Why are anglican orders invalid?

[GKC]

My impression is that Anglicans generally (nod in direction of motleyness) don’t bother to refute it, but it has some interest in a setting like this where people may like to debate it, and where people who don’t accept the jurisdiction of eachother’s churches nonetheless like to attempt to refute eachother’s positions.

Or, occasionally, like to understand the logic and history of such stuff, and expound on it. Exemplar of motleyness; nod acknowledged.

 

[Wannano]

The TRUTH is the Truth even if nobody believes it and a lie is STILL a lie, even if everybody believes it. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. Shouldn’t we ALL seek the TRUTH. Jesus said, “I AM the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE”. God Bless, Memaw

This quote sums it up quite well doesn’t it. The last part of Jesus’ quote continues to say “no man comes to the Father except by Me.” Is coming to God thru Jesus the same as being identified with a church? What church did the believers belong to immediately after His ascension? It seems the Church then was a brotherhood and all members in this brotherhood comprised the Body of Christ. Was this the Truth or is it a lie?

 

[Padres1969]

My impression is that Anglicans generally (nod in direction of motleyness) don’t bother to refute it, but it has some interest in a setting like this where people may like to debate it, and where people who don’t accept the jurisdiction of eachother’s churches nonetheless like to attempt to refute eachother’s positions.

True, I mean even at the time of Apostolicae Curae there were Anglicans that were quite pleased the Pope had issued it declaring their orders void from a Catholic perspective. And ultimately while their reasoning was harsh, it was actually more in line with how most Anglicans feel about the matter. It’s irrelevant to Anglicans generally that the RCC doesn’t see our orders as valid. We’ve got plenty of evidence for why they are and we believe they are. And for most of us that’s all there is to it.

 

[Memaw]

This quote sums it up quite well doesn’t it. The last part of Jesus’ quote continues to say “no man comes to the Father except by Me.” Is coming to God thru Jesus the same as being identified with a church? What church did the believers belong to immediately after His ascension? It seems the Church then was a brotherhood and all members in this brotherhood comprised the Body of Christ. Was this the Truth or is it a lie?

Jesus established a Church and promised the Gates of Hell would never prevail against it and that HE would be with His Church until the end of the world. Read. Mt 16:18-19, 1 Tim 3:15, Jn 10: 16, Jn,16:13 and so much more from Scripture to prove Jesus DID establish One Church and prayed we would all be ONE in HIM. Eph 4:3-6. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Padres1969]

Jesus established a Church and promised the Gates of Hell would never prevail against it and that HE would be with His Church until the end of the world. Read. Mt 16:18-19, 1 Tim 3:15, Jn 10: 16, Jn,16:13 and so much more from Scripture to prove Jesus DID establish One Church and prayed we would all be ONE in HIM. Eph 4:3-6. God Bless, Memaw

It’s funny, I don’t think you’ll find many protestants who disagree with you in principle on Christ establishing One Church on Earth. Where the disagreement always lies is what that means.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What church did the believers belong to immediately after His ascension? It seems the Church then was a brotherhood and all members in this brotherhood comprised the Body of Christ. Was this the Truth or is it a lie?

The Truth. The Brotherhood was not divided or Bible alone or anti-Saints or split-as-we-feel or any of the modern things we see. They belonged to Church Catholic with Orthodox Faith.

 

[Wannano]

The Truth. The Brotherhood was not divided or Bible alone or anti-Saints or split-as-we-feel or any of the modern things we see. They belonged to Church Catholic with Orthodox Faith.

Thanks Syro, I agree, just a little unsure of the saints. I have no info on that.

 

[Duane1966]

Yes, that is the claim made in Apostolicae curae…

The following is taken from an Anglican’s thoughts on Anglican orders found here: sikyon.freeserve.co.uk/saepius.pdf

The whole read is worthwhile.

The pope probably did detect in his brief reply to Saepius officio** its fundamental weakness.** His critique may be expressed as follows. You left us, you changed all the practices which were once common to us; how can you assert that all these decisions made no difference? Could the reformers have failed so completely in their self-appointed task?…

…Intention, then, is not just derivable from textual analysis; context is relevant. Certainly full weight should be given to the stated intention in the text (the preface to the Ordinal) “that these orders may be continued and reverently used and esteemed” and to the continued use of the names of the threefold ministry. (One might add that there was no re-ordination in 1549 or 1559 of those ordained under the old rite, which would seem appropriate if there were a genuinely new beginning.) But in context that continuity is questionable, the more so when we consider the changes in the Eucharist.

