www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Anglican Apostolic Succession

Friends,

I have gone through the archives for some information, but haven't found quite what I'm looking for, which is why I'm creating a new post.

Most of us know that in 1986, Pope Leo XIII issues his bull, Apostolicae Curae, declaring Anglican orders "absolutely null and utterly void." Catholics have been instructed that this is to be definitively held and believed by all the faithful. No problem here!

My question is about the influence of Old Catholic bishops, who from a Roman point of view do have valid orders and Apostolic Succession, and how they've affected Anglican orders, if at all. It has been the practice of Anglicans for many decades now, largely in response to Apostolicae Curae, to seek out bishops who, from a Catholic viewpoint, have Apostolic Succession, and to then employ them in their own ordinations so as to validate these ordinations.

People like Timothy Dufort, who I don't know much about other than that he wrote for The Tablet -a publication to which I am not very favorably disposed -, argued in a couple decades ago that all Anglican orders are now possible valid due to these Old Catholic/"Dutch touch" lines.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is: Does this argument hold any water? I know the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint is that the ordinations within Anglicanism of women and active homosexuals such as V. Gene Robinson have left no doubt that these aren't "valid," if I can attribute such a scholastic word to the Eastern thought on the issue. But from a Roman Catholic view, how does this work out? Was the only problem the Edwardian Ordinal, or does it go deeper? Does the women/active homosexual issue matter at all to the Catholic Church? Or is strictly a matter of form?

And how can all this be understood in light of the fact that no less than the current Pope, in his previous post as Prefect of the CDF, not too long ago reminded us that Apostolicae Curae is to be definitively held and believed? Surely he knew of the Old Catholic lines, so I suspect even from a Roman view there is a clear reason why these lines don't make the ordinations valid - I'm just wondering what it is.

Alexis

Old Catholic lines are valid (according to the Latin view) when the form, matter, and intent remain the same. Neither the form (the prayer used for consecration), the matter (sometimes women), and the intent (to do what the Church intends) remains when a supposed Old Catholic bishop lays hands on an Anglican man or woman, using the Anglican prayerbooks, intending to go against the Catholic faith.

When Old Catholic bishops ordain males according to the old rites, the question of 'validity' can be seriously considered - but even in this case, an investigation is necessary as to the validity of the orders of the one laying hands.

Logos-Alexis asks whether the argument that Old Catholic Bishops have been involved in a significant number of episcopal consecrations of Anglican/Episcopalian Bishops and, therefore, that the Bishops so consecrated are "valid" and convey that valid Apostolic Succession to those whom they ordain and consecrate holds any water.

In the eyes of Rome, it holds some water but is not by itself decisive - questions also arise concerning the form of Anglican ordinations and the belief of the recipient (the belief of the ordinand is almost always impossible to judge, but the form is usually printed out for everyone to read).

Normally, the only time that Rome will get involved in the discussion is the need that arises when an Anglican cleric becomes a Catholic and wants a determination on his ordination or consecration as an Anglican. The Old Catholic involvement then often arises and can affect the decision. Several decades ago, this was decisive in Rome's permission for John Jay Hughes to seek and accept conditional re-ordination rather than absolute ordination. This by no means occurs in every case.

Catholicism teaches that an attempt to ordain a woman to the priesthood and/or consecrate her to the episcopate cannot succeed, because the Church is unable to accept the suggestion that the Lord Jesus Christ has authorized the Church to ordain women.

The question of an ordination of someone who is habitually engaged in some form of sinful misconduct is another question - the suggestion that the validity of a sacrament depends upon the morals of the giver or the recipient is an ancient heresy called Donatism, Dis-satisfaction with some ordinand because of his real or presumed bad morals can in itself be a reason to forbid him to exercise the Holy Orders he has received, but not a reason to assert that his ordination was necessarily invalid.

Even as I write, a certain Orthodox jurisdiction in the USA is having grave problems because of the misconduct of at least one of its bishops - I am in no position to judge the accuracy of these charges. But in any event this has no bearing on the "validity" of either his own ordination or the ordinations he has done. Eastern Orthodoxy does not teach Donatism, nor are Orthodox hierarchs and theologians Donatists!

