Should We See Anglican Holy Orders As Valid?

[N/A Gone]

[url="http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2007/11/holy-orders-and.html"]http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2...orders-and.html[/url]


[quote]Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession
A reader asks, "Do Anglicans have a Valid Apostolic Succession; if so can you please explain why the Roman Church doesn't acknowledge them?"

First of all, let's look at some definitions.

Historic Episcopate - The laying on of hands from one (actually usually three) bishop(s) to another in an unbroken succession of ordination that extends back to the very early church if not to the Apostles themselves.

"For Anglicans, the historic episcopate declares to us that the Gospel is not only an idea or a proposition or a proclamation, but the animating force of a living community communicated over and over again from one person to another. The bishop, in this succession, is thus a living image of the unity of the faithful in and with God, a unity yet to be consummated but already at work in us across the barriers of time and space."(L. William Countryman, an Episcopal seminary professor, in a paper presented to LED III in June 1984, cited in Toward Full Communion, p. 33.)

Apostolic Succession - As defined in Lutheran-Episcopal dialogues,

Apostolicity contains four major strands - faithful teaching, the sacraments, a recognized ministry, and involvement in mission - "the Church's continuity with Christ and the apostles in its movement through history." Apostolic succession is "a dynamic, diverse reality" embracing faithfulness to apostolic teaching; participation in baptism, prayer, and the eucharist; "sharing in the Church's common life of mutual edification and caring, served by an ecclesiastically called and recognized pastoral ministry of Word and sacrament;" and "continuing involvement in the apostolic mission" of the church by proclaiming the gospel through word and deed. Apostolic succession is not to be understood "primarily in terms of historic episcopate."

In other words, the apostolic succession is not only the laying-on-of-hands from one bishop to another over the centuries, but a cord formed by four important strands. While Anglicans have maintained the historic ministry explicity through the episcopate, the historic ministry has also been maintained through the Lutheran tradition as well, even in the absence of bishops. Similarly, while Anglicans have always preached the Gospel, the Lutherans have upheld its centrality most forcefully. (Original here)

This newer definition of Apostolic Succession was necessary because it was apparent that Lutherans hold to apostolic teachings and practices even though German Lutherans reluctantly dropped the Historic Episcopate during the Reformation. In older literature, or when talking with Roman or Eastern Orthodox theologians, the two are usually thought to be the same.The embodiment of the Apostolic Succession in the person of a validly ordained bishop is the only way that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe it can be properly transmitted. Since the question has to do with Roman Catholics, I will now focus on the status of orders between the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.

Of course, there was a lot of bad blood (and a lot of real blood) between Romans and Anglicans in the tumultuous years following the reign of Henry VIII. Anglicans have always (to my knowledge) accepted the validity of Roman orders, although it has to be pointed out that "low-church" Anglicans of that time (Puritans and Presbyterians) would not find it a question worth asking, since the Historic Episcopate was at best adiaphora and at worst a "Romish Practice."

The question of Roman recognition of Anglican orders is not so simple. Prior to 1896, various Popes had declared that Anglican orders were invalid, but there had not been a thorough exploration of the issue and there were divided opinions within the Roman church. Some "high-church" Anglicans and some Romans hoped for a reunion of the churches, with official mutual recognition of orders being the first step. The outcome of the process within the Roman church resulted in the 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII, declaring that Anglican Holy Orders were "Absolutely null and utterly void." What was the basis of this decision, considering that Anglican bishops could trace their succession through the same bishops that the Romans did?

The primary answer was that the Anglican ordination service introduced in the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 were defective in form and intention. For Roman Catholics, the primary role of a priest is that of a person who makes the daily sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus at the altar. The Edwardine Ordinal did not have any language referring to the sacrificial role of the priest, so in Roman eyes, the entire point was missed and rites celebrated according to it were invalid. Anglican Eucharistic theology upholds sacrificial language around the role of a priest, but it is not the only or even primary role of a pastor for most Anglican pastoral theologians. Many would point to a primacy of preaching the Gospel.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York replied in 1897 with the encyclical Saepius Officio. The strident affirmation of sacrifice on the Roman side as the center of priestly identity was largely a product of Counter-Reformation polemics against Protestants. The Archbishops pointed out that many rites used historically in the Roman church did not contain this language. Even more significantly, none of the ordination rites of the Eastern Orthodox Churches used such language, and Rome recognized their orders as valid! By Leo's reasoning, all Eastern Orthodox ministers and an undetermined number of Roman ministers were actually invalidly ordained. Finally, they pointed out that during the brief return of Roman authority under Queen Mary, not one priest ordained under the Edwardian Ordinal had been required to be re-ordained.

