The Catholic Herald has a fascinating article by our friend the persistent interviewer extraordinaire Anna Arco:
Anglicans must choose between Protestantism and tradition, says Vatican
By Anna Arco
6 May 2008The Vatican has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.
Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity".
He told the Catholic Herald: "Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?
"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium, Catholic and Orthodox, or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."
He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.
Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.
"We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis."
His comments will be interpreted as an attempt by Rome to put pressure on the Church of England not to proceed with the ordination women bishops or to sanction gay partnerships, both serious obstacles to unity.
They have come at an extremely sensitive time for the Anglican Communion, as cracks between different factions in the church are beginning to show ahead of the conference in July.
Dr Rowan Williams faces rebellion from conservative and liberal Anglicans over homosexuality and women bishops.
The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Anglican bishop of New Hampshire, whose attempts to enter into a civil union with his gay partner have angered conservative Anglicans, plans to attend the public events of the conference despite the fact that he has not been invited by Dr Williams.
On the other side of the spectrum, rebel conservative bishops, headed by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, dismayed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s refusal to condemn homosexuality outright, plan a rival conference in the Holy Land in June.
Ecumenical dialogue between Rome and the Anglican Communion ground to a halt in 2006. Cardinal Kasper said at the time that a decision by the Church of England to consecrate women bishops would lead to "a serious and long lasting chill".
But last month the Church of England’s Legislative Drafting Group published a report preparing the ground for women bishops, who are already ordained in several Anglican provinces.
Loading ...
I think the Cardinal’s point is well taken. However, I think the Roman Church has spent a lot of unnecessary time on Ecumenism. I think Ecumenism is great
from the standpoint of not hurling invectives at each other but I think it’s delusional to think Anglicans are going to come around to a truly
Catholic point of view. We certainly shouldn’t accomodate our beliefs and praxis to accomodate them. We tried already and it was a failure. Tom
His Emminence is exactly right…ever since the Oxford Movement the Anglicans have attempted to stand in between Protestantism and Catholicism. The heretics among them have forced the the Anglo-Catholics’ hands, they will have to choose union with Rome, or suffer the ignominy of a slow death.
I agree with the idea that Anglicanism “can” be a “way to be Catholic” just like the Easter Rite churches. It’s disingenuous, however, to attempt to pretend there is real unity when there is a real barrier.
“Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium Catholic and Orthodox – or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.”
I don’t see how such a statement is even plausible. There’s nothing about Anglicanism that is not protestant. They have the mere trappings of apostolic succession, but not the thing itself.
***
“We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.
“We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decisionmaking back because it only extends the crisis.”
This is a good statement; for dialogue to be possible, we must know where they stand. The longer ambiguity prevails, the worse the situation becomes.
The question is interesting, but I think that the whole protestant demeanour of the Anglican Communion is linked to a question that has been already resolved: that is, the lack of a true priesthood and of a valid Eucharist.
Without the grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and of the Most Blessed Sacrament, how can the Anglican eccesiastical community (not a Church, cf. Dominus Iesus ) compare with the “ancient Churches of Rome and Orthodoxy”, as the article puts it?
The link between the Orthodox, that have valid Orders and the gift of the Eucharist, and the true and only Church of Christ, that is the Catholic Church, is much closer, whereas the so called “Church of England” toguether with that mockery called “Episcopal Church USA” and other “Churches” of the Anglican Communion, are, without a true priesthood and the Eucharist, nothing more than the other protestant sects.
And, in my view, the lack of the grace of those Sacraments is what propells the Anglicans down the road of huge errors.
As for the Anglicans, I think it is too little too late. Those who choose to move away from the teachings of the Church are already past a point of no return. Those who adhere to the Bible are largely Evangelical in outlook and practice. The Anglo-Catholics are largely gone from Anglican Communion to splinter groups or the Catholic Church itself.
Whatever beliefs the Anglican communion may have or not, the fact the of matter remains that it was founded as the result of an adulterous marriage! Consequently throughout history its position has always been compromise with the prevailing ideologies of the times, and today is no exception. The only thing that really keeps the original Church of England together is the fact that it is the established church of the state. Otherwise it has no valid orders and no real coherent body of doctrine.
Having been raised in Episcopal Church, I understand that not for nothing is it called The Church of the Real Absence.
I will quote one of my late Angelicum profs, a Swiss, who was an expert on the “Anglican Question” and consultor to the SCDF, the SCDW, and the SCClergy:
There are ecumenical meetings where we send bishops and priests, and they send lay people who think they’re bishops and priests. This is a problem.
When I consider the Anglican/Episcopalian denomination, I can’t help but ponder:
They led the charge for mainstreaming divorce.
They led the charge for mainstreaming contraception.
They led the charge for women’s “ordinations.”
They led the charge for mainstreaming homosexuality.
What’s next?
That’s a really good point, Carolina. Besides the doctrinal problems, there are serious problems with the Anglican conception of morality. At this point, I think the moral problems are primary.
Anglicans now have valid orders but I agree the Anglican church needs to decide where it stands. Lambeth will not decide anything as the thing holds together by compromise. However, the best of Catholic Anglicanism is close to the Catholic Church of Pope Benedict: patristic scholarship, decent and reverent liturgy the hermeneutic of continuity. A number of people I know who have attended the more traditional Roman Catholic masses in England have said “it’s so Anglican.” Indeed, it is the bad liturgy of some RC churches which holds some Anglicans back!
Anglicans now have valid orders but I agree the Anglican church needs to decide where it stands. Lambeth will not decide anything as the thing holds together by compromise. However, the best of Catholic Anglicanism is close to the Catholic Church of Pope Benedict: patristic scholarship, decent and reverent liturgy the hermeneutic of continuity. A number of people I know who have attended the more traditional Roman Catholic masses in England have said \”it\’s so Anglican.\” Indeed, it is the bad liturgy of some RC churches which holds some Anglicans back!
My first thought upon reading the title of the post was, “Need to ask that to a lot of Catholics too, including many bishops.”
But in some sense, are Anglicans as a whole just sort of middle of the road? It seems like they are either extremely “protestant” or extremely “high church.” I really don’t seem to see much of a middle ground.
Most of the “high church” Anglicans seem to almost be Catholic anyway aside from the “pope thing” (yes, I know that is an over-simplification). But is there really any authority in the Anglicans. I really can’t see Anglican stepping up and really saying “this is the way it is!” whether it be conservative or liberal doctrine. They seem to be trying to please everyone while at the same time not really pleasing any of their members.
Of course I’m sure the media will pick up on this and say “the Catholics are trying to tell people what to do again.” But maybe it is Providential for Cardinal Kasper to light a fire under the Anglican authority’s figurative rear end.
Robert Tickle said “Anglicans now have valid orders…”
No, Anglican orders are still invalid.
When I was a Baptist teenager and went looking for the Catholic church, I
ended up joining an Anglo-Catholic parish (this was in Africa). I was impressed
Eucharistic piety–the Anglicans had a beautifully celebrated High Mass,
Benediction, Corpus Christi processions. I wanted to venerate the Mother of God:
the Anglicans taught me the rosary, the Marian prayers, had May celebrations.
In this parish, I learned contemplative prayer, read the writings of the great
saints of the Catholic Church, and grasped some of the social implications of
Catholic teaching. The priests had been ordained by bishops consecrated by Old
Catholics, I believe, so their orders may even have been valid. In contrast, \
when I went to the local Catholic parishes, I saw a perfunctory NO Mass, heard
sermons that did not seem to deal with the Christian religion let alone Catholicism,
and, when I brought up some of the things I was interested in, was told that
these were “out of date.” I will always be deeply grateful for what I learned
about the Catholic faith among the catholic wing of Anglicanism. It is a deep
pity that liberalism has destroyed the Communion. Many of us truly believed in
the possibility of corporate reunion. That is now impossible, but there are
treasures in Anglicanism that are worth salvaging.
I am fairly convinced that the ABC’s solution to the gay bishop/splitting communion problem is to solve nothing. It’s the Anglican way to just take the big ugly problem, wrap in in a pretty ribbon and call the irreconcilable differences a virtue. The “virtue” of comprehensiveness, which is the political agreement to ignore the irrationality of holding mutually exclusive claims under one roof, has always been intellectually dishonest.
The ABC is behaving in the same way as his historic predecessors with cryptic messages which are descriptive rather than prescriptive. He is hoping that everyone will simply behave according to Anglicanism’s highest code, which is not the gospel, but priggish civility. If this can be maintained then the Anglican Communion is “saved” as an institution, all the while coaxing with courtesy and white-gloved graciousness all its beloved members along the road to perdition.
In 2007, the only remaining viable rump of the 500,000 member Anglican Communion, the TAC, petitioned Rome for acceptance, wholesale. At that time, Cardinal Kasper said in response that it’s not the “policy” of the Catholic Church to accept groups in this fashion, but that “individual” conversions were welcome.
In 2003, prior to his election as pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to a group of conservative Episcopalians gathered in Dallas. The letter offered encouragement to the group, which was seeking to overturn the Episcopal acceptance of sodomite marriage.