To the best of my limited knowledge, there is no known case in which a man who was ordained priest or bishop by the Anglicans was received into the Eastern Orthodox Church as a priest or bishop.

Fr. Serge

Well I'm Pretty sure the things that make their orders invalid are the form their understanding of the priesthood and their understanding of the Eucharist their ordination of women and active homosexuals just makes it even more invalid because the code of cannon law states correct me if I'm wrong it says that a bishop may ordain any of the male faithful to the priesthood so even if a bishop in communion with Rome was to ordain a women it would not be valid
God Bless+
In Jesus and Mary with all the saints,
David

I wonder if the whole is a bit more than getting the form correct.

If I have been canonically, validly ordained and then go off and try to serve a Liturgy that I make up myself--and don't do what the Church intends that I should do--it leaves open the question of what it is that I have accomplished.

Apostolic Orders are part and parcel of the whole--an idea that I have read about in Eastern theology. Things don't stand apart so that we can say that once I have Apostolic Orders I can use any formula I want and accomplish the same thing. So it seems to me that once ordained--with my disposition correct, the formula meant to convey what the Apostolic Churches intend, and everything else done without ambiguity--I have to continue in the way that the Apostolic Churches intend. In other words, Apostolic Orders is part of the Church and what the Church does and is. A candidate doesn't get a pass to go off and do whatever he wants. An ordinand is his bishop's helper and is connected to his bishop. And I think that's where the whole thing gets a bit murky. We don't ordain people and set them adrift or act as if they had some gift that is their own, but something they have received for the service of the Church.

So to receive ordination from a bishop and then to go off and be out of communion with him seems to me to be part of the whole problem.

Or have I not framed this quite correctly?

In Christ,

BOB

makes sense

Actually the word "intent" is used very vaguely.
So these ordinations of men anyway are valid.
The Church looks at each individual case and decides wether on converting needs to be ordained. They usually ordain conditionally.
Stephanos I

The most immediate concern I have is a rather pragmatic one. Should I cross myself upon passing an Anglican church? If their priesthood is valid (which the Catholic Church has said, it isn't), then they validly confect the Eucharist and our Lord is being reserved there and deserves to be reverenced by the Sign of the Cross as we do when passing Catholic, Old Catholic, PNCC, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian, and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Alexis

Father Stephanos:

I think there are two issues that are often confused here.

The first is the issue of how Rome views Anglican Orders on a case by case basis when the person who applies asks for admission to the Catholic Church and to the Catholic Church's priesthood. Then the question of validity or not comes into play and how ordination is to take place--conditionally or absolutely.

The second issue that comes up among the laity is whether Anglican Orders are the same as Catholic Church Orders when they remain out of communion. Here the issue is often framed for the layman as "we're the same as you except that we're not under the Pope so you can receive Holy Communion with us the same as with your own priest." The average man in the pew--and I mean that inclusively--doesn't know about the hair-splitting over validity or nonvalidity, and has no way of even approaching the question of the Anglican priest's ecclesiastical pedigree.

I think this second issue is the one addressed in broad terms by Pope Leo's Bull. Absolutely--erring on the side of caution--the Catholic should assume that Anglican Orders are not valid, are not the same as Catholic Orders, and as a result should not approach the sacrament in these parishes. We should not automatically assume that an Anglican priest can consecrate the Eucharist as a priest of one of the Apostolic Churches can.

I think a reading of the Book of Common Prayer might bring this into clearer focus. When the bread and wine are prepared, there are no prayers uttered that would indicate that this is an offertory--it's often done as a utilitarian function. I have seen Anglican priests who have used the Anglican Missal--an order of worship that closely follows the Tridentine form of the Latin Church's liturgy--but that book has been out of print for some time and relatively few younger clergy have access to it I am told by those who still have a copy.

In Christ,

BOB

Good insightful responses.

