www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Apostolic Succession and Anglicanism

Dear Remie,

In 1922, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople declared that Anglican ("Episcopalian" in America) Orders are valid and that therefore Anglicans have true sacraments. I quote the Patriarch directly:

"1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker [ed. 1st non-Roman English Archbishop] as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.

2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.

3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.

4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches."

Moreover, the following Eastern jurisdictions have declared that Anglican Orders are valid and adiministor valid sacraments:

The Letter of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 1923.
The Letter of the Archbishop of Cyprus, 1923.
The Statement of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, 1930.
The Statement of the Sacred Synod of the Orthodox Church of Romania, 1936.
The Statement of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, 1939.

If you are still interested in this subject I suggest this website, which speaks about the Orthodox view of Anglicanism:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/orthodoxy/index.html

Also, Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have given archepiscopal rings and pectoral crosses to Anglican hierarchs. Leo XIII's "Apostolicae Curae" against Anglican Orders is basically irrelevent these days because since 1897 Anglican Orders "have been bred" with valid (by Rome's view) Old Catholic Orders. This is known as "the Dutch Touch". Also in the late 1800s, four Greek Orthodox took part in the consecrations of Anglican archbishop. Since then Polish National Catholics (also valid in Rome's view) have bred with Anglicans in America.

That takes care of the "matter" of the sacrament. The "form" of the sacrament "Recieve the Holy Ghost. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven etc." have been the form of the Anglican Ordinal since 1662. If you have valid bishop in succession (which we have) and the proper words of consecration (which we have) then you have a valid bishop who can then ordain valid priests and deacons.

Since Leo XIII's statement against Anglican Orders in 1897, numerous factors have changed the situation. Orthodoxy has ruled in favor of Anglican Orders and the Anglicans have also "bred Orders" with Old Catholics, Polish Catholics, and Greek Orthodox. So the ecumenical stance of Rome toward Anglicans is different today that it was in 1897. It's just not post V2 wishy-washiness. New variables have effected the status of Anglican Orders. Thus Paul VI and John Paul II are much more charitable to us Anglicans.

Remember when Pope John Paul had Anglican Archbishop Carey vested in full pontificals to accompany he and the Patriarch through St Peter's doors for the millenial Jubille celebration? Typically, the pope would not dress up a man in pontificals and a mitre for a Jubilee celebration if he thought the man was a lay man presuming valid Orders.

yours in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

For myself, I've been in love with the Anglican tradition for years and, as you know, belong to and contribute to two Anglican devotional societies and their journals.

The Anglican tradition has produced so many fruits of holiness and spirituality!

I commemorate the Anglican saints in my personal calendar, along with those of other Catholic traditions.

Some of the most Catholic and Orthodox people I know are Anglicans.

You included, Big Guy!

Alex

Dear Marshall:

I have not seen any Papal document reversing or, at least, amending, Pope Leo XIII's 1896
"Apostolicae Curae" which declared Anglican orders invalid.

Notwithstanding their recognition as valid by the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican ordinations(episcopal, presbyteral, and diaconal) are not valid as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.

ARCIC and other ecumenical efforts between the Church of Engaland (and, necessarily including the Episcopal Church) and the Roman Catholic Church recognize this fact.

All clergy converts, recent and past, from Anglicanism (and Episcopalianism) all went through re-ordination as Catholic priests if they wish to pursue their priestly duties.

However, they are treated respectfully and leniently under the Vatican's "pastoral provisions." And this gave rise to the "Anglican Use" rite within the Catholic Church.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Those convert bishops and priests that do become reconciled to Rome receive conditional ordination if they can show that they received the correct form and received their orders from a bishop with Old Catholic, Polish Catholic, or Orthodox lines of succession. Former Anglican bishop of London, Graham Leonard is one example. I believe Fr Rutler of New York is another example.

Also, just because 1897's Apostolicae Curae says Anglican Orders are invalid doesn't mean that all Anglican priests in 2002 do not have valid orders. For example several Anglican priests have received their orders from the hands of Old Catholic and Polish Catholic bishops with true and valid episcopal orders according to Rome. Are you saying that Apostolicae Curae still denies their orders simply because they are "Anglican"? As long as there is proper form and matter, ordination occurs. It may be illicit (like a SSPX ordination) but it is still valid.

The sum is that Apostolicae Curae doesn't take in to account the past 100 years of "cross fertilization" of ordaining valid bishops.