This is where the debate ended in the 1800s. with Anglicans receiving Roman Catholic ministers into the Anglican Communion with no re-ordination, and Roman Catholics re-ordaining Anglican ministers who wished to become Roman.

There have been writers on both the Anglican and Roman sides that have argued that Apostolicae Curae could be re-argued, since the 1662 revision to the Prayer Book restored the questioned language. Roman Catholic writers have also noted that the addition of Old Catholic bishops of the Union of Utrecht into the line of succession for Anglicans may have possibly eliminated any basis for doubt of validity.

In 1988, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) issued a doctrinal commentary that listed Apostolicae Curae as one of the teachings to which Roman Catholics must give "firm and definitive assent," Therefore raising it to the level of dogma and making it difficult to revisit. In addition, the ordination of women to both the priesthood and episcopate in parts of the Anglican Communion make any new progress unlikely.

So do Anglicans have a valid Historic Episcopate? I believe we do. Our lines of succession come not only from the pre-reformation Church in England, but also through the Old Catholic and Baltic Lutheran lines. Were our ordination rites ever "defective?" Only if you accept the Counter-Reformation Roman definition of priestly sacrifice as the only norm of the church, thus declaring generations of Roman ordinations and all Eastern Orthodox ordinations invalid.

But what about women? Roman Catholic theologians would say that the proper "substance" is not proper in a woman, meaning that a woman by her very nature simply cannot be ordained. I always like to tell a story that Bp. Mark Dyer told us in Sacramental Theology in seminary. "When Mary knelt at the foot of the cross and was the only one in the world who could really say 'this is my body and my blood poured out for the life of the world,' she opened the way for women's ordination." Indeed, most Roman books on the priesthood will link priestly identity very closely with Mary, but then point out that Mary was not a "normal" woman (Immaculate Conception) so that it can't be applied across the board. My Mariology is very different, but that's a topic for a different entry.[/quote]


I got this from an anglican friend. Any response/concept/arguments would be appreciated.

[praying4carmel]

Rev,

I Heard that the retired Bishop or Archbishop? of Tampa, Florida Just left the Episcopal Church last week for the Roman Church..Interesting..

As a Person who was Baptised Episcopalian (High Church) Confirmed Episcopalian and recieved also as a Lutheran, (I've been around the Block several times.) I think that my Argument would be that The Holy Orders are NOT valid to cross to the Catholic Church in apostolic succession. I do believe that their Ordination is Valid within their churches, but not to cross into the Roman Church. There is just too much for me, Spiritual Difference. Like with the Eucharist, Lutherans believe in a real presence that lasts no longer than the Service, Then the elements become bread and wine again. Episcopalians, when I was confirmed, Believed in the full Transubstantiation, But I don't know if that holds any longer, as I left the Church in the late 70's when the Church changed Prayer books, constitutions, etc. The Lutherans ELCA, and the Episcopalians are in accord here in the US, and sometimes cross churches because of Rural Need; ie: pastor both Episcopalian and Lutheran churches out in the extremely Rural areas.

The Ordination of women is a sticking point as well.

Did I receive Valid Eucharist at those Churches I attended? From Women as well as Men? Yes, I believe I did, But that I think had more to do with the Holy Spirit, and my reception of that Spirit in Faith, rather than Apostolic Succession.

This is an interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up.
P4C

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='praying4carmel' post='1426241' date='Nov 28 2007, 10:31 AM']Rev,

I Heard that the retired Bishop or Archbishop? of Tampa, Florida Just left the Episcopal Church last week for the Roman Church..Interesting..