I think it’s clear from the latter, and from his quiet encouragement of the TAC, that the Holy Father would welcome a return to communion of any and all Anglicans willing to swim the Tiber. In fact, I’d go so far as to guess no only that this will indeed happen after Cardinal Kasper’s replacement is named, but that it’s definitely part of Benedict’s plan for a reform of the reform.
Imagine half a million orthodox, liturgically sound Anglo-Catholics, armed with the Knott Missal, sprinkled through the Church. It can’t be denied that one of the chief stumbling blocks to a complete revival of the TLM is the Latin language. Too many otherwise so-inclined folks simply are too lazy or have a phobia about it. If they could have access to a beautiful, reverent Mass according to the Traditional books, with traditional rubrics, in English. Just imagine what the impact be. It wouldn’t simply draw former Anglicans, but would act as the other side of a vice, couple with Summorum Pontificum, squeezing the Ordinary Form into place.
Marshall Plan, indeed.
It sounds more like Cardinal Kasper is fighting to keep his job at the PCCU.
I wonder how much of this question deals with application of unity from the Traditional Anglican Communion. Could this result in a real Anglican Rite of the Catholic Church, headed by a Cardinal, with married priest (like the eastern Catholic rites)?
I think that could be very appealing to African churches. Again, I wonder what the impact would be in the United States.
Robert Tickle said “Anglicans now have valid orders.”
——————————————–
Apostolicae Curae
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders.
Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII.
36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, Our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
I doubt that any new rite would be established. More likely than not, the Pastoral Provision from JPII would be employed to assimilate married Anglican clergymen into the Catholic priesthood, and allow for personal parishes to be erected. Subsequent pastors would be ROman Rite celibate priests who would simply offer the Mass according to the Book of Divine Worship (Anglican Use within the Roman Rite).
I think we could all see the danger a married priesthood saying an English Mass would pose to the current discipline of celibacy. The cultural identity of the Eastern Rites are of a distinct flavor from Western society. English “Rites” are not. There would little reason for an American seminarian to go “Roman” when he could go “English” and get married.
(I agree with most of the comments so far.) As a recent refugee from TEC I would say that there ain’t much Catholic left in Anglo-Catholic and the trend won’t reverse. A-C is mostly a shell and the revisionists are about to occupy the vestments to put on a good show for the few Piskies who care. For most of the Tekkers who avoid A-C and Popery like the plague, they seem to have book study groups but never read the Bible. So they just make it up as they go along. My guess is that the Holy Father sees them as validly baptized Christians who are a lost flock, immersed in ignorance and error, and in grave danger. He maintains contact with them, hoping that they can be brought into the protection of the fold.
There’s a strange conflation in this article and these comments, viz. that if Anglicanism chooses the first millennium it’s rejecting women’s ordination and homosexual unions, but if it chooses the 16th century it’s accepting these things. Empirically, this tight distinction doesn’t hold up. Evangelical Anglicans (and non-Anglicans) reject homosexual unions and are divided on women’s ordination. Plenty of Anglo-Catholics accept homosexual practice, at least sub rosa; indeed, this has been a besetting sin of that movement for decades. As for Roman Catholics: of course the Magisterium is orthodox, but we all know that the clergy and doctors of the church are divided on these issues and that many offer erroneous and harmful instruction to the faithful. It is not at all clear, then, that Catholic Christianity is any freer of these heresies than Protestant; neither is it clear that the Anglican Church must throw over Protestantism if it is to avoid them.
Fr Tickle: it is the bad liturgy of some RC churches which holds some Anglicans back!
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is naturally very hard for the the Anglican looking over the wall of the yard to recognize the swan – however vigorous its self-assertion.
When the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. BXVI
The condemnation more to be noted and applied lies not in Apostolicæ Curæ but in the above.
Caroline,
You are right on three of the four. The Anglican/Episcopal Church was far from a pioneer on the ordination of women, however — not until 1977 in the US and not until 1994 in England and Wales.
Anglo-Catholics have a long history in the UK primarily due to the near-absence of the Catholic Church in the country until the mid-19th century. In the US matters are, of course, different. Anglo-Catholics are a very very small group within TEC.
In the Anglican Communion today the real battle is between liberal Protestants and evangelical Protestants, with a small contingent of Anglo-Catholics allied with the evangelicals. I agree with Jacob. Anglicanism definitively chose the Protestant path some centuries ago (many would say at least since the early 18th century), and only a few trappings of Catholicism remain into the present day.
Darel
I know that when head of the CDF, our current Holy Father was not happy with the way the English Catholic hierarchy handled their dealings with the TAC. “What are the English bishops afraid of?” was his rhetorical question he posed at the time.
“Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium, Catholic and Orthodox, or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?
This statement seems to suggest, according to Cardinal Kasper, that there was more than one Church in the first millennium; that the Protestant churches existed before the 16th century. There may have been many “belief systems”, but only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the first millennium. There wasn’t an Orthodox Church in the first millennium, but in the 11th century right? Anglicans/Protestants started in the 16th century didn’t they?
Anglicans now have valid orders
Comment by Robert Tickle
Where on earth did you get that idea?
Re: Elizabeth: I think that when HE used the term “churches,” he used it in the same sense as the “Eastern Catholic churches” or the “Latin Rite churches,” viz. the “American Church,” the “French Church,” and so forth, recognizing the local church’s union with Rome through its bishop’s union with the bishop of Rome. With that definition, the idea of there being “churches” prior to 1066 (that’s the date, right?) is wholly correct, especially when one recognizes that those “churches” formed the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
God bless!
ANglicans now have valid orders
Comment by Robert Tickle
Where on earth did you get that idea?
—-> I could be wrong, but I believe some Anglicans, particularly conservative ones, import Old Catholic, and sometimes Orthodox bishops to help out with ordinations, in part because they accept Leo XIII’s argument. So they have multiple bishops do the ordinations.
The tricky thing, with any discussion of Anglicanism is that is an alphabet soup of different denominations, movements, theologies and so forth under that umbrella.
I believe Rome takes this on a case by case basis. Most Anglican priest converts do get ordained by Catholic bishops because most are ordained by TEC bishops without help from others; but I believe that some who were able to establish their non-Anglican succession so to speak were treated as having been validly ordained.
If/How Old Catholic bishops maintain succsion I’m not clear on. If I rember correctly, part of Leo XIII’s argument is that the Anglican view of the eucharist was different from the Catholic view to such an extent that even if the words of ordination (matter) were unchanged the intent (form) was, invalidating the sacrament. It seems the same argument Leo XIII used against Anglican orders applies to them, given that they aeem to maintaint that the eucharist is merely a memorial or representation
Kasper is silly as usual. The man cannot think in terms of principle. The simulation of Holy Orders for women in the Church of England is not an obstacle for ‘dialogue’ with Rome because Canterbury is already in declared communion with Anglican churches that already have women faking the episcopate.
There is no basis for any discussions with the Anglican Communion about anything other than the quality of the first-leaf Burmese tea served at Lambeth Palace. The more the œcumaniacs talk, the further away from the Truth the Anglican heretics move. Perhaps, if they’d stop talking, the Anglicans would gravitate back towards Christianity.
What Cardinal Kasper should be doing is encouraging the reception of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) as soon as possible. Once received as a uniate church, the Nigerian and other Third-World Anglican bodies will likely join the TAC under the Pope. Many others, in First World countries, might do the same. As for the rest of the Anglicans, we don’t want them until they convert from secularism to Christianity. In order to be Catholic, you have to be Christian, and they are not.
There are only two obstacles in regard to the TAC. The first is that they have married bishops, and they want to keep them. This is theologically possible, of course, but could undermine a long-standing and very wholesome practice. However, their general Primate has already said publicly that he would be willing to accept the rank of a simple priest and retire. So this obstacle is not insurmountable. Rome might decide that it’s best to let them keep their married bishops, or that it isn’t, or that they can keep those they already have and those who convert, but may not consecrate any afresh from the ranks of the priesthood (of course, they all must be at least conditionally ordained to all ranks of the clergy first, but they have supposedly agreed to that).
The second problem is that they apparently have a few ‘divorced’ and ‘re-marrried’ priests. Those would have to be excluded, except as laics and, even then, they could not receive Holy Communion. But there can’t be many of those.
A small problem is that they have St. Charles the Martyr and St. Edward VI. Theoretically, they could keep the latter, but the former must go. He died for the Faith but, unfortunately, it was the wrong one.
I have been following their negotiations with the Holy See very carefully. Apprently, they are prepared to accept a de-Cranmerised liturgy. The problem is not a refusal to let go the Protestant parts of their prayerbooks; the problem is that they can’t afford new Missals! That never would have occurred to me. I’m not sure how they might solve it. I believe that, in some places, they supplement their prayerbooks with printed inserts from the parish bulletins to get around this.
I know a fair amount about the TAC chaps because, as a member of the Monarchist League of Canada, we used to have our meetings in the basement of their pro-cathedral for Canada, which is here in Victoria, on Vancouver Island. One of their ‘priests’ used to be the local chairman of the League chapter here. He was a very pleasant man and a true gentleman. Frankly, they are more Catholic by far than most liberals attached to the Novus Ordo. That’s one reason why Kasper will labour to keep them out of the Catholic Church. Kasper can’t stand Catholicism!
