Valid Holy Orders or Not?

[Anglican_Monk]

That’s the rud Fr.David96, Aglican Catholics don’t want to become Roman Catholics.

 

[commenter]

That’s the rud Fr.David96, Aglican Catholics don’t want to become Roman Catholics.

I think people tend to switch back and forth between “Catholic Faith” and “Catholic Church”.

1. Pope Benedict invited people to join the Catholic Church.
2. Many people said we don’t need to, we already have the Catholic Faith.

Is it your point that the denominations in the Continuum, and perhaps ACNA, Rome itself, and (historically at least) the the C of E and TEC constitute the Catholic Church?

Or is it your point that the historic Catholic Faith can be grasped by individuals, wherever they are - in an Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist congregation,or those who go to no congregation?

Or is it your point that Rome itself, while still validly Catholic, has shown through the weaknesses of the papacy or whatever reasons for some Catholics to not join it (of course respecting those who choose to?) Is the Magisterium a factor that makes Rome more, or less attractive, to formally join? (I suspect it’s the lives of individual Catholics you know).

The Continuum seems to reflect a powerful witness of fidelity to Christian Faith. Do you think it would be able to be a more efficient force for evangelism, doctrinal orthodoxy, prolife, religious liberty, and basic moral values in the public square if the Continuum were united in one church, rather than several?

If you say it would be better if united in one Continuum rather than many, well…um…
you can kinda see where I’m going with this…

 

[Anglican_Monk]

Door #2. - I am already of the Catholic Faith + the last part of your statement, “Or is it your point that Rome itself, while still validly Catholic, has shown through the weaknesses of the papacy or whatever reasons for some Catholics to not join it (of course respecting those who choose to?) Is the Magisterium a factor that makes Rome more, or less attractive, to formally join? (I suspect it’s the lives of individual Catholics you know).”, would pretty much sum it up. There are dogmas held by the Roman Church that were at one time pious belief, but now by Papal decree a must for salvation…I could never hold to those absolutes. The Pope is the “Bishop among Bishops”, but never the last word…He’s the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Anglican_Monk]

Yes it would be great if the Anglica Catholic Continuing Provinces could get their acts together and unite, but alas in ain’t so and doesn’t seem to be headed in that direction in the future. There seems to be three continuing Anglo-Catholic Provinces that are as close to the Roman Church as we might ever get…ACC, APCK, and the UECA who are all in Communion with each other. I believe there is some understanding between these groups and the Polish National Catholic Church, but I would have to check on that.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s the rud Fr.David96, Aglican Catholics don’t want to become Roman Catholics.

Your response articulates the problem very well indeed.

You want to call yourself a Catholic, but without actually being a Catholic. In other words, to use the name, but reject that Catholic faith which is inseparably linked to the name.

Given that you want to re-define the word Catholic to be whatever you decide it means, then there’s nothing stopping you from re-defining the term “valid ordination” to be whatever you decide it means.

The response to your original question is really: it doesn’t matter anyway, because you’ve already decided for yourself.

 

[pablope]

Door #2. - I am already of the Catholic Faith + the last part of your statement, “Or is it your point that Rome itself, while still validly Catholic, has shown through the weaknesses of the papacy or whatever reasons for some Catholics to not join it (of course respecting those who choose to?) Is the Magisterium a factor that makes Rome more, or less attractive, to formally join? (I suspect it’s the lives of individual Catholics you know).”, would pretty much sum it up. There are dogmas held by the Roman Church that were at one time pious belief, but now by Papal decree a must for salvation…I could never hold to those absolutes. The Pope is the “Bishop among Bishops”, but never the last word…He’s the Bishop of Rome.

So you are now the authority to determine what is and what is not needed for salvation?

Let us say, if your bishop made a determination, as part of binding and losing…a dogma held by the RCC, should also be made binding on his congregation…would you oppose it or agree to bind by what your bishop has decided?

As St. Optatus says:

calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

St. Optatus writes to Parmenian:

But you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome. It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter’s Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter’s Shrine…. Behold, in Rome are the Shrines of the two Apostles *. Will you tell me whether he * has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where as is certain are these Shrines of the Saints.21

Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:*

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25*

 

[commenter]

Yes it would be great if the Anglica Catholic Continuing Provinces could get their acts together and unite, but alas in ain’t so and doesn’t seem to be headed in that direction in the future. There seems to be three continuing Anglo-Catholic Provinces that are as close to the Roman Church as we might ever get…ACC, APCK, and the UECA who are all in Communion with each other. I believe there is some understanding between these groups and the Polish National Catholic Church, but I would have to check on that.

Do you think the C of E, in, say, the 19th century, would have had the same moral, spiritual and intellectual impact on on the average city, or on England as a whole, if they had been divided into a few hundred overlapping independent entities, “in communion” with each other but still competing?

Do you think, today, the enemies of Christianity, religious liberty, prolife, traditional family life and marriage, would rather deal, in a given city or country as a whole, with an opponent that is a united single church, united locally, nationally and internationally? Or do you think they would rather deal with opponents who are many independent overlapping entities, each “in communion” with each other, cooperating on occasion.

“We must all hang together or we will all hang separately”. (I’m no GKC, don’t remember exactly who said that, but it sounds good).

 

[Seraphim73]

There was a time when the Russian Orthodox at least accepted the possibility that Anglicans preserved Apostolic Succession. With the decision to allow female “bishops” that possibility has ended for good.

“…the introduction of female bishops has eliminated even a theoretical possibility for the Orthodox to recognize the existence of apostolic succession in the Anglican hierarchy.” - Metropolitan Hilarion.

 

[GKC]

There was a time when the Russian Orthodox at least accepted the possibility that Anglicans preserved Apostolic Succession. With the decision to allow female “bishops” that possibility has ended for good.

