Protestant ordinariate?

[Don_Ruggero]

It is not simply a case of Apostolic succession, the actual rite used to ‘ordain’ Anglican priests is in itself invalid as it negates the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. Therefore even if (hypothetically) the Pope himself (let alone a bishop from the Old Catholic church) was to attempt to ordain someone using the Anglican rite of ordination, it would be invalid and ordination would not take place.

It is not an open question, Anglican orders are absolutely null and void.

This is not entirely correct. It has happened several times that the Holy See has determined differently.

While the norm is for absolute ordination it is not universal. Conditional ordination has been used with the pastoral provision, notably with regard to pastoral provision in the United Kingdom. One can most easily research the case of Bishop Graham Leonard, as his case received significant publicity, as did the Holy See’s determination.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

All those in the Anglican Ordinate had to convert to the Catholic Faith. It took years to bring this into where it is today. They are Catholic now and united with the Catholic Faith. Their priests are fully ordained Catholic Priests. God Bless them all, Memaw

The first Anglican Use parish of the pastoral provision was established in 1983. The petition for the pastoral provision began, if my memory still serves, in 1980 although the meeting of the Anglican priest themselves was some brief period before that.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If they come into full communion with Rome, why would they not have a catholic mind, regarding the seven sacraments, how else would they be in communion? Also ordinaries for separate EX protestants in communion with Rome and with a catholic mind, like ALL converts, who wish to retain their patrimony

You are asking about the establishment of ordinariates, beyond the Anglican Use ordinariate, for other of the reformed traditions.

For an ordinariate to be erected, there has to be a group of the faithful converting to Catholicism, as a body, both clergy and laity, with a liturgical use that is their proper heritage but that is adaptable to Catholicism.

Moreover, their ecclesiology must be constituted such as to be normative to have a bishop as the Ordinary for the ordinariate. There must be the patrimony of the ministration of the seven sacraments to the lay faithful who are coming from that tradition, and it must be according to a Catholic mind of the sacraments and their nature and their administration.

All of that has been true with the Anglican Use. What they lived was compatible with the Catholic mind and so they have a missal with their own form of Mass, which preserves elements from the celebration of the Eucharist according to the book of common prayer; their own Divine Office, which is entirely based on the Anglican Office and not the Roman Office; their own rites for administration of baptism, marriage, the reconciliation of a penitent, unction of the sick, burial of the dead, etc…all of which legitimately preserves their liturgical patrimony as Anglicans but which are rendered for usage as Catholics in ways that are solidly and assuredly Catholic in theology and praxis.

What was provisional has been finalized with the work of the commission of the CDF, on-going now for years…and the one who oversaw that tremendous work is now appointed bishop for the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, which is the ordinariate governing the Anglican Use for the United States and Canada.

There are relatively few groups besides the Anglicans who are capable of that. There are elements of Presbyterianism, as but one example, which do not lend themselves to the ordinariate mechanism in all its aspects, even should there be an en masse request of Presbyterian ministers and faithful to be received corporately into full communion with Rome.

Yes, they could be received into full communion with the Catholic Church by a different process but the establishment of an ordinariate would require too much violence to their liturgical praxis and theology as also their ecclesiology to really make it feasible. That is what I was saying in my post.

 

[7_Sorrows]

All those in the Anglican Ordinate had to convert to the Catholic Faith. It took years to bring this into where it is today. They are Catholic now and united with the Catholic Faith. Their priests are fully ordained Catholic Priests. God Bless them all, Memaw

 

[Brendan_64]

This is not entirely correct. It has happened several times that the Holy See has determined differently.

While the norm is for absolute ordination it is not universal. Conditional ordination has been used with the pastoral provision, notably with regard to pastoral provision in the United Kingdom. One can most easily research the case of Bishop Graham Leonard, as his case received significant publicity, as did the Holy See’s determination.

The Church does indeed teach that Anglican orders are absolutely null and void and that the Anglican rite of ordination is invalid (due to the change in form of the rite). Apostolicae Curae is clear on this and it was reiterated by John Paul II in Ad Tuendem Fidem.

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/

The conditional ordination of the Anglican bishop Graham Leonard seems to have been down to a prudent doubt over the issue. We are not privy to the details behind this judgement, but I think we can safely assume that these doubts were not based on anything that would contradict Apostolicae Curae and it’s teaching that the Anglican rite of ordination is invalid.