Of course, you can also just dismiss Apostolicae Curae as bogus. The Oxford Dictionary of the Church says:

"The arguments of Leo XIII that the intention of the Anglican Church expressed in the rite is defective because there are no acts or words explicitely conferring the power for priests to offer sacrifice...To this the Abps. of Canterbury and York...pointed out that the words and acts required by the Pope are not found in the earliest Roman Ordianls, so that if their omission renders an Ordination invalid, the Orders of the Church of Rome are on no surer footing that that of the Church of England."

yours in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Some Catholic professors of theology I've spoken with over the years (I AM getting on in them you know)have indicated that since Assyrian and other Churches ABSOLUTELY recognized by the RC Church as having canonically valid Orders often assist at Anglican consecrations, that means that their canonical validity must pass on to the Anglicans, making their bishops valid even from the strictest RC point of view.

Alex

Dear Marshall:

In the case of Anglican Bishop Leonard (of London), he was re-ordained by His Eminence, Basil Cardinal Hume as a PRIEST. Conditional ordination does not mean NO RE-ORDINATION.

In this particular instance, the efficacy of Pope Leo XIII's Bull "Apotolicae Curae" was explicitly recognized and that Anglican Orders were still considered invalid.

Cardinal Hume's explanation on the special treatment of Bishop Leonard's case reads in part:

(Emphasis mine.)

And Bishop Leonard IS an exception.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

Remember, they're Anglicans, not Angels .

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Be nice, and when it comes to disliking you, they'll think twice.

A bird in the hand . . . can get you awful dirty.

If I think up any more practical advice, I'll let you know.

Magandang Gabi!

Alex

Dear Alex & Marshall:

Thanks for your advice!

I am not trying to be "vinegary" at all, especially toward Marshall.

If I appear I am, please accept my apologies, Marshall. I know you are on your journey.

My sole purpose is to set the record straight as far as my Church's view on the matter is concerned.

AmdG

Yeah, but what happens when the Anglicans have ordained women to priesthood? Is that a valid apostolic succession? The Episcopalian Church in Mexico has a woman-bishop and women priests.

At that time (1920's, 1930's) the union was possible because the Anglican Church had, as you said valid orders and Bishops, but now the introduction of women has changed many things.

And what about their Sacraments?
They don't believe that the species really become the body, blood and soul of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit like in the Orthodox Church.

I remember asking you about the validity of an Apostolic Succvesion which has been diluted (like those independent Churches).

Remie,

I had it explained to me once by a Roman Catholic priest (I'm sorry, I can't remember where) that "female ordination to the priesthood" is a coontradiction in terms. Even if the pope were to "ordain" (quotes used because ordination of a woman is an impossibility) it would not be valid in any way, shape, or form. I'm sorry I can't give you the reasoning behind all this, but this was explained to me in no unclear terms.

Marshall,

Because the Old Catholic Church and the Polish Catholic Church have a valid priesthood and Apostolic Succession, an Anglican priest which has been ordained by a clergyman from these churches would be validly ordained. Yes, there are of course exceptions to the general rule that Anglicans do not posses validly ordained priests: Catholic priests turned Anglican priests, Anglican priests ordained by Orthodox, Polish Catholic, or Old Catholic bishops, etc. However, I'm almost 100% positive that the Catholic Church holds the mainstream of Anglican Orders to be invalid (excluding the exceptions above-mentioned).

ChristTeen287

Anglican orders is a difficult issue. And I think that sentence says volumes. I think a fair review must look at many factors with an open mind. To just say because some authority has issued some statement, that the question is ended, does not work.

Apostolica Curae is a flawed documents by many accounts including leading Catholics. It contains factual errors and does not address develops subsequent to it.

From an ecumencial standpoint, it might be best to say these orders are "uncertain" and leave it at that. Certainly many Orthodox are happy with this.

Axios

If the Anglican Church can have women Priest then the Anglican Church can have women Bishops - yes?

Roman Church is often critized for Papal infallibity. Has the Anglican Church now considered it's self infallibale? Above and beyond that of all Apostolic Churches? Through their ordination of women to the Priesthood?

If women can't be Priest then what's that the people eat recieving communion? Bread or not?

Where does Apostolic succession begin and end in Christian theology?

Justin

Am I the only one bothered by all this talk of "cross-fertilisation" and "breeding"? The very fact that we have to talk this way about Anglican orders would seem to me to make the case against the validity of Anglican orders.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

To me God is Mystery. And that is primarily how He chooses to work is in Mystery. As an Eastern Christian that is how I view the Sacraments as Mysterion. That is how I view life and Creation. And that is how I would see "Anglican" Orders. Anglican theology does not state that it claims to have anything other than Catholic Orders and that it is a Catholic Church. To Anglicanism there is no such thing as "Anglican Orders" but Catholic Orders which they have received from the Apostles through the Celtic and Roman Churches. I will NOT say that God CANNOT work through their Ministry and I would dare anyone to do so. We cannot put God in a box and say that he only works through our Church; what nonsense! What tribal Christianity!

