Do Anglican bishops have Apostolic Succession?

[Randy_Carson]

No, matter is the imposition of hands, as Pius XII finally defined (SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS).

GKC

Are you sure?

In the Eucharist, the matter is the bread and wine…they have to be properly made, etc. It is not possible to consecrate oreos and pepsi. Form would prohibit a priest from consecrating a passing bread truck.

Or am I wrong?

 

[GKC]

Well, yeah, but that’s like all the people except those who didn’t leave the big room aren’t in the big room anymore.

All that aside, from everybody’s favorite source:

Or in short, if you’re not trying to make an actual bishop, but just something that you happen to call a bishop, then you don’t actually end up making an actual bishop but rather something you just happen to call a bishop.

What is that quote?

Not intention of the rite. The sacramental intent inheres in the minister of the sacrament.

Anglicans, as you might guess, take a different view of the matter (intent, form, etc).

GKC

 

[GKC]

Are you sure?

In the Eucharist, the matter is the bread and wine…they have to be properly made, etc. It is not possible to consecrate oreos and pepsi. Form would prohibit a priest from consecrating a passing bread truck.

Or am I wrong?

'Fraid so.

Check my reference.

GKC

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Here’s a link to a current ACNA Bishop’s line of succession. As seen, it goes through Union of Ultrecht, Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches. I think the variety of lines speaks in itself to intent.

Bishop Derek Jones is currently the Deanery (soon to be a Diocese) Bishop for Chaplaincy of both the Anglican Church in North America and Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

As the ACNA creates the new Book of Common Prayer, the first item covered (years before the rest), has been the Ordinal in order to ensure valid ordinations.

PAX

 

[Iron_Donkey]

What is that quote?

The quote is from wikipedia - I freely admit is kind of lame, except they’re often right.

Not intention of the rite. The sacramental intent inheres in the minister of the sacrament.

Anglicans, as you might guess, take a different view of the matter (intent, form, etc).

GKC

Yeah, but if I thought Anglicans were right, I’d be one. If Anglicanism is true, then they have valid bishops. If Catholicism is true, then they don’t.

 

[GKC]

The quote is from wikipedia - I freely admit is kind They were, on that.of lame, except they’re often right.

Yeah, but if I thought Anglicans were right, I’d be one. If Anglicanism is true, then they have valid bishops. If Catholicism is true, then they don’t.

I am not a complete skeptic on wiki, but often they are wrong, too. As they were here.

Anglicanism could have valid bishops, yet not be true, in the sense you mean. It would make them schismatic, as they are, but schismatic in the sense the OCs of Utrecht, and the PNCC are schismatic. With valid/illicit orders.

GKC

 

[Steveabrous]

I have wondered about this.

There has been an unbroken line of bishops which can be traced back to before their split with the Roman Catholic Church. So do Anglican bishops have Apostolic Succession?

I’m interested in this both from the Catholic perspective, and the Anglican perspective. Anyone got any views on this?

No they do not. They changed their ordination formula shortly after they split with us, rendering their ordination invalid.

That is why other schismatic groups like the EO and the Polish national catholic church have valid apostolic succession ( they didn’t change their ordination formula), and the Anglicans do not ( they did)

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I am not a complete skeptic on wiki, but often they are wrong, too. As they were here.

Anglicanism could have valid bishops, yet not be true, in the sense you mean. It would make them schismatic, as they are, but schismatic in the sense the OCs of Utrecht, and the PNCC are schismatic. With valid/illicit orders.

GKC

Precisely.

Also, some points for what it’s worth:

(a) GKC is certainly correct that the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the laying on of hands. So it’s not really accurate/precise to say that a woman is “invalid matter” for ordination. Rather, a woman is not a valid *subject *on whom sacerdotal ordination can be conferred. She would not be a valid recipient of the Sacrament. This is different from the Sacrament’s matter.

(b) Attempts to ordain women to the priesthood do not necessarily mean that a given communion’s Orders all have invalid intent. Remember that valid intent requires only that a person “intend to do what the Church does.” So, for instance, even “believer’s baptism” Baptist types confer a valid baptism when they baptize, despite how different their theology on baptism is. The intent to “do what the Church does when she baptizes” is sufficient.

I’d venture to suggest that it’s the same with Holy Orders. If the Anglican Communion had valid Orders, the attempted ordinations of women wouldn’t invalidate otherwise valid ordinations conferred on baptized Anglican men.