 

[ProVobis]

All those in the Anglican Ordinate had to convert to the Catholic Faith. It took years to bring this into where it is today. They are Catholic now and united with the Catholic Faith. Their priests are fully ordained Catholic Priests. God Bless them all, Memaw

Still, I would avoid being taught that Cranmer and others were right (and by implication that the Church was wrong) all along. I have read this on some sites and blogs.

But that’s me.

 

[filius_Immacula]

You are asking about the establishment of ordinariates, beyond the Anglican Use ordinariate, for other of the reformed traditions.

For an ordinariate to be erected, there has to be a group of the faithful converting to Catholicism, as a body, both clergy and laity, with a liturgical use that is their proper heritage but that is adaptable to Catholicism.

Moreover, their ecclesiology must be constituted such as to be normative to have a bishop as the Ordinary for the ordinariate. There must be the patrimony of the ministration of the seven sacraments to the lay faithful who are coming from that tradition, and it must be according to a Catholic mind of the sacraments and their nature and their administration.

All of that has been true with the Anglican Use. What they lived was compatible with the Catholic mind and so they have a missal with their own form of Mass, which preserves elements from the celebration of the Eucharist according to the book of common prayer; their own Divine Office, which is entirely based on the Anglican Office and not the Roman Office; their own rites for administration of baptism, marriage, the reconciliation of a penitent, unction of the sick, burial of the dead, etc…all of which legitimately preserves their liturgical patrimony as Anglicans but which are rendered for usage as Catholics in ways that are solidly and assuredly Catholic in theology and praxis.

What was provisional has been finalized with the work of the commission of the CDF, on-going now for years…and the one who oversaw that tremendous work is now appointed bishop for the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, which is the ordinariate governing the Anglican Use for the United States and Canada.

There are relatively few groups besides the Anglicans who are capable of that. There are elements of Presbyterianism, as but one example, which do not lend themselves to the ordinariate mechanism in all its aspects, even should there be an en masse request of Presbyterian ministers and faithful to be received corporately into full communion with Rome.

Yes, they could be received into full communion with the Catholic Church by a different process but the establishment of an ordinariate would require too much violence to their liturgical praxis and theology as also their ecclesiology to really make it feasible. That is what I was saying in my post.

Thanks, great explanation, I get it.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The conditional ordination of the Anglican bishop Graham Leonard seems to have been down to a prudent doubt over the issue. We are not privy to the details behind this judgement, but I think we can safely assume that these doubts were not based on anything that would contradict Apostolicae Curae and it’s teaching that the Anglican rite of ordination is invalid.

Why do you write “We are not privy to the details”? Perhaps you are not privy to the details but that does not means others of us do not know. In fact, it is exactly as mjwise wrote in her post.

This is what His Eminence Basil Cardinal Hume, who administered the conditional ordination, said:

*While firmly restating the judgment of Apostolicae Curae that Anglican ordination is invalid, the Catholic Church takes account of the involvement, in some Anglican episcopal ordinations, of bishops of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht who are validly ordained. In particular and probably rare cases the authorities in Rome may judge that there is a “prudent doubt” concerning the invalidity of priestly ordination received by an individual Anglican minister ordain in this line of succession.

There are many complex factors which would need to be verified in each case. It is most unlikely that sufficient evidence will normally be available, but in Dr. Leonard’s case, very full documentation was available which enabled the authorities in Rome to reach a judgment, and in this particular case that judgment was that a “prudent doubt” exists. Of course, if there were other cases where sufficient evidence was available, the balance of that evidence may lead the authorities to reach a different judgment.

After extensive research and careful consideration of the factors necessary for validity, the authorities in Rome instructed me to ordain Dr. Leonard to the priesthood conditionally, in accordance with the norms of Canon 845.2. In such a case, during the course of the ordination liturgy the church prays that almighty God will grant the candidate the grace of the Catholic priesthood in case he has not received it through his ordination celebrated in the Anglican Communion.*

This was, personally, a very important point to Graham.

 

[Brendan_64]

Why do you write “We are not privy to the details”? Perhaps you are not privy to the details but that does not means others of us do not know. In fact, it is exactly as mjwise wrote in her post.

And this is what is written in Apostolicae Curae

"25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

1. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
2. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That “form” consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify."