“…the introduction of female bishops has eliminated even a theoretical possibility for the Orthodox to recognize the existence of apostolic succession in the Anglican hierarchy.” - Metropolitan Hilarion.

Yep.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Do you think the C of E, in, say, the 19th century, would have had the same moral, spiritual and intellectual impact on on the average city, or on England as a whole, if they had been divided into a few hundred overlapping independent entities, “in communion” with each other but still competing?

Do you think, today, the enemies of Christianity, religious liberty, prolife, traditional family life and marriage, would rather deal, in a given city or country as a whole, with an opponent that is a united single church, united locally, nationally and internationally? Or do you think they would rather deal with opponents who are many independent overlapping entities, each “in communion” with each other, cooperating on occasion.

“We must all hang together or we will all hang separately”. (I’m no GKC, don’t remember exactly who said that, but it sounds good).

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”

Attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

GKC

 

[GKC]

That’s the rud Fr.David96, Aglican Catholics don’t want to become Roman Catholics.

I know of a few who have, under the circumstances prevailing.

GKC

 

[manualman]

I’m probably way behind many reading this in terms of comprehending the issue, but a similar issue struck me as illustrative. We had a fad a couple decades ago wherein certain, ahem, creative priests took it upon themselves to abolish the terminology of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and instead use the terms “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” It’s inclusive, don’t you know…

Anyhoo, after the usual glacially slow catholic disciplinary mechanisms finally squashed it, the question arose as to whether baptisms done by this formula were valid. They weren’t! To the best of the church’s ability, those baptized by such priests had to be tracked down and offered valid baptisms. Contrast that with the fact that if a priest is distracted and mis-speaks, like “Father, Some and Holy Spirit” the baptism is still valid. The problem is that the defect of form proceeded from a defect in intent. Inadvertent defect in form conducted with intent to ‘do as the church does’ is not so grave a flaw.

Semantic games aside, it’s pretty clear that the REASON the Edwardine ordination rite was changed was to repudiate the idea of a sacrificial priesthood able to consecrate the host into the Body and Blood of Christ via a supernatural transformation of the man that occurred at that moment of ordination. That ill-intentioned ordination rite didn’t immediately invalidate all previously ordained priests and bishops. Rather it went on long enough for all those validly ordained bishops to die off. Even though after that the ordination rite was reformed and the role of priesthood in the sacrifice of the mass acknowledged again, there no longer remained any valid bishops to implement it.

Perhaps it’s true that one can find other ordination rites that lack the specific language about the sacrifice of the priesthood. But those lack the context in which it is apparent that the REASON for the lack was to intend to exclude it. In other words, they intended to ‘do as the church does’ rather than to repudiate the church and ‘improve’ on it.

That’s the thrust of AC as I understand it and why it is totally silent on the matter of the so-called Dutch Touch or PNCC ordinations. The fact that Rome has been silent for so long on that latter issue suggests that it probably has merit as an argument, but perhaps they think that if they put the issue off long enough it will become a moot point as the Anglican communion atomizes itself out of existence.

 

[GKC]

I’m probably way behind many reading this in terms of comprehending the issue, but a similar issue struck me as illustrative. We had a fad a couple decades ago wherein certain, ahem, creative priests took it upon themselves to abolish the terminology of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and instead use the terms “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” It’s inclusive, don’t you know…

Anyhoo, after the usual glacially slow catholic disciplinary mechanisms finally squashed it, the question arose as to whether baptisms done by this formula were valid. They weren’t! To the best of the church’s ability, those baptized by such priests had to be tracked down and offered valid baptisms. Contrast that with the fact that if a priest is distracted and mis-speaks, like “Father, Some and Holy Spirit” the baptism is still valid. The problem is that the defect of form proceeded from a defect in intent. Inadvertent defect in form conducted with intent to ‘do as the church does’ is not so grave a flaw.

Semantic games aside, it’s pretty clear that the REASON the Edwardine ordination rite was changed was to repudiate the idea of a sacrificial priesthood able to consecrate the host into the Body and Blood of Christ via a supernatural transformation of the man that occurred at that moment of ordination. That ill-intentioned ordination rite didn’t immediately invalidate all previously ordained priests and bishops. Rather it went on long enough for all those validly ordained bishops to die off. Even though after that the ordination rite was reformed and the role of priesthood in the sacrifice of the mass acknowledged again, there no longer remained any valid bishops to implement it.

Perhaps it’s true that one can find other ordination rites that lack the specific language about the sacrifice of the priesthood. But those lack the context in which it is apparent that the REASON for the lack was to intend to exclude it. In other words, they intended to ‘do as the church does’ rather than to repudiate the church and ‘improve’ on it.

That’s the thrust of AC as I understand it and why it is totally silent on the matter of the so-called Dutch Touch or PNCC ordinations. The fact that Rome has been silent for so long on that latter issue suggests that it probably has merit as an argument, but perhaps they think that if they put the issue off long enough it will become a moot point as the Anglican communion atomizes itself out of existence.

One missing link. As Clark shows, the “intention” of the argument in Apostolicae curae must be in the sacramental action. Writing a Rite is not a sacramental action. A Rite does not possess any intent, let alone a sacramental intent, though it may have a purpose. Which is why the conventional wisdom as to what “intent” means in Apostolicae curae follow Clark’s reasoning in ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION: the sacramental intent of the consecrating bishops at ++Parker’s consecration in 1559. And it was the use of the Ordinal, judged invalid in itself, for the reason you cite, that permitted the determinatio ex adiunctis on that intent.

The reason the Letter is silent on the point of the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat would more likely be that the formal relationship, which lead to the first official such acts, was 36 years in the future and the question was not one involved in the whole reason the whole complicated story of AC got started in the first place.

GKC