This came up in the comments with Tess, an Anglo-Catholic with a love for the Catholic Church that I wish more Catholics shared. She mentioned that we Catholics reject the validity of female Anglican clergy. But the truth is: we Catholics reject the validity of all Anglican clergy. Let me explain why.
 |
| Pope Leo XIII |
Back in 1897, Pope Leo XIII put it in no uncertain terms, in Apostolicae Curae, declaring Anglican ordinations “absolutely null and utterly void.” It’s strong language, but we should be thankful for it: the Eastern Orthodox have been much less clear about how to understand Anglican ordinations, and it’s to no one’s advantage when the trumpet can’t sound a clear call (1 Corinthians 14:8).
There are two reasons Anglican ordinations are no longer valid: the Anglican church altered (1) the form and (2) the intent of the ordination rite, rendering it invalid.
By was of history, during Edward’s reign, the Protestantizing forces within the Church of England declared the Catholic ordination rite superstitious, abolished it, and replaced it with the Edwardian Ordinal. The Edwardian Ordinal was (and is) intentionally Protestant, and borne out of a thoroughly deficient understanding of the priesthood. It’s the brain-child of folks like Thomas Cranmer who desired this very rupture, and who denied Apostolic Succession.
 |
| Thomas Cranmer |
Here’s what the Thirty-Nine Articles (the articles of faith for the Anglican church) say about the Mass: “Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” Clearly, unambiguously, then, this is a denial of the sacrificial priesthood, and of basic Catholic beliefs about the priesthood and the Mass.
Since there was no intent to carry on the sacrificial priesthood, or ordain men into the same, it’s without question that the Anglican church deliberately snuffed out Apostolic Succession. As such, when Leo declared the ordinations “absolutely null and utterly void,” a great many Anglicans agreed.
This ultimately is the problem. Some Anglicans want to be Catholic, some want to be Protestant, and some want to tread an imagined via media, yet they’re using the defective Protestant Ordinal. The “power cord” of Apostolic Succession has been totally severed, and the mere desire that it wasn’t so is inadequate.
That’s a tough message, but I raise it for good reason. There are many Anglo-Catholics who, like Tess, long for a sacramental Christianity, one where they’re not left to be their own popes. That’s a holy and winsome desire, but one which the Anglican church cannot meet. No priesthood means no Eucharist, no Mass, no absolution in Confession, no Anointing of the Sick, and of course, no Holy Orders. Put more simply: Anglicanism is just another form of Protestantism.
Anglo-Catholicism hungers for authentic Catholicism, and many Anglo-Catholics are rightly growing tired of the religious methadone they’ve been settling for. This desire for sacramental Christianity, and for a solid connection to the Apostolic Church, should be a motive to join the Catholic Church. It’s not always an easy step, but one which must be taken nonetheless. Heed Our Lord’s warning in Matthew 10:34-38, and His promises in Matthew 19:29, and step forward in faith, trusting always in His Goodness.
Dear Thomas and Joe
Please don’t get me wrong. Far be it from me to advocate that the Roman Catholic Church change its teaching but I am mindful (as Fr Bauer also alluded) that the theological lens which was used to analyse Anglican orders in 1896 has become somewhat clearer over the years through the study of liturgical development, Biblical scholarship and church history.
You will no doubt be aware of the shifting sands in the argument against the validity of Anglican orders from the Roman Catholic side. Firstly it was the Nag’s Head fable, then it changed to the requirement of hand anointing or tradition of instruments in the reformed ordination rite and lastly it was decided to focus on that most nebulous of concepts: the head-space of the consecrators, ie their intention.
I just sense that behind these shifting objections over the centuries lies the understandable desire by Rome to invalidate Anglicanism at its core by denying us sacramental grace – other than baptism of course! This approach may lead to Rome-ward traffic whereas endorsement would authenticate a bunch of Caesaro-papalist schimatics!
We all know that Rome fine-tunes and re-thinks. It did so on worship in the vernacular, the open use of the Bible among laity, holy communion under both kinds etc. I added my comment to answer some queries, stick up for my ‘ecclesial community’, explain its approach and add to the discussion. Reading between the lines you will sense I share much in common with you; more than with some Anglicans/Episcopalians.