Intentions are held not by texts (though texts may demonstrate intentions), but by individuals or corporate bodies. In this case the state religion is the body in question. (It is agreed that the intentions of individuals do not normally matter. But texts are written by individuals, and it is not absurd to elucidate the meaning of a text from the known views of its author. The determination of the Archbishops not to consider the theology of the Reformers at all seems evasive.) It is essential to the argument of Saepius Officio not merely that the Ordinal is adequate, not merely that the intention of the text is adequate, but crucially that this intention was consciously held at all material times by the Church of England. (In stable times, much can be assumed; in times of change and dispute, a higher standard is needed.) The Archbishops argue as if the Church of England reformed itself and took the critical decisions and therefore should naturally be taken to hold the intention stated in the Ordinal. This assertion (it is not discussed, just taken for granted) is false.**…

…Could one demonstrate that the intention was the same because the one rite replaced the other? This would at best be a weak argument. In this case it is manifestly false. The mass had been the daily, or at least weekly, prayer of the church in every parish without exception. The communion service could only be described as occasional. This is not just a statistical statement - that in many parishes it was only used four times a year. It is also inherent in the text - that it is so occasional that it must be prepared for, on each occasion, by the “exhortations”. The normal form of worship had ceased to be the mass and had become matins, litany and ante-communion plus homily…

…It can truly be said that the “naked commemoration” is explicitly rejected (but so is the eucharistic sacrifice), and there are many enthusiastic words. But the intention is certainly to do something very different from the Mass, which is condemned as an idolatrous sacrifice. And the concerning problem (perhaps inherent in a homily about worthy receiving) is that the emphasis is on what happens directly in the soul of the receiver, not via the elements, albeit in the context of the Eucharist. There is no talk of the action of the Church nor of the action of the Trinity through the Elements. But the Eucharist should not be reduced to a (necessarily individual) reception of justification by faith.

Essentially, the issue is this. The reformers were very afraid of giving any scope for transubstantiation or for a sacrifice separate from Calvary. Therefore they were bound to create a form of service in which there is no Presence related to the Elements and in which nothing happens (other than within the believer). Cranmer had experienced, in Gardiner’s deconstruction of 1549, the risk of even the slightest ambiguity. Is it credible that he and his fellows made the same mistakes twice? For them, reformed Catholicism was too dangerous an option to pursue. Only by the utmost incompetence, or miracle, could 1552 (and so 1559) have contained a valid communion rite.

I think it doubtful that the Elizabethan state religion had either a valid Eucharist or a valid intention concerning that Sacrament.

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Continued.

We cannot confidently talk of the intention of the Church, and must not seek to establish the intention of mere documents (a category mistake) or of individuals instead. We will not validate Anglican orders by finding a few people with the right ideas (at any time). The Pope was right to criticise that approach, albeit unwise to seem to reject Anglican orders on the basis that some people, however senior, held the wrong ideas.

My concern then is that Apostolicae curae, even if viewed as an argument, came too near to success for comfort. There was no Catholic intention of the Elizabethan Church of England. The Catholic Church was replaced by a local state religion, in practice neither Catholic nor Reformed, which many outwardly obeyed but few embraced. Eventually this changed as mere habit and the lack of alternatives, plus some more constructive theology, had an effect. But the genesis of the various conflicting forms of Anglicanism is not the same as the restoration of Catholicism. Was subsequent recovery possible? Some Anglican apologists allege that if Catholicity was lost, it was recovered at one or another time by non-Anglican consecrators, who themselves had valid orders, being involved in Anglican consecrations. Laud (and so his successors) has been argued to be a beneficiary, and for a time between the wars Old Catholic bishops took part in Church of England consecrations, until it was realised that this practice seemed to admit that without such participation Anglican orders were invalid. It is not clear that this latter practice was discussed and approved by the Church of England; it seems to have been a private initiative into which no intention of the Church of England can be read.**

Such a recovery might be possible if there were a clear decision to seize the opportunity and restore Catholicity, which could only be done by the cooperation of those already within the Catholic fold. But the attitude of the Church of England (and the former Anglican Communion) has always been that there is no defect, so no need for a remedy. Such an intention would have required a decision by the Convocations (possibly with the Church Assembly or, in earlier days when Parliament was solely Anglican, Parliament provided this included the overwhelming consent of the Bishops). And if it had happened, then it would have been necessary to remedy the inadequacy of all existing orders (and rites).** It has not happened.** The Restoration is the nearest approach to such an occasion, but non-Anglican consecrators were not used and only those not episcopally ordained were required to receive such ordination or leave the ministry. It may be
allowed, however, that an effort was made, within the narrow limits Parliament would allow, to impose a Catholic meaning on the Communion service…

