Now I have argued, in effect, that Fr. Hart is a Protestant rather than a Catholic. In more than one place, however, Fr. Hart has insisted that he is both Protestant and Catholic. Needless to say, one can reconcile such contraries by going beyond ordinary usage and construing the terms so that they cease to be contraries.
I have used the terms in the classic tradition of Anglicanism, as understood for over five hundred years (only because "Protestantism" was not used before that). Within Anglican formularies this has meaning. But, I agree and have made the same point, that the word "Protestantism" as generally used means too many things to mean anything.
You say, Dr. Liccione, that what you refer to is not Rome's branch theory. But, the fact is, what you refer to shows that the more recent papal documents are far closer to classic Anglican thought than a simple OTC theory would be. What comes across, in Rome's "kinder, gentler" approach is very much in accord with classic Traditional Anglicanism.
But, you still say "we don't get it." Better to say, theology can be discussed intelligently when we define our terms. We get it. But, we do not see our part in the Holy Catholic Church as less valid or real, simply because we understand your point.
As I said in another comment, from our end we are in full communion with Rome and Orthodoxy. All schism with us, and with each other, is not our idea.
I do not wish to derail the main thrust of this thread, but the following from Dr. Liccone’s intial post caught my eye, and is relevant to a series (HERE) of recent threads that have revolved around Newman’s theory of development:
>>I agree with Newman that "whatever be historical Christianity, it is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this." A respectable case can be made that either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the faith-once-delivered, even though no set of historical data could objectively suffice to decide between their competing ecclesiological paradigms. But there just isn't anything called "Protestantism" on behalf of which one could make such a case. I think so not because I am an expert Church historian—I am not—but because it seems evident to me that "Protestant" denominations share too little positive doctrinal content with each other for something called "Protestantism" to present a clear doctrinal alternative to the indisputably apostolic communions.>>
Critiques of Newman’s theory of development are quite numerous, but substantive, positive alternatives are lacking; I suspect that this stems from their inability “to present a clear doctrinal alternative to the indisputably apostolic communions.”
Grace and peace,
David
Fr. Hart:
In light of Catholic ecclesiological development, it was probably a mistake on my part to accept and go with Fr. Kirby's use of 'OTC' in his characterization of my argument. I should have stuck with 'OHCAC', which is after all a creedal term. To characterize the Roman communion as "the one true Church" is confusing while Rome acknowledges the Orthodox churches as "true, particular churches."
That said, I am puzzled that you do not mention the key distinction I drew between Vatican-II ecclesiology and Anglican branch theory. According to the latter, none of the communions you count as branches of OHCAC are OHCAC. On the contrary and according to Rome, the Roman communion is OHCAC, with the Orthodox churches being true local churches in imperfect communion with herself. If you "get" that, you sure don't acknowledge it.
You write: "...from our end we are in full communion with Rome and Orthodoxy. All schism with us, and with each other, is not our idea.
You're right: I don't get that. The very fact that the Roman and Orthodox communions are unwilling to be in full communion with you precludes their being in full communion with you. For they do not believe there should be communio in sacris if there is not prior unity in faith, and there can be no unity of faith without agreement on what visible body counts as OHCAC. That indeed is why they are not in full communion with each other. Since you reject both their ecclesiologies, it would make no sense for them to effect a full communio in sacris with you either. That you disagree, and regard yourself as in full communion with them all the same, only shows that your ecclesiology differs from theirs. That is a difference in faith, which on their ecclesiology precludes full communion. Thus it is logically impossible to be in full communion with somebody who doesn't regard themselves as being in full communion with you. The very reasons you give for denying that only affirms it.
I am no closer now than I was before to understanding how you can maintain the position you do.
Best,
Mike
The very fact that the Roman and Orthodox communions are unwilling to be in full communion with you precludes their being in full communion with you.
The key word is "unwilling." We really don't know, because the break down of progress between the Anglican Communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy was interrupted by women's "ordination"- the same heresy that caused our exile from the Anglican Communion over thirty years ago.
Just what either one is willing to do about ecumenical relations is up in the air.
The problem with your view, is that you seem to think that we ought to declare ourselves invalid unless we become either Roman or Greek. Our reasons for rejecting such an idea should not need to be spelled out allover again. When we say the Creeds, and get to the article on the Church, we mean ourselves, as well as you, and as well as the Orthodox.
But you exclude each other, even with all that talk about "true particular churches." Therefore, you have no credibility when either of you, yet in schism from one another, exclude us too.
Fr. Hart,
You wrote, "But you exclude each other, even with all that talk about 'true particular churches.' Therefore, you have no credibility when either of you, yet in schism from one another, exclude us too."
Technically, the Catholic Churches do not exclude the Orthodox - beyond telling the Orthodox faithful that they ought to respect to discipline of their own church (which would preclude intercommunion).
Also, please keep in mind the findings of the Holy See "On the Nullity of Anglican Orders" explained in "Apostolicae Curae". I don't believe that this particular view has been modified.
Mike, you are quite right to point out that Fr Kirby's presentation of DMU does not accurately state the Catholic position; but it's not clear to me that this effectively addresses the substance of his argument.
Specifically, he rejects your argument that identification of Church is necessarily prior to employment of the Vincentian Canon. Thus he writes in the last paragraph of his comments:
Finally, allow me to point out that Dr Liccione’s rendering of the Vincentian Canon is in danger of being reduced to a useless tautology, and one that Catholics could not accept inasmuch as it would imply all past appeal to this principle was an invalid circular argument. That is, if it is true one cannot appeal to the Vincentian Canon to judge a controversial doctrinal issue without first successfully determining exactly who or what churches are definitely orthodox and Catholic (so that their consent counts), then one must determine who is on the “right side” of any disputed matter before one can use consensus to determine which is the right side! That really would be incoherent. Indeed, the numbered argument I have given above as, I think, an accurate summary of our friend’s position does not use the Vincentian Canon in consistency with this tautological interpretation. Instead, it attempts to show that, even without knowing a priori who is the OTC, one can use the principle of St Vincent of Lerins to conclusively reject Anglo-Catholicism. Hence, any polemical attempt to deny the right of Anglican Catholics to appeal to the Canon in support of their teaching and identity, such as Manning’s infamous reference to the treachery of an appeal to history or his glorying in the triumph of dogma over history, is unreasonable. So is Khomiakov’s similar effort, especially since he ignores the fact that the Church of England at the Reformation did not claim to use St Vincent’s principle to reconstruct doctrine or the Church ab initio, but to correct certain abuses in faith and practice in their particular jurisdiction. There was a self-conscious, official and explicit avowal of essential continuity, however imperfectly things were done."
I think you need to write a follow-up piece addressing Fr Kirby's contention that your construal of the VC reduces it to useless tautology.
"
i wish to add a little insight from my immediate experience
over the past few months i have visited "protestant" communities and have been engaged in a musical project with some friends who are in fact "protestant" and use the term only to signify that they are not catholic
(i am moved here to think that our relationship is moving them to the door)
but i have noticed that in all the ""churches" i have visited there is some rather deliberate and ostentatious showing of welcome "for all" or "for all believers" and at moments when there has been a "communion service" there has been the explicit welcome for all to come forth...regardless of denomination ( i have not been inclined in the slightest to accept the invitation)
this contrasts with the position which is stated oftentimes rather subtly either in the missalette or framed in a very visible place...the clear doctrine of whom shall come forth for reception of communion in the RC world...and the "apology" for the rift that continues
depending on the political leanings of a parish this can be made forcefully with doctrinal certainty or almost ignored...but it is there
...and for the most part i think it is honored
i notice people coming forth with arms crossed at the heart and accepting the blessing
i do not doubt that some disregard the principle all together...and the canon which does not permit refusal at the communion rail is yet but another way we are willing to say NO but yes..alright this time...but someone should i agree feel compelled at this point to bring some clarity to the benighted faithful
i use newmans' "grammar of assent" as a basis for explainging things at times
and sometime i like to change the word to "ascent"
to give the idea that there is in fact a high ground here
and it is more than a historical or philosophical dispute
the best we can know of truth in revelation has been worked out..and yes is still being worked out...every generation must begin anew
the onus is on the word "protest" and until that is deemed useless in the painful split of christians
the argument will continue
like an adolescent with no end to the demands and defenses of self will
but i have noticed that in all the ""churches" i have visited there is some rather deliberate and ostentatious showing of welcome "for all" or "for all believers" and at moments when there has been a "communion service" there has been the explicit welcome for all to come forth...regardless of denomination ( i have not been inclined in the slightest to accept the invitation)
this contrasts with the position which is stated oftentimes rather subtly either in the missalette or framed in a very visible place...the clear doctrine of whom shall come forth for reception of communion in the RC world...and the "apology" for the rift that continues
John Hanson:
You are aware that one of the reasons why Holy Communion is restricted to only Catholics and even to our Orthodox brethren but not Protestants is because of our theological beliefs concerning the Eucharist?
You seem to be suggesting that we should be distributing Holy Communion so openly as if they were hors d'oeuvres to welcome new-comers.
I have news for you: the little piece of bread and that cup of wine is much more (at least, to those Catholics/Orthodox who truly believe) than that.
They are the Body and Blood of Christ, which we thus take part in Communion in The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass!
Uh, I do not agree with Mr. Hanson on everything he writes, but it seems pretty obvious here that he is in favor of the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I am not sure where e. got the idea that he was demeaning it. Maybe he should reread the passage (Mr. Hanson would also do wqell to use proper capitalization.)
e:
Somehow I think you have misread John Hanson's last post. Perhaps take another close look, as his style tends to the ethereal and slightly obscure. However, I think he is intending to affirm what you have read him as denying.
They are the Body and Blood of Christ, which we thus take part in Communion in The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass!
Exactly what we believe too.
Michael Liccione:
You are free to post comments where Fr. Kirby will notice them, and repeat some of your arguments there too. He has continued the discussion on the Continuum, and so your comments on his comments are out of date, old and stale already.
Just how much he has misunderstood the position of Rome depends on how elastic the definition of the doctrine of Universal Primacy becomes. I am aware, however, that it is the Orthodox who do most of the snoring on matters ecumenical, and who are forbidden by their own Church to receive communion in yours.
Please do not bring up the 1896 Bull here, because you should know how quickly it was refuted, and how thoroughly. And, there has been quite a lot of reversal on Rome's part, to the point where it holds the conclusion, but has reversed its position on supporting arguments- and if not for women's "ordination" in 1976...well, there's a lot, in fact too much, that I could say. I would rather not go down that road.
About Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development, I have refuted it on my own blog, and for some of the same reasons that led the Magisterium in Rome to reject it when he first proposed it.
e.: They are the Body and Blood of Christ, which we thus take part in Communion in The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass!
Fr. Kirby: Exactly what we believe too.
Actually, when I indicated "...we thus take part in Communion...", not only did I mean that in the Eucharistic sense but also with respect to being in Communion with the One, Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church as well, which primarily pertains to Catholic/Orthodox.
However, I do appreciate your presence though, Fr.! ;^)
Fr. Hart:
The unwillingness of the Catholic Church to be in full communion with the Orthodox is motivated quite differently from its unwillingness to be in full communion with the Anglicans. The Catholic Church is unwilling to be in full communion with the Orthodox only because the latter believe that a few Catholic dogmas are incompatible with what was professed in common during the first millennium. As long as they maintain that belief, one which from a Catholic standpoint is false, it is logically impossible to restore full communion. Yet Rome doesn't see reason enough in that to give up on ecumenical efforts, or even to forbid Catholics from receiving the Eucharist from an Orthodox priest in extraordinary circumstances. Minds can change even in the East.
As you know, however, Rome does not recognize the Anglican Communion as a communion of true, particular churches at all. I'm not altogether certain that you do either, given that the Continuing Anglicans have effectively split off from said communion, no doubt for reasons you deem more than sufficient. And of course Rome is not about to change her position. Whatever you may think of the reasoning of Apostolicae Curae, Ratzinger cited “the invalidity of Anglican orders" in 1999 as a belief that is to be "definitively held" by Catholics. The phrase definitive tendendam alludes to Lumen Gentium 25 §2, which JP2 had also alluded to in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to reject women’s ordination, and which for Ratzinger is code for doctrines that have been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. He made that explicit in his 1995 CDF commentary on OS where, interestingly enough, he also cites the Vincentian Canon in a way that I heartily approve.
(continued below)
Given that general point, though, it still does not follow that no "Anglican" priest has valid orders. An Anglican man who gets himself ordained priest by a bishop whose orders Rome recognizes as valid, and who has not abandoned the faith-once-delivered as the Anglican Communion as a whole is in the course of doing, might well have valid orders even by Roman criteria. But such a man is not in full communion with Rome if he denies papal primacy as Rome defines it. I'm pleased to see that the TAC boys recognize that and are willing to move accordngly.
As for development of doctrine, please note that I have written numerous posts on that topic, which you can access if you care to be clicking the label ‘development of doctrine’ in the sidebar. My most recent DD post criticized the critique of DD made by Fr. John Behr, Dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary. The only thing I see a need to repeat here is that I explicitly reject the notion that DD is “progressive revelation.” I am at one with you and the Orthodox in rejecting the idea of progressive revelation; and in that, I believe I am following Newman himself.
Finally, as for Fr. Kirby, it is implausible to claim that my critique of an argument he made against me last week is already so “old and stale” as to be irrelevant. Of course I shall read his latest comments to see if he’s got anything new to add that is both relevant to my argument and consistent with the critique of his I’ve already answered. In the meantime, and as per Fr. Kimel’s recommendation, I shall answer Fr. Kirby’s criticism that, on my account, the VC threatens to become “a useless tautology.”
Best,
Mike
Mike:
I did not say "irrelevant." I said outdated, old and stale. You may have noticed from years of comments on Al Kimmel's blog, and a few comments on yours over a year ago, that I sometimes let my sense of humor get the best of me. Hence the word "stale."
