Lutheran 'Apostolic Succession'?

[JonNC]

Wonderful.

But then in that case, Martin Luther’s version of Sola Scriptura doesn’t sound that different than the Catholic Church’s insistence on Scripture and Tradition.

It’s just that the Catholic Church seems to see things that Lutherans don’t generally see.

The big difference is in the way we use Tradition. For Catholics, Sacred Tradition is equal to scripture, o rmaybe better said scripture is a part of Tradition. Whereas Lutherans view Tradition as subject to scripture.

The similarity is, as you imply, that hermeunetics is a role for the Church, not the individual, at least when it comes to doctrine.

Some of the Catholic doctrines that are criticized, after all, don’t seem illogical when reading the Bible, and vice versa with regards to Lutheranism.

I think in some ways you are right. Purgatory, for example doesn’t seem illogical, that there be an intemediate state/place for purging prior to entering Heaven. Makes sense.
The problem for Lutherans is no such place is explicit in scripture, and we question to doctrine on that ground. Same with invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the saints. It makes sense in the Communion of Saints, and the fact that we know, scripturally, that they pray for us. What scripture doesn’t do is give us a command, example, or promise regarding it, so it shouldn’t be doctrine.

Back to the original post, we look at scripture and, while we desire the maintaining of succession and orders, we don’t see an explicit command for it.

Jon

 

[IAGladfelter]

Anglicans who join the Ordinariate pledge obedience to the Pope and affirm that they believe everything the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches.

I can’t see Lutherans ever doing that as a group.

Well, Jim, the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church does that very thing as a group, and has been doing so since 2004.

Its current statement of faith which all clergy must sign, now includes not only an enhanced version of the Mandatum "not to teach, preach, write, or publish anything contrary to the Roman Catholic Magisterium, but now includes the Statement of Faith from the Council of Trent (Iniunctum Nobis, promulgated by Pope Pius IV, The Council of Trent, A.D. 1563) modified only by the addition of the1st and 2nd Vatican Councils to the document’s reference to the Council of Trent as Councils which must be accepted without question.

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

Blessings,

• Irl

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.

 

[IAGladfelter]

Back to the original post, we look at scripture and, while we desire the maintaining of succession and orders, we don’t see an explicit command for it.

Jon

Of course Jon, having bishops and priest in the historic apostolic succession was simply not an issue for Luther at the time he posted the 95 Theses. The wish to continue is is mentioned in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession and Melancthon’s signature at the end of the Schmankald Articles.

Lutheran opposition to bishops in apostolic succession and development of a preference for congregational polity were reforms which came after Luther.

Blessings,

• Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

Recall at Mass the Epiclesis, the priest taking his hands and placing them over the gifts at the altar…and calling down the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Without papal and Catholic bishops in communion, the Lutheran ordination does not have the Holy Spirit that comes through licit ordination…the Holy Spirit…Who came to us through the Apostles.

Close, but no see-gar, Kathleen. What you say is indeed true for the Eastern Orthodox and since 1920 the Anglican Communion and the Utrech Union of Old Catholic Churches, following the theory for transmission of valid orders set by St. Cyprian (who was arguably somewhat tainted by Donatism.)

It is different for the Catholic Church, which still officially follows the more mechanistic criteria of St. Cyprian’s opponent, St. Augustine. As far as the Catholic Church’s Canon Law Code is concerned, as long as the specific Augustinian criteria are met, an ordination is automatically valid, though it may be either “irregular” or “valid but illicit” (illegal.) In those cases, the Eucharist and other Sacraments may be irregular of illicit / illegal, but are nonetheless technically quite valid.

In some cases, (unless barred by a bishop within his own diocese,) as specified by the terms of Canon 844 of the Catholic Church’s Canon Law Code, there instances when Catholics may legally / llicitly receive some sacraments - especially the Eucharist and the Anointing (for last rites) from priests and bishops whose ordinations or valid but either irregular or illicit. There are specific limits for that however, which must be observed; and any bishop may not permit Canon 844 to apply within his diocese. This gets into an area of Canon Law which may be sometimes controversial.

Many of the Anglicans being re-ordained upon entry into an ordinariate are being "conditionally- “sub conditione” re-ordained rather than re-ordained “de novo,” because in addition to their Anglican ordinations, they have been ordained validly but illicitly / irregularly by Dutch Old Catholicand/or Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) Catholic bishops. The determination as to which of them are or are not in valid orders is up to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on an individual basis.

Were the Catholic Church switch from the Augustinian Criteria to the Cyprian Criteria for judging the validity of ordinations, this would change, of course, but the Catholic Church has not done that yet.

The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church’s orders and sacraments, by the way, are described by Catholic authorities as technically “valid but illicit” though one major Catholic authority has recently been describing its orders and sacraments publicly as “valid but irregular” (which is the same term used for the orders of the PNCC.)

The various Evangelical Catholic Lutheran Churches which have orders and sacraments which are “valid but illicit” / “valid but irregular” in the eyes of the Catholic Church have generally picked up their orders from various Old Catholic Churches, the PNCC via the Nordic Catholic Church, or the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (ALCC) directly or indirectly.

The Church of Sweden has an apostolic succession but as there is no intent to ordain their clergy into a sacerdotal (sacrificing) priesthood, that defect of intent per the Augustinian Criteria would probably result in their orders being ruled invalid by Rome, but unlike the Church of England, the Church of Sweden has not asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome for its opinion, so the matter is open. The ALCC re-ordains those clergy who are not ordained in apostolic succession or who come to it with Swedish orders.

This can be a complicated matter, but I hope this helps.

Blessings,

• Irl

P.S. Please excuse any typos. Proofreading is not my long suit!

 

[GKC]

Close, but no see-gar, Kathleen. What you say is indeed true for the Eastern Orthodox and since 1920 the Anglican Communion and the Utrech Union of Old Catholic Churches, following the theory for transmission of valid orders set by St. Cyprian (who was arguably somewhat tainted by Donatism.)

It is different for the Catholic Church, which still officially follows the more mechanistic criteria of St. Cyprian’s opponent, St. Augustine. As far as the Catholic Church’s Canon Law Code is concerned, as long as the specific Augustinian criteria are met, an ordination is automatically valid, though it may be either “irregular” or “valid but illicit” (illegal.) In those cases, the Eucharist and other Sacraments may be irregular of illicit / illegal, but are nonetheless technically quite valid.

In some cases, (unless barred by a bishop within his own diocese,) as specified by the terms of Canon 844 of the Catholic Church’s Canon Law Code, there instances when Catholics may legally / llicitly receive some sacraments - especially the Eucharist and the Anointing (for last rites) from priests and bishops whose ordinations or valid but either irregular or illicit. There are specific limits for that however, which must be observed; and any bishop may not permit Canon 844 to apply within his diocese. This gets into an area of Canon Law which may be sometimes controversial.

Many of the Anglicans being re-ordained upon entry into an ordinariate are being "conditionally- “sub conditione” re-ordained rather than re-ordained “de novo,” because in addition to their Anglican ordinations, they have been ordained validly but illicitly / irregularly by Dutch Old Catholicand/or Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) Catholic bishops. The determination as to which of them are or are not in valid orders is up to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on an individual basis.

Were the Catholic Church switch from the Augustinian Criteria to the Cyprian Criteria for judging the validity of ordinations, this would change, of course, but the Catholic Church has not done that yet.

The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church’s orders and sacraments, by the way, are described by Catholic authorities as technically “valid but illicit” though one major Catholic authority has recently been describing its orders and sacraments publicly as “valid but irregular” (which is the same term used for the orders of the PNCC.)

The various Evangelical Catholic Lutheran Churches which have orders and sacraments which are “valid but illicit” / “valid but irregular” in the eyes of the Catholic Church have generally picked up their orders from various Old Catholic Churches, the PNCC via the Nordic Catholic Church, or the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (ALCC) directly or indirectly.

The Church of Sweden has an apostolic succession but as there is no intent to ordain their clergy into a sacerdotal (sacrificing) priesthood, that defect of intent per the Augustinian Criteria would probably result in their orders being ruled invalid by Rome, but unlike the Church of England, the Church of Sweden has not asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome for its opinion, so the matter is open. The ALCC re-ordains those clergy who are not ordained in apostolic succession or who come to it with Swedish orders.

This can be a complicated matter, but I hope this helps.

Blessings,

• Irl

P.S. Please excuse any typos. Proofreading is not my long suit!

Glad to see you again, Bishop.

Two points, re: your interesting post.

What are you referring to, that occurred between the OC-Utrecht,and the Anglican Communion, in 1920; that is, prior to the joint episcopal consecrations that began in 1932 (and in 1946, with the PNCC in this country), after the Agreement of Bonn? I might have missed something.

And are you certain that a significant number of Anglican clergy, entering the RCC under the Ordinariate, are being/will be/have been ordained sub conditione? I’ve been waiting for word on this, since the situation first began to take shape. I note that, as I understand it, the issue is going to be more complicated than whether a given Anglican cleric had been ordained/consecrated by OC/PNCC bishops directly, since the joint consecration that has been onging since (as far as I know) 1932 would infuse those valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, and they would be propagated as the Anglican bishops laid on hands, in turn. Always assuming valid subject, intent, etc. That is, the OC/PNCC lines are widely distributed in Anglicanism by now. How the RCC is going to look upon that fascinates me.

GKC

 

[IAGladfelter]

What are you referring to, that occurred between the OC-Utrecht,and the Anglican Communion, in 1920; that is, prior to the joint episcopal consecrations that began in 1932 (and in 1946, with the PNCC in this country), after the Agreement of Bonn? I might have missed something. GKC

What happened at the 1920 Lambeth Conference was that the conference “recommended” that Anglican Churches worldwide change from the Augustinian Criteria to the Cyprianic Criteria for determining the validity of ordinations (and as a corollary, of the sacraments administered by a Church and its priests.)

The Church of England and very soon afterwards, the rest of the Churches in the Anglican Communion took that recommendation as a mandate, and made the change. Since many of its national Churches were in some form of communion with national Churches of the Anglican Communion, the Utrech Union of Old Catholic Churches also made that change.

Perhaps the major difference between the two criteria is that under St. Cyprian’s criteria, individual schizmatics and heretics (and “notorious public sinners, for that matter” can not ever be validly ordained, no matter what; and Schizmatic and heretical Churches can never have valid ordinations and sacraments. That is not the case for the Augustinian criteria.

Under the Augustinian criteria, on the other hand, when these following criteria are met, a Bishop is within the valid Historic Apostolic Succession:
Form: The bishop’s ordination must be done using the Rites of the Church and in the context of the Eucharistic liturgy to be valid. This is to emphasize the connection of the ordaining bishops within the Church as a Eucharistic Community.
Matter: There must be an actual laying on of hands by a bishop (3 bishops according to the Canons of the First Council of Nicea) during the liturgy. A prayer is not sufficient in and of itself.
Minister: The bishops who perform the episcopal ordination must be validly consecrated Bishops within the Historic Apostolic Succession.
Intention: The intent of the laying on of hands and the prayer within the liturgy must be to ordain the person as a bishop of the Church in the Episcopal Order of its sacerdotal (sacrificing) priesthood. That’s all there is. There are no other caveats or qualifications. Whether a man is a heretic, a schizmatic, a “notorious public sinner” or not, his ordination is valid as are the sacraments he administers. As for non Roman Catholic Churches, under Augustinian criteria their ordinations and hence the sacraments they celebrate are either irregular or invalid, but are nontheless quite valid.

Every now and then, an individual Catholic bishop or theologian makes a statement which sounds close to the Cyprianic criteria, but that is just their opinion. Rome officially stands steadfastly by the Augustinian criteria. (References from St. Augustine’s writings: On Baptism, Against the Donatists, and On The Correction of the Donatists.)

Blessings,

• Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

And are you certain that a significant number of Anglican clergy, entering the RCC under the Ordinariate, are being/will be/have been ordained sub conditione? I’ve been waiting for word on this, since the situation first began to take shape. I note that, as I understand it, the issue is going to be more complicated than whether a given Anglican cleric had been ordained/consecrated by OC/PNCC bishops directly, since the joint consecration that has been onging since (as far as I know) 1932 would infuse those valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, and they would be propagated as the Anglican bishops laid on hands, in turn. Always assuming valid subject, intent, etc. That is, the OC/PNCC lines are widely distributed in Anglicanism by now. How the RCC is going to look upon that fascinates me. GKC

Yes. That has been going on for years under the Anglican Use Pastoral Provision, and will basically be continued under Anglicanorum coetibus. The first Episcopal Church priest to be conditionally re-ordained was Fr. John Jay Hughes. The process he had to go through described in his biography, No Ordinary Fool.

Essentially, he first had to get a formal opinion on the technical validity of his Old Catholic Lineages. Then he had to find a bishop willing to conditionally re-ordain him. Many would not. In his case, he had to go to Europe to find one, and become canonically resident in that diocese - he had to move to that diocese. Then he had to go back to seminary. Then he was conditionally re-ordained, Then he found himself either unemployed or underemployed for quite some time before he finally was assigned a parish. (He even had the time to go around the world in a sailboat while waiting for a job.)

Since then, there have been many others. I do not have a firm figure, but have been told that in the U.S. approximately 300 former Episcopalian priests have gone this route. I do not know if any Continuing Anglican priests have been accepted and conditionally re-ordained or not. The Lutherans who have gone this route have simply been re-ordained * de novo* as Lutheran ordinations in this country (mostly ELCA and its predecessor Churches, and the LCMS) have generally been performed by pastors / presbyters, not by bishops. (The ALCC, International Lutheran Federation, and Lutheran Orthodox Church are exceptions.)

I was told at one of the Ordinariate Conferences that this process of evaluation of ordinations by the CDF will continue in the Ordinariate for those priests who are actually invited into the Ordinariate. Not all will be invited. Most might not be, as is the case for the Pastoral Provision. But in any case, conditional re-ordination is an individual “favor” granted each individual priest, who must ask the CDF for its formal evaluation of his ordination, and then, if it is technically valid through Old Catholic lineages, the Pope makes the final decision.

In the case of the Ordinariate, though,since the priest will be canonically resident in the Ordinariate, and his re-education may be different, but that is up in the air. May bishops want them to still go to seminary instead of being tutored. But the Ordinariate’s Ordinary will arrange for his conditional re-ordination and his employment afterwards - in cooperation with local bishops. How they have and will be accepted by the faithful of a given Catholic diocese and by the priests is a whole 'nother ball game.

This took time under the Pastoral Provision and I am sure it will - though perhaps less time - maybe - in the Ordinariate - who knows? I have been assured that it can, has been, and will be done in a way that in the end, will probably will be similar to that of the Pastoral Provision. In the U.S., that, however will be up to the USCCB and ultimately the CDF in Rome.

This begs the question of what is the difference in the ordination rite itself for those re-ordained de novo and those re-ordained conditionally - sub conditione? The answer is: There are no differences. It is exactly the same rite, word for word.

Hope this helps. I am (obviously) as interested as you in the outcome. It will be interesting.

• Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

. . . the OC/PNCC lines are widely distributed in Anglicanism by now. How the RCC is going to look upon that fascinates me. GKC

Yes. The OC/PNCC lines are ubiquitious in Anglicanism now. Ubiquitous in the Continuing Anglican Churches, are the Dutch OC lineage and the Duarte Costa lineage of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil (CACB), one of whose Bishops - a former Presbyterian minister, was brought into the RCC as a bishop by Pope John Paul XXIII directly without any re-ordination at all; was brought - with his wife - to all the sessions of Vatican II as a bishop; and Pope Paul VI appointed him an Auxiliary Bishop of Rio de Janerio.) The same OC and CACB lineages are also held by the few Lutheran Churches which have a technically valid apostolic succession.

I do not see how Rome can not accept them technically without abandoning the Augustinian criteria and accepting the Cyprian criteria instead. I do not see that happening. A lot will also depend on individual Catholic diocesan bishops, who have broad discretion. . .

Blessings,

• Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

The unifying symbol of Lutheranism is the Lutheran confessions, most importantly the Augsburg Confession, it Apology, and The Small Catechism, despite the varying synods.
With the exception of some of the more liberal synods, which most confessional Lutherans would consider as drifting away from the confessions, Lutherans hold to the confessions.
As the confessions, along with the universal symbols of the Church, the creeds, rightly reflect the truth of scriptures, confessional Lutherans vary little if any in terms of doctrine.