I often wonder about the acceptance of schismatics into the clergy because there are Old-Catholic and Old-Roman Catholic churches with branches all over the world. They have Old-Catholic, Anglican, and even Orthodox ordination lines from an Orthodox Bishop who went astray, but I forget his name (begins with an "Af" I think). Recently some of these denominations have been ordaining women and the openly gay. In addition, they also consecrate married men and women as bishops. In one case, in Pasadena, apparently the man and wife are both bishops. Such confusion. Some of these new denominations are even allowing "Holy Unions" -- their term for homosexual marriages.

How far can these folks deviate before they are considered to be not only schismatics but also heretics? When if ever do these lines of apostolic succession cease?

To confuse the issue, there have been some Roman (Latin) Catholic priests who were merely vested (and not reordained into the Orthodox Church) by the OCA. On the other hand, several Catholic priests who had left the Catholic priesthood to marry, were accepted into the Antiochian Church by chrismation and ordination.

Then, several years ago, there was the consecration of a schismatic Old Calendar Greek Orthodox Bishop by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Was that person also re-ordained before his consecration?

This whole situation is very confusing. Some consistency needs to be established.

In Christ,
Elizabeth

You could always cross yourself with a prayer for their conversion...

EM:

I have to agree with this statement. To me it's the reason one restricts one's communion to his own bishop and the bishops with whom he is in communion. In extreme circumstances one consults clergy of one's own Church as to the limits of how one operates in extreme situations.

The problem comes when one operates with a little knowledge and tries to navigate this uncharted area on one's own.

I have been asked time and again by my Catholic brethren at funerals I've been conducting in Anglican and Lutheran parishes. I hear this "well it looks the same" comment all the time. And "can't we receive communion here"? (After all, if it looks the same, it must be the same, right?!?--NOT!)

But I've been a hair-splitter about this sort of thing since I began studying the differences between the Catholic Church and the communities of the Reformation some time ago. This area always comes up because of so many mixed marriages where fudging this question is one way that peace is kept in the family. And it doesn't get any easier when people assume that since the era of ecumenism is now some four or more decades old that these strict lines are no longer in place.

In Christ,

BOB

I would strongly suggest before posting something like this you get your facts straight. The GOAA never consecrated anyone since that is not within their synod's power or authority. All actions concerning this case were handled directly at the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and for your information all their orders were redone.

Squirrel.

ALOHA. (MERCY AND PEACE)

That was why I asked the question. If I had the full information at hand, I would not have asked the question in the first place.

I just wanted to know if all the orders were redone when the schismatic bishop converted to the Greek Orthodox Church from the Old Calendar Church. Sorry if I mentioned GOARCH but it is under the Patriarch. And honestly, I did not know that all their consecrations of Bishops occurred at the Phantar. Thanks for that news. I am in the OCA.

Now, I wonder if chrismations or even baptisms were also done. How many clergy and laity converted at that time?

I do know some people who were also re-chrismated when they went from an Old Calendar (schismatic) Church into the New Calendar not too long ago. It happens the other way around too with certain Old Calendar schismatics demanding baptism of all those who were only chrismated into Orthodoxy from Protestantism or Catholicism.


I am a member of the OCA ... how am I to know about the ways of the GOARCH.

Yes, this division is very sad and confusing.

At least two posters have used the expression

This is a common mistake, but it is a mistake. The intention which the Catholic Church teaches as essential for the validity of a sacrament is the intention to do what the Church does. The difference is often crucial.

This is, for example, why the Catholic Churches recognizes certain Protestant Baptisms while being fully aware that the teaching of that particular denomination regarding Baptism is deficient. So long as the minister is known with certainty to have used an appropriate form and the necessary matter (water in the case of Baptism), the Baptism is acceptable.

To go even further, there is the classic textbook case of the Christian woman who gives birth to a child, is dying from complications of child-bearing, and is physically unable to baptize the child. So she asks her Saracen slave to do it for her, having him pour the water and recite the words after her.

Surprise: it's acceptable, on the assumption that the Saracen intended to do whatever it is the Christians do.

Fr. Serge