Lutheran 'Apostolic Succession'?

[Zooey]

Please pray for the re-union of Christ’s Church.

Blessings,

• Irl

IAGladfelter:

P.S. Incidentally, the Bishops of the ALCC have absolutely no problem being re-ordained only as priests. We all see that as freely offering our miters to Christ as a gift, for the sake of the reunion of His Church. As far as re-ordination is concerned, were it not to be required (and it will be) we would, in humility, specifically request it anyway so as to not confuse the Catholic faithful.

This brought tears to this Methodist’s eyes, Bishop, for I could hear my grandmother of happy memory saying, “Oh, how I long for the day when we all cast our crowns at His feet!”

 

[GKC]

GKC, I recently attended the ordination of a former Anglican priest who was ordained *de novo *as a Catholic priest. He is serving as my parish’s assistant pastor (called Parochial Vicar). Another former Anglican priest has said publicly that he was ordained de novo. He has served for many years as a pastor. They both entered under the Pastoral Provision, years apart. Just FYI.

I had the pleasure of hearing the Rt. Rev. Graham Leonard, former Bishop of London, whom you mentioned, tell the story of his conversion. God rest his soul.

This has been a fascinating and informative conversation between you and Bishop Gladfelter. Thanks to you both!

Jim Dandy

I appreciate the kind words, as I appreciate the Bishop’s participation. I await any word on what the practice will be, or examples of what it actually is, under the Ordinariate. But I cannot conceive it will involve sub conditione ordination. If it does, I will be pleasantly surprised.

GKC

 

[pablope]

10 August 2011: St. Lawrence, M

Regarding this topic, this is what we know for sure: Pope Leo XIII in 1896 declared the Anglican line broken because they had removed certain traditional rituals at ordinations and they no longer mentioned in the Anglican Rite “the power to offer sacrifice.”
I suppose it would be most prudent to compare this to the subject in question . . . some Luthern sects in Northern Scandinavia or anywhere else for that matter. This is exactly why one of the Catholic Church’s “marks” is universality. There should be no diversion among members of HMC when it comes to major marks or characteristics. Splinter groups lose their universality as they become truncated. CallistusPM

I was listening to a Journey Home episode where the guest where former Anglican priests who had been ordained as Catholic priests. They were in a panel.

This was one of the discussions/questions. One of the guests explained it this way (I will paraphrase from memory):

The reason Anglican ordinations are not valid is because they are ordained in a non-sacrificial way (or some other term, but close). The ordinand also makes a profession of faith to the 39 Articles, which are not approved (forgot the right word, it may have been not in line) by/with the CC.

Hence, the need to be re-ordained as Catholic priests.

 

[pablope]

I appreciate the kind words, as I appreciate the Bishop’s participation. I await any word on what the practice will be, or examples of what it actually is, under the Ordinariate. But I cannot conceive it will involve sub conditione ordination. If it does, I will be pleasantly surprised.

GKC

GKC…can you explain what is “sub conditione”?

This has been a fascinating and informative conversation between you and Bishop Gladfelter. Thanks to you both!

Jim Dandy

Ditto.

 

[GKC]

I was listening to a Journey Home episode where the guest where former Anglican priests who had been ordained as Catholic priests. They were in a panel.

This was one of the discussions/questions. One of the guests explained it this way (I will paraphrase from memory):

The reason Anglican ordinations are not valid is because they are ordained in a non-sacrificial way (or some other term, but close). The ordinand also makes a profession of faith to the 39 Articles, which are not approved (forgot the right word, it may have been not in line) by/with the CC.

Hence, the need to be re-ordained as Catholic priests.

The Ordinand makes no profession of faith to the Articles, in ordination or consecration.

The issue in* Apostolicae Curae* was a presumed invalidity of form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and a related invalidity of intent, in using that invalid form. These points are ittertwined; it’s a complicated subject. In more ways than one.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC…can you explain what is “sub conditione”?

Ditto.

Probably. It means “under conditions. conditionally” It is distinguished from “de novo”, that is, newly, from the first, originally, absolutely, ordained. It implies that there may be a doubt as to whether the ordinand is already validly ordained. It has a parallel in conditional baptism. Each such sacrament imparts an indelible character to the recipient and is not repeatable. Hence there is a method of dealing with a doubtful case; conditionally.

GKC

 

[pablope]

The Ordinand makes no profession of faith to the Articles, in ordination or consecration.

The issue in* Apostolicae Curae* was a presumed invalidity of form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and a related invalidity of intent, in using that invalid form. These points are ittertwined; it’s a complicated subject. In more ways than one.

GKC

Hi, GKC…I think you picked the right word of what I was trying to say…the validity of the intent of the ordination, which, in the CC, it is sacrificial.

I could have sworn I heard the 39 articles…it may be not be the 30 arts…but there is somehow a profession (this may not be the right term) that goes against the teachings of the CC.

Thanks for your response.

Pablo

 

[IAGladfelter]

I was listening to a Journey Home episode where the guest where former Anglican priests who had been ordained as Catholic priests. They were in a panel.

This was one of the discussions/questions. One of the guests explained it this way (I will paraphrase from memory):

The reason Anglican ordinations are not valid is because they are ordained in a non-sacrificial way (or some other term, but close). The ordinand also makes a profession of faith to the 39 Articles, which are not approved (forgot the right word, it may have been not in line) by/with the CC.

Hence, the need to be re-ordained as Catholic priests.