(c) And perhaps most significantly, Yes, Catholics shouldn’t contradict Leo XIII on the invalidity of Anglican Orders. But Apostolicae Curae was promulgated in 1896. The so-called Dutch touch postdates Leo’s pronouncement, and since the theory seems sound and solid, it is, I imagine, quite likely that there are indeed true, validly ordained Anglican deacons, presbyters, and bishops out there.

How many, who they are, etc., no one can really know. The Anglican Communion is an incredibly diverse body, theologically and liturgically. But for the traditional, high-church-oriented Anglican communities out there, their form and intent are certainly valid today. The only missing ingredient would be someone whose valid episcopal consecration enables him to actually confer ordination. And the “Dutch touch” fills that requirement.

 

[GKC]

Precisely.

Also, some points for what it’s worth:

(a) GKC is certainly correct that the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the laying on of hands. So it’s not really accurate/precise to say that a woman is “invalid matter” for ordination. Rather, a woman is not a valid *subject *on whom sacerdotal ordination can be conferred. She would not be a valid recipient of the Sacrament. This is different from the Sacrament’s matter.

(b) Attempts to ordain women to the priesthood do not necessarily mean that a given communion’s Orders all have invalid intent. Remember that valid intent requires only that a person “intend to do what the Church does.” So, for instance, even “believer’s baptism” Baptist types confer a valid baptism when they baptize, despite how different their theology on baptism is. The intent to “do what the Church does when she baptizes” is sufficient.

I’d venture to suggest that it’s the same with Holy Orders. If the Anglican Communion had valid Orders, the attempted ordinations of women wouldn’t invalidate otherwise valid ordinations conferred on baptized Anglican men.

(c) And perhaps most significantly, Yes, Catholics shouldn’t contradict Leo XIII on the invalidity of Anglican Orders. But Apostolicae Curae was promulgated in 1896. The so-called Dutch touch postdates Leo’s pronouncement, and since the theory seems sound and solid, it is, I imagine, quite likely that there are indeed true, validly ordained Anglican deacons, presbyters, and bishops out there.

How many, who they are, etc., no one can really know. The Anglican Communion is an incredibly diverse body, theologically and liturgically. But for the traditional, high-church-oriented Anglican communities out there, their form and intent are certainly valid today. The only missing ingredient would be someone whose valid episcopal consecration enables him to actually confer ordination. And the “Dutch touch” fills that requirement.

Indeed. Facere quod facit ecclesia.

As to how wide spread the Dutch touch would be, very. Assuming that all other sacramental aspects are valid, it would seem, logically, that the OC/PNCC joint consecrations infused valid/illicit lines into Anglicanism, while it occurred. And the Anglican bishops thus consecrated further transmit that lineage, as they consecrate/ordain, in turn. But that is an assumption.

GKC

 

[GKC]

No they do not. They changed their ordination formula shortly after they split with us, rendering their ordination invalid.

That is why other schismatic groups like the EO and the Polish national catholic church have valid apostolic succession ( they didn’t change their ordination formula), and the Anglicans do not ( they did)

The issue is not form only. The form is “defective”, only in the sense that other forms that the RCC does recognize as conveying valid orders is “defective”. The judgement in Apostolicae Curae makes the intertwined issues of form and sacramental intent (neither alone) as the point. Complicated. As is a lot of history.

GKC

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I am not a complete skeptic on wiki, but often they are wrong, too. As they were here.

Anglicanism could have valid bishops, yet not be true, in the sense you mean. It would make them schismatic, as they are, but schismatic in the sense the OCs of Utrecht, and the PNCC are schismatic. With valid/illicit orders.

GKC

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that not being completely true was enough to make ordinations invalid, but rather that their different understanding of how the sacrament works only makes a difference if it is right.

As for the rest - all I can say is that a couple bishops came over this way with the ordinariate thing a while back, and as far as I can tell they were just ordained and not conditionally ordained (though I am not absolutely certain about that), which seems to suggest that there wasn’t any serious consideration given to the idea that they might already have orders by the Church.

 

[GKC]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that not being completely true was enough to make ordinations invalid, but rather that their different understanding of how the sacrament works only makes a difference if it is right.

As for the rest - all I can say is that a couple bishops came over this way with the ordinariate thing a while back, and as far as I can tell they were just ordained and not conditionally ordained (though I am not absolutely certain about that), which seems to suggest that there wasn’t any serious consideration given to the idea that they might already have orders by the Church.