The other reason is ‘œcumenical’ (or ‘œcuaniacal’): their union with us would threaten the international Anglican Communion of Heretics. The reason is that their Abp. Akinola of Nigeria is prepared to take all 18 million of his members–over 20% of their entire international population–out and into uniate status. Anglican churches in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Malaysia, and South America would likely follow, not to mention about 800 ministers in the Church of England and countless parishes and even entire dioceses from the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. In other words, the short-term reconciliation of the TAC could lead to the break-up of that wooly-headed Archdruid Rowan Williams’s international ship of fools. And Kasper will move Heaven and earth to prevent that! Liberals in the Church feel far more at home with Protestant liberals than they do with traditional (and even conservative Wanderer-reading) Catholics.
The world has changed. The opposition in the Christian religion is more and more traditionalist versus liberal, and less and less Catholic versus Protestant.
P.K.T.P.
The Orthodox Churches have valid apostolic succession, and so valid orders and even Eucharist. They are as John Paul the Great said the two lungs of the Universal Church. That is what, I’m sure, Cardinal Kasper was referring too.
Anglican orders are not valid, and their bishops do not have apostolic succession, which is the least of the problem. These are, in reality details, that could be easily overcome. Any bishop can (with the proper permission from the Holy See) ordain a former Anglican priest. Any group of bishops, under the same conditions, could even raise up a former Anglican bishop (male of course) to the episcopacy.
More troublesome is finding such men who are of the correct theological leanings.
Should TAC really wish to come lock stock and diocese across the Tiber details of validity can be worked out. More troublesome will be matters of property and the eventual relationship between the Church and those left in the Anglican Communion.
I see not problem with married Anglican Use priests and bishops. One cannot simply “go English” any more than they can “go Eastern.” A person is the member of the rite he is baptized in to. Usually the rite of his(or her) parents, or their father if the parents are from different rites. That is Church law. So let a young man raised in the Anglican Use who is married be a priest and it affects not at all the requirement of a young man raised in the Roman Rite to be celibate.
To answer Brian2’s message:
Apostolicæ Curæ of Pope Leo XIII found in 1896 that the ordinal they had been using for centuries failed to effect ordination because it fails to declare adequately what is the state of the priesthood in regard to the confection of the Eucharist. Does the priest merely preside over an assembly, over a communal meal and some prayers? Or does a priest stand in the person of Christ to offer Christ to the Father as an unbloody Sacrifice?
Since that time, they have supposedly ‘corrected’ their ordinals (although Rome has never declared them to be corrected adequately). But that did not solve the problem that you can’t ordain new priests with a corrected ordinal if the chaps administering the Sacrament aren’t bishops to begin with.
To solve this, they had Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops serve as co-consecrators for some of them. Mathematically, after a time, they calculated that, by the 1970s, all of them could trace one ordinational line back to a legitimate bishop, although I point out that there is no guarantee that all of them are covered, only a probability.
Just when they claimed to have solved the problem in this way, along came the simulation of ordination for women, throwing their lines back into disarray.
Most experts admit that their Communion Services will confect the Eucharist but only if celebrated by real priests. But their priests are at least of doubtful validity. Back to square one.
While the Holy Orders of the TAC are probably valid, that is not good enough. I imagine that they will have to receive at least conditional ordination in order to be received into a uniate church under Rome.
P.K.T.P.
Terry refers to John Paul the Great. Who’s that? Never heard of him.
P.K.T.P.
Elisabeth, You are right.
The using of the word “churches” contradicts Dominus Jesus.
And to Ed: This document is an ecclesiatical one, theological, from a “Cath.” bishop and not a political or soziological work of a politician or soziologist. So it should not use the term “churches” the way it did, according to Dominus Jesus.
To validy-question (RBrown, Robert Tickle, …): HH Leo XIII declared the consecrations invalid as posted above (Angelo). Some of the Anglicans might have valid consecrations, coming from some schismatic “Orthodoxes”.
Regretably H Em Card Kasper himselfe some time ago contradicted Apost. Curae by suggesting that the Anglicans could have validly consecrated priests and bishops – not arguing with the “”Orthodox”-consececrations-argument” but by a totaly uncatholic, scandalous reasoning (therefor I referr to him only as Catholic within quotation-marks).
And btw, I am missing, like in all post-conciliar documents, a clear and direct calling for conversion – for coming home in the one sheepfold of the mother church (Pius XII would have put it that way or similar) – now that occasion is there, but the church-men do not carry out theire duty.
What a shame!
That’s what happens when I post when I should be working. The “500,000” I refer to above is the membership number of the TAC itself, not the entire Anglican Communion.
And if I’m wrong on that factoid, of course anyone may feel free to correct.
On TerryC’s comments:
One must distinguish between the ‘Anglican Use’ and the TAC. The former is not a Rite but only a proper (rather than local) Use within the Roman Rite. That means that those attached to the Anglican Use also belong to the Roman Rite and the Latin individual (sui juris) Church. As such, they are not eligible to become married priests. Those who are married priests only have that status owing to a special exception being made by the legitimate Roman authority, but this can also happen for former Anglican (and other Protestant) ministers who are not attached to the Anglican Use.
The TAC is entirely different. It is applying for uniate status in the Church, a status parallel to that of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, for example. It would retain its own legal system (but subject to the Roman Code of Canons of 1983), its own disciplinary and liturgical structures and traditions, married priests and deacons (and possibly even bishops), non-ordained deaconesses, and so forth. For example, it retains juridical (not merely honorary) archdeacons (presumably wearing the mediæval blue cassocks of the diocesan curia when its members are not monsignori, along with capitular deans and canons), and they even have some exceptions in liturgical colours (e.g. blue vestments for Advent, pale off-white for doctors of the church, scarlet for Palm Sunday: it’s all quite fascinating). I note that the TAC has not adopted the Anglican Use liturgy approved by Pope John Paul II in 1983, and they nowhere use it and nowhere want it–and rightly so. It includes the N.O.M. Offertory, something no traditionalist of any stripe seems to like.
The TAC are, in my view, a liturgically confused lot. Some of them use their national prayerbooks in a traditional form known by its year (1662 for England, 1928 for the U.S.A., 1962 for Canada); others use the ‘English Missal’, which is, almost entirely, our Tridentine Latin Mass in its 1637 edition, but renedered in liturgical English. Most interesting are those among them who use the ‘Anglican Missal’, which is a sort of de-Cranmerised unProtestant Anglican prayerbook containing some Catholic elements, including the Roman Offertory and the Roman Canon.
Most of them would prefer the Anglican Missal because it retains much of the admitted beauty of their prayerbooks and yet is unmistakeably Catholic. It is a compromise most of them would prefer, I think. They won’t take the Anglican Use, and Rome won’t ask them to. The problem with Cranmer is that he was a heresiarch on the one hand but a truly great writer of prayer on the other. His prayerbooks is one of the great masterpieces of the English tongue. They won’t want to do without that, or with their tradition of communial hymnody.
I note (since I failed to mention this last time), that the TAC has already agreed that it accepts ALL Catholic dogma. Given that fact, Rome should be bending over backwards to bring them in. Think of all the souls which could be saved if 18 million Nigerians–and others–come on board thereafter.
P.K.T.P.
To Ed:
I wasn´t totaly correct or did not make some useful differentiations:
H.Em. used the word “churches” in referring to protestants (“protestant churches of the 16th century”), so that can´t be justified by Your argument and contradicts clearly Dominus Jesus.
Referring to pre-1054 your argument could work – but then he should and could not oppose the “Catholic” and “Orthodoxe” churches. There were not such two opposed things in the first millenium, but only the one and holy, catholic and apostolic Church, as Elisabeth correctly put it.
Of course there were also the local churches (as you put it) – but that was not the point Kard. Kasper maid. he spoke of “Catholic” and “Orthodox” as opposed – and that is wrong for the first millenium and scandalous.
So Elisabeth is right.
in CHo per Mam
——> I could be wrong, but I believe some Anglicans, particularly conservative ones, import Old Catholic, and sometimes Orthodox bishops to help out with ordinations, in part because they accept Leo XIII’s argument. So they have multiple bishops do the ordinations.
The tricky thing, with any discussion of Anglicanism is that is an alphabet soup of different denominations, movements, theologies and so forth under that umbrella.
I believe Rome takes this on a case by case basis. Most Anglican priest converts do get ordained by Catholic bishops because most are ordained by TEC bishops without help from others; but I believe that some who were able to establish their non-Anglican succession so to speak were treated as having been validly ordained.
