Validity of High-Church Anglican orders

[Gorgias]

AC says “in the whole Ordinal…every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.” If that is true, it should be of little difficulty to point out the omissions.

Find me another material difference, please. Let’s explore them together.

In other words, what you’re saying is that you dispute the truth of the claims of AC?

 

[RedFan]

I dispute its logic. (Which is, of course, a different thing from saying I believe Anglican Orders valid.) Its logic just strikes me as faulty.

 

[PickyPicky]

Let’s not mix apples and oranges. For all its discussion of defect of “form,” Apostolicae Curae did not once point to a want of apostolic succession. The issue on invalidating Anglican Orders was not “by whom” bishops and priests were consecrated or ordained, but “by what rite” they were consecrated or ordained.

But the argument is that the invalidity of the orders imparted by the Edwardian rite led to a breach in Apostolic Succession, which means (the RCC holds) that subsequent ordinations were also invalid, even if the supposed fault in the rite were rectified. Unless, presumably (1) the fault was rectified and (2) bishops in Apostolic Succession (say from the OCs?) interposed to carry out some subsequent consecrations and ordinations, re-establishing Succession.

Anglicans, of course, hold that their orders are valid, OCs or no OCs.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can you define, @FrDavid96, what is meant by
ecclesial communities? How do Churches differ from ecclesial communities?
Was it JPII that announced this distinction
or BenedictXVI? I vaguely remember when the term ecclesial community was used, but my memory isn’t very good.
I remember asking a friend of mine what her pastor thought of the term used “ecclesial community” (this was before I became Catholic) and she laughed that she didn’t think her pastor paid attention or cared what the Pope said.

It goes back to the Vatican II documents. It probably pre-dates the Council, meaning that they were just using an already-existing term as opposed to inventing one. Anyway, it’s been around at least that long.

An ecclesial community is a group of Christians (we might sometimes say ‘denomination’ but not always) that are indeed Christian but do not have valid Apostolic Succession, meaning validly ordained bishops. Without bishops, they don’t have priests or deacons, nor do they have the Sacraments that require valid ordination, Eucharist, Confirmation, Confession, Anointing. They might have ceremonies that use those terms but they don’t have valid sacraments. Basically speaking, most of these (in our own experience) would come under the very general heading of “Protestant.” They might or might not practice baptism (some don’t believe in it or see it as optional).

In contrast, a Church (which might be Catholic or not) does have Apostolic Succession. Mostly, these are the Orthodox Churches. All of their sacraments are valid.

 

[RedFan]

I don’t disagree with you, PP. My point was that the AC challenged form, not lineage. But I agree that if the form challenge is well-placed (which I deny), the lineage is broken.

 

[GKMotley]

Ok. This has been a hobby of mine, online, for many years. I was sure that someone would have filled in the question. But I’ll do it, in spite of my my vow of restraint.

The point is not merely the form. The point is also intent. Sacramental intent, as the other sacramental factors (such as form) must be valid to validly confect the sacrament. The defect in form is noted. But that in itself would not necessarily have rendered the judgement of AC. There are ordination/consecration rites with the same “defect” that the RCC recognizes as valid for ordination/consecration. In this case, the defect of form is coupled with the defect of intention.

The logic is that the writing of the form, as contained in the Edwardine Ordinal, at the point in time it was done, in the theological /political context in which it was done, and considering by whom it was done, the lack of a definitive statement of the the full sacerdotal powers of the sacrament of Holy Orders (that of confecting a valid Eucharist) was judged a deliberate conscious act of theological belief, and that while the preface to the ordinal, and several points in it, refer to the three Orders of ministry, the omission of the reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice, deliberately made, reflected a difference in the meaning of the names of those ministers. A priest in the sense of historic usage was not intended. Something else was being done.

Intent is, as AC says, usually a simple factor to determine, as to validity. Being an internal state, not observable, it is not directly measurable. it’s basic requirement is a sacramental intent to do, in the sacramental action, what the Church does in the action (facere quod facit ecclesia). If all other sacramental factors are valid (form, matter, etc) then the intent is taken as valid also. Absent some other point which permits a look internally, a method of determining by other means (that allow a determinatia ex adiunctis) the validity of sacramental intent). This, in the judgement expressed in AC, is the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, constructed when and by whom it was, constructed, as judged, to deliberately excise the sacerdotal portion of the priest’s role… Hence, the sacramental intent of someone using the Ordinal is judged invalid.

There is a great deal of history, personalities, and politics involved in the long, sad tale of AC. For the point here, the book you want is Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. For a really good account of both the history of the story, and a close look at the theological question overall, Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are recommended.

All RCs, regardless of the history, politics, personalities, etc, of the issue, should affirm the judgement of AC, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Others (say Anglicans of the sort mentioned by the OP) may do otherwise

 

[GKMotley]

You knew all along, what was going to happen, yes?