As a Person who was Baptised Episcopalian (High Church) Confirmed Episcopalian and recieved also as a Lutheran, (I've been around the Block several times.) I think that my Argument would be that The Holy Orders are NOT valid to cross to the Catholic Church in apostolic succession. I do believe that their Ordination is Valid within their churches, but not to cross into the Roman Church. There is just too much for me, Spiritual Difference. Like with the Eucharist, Lutherans believe in a real presence that lasts no longer than the Service, Then the elements become bread and wine again. Episcopalians, when I was confirmed, Believed in the full Transubstantiation, But I don't know if that holds any longer, as I left the Church in the late 70's when the Church changed Prayer books, constitutions, etc. The Lutherans ELCA, and the Episcopalians are in accord here in the US, and sometimes cross churches because of Rural Need; ie: pastor both Episcopalian and Lutheran churches out in the extremely Rural areas.

The Ordination of women is a sticking point as well.

Did I receive Valid Eucharist at those Churches I attended? From Women as well as Men? Yes, I believe I did, But that I think had more to do with the Holy Spirit, and my reception of that Spirit in Faith, rather than Apostolic Succession.

This is an interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up.
P4C[/quote]

Actually, the Anglican services you attended would have been invalid and you would not have received the Body of Christ but mere bread since only a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist

The following is from the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran with my emphasis added:

[quote name='The Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran']430 One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, * in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours. A[b]nd surely no one can accomplish this sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself conceded to the Apostles and to their successors.[/b] But the sacrament of baptism (which at the invocation of God and the indivisible Trinity, namely, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is solemnized in water) rightly conferred by anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults. And if, after the reception of baptism, anyone shall have lapsed into sin, through true penance he can always be restored. Moreover, not only virgins and the continent but also married persons pleasing to God through right faith and good work merit to arrive at a blessed eternity.[/quote]

The following is from the letter of the Pope Innocent III "Fitts exemplo" to the Archbishop of Terraco, Dec. 18, 1208, with my emphasis added

[quote name='Profession of Faith Prescribed for Durand of Osca and His Waldensian Companions']424 The sacraments also which are celebrated in it with the inestimable and invisible power of the Holy Spirit cooperating, although they may be administered by a priest who is a sinner, as long as the Church accepts him, in no way do we reprove nor from ecclesiastical offices or blessings celebrated by him do we withdraw; but we receive with a kind mind as from the most just, because the wickedness of a bishop or priest does no harm to the baptism of an infant, nor to consecrating the Eucharist, nor to the other ecclesiastical duties celebrated for subjects. We approve, therefore, the baptism of infants, who, if they died after baptism, before they commit sins, we confess and believe are saved; and in baptism all sins, that original sin which was contracted as well as those which voluntarily have been committed, we believe are forgiven. We decree that confirmation performed by a bishop, that is, by the imposition of hands, is holy and must be received reverently. Firmly and without doubt with a pure heart we believe and simply in faithful words we affirm that the sacrifice, that is, the bread and wine [Other texts: in the sacrifice of the Eucharist those things which before consecration were bread and wine] after the consecration is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in which we believe nothing more by a good nor less by a bad priest is accomplished because it is accomplished not in the merits of the one who consecrates but in the word of the Creator and in the power of the Holy Spirit. [b]Therefore, we firmly believe and we confess that however honest, religious, holy, and prudent anyone may be, he cannot nor ought he to consecrate the Eucharist nor to perform the sacrifice of the altar unless he be a priest, regularly ordained by a visible and perceptible bishop.[/b] And to this office three things are necessary, as we believe: namely, a certain person, that is a priest as we said above, properly established by a bishop for that office; and those solemn words which have been expressed by the holy Fathers in the canon; and the faithful intention of the one who offers himself; and so we firmly believe and declare that whosoever without the preceding episcopal ordination, as we said above, believes and contends that he can offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a heretic and is a participant and companion of the perdition of Core and his followers, and he must be segregated from the entire holy Roman Church. To sinners truly penitent, we believe that forgiveness is granted by God, and with them we communicate most gladly. We venerate the anointing of the sick with the consecrated oil. According to the Apostle [cf.1 Cor. 7 ] we do not deny that carnal unions should be formed, but ordinarily we forbid absolutely the breaking of the contracts. Man also with his wife we believe and confess are saved, and we do not even condemn second or later marriages.[/quote]

The following is from the Ecumenical Council of Trent:

