Some people are making connections between the wacky schismatic leanings of the strange Archbishop Milingo and the possible derestriction of the "Tridentine" Mass via an indult issued by the Pope and dialogue with Anglicans, even consideration of the Anglican Use in unity with the Roman Pontiff.
There is a connecting thread. They all concern schism in some way.
Milingo has demonstrated that he can back up his weird rhetoric with actions. The SSPX are in schism and they intend to stay in schism until conditions change. The Anglicans are in schism for a long while now, though some of them have reconciled.
In each case, concessions are being required. In the case of the SSPX and the Anglicans there are serious liturgical dimensions to the dialogue.
The case of Miligno is very troubling. His antics present some potential for disturbing the vibrant and fairly young Church in Africa. It is understandable that the Holy Father would want to hear what heads of dicasteries have to say about this.
Loading ...
Hmm… and Pope’s heading over to Constantinople. Coincidence? I think not!
The Vatican isn’t currently using the word “schism” in relation to the SSPX. The terms “juridical irregularity” and “irregular status” seem to be the current trend. And its a bit of a stretch to place the SSPX in the same category of “schism” as Milingo and the Anglicans, no matter how one views the SSPX and their relative merits.
Negotiations have been under way for some time with the Traditional Anglican Catholic Church for a sort of uniate solution for their Church, several million worldwide. They are doctrinally and liturgically more in line with Rome than many “Roman” bishops. There are a number of problems:
the Curia, married bishops and large number of married priests. The problem of validity of orders is, I am led to believe, settled. Then there are the Polish National Church, the traditional Scandanavian Lutheran and probably other smaller churches. Interested parties can google for the TAC and find out much about the negotiations from their perspective.
In Australia the Trad Anglicans have several parishes in each main city (about 20? priests) and communion with the Church of the Torres Straits (a mainly indigienous Church in northern Queensland) again about 15 parishes, I think.
The acceptance of these large groups of orthodox catholics back into the Church (on the right terms) can only be to the good.
I recall reading that the major issue with the traditional Anglicans would be their married bishops. Their married priests would be similiar to Eastern Rite priests, who are allowed to be married when they are ordained (priests cannot marry after ordination). However, bishops are chosen from among celibate Eastern Rite priests.
I hope Archbishop Malignant doesn’t ask for HIS own rite, too!
As far as this:
“The problem of validity of orders is, I am led to believe, settled”
–well, if you mean the Question is settled. But the problem remains. The position of Joseph Ratzinter as CDF Prefect seems to have been that Apostolicae Curae was infallible. So Anglican orders are and will remain “absolutely null and utterly void” unless an argument can be made that the nature of the Anglican Ordinal has changed and a new stream of valid ordinations has entered the Anglican Church. Not bloody likely.
The invalidity of Anglican Orders is mentioned as a truth “proximate to the Faith” which is to be held as definitively as any truth of the Faith EXCEPT that it is not to be held WITH Divine Faith, but BECAUSE of Divine Faith.
But the condemnation of Anglican Orders is to be held “definitively.” Sic Cardinal Ratzinger.
Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem
It is my understanding that the “problem of validity of orders” and its being settled with regard to TAC, is that TAC has been able to conclusively document (to the satisfaction of the CDF and then-Cardinal Ratzinger) that all of their present bishops, priests, and deacons have been validly ordained by bishops who themselves had been validly ordained and so on. Apparently, they went at great lengths over recent decades to absolutely make sure that this is the case today with all of their member clergy.
The wonderful implication being that, as with the Orthodox, when the TAC priests consecrate the bread and wine, it is truly Jesus become substantially present on their altars. It is truly Our Eucharistic Lord they receive in Holy Communion; and it is He they worship — present in His humanity and divinity under the veil of the sacrament — when they celebrate the Rite of Benediction following Holy Mass. By the way, all of the TAC priests when they offer Mass always pray in the Canon for the presently reigning Bishop of Rome.
With all that in mind, it seems somehow urgent that the remaining obstacles to TAC’s full communion with and in the Catholic Church be overcome, and God willing, it becomes the first large body of Christians to be healed en masse of one of the schisms that stemmed from the Protestant Reformation.
Some great new TLM videos are up on YouTube, of a Low Mass offered by an FSSP priest; take a look: Introduction to a method of meditation during Mass, complete Low Mass with meditation voice-over, same Low Mass w/o the meditation.
Brian: If it quacks like a duck….