About then Cardinal Ratzinger and AD TUENDAM FIDEM, his actual point has been misconstrued all along by a lot of people. The document was about levels of teaching, and clearly set Apostolicae Curae on a level that was less than dogma, not revealed, subject to possibly being rescinded, but binding at the present time. (It was almost rescinded in 1976 by Pope Paul VI, but the First Ecumenical Council of Minneapolis, also called the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, developed their doctrine about holy orders; so he did not go through with it. That is a fact testified to by men for whom it is living memory) It is no coincidence that the same document, ATF, mentions women's "ordination." The message was subtle, but I got it. It was aimed right at Dr. Carey and the C of E: "Turn back O' Man, forswear thy foolish ways." A message we agree with, and try to send in our own way. But, a papal document has a louder voice than our squeak.
An Anglican man who gets himself ordained priest by a bishop whose orders Rome recognizes as valid...
Not that it matters to me, because I stand by SAEPIUS OFFICIO completely; but, the orders we have, have never been addressed by any papal document. Theories abound, but no actual pronouncement from Rome. But, it is interesting that no Roman Catholic can deny our orders based on the conclusion of AC.
Fr. Hart,
You wrote, "the orders we have, have never been addressed by any papal document. Theories abound, but no actual pronouncement from Rome. But, it is interesting that no Roman Catholic can deny our orders based on the conclusion of AC."
Out of curiosity, since the institution of the Pastoral Provision some 28 years ago, how many members of the Anglican clergy have been admitted to the Catholic priesthood without being ordained by a Catholic bishop? My guess is that it's the same as the number of women who have been admitted to the Catholic priesthood.
While that is not a curial document, it does seem to be indicative of Rome's recent understanding of the validity of Anglican orders, does it not?
Lou Pizzuti:
On that subject, the investigation in each case about whether to ordain simply or ordain conditionally should provide a clue. The Graham Leonard case made it more than mere theory (and, what the current pope said at the time is very, very significant. Unfortunately, it seems that I am not at liberty to divulge it now).
Frankly, I don't care very much at all, since I have no doubts about the old Anglican orders and their full validity. But, it is a matter of passing interest that a document from 112 years ago does not deal with historical events that came later.
The problem of women's "ordination" has rendered most Anglican orders a moot case; but, for those not part of the Canterbury Communion, the question leading to a new investigation could very well arise.
Mike L:
By the way, I meant to say much earlier, of course the position of the Magisterium in Rome is that they are in perfect accord with Scripture and Tradition, and that they possess Right Reason. Our position is not that they claim to have authority above the Word of God. Rather, we believe that some (a very small percentage) of what has been taught by the Magisterium is not consistent with the Scriptures or the Tradition. Therefore, we do not believe their claim to Infallibility for the See of Rome. Infallibility is fully conciliar, which requires healing of the Great Schism. Infallibility does not reside in any one See.
However, the restoration of full conciliar authority would only help do what it always did: Defend the Faith. Some people seem to think that councils made dogma. That is not what the Infallibility of the Church is about. Rather it is about clarification, teaching and defending revealed truth, as you must know.
This is what I have said many times before.
I know we do not agree. But, I want our positions clarified properly.
in fact i am claiming the high ground
in the grammar of "ascent"
my point being
that non-catholics tend for the most
part to honor the limitations
imposed by what we believe
yet there is this marvelous sense of
hospitality worked into it as well
we're not to be beating folks over the head
with our doctrinal certainties
but we do expect them to know
somehow what the deal is
and better to make it a teaching moment
rather than an
us vs. them fight over it
my brothers
you can call me
brother
no matter what you say
you got to serve somebody
j
Fr. Hart,
It matters little to me whether Anglican Orders are valid or not. The question is, on practical level, how does Rome view these ordinations.
The Catholic understanding is
1) A Christian body which lack a valid priesthood lacks valid sacraments
2) A Christian body without valid sacraments is not a church
3) The Catholic Church cannot be in communion with a body which is not a church
4) "Apostolicae Curae" is the current ruling regarding Anglican orders. Whether it is the final ruling is moot.
Until such time as the view of Anglican orders is *officially* altered, it is not reasonable to expect the Catholic Church (or, as Mike has put it, the Catholic Communion) to be in communion with any Anglican body.
That's all I've been trying to point out.
I wrote:
"Until such time as the view of Anglican orders is *officially* altered, it is not reasonable to expect the Catholic Church (or, as Mike has put it, the Catholic Communion) to be in communion with any Anglican body."
Poorly phrased.
I meant to say ' . . . in communion with any Anglican body the clergy of which has not been at least conditionally ordained by a bishop whose orders are recognized by Rome"
That Fr. Hart should view orders in the Continuing movement as valid is understandable. I do wish, however, that he would cease his ad nauseam dismissals of AC. AC rests on theological and ecclesialogical assumptions and understandings proper to Rome that he simply doesn't share. To persist in claiming that Rome got it wrong from its own (as opposed to from an Anglcian perspective) verges on impertinence.
Where Fr. Hart does have a point, and a strong one at that, is that there has been a material change in the situation since the advent of the "Dutch touch." This change does not seem to be as widely appreciated in popular Catholic circles as it should be, though Rome is well aware of its significance and acts accordingly.
Prior to the involvement of bishops from the Old Catholic Churches in ordaining Anglican counterparts, the issue was a relatively simple one for Rome. Earlier Anglican orders were plainly invalid as Apostlic Succession had been broken when Anglicanism distanced itself from belief in the sacrificial nature of the mass and changed its formularies accordingly. This breach could not be retroactively addressed by the subsequent return to more acceptable ordinals 1) because an unbroken line of succession is required and 2) because the formularies themselves are merely indicative not probative. Despite the reversal of the Edwardian ordinals, some Anglican bishops (particularly of the evangelical and more recently liberal varieties) continued to deny personal belief in the sacrifical nature of the mass.
With the "Dutch touch," however, we have a new situation. If an ordained Anglican can demonstrate an unbroken chain of ordinations to the "Dutch touch" in which at least one bishop in every link in this chain was on record as positively affirming belief in the sacrificial nature of the mass, his ordination may in fact be valid. It is because of this possibility that Rome has moved towards "conditional" reordinations in cases where such claims can plausibly be made.
So, as Dr. Liccione has noted, *some* Anglican ordinations, particularly in the Continuum, may be valid *even from a Catholic perspective* (that they are valid from an Anglican perspective can be safely presumed).
My understanding (though I have no sure knowledge in the matter) is that part of the discussions with the TAC involves detailed research of the particulars of the chain of ordination of its clergy to determine the extent and nature of reordination required.
Fr. Hart is incorrect in assuming that the "Dutch touch" has rendered AC moot. It has, however, put us in a situation in which the validity of specific Anglican Orders now have to be considered on a case by case basis.
Earlier Anglican orders were plainly invalid as Apostlic Succession had been broken when Anglicanism distanced itself from belief in the sacrificial nature of the mass and changed its formularies accordingly
Which interpretation was disputed by the Church of England as a misreading of its formularies, and at a significantly early date. And, it is a misreading, failing to take into account what was actually being addressed (the plural in "sacrifices of Masses" repeated for emphasis.The specific Artiicle was addressing common misperceptions of the people, not the teaching of Rome). On this matter, the Anglicans and modern Roman Catholicism are in agreement. There is only one sacrifice of the Mass, no matter how often it is repeated. C of E responses included a definition of Eucharistic Sacrifice that no Catholic today would reject. (That these things are not commonly known is distressing.) AC is based on some historical claims that Rome has corrected, especially about the issue of the essential matter of the sacrament, and the vailidity of the consecrators. Rome no longer holds to those arguments, because their own scholars have seen them as factually inaccurate.
I am convinced by the evidence that the real reason for letting the conclusion of AC stand has nothing to do with its own content, but with WO, and other errors in modern times. You will not find scholars in Rome actually repeating its content, because they have no real desire to do so.
Holding firmly to Saepius Officio, I consider the "Dutch Touch" irrelevant to anything other than ecumenical relations with Rome. However, what is worth pointing out is that Rome has not ever done a thorough analysis of it in general, and nothing at all other than a case by case examination, and those have not been consistent. For, the exact same facts that relate to Graham Leonard are by no means unique, but in his case the treatment was unique (so far). A new study would be interesting, but the result would be moot for churches where women's "ordination" is practiced.
Fr. Hart is incorrect in assuming that the "Dutch touch" has rendered AC moot. It has, however, put us in a situation in which the validity of specific Anglican Orders now have to be considered on a case by case basis.
For us the "Dutch Touch" is what I have said it is, simply a matter for ecumenical relaitions with Rome (which was the purpose for it in the first place, as documented by Brian Taylor). But, we too have to study Anglican orders on a case by case basis whenever Episcopal priests and other Canterbury Anglican clergy come over to us. We cannot accept their orders as valid in many cases. (One question, that grows less relevant by the day, is about when they were ordained.)
All of which points to a genuine reason for Rome to stop wasting time with Canterbury, and invest that time and effort in discussions with Traditional Anglicans.
It is not at all clear to me if the "Dutch touch" makes a crucial difference to Catholic recognition of Anglican orders. It suggests that apostolic succession can be recovered through purely mechanical means. Admittedly, a few Anglican priests have been received into Holy Orders by conditional ordination, precisely because of the "touch," but most have not. Contemporary Catholic ecclesiologists rightly refuse to reduce apostolic succession to pedigree. Newman put the matter this way:
“Catholics believe their orders are valid, because they are members of the true Church, and Anglicans believe they belong to the true Church, because their orders are valid.”
And:
"Our starting point is not the fact of a faithful transmission of orders, but the standing fact of the Church, the Visible and One Church, the reproduction and succession of herself age after age. It is the Church herself that vouches for our orders, while she authenticates herself to be the Church not by our orders, but by her Notes."
This does not render the historic succession irrelevant, but it does put it in its proper context.
Fr. Hart,
I actually believe we are in substantial agreement in this matter except possibly for one or two points: one which your last message does not address directly, and another which may be a matter of nuanced phrasing rather than genuine disagreement. Let me parse your response:
"Which interpretation was disputed by the Church of England as a misreading of its formularies, and at a significantly early date. And, it is a misreading, failing to take into account what was actually being addressed (the plural in "sacrifices of Masses" repeated for emphasis.The specific Artiicle was addressing common misperceptions of the people, not the teaching of Rome). On this matter, the Anglicans and modern Roman Catholicism are in agreement. There is only one sacrifice of the Mass, no matter how often it is repeated. C of E responses included a definition of Eucharistic Sacrifice that no Catholic today would reject. (That these things are not commonly known is distressing.) AC is based on some historical claims that Rome has corrected, especially about the issue of the essential matter of the sacrament, and the vailidity of the consecrators. Rome no longer holds to those arguments, because their own scholars have seen them as factually inaccurate."
This is certainly a cogent argument. One you have made before, and which has considerable force. What I would ask you to consider, however, is the role the formularies play in the analysis offered by AC. The root of the problem lies not in the formularies themselves, but in Anglicanism's early attempt to bridge traditional Catholic beliefs with the more crypto-Calvinist understandings of early radical English Protestants (Puritans for example). The argument isn't so much that Anglicanism disowned belief in the sacrificial nature of the mass, but that it dispensed with the necessity of this belief (AC presumes, rightly or wrongly that this was in order to accomodate those for whom the eucharist was merely a symbolic reenactment of the last supper). AC points to the Edwardian change in Anglican formularies not as proof, but as a demonstration of this distancing. Whether the presumed motives behind the changes were accurately assessed is largely beside the point, given that Anglican bishops were, and still are (albeit under a different disciplinary regime), free to deny the sacrifical nature of the mass.
Had even one Anglican bishop or even priest been deposed or forced to resign after expressing such a denial, matters might have been seen differently by Rome. But combining tolerance of what Rome saw as sacramental heresy with a change in the formularies that could only comfort such dissent created what amounts to an open and shut case.
"I am convinced by the evidence that the real reason for letting the conclusion of AC stand has nothing to do with its own content, but with WO, and other errors in modern times. You will not find scholars in Rome actually repeating its content, becau
(continued)
Fr. Hart,
"I am convinced by the evidence that the real reason for letting the conclusion of AC stand has nothing to do with its own content, but with WO, and other errors in modern times. You will not find scholars in Rome actually repeating its content, because they have no real desire to do so."
This may well be true, but this is at best a conjecture. All the ordination of women really does in this context is confirm the Catholic view that Anglicanism allowed/allows for sacramental heresies that leave the validity of its ordinations in serious question--a situation intolerable to the economy of the Church as invalid ordinations underminesthe credibility of the graces conveyed through the other sacraments (except for baptism, and possibly matrimony). WO indeed confirms Catholic doubts about the validity of Anglican orders, but is merely to most glaring aspect of what Catholics see as a broader difficiency.
"Holding firmly to Saepius Officio, I consider the "Dutch Touch" irrelevant to anything other than ecumenical relations with Rome. However, what is worth pointing out is that Rome has not ever done a thorough analysis of it in general, and nothing at all other than a case by case examination, and those have not been consistent. For, the exact same facts that relate to Graham Leonard are by no means unique, but in his case the treatment was unique (so far). A new study would be interesting, but the result would be moot for churches where women's "ordination" is practiced."
I cannot speak to Fr. Leonard's ordination as I am not familiar with the details of the case. My understanding, however is that he was reordained conditionally.
Whatever the case, your attitude to the "Dutch touch" is exactly as it should be for you. Otherwise, you would be a hypocrite in claiming to be a priest. It should go without saying that any self-respecting Anglican priest must either reject the conclusions of AC or be in the process of regularizing his clerical status with one of the Churches whose apostolic succession is not disputed by Rome.
