unless they are part of a Church that makes them normative. It is required that Church of England clergy (the distinction between Church of England, specifically, and Anglicanism, generally, is known to you, I am guessing) affirm them, per the referenced Act of Parliament, but that is a technical issue and is not enforced. The Articles are not a form of Anglican Confession; Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional. Anglicans, generally, may affirm, partially affirm, or ignore them, or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Much of what your source states as to the Articles is historically fallacious. Pain of death, indeed. the Articles were religion as statecraft, how Elizabeth chose to walk a via media in her fractious Church.They were, for the clergy of the CoE, a form of job description. For the laity, they were not required to be affirmed.But it does bind Anglican ministers, correct? Just a few more excerpts that I am posting for others, that I found interesting, from the same article.
For my next trick…I don’t require accuracy in posts from myself, how should I require accuracy from you? But keeping our interest** is** a requirement.
Is he not saying here that ministers must agree with them as theological truth? And by accepting those 39 articles as theological truths, even if it only to keep unity amongst themselves, since many of those articles run flat out contrary to Catholicism, by their acceptance, would not one inherently be rejecting the validity of RC orders?John Bramhall, succeeding Archbishop of Armagh:
“We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, ‘without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them,** but only to subscribe them, as theological truths**, for the preservation of unity among us. .
I see no reason logically why. And I certainly see no reason to assume so for any Anglican not bound by any stricture as was once laid on the CoE clergy by the Act of Subscription. Or, one may consider the closing portion of Archbishop Usher’s quote.Is he not saying here that ministers must agree with them as theological truth? And by accepting those 39 articles as theological truths, even if it only to keep unity amongst themselves, since many of those articles run flat out contrary to Catholicism, by their acceptance, would not one inherently be rejecting the validity of RC orders?
Ty. Very interesting. No more questions. For now:tiphat:I see no reason logically why. And I certainly see no reason to assume so for any Anglican not bound by any stricture as was once laid on the CoE clergy by the Act of Subscription. Or, one may consider the closing portion of Archbishop Usher’s quote.
The articles are a stumbling block for lots of folk who think they give some sort of revelation into what Anglicans may, do, or even must affirm. If you want to know that, it is safest to ask the Anglican in question. You will find some who burn clarified yak butter before the Articles, graven into stone tablets, I have no doubt. And others, otherwise.
The decennial get-together of the Anglican Communion bishops, known as the Lambeth Conference, is an occasion for the Communion hierarchy assemble, drink port, talktalktalk and go home, the talking being published in various reports and papers, usually to no useful end. In 1968, the Lambethians, assembled, passed on a Resolution 43: on the subject of the Articles. As follows:
*Resolution 43
The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled “Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles” (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.*
This passed. And the Anglican jurisdictions, being a motley group, either went and did, or did not, do as suggested. The Episcopal Church moved the articles into a section of the 79 Prayer Book for “historical documents”. Which is, indeed, what they are, whatever else some Anglicans might consider them.
What that recognizes is that there is not a single attitude toward the Articles throughout the Communion, but variable ones. And that should be reflected in how the Articles might be viewed. IOW, Anglicans are a motley crew. And to find out what attitude any take toward them, one needs to inquire of the particular Anglican entity. Anglicans, generally (meaning, without further explication) may ( as I have said before) interpret, affirm, deny, or partially affirm or deny, the Articles. Or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. You need to ask.
Incidentally, did I ever salute you for the Chesterton quote? From ORTHODOXY, Chap, IV, The Ethics of Elfland, p. 83, 1st Eng. ed. It is missing 2 nonessential words, but it is Chesterton. Well done.
You are very welcome.Ty. Very interesting. No more questions. For now:tiphat: