The whole ‘null and void’ ordeal of 1896 (as I’m sure your aware) was a hair-split decision. After reading Lord Halifax’s diary of the proceedings (although much of the correspondence is in French that I cannot read) it became quite clear to me how the proceedings leading up to the vote were highly manipulated by some English Cardinals.
In fact, the majority of continental European Cardinals had always believed Anglican Orders to be valid and were quite perplexed at the attitude of English and Irish prelates!
No, I will not hold it against any RC brothers who defend the Pope Leo XIII’s decision. But like I and JonNC (and I presume you?) have attested; the power of Christ is in our sacraments, and we should declare as much!
Is the sacrament not the whole focal point of much heady theological and apostolic succession arguments I see on here?
I just want to get to the heart of the matter.
Although I am not in the CofE, I often wonder if Pope Leo’s XIII declaration would of been better placed in the 70’s when the ‘trouble’ started.ie. the ordination of women to the priesthood and the dropping of traditional liturgy.
I could go on and on…
Well met GKC.
You presume correctly, as to my views on the Anglican orders/sacraments.
And, as I have said, over the years here (not meaning you would know it), the sad history of
Apostolicae curae has been a hobby of mine for around 20 years; the whole intertwined tale of history, theology, personality and politics from Halifax and Portals first meeting in 1890, until the end of the Malines conversation in 1927.
Halifax’s French, as in his LEO XIII AND ANGLICAN ORDERS I can get through, well enough. What’s the challenge is Lacey’s Latin in his A ROMAN DIARY. I have to wait until my daughter, who taught Latin for 5 years, is around for that.
It is true that the impetus, both for the original commission, and the subsequent final vote of the Cardinals under the Holy Office, was greatly influenced by Herbert, Cardinal Vaughan (not some English Cardinals). It is a misunderstanding to look at the final decision of the whole affair as some how a divided one. The 8 man commission, it is true, was divided, as Hughes, and later Tavard, and the authors of an interesting collection of the
Apostolicae curae related documents (ANGLICAN ORDERS: THE DOCUMENTS IN THE DEBATE, ed. Hill and Yarbnold, SJ) have detailed. But the 8 man commission was never charged with the decision, but of preparing advisory reports for the Cardinals, who, under the Holy Office, would make the decision. And that was unanimous (noting that Rampolla was absent).
I know of no evidence that there was a majority, plurality, or any other number of Cardinals, Europe wide, that favored the validity of Anglican Orders, though the histories certainly name a few who seemed sympathetic.
I recommend,as I always do, Fr. John J. Hughes’ two indispensable books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID (which focuses on the history and personalities involved: who did what) and STEWARDS OF THE LORD (which focuses on theological issues). Also, one should read Francis Clark’s (at the time, Fr. Francis Clark, SJ) ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the best exposition of the RC point: re: intent. And Fr. George Tavard’s A REVIEW OF ANGLICAN ORDERS is most useful, as is the intro and the documents provided in the Hill and Yarnold book (includes the
vota of 6 of the 8 commissioners, plus a letter from a 7th, as well as other useful things. It is a product of the ARCIC from the late 1990s, but not to be scorned. One can see Hughes’ influence in the intro.
What I would say with respect to the circumstances in the 1890s, versus the 1970s, is that what the Anglican Communion, generally, has been up to over the past 40+ years, is making
Apostolicae curae a prematurely prescient document, in its conclusion.
And I repeat: what the RCC has stated RCs should affirm (with reference to theological certainty) RCs should affirm. I know we agree, but it’s a mantra for me, on a number of points.
GKC
*Anglicanus-Catholicus *