I have recently been studying the new Roman Mass texts in English and scratch my head at the current situation. As English-speaking Anglicans, the tone of our Eucharistic liturgies will end up as a reminder of the ICEL language of the Vatican II reforms, while the new Roman Mass will take on the tone of the more literal translations of the Latin, in keeping with the English-Latin Missals of pre-Vatican II days.
Thank you for your charitable feedback. And please – no false ecumenism required when dealing with me!
Best regards
JH
PS: Despite his conservative theological outlook and all round tyranny, Henry VIII provided the political space for reform ideas to grow. It was under Elizabeth I that the principles of the English reformation were established. Many a monarch had argued with the Pope in European history and the quarrel eventually settled and of course the schism with Rome was healed in England under Mary I. Had she lived longer with male issue, we may not be having this discussion. The Tudors and their inability to produce male heirs! How it changed history…
The Judicious Hooker,
The reason why the sacrificial priesthood is central to the Eucharist, is because the Mass is the Holy Sacrifice.
Yes, it’s a mystery that transcends, but this was crucial to the early church.
Why shouldn’t it matter to us?
If Anglicans have valid ordinations, then something like the female priesthood would never happen in the first place.
As for communion, we receive Christ under both species, we receive ALL of him, body, blood, soul and divinity.
So when we receive the host, we also receive the precious blood and vice versa.
I would also add that the Anglican idea of the church not being one and visible, is in fact Protestant.
Savia
The Eucharist has many dimensions of significance. To reduce the Sacrament to one aspect (eg sacrifice) is to distort its meaning. Yes, it is a commemorative sacrifice (a sacramental re-enactment of the death and passion of the Lord) but it’s also the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, Liturgy, Great Thanksgiving and Holy Mysteries etc.
In the 1500’s the Western Mass had been turned into a spectator event where laity watched priests from a distance celebrate a mysterious rite and were likely to receive the Sacrament once a year at most. Some priests simply spent their time saying as many Masses as possible without a congregation – and at a fee – as 3 Masses were better than 1. Is this really what Jesus intended or the early church practised?
Trent introduced reforms and Vatican II even more to restore the Mass to a truly congregational action and re-emphasised the two tables of Word and Sacrament by which the baptised are nourished.
If you want to focus on the sacrificial aspect of the Lord’s Supper – OK. But you cannot reduce the ordained ministry to officiants of one aspect of the Eucharist. This is unbalanced and denies its rich meaning and depth.
How precisely the Eucharist is a sacrifice and how to explain that in a way that does not detract from the Christ’s one perfect and sufficient offering of himself once for all on the cross is a theologically delicate task.
My personal experience of Christ’s presence in the Holy Communion according to the Anglican rite is not some mind-trip. There’s a certain reverence and simplicity about the Anglican celebration which is deeply moving and unique in Christian worship. We can still receive the Sacrament kneeling at altar rails in most churches!
At the Eucharist I experience God’s peace, strength and power in such a way that defies any human explanation: it is a real encounter with the Risen Christ.
Even if a Christian congregation lacks valid holy orders, Christ will be among them according to his promise that when two or three are gathered in his name, he will be in their midst. No Papal pronouncement can invalidate that promise of the Lord!
Savia
Most Anglican churches ordain women as ministers of Word and Sacrament. And we do that because we believe in the liberty of the Gospel and that Jesus’ actions and teaching are our primary guide.
Four hundred years ahead of the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans put the liturgy in the vernacular, introduced communion in both kinds, provided the Bible for laity to study and gave laity a role in church government. The ordination of women is in the same category. We can move in this direction because we have the liberty of the Gospel and are not constrained by the papal jurisdiction.
Some of the reasons why we ordain women:
(1)Male and female are created in God’s image – both men and women can image God’s love and beauty;
(2)The Blessed Virgin Mary conceived Jesus in her womb and the sacramental mysteries are in a real sense an extension of the incarnation;
(3)the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet before burial performed a sacramental act and it was accepted by Jesus; a sign that women can serve the Body of Christ and anoint for healing and renewal;
(4)Jesus broke with tradition and included women among his disciples and affirmed them time and again in his saving ministry – this was deeply radical;
(5)it was women who stood at the cross of Jesus and who visited his empty tomb; if we proclaim his death and resurrection at the Eucharist, who better to preside than believing women whose sisters in the faith stood by our Lord;
(6)St Mary Magdalene was Apostle of the resurrection and proclaimed the Good News to the cowering faithless male disciples – if the Eucharist proclaims Christ’s resurrection, then women can preside at its sacramental proclamation;
(7)women were included in the leadership of early church; Prisca worked with her husband Aquila as evangelists and many churches met at the homes of women where they acted as leaders of the faith communities; and
(8)the orders of ministry which we now have (bishop, priest and deacon) descend from the early church which include the 12 apostles but also the ‘charismatic’ apostles and leaders such as Paul and Barnabas and Prisca and Aquila and nameless others, who if we take the New Testament epistles seriously would have included women.