If/How Old Catholic bishops maintain succsion I’m not clear on. If I rember correctly, part of Leo XIII’s argument is that the Anglican view of the eucharist was different from the Catholic view to such an extent that even if the words of ordination (matter) were unchanged the intent (form) was, invalidating the sacrament. It seems the same argument Leo XIII used against Anglican orders applies to them, given that they aeem to maintaint that the eucharist is merely a memorial or representation
Comment by Brian2
Having an Old Catholic or Orthodox bishop assist is not considered sufficient for recognizing validity–the principal celebrant must be in valid episcopal orders. Any member of the Anglican clergy who has had an OC or Ortho bishop assisting is conditionally ordained.
In fact, when Graham Leonard decided finally to become Catholic, he placed two conditions: 1) That Rome would recognize his orders, and 2) that he would be a bishop. He was told no on both points–and was conditionally ordained.
Two points about Apostolicae Curae:
1. It was nothing new. The Anglicans weren’t concerned about validity of their orders until LeoXIII began the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. Suddenly, the Anglicans “got religion” and rushed to Rome to try to get the pope to recognize the validity of their orders. AC says that it is reasserting, after careful examination, what had been previously held (16th century) by Paul VI.
2. It is a mistake to give invalid Sacramental Form as the reason for the nullity. As Leo XIII says, it is twofold: Defect of Form and Intention.
Dear Jon:
You are not to be blamed for not knowing the TAC numbers, since they don’t seem to know them themselves. According to my own research, they claim to have as many as 400,000 members, but 100,000 is a more likely number. The great majority of their members live in India.
In the case of India, when the Anglican ‘Church of North India’ dissolved, there were legal battles over who would get its property. The property could not be transferred into the larger non-Anglican Protestant body which the C.N.I. had joined. Christians in India were stupefied when a court there held that the continuer Anglicans had title to ALL the property. Apparently, jaws dropped and hit floors because the continuers (Anglo-Catholic traditional Anglicans) were a tiny faction worshipping in telephone booths and broomclosets. Many members of the TAC in India are simply Protestants who happen to live near one of the old churches of the C.N.I. They wander over to that rather lovely building on Sundays because it’s nicer and closer to them than is any other church. I’m not saying that they do not accept continuer Anglicanism, only that they might never have done so had circumstances been different.
They have something like six or eight dioceses in India, under metropolitan Archbishop Prakash. They have one bishop for Pakistan.
In Canada, they have about thirty parishes but only eight of them have their own parish buildings. The rest of them worhip in hotel rooms, rented halls, funeral chapels, Lutheran churches (by invitation) and so on. They have about sixty priests here.
Americans are richer than Canadians (even though Canadians are more intelligent, more polite, and more literate) and, for this reason, the continuers do somewhat better in the good ol’ U.S.A. But, even there, they are a tiny band mostly worshipping in rented halls. They did get one fine old Anglican church in Massachusetts when the Episcopalians let it go, thinking it would be demolished. They were furious when they discovered that the ‘continuers’ had used a third party to buy it.
In England, the TAC is a tiny pathetic little band having about fifteen parishes but only two parish buildings to worship in. One of them, however, is a grand old Anglo-Catholic church in Portsmouth which had been closed for years and slated for demolition. They have restored it. But they still don’t even have their own bishop for England. Unthinkable if you happen to be Anglican.
They have thriving churches in Southern Africa and in Melanesia (within Australia). In the rest of Australia, they are very small; in Ireland, tiny. In New Zealand, they have only one single parish, worshipping at an air force chapel in Auckland. They have two bishops and three priests for Japan. If these chaps come across, they will no doubt petition Latin bishops for access to Latin Catholic churches. That would help them immensely. On the other side, in some cases, their bishops might let us use their churces for our Masses.
P.K.T.P.
I think it is a shame that Cardinal Kasper is preventing the TAC people, who really want to be Catholic and whose bishops (maybe bishops and priests?) all signed a copy of the Catechism, from entering the church, so that he can continue the useless attempt to court Canterbury. I know Canterbury is an historic Catholic See, and to give up on it is heartbreaking. But really, it is through, for now, anyway. Rowan Williams will not commit himself to anything, and if he did, he could not speak for the rest of the Anglican world. He isn’t even decisive enough to speak firmly on the crisis in his “ecclesial community” about ordaining bishops who openly live in active homosexual relationships and blessing same sex “marriages” or unions. Nor has there been any discipline or correction for bishops who openly say they don’t believe in the divinity of Christ or the resurrection. The majority of Anglicans in the world who are really Christian are clearly Protestant in their beliefs, and they are separating themselves from Canterbury. Most of the African primates are not going to Lambeth. There is an alternative congress going on in Jerusalem. I really don’t know where the commenter above gets the idea that Akinola is going to lead his people into ‘uniate status.’ Again, he is a faithful Christian of the Anglican Protestant variety, but not a Catholic. We shouldn’t think that because these people are rejecting the heresies and immoralities of the Episcopal Church in the USA, and separating from Canterbury because he won’t rebuke ECUSA, that the obvious next step is that they will become Catholic. It may seem obvious to us, but to them there are insuperable obstacles. I wish-but I don’t think so.
But the TAC, they want to be Catholic. Please, find another job for Kasper, or tell him his form of ecumenism has nothing to do with this, and let the TAC in. As for the form of their liturgy, why can’t they use the Anglican Use liturgy which is already approved by Rome?
It is Cranmer in the beginning and the end, but for the canon it is a contemporary
Elizabethan translation of the Roman Canon. The translation was done by Coverdale, the man who translated the psalms for the Book of Common Prayer. It is a translation for study and was not meant to be proclaimed, and it does not quite resound like Cranmer, but it suffices and is already approved. I feel sure that Anglican Use parishes and friends of the Anglican use would contribute to producing the pew version in large numbers and the priests version in sufficient numbers for the TAC. And surely at least some of the TAC parishioners could afford to contribute to this as well.
Admittedly, I think there are difficulties beyond Kaspar’s objections. The TAC does not want just to be part of the Anglican Use; they want the equivalent of a sui juris church. Since Anglicans were historically always part of the Latin rite, it is rather non traditional to erect de novo a patriarchate for them. This may be the real sticking point.
Susan Peterson
On RBrown’s comments:
No, theoretically, at least, if any one of the co-consecrators is a real bishop, mutatis mutandis, the ordination is valid. However, there are questions of intent in such cases; hence at least conditional ordination is required in order for Rome to accept that someone become a Catholic priest.
Normally, Anglican ministers receive absolute ordination to make them Catholic priests. If there is a doubt (e.g. use of a real bishop as a previous co-consecrator, together with the use of a valid ordinal), conditional ordination may be given.
In the case of the TAC, because they are such a mixed bag, the course to be followed might be conditional ordination for the lot of them, except excluding those who are divorced and ‘re-married’, who would not receive Holy Orders at all, and who would not be permitted to receive the Eucharist either unless & until their past relationships have been declared null as marriages.
P.K.T.P.
@RBrown: Having an Old Catholic or Orthodox bishop assist is not considered sufficient for recognizing validity—the principal celebrant must be in valid episcopal orders. Can we have a citation on that, please? I have heard it asserted before (by those whose agenda it would serve) but have never yet found any definitive basis for the assertion.
Any member of the Anglican clergy who has had an OC or Ortho bishop assisting is conditionally ordained. That would be logical; but in practice all Anglican clergy alive today have demonstrable OC or Ortho lines of succession. Yet with the occasional rare exception (e.g. Dr Leonard) all (re-)ordinations are absolute, not sub conditione. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to this. If the Sacrament of Order cannot be repeated without blasphemy, and there was sufficient doubt regarding Dr Leonard as to necessitate sub conditione ordination in order to avoid the risk of blasphemy, then by what logic does that not equally apply to those whose orders derive by the same line of succession as Dr Leonard?
On Susan Peterson’s comments:
Some time ago, in the heat of the debates over these issues, I read that Akinola had told the TAC primate (the fellow from Australia: I can’t remember his name but he’s apparently a friend of Benedict XVI) that he would bring the entire Nigerian Anglican Church into the TAC the moment the TAC became a uniate church under Rome. (All right, Patrick, I surrender: I don’t have the reference, so it must be a lie.) Now, I admit that he may have been animated by anger at that time; I don’t think that such a fusion is imminent. But I do think that, should the TAC become a uniate church, the Nigerian and other Anglicans would eventually join an Anglican Uniate Catholic Church. They would realise that there is little place in the world for a traditional or even a ‘conservative’ Anglicanism separated from the stability of Rome. Keep in mind that their Archlaic of Canterbury from the 1960s (Ramsey, I think) began a process of reunification. So this is not extraordinary.
On another of your points, I know these TAC people well and, trust me, the one thing they will not accept is the Anglican Use liturgy. They don’t like it and, from what I’ve heard, Rome definitely won’t foist it on them. They don’t like that horrid N.O. Offertory and other N.O. intrusions in it–and I don’t blame them.
I think that the Anglican Missal is the best solution for them. It resonates with the grace of their prayerbook wording and yet is stripped of Protestant meaning (although there are Protestant overtones in some parts of it, such as their Confiteor). It includes the Roman Offertory and the Roman Canon. The Traditional Roman Offertory is as superior to the Novus Ordo horrid ‘Blessed are You, Lord God of all creation’ thingy as Heaven is above the earth. It’s such a relief to know that they will not accept the Anglican Use. Fr. Christopher Phillips of San Antonio should have pushed harder to keep the N.O. Offetory out of the Anglican Use. It ruins that entire liturgy.