As a member of the LCMS, I rely on the Church regarding statements of doctrine. There are areas I disagree with the practices of the LCMS - its polity, and its sometimes intransigence regarding ecumenism, most notably.

Jon

You are right, Jon. I would point out though, to those unfamiliar with Lutheranism that there are two ways of accepting the Lutheran Confessions. The first is the “quia” (because) basis: The Lutheran Confessions are accepted because they are “trustworthy witnesses to the Gospel.” As such, they can come close to being a “paper magisterium” which precisely defines Lutheranism - what is or is not Lutheran. Examples of Lutheran Churches with this view are the Missouri Synod (LCMS), Wisconsin Synod (WELS) and many of the small so-called “microsynods.”

The second is the “quatena” (“insofar as”) basis: The Lutheran Confessions are accepted insofar as they are “trustworthy witnesses to the Gospel.” This “quatena” / “insofar as” can be "all over the map from almost LCMS to almost Roman Catholic (the ALCC, ILF, and LOC to almost “Eastern Orthodox” (with the Finnish and Baltic Lutherans) to almost evangelical fundamentalist (Church of the Lutheran Bretheren.)

Each Lutheran Church gets to decide whom is Lutheran to them and who is not, and their decision as such is to be respected. But the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) only asks that to be Lutheran a Church accept the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (there are a number of altered Augsburg Confessions out there) on at least some basis without going any further than that.

Blessings,

• Irl

 

[GKC]

Yes. That has been going on for years under the Anglican Use Pastoral Provision, and will basically be continued under Anglicanorum coetibus. The first Episcopal Church priest to be conditionally re-ordained was Fr. John Jay Hughes. The process he had to go through described in his biography, No Ordinary Fool.

Essentially, he first had to get a formal opinion on the technical validity of his Old Catholic Lineages. Then he had to find a bishop willing to conditionally re-ordain him. Many would not. In his case, he had to go to Europe to find one, and become canonically resident in that diocese - he had to move to that diocese. Then he had to go back to seminary. Then he was conditionally re-ordained, Then he found himself either unemployed or underemployed for quite some time before he finally was assigned a parish. (He even had the time to go around the world in a sailboat while waiting for a job.)

Since then, there have been many others. I do not have a firm figure, but have been told that in the U.S. approximately 300 former Episcopalian priests have gone this route. I do not know if any Continuing Anglican priests have been accepted and conditionally re-ordained or not. The Lutherans who have gone this route have simply been re-ordained * de novo* as Lutheran ordinations in this country (mostly ELCA and its predecessor Churches, and the LCMS) have generally been performed by pastors / presbyters, not by bishops. (The ALCC, International Lutheran Federation, and Lutheran Orthodox Church are exceptions.)

I was told at one of the Ordinariate Conferences that this process of evaluation of ordinations by the CDF will continue in the Ordinariate for those priests who are actually invited into the Ordinariate. Not all will be invited. Most might not be, as is the case for the Pastoral Provision. But in any case, conditional re-ordination is an individual “favor” granted each individual priest, who must ask the CDF for its formal evaluation of his ordination, and then, if it is technically valid through Old Catholic lineages, the Pope makes the final decision.

In the case of the Ordinariate, though,since the priest will be canonically resident in the Ordinariate, and his re-education may be different, but that is up in the air. May bishops want them to still go to seminary instead of being tutored. But the Ordinariate’s Ordinary will arrange for his conditional re-ordination and his employment afterwards - in cooperation with local bishops. How they have and will be accepted by the faithful of a given Catholic diocese and by the priests is a whole 'nother ball game.

This took time under the Pastoral Provision and I am sure it will - though perhaps less time - maybe - in the Ordinariate - who knows? I have been assured that it can, has been, and will be done in a way that in the end, will probably will be similar to that of the Pastoral Provision. In the U.S., that, however will be up to the USCCB and ultimately the CDF in Rome.