The ordination of women is actually a sign of true apostolicity as it carries on the ministry of the faithful women who supported Jesus in his saving work and without whom Jesus would have died alone and the message of his cross and resurrection would not have been proclaimed to the world!
And finally, classical Anglicanism sees the church as visible (Article XIX of the XXXIX Articles) and in the Nicene Creed we profess belief “in one holy catholic and apostolic church”. The church is visible and one because it is the Body of Christ, despite the fractured nature of the community of the baptised.
I couldn’t help but notice you use Protestant as a put down. It just means that we exclude the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
It’s interesting that Pope Benedict XVI has endorsed ‘the Anglican patrimony’ in the ‘Ordinariate’ as its spirituality and liturgical tradition would never have developed if Anglicans had not rejected papal authority in the 16th century! Isn’t the history of the Christian family full of surprises?
Judicious Hooker,
How do you know the Mass wasn’t celebrated by the Apostles in much the same way it was in the Middle Ages?
Of course there were corruptions, there always will be. It cannot be denied that today the abuses are a result of the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction. But these are the result of men, not the Church, and certainly not the state of the Liturgy. To say so is to utter a non sequitur.
In a recent post over at PopSophia, I outline an argument in favor of the separation of the laity from the, as you so rightly call them, “sacred mysteries.” In it I argue that the pre-Concilliar Mass was not anti-particpation, but in fact made it easier for the congregation to participate in the way laity should outwardly (and, in fact, do inwardly).
That being said, you are absolutely right to say that the Mass cannot be boiled down to sacrifice. It is much more than that. Nevertheless, Savia is right that the centrality of this reality must not be denied. The Mass is first and foremost, the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary.
P.S.: By identifying the Church’s position on the validity of Anglican Orders with its positions on the use of the vernacular and Communion under both kinds in your previous post, you made the mistake of equivocating between matters of faith and matters of practice. On the other hand,the suggestion that the Church tried to keep Scripture from the laity is simply false. The Church tried to keep bad translations and dangerous ideas from the laity, something which, no doubt, got it into trouble in the end, but was a noble effort nonetheless.
As to your personal experiences of grace via Anglican Sacraments: it is impossible to argue against someone’s personal experience. I would only say that as fallen human beings, our experiences often deceive us.
That is not to suggest, however, that yours necessarily do. As I’ve said, God can do whatever he wants, and grace is bigger than the Church. I cannot discount the possibility that God acts immediately to provide grace where it should not ordinarily exist, or even the Real Presence. I can say that if this does occur at an Anglican service, it is not because Anglican orders are valid and it must.
TJH,
I appreciate you laying out the reasons in support of women’s ordination so clearly. I’ve responded here, and it may be helpful to segregate the question of the validity of Anglican ordinations from the question of the validity of women’s ordinations.
God bless,
Joe
I think it hardly worthwhile to discuss the question of the ordination of women without a careful consideration of the numerous point made by Fr. Manfred Hauch, in his thick book on the subject. He discusses with a Germanic thoroughness.
Fr. Hauch’s book, which also gives a careful study of the feminism movements in the modern world, gives a basis which allows the subject to move along. Thus far one has only heard the same arguments repeated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I find it a Bit disheartening to see so much misinformation. The Vatican unquestionably acknowledges every church with valid Apostolic Succession, even those that have rejected Papal primacy. It would be impossible to do otherwise without completely discrediting the very same Apostolic Succession that gives Rome her authority. Like it or not, the church in her wisdom had seen fit to acknowledge the inherent communion that exists across vast denominational barriers. Some may need to do a bit of research to find the facts. However, I think it might be insightful to rethink why it is any Christian would consider such condemning perspectives towards any individual or group they consider to be blind. If Jesus came to open the eye of those born blind, shouldn’t we as his followers at least hope to follow his example?