Their liturgy is in liturgical English to the Offetory, then they have that horrid I.C.E.L. Novus Ordo Offertory and an I.C.E.L. Roman Canon in conversational ‘cool’ ‘with-it’ English, then back to liturgical English. While I hate non-liturgical English in any liturgy, it would actually be better to have it throughout rather than to create such dissonance by going back and forth from one to the other.
As for the A.U., it exists exclusively in the U.S.A. and, even then, almost entirely in Texas. You really need to see their Anglican Missal. I have a photocopy of it. It is vastly superior to the A.U. liturgy approved by Rome, and it is, at least in content, 100% Catholic. My only objection to it is that the grand Cranmerian phrases have a proud High Protestant tone to them. But only a few history buffs would hear that, plus those of us having recusant ancestors.
They don’t want a patriarchate. They had to struggle with past Erastianism but have finally resolved on a single Primacy for their entire ecclesial community. Under the primates (sounds like monkeys, eh?) are their metropolitan archbishops and diocesan bishops. They have this bizarre meaning to the term ‘suffragan bishop’ which really surprised me. To them, a suffragan bishop is what we call an auxiliary bishop. So, then, what do they call our suffragan bishops? I’ve no idea. It’s weird.
They have an organisational problem because they have retained the semi-Erastian notion of a community of twelve national churches. So, then, if none of these is headed by a primate, what do you call the top dog in any one of them? It would be better for them to have a community of primacies, with a primate-general or archprimate for their international body. They really can’t have a patriarch because that title needs to be justified by connexion to an ancient see. We do have some titular patriarchs but that is not what is needed here either.
P.K.T.P.
I don’t know much about the TAC, but my gut tells me that:
– If they accept the fullness of Catholic Faith and Morals, including the Petrine Primacy, then it is the duty of the ecclesiastical authorities to do everything in their power to bring about reconciliation (because the Church’s paramount law is the salvation of souls).
– Because they have been separated for circa 500 years, the Church authorities should, in deference to the above mentioned supreme law of the Church, be flexible regarding the juridical-structural solutions to accomodate those faithful.
I think, however, that the erection of a new Patriarchate / Sui iuris Church would be a step too far. Those faithful, and their priests should remain within the Latin Church, perhaps within a personal prelature, or personal apostolic administration.
– The TAC clergy should be re-ordained absolutely, or, if they can show to some degree the participation of orthodox/old catholic bishops at their ordination, then this could be done conditionally, to be on the safe side.
– The Liturgy could be the Anglican Use with a translation of the Tridentine Offertory, if the Novus Ordo offertory is the TAC’s problem with Anglican Use. If they have a problem with the poor translation of the Canon, then I’m sure the Vox Clara drafts prepared for the Editio Typica Tertia of the Pauline Missal could replace the ICEL version that is currently used.
– In no way is Edward VI – a protestant monarch, under whoose reign the Edwardine Ordinal mentioned by Apostolicae Curae was promulgated – to be venerated as a Saint. They must also cease the veneration of Charles I. This should be non-negotiable on the part of the Holy See. The entire Church should venerate as Saints the same body of people, recognized as holy by the universal Church.
– Married bishops shouldn’t be allowed to receive Catholic episcopal consacration or to exercise episcopal ministry. Of course, since celibacy is an ecclesiastical discipline, it could be decided otherwise, but I think it would be wise to maintain parity with the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox discipline of not allowing married bishops. A rule of celibacy more lenient than the Eastern Catholic one would be, in my view, a dangerous precedent. Even the TAC leadership accepts reverting their married “Bishops” to the juridical status of priests after reconciliation.
– The usual Anglican Use dispensations could be granted in order to allow married TAC clergy to be ordained/exercise ministry as priests or deacons.
The novus ordo offertory is discordant in the Anglican Use mass. But the AU parishes I have attended (Boston and Scranton) do NOT use the ICEL Roman Canon. They use, as I said above, a Elizabethan era translation of the Roman Canon, which was made at the same time approximately that Cranmer was writing the prayer book.
Personally I think that very little change to Cranmer’s text is needed to make it orthodox. The Western Rite Orthodox use the Prayer Book Liturgy with very few changes. (If you go to the Western Rite Orthodoxy blog there is a link to it there.) Although the Anglican Use liturgies I have heard are superior to what the commenter above described, it does remain a patchwork. I am sure the Anglican Use people know this, but they have taken what they have been given and done much with it. They have beautiful and reverent celebrations, ad orientem, with good music, kneeling for communion-at the altar rail if the church they have been allowed to use has one. I never hear from them, Why hasn’t the bishop given us this, why aren’t we allowed to do that? Fr.Bergman of the Scranton group really practices cheerful obedience without complaint and as far as I can tell, his parish follows him. So far this has served them well and made the diocese willing to help them.
Does anyone here have any comment on the ecclesiological appropriateness of what the TAC is asking for? Even if patriarchate is the wrong word, they ARE asking for a sui juris church. Can there be a NEW sui juris church? Why or why not? This sounds didactic, but really, I don’t know what the answer is, or even what the arguments are pro and con, and have been wondering about this ever since I heard the TAC people at the Scranton Anglican Use conference be rebuffed(I think by Fr. Stanton?)
on just this point. After they said they were worldwide though, he said with relief that he was only the (don’t know the right word-liason?) for the Anglican use in the United States, and he referred them to Rome.
I do feel that if you believe the Catholic Church is the Church, you can’t hold out non-negotiable conditions without which you will not join it. On the other hand, from our side, we shouldn’t require anything that the faith does not require us to require.
Susan Peterson
Mr. Perkins-one point. The Anglican use liturgies I have heard have NOT used the ICEL Roman Canon but, as I said above, an Elizabethan era translation of the Roman Canon.
I think the confusion is that they have a Rite one and Rite two situation. The Rite two uses the current prayer book language and the ICEL Roman canon which matches it. The Rite one, however, uses Cranmer’s language and then the Coverdale translation of the Roman Canon.
I can’t argue about the novus ordo offertory. I have to admit, it doesn’t bother me in the novus ordo, but it is surely out of place amidst the Elizabethan English. There is also the interpolated bit about proclaiming the mystery of faith, Christ has died etc, in non Elizabethan language. I have wondered if at the time this was done, if someone didn’t insist on these parts being there just because traddies objected to them. I wonder if there is anyone in the know who could confirm or deny this
Having these two non Elizabethan interpolations does give the liturgy a patchwork feel.
Personally I think the Prayer Book liturgy can be made orthodox with a very few small changes. Western Rite Orthodoxy uses it with very minor changes. You can find a link to their “Liturgy of St Tikon” at the Western Orthodoxy blog,. They name it after an Orthodox missionary bishop to Alaska who encountered Anglicans there and thought their liturgy could be adapted to be orthodox and started to work on doing that. So I don’t think the patchwork type liturgy is necessary.
However I think the Anglican use people were glad to be Catholic and keep some of their own heritage and liturgy. I think they decided to find the glass 2/3 full rather than 1/3 empty. In general I find the attitude of the Anglican Use group in Scranton, with Fr. Bergman as their model, to be gratitude and cheerful obedience. As a result, the diocese is more willing to help them. There are things they could gripe about, but I never hear them do it.
About the TAC again. Does anyone have any opinion on the ecclesiological appropriateness of erected a new sui juris church? At the second Anglican use conference in Scranton there were some TAC people there and the priest (I think he is Fr. Stanton?) who is some sort of liason from Rome to the Anglican Use group (correct my terminology, please) told them it was not possible for ecclesiological reasons, that Canterbury was part of the Latin rite church. But when they pressed, saying they were worldwide he said he was only assigned to the US, and referred them to Rome. I have wondered since then whether it is true that there can only be Sui Juris churches of long standing. I mean, some of them are only as old in the Catholic church as a few hundred years, when they came over from Orthodoxy. If it could be done then, can’t it be done now? But they were from churches that never had been part of the Latin rite. Does that make it actually impossible to do this for the TAC?
I do think that once one recognizes that the Catholic Church is The Church, one cannot linger too long outside of her, issuing non negotiable demands and conditions under which one will acknowledge her. On the other hand, we who are on the inside, should not require of them more than the faith requires.
Susan Peterson
Susan,
The reason why I believe that a sui iuris Church is a step too far are:
– The fact that the Code of Canon Law does not envision a plurality of ritual Churches. The TAC wouldn’t be an “Eastern Catholic Church” either, so it makes no sense to submit them to the jurisdicion of the Eastern Code of Canons. Basically, to create a sui iuris Church within the “Western” Church a major canonical revision would be needed. And that is not necessary to sufficiently accomodate the legitimate needs and aspirations of TAC converts.
– A conversion of the TAC should be synchronized with granting them everything they legitimately need in order to live out their particular liturgical/disciplinary tradition within Catholicism, but a sui iuris Church is not needed, because there are other ecclesiastical structures in Western Canon Law that can sufficiently accomodate their needs.
