J
jimkhong
Guest
Haha, you make is sound like those Anglicans in the first and second paragraphs are mutually exclusive.
- Status
A
AugustTherese
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Over the years, I’ve been surprised by how often this Letter is not known, in the context of this subject.
Still, in one sense, the quote is corect. It is a question of Orders.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Yup. It is interesting to note the date of the document, Apostolicae Curae, September 18, 1896, which is rather recent in itself by the standard of Anglicanism breakaway.
Perhaps of interest, maybe by students of Anglican history, what would be the Vatican’s attitude towards Anglican ordination prior to this document?
#9 and #11 of the document may shed some light on this.
Of the two Holy Orders, obviously not of Edward VI, would there be any remnant today of those “who are rightfully and lawfully promoted” , who might be maintained in their orders, and those “who not promoted to Holy Orders” might be promoted, if they are found to be worthy and fitting subjects"? I am saying because these were recognized by the Church still.
Probably doubtful.
It is interesting to note that the Vatican was very cautious and surely not capricious in making a ruling on the nullity of their priesthood. Something to think about, but as I said, we are consumed by time and probably today it is a different scenario altogether with regards to the Anglican.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
… we should note that Leo’s letter was re-affirmed (as a truth requiring to be held definitively) by the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger less than 20 years ago:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
(Section 11)
S
steve_b
Guest
Bottom line, that encyclical is saying, once lost, one can’t give what they no longer have.
G
GKC
Guest
Yep.
G
GKC
Guest
Though, one mjght assume they could receive it, assuming all factors to be valid.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Except, of course, that the Church of England was, and is, in communion with these Old Catholics.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Which is nonsense, of course.
G
GKC
Guest
Doubtful, given the stated logic in AC. It is not clear precisely at what point the “break” in the Succession was assumed to have occurred. It is most often taken to be at and after the consecration of ++Parker, as Archbishop of Canterbury, under Elizabeth I, in 1559. ++Parker was a sort of bottleneck in the CoE episcopacy. But the status of any other episcopal lines in the CoE would have been extinguished, as mortality struck, while all succeeding prelates were being consecrated with the Edwardine Ordinal. Which, given the logic of the intertwined invalidity of form and intent,would have continued (per AC, to fail to convey valid orders.
Whether the Vatican was cautious, in the sense of thorough, in its determination, might be open to question. Capricious, it was not. The Commission appointed to consider the questions met in 2 preliminary and closing sessions, with 10 working sessions of around 3 hours each between . Roughly 2/3s of the working sessions addressed the historical issues, esp. Cardinal Pole/Queen Mary, and two particular Anglican priests, later in the 17th century…
.
Halfway through the 8th meeting, the subject of the adequacy of the Edwardine Ordinal, as to form, was taken up. There is no evidence of discussion of intent, from available records and memos. The Commission wound up its work and presented their findings to the Cardinals who were to advise Leo. The Cardinals met once, for 2-3 hours, under Leo’s presidency. The vote, in brief, was that Anglican orders were invalid. Apostolicae Curae, was drafted by Monsignor Merry Del Val, who had served as the original Commission secretary, and Dom Francis Gasquet, from the Commission, which was fine-tuned by the Pope. And it was issued on 13 Sep, 1896.
The long, sad story of* AC*, involving theology, history, personalities, and politics, from the time Viscount Halifax first met the Abbe Portal,on the island of Maderia, in 1890, to the last echoes of the Malines Conversation, 37 years later, has been a hobby of mine for 20 years, give or take. The best account of the history of the tale, who did what, when and why, is in Fr. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. Fr. Hughes is a person of interest, with respect to the question of Anglican orders, himself.
It possibly might be a different scenario today, in one respect. Whatever the tale of AC, in all its ramifications, might be. Anglican-dom today (in great part) has managed to render it a prescient judgement, 80-90 years ahead of its time. And whatever the details of its history might be, it declares that Anglican orders were/are null and void, and all faithful RCs should affirm that point. Others might take a different view of the matter (intent, form)…
P
peter26
Guest
Its worth bearing in mind of course that the Anglican Church doesn’t care a jot about what the Catholic Church thinks of the validity of its orders and Apostolicae Curae is therefore really just an internal position statement.
Ironically, the Church of England would probably have historically not have regarded Catholic orders as valid, since according to the Articles of Religion from the 1662 Prayer Book “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”
Ironically, the Church of England would probably have historically not have regarded Catholic orders as valid, since according to the Articles of Religion from the 1662 Prayer Book “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”
G
GKC
Guest
The original reaction was heated indignancy, as conveyed in measured and scholarly tones in the CoE reply to AC, Saepius officio .over the signatures of* Cantuar* and Ebor. Worth reading. And it broke the hearts of Viscount Halifax and the Abbe Portal, as their hopeful project of inventing the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, 77 years early, exploded in their faces. Lots of history in all of that. But, yes, excepting the impact it had in certain circles working toward narrowing the gap between Anglicanism and Rome, it is not something that the average Anglican (if you can find one) is overly concerned about. Save the odd ones for whom is a minor hobby.
S
steve_b
Guest
What’s nonsense? The encyclical?
If someone who has no valid orders, tries to ordain someone else, nothing happens
P
Padres1969
Guest
Interesting perspective. And makes the ordination of the Anglican priest even more motley than it would be otherwise.
G
GKC
Guest
However, as I posted ( #16 above):Interesting perspective. And makes the ordination of the Anglican priest even more motley than it would be otherwise.
“The consecration Rite used in the joint consecrations being discussed was the 1662 Anglican Rite. Joint means only that, in such a co-consecration, while both OCs and Anglican bishops were co-consecrators, the Rite was that of the recipient’s Church”…
The concept of joint consecration, given the full sacramental communion established by the Agreement of Bonn, was that Anglican Bishops participated in the OC consecrations, and OC Bishops in the Anglican consecrations, each Church using its own Rite.
K
KjetilK
Guest
You said that once something is lost it cannot be regained. And that is, of course, nonsense. That would also mean that none of the Roman ordinations of former Anglican priests is valid.
S
steve_b
Guest
I said #25
“Bottom line, that encyclical is saying, once lost, one can’t give what they no longer have”.
The encyclical is linked, that I responded to, and is talking about Anglican orders as is are null and void.
If the clergy become Catholic, and can be ordained in the Catholic Church, then they are validly ordained
S
steve_b
Guest
I said
“Bottom line, that encyclical is saying, once lost, one can’t give what they no longer have”.
The encyclical is talking about Anglican orders being null and void.
When Anglican clergy become Catholic, and are ordained in the Catholic Church, then they are validly ordained.
S
steve_b
Guest
I said
“Bottom line, that encyclical is saying, once lost, one can’t give what they no longer have”.
The encyclical is talking about Anglican orders as they are, null and void.
When Anglican clergy become Catholic, (no longer Protestant), and are ordained in the Catholic Church, then they are validly ordained.
- Status