I ran into a Lutheran Woman Priest. Felt a little odd seeing her

[GKC]

A suggestion. An excellent volume for your library would be “The Defence of the Priesthood” by St. John Fisher with an introduction by Stanley L. Jaki.

Jaki’s introduction is smashing and the appendix contains Fisher’s famous “Sermon against Luther”. The “Sermon” has been transcribed into modern English by Dr. Anne Barbeau Gardiner.

Perhaps you will get a clearer understanding of the Catholic teachings regarding jurisdiction, valid/licit orders, etc.,

I certainly would be happy to acquire that. Always glad to learn something. Whether I would, in this case, would remain to be seen. I do doubt that St. John will address the particular point of the Dutch Touch, though.

GKC

 

[GKC]

True. There is that to be said for it.

Your sang froid in the face of provocation puts me to shame. The advice on reading matter you must find particularly helpful.

One can never have too many books. Only too few shelves.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

I certainly would be happy to acquire that. Always glad to learn something. Whether I would, in this case, would remain to be seen. I do doubt that St. John will address the particular point of the Dutch Touch, though.

GKC

Well, when it comes right down to it GK, there is one succinct word for the Dutch Touchers - sacrilege.

I am reminded of Acts 8:18-24. While, in no way am I accusing the Dutch Touchers of simony, one must certainly wonder what their intentions were for attempting to receive valid and licit orders. It is interesting to see that is was Peter and not Caesar who set the old magician straight. The most obvious way for the Dutch Touchers to receive valid and licit orders would be to renounce their schism and heresy and come home to Rome. Of course, submission to the Roman Pontiff would really be the deal breaker. Perhaps that is why the Dutch Touchers attempted the end around play.

I must say that ol’ Henry really scored big time when he confiscated Church goods and property. Ravenous wolf! His intentions were clear as day. I suppose when he assumed jurisdiction over the Church the power really went to his head.

 

[steido01]

I must say that ol’ Henry really scored big time when he confiscated Church goods and property. Ravenous wolf! His intentions were clear as day. I suppose when he assumed jurisdiction over the Church the power really went to his head.

What does this have to do with the thread or valid/licit orders?

Popes commonly seized property. Were they ravenous wolves?

 

[GKC]

Well, when it comes right down to it GK, there is one succinct word for the Dutch Touchers - sacrilege.

I am reminded of Acts 8:18-24. While, in no way am I accusing the Dutch Touchers of simony, one must certainly wonder what their intentions were for attempting to receive valid and licit orders. It is interesting to see that is was Peter and not Caesar who set the old magician straight. The most obvious way for the Dutch Touchers to receive valid and licit orders would be to renounce their schism and heresy and come home to Rome. Of course, submission to the Roman Pontiff would really be the deal breaker. Perhaps that is why the Dutch Touchers attempted the end around play.

I must say that ol’ Henry really scored big time when he confiscated Church goods and property. Ravenous wolf! His intentions were clear as day. I suppose when he assumed jurisdiction over the Church the power really went to his head.

I do suggest some more background reading on the Agreement of Bonn. Maybe the Willibrord Society.

The confiscation of Church property wasn’t originally Hank’s idea. But he certainly went for it.

Ott doesn’t use the word sacrilege, when discussing what a valid bishop, not in communion with Rome, may validly do but if it is, then certainly a formal statement of the RCC on the question might say so.

I’m patient.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, when it comes right down to it GK, there is one succinct word for the Dutch Touchers - sacrilege.

I am reminded of Acts 8:18-24. While, in no way am I accusing the Dutch Touchers of simony, one must certainly wonder what their intentions were for attempting to receive valid and licit orders. It is interesting to see that is was Peter and not Caesar who set the old magician straight. The most obvious way for the Dutch Touchers to receive valid and licit orders would be to renounce their schism and heresy and come home to Rome. Of course, submission to the Roman Pontiff would really be the deal breaker. Perhaps that is why the Dutch Touchers attempted the end around play.

I must say that ol’ Henry really scored big time when he confiscated Church goods and property. Ravenous wolf! His intentions were clear as day. I suppose when he assumed jurisdiction over the Church the power really went to his head.

I’m afraid you are persisting in misunderstanding the circumstances of the Dutch Touch. It was not an attempt by the Church of England to achieve valid orders. The CofE had no doubt of the validity of her orders. It was simply the result of intercommunion agreed between Old Catholics and the CofE, itself resulting from discussions which long preceded the Pope’s statement on Anglican orders.