This begs the question of what is the difference in the ordination rite itself for those re-ordained de novo and those re-ordained conditionally - sub conditione? The answer is: There are no differences. It is exactly the same rite, word for word.

Hope this helps. I am (obviously) as interested as you in the outcome. It will be interesting.

• Irl

This is a subject I am familiar with, particularly Fr. Hughes; I also have his autobio ,as well as his two magisterial books on Apostolicae Curae, which I regularly commend to folks. And I do have a fairly firm estimate. The total number of Anglican priests known and acknowledged to have ordained as RC priests, sub conditione, post Apostolicae Curae, is two: Hughes, and Graham Leonard. If there is another case, in which a name can be cited, I would be glad to hear of it. But I think that there are none, so acknowledged and certainly not 300, which might reflect the Pastoral Provision priests, I guess. But I seriously doubt, unless specific cases can be advanced, that any of these were ordained sub conditione.

I’m not saying this to be contentious, Your Grace, believe me. But it is a long time hobby of mine, Apostolicae Curae and its implications, and what the import of a touch of the OC/PNCC lines would mean for an Anglican cleric, in the eyes of the RCC, is something I await a definitive statement on, either in principle or in praxis. Logically, seems to be spelled out in Ott, p. 458: such an Anglican would receive and transmit valid but illicit orders (all other aspects being valid). But this has not been confirmed formally, nor do I think one can adduce any specific cases to support it, outside of Hughes and Leonard. But I am always open to learning. As in learning how it actually works, in the Ordinariate, if and when specific priests can point to a provable sub conditione ordination.

As an side, and merely what I had been told, the form differs slightly, as it does in conditional baptism, to reflect “If thou has not already been…”. I could not prove or support that, though.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yes. The OC/PNCC lines are ubiquitious in Anglicanism now. Ubiquitous in the Continuing Anglican Churches, are the Dutch OC lineage and the Duarte Costa lineage of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil (CACB), one of whose Bishops - a former Presbyterian minister, was brought into the RCC as a bishop by Pope John Paul XXIII directly without any re-ordination at all; was brought - with his wife - to all the sessions of Vatican II as a bishop; and Pope Paul VI appointed him an Auxiliary Bishop of Rio de Janerio.) The same OC and CACB lineages are also held by the few Lutheran Churches which have a technically valid apostolic succession.

I do not see how Rome can not accept them technically without abandoning the Augustinian criteria and accepting the Cyprian criteria instead. I do not see that happening. A lot will also depend on individual Catholic diocesan bishops, who have broad discretion. . .

Blessings,

• Irl

I’ll be watching to see what transpires. Thank you.

GKC

 

[IAGladfelter]

This is a subject I am familiar with, particularly Fr. Hughes; I also have his autobio ,as well as his two magisterial books on Apostolicae Curae, which I regularly commend to folks. And I do have a fairly firm estimate. The total number of Anglican priests known and acknowledged to have ordained as RC priests, sub conditione, post Apostolicae Curae, is two: Hughes, and Graham Leonard. If there is another case, in which a name can be cited, I would be glad to hear of it. But I think that there are none, so acknowledged and certainly not 300, which might reflect the Pastoral Provision priests, I guess. But I seriously doubt, unless specific cases can be advanced, that any of these were ordained sub conditione. GKC

Those 300 are Pastoral Provision priests; one of whom is the Pastoral Provision priest here in Kansas City, Fr. Ernie Davis. Another is Fr. Christopher Phillips. As far as I know there are only 12 or 13 of such priests serving parishes. The rest are more or less “out of sight,” working as hospital chaplains, chancery officials, executives for various Catholic charities, etc. (in mainly supporting roles.) There is a canon which forbids married priests from serving as parish pastors except in case of necessity, in which case they are usually assigned as "pastoral associates (though that is up to the individual diocesan bishop.)

As far as the wording, “if thou/you are not already, ordained . . .” that wording is not in the current Roman Catholic Ordinal (I have a copy, and as do the other ALCC bishops; and we all use it exclusively for all ordinations, and that wording is not in there as an option. I suppose a given bishop could add that wording on his own, and some may well be doing that; and that may well have been the wording in an earlier ordinal.