(The bold emphasis has been added by myself)

Clearly whatever the exact basis for the the prudent doubt in the case of the Anglican bishop Graham Leonard, it cannot be based on the assumption that the Anglican rite of ordination can be valid, because that would be in contradiction to what Apostolicae Curae clearly states.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And this is what is written in Apostolicae Curae

"25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

1. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
2. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That “form” consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify."

(The bold emphasis has been added by myself)

Clearly whatever the exact basis for the the prudent doubt in the case of the Anglican bishop Graham Leonard, it cannot be based on the assumption that the Anglican rite of ordination can be valid, because that would be in contradiction to what Apostolicae Curae clearly states.

The exact basis for the prudent doubt was judged by the Holy See based on the documentation that Graham had concerning his ordination…the ministers of ordination as well as the sacramental form. We are many decades beyond Apostolicae Curae. There were Anglicans in its aftermath, such as Graham Leonard and others, who were attentive to seeing that, in fact, their ordinations would be valid by seeking a proper remedy. That is what mjwise wrote and it is correct. That is why Cardinal Hume wrote what he did and the way that he did it. It is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination – but it is a specific point articulated by the Holy See and by the Primate of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

 

[JerryZ]

I’d they are CONVERTED, which is the group mentioned, then those doctrinal issues would already be settled. They’re are more protestants converted than Ashland, you speak as if there are none, many protestants have come into the church accepting the sacraments, but they wish to retain their patrimony, didn’t pope emeritus benedict xvi talk abbot protestants, that is CONVERTED protestants retaining their traditions?

Well now of course I know of many protestants that have converted and are now in the fold, the OP however is asking about whole congregations that could want to join and what “provisions” could the holy father make to accommodate them.

I do not want to sound uncharitable but we need to be realists here.
For example, what traditions could a baptist congregation retain? They do not have even an inkling on what’s going on at a Catholic Mass, to them it is the equivalent of Hocus Pocus. Many of them do not believe Baptism has any role in the human salvation history.
Sacraments are also Hocus Pocus or witchcraft to them. They would first need to regain the Sacramental nature of the Church AND regain the concept of Church as Jesus intended.
These groups would have such a big hurdle to overcome that the prospect of them rejoining the Church while commendable are quite remote. Just saying. Of course I fully believe that the Holy Spirit CAN bring about many to convert I we should all constantly pray that HE indeed does.

…

 

[mjwise]

It is not simply a case of Apostolic succession, the actual rite used to ‘ordain’ Anglican priests is in itself invalid as it negates the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. Therefore even if (hypothetically) the Pope himself (let alone a bishop from the Old Catholic church) was to attempt to ordain someone using the Anglican rite of ordination, it would be invalid and ordination would not take place.

It is not an open question, Anglican orders are absolutely null and void.

The papal bull rested its case on alleged deficiencies the Edward VI-era Anglican ordinal, which was subsequently changed and enlarged in the the century that followed, and combined with the reintroduction of undisputed apostolic lineage throughout the 20th century, that leaves the open question. I certainly don’t expect the bull to be retracted in the next 100 or 300 or 500 years though. My personal opinion is that this has led to the less than rousing success of the Anglican ordinariate (33 parishes total in the US, by my count) - you have to repudiate your priestly work as an Anglican priest and admit it has been utterly without effect by submitting to a full reordination. Not many Anglican priests are willing to submit to saying they’ve been playing pretend priest for 5, 10, or 20 years, even if they are otherwise disposed to become Roman Catholic.

 

[Memaw]

The papal bull rested its case on alleged deficiencies the Edward VI-era Anglican ordinal, which was subsequently changed and enlarged in the the century that followed, and combined with the reintroduction of undisputed apostolic lineage throughout the 20th century, that leaves the open question. I certainly don’t expect the bull to be retracted in the next 100 or 300 or 500 years though. My personal opinion is that this has led to the less than rousing success of the Anglican ordinariate (33 parishes total in the US, by my count) - you have to repudiate your priestly work as an Anglican priest and admit it has been utterly without effect by submitting to a full reordination. Not many Anglican priests are willing to submit to saying they’ve been playing pretend priest for 5, 10, or 20 years, even if they are otherwise disposed to become Roman Catholic.