We must remember that it is not for the converts to dictate Law in the Church, but, if they really accept the petrine primacy, to accept what the Successor of Peter is granting and to recognize that He is the one invested with supreme authority.
Patriarchates/sui juris ritual Churches, do not belong to the Western Canonical tradition, but to the eastern one.
The relatively unexplored potentials of a personal prelature (today, only the Opus Dei is a personal prelature), or of creating a worldwide personal Apostolic Administration (the Apostolic Administration St. John Vianney for for the Campos TLM faithful is a local-level example of that structure; but the pope could create a worldwide personal apostolic administration for the TAC faithful), should be examined. Within such a structure, the TAC faithful would still be part of the Latin Church, but within a “personal” juridical entity, the internal structure of which could be shaped to accomodate their traditions.
No, theoretically, at least, if any one of the co-consecrators is a real bishop, mutatis mutandis, the ordination is valid.
If that were true theoretically, then Rome would recognize it and proceed accordingly. But the decision has been made that the presence of a only co-consecrator in valid episcopal orders is not sufficient to declare validity.
The best that Rome offers in such cases is conditional ordination.
However, there are questions of intent in such cases; hence at least conditional ordination is required in order for Rome to accept that someone become a Catholic priest.
Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins
Intention was an important factor in the 16th century when Apostolic succession stopped. But the present situation has nothing to do with intention. Rome does not recognize the validity of ordination unless the principal celebrant is himself in episcopal orders.
Graham Leonard was conditionally ordained partly because he had solid proof that Old Catholic bishops had been present and partly because of his reputation for orthodoxy. There were prayers acknowledging his years of service that were inserted before the Sacramental Form, but those prayers did not recognize the validity of his orders.
Prof. Basto,
Most Easterners agree with you, that the only real Patriarchate in the Western Tradition is the Roman one – the others have never held anything more than an honorary title, (e.g. Patriarchate of the West Indies).. that being said, when is the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem going to resign his title to the proper Eastern Catholic Patriarch?
I don’t see any issue with the Pope allowing an Anglican-Rite within the Latin Church, with either limited or worldwide jurisdiction. It could be placed directly under his authority, or with a Cardinal in charge of Anglican-Use affairs. As to allowing married men to be deacons, and ordaining married deacons to the priesthood – this wouldn’t necessarily take away men from the Roman Rite, as those who would remain celibate could choose any Rite that they are Spiritually attached to – just as having the choice to become Eastern Catholic almost never takes seminarians out of Latin seminaries. The process is just not something that is commonly sought out for a host of reasons – this isn’t an issue to feel threatened over.
Remember that the celibate episcopate (let alone priesthood and deaconate) is still a discipline that is universally accepted and cherished but not up to the level of dogma or faith.
RBrown:
But the fact, that the consecration then is only done sub conditione and not absolutly proofs that, theoretically, the presence of a validly consecrated co-consecrator is sufficient. Otherwise it would be absolutly, not conditional. So PKTP is right it seems.
Or do You know some contra-argument?
In CHo per Mam
I think the disputed reference above was not to the TAC venerating Edward VI as a saint (quelle horreur), but to them venerating Henry VI as a saint. Now, his cause was active before the Reformation, complete with miracles wrought at his tomb, but the split from Rome led to the process of his canonization being shelved. Mgr Ronald Knox tried to revive the cause, but nothing came of it: still, Henry VI could one day be canonized, for apparently he was a pious monarch.
As a former Anglican/Episcopalian, I am so sorry that they have their traditional hymns, liturgy and faith.
The issue is not whether they are to stand with the Protestants or with the Catholics/Orthodox (a comment that shows no understanding of the claim to incorporate the best of both approaches).
No, the issue is whether Anglican/Episcopalian churches are Christian or not.
As a former nominal Anglican I have been following these comments with interest. Being in Britain I had never heard of the TAC before now.
Felix comment on whether Anglicans are Christian or not brought to mind the old joke about someone filling in a form and hesitating when it came to ‘Religion’.
– Do you believe in God?
– No
– Well fill in C of E then!
The Daily Telegraph columnist Damian Thompson, on his blog Holy Smoke, also has an interesting exchange of views on this same subject today. Someone under the name of ‘Poor parson’ defends the Church of England whilst a Catholic deftly puts forward what we believe is the truth. Unity is such a long way off.
But the fact, that the consecration then is only done sub conditione and not absolutly proofs that, theoretically, the presence of a validly consecrated co-consecrator is sufficient. Otherwise it would be absolutly, not conditional. So PKTP is right it seems.
Or do You know some contra-argument?
Comment by D. S.
If it were proof, then there would be no ordination, conditional or otherwise.
As I said above, the presence of valid episcopal orders in a co-consecrator is not sufficient for Rome to recognize the validity of the consecration. In the case of Graham Leonard Rome did not say that the orders were invalid–but that is not the same as saying they were. Thus:
Can. 845 ß1 Because they imprint a character, the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and order cannot be repeated.
ß2 If after diligent enquiry a prudent doubt remains as to whether the sacraments mentioned in ß1 have been conferred at all, or conferred validly, they are to be conferred conditionally.
I had a classmate in Rome, an Aussie, who would joke that he had been ordained to the diaconate three times. One: There was the normal ordination, but afterwards in the sacristy someone informed the bishop that he had forgotten the imposition of hands. Two: The subject then knelt for the imposition of hands. Three: The next day there was a phone call from the chancery telling him that the decision had been made do it all again.
I would just like to see a Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cantebury and Roman Catholic Archbishop of York before I die. Like they were before the English Reformation.
“As I said above, the presence of valid episcopal orders in a co-consecrator is not sufficient for Rome to recognize the validity of the consecration.”
And as I have said, I have seen no statement to this effect. You may be right, but arguing from observed practice is insufficient, particularly when observed practice can (as we have seen) be interpreted more than one way, and is in any case demonstrably inconsistent.
Susan,
I might hasten to add that the Anglican Rite Liturgy will soon be a thing of the past. Most Western Rite orthodox parishes have opted for the Gregorian Rite, and with the publication of a new Western Rite Missal, the Anglican Usage will be a thing of the past.
On Professor Basto’s comments:
No, I think that a uniate church is the way to go for the TAC, even though they are smaller than we. The main reason is their current situation and the difference in tradition which has come about over the past 500 years. If you look at the history of jurisdictional practices in Holy Church, you will see that Rome likes to accept existing situations and merely add the colour of the law to them. It is easier that way. Also, Rome likes to take into account current circumstances. In the case of Western traditionalists, to some extent, the Campos structure can serve as a model for future jurisdictions which have not yet been organised.
But the TAC is different. It would be disruptive to create a mere apostolic administration for them. They have very distinctive traditions in every respect imaginable, including liturgy, private devotions, heraldry, church governance, judicial traditions with 450 years of precedent, church decoration and architectural norms, musical practices, vestments: you name it. Moreover, they are already organised into a federation of twelve regional ‘churches’, each having its own liturgical books, for example.
If we look at precedent, we can see that some uniate churches are extremely small: much smaller than the TAC. For instance, we have a uniate church for Russians Byzantine having only 3,000 members worldwide; one for Greek Byzantines having only 2,500 members; an even smaller one for Albanian Byzantines and one separate from that for Italo-Albanian Byzantines.
They have been asked to enter ‘as they are’. Rome, I think, will accede to that to the extent possible. But there will have to be some changes. For example, while they can likely keep their legal tradition, it must be subject to the 1983 Code of Canons. But I note that they have taken some action to accommodate us. For example, they have centralised authority more in their Primacy. Their Primacy is less a merely symbolic headship, as is that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They seem to realise that disunity was a major problem with the ‘Canterbury Communion’. I expect that their elected Primate would, in future, simply be appointed by the Pope but would retain his present powers (and perhaps gain even more).
On Professor Basto’s other points:
First, conditional ordination seems likely for the lot of them simply for logistical reasons. Sorting out which bearded Orthodox bishop ordained which ‘priest’ is just too time-consuming. Rome can be practical about such things when it comes to a mass entry of a group such as this. First, there needs to be a separation into two categories to exclude those of their priests who claim to be re-married while their wives survive.
Second, what I have heard is that they don’t want the Anglican Use and Rome has no intention of forcing it on them. I have been following the negotations closely and I am absolutely certain that they will not get the A.U. What they will get, however, is uncertain at this point. I think their own proposal to be problematical. It is that they be allowed to keep their current liturgical practices until they can afford to impose something, probably the Anglican Missal. I don’t much like that idea but the problem is not with their will but with their resources. The problem might be solved by using photocopies of the Anglican Missal in the short term. But both the Anglican Missal and the English Missal (i.e. our T.L.M. but in English) are vastly superior to the A.U. I would love to see them restore the Sarum Use but that is dreaming in technicolour.
Secondly, I apologise. I keep confusing Edward VI with Henry VI. They venerate Henry VI, not Edward VI. Henry VI was a pre-Reformation Catholic King; hence it is theoretically possible that he could be accepted. They claim as a right for this the force of tradition. As we all know, before a certain time, there was no canonisation process: saints were accepted by the force of tradition. Rome could simply recognise him, although I don’t know why she should! One of their parishes in England is named partly after ‘St. Edward VI’.