… If we are to argue that there was a restoration of Orders, this should not have been a casual act by renegade bishops or their descendants, but a considered act of the Universal Church, as much as might be. The requirement is not just retaining (or recovering) more or less accidentally a valid succession of bishops but also having a valid liturgy and, at all pertinent times and as a corporate body, a minimally adequate view of the Universal Church and the intention to act as part of it. An intention must be freely formed - it cannot be externally imposed. Even now, it is arguable that the Church of England is a mere creature of state, whose doctrine, worship and bishops are politically regulated. At any moment Parliament could resume full control. To the extent that this remains true, the English state religion cannot have any intention. Duress and intention are incompatible. The state religion has never (except when it was illegal, under the military dictatorship) existed except under the legal duress of the state and has only existed because of the state’s enactments.

But maybe you are a better judge than the Anglican churches on what constitutues Anglican theology.

Thanks for that consideration.

 

[GKC]

Continued.Thanks for that consideration.

That is an excellent page, and the first time I have seen an English Continuing Anglican make an appearance. They are rare.

Hughes’s books still recommended.

 

[Duane1966]

That is an excellent page, and the first time I have seen an English Continuing Anglican make an appearance. They are rare.

Hughes’s books still recommended.

All the reading I’ve done to defend Apostolic Curae. I might start to know Anglicanism in it’s motleyism better than Catholicism.

NAAAAH

 

[Duane1966]

That is an excellent page, and the first time I have seen an English Continuing Anglican make an appearance. They are rare.

Hughes’s books still recommended.

How can I have time to read everyone’s recommendations, spend 4 hours a day on CAF, play Jeopardy, raise kids, and get in three hours worth of backgammon a day? Something has to be cut out.

Hmmmm. Kids always tell me what a rotten dad I am, so I will spend even less time with them.

 

[GKC]

How can I have time to read everyone’s recommendations, spend 4 hours a day on CAF, play Jeopardy, raise kids, and get in three hours worth of backgammon a day? Something has to be cut out.

Hmmmm. Kids always tell me what a rotten dad I am, so I will spend even less time with them.

I’ve been practicing the reading bit for 60 years, as an obsession. But I recognize your dilemma.

My approach was to cut out those things I could not do while reading. That’s currently limiting me to pipe smoking and reading, and reading, tout court. I’m retired, of course.

 

[Picky_Picky]

That is an excellent page, and the first time I have seen an English Continuing Anglican make an appearance. They are rare.

Hughes’s books still recommended.

It is a well-written piece. But I don’t understand Michael Gray’s statement that the involvement of Old Catholic bishops in CofE consecrations was “a private initiative” rather than an initiative of the two communions. Is he throwing doubt on the legal status of the Bonn Agreement?

 

[GKC]

All the reading I’ve done to defend Apostolic Curae. I might start to know Anglicanism in it’s motleyism better than Catholicism.

NAAAAH

For me, it’s about 50-50.

 

[GKC]

It is a well-written piece. But I don’t understand Michael Gray’s statement that the involvement of Old Catholic bishops in CofE consecrations was “a private initiative” rather than an initiative of the two communions. Is he throwing doubt on the legal status of the Bonn Agreement?

There are a few things I don’t understand, myself; that’s one.That point seems more like a look at the individual interactions between Anglicans and various episcopi vagantes, as documented in Brandreth or Anson, in the early 1900s. There are points or two of minor error, and a lot of stuff the details of which I can’t assess. There are a few points where he certainly gets it right, and his assertion that* Saepius Officio* is not beyond cavil or critique is certainly one.

One point I would like to know would be his source of orders in “the universal church”. That in itself sounds somewhat vagante-ish. From the source page for the article I note a mention of a parish meeting at the local “Liberal Catholic Church”, which likely means Wedgewood and the Mathew line. But maybe not, or maybe it’s a coincidence.

Regardless, it’s Hughes, for me.

 

[Picky_Picky]

There are a few things I don’t understand, myself; that’s one.That point seems more like a look at the individual interactions between Anglicans and various episcopi vagantes, as documented in Brandreth or Anson, in the early 1900s. There are points or two of minor error, and a lot of stuff the details of which I can’t assess. There are a few points where he certainly gets it right, and his assertion that* Saepius Officio* is not beyond cavil or critique is certainly one.

One point I would like to know would be his source of orders in “the universal church”. That in itself sounds somewhat vagante-ish. From the source page for the article I note a mention of a parish meeting at the local “Liberal Catholic Church”, which likely means Wedgewood and the Mathew line. But maybe not, or maybe it’s a coincidence.

Regardless, it’s Hughes, for me.