Gregory,
If I’m reading your comment correctly, you seem to be suggesting (a) that the Catholic Church accepts the validity of Anglican Orders, and (b) that I had suggested that the reason their orders were invalid was because of their views on the papacy. Both of these things are clearly wrong.
Yes, the Church acknowledges as legitimate Churches the Eastern Orthodox and others who reject the papacy, and She recognizes the validity of their priests’ Holy Orders. So clearly, the mere rejection of the papacy is insufficient to invalidate Holy Orders or negate Apostolic succession.
No, the Catholic Church does not acknowledge the Anglican Communion as a Church, or as having valid orders. But the reason has nothing to do with their views on the papacy, and everything to do with their sacramental understanding, and their severing of Apostolic succession.
All of this is laid out in no uncertain terms in Apostolicae Curae, which then-Cardinal Ratzinger described as an infallible declaration in the 1998 Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei. In 2000, he reaffirmed the distinction between Churches (with valid Apostolic succession) and ecclesial communities (which lack it) in paragraph 17 of Dominum Iesus.
In response, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury lamented that the Catholic Church continued to reject the Anglican Communion’s claim to be a Church: http://ecumenism.net/archive/2000/09/archbishop_of_canterburys_comments_on_dominus_iesus.htm
So given all of this, what’s the basis for your claims to the contrary?
I.X.,
Joe
My question is did Roman Catholics use the same Ordinal Holy Orders for priests since the time of Jesus and St. Peter? And of course the answer is an astounding NO!!!
The priestly orders have changed so much since the time of Christ that they would probably be unrecognizable in comparison to the rites used today. I don’t think the early persecuted Christians had much time to invest on making the priestly rite as it is today.
Alex
Alex,
I don’t think anybody is claiming that the Rite is identical to how it appeared in the first century. Does that mean that anything is valid for the Ordination Rite? Any form and any intent? And if not, who determines what constitutes a valid ordination?
Also, I think you’ll find from the writings of the Church Fathers that they cared a lot more about liturgical precision than you might think.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
The Church of England were Roman Catholics for hundreds of years. Do you think that the English Bishops lacked intent? If your a Bishop I would assume that you have been around enough time to not lack intent during an ordination ceremony.
In Christ,
Alex
Alex,
You asked, “The Church of England were Roman Catholics for hundreds of years. Do you think that the English Bishops lacked intent?”
My answer is: “intent to do what?” Did they intend to ordain priests, as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches understand the priesthood? Initially, probably yes. Eventually, no. The Anglicans at issue could hardly have been clearer on this point. This wasn’t an oversight, but a deliberate shift in doctrine. And they expressed this degraded understanding of the priesthood by altering the Ordinal to remove any reference to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. That is, they cut out the very thing distinguishing the priesthood from pastors within Protestantism.
The Catholic case isn’t that Anglicans intend nothing. It’s that Anglicans intend something other than the ordination of a priest, as we (or the Eastern Orthodox) understand that office. In declaring their orders valid, we’re just acknowledging this difference in intent.
On what basis would we say, “You don’t intend to ordain priests capable of offering Sacrifice, but you’re doing so nonetheless?”
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
I see your point. The question then is was this same intent as we know it of offering a Sacrifice used by the early Christians?
Somehow I doubt that they were aware of this. Since most doctrinal revelation has been revealed to the Roman Catholic Church in hundreds of years.
In Christ,
Alex
What surprises me the most is that The Roman Catholic Church considers itself to be the one and only true church and preaches exclusivity. Yet they recognize the validity of the sacraments in some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. So basically they are saying, you as members of the Roman Catholic Church can go receive communion in the Eastern Orthodox Churches and it is perfectly fine. Such hypocrisy knows no limits. By the way this Apostolicae Curae came out more than 300yrs after the founding of the Anglican Church of England. It took the Roman Catholic Church over 300yrs to decide their holy orders were invalid. The hypocrisy just keeps on going.
