Canon - purpose of early councils

[Randy_Carson]

In 1998 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and later Pope Benedict XVI) issued a doctrinal commentary to accompany Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, which established penalties in Canon law for failure to accept “definitive teaching”. Despite the ongoing work of the ecumenical Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), Ratzinger’s commentary listed Leo XIII’s declaration in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” as one of the teachings to which Catholics must give “firm and definitive assent”. These teachings are not understood by the Church as revealed doctrines but are rather those the church’s teaching authority finds to be so closely connected to God’s revealed truth that belief in them is required to safeguard the divinely revealed truths of the Christian Faith. Those who fail to give “firm and definitive assent”, according to the commentary, would “no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.

The continuing authority of Apostolicae Curae was reinforced in the essay The Significance of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus by Fr Gianfranco Ghirlanda SJ, Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, released on 9 November 2009. (Anglicanorum Coetibus introduces a canonical structure that provides for groups of Anglican clergy and faithful to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church “while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.”) In the essay, which is approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fr Ghirlanda comments that “the ordination of ministers coming from Anglicanism will be absolute, on the basis of the Bull Apostolicae curae of Leo XIII of September 13, 1896.”

Source.

 

[Picky_Picky]

In 1998 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and later Pope Benedict XVI) issued a doctrinal commentary to accompany Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, which established penalties in Canon law for failure to accept “definitive teaching”. Despite the ongoing work of the ecumenical Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), Ratzinger’s commentary listed Leo XIII’s declaration in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” as one of the teachings to which Catholics must give “firm and definitive assent”. These teachings are not understood by the Church as revealed doctrines but are rather those the church’s teaching authority finds to be so closely connected to God’s revealed truth that belief in them is required to safeguard the divinely revealed truths of the Christian Faith. Those who fail to give “firm and definitive assent”, according to the commentary, would “no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.

The continuing authority of Apostolicae Curae was reinforced in the essay The Significance of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus by Fr Gianfranco Ghirlanda SJ, Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, released on 9 November 2009. (Anglicanorum Coetibus introduces a canonical structure that provides for groups of Anglican clergy and faithful to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church “while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.”) In the essay, which is approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fr Ghirlanda comments that “the ordination of ministers coming from Anglicanism will be absolute, on the basis of the Bull Apostolicae curae of Leo XIII of September 13, 1896.”

Source.

Indeed Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement is well known and the obligation it places on members of his Church is clear. Anglicans can disagree with him without imputing to him any of the dishonesty of which you thought it proper to accuse the archbishops of England in your post 46.

 

[KjetilK]

In 1998 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and later Pope Benedict XVI) issued a doctrinal commentary to accompany Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, which established penalties in Canon law for failure to accept “definitive teaching”. Despite the ongoing work of the ecumenical Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), Ratzinger’s commentary listed Leo XIII’s declaration in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” as one of the teachings to which Catholics must give “firm and definitive assent”. These teachings are not understood by the Church as revealed doctrines but are rather those the church’s teaching authority finds to be so closely connected to God’s revealed truth that belief in them is required to safeguard the divinely revealed truths of the Christian Faith. Those who fail to give “firm and definitive assent”, according to the commentary, would “no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.

Well, it is obvious that Ratzinger disagrees with the responses to Apostolicae Curae given, amongst others, by +Canterbury and +York in 1897, and by Dom Gregory Dix in 1944. That is obvious. I have not said that Roman Catholics agree with the idea that Anglicans had valid orders in 1896 – or any given number of years before or after that. But note the way Ratzinger phrases the declaration:

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations*

• DS 3315-3319

Note that Ratzinger did not, in this document, say that any Anglican priest have invalid orders. What he said is that Pope Leo XIII’s declaration, in 1896, was valid, and must “be held definitively” by Roman Catholics. So yes, there is disagreement, between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, on the status of Anglican orders in 1896, or any given number of years before or after that. But following the logic laid out in Apostolicae curae, and the basic ‘structure’ of what validates a sacrament, the Roman Catholic Church cannot, logically, say that every Anglican priest has invalid orders now. And that is, incidentally, also the conclusion drawn by the deceased Basil Cardinal Hume.

Ratzinger says that Pope Leo XIII’s declaration must “be held definitively” by Roman Catholics. But that declaration was of a historical nature. The situation is now changed. From the perspective of Roman Catholic theology, deduced from the principled laid out in Apostolicae curae, it is simply inconsistent to say that all Anglican priests have invalid orders.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why do you have to wait before Rome makes a decision?

Note that Ratzinger did not, in this document, say that any Anglican priest have invalid orders. What he said is that Pope Leo XIII’s declaration…was valid, and must “be held definitively” by Roman Catholics.

