Validity of High-Church Anglican orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My understanding is Anglican orders are null because under Edward VI, bishops who had belonged to the Church introduced and used a new rite not approved by the Church for the express purpose of excluding the intention to do what the Church does. Later, the rites were modified back to include the intention, but the chain had been broken. Of course, some Anglicans have sought ordination from elsewhere, such as the Old Catholics (the “Dutch touch”), so that is where the case-by-case analysis comes in.

In general, the element of intention in sacramental validity requires one to intend to do what the Church of Christ does, but one can be mistaken as to what the effect of sacrament is or even which is the real Church. This is why, for example, baptisms performed by communities that deny its effect, and (and which rite even denies the effect) can still be valid. They are invalid when there is an act of “positive exclusion.” There was such an act in the case of the English bishops in question.

The bishops in question knew what the Church did (they knew that rite and had used it before) and they intentionally chose to use a different rite to exclude the intention of the original–if they intended to do what the Church did, why not just do what the Church did? Why substantially change it? Their choice was one of positive exclusion.

I’m probably not doing this principle justice, but there is a book out there called “Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention” from 1956 by Francis Clark, SJ that is helpful.
 
Somehow, this all sounds rather familiar. Somewhere up above, something very like this, in fact. Including Clark. Note that Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID is also recommended.

One point of difference, though, not mentioned above. The Anglicans did not seek out the Old Catholics, as to the question of Orders. They had been discussing closer ecclesiastical unity for 30 years prior to Apostolicae Curae. After the Agreement of Bonn was signed, in 1932, establishing communion between Anglicans and the OCs (followed by a similar agreement, in 1946, with the Polish National Catholic Church), Anglicans and OC-Utrecht, entered into full communion. Among other things, this permitted joint episcopal consecrations with both OC and Anglican bishops consecrating the others episcopate. Note that this does not involve OC bishops ordaining Anglican priests, but of consecrating, jointly, Anglican and OC-Utrecht bishops. One can read some of that history in Fr. C.B. Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, as well as in Fr. J.J. Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, Appendix II. Reading Clark and Hughes together is interesting.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it true that sometime in the past, the Eastern Orthodox had recognized the validity of the Anglican orders?
 
I’ve read it more than one way. When I say that the answer is yes/no, I usually get someone who gives me a counter position (which I likely have somewhere on file). I tend to stay away from the topic. What does seem to be true is that, in a sense, the Orthodox (broad brush here) tend to look at the RC orders, and Anglican orders somewhat similarly. That is, that being outside the true Church (Orthodoxy) they are, not so much invalid, but empty, or without grace, or the ability to transmit grace (IIRC). And that if any such clergy convert to the true Church, their orders are made full, by the Church. It seems somewhat like the concept of liciety. Valid and licit don’t seem to be Orthodox terms.

It’s a subject I approach with caution. And Orthodox, no doubt, are motley.
 
Last edited:
However, is it true that at one time in the past the Eastern Orthodox, or at least one bishop, had participated in the ordination of an Anglican cleric?
 
I have been so told, though I know nothing of the assertion, since I don’t have a book on it. Or many books, preferably.

However, in my file I find a clip I received, I know not when, I know not from whom, which reads

…“there have been at least four Anglican consecrations at which bishops of the Patriarchate of Constatinople assisted, and succession from at least three of them can be traced today. The first such bishop was LYCURGUS, Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, who on the 2nd February 1870 assisted John Jackson, Bishop of London, at the consecration of Henry Mackenzie as Bishop of Nottingham, who on the 25th April 1877 assisted Archbishop Tait at the consecration of Edward White Benson as Bishop of Truro …”

That last, in particular, might traceable, but I haven’t followed it up. It reads as if a quote from a source, but if I got the source, I lost it.

One would then need to ascertain if this was, in fact, co-consecration, and such details.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
One would then need to ascertain if this was, in fact, co-consecration, and such details
Click to expand...
The report that the Eastern Orthodox had participated in the consecration of Anglican bishops, if true, would seem to introduce a new factor in determining the validity of at least some of the Anglican orders?
 
That would greatly depend on the circumstances. The Dutch Touch/Polish Pat does not add much to the discussion, as seen by the RCC.

It would, of necessity, have required formal co-consecration, plus other matters.
 
AlNg said:
The report that the Eastern Orthodox had participated in the consecration of Anglican bishops, if true, would seem to introduce a new factor in determining the validity of at least some of the Anglican orders?
Click to expand...
That’s not how the Catholic Church sees things. I know it might seem that way, but that’s just not the way the Church approaches this question.

The issue of what the community itself (church OR ecclesial community) believes with regard to the sacrament of Ordination and the role of the priest. That must be taken into account.

There have been numerous such examples (bishop from A joins in ordaining new bishop from B); not thousands, but enough to set a precedent. At no time has the Church ever changed her position that the attempts at ordination in a particular community somehow re-infuse Apostolic Succession.

The closest one might come would be that in the recent past, some (maybe 2 or 3) former Anglicans became Catholic priests and petitioned Rome to allow for conditional ordination (meaning “if you are not already a priest, we ordain you…”) The reason was that those former Anglicans were able to trace their line back to a bishop who was unquestionably valid. A few years ago, the Vatican signaled that they would no longer even consider such petitions; meaning that all former Anglicans must be ordained without condition. (side note: not the term “absolute ordination” as that means something different).

Consider it this way: whatever ideas anyone might have on the internet with regard to this topic, it’s safe to say that such arguments have been made in real life to the Catholic Church. The result has always been the same: nothing has changed.
 
Two such priests ordained sub conditione, as far as I know: Fr. John J. Hughes, noted scholar, and Fr. Graham Leonard, one time CoE Bishop of London. Fr. Hughes describes how he was conditionally confirmed (1960), and later conditionally ordained (1967) and the part that the Old Catholic and PNCC lines of the Anglican Bishops who had ordained him played in that, as far as he knew, In his autobio. NO ORDINARY FOOL. I have heard such claims for Fr. Leonard’s case (1994), but know nothing further.

I don’t dispute your accounting of current policy. Indeed, what you have said is the sum of what I know of it.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Hume, I suppose, knew as much as anyone of the circumstances surrounding the ordination of Dr Leonard. He 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.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LEONARD.TXT
 
Last edited:
I had indeed read this, but had forgotten the specific circumstances. But it was what I had in mind, if a little fuzzily.

Thank you.
 
If they’re not united to the Church, what they do cannot be “good and holy” good intentions aside
 
And so much for the Orthodox.

But that is not what sacramental intent refers to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top