No one is claiming that the conclusions of AC are the only ones that could have been reached rationally from the available evidence. If, however, Rome tells us that the evidence is sufficient for it to be unable to recognize Anglican orders as valid, this ipso facto makes Anglican orders invalid from a Catholic perspective (whatever Anglicans may think of the conclusion and its supporting arguments). There is no other course possible, as doubt in the validity of orders is intolerable for the functioning of the Church. This is why, even in cases where the "Dutch touch" can be proven and a subsequent chain of orthodox ordainers established, the Church still insists on conditional reordination.
"For us the "Dutch Touch" is what I have said it is, simply a matter for ecumenical relaitions with Rome (which was the purpose for it in the first place, as documented by Br
(continued)
Fr. Hart,
"For us the "Dutch Touch" is what I have said it is, simply a matter for ecumenical relaitions with Rome (which was the purpose for it in the first place, as documented by Brian Taylor). But, we too have to study Anglican orders on a case by case basis whenever Episcopal priests and other Canterbury Anglican clergy come over to us. We cannot accept their orders as valid in many cases. (One question, that grows less relevant by the day, is about when they were ordained.)"
This is because WO has demonstrated to you what Rome has claimed to have seen all along since it first reflected on the matter in AC, i.e. that Anglicanism institutionally allows for heretical understandings of sacramental theology (whether or not most or even many Anglicans personally adhere to such heresy).
"All of which points to a genuine reason for Rome to stop wasting time with Canterbury, and invest that time and effort in discussions with Traditional Anglicans."
I think it is fair to say that since WO the dialogue has moved away from steps ultimately aimed at corporate reunion and has focussed instead on what joint witness remains possible. To this extent, matters are hardly so hopeless that the dialogue should be dropped entirely.
I suspect there are two main reasons why Rome has not heretofore taken the Continuum that seriously.
First, the dialogue with the Anglican Communion has yielded much positive fruit which the Catholic side hopes and believes can still be built on. These hopes might be jeapordized should the Anglican Communion perceive discussions with the Continuum as efforts to poach a Uniate Anglican Church from its midsts. We get enough grief from the Orthodox on this, and we don't want to go there again.
The second reason is probably the fragmentary nature of the Continuum. I am well aware that you are very hard on each other for your inability to overcome your differences (whether personal, historical, ecclesiological or theological), but you must admit that it makes it difficult for a body that claims to speak for over a billion people to take you that seriously. What exactly is to be gained from focussing very scarce ecummenical resources on joint witness with a discordant grouping representing perhaps a million people?
The TAC has only been able to secure focussed and serious attention by insisting on putting immediate corporate reunion front and centre as the subject of discussion. Due to its self-understanding, Rome has to take such a request seriously, as it has for a number of far more recent Catholic breakaway groups (some much small than some Coninuuing Churches) that sought reincorporation.
In the event the TAC and Rome become convinced that the TAC's understanding of the Catholic faith, as Rome teaches it, is fully orthodox, and if mutually satisfactory interim or permanent structures of governance can be agreed to, the rest of the Continuum will find a privileged interlocutor thr
(continued)
Fr. Hart,
In the event the TAC and Rome become convinced that the TAC's understanding of the Catholic faith, as Rome teaches it, is fully orthodox, and if mutually satisfactory interim or permanent structures of governance can be agreed to, the rest of the Continuum will find a privileged interlocutor through which to pursue the kind of dialogue you seem to be calling for. It won't be an alternative to talks with the Anglican Communion, however.
Sorry for the long discontinuous post, but I felt your points merited a detailed response.
Michaël de Verteuil:
I can't speak for the others but, personally, I greatly appreciate these posts between you and Fr. Hart.
Thanks for educationing those of us unawares.
Mike & all,
I have posted part of the very deep (and long) essay of Met. John Zizioulas on the Eucharist and Catholicity which I believe touches heavily on the subject matter of your recent and fascinating discussion here and elsewhere. It may be found at the link below.
http://tinyurl.com/62ahye
Yours in ICXC
John
Writing in 1624, speaking for the Anglicans, a priest named William Bedell wrote about sacrifice:
"[If by it you mean] a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy immolation made on the altar of the cross...we do offer the sacrifice for the quick and the dead, by which all their sins are meritoriously expiated, and desiring that by the same, we and all the Church may obtain remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christ's Passion."
That is what Roman Catholics today also believe. Rejecting belief in "the sacrifices of masses" (as I said before, the plural is repeated to make the meaning very clear) is perfectly in accord with the Tradition of the Church in all ages. One Eucharistic Sacrifice, often celebrated throughout the world, vs. "sacrifices of masses."
The root of the problem lies not in the formularies themselves, but in Anglicanism's early attempt to bridge traditional Catholic beliefs with the more crypto-Calvinist understandings of early radical English Protestants (Puritans for example).
Does anyone read Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity other than me? Calvin was called “crazed” by Hooker, on behalf of the Church of England (Book III), and the Puritans were the adversaries of the Church of England, both spiritually and politically. The Cardinals did not understand Anglican formularies in 1896, just as some modern Anglicans also do not understand them. It seems that the best books from the earlier times simply gather dust.
(cont.)
given that Anglican bishops were, and still are (albeit under a different disciplinary regime), free to deny the sacrificial nature of the mass
Yes, but since when? And, I mean that literally. The actual Reformation period, and the next few generations, used theological terminology that had been common in the Catholic Church for debates leading up to the 16th Century, and so they continued to use it. That does not mean that they used that terminology in agreement.
Puritans? None of the bishops and leading lights of the Church of England saw them as anything but trouble. The Laws of Hooker are a refutation of them and of all Calvinists. He wrote in the 16th century during the reign of Elizabeth, and he wrote as a spokesman for the Church of England, unlike some who later simply speculated on behalf of no one.
Had even one Anglican bishop or even priest been deposed or forced to resign after expressing such a denial...
What one actually finds is emphasis on the one sacrifice of Christ as wholly sufficient, an emphasis from the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Canon of Consecration in the Book of Common Prayer manages to balance these two things, emphasis on the one sacrifice, and Eucharistic Sacrifice- that is if it is read without blinders on. Quote one bishop that explicitly denies Eucharistic Sacrifice from any time before the 19th century. during which century a movement formed to break away from the Anglicans- the Reformed Episcopal Church. Otherwise, we are speaking theoretically. The ones I can quote did not stick around, but went on to create their Declaration of Principles instead.
WO indeed confirms Catholic doubts about the validity of Anglican orders...
By that reasoning, blaming the parents for the child's sins, we have to blame the Catholic Church for the creation of the Arian heresy in Alexandria. It is a dangerous argument, and should not be tossed about so lightly. Every heresy arises from within the Church, and every apostasy rebels first against its closest church, its own, before parting with the whole Church. Therefore, your point on this does not persuade me.
I suspect there are two main reasons why Rome has not heretofore taken the Continuum that seriously.
Excuse me, but a certain Cardinal Ratzinger, now elevated and known as Pope Benedict XVI, has always taken the Continuum seriously. You have made an incorrect assumption. This makes what follows less than worthwhile.
About the TAC and Rome, I should not say anything here at all.
Fr. Hart,
Quoting me: "given that Anglican bishops were, and still are (albeit under a different disciplinary regime), free to deny the sacrificial nature of the mass"
Then back to you: "Yes, but since when? And, I mean that literally."
Well, I would say since Hooper. In this day an age, I understand that the AB of Sydney is on record as a memorialist.
" The actual Reformation period, and the next few generations, used theological terminology that had been common in the Catholic Church for debates leading up to the 16th Century, and so they continued to use it. That does not mean that they used that terminology in agreement."
Perhaps you should have another careful look at Cranmer's 1550 ordinal. Far from simply removing any positive references to "the sacrifices of the masses" as you put it, it carefully omits any notion to the role of the priestin offering sacrifice, limiting his responsibilities to that of pastor and teacher. This isn't probative, but given the eucharisting controversies of the time, it is rather telling.
"Excuse me, but a certain Cardinal Ratzinger, now elevated and known as Pope Benedict XVI, has always taken the Continuum seriously. You have made an incorrect assumption. This makes what follows less than worthwhile."
We are quibbling here over the meaning of "taking seriously". The point was made in the context of an absence of theological dialogue. Ratzinger is now Pope, and however "seriously" he may take the Continuum personally, there still isn't a dialogue or any immediate prospect of one outside the context of the TAC request for reunion.
Hooper, who was placed in Fleet prison because he wouldn't submit? The man who afterward relented and conformed, known before as "the father of non-conformity"? The man who set up the stranger churches for people who were not in the C of E? Not a very strong case. His life seems to be evidence for my case, not yours.
About Bp. Jensen in Sydney, he is a heretic on the subject, and favors a very weird thing called "lay celebration." He goes about in a tie, and seems to think he is a Baptist preacher. I wish he would become one. He is also a contemporary of ours, and his point of view is not relevant.
I am quite well aware of the Ordinal, and how it parts company with Bucer's Lutheran Ordinal in very significant ways. It is the differences that actually reveal the most important facts. If you take a look at Saepius Officio, you will see that the defense of the Ordinal includes the attempt by its authors to conform to the Patristic period. If you read the Preface, you will see nothing to justify the charge that any change of sacramental theology has been set forth.
And, I would argue that implications of consistency are in the ordination rites themselves, the substance of which makes use of older Latin ordinals. This includes the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, with the use of scriptures that identify each order respectively. The criticisms I have seen, in the past, indicate that not everybody has researched the older Latin rites.
there still isn't a dialogue or any immediate prospect of one outside the context of the TAC request for reunion.
Right. There isn't any dialogue except for the dialogue. Do you really mean to put this forth as meaningful?
This may be of some interest:
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspo...-
sacrifice.html
Fr. Hart,
"Hooper, who was placed in Fleet prison because he wouldn't submit? The man who afterward relented and conformed, known before as "the "father of non-conformity"? The man who set up the stranger churches for people who were not in the C of E? Not a very strong case. His life seems to be evidence for my case, not yours."
You really should try to take the edge off some of your posts.
I know Hooper is not a strong case, though significantly he was ultimately condemned by a Catholic ecclesiastical court and not an Anglican one (which is not to deny that his execution was unfortunate). I brought him up not as an exemplar but because you asked "Since when?" Similarly I brought up the AB of Sydney, not because I see him as a champion of contemporary Anglican orthodoxy, but to demonstrate continuity to the present and that memorialism still exists in Anglicanism even if it is probably a minority taste.
Now I understand, on the other hand, that you have great respect for Hooker as you seem to quote him as if he were one of the Church Fathers whenever you get the chance. I am not, of course, going to claim that he was a memorialist, but he had this to say in defence of continued Anglican use of the title "priest" for its clergy: "as for the people, when they hear the name [priest] it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice than the name of a senator or of an alderman causeth them to think upon old age, or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient because years were respected in the nomination of both" (Eccles. Polity, V, lxxviii, 2)." This is a somewhat curious observation for the spokesman for a denomination that would claim continued belief in the sacrificial nature of the mass as a central doctrine.
"I am quite well aware of the Ordinal, and how it parts company with Bucer's Lutheran Ordinal in very significant ways. It is the differences that actually reveal the most important facts. If you take a look at Saepius Officio, you will see that the defense of the Ordinal includes the attempt by its authors to conform to the Patristic period. If you read the Preface, you will see nothing to justify the charge that any change of sacramental theology has been set forth."
That isn't the argument. It's not that the ordinal was changed with a view to imposing a new sacramental theology (though some Protestant radical may have had this as their ultimate aim) , but that it was changed in such a way as not to exclude an essentially Zwinglian understanding of sacramental order, thus from the Catholic perspective giving cover to sacramental heresy.
"The criticisms I have seen, in the past, indicate that not everybody has researched the older Latin rites."
I am well aware of this Anglican line of argument. (I do try to follow both sides in a debate.) The problem is that the Latin ordinals had been changed and tightened progressively over the centuries with a view, specifica
(continued)
I am well aware of this line of argument. (I do try to follow both sides in a debate). The problem is that the Latin ordinals had been changed and tightened progressively over the centuries with a view, specifically, to clarify the purpose of the rite and to exclude erroneous understandings. In what way was the 16th century Latin ordinal so deficient as to require changing? I ask this pointedly as it was changed twice: once under Edward and, after it had been reversed back to its original form under Mary and all those wishing to keep their orders had to be reordained, it was changed yet again to be used in Parker's ordination as AB. Why exactly did references to the laying on of hands, the invocation of the Holy Spirit and specific responsibility for the eucharist have to be removed from the Latin ordinal if it was not to exclude any mystical supernatural role from both the ordination process and its object, the priest (deacon or bishop)?
Sorry I have been using a different computer and the combox didn't seem to recognize me, hence the "anonymous"
Hooper was thrown in prison by Henry VIII for publicly arguing positions that offended the King and the bishops.
Your quotation of Richard Hooker is drawn from an argument that required him to first state a problem before stating the position he was going to make. This is not unlike the method used by St. Thomas Aquinas. Hooker defended the word "priest" (and the use of the word "sacrament" for Holy Orders -Book IV). The Church of England retained the word "priest", so Hooker's argument was for its continued usage. All of his arguments were in favor of the C of E polity. So,you have broken off a little piece that was not a statement of his own position at all.
About the ordinals: The Anglicans were correcting a perception about "sacrifices of masses" that was not really Catholic doctrine at all. The essential language of sacrifice was still contained in the actual "Masse" of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer.
Avoiding a wrongly perceived idea is not a denial of doctrine. The correction was necessary.
The problem is simply this: Since the reign of Elizabeth, right up to the present time, Anglicans have explained their intention and meaning to Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholics have replied: "No, you mean what we say you mean, not what you say you mean. We know your mind better than you do."
Writing in 1624, speaking for the Anglicans, a priest named William Bedell wrote about sacrifice:
"[If by it you mean] a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy immolation made on the altar of the cross...we do offer the sacrifice for the quick and the dead, by which all their sins are meritoriously expiated, and desiring that by the same, we and all the Church may obtain remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christ's Passion."
