Arguments Against Anglican Orders Seem Flimsy


#1

The more I read the more I cannot understand the case made by Leo XIII against Anglican Orders. There were disagreements against Leo by Catholic Theologians at the time.

i) Anglicans can with solid clarity trace their Bishops back to the Apostles (through Catholic Bishops).

ii) Argument that due to the Edwardian Ordinal the consecrations are invalid really seems odd. The argument is that the sacrificial role of the priest is not mentioned. As was pointed out that argument manages to invalidate Roman Catholic clergy since many rites did not contain the language. Also, none of the Eastern Orthodox rites do either (but are considered valid).

iii) Staley effectively deal with the issues of titles and the Edwardian Ordinal.

Additional info:

anglicanhistory.org/orders/dart1948.html
askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2007/11/holy-orders-and.html

Frankly, the argumentation that the orders are invalid seem rather flimsy?? That does not even touch upon the introduction of Old Catholic lines into the Anglican Communion for decades and the long ago corrected ordinal.

Plus…using Leo’s logic would not the earliest of Bishop’s likely not have valid orders due to language, rites , etc meaning under that system no one has valid orders (especially since, as noted in Saepius Officio, many Catholic rites did not use “correct language”).


#2

Do you bring all this up because of concern it might ‘invalidate’ your appointment as a Reverend?

What is “Liturgical” as a religion, anyway?

I thought ‘liturgical’ meant the “people’s work” Are you a professional altar designer? What does this mean???

Thanks

Robert


#3

My apologies. I thought there might be some interesting discussion in this in terms of helping me understand the counter arguments. GKC is quite well versed in this area.

Disregard it. I have no interest in being flamed and you apparently have nothing to add to the academics of the conversation.


#4

I am somewhat interested in this. Is the Edwardian Ordinal the oath that the Anglicans swore forsaking Rome and pledging servitude to the king as head of the church>?


#5

Sorry Rev. Would have enjoyed the conversation. Put the flamers on “disregard.”


#6

That’s it, through Catholic Bishops. Since the reformation you are just a cut off branch. You are outside the Church.
I don’t think that bishops who abandoned Rome and obeyed Henry VIII could validly, as the apostates, ordain priests. As a result of no priesthood, in Anglican communion (and other protestant denominations) there’s no real presence even if any of you believe it. The name of the website you recommend “ask the priest” is misleading. I suggest “ask the preacher” or “ask the minister” instead.

I don’t understand why the opinion of the CC matters so much to you in this case. Anglicans do things that are contrary to the Catholic teaching: ordaining women “priests”, blessing gay couples. Why don’t you try to justify them? I think it’s weird that after rejecting the pope you are so concerned about what he thinks about Anglican “apostolic succession” (although you don’t seem to be interested in other issues of the Catholic teaching). I never go to Anglican web forums to ask: please tell me I’m fine or please say that the CC is nice. I just don’t care about your opinion at all. Why should I?


#7

sigh… :frowning:


#8

I don’t think that bishops who abandoned Rome and obeyed Henry VIII could validly, as the apostates, ordain priests. As a result of no priesthood,

Under simple conditions of breaking communion with Rome, they would (at least theoretically) ordain priests as “validly” as SSPX or SSPV or CMRI.

But they would have been considered “illicit.”

There’s a difference between “invalid” and “illlicit” (or “irregular” as some prefer to say).

During the reign of Queen Mary, when England was reconciled with Rome, no clergy ordained during the separation needed re-ordination.

This became a problem, however, with the First and Second Books of Common Prayer and the Edwardian Ordinal.


#9

I will concur with the posters that hope that a thread with substance will continue. I have always wondered what makes one churches succession and/or orders valid, licit, etc etc, and others not.


#10

This excerpt would seem to be at the heart of Leo’s argument:

Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying”, under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, 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.

and

  1. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

It is possible to have implicit intent, but only if one is disposed to do as the Church does, and then the Church can supply for defects in a rite. However, the Edwardian ordinal, according to Leo, was a conscious revision of the Roman ordinal in such a way as to strike out references to sacrifice. The end result is an intention against the mind of the Church, viz., to eliminate the sacrificial aspect of the priesthood (at least in the sense that Rome believes it-- for that was what they found offensive, and presumably, wanted to deny by removing and altering the texts). Especially important in Leo’s argument is the express rejection of the Roman form. He says, “if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does,” then “that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.”

What is deadly to the sacrament in the Edwardian ordinal is not merely that they used a different rite (as the Catholic Church has used different rites), but the intention expressed by rejecting the rite promulgated in the Church and striking out its portions referring to sacrifice, which equate to the express intention to reject the sacrificial priesthood as Rome understands it.

Hence, Rev. Dr. North, I think your argument in ii) is misplaced. It is not mere lack, but the rejection of what the Church intends by means of rejecting the rite and rewriting it sans references to sacrifice.

-Rob


#11

This is, indeed, the heart of the theological argument presented in Apostolicae curae; that by formulating the Ordinal as was done, the Anglicans indicated a positive intention not to do what the Church does (facere quod facit ecclesia). The RCC thus concluded that the *nativa indoles spiritus *of the rite was anti-Catholic, in Rome’s view. This is sufficient unto itself, but there are also personal and political attibutes of what actually went on that complicate the matter,in Anglican eyes.

I wouldn’t be able to do much more with this until about midnight tonight, but (as always) I recommend Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, and Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, which takes the “intent/form” argument head on.

I prefer Hughes.

GKC


#12

Nope. They could have done so, using the Roman Pontifical of the day. Valid, but illicit.

