Invalidity of Non-Catholic Communion

[GKC]

Anglicans don’t believe their orders were ever invalid. Thus there could be no intent to correct the deficit.

Any changes to the ritual to more closely reflect the Catholic ritual were superficial. In the Anglican Book of Prayer used in the ordination, it clearly states that no sacrament is conveyed by the ordination ceremony.

The Catholic Church has on rare occasions, conditionally ordained former Anglican clergy accepted to the Catholic priesthood. However this was done when it could be documented that a valid bishop may have participated in his ordination or re-ordination.

Supporting evidence: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=347706&language=en

History is an interesting thing.

No, there was no intent (so to speak) to correct a defect. The Joint Communion Agreement (Agreement of Bonn) between the OCs and Anglicans has a history going back roughly 30 years before Halifax and Portal met and started the process that culminated in Apostolicae Curae. One can read some of that in Fr. C.B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT.

The form in the Edwardine Ordinal was cured in 1662. That had nothing to do with any concept of invalidity of orders, it came from a disagreement with the Church of Scotland and was over the nature of the episcopacy. AFAIK, there is nothing that the RCC takes exception to in the form, from that time. Indeed a comparison of the Ordinal after 1662, the 16th century Pontificale Romanum, and the revised Roman Pontifical (1968) is interesting. I’d like to see the reference to the BCP that you are speaking of. Learning stuff is a good thing.

The RCC has ordained 2 Anglican priests sub conditione, since 1896, that I know of. One was the late Graham Leonard, one time Bishop of London. The other was that Fr. J., J. Hughes that I referenced in my previous post. His books on the long, sad, complicated story of the history of Apostolicae Curae are the best I know of, and I know a variety of them. ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID covers the history, politics, and personalities involved. STEWARDS OF THE LORD focuses on theology. Along with (then Jesuit Fr.) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION (which Hughes is a good commentary on), these are the best books I know of to become informed on the subject, should one wish to. I’ve been doing that for around 12 years.

The reasons why these two were so ordained (not absolutely, that is) are a matter of some conjecture. But certainly the presence of the Dutch Touch might have played a role. But as I said, there is no comment on the subject from Rome; no one officially knows. But your source cited is not accurate. There were two such. Fr. Hughes is still living (last I heard), still a RC priest, and briefly discusses his case in his autobiography, NO ORDINARY FOOL. He was ordained, sub conditione in 1968, first known Anglican priest so ordained.

If you know of other Anglican priests ordained sub conditione, I’d greatly appreciate the info.

Please understand something. It’s been a while since I’ve posted on this, a common topic for me to reply to over the years, so I’ll say it again. There is no doubt that the judgment of the RCC, reflected in* AC* is, among other things, that Anglican orders are absolutely null and utterly void in Rome’s eyes. Every RC should affirm that, without reservation, with the appropriate degree of theological certainty. This was reinforced, in passing, by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger in the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem in 1998. No question.

Anglicans are able to have a different opinion on the matter (so to speak).

GKC

 

[runningdude]

History is an interesting thing.

No, there was no intent (so to speak) to correct a defect. The Joint Communion Agreement (Agreement of Bonn) between the OCs and Anglicans has a history going back roughly 30 years before Halifax and Portal met and started the process that culminated in Apostolicae Curae. One can read some of that in Fr. C.B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT.

The form in the Edwardine Ordinal was cured in 1662. That had nothing to do with any concept of invalidity of orders, it came from a disagreement with the Church of Scotland and was over the nature of the episcopacy. AFAIK, there is nothing that the RCC takes exception to in the form, from that time. Indeed a comparison of the Ordinal after 1662, the 16th century Pontificale Romanum, and the revised Roman Pontifical (1968) is interesting. I’d like to see the reference to the BCP that you are speaking of. Learning stuff is a good thing.

Factually, what you describe is correct from what I understand. However, while the outward rite may not be objectionable, the theology undermines the ordination. I will post a quote from the 1979 Episcopalian Book of Prayer shortly to show this defect.

The RCC has ordained 2 Anglican priests sub conditione, since 1896, that I know of. One was the late Graham Leonard, one time Bishop of London. The other was that Fr. J., J. Hughes that I referenced in my previous post. His books on the long, sad, complicated story of the history of Apostolicae Curae are the best I know of, and I know a variety of them. ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID covers the history, politics, and personalities involved. STEWARDS OF THE LORD focuses on theology. Along with (then Jesuit Fr.) Francis Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION (which Hughes is a good commentary on), these are the best books I know of to become informed on the subject, should one wish to. I’ve been doing that for around 12 years.