[quote name='The Ecumenical Council of Trent']961 Can. 1. If anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or that those who do not preach are not priests at all: let him be anathema [cf. n.957 960].[/quote]

And the following is from the same:

[quote name='The Ecumenical Council of Trent']949 Can. 2. If anyone says that by these words: "Do this for a commemoration of me" [ Luke 22:19;1 Cor. 11:24], Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema [cf. n. 938 ].[/quote]

As has been established, the Anglican orders were declared invalid by Leo XIII:

[quote name='The Letter' date=' "Apostolicae curae," Sept. 13, 1896']1966 So with this inherent defect of form is joined the defect of intention, which it must have with equal necessity that it be a sacrament. . . . And so, assenting entirely to the decrees of all the departed Pontiffs in this case, and confirming them most fully and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own inspiration and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations enacted according to the Anglican rite have hitherto been and are invalid and entirely void. . . .[/quote]

[N/A Gone]

So I am assuming you answer the question as a "no" right?



Thanks for the quotes, but what about the arguments the article makes?

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1426716' date='Nov 29 2007, 03:53 PM']So I am assuming you answer the question as a "no" right?



Thanks for the quotes, but what about the arguments the article makes?[/quote]

What arguments? There is no argument. The fact is that the Holy See has definitively laid down the fact that the Anglicans have invalid orders. Its the same as any other sacrament valid form and matter must be present. If you alter the words of baptism: invalid, consecration: invalid; ordination: yes, invalid. Pope Leo XIII definitively dealt with this question. It doesn't matter where the Anglicans get their concept of Episcopate from because their ordinations lack validity. Many Orthodox churches are of the opinion that non Orthodox bodies are graceless as they have never really absorbed the Augustinian tenent of ex opere operato and thus to appeal to them to substantiate a case for a 'historical episcopate' is rather ridiculous. Also to deny the Roman understanding is pretty well the end of the debate from a Catholic point of view since we are of the belief that the Pope's have the power to rule definitively on such matters anyway.

[N/A Gone]

Thanks.
I miss seeing you around these parts.

[Socrates]

Perhaps only tangential to the main topic, but that Anglican gets it wrong regarding Mary and "priestly identity."
[quote]Indeed, most Roman books on the priesthood will link priestly identity very closely with Mary, but then point out that Mary was not a "normal" woman (Immaculate Conception) so that it can't be applied across the board. My Mariology is very different, but that's a topic for a different entry.[/quote]
Mary was the Christ-bearer, and greatest and most honored human being other than Jesus Christ, yet she was never a priest, and never had a "priestly identity."
If anyone was "worthy" in terms of personal holiness, it was Mary, yet it is telling that she was never ordained a priest. Her role is great and unique, but distinct and different from the priesthood.
Women are not ordained priests because they are considered inferior, but because they play a different role.

Thus, attempting to use Mary to make a case for a female priesthood in fact proves the opposite.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

The fact that Lutherans and Episcopalians swap ministers, that they ordain women to the role of priest and bishop, that they changed the form of ordination and consecration, and that now even "lay consecration" is becoming more and more common - there is no question from the Catholic perspective - if not before, then definitely now - "utterly null and void!"

It should be noted that Lutherans don't have bishops in the same sense as Catholics or Orthodox - they are pastors temporarily elected to supervise the diocese (about a 6 yr term), after which they return to being a pastor - this cannot ever be consider valid to the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of Holy Orders. Also, the Lutheran "ordinations" are not necessarily done by the (temporary) "bishop" - the bishop can have another minister lay hands on the ordinand - they consider this completely valid and do this often. Practically, I have no idea how Anglicans/Episcopalians can reconcile this complete difference and accept their ministers are equal to their own and swap with them.

The other concern with Orders here is that the Lutheran have had for some time now, a practice called "lay consecration", where they elect a lay person or a rotating group of lay persons to stand in the place of the minister and do the whole service - words of consecration and all. This is not a Communion Service, with pre-consecrated Hosts, but a full-blown service, with the laity doing the "consecrating". They consider this a valid Eucharist.
This practice has blended into Anglicanism as well, the low-church Anglicans have been doing this for years in the Diocese of Sydney (one of the most low-church evangelical Anglican dioceses in the world). My question is - if the layperson is doing everything an ordained is doing - why bother ordaining anyone? Wouldn't it be much cheaper and simpler to just get rid of the ordained ministry all together?