 

[KjetilK]

Well, when it comes right down to it GK, there is one succinct word for the Dutch Touchers - sacrilege.

It is not any more sacrilegious than Orthodox bishops ordaining Orthodox priests. They are fully recognised as Catholic by Rome, yet they are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

 

[commenter]

The subject has interested me for around 15 years. I got a small library on the matter (and the form, and the intent).

GKC

 

[GKC]

I occasionally do that. The opportunity comes up repeatedly.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

I’m afraid you are persisting in misunderstanding the circumstances of the Dutch Touch. It was not an attempt by the Church of England to achieve valid orders. The CofE had no doubt of the validity of her orders. It was simply the result of intercommunion agreed between Old Catholics and the CofE, itself resulting from discussions which long preceded the Pope’s statement on Anglican orders.

Sorry, Leo XIII’s definitive statement regarding Anglican orders being null and void was something the Catholic world knew well before Apostolicae Curae was pronounced. Leo just wanted to revisit the matter when the subject was brought to his attention. And revisit it he did with much scholarship, consultation and humility.

Already in 1555, Pope Paul IV, in the bull Praeclara carissimi, and the brief Regimini universalis, had declared null the orders conferred according to Edward’s Ordinal - a declaration which traced the guidelines constantly followed by his successors.

Thus, since the entire Anglican hierarchy descends from Matthew Parker, who was consecrated bishop according to the Edwardian rite, it is absolutely devoid of holy orders and of the character annexed therto.

It is historically certain that the authors of the Edwardian rite wanted to exclude all reference to the Mass; therefore their intention was diametrically opposed to that of Christ who instituted holy orders for the principle purpose of renewing the Eucharistic sacrifice. Besides the Church of England does not recognize holy orders as a sacrament anyway, whereas the Old Catholics do.

What did the Old Catholics and Church of England agree on anyway?

 

[Tomster]

As do many folk, you misunderstand what the Articles are. They are in no sense an Anglican confession, nor are they necessarily binding on any Anglican, save, in a technical sense. on clergy in the Church of England, per the Parliamentary Act of Subscription/1571. This is one reason why, in the American 1977 book you are looking at, the Articles are found in a section on historical documents. Which is what they are, religion as statecraft; how the Elizabethan Church chose to deal with circumstances in that day and time. As you note, not all Anglicans look to the 1977 book. Not all Anglicans look to the Articles, either (though you and any Trinitarian Christian would not have an issue with many of them).

Anglicans do make a distinction amongst the seven sacraments, but that distinction in itself varies. What the Articles state is not usually disputed, and two of the seven are referred to as Dominical, established in their form by Our Lord. But, amongst Anglicans, generally (not exhaustively), one finds an acceptance of seven. However, one must never make generalizations about Anglicans, of course, as we all know.

You also misunderstand the Act of Bonn, which traces its roots back to the 1870s, for full inter-communion between the Old Catholics/Utrecht, and Anglicanism, years before Apostolicae curae. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT is suggested for background.

GKC

How can an article of faith not be binding? Articles of faith in theological science have the function of fundamental principles, which, i.e. theologians, accept without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, absolute truth.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Sorry, Leo XIII’s definitive statement regarding Anglican orders being null and void was something the Catholic world knew well before Apostolicae Curae was pronounced. Leo just wanted to revisit the matter when the subject was brought to his attention. And revisit it he did with much scholarship, consultation and humility.

Already in 1555, Pope Paul IV, in the bull Praeclara carissimi, and the brief Regimini universalis, had declared null the orders conferred according to Edward’s Ordinal - a declaration which traced the guidelines constantly followed by his successors.

Thus, since the entire Anglican hierarchy descends from Matthew Parker, who was consecrated bishop according to the Edwardian rite, it is absolutely devoid of holy orders and of the character annexed therto.

It is historically certain that the authors of the Edwardian rite wanted to exclude all reference to the Mass; therefore their intention was diametrically opposed to that of Christ who instituted holy orders for the principle purpose of renewing the Eucharistic sacrifice. Besides the Church of England does not recognize holy orders as a sacrament anyway, whereas the Old Catholics do.

What did the Old Catholics and Church of England agree on anyway?

Yes, if you wish to persist in thinking the Church of England was trying to get validity by the back door you will do so. I suggest you are misleading yourself.