The reasons why these two were so ordained (not absolutely, that is) are a matter of some conjecture. But certainly the presence of the Dutch Touch might have played a role. But as I said, there is no comment on the subject from Rome; no one officially knows. But your source cited is not accurate. There were two such. Fr. Hughes is still living (last I heard), still a RC priest, and briefly discusses his case in his autobiography, NO ORDINARY FOOL. He was ordained, sub conditione in 1968, first known Anglican priest so ordained.

I briefly looked into Father Leonard, as he was alluded to in the reference I provided. The “Dutch Touch” does appear to be a factor, as well as some speculation as to whether AC still applied in light of such.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had not yet strongly reminded everyone of AC, and presumably did so after investing the circumstances these two individuals. Cardinal Hume states that it was Rome that dictated the cautious measure of a conditional ordination. Cardinal Hume, who performed the conditional ordination, (link) seemed inclined to accept the validity of the Old Catholic ordination, however acknowledged the Catholic Church cannot accept doubt in the validity of its sacred ministers.

If you know of other Anglican priests ordained sub conditione, I’d greatly appreciate the info.

I am unaware of any. I only knew it to be extremely rare. As you have said, only two seem to have been accepted as ministers with a conditional baptism.

Please understand something. It’s been a while since I’ve posted on this, a common topic for me to reply to over the years, so I’ll say it again. There is no doubt that the judgment of the RCC, reflected in* AC* is, among other things, that Anglican orders are absolutely null and utterly void in Rome’s eyes. Every RC should affirm that, without reservation, with the appropriate degree of theological certainty. This was reinforced, in passing, by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger in the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem in 1998. No question.

Anglicans are able to have a different opinion on the matter (so to speak).

GKC

Anglicans can certainly have their own opinion of the matter, but their opinion is not necessarily correct. This is a matter of objective reality; the presence or absence of Holy Orders is wholly independent of how honestly one believes himself to be ordained.

This is a fact stated out of love, as we Catholic pray that all may benefit from the graces of the true sacraments.

 

[runningdude]

As promised, the quote from the Book of Prayer. I’ve used a modern incarnation (US Episcopalian 1979) to demonstrate that the theology we found fault with in AC still applies to today.

<XXV. Of the Sacraments.>

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian
men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and
effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which
he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also
strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that
is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

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 like nature of Sacraments with Baptism,
and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or
ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments are not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be
carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as
worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation:but
they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as
Saint Paul saith.

<page 873>l
justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/bcpprayr.txt

While the Anglican Book of Prayer affirms the Eucharist, it denies the full sacramental nature of the priesthood. Elsewhere it is stated that only those with Orders from may lawfully celebrate the Eucharist, but the fundamental necessity of sacramental Holy Orders for its celebration is not taught.

It is the nature of the priesthood taught in the Book of Prayer, that leads us to at a minimum doubt ordinations performed according to it, even by otherwise valid bishops.

 

[GKC]

As promised, the quote from the Book of Prayer. I’ve used a modern incarnation (US Episcopalian 1979) to demonstrate that the theology we found fault with in AC still applies to today.

While the Anglican Book of Prayer affirms the Eucharist, it denies the full sacramental nature of the priesthood. Elsewhere it is stated that only those with Orders from may lawfully celebrate the Eucharist, but the fundamental necessity of sacramental Holy Orders for its celebration is not taught.

It is the nature of the priesthood taught in the Book of Prayer, that leads us to at a minimum doubt ordinations performed according to it, even by otherwise valid bishops.

Thought so.

Anglicans usually (a word that must be used cautiously with Anglicans) refer to a distinction between the Dominical Sacraments (those established in Scripture by Our Lord, and the other sacraments (“Commonly called” is Anglican-speak, which can be observed through the Prayer Book, for “another name for which is”) which were not so established, with form and order, Dominically, as generally necessary for salvation. They are sacraments all the same; you can see Newman treating of this, in his Tract 90, para 7. (Yes, I know).