I think that Rome already said that the consecration of bishops by Abp Lefebvre was a schismatic act. But the SSPX existed prior to it, and so the status of its members is more problematic.
It is my understanding that the “problem of validity of orders†and its being settled with regard to TAC, is that TAC has been able to conclusively document (to the satisfaction of the CDF and then-Cardinal Ratzinger) that all of their present bishops, priests, and deacons have been validly ordained by bishops who themselves had been validly ordained and so on. Apparently, they went at great lengths over recent decades to absolutely make sure that this is the case today with all of their member clergy.
Where did you get that idea?
I know of no such decision by Rome that Anglican orders are valid. The Anglican argument was that the presence of, say, an Orthodox bishop at ordination established validity–even when the presiding “bishop” was an Anglican.
In such cases Rome has basically required conditional ordination. A case in point was Graham Leonard, who insisted that (1) Rome accept his orders as valid, and (2) he become a Catholic bishop. He was told no on both accounts. GL finally agreed.
The wonderful implication being that, as with the Orthodox, when the TAC priests consecrate the bread and wine, it is truly Jesus become substantially present on their altars. It is truly Our Eucharistic Lord they receive in Holy Communion; and it is He they worshipâ€â€present in His humanity and divinity under the veil of the sacramentâ€â€when they celebrate the Rite of Benediction following Holy Mass. By the way, all of the TAC priests when they offer Mass always pray in the Canon for the presently reigning Bishop of Rome
See above.
With all that in mind, it seems somehow urgent that the remaining obstacles to TAC’s full communion with and in the Catholic Church be overcome, and God willing, it becomes the first large body of Christians to be healed en masse of one of the schisms that stemmed from the Protestant Reformation.
If it is so urgent, then in the Anglican communion should simply become Catholics.
A few years ago, an Episcopalian parish in Texas became (I think) became Catholic, they retained (again, I think) their Anglican liturgy, and the priest was ordained to the priesthood.
I seem to have read somewhere that the Anglican Ordinal was at some point revised late in the last century to improve its efficacy. The problem is of course that the bishops using it to ordain are themselves not really bishops since they were ordained under the old ordinal. Hence the Eastern bishops’ participation.
Correct me if I’m wrong of course.
RBrown:
I am under the impression, possibly mistaken, that certain Anglican groups have been bringing in validly ordained Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops to ordain the Anglican ordinandi. This would make those ordinations valid. This is NOT, by my understanding, any alteration of the position of Apostolicae Curae. It seems that the Vatican is dealing with these things on a case by case basis. Somewhere I remember hearing that some Anglican priests had been admitted to full communion without being conditiionally ordained – perhaps a false rumor.
Matthew
From anecdotal evidence, I can say that any Anglican who cares about the validity of Apostolic succession (read: Anglo-Catholics) have specifically made the relatively easy steps of being ordained via routes of indisputable validity.
We already have the Missal for Anglican whole parish conversions…
The invalidity of Anglican orders was determined in Leo XIII’s Apostolicae curae of 1896. According to Pope Leo, invalidity was established not only on the fact that Apostolic succession had been lost, but also because of a deficiency in the form of Anglican ordination. If it were just a matter of the break in Apostolic succession, then a “booster shot” from Orthodox bishops may have sufficed to reintroduce validity into the Anglican episcopate, but the question remains – is the ordination ritual used in the Anglican Church sufficient to turn him-who-is-not a bishop into him-who-is? The intention of the ordaining prelate is another factor. In those Churches which have preserved valid orders and apostolic succession, the right intention can be presumed (and that presumption can only be overturned by weighty evidence to the contrary). In the Anglican communion, the presumption would be the other way around – since they do not have valid orders or valid apostolic succession, there would have to be sufficient proof to show that a “right intention” was present.
That is not to say that some “orthodox” Anglican bishops might not have valid orders, but they have a huge wall of presumptions to surmount in order to prove that.
RBrown:
b
I am under the impression, possibly mistaken, that certain Anglican groups have been bringing in validly ordained Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops to ordain the Anglican ordinandi. This would make those ordinations valid.
I answered that above. Generally, it was a case that the principal celebrant was Anglican, but there was an Orthodox bishop who also participated. Rome has never said that was valid.
One question: Why would an Anglican use an Orthodox bishop as the
principal ordaining bishop?
This is NOT, by my understanding, any alteration of the position of Apostolicae Curae. It seems that the Vatican is dealing with these things on a case by case basis. Somewhere I remember hearing that some Anglican priests had been admitted to full communion without being conditiionally ordained – perhaps a false rumor.