It appears that you have answered your own question.

 

[KjetilK]

It appears that you have answered your own question.

And it appears you thought that I would forget that the context of the first quote was Lutheran orders in Scandinavia and that the context of the second quote was Anglican orders in England. It seems you failed. Dishonesty doesn’t suit you.

 

[GKC]

Indeed Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement is well known and the obligation it places on members of his Church is clear. Anglicans can disagree with him without imputing to him any of the dishonesty of which you thought it proper to accuse the archbishops of England in your post 46.

Moderately well known, yep. Referenced often hereabouts. Been doing that for years now.

And in doing so, I oft make the observation that there has been no definitive and direct comment from Rome, as to the Dutch touch/Polish Pat, viewed in light of Ott, p. 458. And so it is. Myself, I agree with the quote from Fr. Moss, about what Rome would say of the joint consecrations, were it to say anything directly, and draw no further conclusions from it. But, this area being a hobby of mine, and it being a part of the overall sad, long, and complicated story, I find it interesting. And knowing the history, I relate it.

And I do continue to suggest that, amongst all the words I’ve read on the subject, the best, for an understanding of the history (and theology and personalities and politics involved) are Fr. J. J. Hughes 2 books (ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD) and (then Fr.) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. Fr. Hughes’ are rather more comprehensive.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

And it appears you thought that I would forget that the context of the first quote was Lutheran orders in Scandinavia and that the context of the second quote was Anglican orders in England. It seems you failed. Dishonesty doesn’t suit you.

Nor does it suit you, a Christian pastor, to bear false witness against me.

How am I being dishonest?

You asked why I must wait for Rome to make a decision regarding the validity of orders. It does not matter to me whose orders are being questioned; the list of churches whose orders are considered valid by Rome is short, and thus far, I don’t think yours is on it. Am I wrong?

Rome has determined that Anglican orders are (or were) utterly null and utterly void, and this decision is binding upon all Catholics.

So, why would I wait for Rome to decide about YOUR orders? Because Rome has the expertise and authority to determine such matters. If I’m going to err, it will be on the side of caution. If you think you have valid orders, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. Make your case in Rome.

If Rome decides that your orders are valid, then I am happy for you. You will be one step closer to full communion with the Catholic Church. However, I would continue to be concerned about all the other Lutherans throughout the world who BELIEVE one thing but RECEIVE another because without valid ordination, transubstantiation does not occur in their masses.

 

[KjetilK]

Nor does it suit you, a Christian pastor, to bear false witness against me.

How am I being dishonest?

What false witness? When you fabricate a supposed ‘answer’ that I have ‘given myself’ myself, composed of two sentences removed from their completely different contexts, then you are being dishonest. It has nothing to do with ‘bearing false witness.’

You asked why I must wait for Rome to make a decision regarding the validity of orders. It does not matter to me whose orders are being questioned; the list of churches whose orders are considered valid by Rome is short, and thus far, I don’t think yours is on it. Am I wrong?

The decision made in 1896 was based upon considerations on form and intent. That is easily applied to others as well. You don’t have to wait for someone to apply principles for you. On the question of form, no Scandinavian ordinal has ever denied the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, and on the question of intent, we can infer the intent to ordained sacrificial priests from, amongst others, two facts: First, when the Church of Norway and the Church of England decided to go into formal communion with each other through the Porvoo Communion, they each acknowledged the other’s theology to be an expression of the theology of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, including the Church of England’s rather explicit embrace of the Eucharistic sacrifice in dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church. This does imply, of course, that the respective Churches of any given dialogue actually believe what they say they believe. And secondly, but most important, that the official Latin and German text of Confessio Augustana doesn’t use presbyter, Pastor, etc., but Priester and sacerdos.

So no, you don’t have to wait for Rome to decide. And if we are to follow the principles laid out in Apostolicae curae, one cannot deny that all Scandinavian Lutheran priests have invalid orders. It is simply a case of using logic and applying principles.

Rome has determined that Anglican orders are (or were) utterly null and utterly void, and this decision is binding upon all Catholics.

Yes, it is binding on all Catholics that Pope Leo XIII’s declaration, in 1896, was valid. But that declaration was of a historical nature. The situation is now changed, and we can now assume that the majority of Anglican priests have valid orders, as acknowledged by the now deceased Basil Cardinal Hume. And by ‘priest’ I naturally mean a baptised and ordained male ordained by a male bishop. And by ‘bishop’ I naturally mean mean a baptised (, ordained) and episcopally consecrated male consecrated by a male bishop.