Or was he simply wrong about what he himself meant to do every time he was at the altar?
Come to think of it, I am going about this all wrong. Let us define our terms.
By Eucharistic sacrifice, what do you mean? I assume you have read the Epistle to the Hebrews, and therefore know that Jesus offered "once for all" the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. That sacrifice cannot be repeated, and need not be.
It is obvious that Rome has been careful in teaching, in recent times, that Eucharistic Sacrifice is a mystical joining of the worship of the Church to the cross of Jesus Christ. The eternal priesthood, after the Order of Melchizadek, is Christ's priesthood. Every Mass is both the same Supper of the Lord, and the same death he died on Calvary. Every Mass takes us to the same table with Christ and the Apostles, and also to the cross. This is what William Bedell was saying long ago (quoted above).
What the English Reformers rejected (and the evidence is overwhelming, obvious and conclusive) is not what Rome teaches at all in this present time. It may be something Rome never taught. If by Sacrifice of the Mass you mean repeating sacrifices that are, in themselves, atonements for sin, the we reject it-and very strongly. But if you mean this mystical joining to the One Sacrifice of the Lord (which is clearly what Rome teaches now), then we agree.
Either way, what the English Reformers rejected was heresy; and they never said it was Rome's heresy necessarily. But, I see no evidence in those years that Rome tried to correct the misunderstanding. They have done so, however, since that time. Which, by the way, means they agree now with what Anglicans said long ago.
because it may be useful and informative, I am reposting a comment Fr.Matthew Kirby wrote on the Continuum.
There are many pieces of evidence that, whatever Cranmer may have thought as a private theologian, the C of E never denied that the Mass was a sacramental representation of the One Sacrifice. For example, there is the subscription in 1567 of Archbishop Parker and 14 other bishops to the mediaeval homily of Archbishop Aelfric (A.D. 995), containing the following (with spelling modernised): “Once suffered Christ himself but yet nevertheless his suffering is daily renewed at the mass through mystery of the holy housel.” Housel was the old English word for sacrifice, especially in reference to the Eucharist. The Church that authorised the Articles in 1562 and 1571 was the Church that in 1567 undeniably affirmed the renewal in “mystery” of the sacrifice of the Cross in the sacrifice of the Mass.
Also, the 28th of the 39 Articles says that the “Supper of the Lord is … a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death”. Article 25 defines sacraments as “effectual signs of grace”, that is, it teaches they effect what they signify. In other words, Christ’s Sacrifice and its salvific effects are represented and applied by this Sacrament according to the Articles themselves.
Fr. Hart,
You wrote: "Hooper was thrown in prison by Henry VIII for publicly arguing positions that offended the King and the bishops."
The incident you refer to occurred under Edward about five years after Henry's death. It also occurred before Hooper was made a bishop so it is not strictly relevant to my point regarding the absence of Anglican disciplinary measures against episopal eucharistic heretics.
As an untroubled Anglican (though the term had not been coined yet) bishop, Hooper remained a memorialist. He was only deposed for heresy (and later executed) under Mary, and his eucharistic views were judged sufficiently unremarkable for him to figure in the Anglican Book of Martyrs.
"Your quotation of Richard Hooker is drawn from an argument that required him to first state a problem before stating the position he was going to make. This is not unlike the method used by St. Thomas Aquinas. Hooker defended the word "priest" (and the use of the word "sacrament" for Holy Orders -Book IV). The Church of England retained the word "priest", so Hooker's argument was for its continued usage. All of his arguments were in favor of the C of E polity. So,you have broken off a little piece that was not a statement of his own position at all."
It might help if you could quote Hooker explicitly on the sacrificial nature of the mass. Describing the eucharist as a "sacrament" isn't good enough.
"About the ordinals: The Anglicans were correcting a perception about "sacrifices of masses" that was not really Catholic doctrine at all."
And they did this by removing a formal description of the priest's eucharistic role, by removing the invocation to the Holy Spirit, and by removing any references to the laying on of hands? All these fatal deletions were necessary and intended to address a "perception about sacrifices of the masses" that is found nowhere reflected in the 16th century Latin ordinals? It doesn't strike you as amazingly coincidental that all these changes were made at a time when radical Protestantism in England and on the continent was challenging the supernatural nature of the priesthood?
"The essential language of sacrifice was still contained in the actual "Masse" of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer."
The point, however, was that it was lacking from the Edwardian ordination process itself. By way of analogy, if baptism isn't offered explicitly in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit it is invalid even if the three Persons figure elsewhere in the rubrics.
"Avoiding a wrongly perceived idea is not a denial of doctrine. The correction was necessary."
If deletion of the priest's responsibilities, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the laying on of hands were all "necessary", why were they brought back in later Anglican ordinals?
"The problem is simply this: Since the reign of Elizabeth, right up to the present time, Anglicans have explained their intention and meani
(continued)
"The problem is simply this: Since the reign of Elizabeth, right up to the present time, Anglicans have explained their intention and meaning to Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholics have replied: "No, you mean what we say you mean, not what you say you mean. We know your mind better than you do."
No, Fr. Hart, the problem is that the Anglican Church has spoken with many discordant voices on the subject--some orthodox, some not--particularly at the critical time of the composition of the Edwardian ordinals.
You can quote all the orthodox Anglican pronouncements you want. Insofar as Anglican bishops were and remain free to deny belief in the sacrificial nature of the mass, Anglican orders must be deemed by Rome as deeply suspect at best. Catholicism simply does not allow for that level of theological diversity. All the sacraments must demonstrably have proper form AND intent to be valid.
The problem, as you put it, lies in the very comprehensiveness of Anglicanism. One bad apple (or bishop) spoils the barrel.
When the Church of England resumed communion with Rome under Mary, all clergy ordained under the Edwardian ordianl who submitted and wished to continue in ministry were reordained absolutely. This clearly demonstrates that the Catholic bishops at the time considered the Edwardian rite invalid.
What I find really puzzling, however, is why you and other Anglicans even care what Rome thinks of your orders. One never hears Lutherans whiunging about Rome not recognizing *their* orders. It's only a problem for Anglican clergy wishing to cross the Tiber while continuing with their ministry. If they can't accept Rome's ruling on the matter, then they *shouldn't* consider crossing in the first place.
I meant Edward, in the Hooper matter. It is called a typo.
What you fail to understand is that I believe the Anglicans were right to reject the erroneous view of Eucharist Sacrifice that prevailed at that time. Furthermore, that view is not what Rome teaches, at least not now. It was a view that I described on my own blog quite accurately: It gave the impression that Christ was offered again and again; this is what they rejected, because it obscures and even denies the full "once for all" sacrifice of his death on Calvary, and makes each Mass an isolated sacrifice for sin.
That doctrine is not what Rome teaches, as I say, at least not now. But, it is exactly the thing that Anglicans meant to deny. It needs to denied, corrected and refuted if it ever rears its ugly head again. To deny that misinterpretation of Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is obviously what was happening, is to seek a remedy against error and restore true Catholic faith. Rome has caught up with us on this matter, finally getting around to better and clearer teaching for the people.
You asked:
If deletion of the priest's responsibilities, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the laying on of hands were all "necessary", why were they brought back in later Anglican ordinals?
The "deletion" you speak of never really happened in the first place, for the Ordinal never denied any of this. The fact that they used the same words without any suggestion of a new definition makes your argument baseless. That the priest forgives sin, and is a minster of God's word and sacraments says all that needs to be said. As minister of the sacraments, a priest, celebrates at the altar. This was not hidden- and certainly never denied.
No, Fr. Hart, the problem is that the Anglican Church has spoken with many discordant voices on the subject--some orthodox, some not--particularly at the critical time of the composition of the Edwardian ordinals.
The formularies were not discordant, or even varied.
One bad apple (or bishop) spoils the barrel.
If that is true, then Rome lost all of its validity very long ago. Rather Donatist sounding.
Your point about Queen Mary's reign says a lot about the politics of the time- and nothing more.
I forgot to answer your question:
why were they brought back in later Anglican ordinals?
To clear up any impression that the Puritans had won a victory, and to put them in their place. They were brought back to reaffirm what had been the position of the Church of England all along.
I should add one more thing. Bear in mind that Hooper and his whole"generation" were killed off by Mary Tudor. They left behind no lines of Succession.
Archbishop Parker and his bishops officially endorsed the homily of Archbishop Aelfric (quoted above). This tells us what they believed.
Fr. Hart,
"I meant Edward, in the Hooper matter. It is called a typo."
I would call it a "mistake", but lest we be tempted to question your inerrancy in matters historical...
"What you fail to understand is that I believe the Anglicans were right to reject the erroneous view of Eucharist Sacrifice that prevailed at that time."
With all due respect, your beliefs here are hardly relevant. What matters is Rome's understanding of the issue as we are dealing with Rome's assessment of the validity of Anglican orders. Rome accepts that Anglicans consider their own orders valid. I accept that you consider them so. What I and Rome do not accept is that *we* should consider them so.
"Furthermore, that view is not what Rome teaches, at least not now. It was a view that I described on my own blog quite accurately: It gave the impression that Christ was offered again and again; this is what they rejected, because it obscures and even denies the full "once for all" sacrifice of his death on Calvary, and makes each Mass an isolated sacrifice for sin. That doctrine is not what Rome teaches, as I say, at least not now. But, it is exactly the thing that Anglicans meant to deny. It needs to denied, corrected and refuted if it ever rears its ugly head again. To deny that misinterpretation of Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is obviously what was happening, is to seek a remedy against error and restore true Catholic faith. Rome has caught up with us on this matter, finally getting around to better and clearer teaching for the people."
Ah yes, the back handed slur! And when did Rome ever teach such rubbish?
You asked:
If deletion of the priest's responsibilities, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the laying on of hands were all "necessary", why were they brought back in later Anglican ordinals?
"The "deletion" you speak of never really happened in the first place, for the Ordinal never denied any of this."
This is a red herring! No one claims Anglicanism "denied" the sacrificial nature of the mass. The claim, and you hav eyet to refute it though I have spelled it out several times already is that the deletion provided cover for Anglican bishops in good standing then and now who are on record as denying the sacrificial nature of the mass.
"That the priest forgives sin, and is a minster of God's word and sacraments says all that needs to be said. As minister of the sacraments, a priest, celebrates at the altar. This was not hidden- and certainly never denied."
This may have been good enough for Canterbury, but it's not good enough for Rome, which is why Rome doesn't recognize Anglican orders. Other than the forgiveness of sin, how do the functions you have described differ from those performed by a Lutheran or Calvinist minister? Simply describing the eucharist as a sacrament does not clarify its sacrificial nature as most officiating Protestant ministers and pastors will testify.
"The formularie
Fr. Hart,
"Bear in mind that Hooper and his whole"generation" were killed off by Mary Tudor. They left behind no lines of Succession."
So you admit the line of succession was broken. What's the issue then?
"Archbishop Parker and his bishops officially endorsed the homily of Archbishop Aelfric (quoted above). This tells us what they believed."
Even if true, Parker and his line of bishops were ordained by clerics themselves invalidly ordained using the Edwardian ordinal which the Church determined was deffective. For Rome you need proper form AND proper intent. You need validly ordained bishops using valid ordinals with a clear understanding and belief in what the rite involves.
If Rome were just out to stick it to Anglicanism, it wouldn't conditionally reordain Anglican clergy who can trace their ordination to the Dutch touch. The fact that conditional reordination occurs in appropriate cases demonstrates that Rome seeks to consider each case objectively on its merits according to consistent principles.
With all due respect, your beliefs here are hardly relevant.
This is the arrogant reply that I have come to expect. This is the entire Roman argument in a nutshell. And, what it means is that when Anglicans explain their own beliefs, and their own meanings, Roman Pitbull polemicists refuse to listen, make up B.S. stories, and say "we know your mind better than you do."
Well, you do not know our mind. You refuse to let us explain our own meaning. Therefore, none of your arguments are anything but a lot of crap. Until you listen when we speak for ourselves, your replies are hot air.
but it's not good enough for Rome
Really. As the documents of early ordinals prove, we are the ones who are consistent with the Fathers, not you.
No one claims Anglicanism "denied" the sacrificial nature of the mass
Finally, you got something right.
the deletion provided cover for Anglican bishops in good standing then and now who are on record as denying the sacrificial nature of the mass.
Your argument is sheer Nominalism. The objection to a popular perception (which Rome has only corrected in recent times) was corrected by the Anglicans. The endorsement of Aelfric's homily shows what the Anglicans did not mean. The writings they produced shows what they did mean. What they rejected was a superstitious idea that Christ was offered again and again,and that each Mass was itself an isolated sacrifice. Since that is what they rejected, and a view consistent with Rome's current teaching was what they endorsed, the entire argument raised by Roman polemicists is a refusal to face the truth. The truth must be hard, because it shows that Rome has changed its teaching over the centuries, and has conformed to Anglican (and Patristic) teaching at last!
So you admit the line of succession was broken. What's the issue then?
Matthew Parker was consecrated by bishops who survived Mary, because they went along with her. Their orders came from Rome. Do you deny Roman orders then?
The Apostolic Succession of our orders is completely valid. Saepius Offico tells why. I need not add one thing to it. Rome, by the way, has yet to reply to its content. Let's see. 1897 to 2008- that's quite a long silence.
It means we won the debate.
"The objection to a popular perception (which Rome has only corrected in recent times) was corrected by the Anglicans."
I meant to say: The objection was to a popular perception (which Rome has only corrected in recent times) corrected by the Anglicans.
From Fr Hart:
It gave the impression that Christ was offered again and again
From Michael de Vertreuil:
And when did Rome ever teach such rubbish?
I am intrested to read your answer to this question Fr Hart.
Lord have mercy.
Methinks Father Hart doth protest too much. Waaaaay too much.
diane, ducking the brickbrats
What you fail to understand is that I believe the Anglicans were right to reject the erroneous view of Eucharist Sacrifice that prevailed at that time."