In Christ,
Alex
Alex,
Anglican orders were initially valid. Then, they corrupted them. The Eastern Orthodox never did so, and thus, remain a part of the Church in a way that Anglicans aren’t. Why is it “hypocrisy” to acknowledge Orthodox ordinations and reject Anglican ones? You’re not even raising an argument, as far as I can tell, nor did you respond to the substance of my last comment.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
The Roman Catholic Church are hypocrites because they offer this Personal Ordinariate to the Anglican clergy. Who will have to be reordained according to the Roman Catholic Church but they don’t allow married Anglican Priests from ever being a Bishop. Yet there first Bishop and Pope, St. Peter was married and had children.
Now Joe how hypocritical is that. You can put all the books away and all of your Roman Catholic buddies will have to admit that this is true. That the Roman Catholic Church is filled with hypocrisy.
In Christ,
Alex
Alex,
Do you know the meaning of “hypocrisy”? Even assuming that everything that you’re saying is right (that the Church used to have married bishops, and now doesn’t), how is that “hypocrisy”? I’ll avoid for now the more complex questions, like whether or not it’s actually true that Pope Peter actually was married (in a non-celibate way) with children at the time that he was an Apostle.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
It is hypocrisy because the Roman Catholic Church preaches that it is the only one true Church. Exclusively, yet they recognize the validity of The Eastern Orthodox Church’s sacraments and essentially their existence and reality of being an alternative to Roman Catholicism. So much for the Great Schism!!!
In Christ,
Alex
Alex,
As far as I know, we’ve always acknowledged the validity of the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox. Certainly, that was the common understanding of both the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). We also acknowledge their churches as churches, unlike Anglicans or other Protestants. But that’s because the core dispute between East and West isn’t sacramental.
As for your last comment, “So much for the Great Schism,” I hope you’re right. We’ve been trying to heal this Schism for years, and it appears to be working.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
I am still waiting for a reply!!! You started the blog now defend it.
In Christ,
Alex
Waiting for a reply to what?
Joe,
Anglican Orders are valid and in so having valid orders. They also maintain apostolic succession.
Thanks, Joe Heschmeyer.
In Christ,
Alex
Joe,
The Roman Catholic Pope only has infallibility when he speaks from the chair of St. Peter. Hence Pope Leo XIII’s papal bull. Is just that papal bull.
In Christ,
Alex
Joe,
Can anyone prove that the Anglican orders lacked intent? And the answer is NO!!!
In Christ,
Alex
Alex,
First of all, take a deep breath. You’re rapid-fire posting comments that you don’t seem to be thinking through. Second, you keep saying that the Anglicans didn’t lack intent, or at least, that we can’t prove that they lacked intent. But as I said above, intent to do what? To ordain priests to offer Sacrifice? Because that’s the question on our end, and the answer is to that is clear from history. The Anglicans rejected the sacrificial priesthood, and intentionally changed the Ordinal to reflect this new understanding.
To just claim over and over, “but you can’t prove it!” is to ignore history. If you think that the Catholic Church is wrong on this issue, show how the Anglicans did intend to preserve the sacrificial priesthood in the Edwardian Ordial. For that matter, show me how the Anglicans even had the authority to alter the ordination rite.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
I agree with what you stated that they did change it out of ignorance. But that doesn’t make it invalid. For if it were invalid than so are the ordination rites of the early Christians.
In Christ,
Alex
Alex,
The early Christians believed in a sacrificial priesthood. St. Paul draws a parallel between the Christian Eucharist and the pagans’ sacrifice to demons in 1 Corinthians 10. And in the Book of Hebrews, a parallel is drawn between the sacrifice of Melchezidek and the Sacrifice of Christ. This sacrificial aspect is also clear from the Patristic commentaries on this subject. For example, Clement of Alexandria, around the year 200, writes that “Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, [was] furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist.”
Tertullian, writing within a few years of Clement, says (in Ch. 19 of On Prayer):
“Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.”
St. Cyprian writes that:
“Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup, nor the Lord’s sacrifice celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our oblation and sacrifice respond to His passion. But how shall we drink the new wine of the fruit of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of His Father, if in the sacrifice of God the Father and of Christ we do not offer wine, nor mix the cup of the Lord by the Lord’s own tradition?””