Matthew
See above.
Let’s try it again:
I am under the impression, possibly mistaken, that certain Anglican groups have been bringing in validly ordained Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops to ordain the Anglican ordinandi. This would make those ordinations valid.
I answered that above. Generally, it was a case that the principal celebrant was Anglican, but there was an Orthodox bishop who also participated. Rome has never said that was valid.
One question: Why would an Anglican use an Orthodox bishop as the
principal ordaining bishop?
The invalidity of Anglican orders was determined in Leo XIII’s Apostolicae curae of 1896. According to Pope Leo, invalidity was established not only on the fact that Apostolic succession had been lost, but also because of a deficiency in the form of Anglican ordination.
According to AC, the loss of Apostolic Succession was due to a deficiency of both Sacramental Form and Intention. The deficent intention is manifest in the deficient form.
>b>
If it were just a matter of the break in Apostolic succession, then a “booster shot†from Orthodox bishops may have sufficed to reintroduce validity into the Anglican episcopate, but the question remains – is the ordination ritual used in the Anglican Church sufficient to turn him-who-is-not a bishop into him-who-is? The intention of the ordaining prelate is another factor. In those Churches which have preserved valid orders and apostolic succession, the right intention can be presumed (and that presumption can only be overturned by weighty evidence to the contrary). In the Anglican communion, the presumption would be the other way around – since they do not have valid orders or valid apostolic succession, there would have to be sufficient proof to show that a “right intention†was present.
That is not to say that some “orthodox†Anglican bishops might not have valid orders, but they have a huge wall of presumptions to surmount in order to prove that.
As I noted before, the partipation of an Orthodox bishop in a rite whose principal celebrant is an Anglican is not enough to guarantee validity.
BTW, I grew up an American Episcopalian. Further, one of my profs at the Angelicum (a Swiss) was an expert on the question of Anglican Orders. He was also a consultor to the SCDF.
In the Anglican communion, the presumption would be the other way around – since they do not have valid orders or valid apostolic succession, there would have to be sufficient proof to show that a “right intention†was present.
Excellent point. And it is true not only for intention but also whether the principle celebrant is actually a bishop.
o mi Iesu said: It is my understanding that the “problem of validity of orders†and its being settled with regard to TAC, is that TAC has been able to conclusively document (to the satisfaction of the CDF and then-Cardinal Ratzinger) …
RBrown said in reply: Where did you get that idea? I know of no such decision by Rome that Anglican orders are valid.
You may have misunderstood the scope and context of my statements, which pertain only and specifically to TAC, the Traditional Anglican Communion. Not quite two years ago, there were some “leaks” from an official and private dialogue (headed by then Card. Ratzinger) between the CDF and the TAC bishops. The information, which came from a credible source *very* close to the action, indicated that Rome was (unofficially) satisfied by TAC’s documentation to the effect that all of their present-day episcopal, priestly, and diaconate ordinations are valid; and that there would be no conditional ordinations if/when TAC comes into full communion with the Catholic Church (possibly as a sui iuris Church, after the pattern of the Eastern Catholic Churches). Again, this recognition would **not** be applicable to the whole Anglican communion, but only to TAC. And it would have no bearing whatsoever on the status of the teaching in Apostolicae curae.
I don’t know all of the details as to how TAC was able to “obtain” and document these valid ordinations, but I have a feeling we’ll all be learning more about this in the coming years.
The real question with the TAC is their credibility. Does their hierarchy truly speak for their parishes and laity? A while back I browsed some of their parish websites. The one from Ireland that I looked at was clearly Anglican and just as clearly non-Catholic.
Hepworth is a Roman Catholic priest who married. If he is serious about re-establishing communion with Rome, he will resign and cease to function as a clergyman and so will any other married TAC bishop.
The numbers involved in the TAC are not in the millions but about 400,000.
The whole continuing Anglican movement is beset by an intense sectarian spirit. One wonders if these people could ever agree on a liturgy and live in obedience to a hierarchy of bishops who function as bishops. The history of Anglo-Catholicism suggests that it is not a realistic hope.
Anglican orders – per se – are invalid, even though in individual cases there may be Anglicans with valid orders. How could this be evaluated in individual cases? What is the significance of an Orthodox bishop participating in the consecration of an Anglican? What is his intent? How could he justify to his own communion ordaining an Anglican? The best that these people could hope for is conditional ordination – as was done in Graham Leonard’s case.