Accordingly, that wording is not used by ALCC bishops in conditional re-ordinations (for Lutheran clergy who are in the Swedish succession) just to be on the safe side. We have to be careful about that. (The ALCC also specifically includes the vow of obedience to the Pope in the ordinal even though we are not legally under his authority; and we take that vow very seriously, We look forward to the day when we will be legally under Papal authority.)

Blessings,

• Irl

 

[GKC]

What I am expressing doubt about is the assertion that the Pastoral Provision priests were, in fact, in any sense, ordained sub conditione. I would welcome any reference to an authoritative RC source, which definitively states that this was done. It would have required mental contortions of Olympic dimensions to so blatantly go against the strictures of Apostolicae Curae, given that no definitive statement as to the effect of Dutch Touch/Polish Pat consecrations has been made, by the RCC. Or, similarly, if a definitive authoritative RC reference to such a statement can be shown, I would greatly like to see it. Absent these two supporting references, I remain convinced that there are two and two only known sub conditione ordinations, post 1896. That there are Pastoral Provision priests, I am fully in agreement. And, unless sufficient evidence can be shown, I remain convinced these are all the result of absolute, de novo, ordinations.

As to the wording, I am grateful for the additional info. And I wish you and your followers the best of luck in your journey.

GKC

Those 300 are Pastoral Provision priests; one of whom is the Pastoral Provision priest here in Kansas City, Fr. Ernie Davis. Another is Fr. Christopher Phillips. As far as I know there are only 12 or 13 of such priests serving parishes. The rest are more or less “out of sight,” working as hospital chaplains, chancery officials, executives for various Catholic charities, etc. (in mainly supporting roles.) There is a canon which forbids married priests from serving as parish pastors except in case of necessity, in which case they are usually assigned as "pastoral associates (though that is up to the individual diocesan bishop.)

As far as the wording, “if thou/you are not already, ordained . . .” that wording is not in the current Roman Catholic Ordinal (I have a copy, and as do the other ALCC bishops; and we all use it exclusively for all ordinations, and that wording is not in there as an option. I suppose a given bishop could add that wording on his own, and some may well be doing that; and that may well have been the wording in an earlier ordinal.

Accordingly, that wording is not used by ALCC bishops in conditional re-ordinations (for Lutheran clergy who are in the Swedish succession) just to be on the safe side. We have to be careful about that. (The ALCC also specifically includes the vow of obedience to the Pope in the ordinal even though we are not legally under his authority; and we take that vow very seriously, We look forward to the day when we will be legally under Papal authority.)

Blessings,

• Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

Thanks.

I am not a canon lawyer or ecclesiologist, but I believe that the following references are germane to this discussion:

Canon 844§3, Canon Law Code of the Roman Catholic Church (1989)

"Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the eucharist and anointing of the sick licitly to members of the Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgement of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches."

Letter of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons, and Lay Faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China (dated 27 May, Pentecost, 2007; published 30 June 2007)

“Finally, there are certain Bishops . . . who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected. Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they exercise their ministry validly in the administration of the sacraments . . .”

Declaration: Dominus Jesu, Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith The Vatican, August 6, 2000, Paragraph 17

“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church…”

Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II (Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, Nov 21, 1964

“These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.”

Blessings,
Irl

 

[GKC]

Thanks.

I am not a canon lawyer or ecclesiologist, but I believe that the following references are germane to this discussion:

Canon 844§3, Canon Law Code of the Roman Catholic Church (1989)

"Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the eucharist and anointing of the sick licitly to members of the Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgement of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches."

Letter of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons, and Lay Faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China (dated 27 May, Pentecost, 2007; published 30 June 2007)

“Finally, there are certain Bishops . . . who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected. Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they exercise their ministry validly in the administration of the sacraments . . .”

Declaration: Dominus Jesu, Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith The Vatican, August 6, 2000, Paragraph 17

“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church…”

Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II (Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, Nov 21, 1964

“These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.”

Blessings,
Irl

Yes. All that is what I referred to by referencing the position Ott states, in FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458. Validly consecrated bishops, even if schismatic, heretical, simonistic, etc, transmit valid but illicit orders, all other conditions being themselves valid. That is the general principle.