What the two agreed after their discussions is easy enough to discover:

willibrord.org/bonn_en.html

 

[KjetilK]

Thus, since the entire Anglican hierarchy descends from Matthew Parker

Well, this is where the Church of England disagrees. Where is the evidence that the entire Anglican hierarchy descends from Matthew Parker? And even if it did, that is a moot point (or a moo point, as Joey would say). Apostolicae curae, if accurate, is a judgement of the history of Anglican orders (or at least the Orders of the Church of England, specifically) up until 1896. The document does not have magical properties, extending forward in time.

Since the 1930s, the Church of England has received valid orders, given through Old Catholic bishops. These bishops specifically made the point that these consecrations was to include everything that belongs to a bishop, presumably including his sacrificial office. As GKC points out, when +van Vlijmen, OC Bishop of Haarlem was con-consecrator with +Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, the intent was 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 the 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.” This is quoted from Appendix II, footnote 3, in Fr. John J. Hughes’ Stewards of the Lord (emphasis in original).

What was intended, then, was to impart on the ordinand in question ‘the fullness of the priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same’ as that is understood in Catholic churches (‘everywhere, always, and by all,’ quite obviously citing St. Vincent of Lerins). This clearly included the ‘sacrificial part’ of the episcopal office. This consecration, then, reintroduced apostolic succession to the Church of England (or at least reintroduced it in such a way that Roman Catholics couldn’t disagree with it without conflating validity and liceity).

This should logically imply validity, but not necessarily liceity (in the eyes of Rome). Remember, once again that validity and liceity is not the same thing.

 

[GKC]

How can an article of faith not be binding? Articles of faith in theological science have the function of fundamental principles, which, i.e. theologians, accept without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, absolute truth.

The XXXIX Articles are not articles of faith for Anglicanism, in general. They are not even binding on the Church of England members, generally. They are technically a form of job description for clergy in the CoE, as established by the Act of Parliament referenced in my previous post; theology as statecraft, in the Elizabethan Compromise. Anglicanism, outside of the CoE, is not erastian. Parliamentary law does not bind Anglicans, in general. Anglicans, generally, can decide to what extent the Articles are applicable, relevant or normative, from completely, up to not at all. or Anglicans (generally) may cut them from their Prayer Books, and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Or, more restrainedly, may place them in a section of the book reserved for historical documents. Which they are. Or, may follow Resolution 43 of the 1968 Lambeth Conference, 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.**

The Articles are not an Anglican confession (though Anglicanism being what it is, Anglicans might choose to treat them as such). Anglicanism, generally, is Creedal, not confessional.

The word is “motley”.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yes, if you wish to persist in thinking the Church of England was trying to get validity by the back door you will do so. I suggest you are misleading yourself.

What the two agreed after their discussions is easy enough to discover:

willibrord.org/bonn_en.html

The absolute best book on what happened and why, regarding Apostolicae curae, focusing on the history, personalities, politics (and the story involves all of that) and (in this book, a little less on) the theology, is Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. There is no better account of what happened after Halifax and the Abbe Portal met on the island of Maderia in 1890, through September 1896.

For the theology, I recommend Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, or Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENT, though there are others equally useful.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

The absolute best book on what happened and why, regarding Apostolicae curae, focusing on the history, personalities, politics (and the story involves all of that) and (in this book, a little less on) the theology, is Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. There is no better account of what happened after Halifax and the Abbe Portal met on the island of Maderia in 1890, through September 1896.

For the theology, I recommend Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, or Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENT, though there are others equally useful.

GKC

The names are strangely familiar.

 

[GKC]

The names are strangely familiar.

To me, too.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

To say that the Church of Norway has regained apostolic succession from the Church of England who regained it from the Old Catholic bishops is a fiction.

I believe you may find that your Church believes otherwise.

Valid ordination through a valid line of Bishops is accepted, even in a schismatic community. The Church of Norway, the Old Catholic and the PNCC represent some unique situations.

 At a conference in 1872 in Cologne the name Old Catholic, emphasizing the traditional point of view these people believed they were accepting, was adopted. A committee no less was established to prepare for the election of a bishop. In 1873, Joseph Hubert Reinkens was elected by the Old Catholics and ordained by a bishop of the schismatic Utrecht Church. Of course, since the bishops of Utrecht were validly (but not lawfully) ordained, Reinkens was as well.

And that is the point. The ordination is still considered valid, but illicit.

We will not heal the wounds to unity by rejecting things that the Church does not!

Some German bishops in communion with the See of Peter (lawful and licit with the power of jurisdiction) responded to the movement, for that is all it was, by denying the sacraments and imposing the penalties of canon law on the dissenters including suspensions for priests and excommunication.

This is what the congregation for ecumenism is working through now.