So, why would I wait for Rome to decide about YOUR orders? Because Rome has the expertise and authority to determine such matters. If I’m going to err, it will be on the side of caution. If you think you have valid orders, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. Make your case in Rome.

I have made my case. I haven’t implied that (all) Scandinavian priests have ever had invalid orders, but I have, argued from the perspective of Roman Catholic theology and have applied the principles Rome herself have used, and have shown that my orders are valid. I don’t need to have a declaration that logical rules apply everywhere.

If Rome decides that your orders are valid, then I am happy for you. You will be one step closer to full communion with the Catholic Church. However, I would continue to be concerned about all the other Lutherans throughout the world who BELIEVE one thing but RECEIVE another because without valid ordination, transubstantiation does not occur in their masses.

Yes, as I’ve said, we must follow truth. There are Lutheran priests and pastors whose orders are not valid from the perspective of apostolic successions. Following the logic of a Roman Catholic perspective, that may include some priests in the Church of Norway, but not those ordained by a bishop consecrated after the 1990s.

 

[commenter]

This is a good thread, but try to focus as much as possible on the original post, and issues related to that, rather than imputing motives or lack of honesty in other posters. The main priority is that everyone on this thread get to Heaven; a second priority is that we can satisfy our curiosity, share information, clarify some confused issues, and have some fun debating. That’s plenty.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What false witness? When you fabricate a supposed ‘answer’ that I have ‘given myself’ myself, composed of two sentences removed from their completely different contexts, then you are being dishonest. It has nothing to do with ‘bearing false witness.’

I was not being dishonest. You asked why I must wait for Rome. I wait for Rome on all major decisions REGARDLESS of whether they concern the Anglicans or the Lutherans, contraception or NFP, gay rights, what have you.

Now, the definition of dishonesty is “deceitfulness shown in someone’s character or behavior”. This implies intent. I could be ignorant or stupid without being intentionally dishonest. But to say that I was being dishonest is to say that I did so with full knowledge and desire to mislead. This is untrue.

Therefore, you have testified falsely against my character in a public forum.

So no, you don’t have to wait for Rome to decide. And if we are to follow the principles laid out in Apostolicae curae, one cannot deny that all Scandinavian Lutheran priests have invalid orders. It is simply a case of using logic and applying principles.

Oh, I see. So, I can simply review the facts for myself and decide that Rome’s rule no longer applies to those who are enlightened enough? Isn’t that what a lot of people did in anticipation of Humanae Vitae? Theologians and priests were so sure that Pope Paul was going to change Church teaching on contraception…but he surprised them all.

I think I’ll wait for something definitive concerning the Dutch Touch, thank you. In the interim, I do understand how it may be consoling to some to believe that their bishops and priests have finally had the deficiencies in their ordinations set right.

However, I’m not so sure that Lutheran forum members Jon, benjohnson and steido, etc. will be so comforted to read your arguments in favor of the Porvoo agreement - unless their own pastors have participated in it, of course.

Yes, it is binding on all Catholics that Pope Leo XIII’s declaration, in 1896, was valid. But that declaration was of a historical nature. The situation is now changed, and we can now assume that the majority of Anglican priests have valid orders,

Maybe. But until Rome formally lifts its declaration contained in Apostolicae Curae, I am still bound to follow its guidance.

I have made my case. I haven’t implied that (all) Scandinavian priests have ever had invalid orders, but I have, argued from the perspective of Roman Catholic theology and have applied the principles Rome herself have used, and have shown that my orders are valid. I don’t need to have a declaration that logical rules apply everywhere.

If Rome agrees with you, then you can say mass at my parish any time you like. Until then, not so much.

Yes, as I’ve said, we must follow truth. There are Lutheran priests and pastors whose orders are not valid from the perspective of apostolic successions. Following the logic of a Roman Catholic perspective, that may include some priests in the Church of Norway, but not those ordained by a bishop consecrated after the 1990s.

Again, I share your joy. That which was lost has been found (cf. Luke 15:8-10).

Still, in light of the gymnastics required to re-acquire valid ordinations, one has to wonder what ELSE may be lacking from Lutheranism.

In the end, you believe most of what Catholics believe and you have an obvious desire to be Catholic; why not simply go the final yard and enter full communion with the Royal Steward of your heavenly king?

 

[KjetilK]

I was not being dishonest. You asked why I must wait for Rome. I wait for Rome on all major decisions REGARDLESS of whether they concern the Anglicans or the Lutherans, contraception or NFP, gay rights, what have you.

