Are any Anglican priests valid?

[Brendan_64]

It isn’t simply a case of having a valid bishop present, but is the rite of ordination used valid? If the rite is invalid (as I believe is the Church’s view on the Anglican rite) then the ordination is invalid regardless of the validity of the bishop involved.

 

[GKMotley]

Yes, I know. That’s part of the point in my post above, about the form of the Rite condemned in Apostolicae Curae, and the form used since 1662, by the Church of England, which does not have the supposed defect (for reasons unrelated to the validity of orders question). A clear statement on that form, as to validity, would be useful, even if only to directly invoke the idea of nativa indoles ac spiritus.

Regardless, Anglicans don’t accept the validity (so to speak) of the judgement in Apostolicae Curae.

 

[RedFan]

Did Apostolicae Curae conclude that Anglican Orders are invalid purely due to matters of form, and no other supposed infirmity?

 

[GKMotley]

Hold that question. Hit the reply button too soon. Be right back.

Here we go:

No. It requires an intertwined judgement on the form and the assumed sacramental intent of those who used it. The traditional point considered was the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559. The form judged invalid was not in itself unique. A number of Rites which the RCC considers as capable of confecting the sacrament validly, conveying valid orders, has the same form.

But considering the circumstances in which the Anglican form was constructed, and by whom, a further judgement of Aspotolicae Curae related to the sacramental intent of those who used that form, was made. It was judged to be invalid, determinatio ex adiunctis. The two factors have to be considered together, for the whole judgement.

The best books I have found on the subject are (one time Jesuit priest) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION and Fr. John J. Hughes two books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. IMO, Hughes’ interpretation and account is the superior. He was also the first Anglican priest to be ordained a RC priest, not absolutely but sub conditione, when he converted.

 

[FrDavid96]

Look at what you’re attempting to say, however: a laicized priest cannot validly absolve… but he could validly confect the Eucharist. Seriously?

Yes. That is true.

A laicized priest can indeed validly consecrate the Eucharist. However, he cannot licitly do so. The very fact of being laicized means that he is prohibited from acting as the celebrant at Mass (ie consecrating).

For a priest to validly consecrate, all he needs is the power of the sacerdotal order (as well as the physical bread and wine, but that’s not at issue). Once ordained as a sacerdos, he can consecrate validly.

Other sacraments, such as confession and witnessing a marriage require faculties.

A valid absolution requires faculties. A valid (witnessing of a) marriage requires faculties. A laicized priest does not have these faculties and so he cannot validly act.

The point I want to make here is that in a topic like this people should not be making overly-broad statements like “a laicized priest cannot perform the sacraments.” There are SEVEN sacraments, and each one has its own rules and requirements for validity. We should treat each one individually rather than with broad statements.

A further example: a laicized priest always validly baptizes–so that is just one more example of how broad statements do not do justice to the topic.

 

[RedFan]

Thanks, I’ll put them on my already rather lengthy reading list.

To me, intention is far more important than form. I detest barren formalism. (For example, a break in apostolic succession would matter to me far more than, say, a physical failure to lay on hands.) The RCC does not seem to agree with me on this. I welcome your personal views.

 

[GKMotley]

You are kind to say so. Thank you.

 

[Brendan_64]

Was it not the theological difference on the nature of the priesthood that was an issue with validity? Was the issue of the sacrificial nature of the priesthood addressed in 1662? Did the Anglican church do a u-turn on their understanding of this?

 

[FrDavid96]

1ke:

It is also possible, through what is called the “Dutch Touch” that individual Anglican ministers are validly ordained priests.

I’ve heard that before, but is the Anglican rite of ordination not in itself invalid? If so then even if a valid (but illicit) bishop from the Old Catholic church participated in the ordination then it would still not get around the issue of the Anglican rite of ordination being itself invalid.

The Catholic Church has never accepted the idea of the “Dutch Touch.”

Indeed, at the present time, all former Anglican clergy who wish to become Catholic priests must be ordained.

A few years ago, as part of implementing the new Anglican Ordinariates, the Vatican made it very clear that they would no longer entertain the idea of conditionally ordaining former Anglicans (ie “if you were never ordained, we ordain you…”). All are simply ordained.

In the 60s and 70s a very small number of Anglicans successfully petitioned Rome to be conditionally ordained and were approved for this. This is no longer done.

The Catholic Church has made her position quite clear. Anglican attempts at Ordination are (yes still) absolutely null and utterly void. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. At least nothing for the better; instead recent Anglican changes only make it more clear that they do not have Apostolic Succession.

 

[FrDavid96]

Which is why I often said (on a previous incarnation of this board), that a simple definitive statement from Rome on the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat question would be useful. The form for ordination/consecration which was judged as invalid in Apostolicae Curae is not the form which was used when the Utrecht Old Catholics and the Church of England first began joint Episcopal consecrations.

That’s been done.

Recently, as part of implementing the Anglican Ordinariates, the Holy See made clear that no more petitions for conditional ordination would be entertained. All Anglicans (who seek it) are to be ordained with no conditions.

 

[GKMotley]

Yes. That was the point as to who had written it, and when.The specific point was the Rite did not directly name, in the Rite itself, the office that was being bestowed, nor identify it as sacerdotal, directly. And while it is not possible to make a general statement as to what Anglicanism asserts, generally, certainly the Tractarian/Ritualist/Anglo-Catholic strand would represent such a U-turn.