Additionally, for your information, by accepting Anglican Orders as valid and licit, the Old Catholics really sealed the deal as one might say. The problem here for the Old Catholics is that the Church declared Anglican Orders absolutely null and void.

I trust you will continue your studies in this rea, Tomster. I know what an avid student you are.

I can recommend GKC as an excellent resource for you here at CAF.

Regarding your specific condition as a self proclaimed priest, Catholic Canon Law, Title III - Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Functions and Offenses in Their Exercise Canon -  1378, #2, 1 states: " The following incure  an automatic (latae sententiae) suspension penalty of interdict or if a cleric, an automatic (latae sententiae) suspension; one who has not been promoted to the priestly order and who attempts to enact the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Non-Catholic pastors and priest are almost always re-ordained because the form and intention of the rites under which they have been ordained have been changed. However, the priests of the Church of Norway are not play acting. They are ordained within the tradition in which they were born and raised, one which at one time was in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

So much for your perceived notion of apostolic succession.

Is such a disparaging attitude necessary?

 

[guanophore]

Apostolic succession requires something more than valid ordination.

It is quite true that Apostolic succession (valid ordination) is only one part of what marks the True Church. It is also true that part of that Apostolic authority is the power to bind and loose. The authority to legislate (make the function of the ordained licit and illicit) is also part of that Apostolic Succession.

We may admit not only the fact, but also the validity of a bishop's consecration, and yet deny him, even when validly consecrated, any participation in the divine commission given by Christ to His Apostles, any claim to Apostolic succession.

I am not sure who you consider yourself to be here with your royal “we” Tomster, but this is not a function of the laity. The permission to function as an ordained minister lies directly with the bishop doing the ordaining.

Valid ordination is essential to, but insufficient for, legitimate succession. In the whole history of the Christian Church, there is nothing more evident than this, that when a bishop or a priest, or bishops and priests, revolted against ecclesiastical authority, or contumaciously erred against faith, they were silenced, suspended, deprived of their faculties, deposed from their sees.

And there were times when valid and licit priests and bishops were deposed.

The Church, which had commissioned them and given them authority, jurisdiction, a right to teach, and assigned them a mission in which to exercise their ministry, simply revoked their commission, recalled her grant of powers, and annulled all license to act for her, in her name, or by her authority.

Wherein lies the problem with validly ordained persons who do not recognize that authority.

She holds the same principles today; schismatical and heretical bishops such as the bishops of the Greek Church, the Jansenist bishops of Holland, and Reinkens, the itinerant Old Catholic bishop of Germany even if validly ordained, have no share in the Apostolic commission, have no jurisdiction, they are not sent, and how will they preach? They are thus cut off from communion with the Church, broken off from the chain of Apostolic succession.

I think this is an area where you will need to apply yourself to some study, Tomster. The CC considers the orders and sacraments of the EO churches (including the Greeks) as valid and licit. Roman Catholics can fulfill their sacramental obligations in the Greek Church. Although we are not in full communion, they are certainly not considered “cut off”.

…destined to spread over and embrace the habitable globe. This supreme authority vested in the Apostolic See, not by the canons, but by the Lord Jesus Himself in founding His Church, the bishops in every age admitted all are subject to the keys of Peter, kings and people, prelates and priests; we own it with joy, for we love unity, and glory in obedience.

I think you left out a reference here.

 

[GKC]

It is quite true that Apostolic succession (valid ordination) is only one part of what marks the True Church. It is also true that part of that Apostolic authority is the power to bind and loose. The authority to legislate (make the function of the ordained licit and illicit) is also part of that Apostolic Succession.

I am not sure who you consider yourself to be here with your royal “we” Tomster, but this is not a function of the laity. The permission to function as an ordained minister lies directly with the bishop doing the ordaining.

And there were times when valid and licit priests and bishops were deposed.

Wherein lies the problem with validly ordained persons who do not recognize that authority.

I think this is an area where you will need to apply yourself to some study, Tomster. The CC considers the orders and sacraments of the EO churches (including the Greeks) as valid and licit. Roman Catholics can fulfill their sacramental obligations in the Greek Church. Although we are not in full communion, they are certainly not considered “cut off”.

I think you left out a reference here.

Tomster is quoting from "“Claims of a Protestant Episcopal Bishop to Apostolical succession and valid orders disproved, with various misstatements of Catholic Faith, and numerous charges against the Church, and Holy SEE” by the RC Bishop of Buffalo, written 16 years before Apostolicae curae.

GKC