[cmotherofpirl]

The ordination rite was specifically revised to remove "popish influence" so there is no possibility of their validity.

[N/A Gone]

[quote]i know what the papal opinion is, however, what that article was saying is that by that same opinion, some catholic bishops (before papal edict) and many orthodox bishops are not bishops either. anglican bishops are still bishops from the line of Augustine of Canterbury, and the ordination has been done in the way it had been done previously to leo XIII and during queen Mary's reign the Catholic church did recognize Anglican orders as valid. There has been a valid succession... that's all i'm saying.

plus anglicans can afffirm all those quotes you gave. Anglicans do believe that preists do more than preach the word. all you r quotes are directed more towards protestants than to Anglicans.[/quote]

I brought up the points here and this is the response I got. He is still arguing that

--by the standards we state some Catholic and Orthodox bishops are invalid
--Anglican bishops from Augustine of Cantervery is valid
--During Queen Mary's reign the Church recognized anglican orders as valid, thus a valid succession.
--the quotes (church teaching) are something anglicans can affirm and are only aimed at protos (apparently anglican are not protos?)

Does he have a point? (keeping it a debate) any rebutal help would be great

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

When the Anglicans accepted the Catholic faith under Queen Mary, they were re-ordained, from Catholic Encyclopedia:
[quote]Apart from exceptional circumstances, such as arose in 1896, the Holy See does not indulge in purely theoretical pronouncements on questions like that of Anglican Orders, but limits its intervention to cases of practical difficulty that are brought before it — as when persons or classes of persons who wish to minister at the Church's altars have undergone ceremonies of ordination outside its fold. And even in thus intervening the Holy See is chary of doctrinal decisions, but applies a common-sense rule that can give practical security. Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, even though the doubt be slight, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone. Such a class of cases requiring its intervention arose when Queen Mary set to work to draw order out of the chaos in which her two predecessors had involved the affairs of the Church. What was to be done with those who had received Edwardine orders? The question was investigated at Rome, whither the needful information and documents were sent by Pole, and, although we have no record of the discussion, it is clear from what has just been said about its known principles of action that the Holy See judged these orders to be invalid, for it sent directions to Pole to treat them as non-existent. That this was so appears

* from the letters of Julius III and Paul IV, and the sense in which they were taken by Pole, for these letters direct that all recipients of Edwardine Orders shall, if accepted for the Church's ministry, be ordained afresh;
* from a comparison between the Edwardine and Marian registers which reveals several double entries of names of persons who received first Edwardine and afterwards Catholic ordination;
* from the course taken in punishing recalcitrant Edwardine ecclesiastics, in the ceremony of whose degradation no account was taken of their Edwardine orders.

And the practice thus initiated during the reign of Mary was adhered to ever afterwards, when Anglican clergymen came over to the Catholic Church and sought admission into the ranks of the priesthood. A list of twenty such re-ordinations has been gathered by Canon Estcourt from the "Douay Diaries"; and others could be gathered from the registers of the English College at Rome and other sources. Nor is the fact disputed — save perhaps as regards a few isolated cases, the documentary evidence for which is deficient. Moreover, Leo XIII, in his Bull "Apostolicae Curae", speaks of many such cases as having been formally referred to the Holy See at different times, with the result that the practice of re-ordaining was invariably observed. Two of these cases were, in 1684 and 1704, the second of which attracted a certain amount of attention. It was that of John Clement Gordon, who had received all the Anglican orders, the episcopate included, by the Edwardine rite and from the hands of the prelates who derived their orders from the Anglican succession. The decision was that, if he would minister as a priest, he must receive the priesthood and all previous orders afresh.[/quote]

[N/A Gone]

So it is a valid order? The article brings up some interesting points. (as I cite in post 10)

[N/A Gone]

pope clement, how does that change this argument?

[N/A Gone]

I am thinking I want to give my friend some newman. Does he address this issue anywhere? book/link?

[KnightofChrist]

This maybe something worth looking at its onlly a buck.

The Problem of Anglican Orders



[url="http://www.keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=988"]http://www.keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=988[/url]