Hmmm, I vaguely recall reading a book on this very subject--Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation I think it was called--which pretty effectively puts to rest the bogus charge that Catholicism taught an "erroneous view" of the Mass-qua-Sacrifice on the eve of the Reformation. The author of the book (whose name escapes me) is a very careful scholar with perhaps a deeper and broader knowledge of the primary sources than Father Hart has yet demonstrated. 
Fr. Hart:
"The Apostolic Succession of our orders is completely valid. Saepius Offico tells why. I need not add one thing to it. Rome, by the way, has yet to reply to its content. Let's see. 1897 to 2008- that's quite a long silence.
It means we won the debate."
And how many Anglicans were received into the Catholic Church as priests without (re-)ordination since the time of Saepius Offico?
Methinks that if you had won the argument, the number would be greater than 0.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that this was about to happen or that, but the fact is, it didn't.
The reality of the situation is, whether it's to you're approval or not, Rome does not view Anglican Orders as valid. That hasn't changed since 1897, as much as you want to cite Saepius Offico.
I think in Tract XC Newman said the 'sacrificeS of Masses' teaching condemned in the Articles of Religion is not what Rome ever really taught, which is correct.
That said, Rome has definitively spoken on Anglican orders in themselves: that with the Book of Common Prayer ordinal as it was in the mid-1500s the intent was not to create Catholic priests so the apostolic chain of succession was broken.
The interesting factor is the Dutch touch: Old Catholic co-ordainers of Anglicans since at least the 1930s.
Which make conditional ordination of ex-Anglicans possible.
But because there's doubt - because of the context these might still be Anglican orders - these men are never received in their orders. Requiring at least conditional ordination is a non-negotiable. It's the perfect acknowledgement of these men's past ministry without compromising anything, because, worse comes to worst, conditional ordination does exactly what absolute ordination does.
Here's a link to the book I cited above:
http://www.amazon.com/Eucharisti...k/dp/
0631103503
"d":
Thanks for the Amazon link!
"e"
Fr. Hart,
Quoting me: "With all due respect, your beliefs here are hardly relevant."
Then you: "This is the arrogant reply that I have come to expect. This is the entire Roman argument in a nutshell. And, what it means is that when Anglicans explain their own beliefs, and their own meanings, Roman Pitbull polemicists refuse to listen, make up B.S. stories, and say "we know your mind better than you do."
I think the point is that Roman Catholics know *their* mind better than you do. Anglican orders are invalid from *Rome's* perspective. *Your* perspective has no bearing on Rome's.
You have made the argument that the Edwardian ordinal was changed merely to counter perceptions of a fictitious and *non-existent* Roman teaching that each mass is a new sacrifice that repeats that of Christ on Calvary. Personally, I don't buy it and find the argument (made some some centuries after the fact) completely implausible. This is, after all, the same Anglican Church that edited out two Ecumenical Councils (to give cover to iconoclasts) and that fidled with the canon of the Old Testament (to provide cover for those condemning prayers for the dead).
But my personal views regarding the implausibility of the defence against "multiple sacrifices" argument are *also* completely irrelevent. It doesn't matter why Anglicanism changed the ordinals. The fact is that the ordinals were changed, and that the change made it possible for bishops like Hooper to deny the sacrificial nature of the mass, and that no Anglican bishop has ever been disciplined for such a denial. Rome doesn't have to look any farther than this.
"Well, you do not know our mind. You refuse to let us explain our own meaning. Therefore, none of your arguments are anything but a lot of crap."
No one has stopped you from "explaining" your position. Rome simply doesn't find the "explanation" satisfactory. And this is the point you keep missing: Anglicans are presumably bound to accept Anglicanism's reasoning in the matter, but Rome isn't. This makes Anglican orders valid for Anglicans, but *not* for Roman Catholics.
"Until you listen when we speak for ourselves, your replies are hot air."
I see, so until Rome agrees with you, it can't make a definitive determination on the matter even when it concerns exclussively clergy who wish to cease being Anglicans.
"As the documents of early ordinals prove, we are the ones who are consistent with the Fathers, not you."
Those Fathers weren't confronted with denial of the Real Presence or of the sacrificial nature of the mass.
It may also be worthwhile for you to consider that the invocation of the Holy Spirit, the reference to the laying on of hands (both drawn explicitly from Scripture) and the specifying of the ordinand's responsibilities were not unilateral Roman changes, but figured in the 16th century ordinals of both East and West, and had for centuries.
Quoting me: "No one claims
Fr. Hart,
Quoting me: "No one claims Anglicanism "denied" the sacrificial nature of the mass"
"Finally, you got something right."
I have made this point in the exchange before, it only now seems to have sunk in.
"The objection to a popular perception (which Rome has only corrected in recent times) was corrected by the Anglicans."
I suppose you are going to claim that this is a matter you have researched. Let me refer you to the following essay:
http://www.pjpiisoe.org/
pamphlet...crificeMass.pdf
Not every Reformation slander against Rome is worthy of belief. In this case, Rome reiterated its teaching prompty (1662 soon enough for you?) in response to this baseless slur.
"The endorsement of Aelfric's homily shows what the Anglicans did not mean."
Then why were Hooper and his successors down through the centuries never disciplined for their views, fatal as they were to the effectiveness of the rite?
"What they rejected was a superstitious idea that Christ was offered again and again,and that each Mass was itself an isolated sacrifice. Since that is what they rejected, and a view consistent with Rome's current teaching was what they endorsed, the entire argument raised by Roman polemicists is a refusal to face the truth. The truth must be hard, because it shows that Rome has changed its teaching over the centuries, and has conformed to Anglican (and Patristic) teaching at last!"
Please offer any proof--any proof whatsover--that Rome *ever* taught that each mass was an isolated sacrifice.
"Matthew Parker was consecrated by bishops who survived Mary, because they went along with her. Their orders came from Rome. Do you deny Roman orders then?"
You are mistaken, yet again. Matthew Parker was ordained by the following:
1. William Barlow, for whom no record he was ever ordained exists, though he served as bishop under Henry and Edward before being imprisoned under Mary and forced to "resign" in 1553. Note that acting as bishop without ordination was unusual but not unprecedented. Ordination could be postponed with the elected serving as "bishop" simply in the administrative sense without performing ordinations or confirmations.
2. John Scory, ordained in 1551 under the Edwardian ordinal and deprived under Mary.
3. Miles Coverdale, ordained in 1551 under the Edwardian ordinal and deprived under Mary.
4. John Hodgkins, for whom again there is no evidence of actual ordination (though he did serve as a bishop untroubled under Mary before being "reitred" to an auxiliary position as untrustworthy.
The point being, it doesn't matter who ordained Parker. He was ordained under the Edwardian ordinal which Rome considers invalid for the reason I must have stated a half dozen times already: the Edwardian ordinal gave cover to eucharistic heresy. Even if I were to accept your argument that this was not the intent, the fact nevertheless remains that it provided cover for eu
(continued)
The point being, it doesn't matter who ordained Parker. He was ordained under the Edwardian ordinal which Rome considers invalid for the reason I must have stated a half dozen times already: the Edwardian ordinal gave cover to eucharistic heresy. Even if I were to accept your argument that this was not the intent, the fact nevertheless remains that it provided cover for eucharistic heresy of which there is ample evidence amongst some Anglican bishops since Hooper.
I might add that in pasing that your two statements
"Bear in mind that Hooper and his whole"generation" were killed off by Mary Tudor. They left behind no lines of Succession."
and
"Matthew Parker was consecrated by bishops who survived Mary"
are mutually contradictory.
"The Apostolic Succession of our orders is completely valid. Saepius Offico tells why. I need not add one thing to it. Rome, by the way, has yet to reply to its content. Let's see. 1897 to 2008- that's quite a long silence."
Rome doesn't have to reply as it does not address Rome's objection (and neither have you). At best, it merely denies its force.
You fail again to get the point. The line survived, and it was all from Rome. We acknowledge no break. "Hooper's generation" was a pun about linesof succession. I am sorry if it was too subtle.
1. Barlow's consecration has not been challenged by Rome for decades, and that is because Roman scholars have admitted that their former research was wrong.That is very old news. Furthermore, the story you repeated is probably the result of a deliberate lie, as was the Nag's Head Tavern fable. (Of course,maybe you believe that one too.)
So, Rome never taught that each Mass was an isolated sacrifice,you say? You have stepped into my parlor. I was hoping you would say that.
Yes, the teaching of Rome itself was not the cause of the superstitious misunderstanding that I described. Their neglect of teaching was, and I doubt that you can disagree.
But, this is what matters: Your own argument means that the Church of England and the Church of Rome would have had no difference in their teaching on Eucharistic Sacrifice (as Anglican apologists have been saying since the early 17th century). The official endorsement of Aelfric's homily makes the older doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice the official Anglican view, equal among all the formularies.
The reason that Hooper and others needed no correction is obvious from all the actual writings of reformers who condemned the "sacrifices of Masses," a view that you yourself know to have been equally repugnant to all learned Catholics everywhere. What they condemned they also described and defined: You have made it clear that what they described and defined was not the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice, but a different doctrine that Rome never taught.
Wm. Bedell tried to tell the Church of Rome this simple fact in 1624. Rome would not let Anglicans explain themselves then, as you will not allow now. Frankly, these facts render all of your argument absolutely null and utterly void. You are arguing, as was Apostolicae Curae, against positions that Anglicanism never held at all.
Rome doesn't have to reply as it does not address Rome's objection (and neither have you).
Well, yes Saepius Officio did address Rome's objection (and so have I). Obviously, that was the whole point in writing it. Your are right that Rome has no obligation to respond; but they also have no desire to do so. They have not refuted Saepius Officio, and that is because they cannot refute it. Nobody can.
Fr. Hart,
"Barlow's consecration has not been challenged by Rome for decades, and that is because Roman scholars have admitted that their former research was wrong.That is very old news."
For the sake of the argument, I will grant you this one as I have not researched Barlow extensively and you may well be better informed in the matter than I am.
It still doesn't change the fact that he used the Edwardian ordinal in Parker's ordination. There is no retrospection here. The Church had already made it clear it considered the Edwardian ordinal invalid as can be seen from the absolute reordinations required once communion had been (temporarily) restored.
Barlow and co. knew this when they ordained Parker, but used the Edwardian ordinal anyway. This testifies to the fact they themselves considered it valid. But why it should follow that Rome should change its mind just because some Anglicans insist they were right all along must escape any objective observer.
"Yes, the teaching of Rome itself was not the cause of the superstitious misunderstanding that I described."
Then why spread the frankly scurrilous canard by suggesting Rome only reversed or clarified its position recently? Have you no sense of ethics or intellectual integrity when disputing? Is any slur castable so long as you feel it might add traction to your arguments?
"Their neglect of teaching was, and I doubt that you can disagree."
Since you ask, my own personal view is that Rome should have taken more seriously quite a number of popular superstitions and marginally heretical claptrap circulating at that time and in earlier centuries. Had it done so, the Reformation might well have been avoided.
I do recognize, however, that the technological context was a new one, given the invention of the printing press which permitted rapid dissemination of both nonsense and of difficultly verifiable reports of such nonsense. This was a situation for which Rome found itself ill-prepared. My presumption is that Rome had been well aware of the existence of heretical popular superstitions, but tended to dismiss their importance by ascribed them to naive piety and invincible ignorance. So long as its own doctrine was pure and its authority remained unchallenged, Rome probably expected to be able get around to a fuller and sounder popular catechetical education eventually, in the fullness of time. It should have known better given its earlier experience with Catharism.
This, however, is my own personal view. It explains somewhat, but it doesn't excuse much. The Church might be infallible, but it isn't impeccable or inerrant, or at least doesn't claim to be.
"But, this is what matters: Your own argument means that the Church of England and the Church of Rome would have had no difference in their teaching on Eucharistic Sacrifice (as Anglican apologists have been saying since the early 17th century). The official endorsement of Aelfric's homily
(continued)
"But, this is what matters: Your own argument means that the Church of England and the Church of Rome would have had no difference in their teaching on Eucharistic Sacrifice (as Anglican apologists have been saying since the early 17th century). The official endorsement of Aelfric's homily makes the older doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice the official Anglican view, equal among all the formularies.
The critical difference is that the Church's doctrinal formularies are fully binding on all bishops in communion with Rome. Those bishops who dissent are deposed (or leave).
Whatever the Church of England's formularies or the statement of this or that reasonably orthodox Anglican bishop, there is no history of enforcement of doctrinal conformity where the Anglican episcopate is concerned (except notably in matters affecting the claims of the crown).
Were this merely a theoretical problem, it could perhaps be glossed over. But the continued presence in good standing from the very beginning of Anglican bishops denying either or both the Real Presence and/or the reality of eucharistic sacrifice, whatever the statements or formularies of their more orthodox colleagues, simply saps those statements and formularies of any credibility.
"The reason that Hooper and others needed no correction is obvious from all the actual writings of reformers who condemned the "sacrifices of Masses," a view that you yourself know to have been equally repugnant to all learned Catholics everywhere. What they condemned they also described and defined: You have made it clear that what they described and defined was not the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice, but a different doctrine that Rome never taught."
Hooper remained a memorialist to the moment of his death. Is memorialism not, in your view and that of the undivided Church, a fatal eucharistic heresy? Hooper flatly denied the sacrificial nature of the mass in *any* form and was tried and executred for his beliefs, after communion was restored, because he refused to recant. He had held these views for a long time, and while Cranmer and Ridely disagreed with them, they didn't stop Hooper from becoming an Anglican bishop, limiting themselves to briefly sending him to prison over the "vestments" affair prior to his ordination.
"Wm. Bedell tried to tell the Church of Rome this simple fact in 1624. Rome would not let Anglicans explain themselves then, as you will not allow now."