Now, the definition of dishonesty is “deceitfulness shown in someone’s character or behavior”. This implies intent. I could be ignorant or stupid without being intentionally dishonest. But to say that I was being dishonest is to say that I did so with full knowledge and desire to mislead. This is untrue.

Therefore, you have testified falsely against my character in a public forum.

What you did was that you took two separated sentences, ripped them out of their respective contexts, and made the claim that I had “answered [my] own question.” That is simply false. The two sentences had nothing to do with one another, and was about two different Churches. And the fact remains that Roman Catholic theology doesn’t require you to sit down and wait for Rome to make a decision on every little detail. It allows you to take principles made in one context (for example that the form and intent of a bishop cannot be to ordain or consecrate a person who is not going to sacrifice), and apply it two another. Therefore you do not have to wait for Rome to decide on this question, since you can easily apply the principles from Apostolica curae. That you don’t like the conclusion is another matter. More below.

Oh, I see. So, I can simply review the facts for myself and decide that Rome’s rule no longer applies to those who are enlightened enough?

Huh?

Maybe. But until Rome formally lifts its declaration contained in Apostolicae Curae, I am still bound to follow its guidance.

On the historical situation in 1896, yes.

If Rome agrees with you, then you can say mass at my parish any time you like. Until then, not so much.

But this begs the question. You assume your conclusion. I don’t agree that Rome must acknowledge my orders for them to be valid. The validity of any given sacrament is contingent of four objective criteria: valid minister(s),* valid form, valid intent, and valid matter. It is not contingent on the recognition of Rome. If the four objective criteria is met, no declaration can change it.

(* In the case of marriage, the ministers are the couple, not the priest.)

In the end, you believe most of what Catholics believe and you have an obvious desire to be Catholic; why not simply go the final yard and enter full communion with the Royal Steward of your heavenly king?

Because I am already part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, through the particular Church of Norway, founded more than a thousand years ago. Should I leave it, it would have to be because I was, in some sense, forced out.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because I am already part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, through the particular Church of Norway, founded more than a thousand years ago.

Gee, only one millennium later than my church was founded.

Should I leave it, it would have to be because I was, in some sense, forced out.

Given the trajectory of your Porvoo brothers who have approved the ordinations of women and practicing homosexuals, I would think this possibility is in the forefront of your mind.

 

[GKC]

This is a good thread, but try to focus as much as possible on the original post, and issues related to that, rather than imputing motives or lack of honesty in other posters. The main priority is that everyone on this thread get to Heaven; a second priority is that we can satisfy our curiosity, share information, clarify some confused issues, and have some fun debating. That’s plenty.

And, occasionally, too much.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

Gee, only one millennium later than my church was founded.

Being an American, your Church - your particular Church - would be your diocese, or perhaps the first Roman Catholic diocese in the US. That means it wasn’t founded until after the 17th or 18th century. My Church was founded around 995, my diocese in 1068.

Given the trajectory of your Porvoo brothers who have approved the ordinations of women and practicing homosexuals, I would think this possibility is in the forefront of your mind.

Well, in the Church of Norway there are provisions for us. It is written into its laws that one can reject the orders of a womenpriest (but not vice verca), primarily through a code of practice. Work is done now to get something like the resolutions in the Church of England. But trust me, if I am ‘cast out’ I will leave.

 

[Mystophilus]

This is a good thread, but try to focus as much as possible on the original post, and issues related to that, rather than imputing motives or lack of honesty in other posters. The main priority is that everyone on this thread get to Heaven; a second priority is that we can satisfy our curiosity, share information, clarify some confused issues, and have some fun debating. That’s plenty.

:clapping:

 

[adf417]

:clapping:

Me 3

 

[Randy_Carson]

Being an American, your Church - your particular Church - would be your diocese, or perhaps the first Roman Catholic diocese in the US. That means it wasn’t founded until after the 17th or 18th century. My Church was founded around 995, my diocese in 1068.

Oh, yeah…well…well…my bishop can beat up your bishop with one hand tied behind his back.

Well, in the Church of Norway there are provisions for us. It is written into its laws that one can reject the orders of a womenpriest (but not vice verca), primarily through a code of practice. Work is done now to get something like the resolutions in the Church of England. But trust me, if I am ‘cast out’ I will leave.

I believe you. :yup:

 

[commenter]

Well, in the Church of Norway there are provisions for us. It is written into its laws that one can reject the orders of a womenpriest (but not vice verca), primarily through a code of practice. Work is done now to get something like the resolutions in the Church of England. But trust me, if I am ‘cast out’ I will leave.

I hope you aren’t cast out. If you do leave, my guess is that you will join some other group that lives up to the Sermon on the Mount; not necessarily those who make the sharpest arguments.