To know and understand the TRUTH is a lot different than “submitting” to have been “playing pretend priest”, Apostolic Succession is absolutely essential to a valid priesthood and no amount of years can change that TRUTH. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Don_Ruggero]

To know and understand the TRUTH is a lot different than “submitting” to have been “playing pretend priest”, Apostolic Succession is absolutely essential to a valid priesthood and no amount of years can change that TRUTH. God Bless, Memaw

Here is the mind of the Church of Rome:

Since 1998 the following prayer, written by Basil Cardinal Hume, of blessed memory, and approved by the CDF, was recommended for inclusion in the Roman Catholic ordination of a former Anglican priest:

Oratio ad gratias agendas pro ministerio ab electo in Communione anglicana expleto
[Prayer for giving thanks for the former ministry of the ordinand in the Anglican Communion]

Deinde omnes surgunt. Episcopus, deposita mitra, stans manibus iunctis versus ad electum dicit:
[Then all rise. The bishop, having doffed his mitre, standing with joined hands, facing toward the ordinand, says:]

N., the Holy Catholic Church recognizes that not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion as carried out in communities separated from her can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation. And so we now pray.

Et omnes, per aliquod temporis spatium, silentio orant. Deinde, manus extensis, Episcopus orat dicens:
[And all, for a certain space of time, in silence pray. Then, with extended hands, the Bishop prays saying:]

**Almighty Father, we give you thanks for the X years of faithful ministry of your servant N. in the Anglican Communion [vel: in the Church of England], whose fruitfulness for salvation has been derived from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. As your servant has been received into full communion and now seeks to be ordained to the presbyterate in the Catholic Church, we beseech you to bring to fruition that for which we now pray. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord. **

Populus acclamat:
[The people acclaim:]
Amen

On other occasions, such as when a priest who has been received into full communion with the Roman Church and ordained by a rescript of the Roman Pontiff celebrates an anniversary of his ministry, there is also to be expressed acknowledgement of his ministry in the Anglican communion.

The work of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in finding ways to incorporate to the fullest extent possible and to express and laud the legitimate patrimony that these priests and their communities bring to the Church of Rome has been, truly, tireless across more than 30 years.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The papal bull rested its case on alleged deficiencies the Edward VI-era Anglican ordinal, which was subsequently changed and enlarged in the the century that followed, and combined with the reintroduction of undisputed apostolic lineage throughout the 20th century, that leaves the open question. I certainly don’t expect the bull to be retracted in the next 100 or 300 or 500 years though. My personal opinion is that this has led to the less than rousing success of the Anglican ordinariate (33 parishes total in the US, by my count) - you have to repudiate your priestly work as an Anglican priest and admit it has been utterly without effect by submitting to a full reordination. Not many Anglican priests are willing to submit to saying they’ve been playing pretend priest for 5, 10, or 20 years, even if they are otherwise disposed to become Roman Catholic.

“playing pretend priest” sounds very judgmental if you ask me. these priests have performed baptisms, joined couples in matrimony, helped meet the spiritual needs of their congregations, preached the Gospel within the Anglican communion. they are priests. they wear vestments and perform the sacraments for the Anglican communion. no, they are not Catholic priests, but they are priests. and the bishops are bishops. I do not agree with female ordination in the priesthood, however.

 

[Brendan_64]

“playing pretend priest” sounds very judgmental if you ask me. these priests have performed baptisms, joined couples in matrimony, helped meet the spiritual needs of their congregations, preached the Gospel within the Anglican communion. they are priests. they wear vestments and perform the sacraments for the Anglican communion. no, they are not Catholic priests, but they are priests. and the bishops are bishops.

It may sound judgemental, but it is the Truth, Anglican orders are not valid, they are not priests. A priest is not simply a job created by an institution, it is a state of being created by God. It does not matter how many people view an Anglican priest or bishop to be a priest or a bishop, how hard he works, how devout he is, or how much good work he does, he is not and never will be a priest (unless properly ordained with Catholic or Orthodox rite of ordination).

And as for Apostolicae Curae no longer applying to the current Anglican rite if ordination, John Paul II blew this argument out of the water in 1998 with Ad Tuendam Fidem. Referring to Apostolicae Curae and the invalidity of Anglican orders, he stated that anyone who denies such truths “would be in a position rejecting a truth if Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full Communion with the Catholic Church”.

The matter is not an open question. Anglican orders are, and remain, “completely null and void”. Ad Tuendam Fidem reaffirmed this in 1998.