As far as I know, all the Anglican clergy who came in through the ordinariate provisions were ordained absolutely, not sub conditione. Indeed, since Apostolicae Curae was issued, I know of only two Anglicans who were ordained sub conditione: Fr. J.J Hughes, and Fr. Graham Leonard, one time CoE Bishop of London. In both cases, the Dutch Touch was rumored to play a part.

GKC

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Indeed. Facere quod facit ecclesia.

As to how wide spread the Dutch touch would be, very. Assuming that all other sacramental aspects are valid, it would seem, logically, that the OC/PNCC joint consecrations infused valid/illicit lines into Anglicanism, while it occurred. And the Anglican bishops thus consecrated further transmit that lineage, as they consecrate/ordain, in turn. But that is an assumption.

GKC

I agree, but - I ask since I’m pretty sure you know more about Anglican Christianity than I do - how widespread in the various communities within the Anglican Communion is the intent to do what the Church does when she ordains - that is, to confer on men a Sacrament that enables them to offer sacrifice, to stand in persona Christi and re-present Christ’s perfect sacrifice to the Father while making that sacrifice present to the faithful assembled together?

I understand that Anglican Christianity is incredibly diverse, and that only some Anglicans share this truly orthodox and Catholic view.

Or is it actually a lot/most Anglican Christians?

The issue is not form only. The form is “defective”, only in the sense that other forms that the RCC does recognize as conveying valid orders is “defective”. The judgement in Apostolicae Curae makes the intertwined issues of form and sacramental intent (neither alone) as the point. Complicated. As is a lot of history.

GKC

Oh, another excellent point! I actually didn’t think about how form and matter must be looked at together in this case.

It kind of reminds me of the Holy See’s response to the question of LDS (Mormon) baptism. They use the verbal Trinitarian formula, which is valid in and of itself, but when coupled with their intent and their henotheistic theology of God, the form becomes invalid in its particularly Mormon application.

Of course, I agree that it’s long been clear that traditional Anglicans now have ordinations with valid form and intent. It’s just having a valid minister of the Sacrament that used to be a problem…

(And by the way, I really don’t think I’m contradicting Leo XIII by saying all this, since the “Dutch touch” wasn’t a factor back then.)

 

[GKC]

I agree, but - I ask since I’m pretty sure you know more about Anglican Christianity than I do - how widespread in the various communities within the Anglican Communion is the intent to do what the Church does when she ordains - that is, to confer on men a Sacrament that enables them to offer sacrifice, to stand in persona Christi and re-present Christ’s perfect sacrifice to the Father while making that sacrifice present to the faithful assembled together?

I understand that Anglican Christianity is incredibly diverse, and that only some Anglicans share this truly orthodox and Catholic view.

Or is it actually a lot/most Anglican Christians?

Oh, another excellent point! I actually didn’t think about how form and matter must be looked at together in this case.

It kind of reminds me of the Holy See’s response to the question of LDS (Mormon) baptism. They use the verbal Trinitarian formula, which is valid in and of itself, but when coupled with their intent and their henotheistic theology of God, the form becomes invalid in its particularly Mormon application.

Of course, I agree that it’s long been clear that traditional Anglicans now have ordinations with valid form and intent. It’s just having a valid minister of the Sacrament that used to be a problem…

(And by the way, I really don’t think I’m contradicting Leo XIII by saying all this, since the “Dutch touch” wasn’t a factor back then.)

I won’t attempt a guess as to what the break out of the current Anglican zoo is, as to intent, re: orders. I have little to do with Anglicanism, in its formal Anglican Communion form There was a time when I would say that it was commonplace, and the norm, to intend quod facit ecclesia, certainly within the Anglo-Catholic portions.Now, - I don’t know. Motley is the word. But then, as Apostoliae Curae points out, sacramental intent is internal, not observable. One therefore assumes valid intent if other sacramental aspects are valid. Unless there is something to permit a determinatio ex adiunctus. Which the use of the Edwardine ordinal taken to be.

All I can say is amongst Anglicans of my flavor, you may rest assured.

As to the Dutch touch, I never make presumptions as to what it might or might not mean, to the RCC. Nor do I worry overly about it. My late rector was ordained by an Anglican bishop who was himself consecrated by one with direct PNCC lines. But what that means to Rome, I couldn’t say.