I don’t understand why the opinion of the CC matters so much to you in this case. Anglicans do things that are contrary to the Catholic teaching: ordaining women “priests”, blessing gay couples. Why don’t you try to justify them? I think it’s weird that after rejecting the pope you are so concerned about what he thinks about Anglican “apostolic succession” (although you don’t seem to be interested in other issues of the Catholic teaching). I never go to Anglican web forums to ask: please tell me I’m fine or please say that the CC is nice. I just don’t care about your opinion at all. Why should I?

No reason you should, IMO. But, all the same, you’re fine and the RCC is nice.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus


#13

Wow, it’s answers like this that made me rethink my journey into the church.

I’ve always wondered about the validity of Anglican orders myself and would like conversation about it in this thread that is helpful to understanding, as most of you have done. I can’t STAND, the “we’re right and you’re wrong, so shut up and get over it” statements as above. Most of us don’t care about YOUR opinion either, but you give it anyway and we read it without telling you we don’t care and why should we? Good expression of love right there. Praise God.


#14

jesusluv, I am a member of the Tiber Swim Team of '01.

There are obnoxious people in every church,faith, creed, whatever. People are people. I never found that so much to be an issue in my decisions about the church. I went strictly by what the church itself teaches.

If you are thinking about swimming against the current of the Tiber and leaving because of the superiority of Catholics, then perhaps you never really took seriously the teachings of the Church.

What do I care if a high so-and-so believes that he/she is so much better than I am? :rolleyes: That is a pride problem with him/her that they (the sinner) will have to deal with. Everybody is on a journey. I have come across priests and lay people alike who have a huge superiority complex. That’s pretty funny because the one that we are serving doesn’t. The one who is so high above us made himself so small, so weak and so very vulnerable.

Isn’t that funny? Here these people want to put on airs when Christ has taught us to get down on our knees and serve.

I hope you don’t mind a little advice from a 45 year old mother of five. :wink: Forget those people with the superiority complex. The Catholic Church has had to put up with them for 2000 years.

Forgive them for they know not what they do.


#15

Being part of the Church isn’t about having nice people around you but about following God’s will. Sure being part of a great community is important but truth can’t be changed by people and the way they behave. Even if all Catholics were “evil arogant bastards”, the Church woudn’t ceize to exist, Jesus woudn’t change his mind on establishing his Church and God wouldn’t stop calling us to embrase the truth.


#16

Being part of the Church isn’t about having nice people around you but about following God’s will. Sure being part of a great community is important but truth can’t be changed by people and the way they behave. Even if all Catholics were “evil arogant bastards”, the Church woudn’t ceize to exist, Jesus woudn’t change his mind on establishing his Church and God wouldn’t stop calling us to embrase the truth.

Pax Domini


#17

GandalfTheWhite, you said it so much better than I did and with few words. LOL :thumbsup:


#18

An unexpected break in my schedule.

The thread seems to have quieted down, and drifted a little from the OP, so I’ll just make a generic comment.

History is usually complicated and the *Apostolicae curae *affair is certainly evidence of that. From the first meeting of Lord Halifax and the Abbe Portal, to the issuing of the Bull, words by Raphael Merry del Val and Dom Francis Gasquet, over Leo XIII’s signature, many things happened, driven by many people. For most RCs, though, this is not something that need be explored. All that need be known and affirmed is that the RCC issued a judgement on Anglicans orders, declaring them null and void (or,as is usually said, invalid). And given the range of reasons I have seen offered as to why this is so, it it apparent that for many RCs (not all, just many), that is, in fact, about all that is known.

As an Anglican, I need to know more, since while I have a great respect for the Magisterium, I don’t have that kind of respect for it. And so I delve into the history, the theological, personal and political factors that went into this judgement, and the parts played by various persons in the origin of the issue, and the final outcome, Herbert, Cardinal Vaughan playing the leading role throughout.

Anglicans who take an interest in this subject (and not all do) take a variety of attitudes toward it. Personally, I believe the judgement was a possible, though not necessarily an accurate, decision. And I believe that the theological aspects were only one of several things that elicited the decision. And, as do most Anglicans who pay attention to it, I feel that it can certainly be said, with accuracy, and historical truth, that the RCC does not recognise the validity, or Apostolic Succcession of Anglican orders. This, of course, does not mean that those orders are, in fact, invalid (I’m an Anglican; I get to say things like that). But it most certainly means that all RCs should so affirm.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus


#19

Thank you to GKC and someone else who posted something similar. It does help me to see a different perspective. As I noted some of the argumentation did not seem to make much sense from the point of view of logic (and as was noted would equally invalidate RC orders). However, GKC and the other person brought up the issue (from an RCC point of view) not of omission but omission by commission. In other words making a deliberate statement by not stating something (intent). Thank you for the insight.

There are also many on these forums as a whole that through charity are excellent witnesses to their faith. To put it mildly, I have learned a great deal through these discussions. Where else could we have the gamut from Catholic Priests to GKC all discussing aspects of theology in a respectful manner?


#20

For my part, you are very welcome.

Yes, the issue is one that requires looking at form and intent simultaneously. The form itself is unexceptional. One can find 6-8 Rites which have the same “defect” of form, that Rome considers as conveying valid orders. But the deliberate creation of a Rite that has that form, in those particular historical circumstances and by the particular persons involved, is held (in the official argument) to be an indication of an intent not to do what the Church does, with respect to a sacerdotal priesthood. Which intent is one requirement for the validity of the sacrament.

It is possible to argue this point, and Hughes does it very well, in STEWARDS OF THE LORD, but it is not something well suited to the strictures of a discussion board. Esp. given constraints of time.

For myself, I have no doubt that my priest, and all Anglican priests in similar circumstances, possess valid orders, and confect valid sacraments which convey grace. No RC should agree with me, and I rarely find one that does. In which rare case, I gently admonish the individual.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.