But do be aware that the Articles are not normative for Anglicans, generally (though many of them would be unexceptionable to any Trinitarian Christian), save, in a technical sense for clergy of the Church of England, under the Subscription Act of 1571. This is a complicated subject (history is often like that). They are not a form of Anglican confession; in the 1979 Book you cite, they are in a section for historical documents. But certainly, the judgement of intent reflected in Apostolciae Curae assumed that the normally internal state of intent, of those who used the Edwardine Ordinal could be judged (determinatio ex adiunctus) as to whether it met the sacramental test of validity: facere quod facit ecclesia, because of who wrote the Ordinal and when. That was the intertwined judgment of intent in AC. But neither the Ordinal, nor Articles, teach the nature of the priestood. What AC faulted was that it failed to teach a specif role of th epriesthood (a fact that it shared with a number of Rites that the RCC does judge as capable of conveying valid orders. Hence the intertwined judgement.

As to your last para, the Anglican Church(es) affirms the sacramental necessity of Holy Orders. Same as Rome. It teaches a distinction between the Dominical sacraments as noted above, not the denial of the others. And if the Dutch Touch was a player in Fr. Leonard’s sub conditione ordination (and I think it likely was), the form of his Anglican ordination and consecration was that of the 1662 ordinal. I would look for some definitive statement on that subject. But I think the day for it is past.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Factually, what you describe is correct from what I understand. However, while the outward rite may not be objectionable, the theology undermines the ordination. I will post a quote from the 1979 Episcopalian Book of Prayer shortly to show this defect.

I briefly looked into Father Leonard, as he was alluded to in the reference I provided. The “Dutch Touch” does appear to be a factor, as well as some speculation as to whether AC still applied in light of such.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had not yet strongly reminded everyone of AC, and presumably did so after investing the circumstances these two individuals. Cardinal Hume states that it was Rome that dictated the cautious measure of a conditional ordination. Cardinal Hume, who performed the conditional ordination, (link) seemed inclined to accept the validity of the Old Catholic ordination, however acknowledged the Catholic Church cannot accept doubt in the validity of its sacred ministers.
I am unaware of any. I only knew it to be extremely rare. As you have said, only two seem to have been accepted as ministers with a conditional baptism.

Anglicans can certainly have their own opinion of the matter, but their opinion is not necessarily correct. This is a matter of objective reality; the presence or absence of Holy Orders is wholly independent of how honestly one believes himself to be ordained.

This is a fact stated out of love, as we Catholic pray that all may benefit from the graces of the true sacraments.

But that is an error. The intent of the sacramental action inheres in the minister. The only way judgment was reached in AC was by making the defective form (as was judged) the method of ascertaining the internal intent, not of the theology, but the minister (determinatio ex adiunctis, in a particular sacramental act (Clark discusses what that had to have been). Whatever the theology of a given individual at a given time might be, if the external elements of the sacrament are unexceptionable, the ministerial sacramental intent is assumed similarly valid. That is, if the CoE had continued using the Pontificale Romanum, there would no method to determine if the intent was facere quod facit ecclesia. The use of the form (Ordinal) was what made that possible. And after 1662, that form was similarly unexceptional.

If, by referring to The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, you are referring to my reference to it (enough referring there), the Commentary only touched, in passing, on AC, in para 11: “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…”. It sets the level of theological certainty. If you know of another treatment of AC, or of the Dutch Touch, I would willingly learn of it.

Your reference to ministers with conditional baptism confuses me greatly. Fr. Hughes and Fr. Leonard was conditionally ordained, not baptized.

I agree with your penultimate para. But not necessarily with the RCC judgement on Anglican orders. If the subject interests you, try to find those 3 books I mentioned. It is a complex, sad, and lengthy story. But I do not need to tell you to continue to affirm what the RCC requires you to affirm, on the subject

And I appreciate your final para.

GKC

 

[Vico]

This is one of the great questions of the Church. From where I see it, the question is that of sovereignty and authority. Is God sovereign (I think all would say yes), and did He through His sovereignty give all authority for His kingdom on earth on earth to the Latin Rite to caretake until His return, or does He remain able to act outside the structure of the Church He left behind?

One thing that particularly draws Anglicans who are moving over is not so much Apostolic authority as they want to remove the term “what are they going to do next?” from their vocabulary.

The following from the CDW should answer one of you questions:

http://www.vatican.va/img/vuoto.gif CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
COMMENTARY
ON THE DOCUMENT
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS
REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
…
The third question asks why the expression “subsistit in” was used rather than the verb “est”.

It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism. In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.