The point being that the understanding of those who write the form does not affect the intent of those who use the form, sacramentally. Writing a Rite is not in itself a sacramental act. Using it is.

The Rite was “cured”, on this specific point, for unrelated reasons, in 1662

 

[GKMotley]

And as the Ordinate was being set up, I was predicting that such would be the case.

In making this point, was direct reference made to the question of the OCs/PNCCs and joint episcopal consecrations?

 

[GKMotley]

As far as I know, that number was two. And, I’d have to check Fr. Hughes’ auto bio, but I don’t think that he petitioned for that. Leaving Fr. Graham Leonard as the only one I could name.

Nothing has changed for the better, in the wide world of Anglicanism, generally, to be sure. But in little corners, light flickers on.

 

[FrDavid96]

And as the Ordinate was being set up, I was predicting that such would be the case.

In making this point, was direct reference made to the question of the OCs/PNCCs and joint episcopal consecrations?

No. But that’s irrelevant.

The Dutch Touch has no credibility anyway because there was no intent to heal anything. There was no intent to restore that-which-had-been-lost. In fact, the exact opposite was stated. It was an intent to “mix” the two lines, not to heal what was absent from one. If the intent were truly to heal, then Anglicans “ordained” prior to the Dutch Touch would have been “re-ordained”—and we know no such thing happened.

It’s not necessary for the Church to address every possible reason why the Church’s position that Anglican attempts at ordination are null and void has not changed. It’s not necessary to say “we reject the position of so-and-so and we reject the theory of such-and-such” That would actually be counter-productive as it would create unnecessary burdens for the future; the Church would have to speak out every time some new theory emerged.

 

[Brendan_64]

So what then is the ‘mind of the Church’ as far as being ordained in the Anglican church is concerned? If there is no fixed Anglican position on what actually happens in the ordination, then how can a bishop ordain with an intent to do as the Church (i.e. the Anglican church) intends?

How can such an ordination be valid, regardless of the personal intention of any valid bishop participating (or even regardless of whether or not the words of the rite could be deemed appropriate)? How can the intent be valid if the church in question, under whose auspices the ordination is taking place, has no fixed intent on this matter?

 

[FrDavid96]

As far as I know, that number was two. And, I’d have to check Fr. Hughes’ auto bio, but I don’t think that he petitioned for that. Leaving Fr. Graham Leonard as the only one I could name.

A few years ago, I met one here in the US. I cannot remember his name, but he was not one of those two. In any case, it’s a very small number.

By the way, even if I could recall the name of that priest, I wouldn’t type out his name online. I don’t post the names of people who aren’t participating here, unless the name is unavoidable, or the person is acting publicly (like a pope or Cardinal prefect or president) or it’s a matter of history. Just my personal thing. I wouldn’t like anyone using my proper name in posts like this, so I avoid using anyone else’s name if it’s not necessary.

 

[FrDavid96]

So what then is the ‘mind of the Church’ as far as being ordained in the Anglican church is concerned? If the is no fixed Anglican position on what actually happens in the ordination, then how can a bishop ordain with an intent to do as the Church (i.e. the Anglican church) intends?

How can such an ordination be valid, regardless of the personal intention of any valid bishop participating (or even regardless of whether or not the words of the rite could be deemed appropriate)?

How can the intent be valid if the church in question, under whose auspices the ordination is taking place, has no fixed intent on this matter?

Here’s the thing. The “intent to do as the Anglican Church [sic] intends” is irrelevant from the Catholic perspective. Such an intent cannot make for a valid sacrament. Only the intent to do as the Catholic Church intends can affect validity.

 

[GKMotley]

On the occasion of the first joint consecrations, the “mingling” statement was made, by
Henry Theoroe John van Vlijmen, the Old Catholic Bishop of Haarlem, preceded by a further statement on the matter of intent:

He declared that when he, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, laid his hands upon the bishop elect, and said the formula, “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum,” he “formally intended to confer . . . the order of the episcopate according to the mind of our holy mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church . . . and to impart the same episcopal character which . . . we bishops of the Old Catholic Church possess, that is, the fullness of priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same, in the precise sense in which the fullness of the priesthood has been understood everywhere, always, and by all.” (Emphasis in original.) He then went on to say that the reason for this participation was “to mingle as two streams the episcopal succession which has come down from the Apostles, namely that derived through the bishops of the Old Catholic Church and that which has come down through the Anglican hierarchy until the present time.”

Since neither the OCs nor the CoE accepted the judgement of Apostolicae Curae, it would have been odd for them to express an intent to cure it.

I don’t mean to drive the RCC into making definitive statements on every possible circumstance on this subject. Just saying a definitive statement on the point would slow down a lot of my posting, which is a good thing. And possibly clarify the implications of Ott’s statement on schismatic/heretic/etc bishops and their ability to ordain/consecrate validly/illicitly.

 

[GKMotley]

As Apostolicae Curae stated, the validity of sacramental intent is an interior matter, being, in the end, the intent of the minister. And if all other sacramental factors are valid, then the assumption is that the sacramental intent is also. Else no one anywhere could be certain of receiving a validly confected sacrament. It’s why the two points are intertwined in the judgement.

 

[GKMotley]

That is understood. I’d like to stumble across that name somewhere myself. But your point is clear and appropriate. The two named individuals are known widely, including by statements each made on the subject.