Ah. . . then, under the Augustinian criteria that would be defects of both form and intent, based on the form - the text - of the ordination service, and on the intent of the ordaining Church, its official doctrine of the nature of the priesthood, and of the nature of the Eucharist based on his profession of faith (if without qualification) to the 39 Articles of Religion, which are quite Calvinistic. So in that case, the ordinations would be “de novo”. Some Catholic canon lawyers will dispute that point - there is no consensus as to the lingering effects of an OC secondary lineage where matters of form and intent are involved. But personally, were I the ordaining bishop, I would also ordain them *“de novo” * to be on the safe side. For this reason, Lutheran clergy who have the Swedish apostolic lineage and continuing Anglicans whose Church will not claim any orders other than the English succession (there are a few of those out there) are re-ordained by the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church “de novo.”

Blessings,

• Irl

P.S. The ALCC clergy and I, incidentally have no problem whatsoever going through “do novo” ordinations if that is what Holy Mother Church, in its wisdom wants to do with us.

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC…I think you picked the right word of what I was trying to say…the validity of the intent of the ordination, which, in the CC, it is sacrificial.

I could have sworn I heard the 39 articles…it may be not be the 30 arts…but there is somehow a profession (this may not be the right term) that goes against the teachings of the CC.

Thanks for your response.

Pablo

The Articles are not binding on any in Anglicanism except (technically, only) on clergy in the Church of England, IAW the Subscription Act of 1571, passed by Parliament (since the CoE is erastian, Parliamentary Acts apply to it). But that is, as I said, only technical, and the sense in which it was used is complicated. I have discussed this, might do it again. The extent to which this is a non-issue in the CoE can been seen when remembering that the Anglo-Catholics who have responded to the Ordinariate over there generally are the sort of Anglican who ignores the Articles (as appropriate; some Articles merely state points of Trinitartian Christianity). Like me, for instance.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Ah. . . then, under the Augustinian criteria that would be defects of both form and intent, based on the form - the text - of the ordination service, and on the intent of the ordaining Church, its official doctrine of the nature of the priesthood, and of the nature of the Eucharist based on his profession of faith (if without qualification) to the 39 Articles of Religion, which are quite Calvinistic. So in that case, the ordinations would be “de novo”. Some Catholic canon lawyers will dispute that point - there is no consensus as to the lingering effects of an OC secondary lineage where matters of form and intent are involved. But personally, were I the ordaining bishop, I would also ordain them *“de novo” * to be on the safe side. For this reason, Lutheran clergy who have the Swedish apostolic lineage and continuing Anglicans whose Church will not claim any orders other than the English succession (there are a few of those out there) are re-ordained by the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church “de novo.”

Blessings,

• Irl

P.S. The ALCC clergy and I, incidentally have no problem whatsoever going through “do novo” ordinations if that is what Holy Mother Church, in its wisdom wants to do with us.

The judgment in Apostolciae Curae was based (as it says) on intertwined issues of form and intent. And they have to be seen together, for reasons as follows.

The form for the ordering of priests and bishops, in the Edwardine Ordinal, was judged to be defective, in that it did not reflect the sacrificial office of the priest, in offering the Eucharist. But this alleged defect of form had to be coupled with an assumption of defect of intention. Other, pre-existing Rites, that the RCC holds do transmit orders validly, also lack mention of the sacrifice. The difference here was held to be that the Edwardine Ordinal was specifically constructed, at that specific point in history, by the specific persons who wrote it, for a specific purpose . But the defective intent, as judged under Apostolicae Curae, has to be that of the persons who used the Ordinal.

Sacramental intent inheres in the sacramental minister, not in a Church, or in a document (Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION has a good chapter on this). So while the form itself was not exceptional, the circumstances under which it was written were. And hence, the sacramental intent of those who used the form (usually taken to be at the consecration of ++Parker in 1559; Parker is a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy) was judged to have been invalid, invalidating the sacramental act of consecration (when coupled with the defective form).

As *Apostolicae Curae * says, sacramental intent is an interior state and not one that can be easily determined. Hence, if a priest uses the accustomed form, matter, subject, etc, the intent also would normally be judged valid, that is, to be facere quod facit ecclesia. Unless there is something in the sacramental act that allow a determinatia ex adiunctis. This is taken, in Apostolicae Curae to be the use of that particular defective form, as it was constructed.

Clark’s book is the best exposition on this that I know and the best rejoinder is Fr. Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

GKC

 

[SyroMalankara]

Just in case anyone missed it the first time, he’s at it again:

Mr. Gladfelter, DDS is apparently well known in the independent church world. Not only does he and his crew of merry clerics run around keeping lineages from Old Catholic, to Episcopalian, to protestant, to Coptic, to Syriac, etc, etc.etc (a sure red flag!!), he also is affiliated to a chapel (which strangely is his house and cathedral I suppose) which performs quicky weddings. He claims it is his wife who performed weddings and such, but has recently resigned her former clerical credentials. Yet a simply google search will show his involvement in weddings, etc.

See here:
alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1528.45

and here:

catholic.org/hf/faith/sto…d=40492&page=2

and here:

alpb.org/forum/index.php?..6732#msg206732

Anytime Weddings
Kansas City, MO:
manta.com/g/mtkpvz8/irl-gladfelter

Formerly known as:
projectwedding.com/vendor…ity-ministries

Co-‘consecrator’ to women ordaining sect:
locva.org/index.php?id=50

 

[guanophore]

Just in case anyone missed it the first time, he’s at it again:

I think the part I missed was what does this have to do with the thread topic?