To Anglicans their Church is nothing more then the Catholic Church restored to follow the praxis of the Early Fathers, the best light of the Reformers, the glory of an authentic English Catholic liturgy i.e. the Prayer Book, Reason, and the Experience of the People of God. It holds to a theology that "where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church." There is much to be admired in that re-capturing of the Ancient model of ecclesiology such as what the Orthodox use. I cannot judge them and again will not. I believe that God in a Mysterious way can work through their Church and their Ministry just as He works through ours. What about Women priests and Bishops in the Anglican Communion? I can only say again that Mystery is involved. In my studies I have had a dramtic shift in my paradigm.
I can only say that my focus at this time is really looking at God as Mystery and looking at life and creation and the Church as Mystery. I am no longer interested in the rhetoric of tribal Christians, but am rather seeing Christianity as an evolving organism which is vibrant and transformational. Most of Christianity views Eastern Christians as at best relics from the age of the Greek Fathers and at worst the fundamentalists of a bygone Constantianian era; and I think we need to move away from that image. I think we can be Orthodox and forward thinking and to me that where the Theology of Mystery comes in. So do I think Anglicans have Orders? Yes. Could they be irregular or have some problems meeting all the requirments of good ole' Saint Thomas? Sure. But was Aquinas God? NO! And are the Latin notions of validity important to me as an Eastern Christian? NO! Ordination is not some hocus pocus superstitious mumbo jumbo or a form of white magic. If the Anglicans had a bishop ordain Parker who was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop all the way down the line until the Apostles and laid his hands on him, and the words of that Ceremonial, which they clearly did, whether explicitely or otherwise, had the intention in the Rite to ordain a Bishop. then they have Bishops and therefore a valid Priesthood. As was stated by the starter of the this topic the Earliest prayers of Consecration were very simple and and certainly did not have the complex Latin theological doctrines written in. I like the definition of Catholic given on the website of Trinity Episcopal Church which is in Watertown, South Dakota:

"6. Catholic: From the Greek, this word means "universal." With a lower case c it can be applied to all Christian denominations that profess the universal belief in God as Creator, Jesus Christ as God's Son and our Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the animating, life-giving Force of the Church. With a capital C it describes a Church with three distinctions: (1) the Church has retained a historic ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons in unbroken line of succession from Jesus and the Apostles; (2) the Church confesses its faith with the historic Catholic Creeds, primarily the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds; and (3) the Church offers the seven formal Catholic sacraments. (The two "essential" sacraments are Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. The others are Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Penance, Holy Unction, and Holy Orders.) There are three main bodies of Christianity that qualify as capital-C Catholic by those criteria: the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Armenian, etc.), the Roman Catholic Church, and the Anglican Communion, which includes our Episcopal Church. While many Episcopalians would describe our Church as a Protestant Church with a rich Catholic heritage, many others describe it as a Catholic Church with a rich Protestant heritage. In the Sixteenth Century, the reformers in the Church of England demonstrated what the Eastern Orthodox Church had shown in the Eleventh Century - that it is possible to be Catholic without being Roman Catholic."

With one Eastern Christian writer I delcare: "We are all schismatics." Let us pray for the Unity that Christ desires for His Church.

In Christ,

Robert

Dear Robert H.,

I can cheer some of the things you say. The constant fighting and tribalism of Christianity does no Church any good. Especially the one Church Christ is said to have established.

But I don't think it is unfair to call a duck a duck. And by on one hand calling on the mystery of God to back out of direct confrentation of the question of female Priests, yet on the other hand calling on orthodoxy to promote Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is, well... just to easy and clever. At what point then is any line ever drawn? How do I know Jesus was not the Archangle Michael? One can try to be so mystical that at the end of the day what need is there of any Church at all i.e. the Muslims and Baptist don't offer the sacrament of reconciliation or the Eucharist so evidently people go with out that and according to your logical the Christian God thinks it to be good, in all His mystery.

At some point a little Latin logic may be needed. Otherwise what good argument could you give to the unchurched to belong to any Church, subscribe to any religion. If God/Christ created the Catholic Church He did so for a reason, otherwise to speak to the simple mind of humans any other way is just to stir confusion. Then we are at the point where we have a God of confusion. Christianity however says God is not a God of confusion - Satan an angelic creature of Confusion maybe. But God no he is said not to be a cause of confusion or fear.

Justin