In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The Council wished to teach that we encounter the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete historical subject in the Catholic Church. The idea, therefore, that subsistence can somehow be multiplied does not express what was intended by the choice of the term “subsistit”. In choosing the word “subsistit” the Council intended to express the singularity and non “multipliability” of the Church of Christ: the Church exists as a unique historical reality.

Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

 

[runningdude]

But that is an error. The intent of the sacramental action inheres in the minister. The only way judgment was reached in AC was by making the defective form (as was judged) the method of ascertaining the internal intent, not of the theology, but the minister (determinatio ex adiunctis, in a particular sacramental act (Clark discusses what that had to have been). Whatever the theology of a given individual at a given time might be, if the external elements of the sacrament are unexceptionable, the ministerial sacramental intent is assumed similarly valid. That is, if the CoE had continued using the Pontificale Romanum, there would no method to determine if the intent was facere quod facit ecclesia. The use of the form (Ordinal) was what made that possible. And after 1662, that form was similarly unexceptional.

…

I am actually sympathetic to the idea that the co-ordinations with the Old Catholics restored the Holy Orders in the Anglican Church. I once “conditionally” genuflected before the tabernacle of an empty Episcopalian chapel. However I later learned that the chapel had a women minister, and promised not to do that again. It seemed so sad to me that they would have gone through such pains to restore their sacramental priesthood, only to scuttle it a few decades later.

I concluded that the “Dutch Touch” must have been haphazardly effective at best. One would except the sudden infusion of sacramental grace to move the community as a whole towards greater holiness. Instead, elements of the communion have rapidly abandoned even the appearances of a sacramental economy.

I’ve been approaching this argument backwards, I suppose, arguing over legal details I am not strongly familiar with, when really I am basing my conclusion on my own observations.

Your reference to ministers with conditional baptism confuses me greatly. Fr. Hughes and Fr. Leonard was conditionally ordained, not baptized.

This was me getting lost in my thoughts. I meant to refer to ordination.

…

And I appreciate your final para.

GKC

I always try to come back to this point. Everything is meaningless without it.

 

[GKC]

I am actually sympathetic to the idea that the co-ordinations with the Old Catholics restored the Holy Orders in the Anglican Church. I once “conditionally” genuflected before the tabernacle of an empty Episcopalian chapel. However I later learned that the chapel had a women minister, and promised not to do that again. It seemed so sad to me that they would have gone through such pains to restore their sacramental priesthood, only to scuttle it a few decades later.

I concluded that the “Dutch Touch” must have been haphazardly effective at best. One would except the sudden infusion of sacramental grace to move the community as a whole towards greater holiness. Instead, elements of the communion have rapidly abandoned even the appearances of a sacramental economy.

I’ve been approaching this argument backwards, I suppose, arguing over legal details I am not strongly familiar with, when really I am basing my conclusion on my own observations.

This was me getting lost in my thoughts. I meant to refer to ordination.

I always try to come back to this point. Everything is meaningless without it.

Fair enough.

I’ve known traditional RCs who reverenced my parish altar, for the same reason. I tell them they needn’t. But no females in sacerdotal garments in my sort of Anglicanism. That’s partially why we exist.

If the Dutch Touch was efficacious, there would not be a sudden infusion of sacramental grace (assuming none was present before). There was a slow, exponential spread of the infused lines, as the jointly consecrated Anglican bishops went about their own episcopal duties. But there were only about 8 Anglican bishops so consecrated in the first 25 years or so of the practice. It was never a routine event. Another point that it was not a search for a correction to orders.

The true measure would be how many ordinations/consecrations these bishops did, in turn, as they went about their duties. One would need to search the records which exist). But it would be incremental.

Anglicans are a variable concept. One might observe other sorts than those you might have seen.

I do know, better than most ( I know one who knows better than I do, but he’s not around), the theological, but equally the historical, political and personality issues and details involved in the sad and complicated tale of* Apostolicae Curae*, Most of my posts have been correcting your misconceptions on some of these points, and none of them with arguing against the RC judgment. I remind you again that no effort was expended with the idea of correcting a defect in orders. That was not what Bonn was about. Anglicanism never accepted the judgement of* Apostolicae Curae*, as you seem to know. Have you read Saepius Officio? Partially flawed as it is, that was the response of the CoE, not a search to partner with some form of valid apostolic succession, to counter Rome’s opinion.

Hughes, for the best exposition of a possible Anglican position (he writes as a RC), Clark for the best RC approach. None better.

GKC