Too much is made of the significance of the orders of Anglican groups. They are a necessary condition for catholicity but not a sufficient condition and it’s doubtful that they could be preserved in any body with an ambiguous theology of Orders or of the sacraments.
Years ago in my grandmother’s time the Anglican Bishop of Gloucester was consecrated bishop by an Old Catholic bishop from Utrecht. The formula required (as a means to overcome Apostolicis Curae) was that he first received what is conferred in the Anglican Ordinal at the hands of Anglican bishops and then the Old Catholic bishop consecrated him using the Old Catholic Ordinal — which ordinal was judged valid whilst illicit.
Any number of Anglican bishops were consecrated in this same fashion i.e., bringing in Old Catholic bishops with their own consecratory prayers from their Ordinal. This was even the case in the early and mid-twentieth century in the USA with Polish National Catholic bishops so consecrating a few Episcopalian Bishops including their Presiding Bishop. Of course, none of this “cross fertilization” is done in this manner any more, and only the most careful Anglo-Catholics kept track of these orders and who was so ordained to the diaconate in Christ, and the sacred priesthood.
BTW Bishop Graham Leonard was not consecrated Bishop of London with the double formula. I understand that had he been it would have been an entirely different kettle of fish, so to speak. But because the lines of his priestly ordination could be verified to a certain extent, Cardinal Hume in consultation with the Holy See conditionally ordained him. It was Pope John Paul II (because of a request of Cardinal Hume and its being put forward by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger) who conferred on Graham Leonard the title Rt. Rev. Monsignor, an appropriate dignity with regard to Msgr. Leonard — the generosity of which made me very proud to be Catholic.
I know 1 Anglican priest who was simply received into the Church because his bishop had been directly consecrated by the Old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht using that ritual. Obviously, there are more details involved, but that was the main hanging point on his reception — especially since he had been ordained with one of the revised ordinals and not the traditional 1662 Book of Common Prayer ordinal.
We also know a priest in Wales who was received because his bishop had had a Greek Orthodox bishop directly involved in his consecration — not merely present, and using some form of Orthodox formula for consecration of a bishop. Again, not being privy to details, I merely offer this as anecdote.
Here’s a site devoted to the status of Anglo-Catholic orders:
http://accipepotestatem.com/
Msgr.Graham Leonard never demanded that his orders be accepted as valid.He believed they were and said so but it was no demand .Also he never demanded that be be kept as a bishop,There was a small movement before the last consistory to pettion the pope to name him a cardinal.I must say I agreed with that. Some anglicand have been “reordained” by Old Catholic bishops or other schismatic bishops.My former parish brought in a Anglican priest who had gone to Brazil and was ordained by a schismatic bishop there. Ecumenism must be one of the Church’s main works>Our Lord willed it and Pope JPII made it sich a vital mission for all Catholics .BUT I really doubt that anything less than conversions will ever work.The church has never (or hardly ever) been without fragments.Remember the Judaizers?Or the early heretics and schisms?Then there is the problems of married couples.Reunion would mean accepting couples in a second or third marriage as validly married.Impossible.So is real union of all christians this side of heaven.But we must stll pray that all be one.
The “accipe potestatem” site is not sufficient in proving that currently there is no defect in form or intention. The nativa ac indoles spiritus can still be found in that, there is no reference to a eucharistic sacrifice. The new Anglican form of ordaining a bishop might be valid, as they have the “primate of priesthood” (“primatus sacerdotii”) in it, but then still, given the fact there is often no certainty about whether an Old Catholic bishop consecrated actively, there can be doubt. Then again, the priestly ordination seems doubtful even if an Old Catholic bishop were to confer it. There is no reference to what sacerdos is mean. A mere sacrificium orationis, laudis, or propitiationis?
Then only their bishops might be valid bishops and priest, but their TAC priests still laymen sacramentally speaking. And then we would have the discussion on whether ordination per saltum is valid, which is disputed, even if most theologians agree episcopal consecration ceremony will make a deacon a priest ánd bishop at the same time. Therefore, like the many converted Oxford Movement priest and later Cardinals, the TAC should receive conditional Ordination to episcopacy and presbyterate. To take away doubt. Given the Old Catholic practice that should be not difficult: collecting multiple lines of succession is a common (abusive) practice there. A line of Cardinal Ratzinger over Bishop Stimpfle would be acceptable then too, would not it?