Thirdly, I agree with you about married bishops. The problem is that almost all their current ‘bishops’ are married, so this would mean a complete change in their hierarchy. One solution could be to allow married bishops for the current lot and for converting Anglican bishops, but to disallow the consecration of married men to the episcopate. I note, however, that their Primate has said that he would actually accept a complete ban on married bishops. It is an amazing concession to the Church which proves that they are serious. In light of this acceptance, I think it would be a mortal sin for Rome to drag its feet on this reconciliation. Souls are at stake here.
In the case of priests, I am reasonably sure that Rome will allow them to keep married priests and deacons. In order to prevent this from affecting the Latin Church, strict rules will be imposed so that people cannot transfer from the Anglican Uniate Church to the Latin one, or vice versa.
P.K.T.P.
On RBrown’s comments:
The reason that we have three co-consecrators is to avoid the possibility of a defect of form or intent on the part of any one of them. However, should even one confer the Sacrament, the Sacrament is conferred in the eyes of God. But that does not mean that we can be reasonably sure.
In the case of Graham Leonard, we cannot judge the situation without knowing the details. In the case of some Anglican ecclesiastics, they had one, two, even three real bishops consecrate them but then used an invalid ordinal! I have heard that some use the Sarum Ordinal or the Old Catholic Ordinal because they are clearly valid. It gets complicated.
We must distinguish putability, however. A man may very well receive a real order but we may have insufficient means of being certain of it; hence, the use of sub conditione ordinations.
I am not sure of this next point but I am assuming that Rome could also ordain conditionally for practical reasons. For example, if there is a large number of mixed Anglican ministers (some are priests and others are not) coming across, it may be unreasonably difficult to sort them all out. They cannot all get absolute ordination because that might risk blasphemy in the case of a few. But they could presumably all receive conditional ordinations for a practical consideration. I submit this for consideration; I don’t know for sure here.
P.K.T.P.
Dear Mrs. Peterson:
First, you are quite right about the Canon in the A.U. Fr. Christopher Phillips was kind enough to send me their texts by snail mail and I have just checked them. They do use our Roman Canon in liturgical English, although, unfortunately, they add in that ‘Memorial Acclamation’ from the N.O.M. However, they use the N.O. Offertory in liturgyspeak non-liturgical English, and it is an atrocious incongruity. They have also intruded elements of the Byzantine Rite, which is the error of mixing rites. For example, for the Prayer of General Intercession, they have, as an option, a modified Ektenia of Peace. Frankly, it is far superior to the arrangements in the Novus Ordo and actually quite beautiful. But it mixes the character of the two traditions.
There are other Byzantine intrusions as well. Far worse, there are other things taken out of the N.O.M. Lastly, the parts from the Anglican tradition are specifically from the American Anglican Prayerbook of 1928. The reason is that the A.U. is confined to the U.S.A. There is no way that the non-American large majority will accept pieces specifically from the American Anglican tradition. Anglicans are very sensitive about not accepting one another’s prayerbooks peculiarities, except that they will accept older norms from England which they share in common anyway. One of the TAC priests here told me an amusing story. One of their American priests came up to Canada to say their prayerbook service. The Canadian version starts with a Pater, whereas the American one does not. When he omitted the Pater, an elderly lady (probably Colonel Mustard’s wife from that board game), got up and stormed out, followed by the rest of the congregation!
Frankly, I can see why the TAC rejects the A.U. Mass, therefore. The Anglican Missal is based on a fusion of the 1662 Communion Service and the 1637 Roman Missal, and the Anglican bits tend to be parts that all their prayerbooks have, like that ‘We do not presume’ prayer.
P.K.T.P.
To Mrs. McKernan:
To find out more about the TAC, go here and then click on their lovely shield:
http://www.anglicancatholic.ca/
It will take you to a list of links including one for the U.K.
The Canadian branch of the TAC is the oldest, even older than the American one. I think that it’s because the ordination of women issue came up in Canada first.
P.K.T.P.
Re: “I would just like to see a Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cantebury and Roman Catholic Archbishop of York before I die.”
Personally, I would just like to see a Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. That would do me just fine!
D.S.:
Perhaps I should have read her post more closely! I’m perfectly familiar with DI and the more recent document (I’ve had to defend both of them in my Catholic theology courses!), but when I wrote the response, I intended to remark only on the use of “churches” prior to 1054 (1066 would be Wm. the Conqueror–my other error!).
Thanks for pointing out my error–when I went back and read Elizabeth’s comment, I saw that she clearly intended only HE’s use of “churches” with the Protestant groups emerging out of the 1600s.
Thanks for keeping me honest!
God bless,
Ed
I am sure there will be valid objections to my suggestion but…
maybe the solution to the TAC rejoining could be applied to SSPX.
What if you are a TAC priest who was previously baptized Roman Catholic, left the Church in his youth, became an Anglican later and was ordained a priest in TAC, would Rome allow him to be ordained a priest in the RCC?
Timotheus
Timotheus-I think not. In fact I believe one of their leaders (archbishop?) is in this situation. He has promised to resign into the laity if this goes through. Really, this does show a humble spirit and I would hate to think we would turn them away.
Matt of South Kent-I don’t think the SSPX are quite ready to sign the catechism. I believe-and I am sure I will be quickly corrected if I am wrong-that the SSPX have problems with some of VII, such as the decree on religious freedom.
Susan Peterson
Well, wait a minute. The person I was thinking of was a Catholic priest who left to get married, became an Anglican etc. Perhaps somebody who could be retrospectively considered to have “switched rites” could be accepted, vs the situation of someone who, after all, broke a vow. I am not condemning him, just saying how that situation is viewed so that even his being in the position of negotiating for his group, despite his pledge to resign, has been a difficulty. Or, at least I have heard speculation to that effect.
Susan Peterson
On Anglican Orders, etc.; excerpts from a private correspondence:
A. From my covering note
What I am sending you below is self-explanatory: it is a long excerpt from a letter that I had from my English friend xxxxxxxx in October 2003. His point is that the “Dutch Touch” will not necessarily overcome all Roman objections to Anglican Orders. Why? We know know that the original Roman practice (and also in all other ordination rites) was the imposition hands accompanied by, or after,
prayer. In the Middle Ages, in the West, beginning ca. the 12th century, two other things entered the ordination rites, originally separately: (1) an imperative formula “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum …/Receive the Holy Spirit…which originally was part of the final blessing/dismissal of the ordination rites, but to which an imposition (the second or third in the rite) of the ordaining bishop’s hands soon came to be added; and (2) the “porrectio
instrumentorum” or “handing-over of the tools” (such as the paten and chalice for priests), which came after the (original) prayer and imposition of hands, but before #1 just above. In 1443 Rome decreed that it was this “porrectio instrumentorum” that was the “form” (or essential part) of the rite. Cranmer believed that it was #1 above, and in the course of the 19th century many RC scholars came to the same conclusion. But by the 1920s and 30s it had become
clear that neither of these were the original “form” but the first imposition of hands in the rite, and the prayer that either accompanied or preceded it, and in 1947 Pius XII issued a decree to that effect. So what xxxxxxx is arguing is that Rome has never recognized the formula “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum…” as sufficient in itself to constitute the “form” of the sacrament, and
that while it could conceivably do so there is no compelling historical reason why it should do so.
This is relevant because from 1932 onwards, at least until the early 1960s, on every occasion that a Dutch (or other European Old Catholic) bishop participated in a Church of England episcopal consecration, the OC bishop laid on his hands at the same moment that the English Archbishop laid on his, but instead of pronouncing the “formula” (words) from the BCP, he pronounced
instead the Latin formula “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum …” (etc.) from the Roman Pontifical (which the Dutch OCs used till the 1970s and didn’t translate into Dutch till the 1960s), and after each such consecration an official instrument was drawn up (in Latin) which the OC co-consecrating bishop subsequently signed, and in which he declared that his purpose had been to act as co-consecrator with the Anglican archbishop and to confer on the consecrand the
OC “stream” of episcopal orders. By contrast, here in the USA when (as on various occasions between 1946 and 1971, as, for example, when one of the 12 bishops who laid their hands on Albert A. Chambers when he was consecrated bishop of Springfield, Illinois on October 1, 1962 was the PNCC bishop of their “Western Diocese” Francis C. Rowinski) bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church participated in (P)ECUSA episcopal consecrations they either recited the words from the 1928 BCP or else laid their hands on in silence. (This I had in a
personal conversation with the Rt. Rev’d Anthony Rysz, the last surviving PNCC bishop who actually participated in such a consecration.)