What I am saying is that this has never been definitively asserted, or specifically stated, as applicable and governing, as to the OC/PNCC and Anglican joint consecrations, beginning in 1932, and the results there of. Logically, it would fit; the valid/illicit orders of the OC/PNCC bishops are infused and flow through the Anglican lines. Logically.

But of that specific, particular application of the logic, no official word had ever come from Rome, yea or nay. And, as far as I know, no percentage of the Pastoral Provision priests, from 1% to 100%, have been declared to have been ordained sub conditione. No Pastoral Provision priest I know of has stated that he was so ordained, as Fr. Hughes and Fr. Graham could and did so state. Far from it; all I have read over the years asserts all such were ordained absolutely. And all I have seen with reference to the Ordinariate says nothing will change, in that pratice. On that, I wait and watch, for a definitive statement from competent RCC authority, on this particular question.

Let me say again. I understand the Pastoral Provision priests. I agree as to the logic of a validly/illicitly consecrated bishop conferring valid/illicit orders, as Ott states. And if Rome were to announce that was the proper interpretation, with respect to OC/PNCC lines, in Anglicanism, I would smile. But until I see such an official, definitive announcement (and the issue has been open to comment for nigh 80 years), I remain convinced otherwise.

GKC

 

[IAGladfelter]

Yes. All that is what I referred to by referencing the position Ott states, in FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458. Validly consecrated bishops, even if schismatic, heretical, simonistic, etc, transmit valid but illicit orders, all other conditions being themselves valid. That is the general principle.

What I am saying is that this has never been definitively asserted, or specifically stated, as applicable and governing, as to the OC/PNCC and Anglican joint consecrations, beginning in 1932, and the results there of. Logically, it would fit; the valid/illicit orders of the OC/PNCC bishops are infused and flow through the Anglican lines. Logically.

But of that specific, particular application of the logic, no official word had ever come from Rome, yea or nay. And, as far as I know, no percentage of the Pastoral Provision priests, from 1% to 100%, have been declared to have been ordained sub conditione. No Pastoral Provision priest I know of has stated that he was so ordained, as Fr. Hughes and Fr. Graham could and did so state. Far from it; all I have read over the years asserts all such were ordained absolutely. And all I have seen with reference to the Ordinariate says nothing will change, in that pratice. On that, I wait and watch, for a definitive statement from competent RCC authority, on this particular question.

Let me say again. I understand the Pastoral Provision priests. I agree as to the logic of a validly/illicitly consecrated bishop conferring valid/illicit orders, as Ott states. And if Rome were to announce that was the proper interpretation, with respect to OC/PNCC lines, in Anglicanism, I would smile. But until I see such an official, definitive announcement (and the issue has been open to comment for nigh 80 years), I remain convinced otherwise.

GKC

As you said, it will be interesting to see how this works out.

Many Blessings,

• Irl

 

[GKC]

As you said, it will be interesting to see how this works out.

Many Blessings,

• Irl

If you hear anything new, from an authoritative source, of how it is going forward, let us know.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

Well, Jim, the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church does that very thing as a group, and has been doing so since 2004.

Its current statement of faith which all clergy must sign, now includes not only an enhanced version of the Mandatum "not to teach, preach, write, or publish anything contrary to the Roman Catholic Magisterium, but now includes the Statement of Faith from the Council of Trent (Iniunctum Nobis, promulgated by Pope Pius IV, The Council of Trent, A.D. 1563) modified only by the addition of the1st and 2nd Vatican Councils to the document’s reference to the Council of Trent as Councils which must be accepted without question.

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

Blessings,

• Irl

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 is truly miraculous and inspiring.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

GKC wrote:
But of that specific, particular application of the logic, no official word had ever come from Rome, yea or nay. And, as far as I know, no percentage of the Pastoral Provision priests, from 1% to 100%, have been declared to have been ordained sub conditione. No Pastoral Provision priest I know of has stated that he was so ordained, as Fr. Hughes and Fr. Graham could and did so state. Far from it; all I have read over the years asserts all such were ordained absolutely. And all I have seen with reference to the Ordinariate says nothing will change, in that pratice. On that, I wait and watch, for a definitive statement from competent RCC authority, on this particular question.

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

 

[CallistusPM]

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