 

[ProVobis]

These groups would have such a big hurdle to overcome that the prospect of them rejoining the Church while commendable are quite remote. Just saying. Of course I fully believe that the Holy Spirit CAN bring about many to convert I we should all constantly pray that HE indeed does.

Interesting that this is always used as an argument as most Christian groups believe in the Holy Spirit and that they already have been “converted.” Otherwise they wouldn’t call themselves Christian. IMO, of course.

 

[mjwise]

Here is the mind of the Church of Rome:

N., the Holy Catholic Church recognizes that not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion as carried out in communities separated from her can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation. And so we now pray.

Et omnes, per aliquod temporis spatium, silentio orant. Deinde, manus extensis, Episcopus orat dicens:
[And all, for a certain space of time, in silence pray. Then, with extended hands, the Bishop prays saying:]

**Almighty Father, we give you thanks for the X years of faithful ministry of your servant N. in the Anglican Communion [vel: in the Church of England], whose fruitfulness for salvation has been derived from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. As your servant has been received into full communion and now seeks to be ordained to the presbyterate in the Catholic Church, we beseech you to bring to fruition that for which we now pray. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord. **

This is all well and good, but really, this could be said (with some minor modification) over virtually any converting Christian minister or pastor. Many Baptist ministers validly baptize, officiate at natural/valid marriages, and minister to people too. Most Anglican priests treat their orders as real and not invented. Again, this is why the ordinariate holds little appeal even for those Anglican priests that might otherwise consider it.

The work of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in finding ways to incorporate to the fullest extent possible and to express and laud the legitimate patrimony that these priests and their communities bring to the Church of Rome has been, truly, tireless across more than 30 years.

Perhaps, but the results have been meager. If I wanted to attend an Anglican Use liturgy, it would be a 10 hour round trip for the closest one to me. Tridentine masses are almost common by comparison.
Brendan 64:

And as for Apostolicae Curae no longer applying to the current Anglican rite if ordination, John Paul II blew this argument out of the water in 1998 with Ad Tuendam Fidem. Referring to Apostolicae Curae and the invalidity of Anglican orders, he stated that anyone who denies such truths “would be in a position rejecting a truth if Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full Communion with the Catholic Church”.

Ah, but the actual text of the commentary merely says that the bull Apostolicae Curae was a type of true (if not divinely inspired) teaching. The Motu Proprio certainly didn’t update the bull to reflect developments in the intervening century. So yes, the Roman Catholic teaching regarding the situation last substantively revisited in 1896 remains operationally the same. As I said, I don’t expect that to change in 100, 300, or 500 years.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It may sound judgemental, but it is the Truth, Anglican orders are not valid, they are not priests. A priest is not simply a job created by an institution, it is a state of being created by God. It does not matter how many people view an Anglican priest or bishop to be a priest or a bishop, how hard he works, how devout he is, or how much good work he does, he is not and never will be a priest (unless properly ordained with Catholic or Orthodox rite of ordination).

And as for Apostolicae Curae no longer applying to the current Anglican rite if ordination, John Paul II blew this argument out of the water in 1998 with Ad Tuendam Fidem. Referring to Apostolicae Curae and the invalidity of Anglican orders, he stated that anyone who denies such truths “would be in a position rejecting a truth if Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full Communion with the Catholic Church”.

The matter is not an open question. Anglican orders are, and remain, “completely null and void”. Ad Tuendam Fidem reaffirmed this in 1998.

they are null and void to the Catholic church, but not for the Episcopal and Anglican churches. Just like a Baptist pastor would not be able to walk into an Episcopal or Anglican church and don vestments and begin conducting a communion service. Episopal and Anglican priests study many years to become priests.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Motu Proprio certainly didn’t update the bull to reflect developments in the intervening century. So yes, the Roman Catholic teaching regarding the situation last substantively revisited in 1896 remains operationally the same. As I said, I don’t expect that to change in 100, 300, or 500 years.

And what about Dominus Iesus issued by the CDF in 2000? In Dominus Iesus, the Anglican church is regarded as an ecclesial community and not a proper Church. How can valid orders be conferred by an organisation that is not even a Church? How can an organisation that is not a Church actually create a valid rite of ordination? Could a group of lay-people, not even part of a valid Church, meet together and come up with a rite of ordination and validly authorise it? Surely relevant authority is needed for this, i.e through a valid Church?