No one has ever prevented you or any other Anglican from expressing himself on the matter. I remain unconvinced of the Anglican case, and Rome remains unconvinced--so unconvinced, in fact, that Ratzinger effectively described the Church's judgement in the matter as infallible.
"Frankly, these facts render all of your argument absolutely null and utterly void. You are arguing, as was Apostolicae Curae, against positions that Anglicanism never held at all."
Seriously and truthfully Fr., have
(continued)
Seriously and truthfully Fr., have you ever even read AC?
"Well, yes Saepius Officio did address Rome's objection (and so have I)."
I must have missed this. Please remind me again of where you or Saepius Officio described the Anglican efforts made to exclude or purge memorialists and other eucharistic heretics from the episcopate, or why "belief in multiple sacrifices" could not be adequately dealt with without removal of evocation of the Holy Spirit or deleting reference to the laying on of hands or omitting a thorough enumeration of the responsibilities of the ordinand i.a. vis-ŕ-vis the eucharist.
"Your are right that Rome has no obligation to respond; but they also have no desire to do so."
That's probably true. It sees no reason to revisit the issue as Anglicanism hasn't offered new arguments Rome hadn't already heard in the 16th century. This doesn't mean outside factors (such as the Dutch touch) might not have changed matters materially. But as far as the Edwardian ordinal is concerned, the historical doctrinal context makes the Anglican claim of the reasons for the change largely beside the point. Anglicanism's very comprehensiveness condemns it. If you cannot trust an Anglican bishop to believe and teach the sacrificial nature of the mass, you simply cannot trust Anglican ordinations.
"They have not refuted Saepius Officio, and that is because they cannot refute it. Nobody can."
Saepius Officio has convinced no Catholic theologian or canonist that I know of. Perhaps you might take this as a hint that it really doesn't address the Catholic objections.
You keep up throwing up red herrings such as non binding and unenforced doctrinal affirmations by some Anglican bishops, and historically questionable post facto statements of motive. These are hardly "irrefutable" proofs of the validity of Anglican orders. What Rome would have required would have been unambiguous disciplinary action from the very beginning against eucharistic heretics demonstrably existing within the Anglican episcopate. This neither you nor Saepius Officio can provide for the very simple reason that there has never been any such enforcement.
But why stop at Rome? Was there ever an Anglican bishop accepted into Eastern Orthodox orders prior to the Dutch touch on a simple profession of faith without absolute (re)ordination?
Coming to this late, but someone above said there was no Catholic refutation of Saepius Officio, and I don't know if the following count as such, but they do include critical evaluations of SO in case anyone is interested. If these or the content therein have already been referenced above, my aplogies.
http://www.angelfire.com/nj/mall.../
Messenger.html
http://www.angelfire.com/nj/mall...dication-
AC.pdf
john: Thanks for the "A VINDICATION OF THE BULL ’APOSTOLICĆ CURĆ’: A LETTER ON ANGLICAN ORDERS BY THE CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP AND BISHOPS OF THE PROVINCE OF WESTMINSTER IN REPLY TO THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THEM BY THE ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY AND YORK" pdf!
This is excellent!
I'm surprised none of the interlocutors (especially given how knowledgeable and adept they are in these matters) has alluded to this earlier!
"I'm surprised none of the interlocutors (especially given how knowledgeable and adept they are in these matters) has alluded to this earlier!"
In deference to Fr. Hart, I assume that what he meant was an official revisiting of the issue by Rome in light of the "rebuttal" by the archbishops. This issue is a bone no one seems to want to let go of, and there have been any number of Catholic responses.
I find the particular response of the English bishops a bit stiff and, while thorough, uncharitable in a tone not calculated to win any Anglicans over to the Catholic point of view. So I prefer not to use it.
I was aware of Roman Catholic response to Saepius Officio, have written about it before, and still say, Rome has yet to respond. It was not from Rome, but was written by an Englishman named E. C. Messenger. It misquotes Saepius Officio(the truly clever way, by snipping things out of their context, or by ignoring how hypothetical questions were answered elsewhere in the same document) as if the writer was deliberately dishonest, or just a little thick. Maybe, he was simply under pressure,and this was the best he could churn out.
The alleged refutation to AC was not a refutation, but a repetition of the same things stated earlier, ignoring mention of things that they had reversed themselves on.
Not listening, not accepting our own interpretations of our own writings, was simple arrogance. It was not erudition, it was not scholarship, it was simply an English Roman Catholic's way of saying, "we refuse to listen to you." It is every bit as silly a response as it could have been. It never deals with the main arguments in Saepius Officio, or with the historical documentation produced by superior scholarship that the Church of England had in 1896-7, vastly superior to the scholarship of Rome at that time.
The fact remains, therefore, that Rome has not yet answered Saepius Officio, and an essay in "The Reformation, the Mass, and the Priesthood" certainly amounts to nothing but a very clumsy bit of academic fluff. (By 1937 Rome did not want to argue this matter).
What you just can't accept is that fact that the Anglicans in the 16th century were addressing the corruptions of their time, and that those corruptions distorted Catholic teaching so badly that the terms of that day no longer apply, because we no longer use the same words in the same way (i.e., none of us do. Not Roman Catholics or Traditional Anglicans). The C of E did not discipline those specific bishops in those early years, because what they condemned was described and defined (here I have to repeat myself), and what they were rejecting cannot truly be called Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Besides, I have already proved that they never rejected Eucharistic Sacrifice, in fact that not one of them rejected it. They clarified a rejection of Masses as sacrifices (plural) each one in and of itself, because that idea negates Christ's once for all sacrifice, as clearly taught in the Epistle to the Hebrews ( and, this Hooper fellow, who gets so much attention, was the "father of non-conformity" before, not after, his consecration).
Now you bring up the Real Presence. Did you not know that what they rejected was not the Real Presence, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation as it was commonly misunderstood in that era? Hell, it was still misunderstood half way through the 20th century, as well I know. All you have to do is read their writings, and you see that they rejected nothing more than what the current
Michaël de Verteuil:
Thanks for the information (and all your seemingly erudite responses throughout the thread as well)!
The only bit I know concerning this issue concerning the Anglican orders is limited to only that which had been raised by those Anglican Priest converts interviewed in the EWTN program The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi.
The type of response that Fr. Hart has been giving here is not unlike theirs; that is, when these folks were but Anglo-Catholic clergy, they had often considered themselves valid "Catholic" priests even though, unfortunately (at least, to their thinking then), they felt ever bewildered at why Rome does not.
That is why I am very grateful to both you gents, who seem relatively well versed in the matter (more notably, the relevant history and theology), discussing this to such an elaborate extent.
(continued)
Pope has called "A crude material understanding." See God is Near Us. If Pope Benedict XVI had written that in the 16th century rather than the twentieth, the C of E would have written only38 Articles, not 39 (written by then Archbishop Ratzinger, I think before he was a cardinal)
Now, you bring up the Orthodox. Between 1922 and 1976, when Orthodox churches were few and far between, the Orthodox faithful were given letters from their bishops allowing them to receive the sacraments of Anglican priests (please don't quote that letter from one bishop in 1904. His own Archbishops and Patriarchs overruled him,as this was later). In 1930, the Ecumenical Patriarch wrote his Christmas letter to Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Lang, acknowledging and formalizing what had existed for eight years already; that is, the recognition of the "full validity of Anglican orders in a Catholic sense."
In 1978, after it became clear that churches within the Anglican Communion were “ordaining” women and intent on spreading this untraditional practice, Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras remarked: “…the theological dialogue [between the Orthodox and the Anglicans] will continue, although now simply as an academic and informative exercise, and no longer as an ecclesial endeavor aiming at the union of the two churches.” ((1) As quoted in Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement, (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), p.3).
You are aware, I trust, the we left the Anglican Communion en masse 30 years ago due to the same error.
(cont.)
In the Christmas letter, the Ecumenical Patriarch said that "Anglican clergy do not need to be re-ordained, just as Anglicans do not need to be baptized again, in the event of their coming over to Orthodoxy." The letter recognized the valid consecration of Archbishop Parker, and the Anglican teaching on Eucharistic Sacrifice.
I ask that you refrain from keeping us in repetition mode. Since the 16th century communication between traditional Anglicans and Roman Catholics has improved (as has charity). This is why we see how much we really have had in common all along. If you want to discuss such things as Eucharistic Sacrifice and Transubstantiation, or Real Presence, let us have clarity in our definitions. Otherwise, we repeat the muddled and confusing misunderstanding of the 16th century.
I believe that informer years the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans had spoken past each other.
One clarification: I referred several times to the Christmas letter of 1930, but failed to point out that the content I mentioned above was merely quoted in that 1930 letter. It had been stated in a previous letter by the Ecumenical (or Oecumenical) Patriarch in 1922.
Fr. Hart,
Not that I have any interest in beating a dead horse, but there is more than a hint of wishful thinking involved here. Consider
http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/Old...c/
Orthotake.htm
This largely conforms to what former Anglican and now Orthodox bishop with Ecumenical Patriarchate, Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, has written on the subject. It might also be helpful to keep in mind that some Orthodox Churches (notably Greece) don't even recognize Anglican (or, to be fair, even Roman Catholic) baptism.
My very personal view is that the Phanar was handicaped in not sharing Rome's intimate 16th and 17th century historical experience with the Reformation in England. It was also not in a position to consult the full range of archival material available to Roman scholars and canonists. As such it may have been brought to accept at face value the selective perspective of Anglo-Catholics.
My suspicion is that the Russian Church (the largest by far) would not accept Anglican orders as valid, even under the terms described in the link.
If Moscow were to demur while Constantinople recognized as orthodox and validly ordained a whole Continuing Anglican substitute for the Anglican Communion, based on and according to the terms of the 1922 declaration, this would pose an interesting ecclesiological problem for Orthodoxy. It wouldn't change Rome's attitude on the matter one way or the other, however.
My advice for Continuing Anglican clergy genuinely concerned about Roman recognition of their orders is to work the Dutch touch angle. Check your episcopal "genealogy", carefully collect personal statements of orthodox belief on the nature of the eucharist and priesthood from as many Anglican bishops in your line of succession as possible and, if necessary, seek valid conditional reordination within your own or a sister denominations if you cannot otherwise avoid tracing through an Edwardian ordination.
It's a lot of work, and I know of no Anglican priest who has gone to this trouble without seriously considering crossing over to Rome in the first place.
It is not likely that you will present anything new to me. I have encountered Ware's misleading argument before.The fact that Orthodox Christians were allowed by their Patriarchs to receive Holy Communion from Anglican priests proves just how wrong Ware was. The wishful thinking was his.
The Oecumencial Patriarch, as well as those who wrote the other letters, were clear in their meaning. Attempts to rewrite history remind me of Granny on the Beverly hillbillies refusing to admit that the South lost the war. Ware's attempt to rewrite their letters is pathetic.
My suspicion is that the Russian Church...
Yes, Stalin did not like the British Empire, or any symbolic gesture made to it. So what?
About the rest: We have no reason to seek anything from Rome or the Orthodox. Why should we? Unity in the Church, yes; but some kowtowing for the sake of validity, which we possess already, no. I couldn't care less about the Dutch Touch. That term was coined by an Anglican priest who thought as little of the whole thing as I do.
Encyclical on Anglican Orders from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:] 1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history. 2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry. 3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders. 4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches
The Patriarch of JERUSALEM, 1923
The Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of his Synod on March 12, 1923, as follows: To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, First Hierarch of All England, our most beloved and dear brother in our Lord Jesus, Mgr. Randall. Greeting fraternally your beloved to us, Grace, we have the pleasure to address to you the following: Yesterday we dispatched to Your Grace the following telegram: ‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.' Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession. We have great pleasure in communicating to Your Grace, as the First Hierarch of all the Anglican Churches, this resolution of our Church, which constitutes a progress in the pleasing-to-God work of the union of all Churches, and we pray God to grant to Your Grace many years full of health and salvation.
(Signed) DAMIANOS
February 27/March 12, 1923 Official translation published in The Christian East, vol. IV, 1923, pp. 121-122. The Archbishop of the autonomous Church of Sinai expressed for his Church adherence to the decisions of Constantinople and Jerusalem.
==================================================
==============
The Archbishop of CYPRUS, 1923
The Archbishop of Cyprus wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the name of his Synod on March 20, 1923, as follows: To His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch Mgr. Meletios we send brotherly greeting in Christ. Your Holiness – Responding readily to the suggestion made in your reverend Holiness' letter of August 8, 1922, that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus under our presidency should give its opinion as to the validity of Anglican Orders we have placed the matter before the Holy Synod in formal session. After full consideration thereof it has reached the following conclusion: It being understood that the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church by the Sacrament of Order was not broken at the Consecration of the first Archbishop of this Church, Matthew Parker, and the visible signs being present in Orders among the Anglicans by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is supplied, which enables the ordinand for the functions of his particular order, there is no obstacle to the recognition by the Orthodox Church of the validity of Anglican Ordinations in the same way that the validity of the ordinations of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Church are recognized by her. Since clerics coming from these Churches into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are received without reordination we express our judgment that this should also hold in the case of Anglicans – excluding intercommunio (sacramental union), by which one might receive the sacraments indiscriminately at the hands of an Anglican, even one holding the Orthodox dogma, until the dogmatic unity of the two Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, is attained. Submitting this opinion of our Church to Your All-Holiness, we remain, Affectionately, the least of your brethren in Christ,
Cyril of Cyprus
Archbishopric of Cyprus. March 7/20, 1923 Published in The Christian East, vol. IV, 1923, pp. 122-123.
