- Status
G
GKC
Guest
You are welcome. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL for the history of the affair, from the first meeting of Portal and Halifax, STEWARDS for the theology. Clark for the best presentation of the RC theoretical position. Moss, on the OCs, generally. There are other references.
One of the most common assumptions I find, in discussing the l’affaire Apostolciae Curae, is that of RCs who assume that Anglicans accept that the RCC has some sort of mandate for determinig specific cases of valid order, or apostolic succession, and if
Roma locuta, etc, etc… . It is rarely thus. The most common reaction to AC was not dismay and panic, but anger and fury (on Halifax’ part, sorrow). If the logic, facts, personalities, and politics of the case were persuasive to an Anglican, on their merits, and the issue of validity a central one to such a person, it’s probable the reaction would be to convert. But Anglicans don’t think of AC as a document that in itself renders Anglican orders valid or invalid, rather as one that states the RCC historical view on Anglican orders (that being one of the two questions the commission was ordered to address). IOW, it certainly states what a RC should affirm about Anglican orders, and says that, in the eyes of the RCC, such orders are invalid, and why. But Merry del Val’s words, over Leo XIII’s signature, don’t necessarily cause a sense of panic in Anglicans.
GKC
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
so i an anti-pope performed any ordinations as pope - wouldn’t those ordinations also be considered null and void?
P
peary
Guest
King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth - once she gained the throne - mastered a campaign to eradicate Catholics loyal to the pope. This included the bishops and priests as well as the laity. Bishops who would not disavow their allegiance to the pope were either murdered or run out of the country. The same with priests.
Historically, it doesn’t appear as though authentic apostolic succession occurred - it was discontinued. Henry VIII created his own bishops which, of course, made them invalid, heretical, and illicit.
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I have, many times, in this thread and elsewhere.
The judgment of the RCC on Anglican orders is given in the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896, over Leo XIII’s signature. It was based on two technical sacramental points: form and intent. The form of the Edwardine Ordinal was judged (as stated in Apostolicae Curae) to be invalid; unable to convey valid orders. But since that form itself did not differ from a number of rites which the RCC did consider to convey valid order, that judgment must be combined with the sacramental intent of those who used the Ordinal, in the case (see Clark, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) of the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559. This makes no mention of the ministers(bishops) in such consecrations, only form and intent. It was those that *Apostolicae Curae *states was the reason that Anglican orders were to be considered null and void.
Henry did relatively little against the RCs in the realm. Edward and Elizabeth did more, in the same fashion as Mary did, against the Church of England, when she was on the throne. It was the custom in those days. But none of that had any bearing on Apostolicae Curae.
GKC
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
Peary, there is no need to be defensive. GKC is rather an expert in this area and your original answer did not really touch on why they were considered null and void. No point in arguing with GKC in any case because you are out of your league in this area.
My own opinion is that it is debatable that they were null and void when Leo XIII made his declaration. In the 20th century thanks to the dutch touch it really became a debatable issue. In fact as a point of reality you will run into many Anglican priests who have valid order thanks to the PNCC/Old Catholics of Utrecht. If you did not slap the label Anglican on them they would be considered valid just as the OCC and PNCC orders are.
However as GKC and others have pointed out it does not really matter whether Leo XIII was correct or whether since the 20th century that conclusion of Leo’s is even close to valid. If the Catholic (i.e. Roman Catholic) Church says they are not valid then your job as a Roman Catholic is to adhere to that position. Anglicans don’t need to agree, they can find it illogical and hilarious…it really does not matter. As a Roman Catholic you are obliged to follow what Rome states and believes in this regard without regard to its objective correctness.
G
GKC
Guest
Macaronic phraseology.
The French student in me is buried, il y avait cinquante ans.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
According to Apostolicae Curae, yes, and all RCS should affirm that. Anglicans have a different view of the matter ( so to speak).
But it has nothing to do with Henry breaking from Rome, or with anyone’s persecution of anyone, Elizabeth or Mary included. It has to do ( so says Apostolicae Curae) with sacramental form and intent.
So, no. You were incorrect.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
It was debateable, at the time, within the eight man commission originally set up to consider the case. As Hughes pointed out, even before the Vatican files covering the case were opened, a few years ago, the commission appeared to have split he was correct) 50-50, four for invalidity, four for valid or possibly valid. It was, as were a number of things, finally a poitically influenced decision. And one must keep in mind that what was being argued was not so much the validity/invalidity as what the RCC attitude at historically been on the subject, and whether it should be changed.
It is long, sad and complicated. But certainly, a RC should affirm what Leo signed.
GKC
P
peary
Guest
Gotcha, bro!
G
GKC
Guest
M
manualman
Guest
Except that Rome hasn’t actually SAID anything about the “Dutch Touch” or PNCC involved ordinations. AC only addresses the issue of Anglican apostolic succession on its own merits. It appears to me to be silent on ordinations where a bishop from a schismatic group with valid orders is involved. Thus, my “job” as a Roman Catholic doesn’t give me specific direction on those priests of bishops. For practical purposes in my everyday life, it doesn’t matter since, valid or not, such clergy are not in communion with the Catholic Church and so it would be poor form (and disobedient) for me to go to one for the sacraments (not to mention tedious - can you imagine needing to ask for an ordination geneology before mass starts?..)
G
GKC
Guest
All of which is true, and, some of which I’ve pointed out. However, the RCC has made a general statement as to the ability of schismatic, heretical, or excommunicated (but otherwise valid) bishops to consecrate/ordain. They do so validly but illicitly. See Ott, p. 458.
GKC
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
Peary,
**
Henry was a psychopath,in my opinion. But if you looked closely the people he murdered ,or executed were usually people who crossed him in politics or women. He murdered many, but always remember the person noted for persecution is not Henry so much as his daughter Mary! Remember also, Mary achieved power with the support of the English people. There was no wish to change religion.
Regarding Elizabeth,
You are talking rubbish! Prior to the secession of the papal supporters after the Bull of 1571, there was very little trouble for the followers of the papacy. In my district a member of the local abbey travelled a circuit of the area for some 50 years giving lessons on pre-reformation theology. He was always noted and never harmed, dying of old age. There was never a change in the theology. What changed occured was when the pope called his supporters out of the Church in England to set up their own schismatic Church and suggested that they got rid of the Queen! Elizabeth, who always called herself a Catholic, was by no means simple, she new there was no retiring home for redundant queens, she had the example of her mother and cousin,Queen Ann and Queen Jane, both executed. What the papacy had done was to interfere in English politics and given the slaughter that had occured in France, S. Bartholomew’s Day] and the massacres in the Low Countries by Palma’s armies there was a fear that English people were next for the knife.
**
G
GKC
Guest
Regnans in Excelsis ?
GKC
- Status