The book referred to is *Anglican Orders: the Solution* by Georges Tavard (1990), a book riddled with the most elementary historical errors. Tavard is a long-time RC ecumenist (his best-known book,
decades ago, was *Holy Writ or Holy Church*), who has made the cause of Anglican/RC reunion a central interest. He is by no means an opponent of the pretended ordination of women, and when I read his book I thought that his various (and incompatible) notions about how Rome might “recognize” or “validate” Anglican Orders might apply just as well to the “Orders” of a body like the ELCA (a body with “synod bishops” but scarcely what a Catholic can regard as a “real” bishop)
or like the Church of Norway (which has a diocesan episcopacy, but which lost, or discarded, the apostolic succession at the Reformation). Fortunately, the “facilis descensus Averni” of ECUSA (and probably soon of the ELCA as well) is in the way of banishing all this to the realm of irrelevance: the Catholic Church will soon have no more reason to entertain hopes of “reconciliation” with the “official” Anglican Communion than it does with the Unitarian-Universalist Association.
B. From xxxxxxx’s letter to me
“Your letter of October 13 sent me back to sources and files: “Anglican Orders” is a subject which has preoccupied so many! I enclose, for your amusement, a copy of a letter from Ted Yarnold; I had written to him about the first edition of Apostolicae Curae described itself as addressing “hoc caput disciplinae” — a
phrase which later disappeared. My point was that there must be, physically somewhere in Rome the original sealed authentic version of the Bull. And disciplina is not the same as doctrina.
Every time I revisit this subject, I am amazed that Vaughan got the decision to go his way. Considering the 1872 decree of the Holy Office that Methodist baptisms in Oceania (where the minister used explicitly to precede the administration of the sacrament with a formal denial of regeneration) were not null by defect of intention (and vide, of course, Bellarmine de Sac. in gen. I.21), I do not see how the heretical elimination by Cranmer of much of the ceremonial & sacramental language of the Pontifical (and Cranmer’s own heresies) voids Orders provided that an adequate matter and form remain. And
19thC Roman theologians regarded the form of the episcopal rite as Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. (Manuals such as Davis were still saying this in 1935.) Gasparri denied the validity of Anglican Orders because of a Nag’s Headish misunderstanding; as soon as the historical facts were made clear to him he wrote “l’opinion commune parmi les theologiens catholiques fait consister la forme de la cons. episc. d’apres le Pontifial R., dans les seul paroles: Accipe
SS, qui accompagnent l’imposition des mains de l’eveque consecratoire et des eveques assistant. Ceux qui partagent cette opinion doivent admettre que la forme de l’Ordinal pour la cons. ep. est suffisante; car la forme ASS ne peut pas perdre sa force consecratoire …” It is not surprising (Ker, pp. 321 & 466) that Newman, & the “people” he had dealings with in Rome in 1846, had such logical problems with the invalidation of Anglican Orders.
It is not difficult to see why in earlier centuries Anglican Orders had been regarded as invalid; until 1948 a Roman ordinand in whose ordination the Porrection of the Instruments was accidentally omitted had to be absolutely reordained; the rite had to be conditionally repeated if the instruments lacked wine, or hosts, or of the ordinand failed to touch enough of the instruments! If Leo XIII had simply reenforced those regulations, it would be understandable. My problem with Apostolicae Curae is that it adopted the “new archaeological” view that imposition of hands is the matter but took its
conclusions from precedents based on the Porrection of the Instruments … & then tried to cobble together some supporting arguments. However, as you know, I believe that we owe a judicial submission to Apostolicae Curae; that the C of E acting ecclesially via the Dutch Touch in effect attempted just that; and
that we must do the same in the years ahead, leaving Apostolicae Curae as irrelevant; and this time we must get it right …
I have now received — thank you — Tavard; and am not impressed any more than when first I read him He thinks that the 1552 Ordinal contained the (1662) words “Receive the Holy Spirit for the office and work of a priest …” His claim that “they [the Marian Catholic bishops] do not commonly depose … for the sole reason of their having been ordained according to the Ordinals of 1550
or 1552” is absurd: “A Profitable and Necessary Doctrine” (1556), written by Bishop Bonner and one of his chaplains, a series of homilies ordered by Pole to be read in the Diocese of Gloucester in 1555) speaks of “the late made Ministers … in the new devised Ordination, having no authoritie … to offer … these
late counterfeited Ministers …” Without going through all the evidence again I feel confident that Messinger and Co win that argument conclusively. Tavard — ludicrously — quotes Pole’s legatine constitutions, which upheld the
Decretum ad Armenios with regard to the Porrection of the Instruments, and them cheerfully tells us that this is an exegesis of the Pontificale and has no relevance to the Ordinal or the status of Edwardine ordinati!
Incidentally, the reason why Broadhurst, although he received a Dutch Touch, needs ordinatio sub conditione in order to bury the effects of Apostolicae Curae is that Rome definitely stated in 1948 that Accipe Spiritum Sanctum is NOT the form in the conferring of the episcopate; and what Dutch Touchers used to do was to impose both hands and say merely “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”. Cardinal Gasparri and his contemporaries may have found ASS adequate, but the
decision in re Graham Leonard (that “there is a doubt [merely] about the invalidation of his presbyteral orders”) makes clear that the Dutch Touch as we have experienced it since the 1920s is not good enough for the experts whose vota the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith took. I can see why”.
“I also feel not entirely certain that the “intention” to “pass on the Old Catholic stream” quite counts as an intention to convey the sacrament of Orders.”
Queen Katharine of Aragon, pray for us.
Hello Ed,
as you spoke about your theology course I suppose you are student (in US), aren´t you?
I am student of theology in Germany so I can imaging how you need strength and courage…
So now espec. before Pentecost I wish you this strength and courage – GOD bless!
Veni Sancte Spiritus!
In Cho per Mam
RBrown (and PKTP and fr. francis):
Still PKTP seems to be right; he brought the argument that the co-consecrators are there to avoid the possibility of defect…
That is also the argument I know. So therefor it seems to be that, theoretically (= [better] in principal), such a discussed ordination is to be seen as valid (proofed by the fact that it is not spent again absolutly/unconditioned, but only sub cond., as I stressed before) and the reason for beeing re-spent is not the doubt in principal but only doubts out of the concrete circumstances.
Well, but “you may be right”, RBrown, (as fr. francis put it) , so that there is not only a doubt of concrete circumsatnces but also of principal validity.(And I know, what I called a proofe could be interpretated an other way, so it is not a proof, I admit. Let´s call it only an argument, not a proof.)
But then, like also fr. francis pointed it, I would like to see some proofes for that. Can You give some source for Your opinion (that the theologians have a doubt of the principial validity in such a case)?
Till now I think PKTP is right: there is no doubt in principal, but only because of some concrete circumstances.
In CHo per Mam
The reason that we have three co-consecrators is to avoid the possibility of a defect of form or intent on the part of any one of them. However, should even one confer the Sacrament, the Sacrament is conferred in the eyes of God. But that does not mean that we can be reasonably sure.
In the case of Graham Leonard, we cannot judge the situation without knowing the details. In the case of some Anglican ecclesiastics, they had one, two, even three real bishops consecrate them but then used an invalid ordinal! I have heard that some use the Sarum Ordinal or the Old Catholic Ordinal because they are clearly valid. It gets complicated.
We must distinguish putability, however. A man may very well receive a real order but we may have insufficient means of being certain of it; hence, the use of sub conditione ordinations.
I am not sure of this next point but I am assuming that Rome could also ordain conditionally for practical reasons. For example, if there is a large number of mixed Anglican ministers (some are priests and others are not) coming across, it may be unreasonably difficult to sort them all out. They cannot all get absolute ordination because that might risk blasphemy in the case of a few. But they could presumably all receive conditional ordinations for a practical consideration. I submit this for consideration; I don’t know for sure here.
Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins
This is a complex question, and I didn’t really want to get into the finer points.
First, a theoretical possibility is not antithetical to a practical reality, but, as I said earlier, possibility is insufficient for certitude of actuality.
Second, the situation with 3 Anglican co-consecrators, one of whom is actually a bishop, and 3 Catholic co-consecrators is not really the same. An Anglican ordination is done within the context (a mix of Sacramental Form and Intention, presuming valid matter) of the Anglicanism. The same is true for Catholic or Orthodox ordination, where the context indicates a sufficient understanding of the priesthood.
Minimal intention (which here refers both to the consecrators and the ordinandus) is presumed present for the latter. In the case of the former the assumption is that it is not present.
Thus Anglican ordination cannot be recognized as valid even if a co-consecrator is a real bishop because the ordination is being carried out in the context of Anglicanism, with its deficient understanding of the Priesthood and the Eucharist.
But what of a situation in the Catholic Church where the principal consecrator would not have minimal intention? How can it be valid? Here the answer is the same: Context.
Concerning a comment above, stating that I should have “pushed harder” to keep such things as the N.O. offertory out of the Anglican Use liturgy — in my own defense, all this took place in 1983, I had been ordained to the Catholic priesthood only three months before, and I was having to argue with such men as the former papal M.C. Archbishop Marini (who was on the commission with me). We were able to get much more than we expected, but I am the first to agree that the Book of Divine Worship is far from perfect. It is my sincere prayer that it might be revised at some time to more closely resemble the Anglican Missal. But for now, it is our liturgy as approved by the Holy See, and we use it gratefully.