The Patriarch of ALEXANDRIA, 1930
After the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria found itself able to join in the recognition of Anglican Orders. The decision was announced in a letter from the Patriarch to the Archbishop of Canterbury as follows: To the Most Reverend Dr. Cosmo Lang, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, Greetings in the New Born Christ The Feast of the Nativity, according to the Flesh, of the Redeemer of our Souls being a most suitable occasion for us, as it were, to visit your Beatitude, our friend, by means of a letter, we come to you hereby with a heart that is filled alike with joy, that "unto us is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord," and with fervent prayers both for your health and for the peace and stability of the holy Churches of God over which you preside. At the same time, together with our greetings for the Feast, we send you as our gift the news, which we are sure will be good news, to you, that having derived the greatest gratification from the accounts which it has received, both of the marks of honor which were rendered in London, alike by your Grace and by the general body of your Church, to the office which is ours, and also of the happy results which by the favouring breath of the Holy Spirit have emerged from the contact of the Orthodox Delegation with the Lambeth Conference, our Holy Synod of the Metropolitans of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria has proceeded to adopt a resolution recognizing the validity, as from the Orthodox point of view, of the Anglican Ministry. The text of that resolution is as follows: "The Holy Synod recognizes that the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a genuine account [1] of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a real reception of the Lord's Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being thusia hilasterios [2] (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized." We rejoice to see the middle wall of partition being thrown down more and more, and we congratulate your Beatitude that under God you have had the felicity of taking the initiative in furthering that work. May the Lord Who was born in Bethlehem
The meaning of the above letters is clear as a bell. With all due respect for Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, et al, attempts to alter the meaning appear to be nothing but desperation. I do understand the embarrassment. I am embarrassed too, the way I would be if a black sheep marred the reputation of my family.
But, just because some AC Anglicans have betrayed Anglican and Catholic principles, does not mean that should.
And I won't.
Michaël de Verteuil:
By the way, you wrote:
"It might also be helpful to keep in mind that some Orthodox Churches (notably Greece) don't even recognize Anglican (or, to be fair, even Roman Catholic) baptism."
Any Orthodox priest who denies the indelible nature of baptism by "re-baptizing" a Roman Catholic or Anglican (unless he can show good cause for a specific case) is subject to being deposed and excommunicated. The fact that some of their nasty and ignorant priests have gotten away with it on occasion, does not change the rules.
Fr Hart,
Your comments suggest a lack of discernment in the difference between "valid" and "with grace." These distinctions are generally nonexistent in Western theology but they are quite real in Orthodoxy. One can have a "valid" apostolic succession and your orders and sacraments are still without grace because of heresy or schism.
Several references were made in the above quotes that favorably compared the validity of Anglican orders to those of the Roman Catholic Church. However what you seem to have missed is that at the time those words were written Roman Catholics converting into Holy Orthodoxy were being received by the Greeks through full Baptism and Chrismation, their “valid” orders not withstanding. That is because they were seen as being without grace. It must be noted that most Orthodox have since come to see this position as rather mean spirited in the refusal to extend economy, and few now are as rigorist in the manner which Roman Catholics are received.
However, it is a mistake to assume that because an Orthodox bishop or even group of bishops recognize that a particular sect has maintained the external forms of Holy Orders that this implies that those Orders are with Grace. Those mercifully rare instances where intercommunion was permitted have been roundly criticized by the vast majority of the world’s Orthodox both then and since as scandalous. The one thing which preservation of “valid” orders does is to permit a broader application of economy to those converting into Orthodoxy.
I think it would be fair to say that there has been in the past some diversity of opinion regarding the nature of Anglican orders within Orthodoxy. However I do not believe that such exists today. Also the Orthodox Church rarely extends recognition of orders to small schismatic splinter groups. This obviously produces endless confusion and fretting over who has and does not have "valid" orders. But much more significantly, it is an assault on the “oneness” of the Catholic Church. .The Orthodox position remains that heterodoxy is an impediment to what in the West is termed sacramental grace. There are no Mysteries outside The Church. Cyprian is very clear on this, and his position has always been and remains that of the Orthodox Church. (De Unitate) See also the excellent essay by Met. John of Pergamus on the Eucharist and The Unity of the Church in the First Three Centuries. http://tinyurl.com/5hs7qv
Con't below
Con't from above
This does not mean that retention of a valid apostolic succession is without importance, even among heretics. To quote Patriarch, Sergii (Stragorodsky) of Moscow in his essay “The Significance of Apostolic Succession in Heterodoxy”…
By the same token those who reject all signs of Apostolic succession in heterodoxy are likewise wrong, as is the case of extreme protectors of Orthodox dogma, but those are even more in error who see that succession as some value in itself which can be utilized without and outside of the Orthodox Universal Church. The heterodox groups have a great advantage who have preserved Apostolic succession in that the Church still considers them "of the Church" (ek tis ekklisias), "not yet foreign to the Church". She still preserves "a certain order of communion" with them, on the same level as she has with the sinners and those under penance. However if this impaired and hopeless communion does not lead to full unity with the Church in the one Eucharist, then all the advantages of such heterodox organizations fall away without any benefit. (Rom 9:4-5; 10:4).
http://tinyurl.com/64u5ra
Or to put it in somewhat simpler terms, St. John of San Francisco once observed to a friend who was Catholic that the Roman Church was like a very old and beautiful house with all of its electrical wiring intact. But the house is not connected to the power station. There is today some difference of opinion in Orthodoxy on whether that is true in reference to the RCC. However no such difference of opinion exists in reference to Anglicanism. I know of not one Orthodox hierarch today who acknowledges the grace of Anglican orders or the orders of any of the myriad schismatic Anglican sects.
Finally the term “nasty and ignorant” in reference to priests who are adhering to a strict application of the canons of The Church is I think, not conducive to polite discourse. Might we agree to refrain from such unpleasant polemics in the future?
ICXC
John
John:
Those priests are not adhering to a strict application of the canons of the Church. The Orthodox chrismate converts, including those from Rome. They do not baptize them, unless they are disobeying or misunderstanding the canons. But, you may argue that with the many Orthodox theologians and priests I know, since I have no doubt about their erudition.
Nonetheless, two problems come up. First, the Patriarchs approved the reception of communion by Orthodox from Anglicans. Unless you consider the Oecumenical Patriarch, the Metroplitan of Constantinople (with fellow Patriarchs) himself to have been a lowly prelate whose opinion counts for little, this is not a small issue.
The letters are clear in their meaning, and the history of what followed interprets them for us, not after the fact sophistry, no matter how impressive it appears.
But what truly matters for this discussion is not the usual round of confusion about what the Orthodox "mean" by what they say (and how they possess genius for always not quite meaning what can be understood by anybody else). What matters is a point you made, and that was contained in the letter from the Patriarch of Jerusalem (above): "the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession."
About the use of "nasty" and "ignorant," I was speaking of specific persons I have had the displeasure of meeting. Their excuses for rebaptizing never included any mention, by the way, of Canons. Neither did they show charity. More like a bitterness toward Rome.
OOPS, I forgot to emphasize this "...for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession"
John:
It looks like the Patriarch of Jerusalem suffered from the same "lack of discernment" that I do. Eh- What did he know?
Fr. Hart,
Thank you for your reply and your clarification of the terms you employed. I readily confess that yes we do have some people running around who are lacking in both charity and a sound grounding in church discipline and doctrine. However, to specific points you addressed (and did not address)…
I think the wording of the Pat. of Jerusalem (JP) is curious and frankly inconsistent with the position of his own local church. The JP is today one of three Orthodox Jurisdictions (the other two being the Serbian Church and the Russian Church Abroad) which still practice a very strict application of the canons when receiving converts. They almost always baptize and rarely receive (even Catholics) by economy. I think that whatever the opinion of the JP at the time it needs to be viewed in the light of the Church as a whole. Was this opinion received by the wider church and accepted? Has it withstood the test of time? These are the marks that Orthodox look at when considering controversial proposals. I think the answer to both questions is clearly “No.”
The positions adopted by the EP and the JP were highly controversial at the time. They were never accepted by most of the Orthodox churches including most significantly the Russian Church. And they are today utterly and universally rejected. In short while it is (painfully) clear that you are correct that at least two of the Greek patriarchs seemed disposed to accept the possibility of Anglican orders being sufficiently Orthodox to have retained at least on some level sacramental grace, this was at the very least a minority opinion which has since completely vanished within the Orthodox Church.
This brings us to the subject of the canons themselves.
A thorough discussion of the various methods for receiving converts into the Church can be found in the very exhaustive essay “On the Reception into the Orthodox Church” by Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pagodin), which may be read here http://tinyurl.com/4ofvr. However for the benefit of those who don’t have the time or inclination to read an admittedly long essay, I will briefly note the relevant canons. The Apostolic Canon XLVI clearly articulates the absolute inadmissibility of heterodox baptism. This is confirmed by Canon VIII of Laodicea (though Canon VII extends the possibility for reception by economy to some specific types of heretics). This was also formalized by the Council of Constantinople of 1756 (which was not accepted by most of the non-Greek churches and which as noted in my previous post has been largely set aside by all save the JP and the monks of Mt. Athos.).
Con't below
Con't from above
Traditionally reception by economy was understood to be permissible in cases where there was no question of heresy involving the Trinity. The fact that Anglicans (as almost all confessional Western Christian bodies) recite the Creed of the Council of Lyon (1274) and not the Creed of Nicea at the very least implies the possibility Trinitarian heresy. I don’t want to go off on a filioque tangent (that subject has been beat to death) so I will limit myself to noting that the addition to the creed is not accepted by Orthodoxy and is understood to have been anathematized by the Third and Eighth OEcumenical Councils .
The point however is that Holy Baptism is the normative method for receiving converts. Any other means (there are three that are canonically permissible) is by economy. As a bishop once explained to me, ‘It is never wrong to receive by baptism unless you’re bishop has told you not to.” In the case of the three jurisdictions (plus the Athonite monks) who normatively receive by baptism, they are fully within the canons of the Church to do so.
With respect to approved inter-communion, while it certainly occurred, it was quite controversial then and has not become less so with the passage of time. Neither the EP nor the JP have anything remotely similar to the authority of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. And in fact the EP has in recent times undertaken many acts which have raised eyebrows in the rest of the Orthodox world. The Russian Church never agreed with it and expressed its dismay at the time. (Stronger action was likely made impossible by the severe persecution the Russian Church was under at the time).
In closing I think it desirable to revisit a point I made and which you declined to address in your response to my original comment. While I readily concede an historical diversity of opinion in the Orthodox Church with respect Anglican orders, no such diversity presently exists. Whatever some Orthodox hierarchs may at one time have thought about Anglicanism there is near absolute unity now. Anglican orders are void of grace. No Anglicans clergy are received with their orders recognized. If you chose to become Orthodox and wished to become a priest you would have to be ordained in the Orthodox Church. And while the number of jurisdictions that refuse reception by economy is as far as I am aware limited to the three I mentioned, I can tell you that there is an increasing reluctance on the part of many clergy and bishops to give “the benefit of the doubt” to Anglican baptisms performed in recent decades. It remains to be seen if this issue will be addressed anytime in the near future.
ICXC
John
John
Why can't you simply accept the words of Archbishop Athenagoras? I have quoted him already. What ended the relations between the Orthodox and the Cnaterbury Communion was the "ordination"of women. Until then, the Orthodox received Anglican sacraments with full approval in many places where their own churches had not been built. The reason for the change was stated in the Dublin Agreed Statement of 1984, published by SVS Press.
And, that is the issue that divides us from the Canterbury Communion too.
What you say about baptism contradicts what every learned Orthodox theologian I know has said over the last several decades.
Come to think of it, I should clarify that last bit. I have no doubt that John is right about the principle (baptism in "heretical sects"). But, the issue is application of that principle. Among my circle are several converts from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy (none from the Continuum, but rather only from the Episcopal Church, and C of E). Some of these are very well-known priests and published theologians, and a well-known writer who is married to a priest. One is a priest who was baptized Roman Catholic as a child, and went from the Episcopal Church to Orthodoxy.
NONE of them was ever "re-baptzed," but merely chrismated. So, John is right about the principle, but mistaken as to its application.
About the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1923, he was simply adding his voice to the others,including the Metropolitan of Constantinople. The history of what was written, and what was practiced is in living memory. Attempts to explain it away are unimpressive.
John: It happened-live with that fact. It was women's "ordination" that ended it. Live with that fact too. And show some respect for your Fathers- that is, Patriarchs and Archbishops. They were not the ignorant clods that you seem to suggest they were.
Maybe it is time for the Continuing Anglicans and Orthodox to talk seriously. We left the Anglican Communion because it left us.
Fr Hart,
I must confess my disappointment in your reply. You are addressing me in a manner that seems to suggest that either I lacking in wits, or that I am making things up, or perhaps both. I did not invent the Apostolic Canons, or the OEcumenical Councils or the Councils of Trullo and Carthage. I did not invent that crazy guy named Cyprian and stick the “saint’ part in there just for amusement.
I am also somewhat distressed at the fact that you have chosen not to acknowledge the considerable amount of sourcing I have cited and linked. The Patriarch of Moscow is not exactly a nonentity in the Orthodox world either. You ask why can’t I accept the words of the EP? That would depend on what you mean by “accept” them. I certainly acknowledge that they were written or uttered. If you mean agree with them, I am unable to do so because he was clearly wrong. His words never gained universal or even widespread acceptance in Orthodoxy.
You are not Orthodox so I am going to make some points which may well be obvious to you. Please forgive me if you are already aware of these things but many non-Orthodox are not.
First the Ecumenical Patriarchate has no universal jurisdiction in the Orthodox Church. His specific jurisdiction is over an Orthodox Christian Church that has only a few thousand members left. On most Sundays the clergy in the Phanar outnumber the laity. If not for the EP’s asserting jurisdiction in the territory of other canonical Orthodox Churches such as N. America he would probably have trouble maintaining his position.