Dr Gray is Traditional Anglican Church in Britain, it seems:

sikyon.freeserve.co.uk

thetraditionalanglicanchurchinbritain.org/parishes/

 

[GKC]

Dr Gray is Traditional Anglican Church in Britain, it seems:

sikyon.freeserve.co.uk

thetraditionalanglicanchurchinbritain.org/parishes/

That he is. I chased him down too.

And the Traditional Anglican Church in Britain is/was associated with the Traditional Anglican Communion, of Anglicanorum Coetibus fame (sort of). Little is seen on the net about them of late, I think all the info I found was around 5 years old.

The question that immediately comes to motley and inquiring minds is, whence came Fr. Gray’s orders. Most of the Traditional Anglican Communion traces their episcopal lines (AFAIK) through the Anglican Catholic Church/Anglican Church in America, That’s basically the Chambers succession. Which,it seems to me, wouldn’t pass muster, for Dr. Gray.

All speculation. Could be something else.

 

[Duane1966]

To my eyes, I see two major problems to Apostolic Succession using the ‘Dutch Touch’ and PNCC argument.

1.) If, as Leo seemed to view it, the stain of the reformer’s Original Intent clings to the Anglican Ordinal, and nothing can be done to remove that intent, then not even the pope could confer valid orders using that ordinal. The fact that the Old Catholics used that ordinal, even though their intent was different, does not remove the intent of the reformers who originally fabricated that Ordinal.

2.) It is my understanding that Old Catholics co-consecrated the Anglicans as bishops, not priests (thanks GKC). If this is true, and Apostolic Succession had been lost, then in reality the Old Catholics, in essence, could not have consecrated them to bishops. For if Apostolic Succession had been lost, then the Anglicans that they were consecrating to bishops, would had to have been made presbyters first, by the Old Catholics, before consecrating them as bishops. To my knowledge, this was not done. In essence they were consecrating laypeople to bishops (if Apostolic Succession had been lost), skipping the presbyter step.

This is, of course, if you are addressing the argument through the lens that Apostolic Succession had been lost, but regained with the ‘Dutch Touch.’

 

[GKC]

To my eyes, I see two major problems to Apostolic Succession using the ‘Dutch Touch’ and PNCC argument.

1.) If, as Leo seemed to view it, the stain of the reformer’s Original Intent clings to the Anglican Ordinal, and nothing can be done to remove that intent, then not even the pope could confer valid orders using that ordinal. The fact that the Old Catholics used that ordinal, even though their intent was different, does not remove the intent of the reformers who originally fabricated that Ordinal.

2.) It is my understanding that Old Catholics co-consecrated the Anglicans as bishops, not priests (thanks GKC). If this is true, and Apostolic Succession had been lost, then in reality the Old Catholics, in essence, could not have consecrated them to bishops. For if Apostolic Succession had been lost, then the Anglicans that they were consecrating to bishops, would had to have been made presbyters first, by the Old Catholics, before consecrating them as bishops. To my knowledge, this was not done. In essence they were consecrating laypeople to bishops (if Apostolic Succession had been lost), skipping the presbyter step.

This is, of course, if you are addressing the argument through the lens that Apostolic Succession had been lost, but regained with the ‘Dutch Touch.’

You’re welcome.

What it more accurately is suggesting is if the argument was that the ordinations must be valid by the RC reckoning; i.e., if one were saying that it would have been valid by RC standards. As I’ve pointed out, no Anglican believes in the nativa indoles ac spiritus, as applied to the words on a piece of paper, arising from the beliefs of the authors. As applied to the question of the Dutch touch, it’s why I say so gently that logically the question is an interesting one, in light of Ott, p. 458. And wonder why a mere mention of that concept is not made to stop the questioning.

Amongst the RC writers on the subject, one occasionally finds a suggestion, as in the end of that link you gave to the Harrison piece, as to what the impact would be of a clear, valid intent on the part of the Anglican users, with respect to a sacrificial priesthood, on the umm… status of the form. One such suggestion was that the renewal among Continuing Anglicans, of the porrection of the instruments, was such an indication, inviting further consideration.

Similarly, Anglicans have no doubt that their presbyters were indeed valid priests, when consecrated, even not considering per saltum consecration, if applicable. The OCs had the same opinion, accepting the validity of the Anglican priests.

Your points are germane only if one is arguing that the RC judgement was not in keeping with RC teaching. Which is not necessarily what is happening.

For RCs, Anglican orders are null and void, for the reasons stated, adequate for RC judgement. All RCs should affirm that, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.

Anglicans have a different view. It doesn’t include doubting their orders, in light of Apostolicae Curae and its overall history.