I have been reading that since about 1931, the Anglicans have had (at least) one Old Catholic Bishop present at their Episcopal Ordinations. Some argue that the active participation of these bishops in the ordinations, who have valid orders, means that the Anglican bishops also possess valid episcopal orders. Indeed, I have seen much made of this fact (of Old Catholic bishops present at Anglican episcopal ordinations).
My question pertains to which Rite in being used to perform these ceremonies; that is to say, i) is an Anglican rite being used? If so, ii) how long has this rite been used for or was it modified in some way to perhaps facilitate Old Catholic participation in 1931? Lastly, if again an Anglican rite is being used, iii) could someone provide a link to the text used?
The Rite used in the joint consecrations between the Utrecht OCs, and the Anglicans, starting in 1932, post the Agreement of Bonn, depended on which Church was the primary . For OC consecrations, the OC Rite, for Anglican consecrations, the Rite as found in the Book of Common Prayer, since 1662. This was not thee sacramental form faulted in Apostolicae Curae..
For the Rite, google Book of Common Praye.< Either the CoE 1662 BCP or the Episcopal BCP of 1928 will give it, as was used at the joint consecrations, including those performed with the PNCC after 1946.
A few pages down is a long discussion on the general subject of Anglican Orders and the Dutch Touch. In fact, there is a plethora of such, on the board.
So Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, though written in 1896, focused instead on the rite in use by Anglicans before 1662? I suppose this is because the source of contention was the rite in use before then that effectively made invalid Anglican orders and, so, subsequent ordinations were null and void regardless of amendments to the rite thereafter?
What change to the Anglican rite of episcopal ordination (in 1662 and after) - at least according to Anglicans - is thought to make obsolete the objections raised by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae?
As to the first para, yes. Though the precise point at which the use of the Edwardine Ordinal (given its assumed invalid sacramental form and the assumed invalid sacramental intent of those who used it) caused the break is not clear, in * Apostolicae Curae*, the best guess is at the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559. See Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION.
As to para 2, the reference is given in* Apostolicae Curae * “for the office and work of a priest” (bishop)… This is followed by the statement that this addition was done from an awareness of the inadequacy of the original (historically inaccurate, as is generally acknowledged now: it related to a dispute between the CoE and the Church of Scotland), and that even if it sufficed to heal the form, it was too late.
Anglicans do not assert anything, corporately, as to the significance of the Dutch Touch, or the change to the Ordinal in 1662. What some point out is that, logically, if the Ordinal was cured, and the points asserted by Ott (p. 458) are correct, as to the ability of valid/illicit bishops to confect valid/illicit sacraments, the infusion of OC/PNCC lines should have resulted in Anglicans possessing valid/illicit orders, other points being the same. But I am not aware of any comment made on this, or on its assumptions, by Rome.
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.