I understand that only the Anglican Church believes that the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and “Roman” Catholic Church make up the “Catholic Church”.
The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church doesn’t hold this view, of course. In fact, the Catholic Church says the Anglican Church doesn’t have true Apostolic Succession.
Why is that? Is something wrong within the sacrament? I’m just curious. Why can’t the Church confront the Anglican Church and explain what should be done to have valid bishops?
Isn’t it because of this invalid Holy Orders that they also have an invalid Eucharist? Hasn’t some form of unity in regards to this sacrament (Holy Orders) tried to be attained?
So what is the problem? What are they doing wrong?
It’s not what they are doing wrong (though some of them are doing things wrong, today). It’s what they did wrong, according to the Bull
Apostolicae Curae, issued over the signature of Leo XIII, in 1896. The history of where this document came from is complicated, and let’s ignore it. What it addressed was a two-fold question: had the RCC had a consistent policy toward Anglican orders and what was it, and should this policy be maintained or changed.
The answer arrived at was that yes, there had been such a policy, it was to treat Anglican orders as invalid and the policy should be continued. (And yes, it followed that without valid orders, Anglicans could not confect a valid Eucharist).
Thus saith
Apostolicae Curae. But it also undertook to justify this position. In brief, it saif that the problem with Anglican orders was a combination of two factors related to the nature of a sacrament: form and intent. Form was judged to be invalid, since the Edwardine Ordinal, which was used until 1662 to ordain Anglican priests and consecrate bishops, did not specifically mention the nature and office of a sacerdotal priest; that is, to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. The issue of intent, which must be considered together with form in this case, iis more complicated, and *Apostolicae Curae *is not quite clear on just whose intent was at fault. Intent has to inhere in the action of a particular individual, in a particular action, and *Apostolicae Curae *is not completely clear on just whose intent and which action was invalid. The best single discussion of the whole subject, from the RCC standpoint, is a book written by a then Jesuit priest, Francis Clark, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. Clark concludes that the intent is that of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker, in 1559, Parker being a bottleneck in the Anglican episcoapcy.
There are a lot more details, but that’s the essence. And though the Ordinal, after 1662, no longer had the defective form, since (according to
Apostolicae Curae) the chain of Anglcan Apostolic succession was broken 100 years before, it could not be regained.
Much more can be discussed, but that’s the gist.
I may have mentioned, somewhere, that Anglicans have a different view of it all.
BTW, the Orthodox Church, generally, in following the Cyprianic theory of Apostolic succession, holds that neither the RCC, or the Anglicans possess valid orders. Not all, of them, but generally.
It is a sad subject.
And I’m not really here, I just stopped by to check my mail.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
**