GKC

 

[Boulder257]

How many, who they are, etc., no one can really know. The Anglican Communion is an incredibly diverse body, theologically and liturgically. But for the traditional, high-church-oriented Anglican communities out there, their form and intent are certainly valid today. The only missing ingredient would be someone whose valid episcopal consecration enables him to actually confer ordination. And the “Dutch touch” fills that requirement.

Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread, but what exactly is the “Dutch touch.” You don’t need to explain it to me. Pointing to a reference would be fine.

Thanks.

 

[GKC]

Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread, but what exactly is the “Dutch touch.” You don’t need to explain it to me. Pointing to a reference would be fine.

Thanks.

Explaining is easier.

The context is the judgement, in the Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896), that Anglican Holy Orders are null and void. A lengthy subject in itself.

In 1932 the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics of Utrecht entered into full ecumenical relations. This included regular, joint consecrations of bishops. Since the Old Catholics/Utrecht, while not in communion with the RCC, were still held, by the RCC, to possess valid Orders, and apostolic succession, and since, in such a case, it would appear that the RCC holds that such bishops do impart valid orders, assuming all other sacramental factors are equally valid, it is logical to assume that the participation of OC bishops in Anglican consecrations confers valid orders. Which the Anglican bishops then further pass on, in their own work.

Consecrating a bishop includes the laying on of hands. This is the Dutch touch. An analogous situation involving Anglicans and the Polish National Catholic Church, since 1946, is called the Polish pat.

While the assumption mentioned is logical, it is not known what the RCC officially says on the subject.

Complicated issue. More details possibly available.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

'Fraid so.

Check my reference.

GKC

Okay, I read the reference. Twice.

I wonder if the pope might have stated more concerning “matter” had the ordination of women been at issue in his day…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Explaining is easier.

The context is the judgement, in the Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896), that Anglican Holy Orders are null and void. A lengthy subject in itself.

In 1932 the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics of Utrecht entered into full ecumenical relations. This included regular, joint consecrations of bishops. Since the Old Catholics/Utrecht, while not in communion with the RCC, were still held, by the RCC, to possess valid Orders, and apostolic succession, and since, in such a case, it would appear that the RCC holds that such bishops do impart valid orders, assuming all other sacramental factors are equally valid, it is logical to assume that the participation of OC bishops in Anglican consecrations confers valid orders. Which the Anglican bishops then further pass on, in their own work.

Consecrating a bishop includes the laying on of hands. This is the Dutch touch. An analogous situation involving Anglicans and the Polish National Catholic Church, since 1946, is called the Polish pat.

While the assumption mentioned is logical, it is not known what the RCC officially says on the subject.

Complicated issue. More details possibly available.

GKC

1932 is a long time ago. This could mean that all Anglican priests alive today are validly ordained.

Interesting.

I wonder if the bull had anything to do with Anglicans entering into an agreement with the Old Catholics.

Maybe they said (quietly), “Gee, what if he’s right?”

 

[GKC]

1932 is a long time ago. This could mean that all Anglican priests alive today are validly ordained.

Interesting.

I wonder if the bull had anything to do with Anglicans entering into an agreement with the Old Catholics.

Maybe they said (quietly), “Gee, what if he’s right?”

'No, I wouldn’t go so far as to say all Anglican priests. There are other things to consider. And remember, Rome has not officially commented on what the Dutch touch might mean, if anything. But the Dutch touch is certainly widely spread in the Anglican world.

No, as to your speculation. The talks between the Anglicans and the OCs predate
Apostolicae Curae by 20-25 years. See Moss/THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT.

GKC

 

[commenter]

Explaining is easier.

The context is the judgement, in the Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896), that Anglican Holy Orders are null and void. A lengthy subject in itself.

In 1932 the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics of Utrecht entered into full ecumenical relations. This included regular, joint consecrations of bishops. Since the Old Catholics/Utrecht, while not in communion with the RCC, were still held, by the RCC, to possess valid Orders, and apostolic succession, and since, in such a case, it would appear that the RCC holds that such bishops do impart valid orders, assuming all other sacramental factors are equally valid, it is logical to assume that the participation of OC bishops in Anglican consecrations confers valid orders. Which the Anglican bishops then further pass on, in their own work.

Consecrating a bishop includes the laying on of hands. This is the Dutch touch. An analogous situation involving Anglicans and the Polish National Catholic Church, since 1946, is called the Polish pat…

GKC

As always, your explanation is welcome. I would suggest that your reference to the Polish pat be clarified, that it went from 1946 UNTIL about 1979. They broke off relations then.