 

[RedFan]

Intent is, as AC says, usually a simple factor to determine, as to validity. Being an internal state, not observable, it is not directly measurable. it’s basic requirement is a sacramental intent to do, in the sacramental action, what the Church does in the action (facere quod facit ecclesia). If all other sacramental factors are valid (form, matter, etc) then the intent is taken as valid also. Absent some other point which permits a look internally, a method of determining by other means (that allow a determinatia ex adiunctis) the validity of sacramental intent). This, in the judgement expressed in AC, is the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, constructed when and by whom it was, constructed, as judged, to deliberately excise the sacerdotal portion of the priest’s role

I hesitate to infer intention NOT to do “what the Church does” simply from the language of the Edwardine Rite – even if there is lack of intention to do what the Church intends by the sacrament. Even if the 16th-century Anglican minister of a given set of Holy Orders personally believed that the priest being ordained was not being commissioned for “sacrifice” as understood by the RCC, his error in understanding, or even willing, the purpose or effect of the sacrament as understood by the RCC is not incompatible with his intention to confer Holy Orders (which, at bottom, is what the Church does). To quote Aquinas on Baptism: “Although the person who does not believe baptism to be a sacrament or to have any spiritual power, does not intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless, he does at that time intend to do what the Church does, even if he considers that to be nothing.”

I hesitate as well to deduce the intention of the particular minister of a sacrament from the intention of the author of the Rite used. The latter (Cramner?) may have had “a deliberate conscious act of theological belief” contrary to the historical understanding of the RCC when he picked up his pen. That doesn’t necessarily establish the like beliefs of the former when he picked up the Ordinal.

 

[Gorgias]

I dispute its logic. … Its logic just strikes me as faulty.

It seems you might have misunderstood its logic. A few posters in this thread, including @PickyPicky, have IDed what AC was saying: lack of form leads to lack of valid bishops. Lack of valid bishops leads to lack of priests. Its logic is a two-step dance; each step contributed to the current state of affairs – namely, that the Anglican Communion cannot validly ordain.

 

[RedFan]

lack of form leads to lack of valid bishops

I don’t agree that “lack of form leads to lack of valid bishops.” Nor would I agree that a validly-ordained bishop’s “lack of form” in ordaining priests would lead to lack of valid priests.

Absent some Biblical pronouncement of our Lord, there are no “magic words” or incantations which, if a single syllable be omitted or added, must void the sacrament. One must look instead to language of the Rite as a whole (prefaces included) and ascertain whether it can fairly be interpreted as conferring the sacrament. In my view the Edwardine Rite passes that test.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t agree that “lack of form leads to lack of valid bishops.”

Oh. So then, your argument is with the definition of what makes a valid sacrament? “Form and matter”, no? If the matter is missing and the form is faulty, then validity is at stake.

 

[RedFan]

Form needs to be judged as a whole, not piecemeal. I understood your “lack of form” comment to refer to each element of the Rite’s form (including the AC’s chastisement of “Receive the Holy Spirit” without the trailer “for the office and work of a priest”) – and was responding to that. Forgive me if I misunderstood you.

 

[GKMotley]

Leo XIII did not so hesitate. Nor did Monsignor Merry del Val, or Archbishop Vaughan, among other relevant dramatis personae involved. I do otherwise, myself. But I get to do that sort of thing, and assert other points that also may be adduced against the logic in AC. RCs do not. As in your terminal sentence. Which does not consider the RC concept of nativa indoles ac spiritus,which would render the form, the words, the paper itself, as unable to be used confect the sacrament, regardless of intent or minister…

Again, the sacramental intention is to do what the Church does in the sacramental action, else it is not valid. In this case,create a sacerdotal, sacrificing priest, as was true ab initio.

 

[GKMotley]

PickyPicky also has a sneaky sentence in there.

 

[GKMotley]

Form, matter, intent, minister, perhaps recipient.

 

[RedFan]

The Jesuit theologian on the commission, Fr. De Augustinis, certainly hesitated. So did Msgr. Duchesne, the French historian. The commission was not unequivocal.

 

[GKMotley]

True. And few people know that much. Four of the eight (raised from the original 6) (Duchesne, Gasparri, de Augustinis, Scannell [the non-Vaughan-selected English priest) were in favor of declaring Anglican orders either valid or possibly valid. 4 were for invalidity (Gasquet, Moyes, Fleming, [Cardinal Vaughan’s 3 representatives] and de Llaveneras).

But the vote of the Commission was not the deciding factor. It was the Cardinals, on 16 July, 1896, who done the deed.

Hughes/ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, again recommended. Best overall history I’ve found.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Okay, thank you for the explanation.

 

[commenter]

I am grateful to all who take time to explain this. I realize that not all the posters personally agree with the resolution of it, but they took the time to explain in understandable terms.

 

[GKMotley]

It’s a hobby. I got a lot of them, all involving books.