I.X.,
Joe
Eusebius writes, around 310 A.D.:
“Since then according to the witness of the prophets the great and precious ransom has been found for Jews and Greeks alike, the propitiation for the whole world, the life given for the life of all men, the pure offering for every stain and sin, the Lamb of God, the holy sheep dear to God, the Lamb that was foretold, by Whose inspired and mystic teaching all we Gentiles have procured the forgiveness of our former sins, and such Jews as hope in Him are freed from the curse of Moses, daily celebrating His memorial, the remembrance of His Body and Blood, and are admitted to a greater sacrifice than that of the ancient law, we do not reckon it right to fall back upon the first beggarly elements, which are symbols and likenesses but do not contain the truth itself.”
Optatus of Milevis writes this to the Donatists:
“Your wicked actions with regard to the Divine Sacraments have—-so it seems to me—-been clearly shown up. I now have to describe things done by you, as you yourselves will not be able to deny, with cruelty and folly. For what so sacrilegious as to break, to scrape, to take away altars of God, upon which you too once offered sacrifice, upon which were laid both the prayers of the people, and the Members of Christ, where Almighty God was called upon, where the Holy Spirit descended in answer to prayer, from which many have received the pledge of everlasting salvation, and the safeguard of faith, and the hope of resurrection?”
St. Gregory Nazianzen described the Eucharist as “the Sacrifice of Resurrection.”
And finally, St. John Chrysostom, in his Treatise on the Priesthood, writes beautifully:
“For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon the earth? Are you not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, do you not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven? Oh! What a marvel! What love of God to man! He who sits on high with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all, and gives Himself to those who are willing to embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith! Do these things seem to you fit to be despised, or such as to make it possible for any one to be uplifted against them?”
All of these Fathers are writing within the first few centuries of the Church. So the Fathers definitely understood the role of the priest in offering up the Sacrifice. Put another way, the Fathers believed in the same sort of priesthood that Catholics and Orthodox believe in.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
The question is not whether the early Church Fathers were aware of the sacrificial priesthood. Its whether it was used in the ordination of clergy since the time of Christ and the Apostles maintaining apostolic succession. And whether the Edwardian Ordinal of 1549 lacked the mentioned formation and intent. After reading the Ordinal of 1549, I don’t see where in the wording and intent it lacked in describing and formulating the sacrificial priesthood.
I invite you to read the Ordinal of 1549 by Morgan Dix as well as many of his book titles in defense of the sacrificial priesthood in the Ordinal. Also some Anglican jurisdictions have maintained the Anglo Catholic formation of the sacrificial priesthood in the Ordinal. As well as having some other more protestant leaning jurisdictions which have done away with such Catholicity.
In Christ,
Alex
Alex,
Have you read the specific criticisms raised by the pope? Also, I believe that the Ordinal in question is the 1552 one, which omitted more of the sacerdotal aspects.
“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.”
If you disagree with this assessment, can you show me where it’s wrong? Saying you don’t see any evidence that these things are omitted is odd: where are they included?
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Have you read Saepius Officio which basically said if Anglican ordination is invalid, then Roman ordination is too. If you haven’t read it copy and paste this link http://anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf have fun.
In Christ,
Alex
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jesus (so to speak). Looking at this comments section gives me the feeling of having wandered into a badly run Victorian mental institution and listening to the patients/inmates gibbering at each other about the exact color of the invisible monkeys tormenting them.
Easy to see why most varieties of this religion are (thankfully) dying.
I am Catholic but I’m a bit confused because a heretical Catholic Bishop can still ordain validly as long as he doesn’t modify anything or anyone, even pagans, can baptize validly? But if those people lack the intention, why are Anglican orders invalid and Catholic ones aren’t? Because otherwise, one could never be sure that the pagan baptizing or the heretic ordaining has the intention of doing what the Church does?
John Salza said that, even if the sedevacantist arguments about Achille Cardinal Lienart who both ordained and consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre allegedly having confessed on his deathbed that he withhold the intention while doing so, were true, Archbishop Lefebvre would still have been validly ordained/consecrated because the intention is given as long as he uses the right Form and words, which is also why Archbishop Lefebvre was incorrect about claiming sacraments from ”conciliar” Bishops/priests may be invalid since they could withhold the intention interiorly.
And which form precisely is necessary for it to be valid? As far as I know, laying on of hands and the Prayer of Ordination (although I also don’t know what exactly must be included in the latter, but the former is also given in the Anglican ”ordination”), but is anointing also included? Or is the latter only necessary for priestly ordination to be valid, but not for Episcopal consecration?