Over the last century the Ecumenical Patriarchate whose position is canonically established as Primus Inter Parus has gained a reputation for being something of a loose cannon in the Orthodox world. In the early 1920’s around the time that some of those documents you quoted were being written the EP also set about adopting a new calendar for the Orthodox Church (based closely on the Roman Catholic calendar), except he had (and has) no authority to do any such thing. The calendar was fixed by an OEcumenical Council and may not be altered without another one. Now just to be clear I am not saying that the reformed calendar is heretical. That’s silly and rather akin to saying my watch is heretical. Point in fact the new calendar is more accurate than the traditional church calendar. But the point is that he had no authority to make unilateral changes that impacted the entire Church. And in making the changes he unleashed the most bitter schism in the Orthodox Church since the Old Believers of Russia. A schism which I might add continues in full force to this day.
con't below
Con't from above
The EP’s involvement in the so called ecumenical movement has gone far beyond giving witness to the Truths of Orthodoxy. Both the current EP and his predecessors have engaged in activities which have frankly scandalized much of the Orthodox Church. Just this last Feast of the Apostles there was the EP in Rome, participating in (not simply attending as a courtesy) the Papal Mass in almost everything short of actual concelebration of the Holy Mysteries! And yes that’s expressly prohibited in the Canons as well.
The EP holds a see that entitles him to the first place of honor. But that honor does not translate into acceptance of every hair brained thing they decide to do or say. At least one of the current EP’s predecessors back in the day signed off on a lot of Calvinist nonsense and had to be deposed. More than a few of the Patriarchs have found themselves thrown into the harbor (and not by the Turks). I will stop with the examples as I think my point has been made (though I could go on).
There is no dogma of infallibility attached to any Orthodox hierarch. But there is a long tradition of the Orthodox laity serving as a check on the pretensions of bishops, who start to stray too far from the reservation. This is also true of other bishops and Orthodox synods. This brings me back to the point you don’t seem to want to accept. Whatever Athanagoros may have said, he was not speaking for the Orthodox Church as a whole. He lacked that authority. And much of what was done by the EP has been severely criticized not just by me, but by the other Orthodox churches including some of his activities with respect to tolerance of inter-communion with the Anglican Communion.
The fact is that most of the world’s Orthodox churches did not accept Anglican orders. Most importantly the Russian Church (about 2/3 of the world’s Orthodox Christians) never accepted them. It is to these bishops, the solid majority, that I will extend my respect.
Con't below
Con't from above
Now returning very briefly to the question of baptism… I am not surprised that your Orthodox friends and acquaintances were received by economy. Such has become standard practice in the “big three” jurisdictions here in N. America (The Greeks , OCA, and the Antiochians). Indeed this is pretty normal in most of the Orthodox world today. And I am not opposed to it in most cases. However it is important to note that what is being done is still reception by economy. That is to say we are relaxing a discipline of the Church for a specific good. It is possible in most cases because those being received by economy received a Trinitarian baptism using water and with a sacramental intent that at least fairly approximates what the Church intends when baptizing. In such cases the Mystery of Holy Chrismation is understood to repair the defects in the heterodox baptism and fill with grace that which was previously lacking it. This also is accepted to extend to Roman Catholic Holy Orders, though not Anglican orders. If any of the aforementioned conditions are absent then reception by economy is not possible. That is why, unlike the Roman Church; in Orthodoxy we generally do not accept Low Church non-confessional baptisms. If there is any real doubt the rule is to baptize. Better to err on the side of caution.
With respect to your suggestion of dialogue between Orthodoxy and some of the continuing churches that is something that is above my pay grade. However there are certainly cases where this has born fruit in the past. The Antiochians here in the United States have a growing Western Rite which although not yet embraced by all the jurisdictions, is nonetheless accepted by almost all Orthodox as canonical. However I must caution that no Orthodox jurisdiction will accept the orders of converting clergy. All WR clergy have to receive an Orthodox ordination.
I think the question that needs to be answered first is what would be the objective of that dialogue? If it is to bring at least some of the continuing Anglicans into the Orthodox Church (which I need to stress historically was never exclusively Byzantine) than I think it’s a great idea. From what you have quoted in your previous posts you seem to be suggesting that doctrinally you were Orthodox. If that is in fact your assertion then I would think some sort of corporate reception might be possible.
However if the purpose of the dialogue is something along the lines of recognition for the so called branch theory (formally anathematized by several Orthodox jurisdictions)… well let’s just say I am not sanguine.
ICXC
John
P.S. Its late here so please forgive any typos. Church is going to come early today :-(
A quick correction to the above where I wrote All WR clergy have to receive an Orthodox ordination.
That does not apply to Roman or Uniate clergy, though I have never heard of a uniate cleric going into the Western Rite.
-John (the tired one)
John:
You are right; I did not need to be told these things. I was already aware that the Orthodox Church is in a state of confusion and disunity, and that no one can speak for it with any authority. Your lot cannot agree among themselves on very important matters, such as baptism, and this says a lot for Rome (by comparison). I dismiss the Russian Church's decisions during the years of Lenin and Stalin, and the whole Cold War and everybody knows why that church had no freedom in that period. And, I do not recognize Moscow as a proper Patriarchate in any case, because it was not a Patriarchate in ancient times.
Nonetheless, the Oecumenical Patriarch has the "first throne." We know what the letters meant to the Orthodox churches who sent them, we know that they allowed their people to receive communion from Anglican priests, we know that serious efforts were underway toward the Union of the two churches. We know that only women's "ordination" - irrelevant to us, since we never have accepted it either- ended that. The record is clear and public.
Just because the effort to explain away history takes the form of many words, does not make it true or logical. If someone sends a thousand links to argue that Lincoln really died an old man in his bed, or to argue that the Holocaust never happened, it would not impress me either.
John wrote:
"It is possible in most cases because those being received by economy received a Trinitarian baptism using water and with a sacramental intent that at least fairly approximates what the Church intends when baptizing. In such cases the Mystery of Holy Chrismation is understood to repair the defects in the heterodox baptism and fill with grace that which was previously lacking it."
I hope all you Roman Catholics know that John is insulting you too.
But, then, since he argued, essentially, that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem in the 20s and 30s, were a pair of jerks who didn't know their behinds from a hole in the ground, he has insulted a lerge part of the Orthodox Church too.
But, at least he respects the Patriarch who held firm to Orthodoxy, but nonetheless admits to having been a lacky of the KGB.
Fr. Hart,
What you have to understand about the Orthodox (and I'm just learning this, too) is that they don't think like us! One cannot always apply logic to their statements; they could easily pull out a statement from one hierarch that will contradict what another has said, and they view them as both being valid (provided, of course, that such statements do not violate the clear teaching of one of the Ecumenical Councils). Their canons are not laws, they are closer to what we would consider guidelines.
In western terms, the best way of understanding their having allowed their faithful to receive the Eucharist from an Anglican priest is that, since the Anglican priesthood has maintained a valid succession, then, in the case where an Orthodox Christian cannot receive from an Orthodox priest, they can receive from an Anglican because God will consecrate that one particular host for them. It's not a general statement on their part regarding the validity of Anglican Sacraments, but rather that God will act through them for the benefit of an otherwise orphaned Orthodox.
In the same way (as I understand the Orthodox perspective), the Orthodox statements on Anglican Orders dating from the early 20th century are that Anglicans have maintained a succession of bishops demonstrably traceable to the Apostles, but not necessarily containing any Grace. Should the Anglican Communion come into communion with the Orthodox Church in question, it would not be necessary to re-ordain, because the form and person of ordination was valid; returning to communion with the Orthodox would supply the necessary grace for the orders to be valid.
Westerners untrained in Eastern Christian thought often don't understand these subtleties, because they contain distinctions foreign to western thought.
LP
Fr. Hart,
I will brief since I believe that our dialogue has reached a point where further correspondence would be of doubtful use. For the most part I am content to allow your posts to stand on their own merit. Others may judge them as they see fit. However I can not help but express my astonishment that while you are so determined to claim Orthodox recognition for your orders, your arguments to that end have become unsustainable without dismissing the largest by far of the world’s Orthodox Churches (the Russian). Of course the dismissal is patently spurious given that all of the other non-Greek jurisdictions (save briefly the Romanians) also declined to recognize the actions of the EP and that the Russian Church Abroad (hardly under Stalin’s thumb) went so far as to pronounce solemn anathema on the branch theory.
Not content however with dismissing 2/3 of the world’s Orthodox Christians and their hierarchs you also announced that you do not even recognize the patriarchal dignity of the First Hierarch of the Russian Church! In doing so you invoke a rational that logically also demotes in dignity the primates of four of the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches. This despite the fact that the very patriarchs that you demand I extend more respect to, all without question recognize their Patriarchal dignity and have done so in most cases for centuries. I am quite certain that His All Holiness will be utterly desolated to learn that neither he nor his brothers in Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia and Romania are in fact patriarchs. What, I shutter to think, would the Orthodox world do without your corrective insights into our ecclesiology and sacramental theology? This will undoubtedly be a strong inducement for Orthodox Christians to take the Continuum more seriously.
On which note, I observe that this dialogue has devolved into something uncomfortably close to an internet shouting match. That is generally my cue to withdraw from the discussion. The reader is respectfully invited to review our dialogue and read the linked documents carefully, and then draw their own conclusions.
Under the mercy,
John
[The Orthodox] could easily pull out a statement from one hierarch that will contradict what another has said, and they view them as both being valid...
As this flatly violates the principle of non-contradiciton, it confirms me in my suspicion that the Orthodox are as mad as hatters.
Just kidding. Kind of.
Seriously, I'm not sure that we can explain this away as "not thinking the way we do." It's a fundamental problem with Orthodox ecclesiology, as Father Hart correctly points out.
Of course, I believe there are pretty fundamental problems with Father Hart's ecclesiology, too.
And, on that note, I'm skedaddling!
Diane
Addendum: I didn't really mean "mad as hatters." Really, really. (Don't want to add fuel to this already raging fire..)
But I did want to suggest that perhaps the multiple contradictions in EO ecclesiology--the difficulty in getting the same answer from different Orthodox leaders to the same question -- might be a bug rather than a feature. Or, more accurately, a pretty buggy feature.
I have come to this thread late, but I will add two comments.
First, Michael de Verteuil is correct about the background and "episcopal lineage" of those four bishops who consecrated Matthew Parker in 1559. Barlow (presumably) and Hodgkins were consecrated according to the Pontifical; Coverdale and Scory according to Cranmer's Ordinal of 1550. Barlow, Coverdale and Scory were Marian Exiles and returned from exile in 1559 determined Protestants -- Coverdale so much so, that he refused the Queen's offer of a bishopric in 1559 (while Scory became Bishop of Hereford and Barlow Bishop of Chichester) -- while Hodgkins conformed to every change of regime from 1537 to 1561, holding the position of suffragan-bishop throughout that period. However, it should be noted that, whether through inadvertence or deliberately, the Act of Uniformity of 1559 restored the Prayer Book of 1552 (with modifications), but it did not restore the Ordinal, and so at law the Pontifical remained the only "legally vaild" ordination rites in England until 1568. In that year Parliament had to hastily pass an act conferring "legal validity" upon all ordinations undertaken or to be undertaken under Cranmer's Ordinal. The occasion for this was an attempt made to prosecute the imprisoned Catholic Bishop of London Edmund Bonner (bishop from 1540 to 1550 and again from 1553 to 1559; he died in 1569) for denying the Act of Supremacy. Since Bonner had been a bishop, he could only become liable to prosecution if he were to refuse the oath ministered to him by one or more bishops. He did refuse it, but then sought to overturn the case against him by arguing that those "bishops" who had ministered the oath to him were "no bishops" according to the law, because they had been consecrated by a legally invalid rite. After some hurried consultations with judges and lawyers, the Crown abandoned the case against Bonner, and had the bill conferring retrospective "legal validity" on ordinations under Cranmer's Ordinal since 1559 rushed through Parliament. Clearly, had Parker been consecrate according to the Pontifical none of this embarrassment would have arisen -- but just as clearly, three of Parker's four consecrators would almost certainly have refused to consecrate him using the Pontifical. This may have some relevance to the "intention" of the consecrators in 1559.
Secondly, on an earlier comment on this thread Fr. Hart wrote "... I couldn't care less about the Dutch Touch. That phrase was coined by an Anglican priest who thought as little of the whole thing as I do."
Well, yes and no. The term was coined by my friend Fr. John Hunwicke, now Vicar of St. Thomas the Martyr in Oxford. He is an Anglo-Papalist, but although he has confidence in the validity of Anglican Orders, he also has written (in a letter in my possession) that "we" (Anglicans) "owe a judicial submission to the papacy" (on that matter). In that same letter (written to me early in
(con't'd)
2003) he discussed at some length what will have to be done "the next time" (i.e., if and when Forward-in-Faith/UK manages to detach itself from the Church of England) in order "to bury the problem" (of Apostolicae Curae) and "get it right" (i.e., to have Orders whose sure validity Rome might recognize when the FIF/UK "free province" will be free to seek unity and communion with Rome).
I will gladly send a transcript of the greater portion of that letter to anyone who cares to e-mail me for it at tighe.at.muhlenberg.edu.
Bill:
Fr. Hunwicke's idea of "judicial submission" is clearly an evolution of the thinking of the C of E in 1930, receiving the Infusion in case of "eventual Reunion." The idea was to make it easier for Rome; it was never a doubt about Anglican Orders. If things really go forward between Rome and the TAC, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
LP:
I was waiting for an Orthodox commenter to make the same point, that in an Orthodox mouth it imparts grace, but not in the mouth of any schismatic. And, that they consider Roman Catholics equally schismatic, and their sacraments equally devoid of grace. That clearly is his position.
I would have been more gentle answering John's remarks if he had the manners to qualify his remarks with at least this much: "From an Orthodox perspective," or something like that. We do not need to be told, as if it were a matter of fact, that our scaraments are devoid of grace. Neither do we need to be toldthat this is the Orthodox view,when it is merely one possible Orth. view.
As it is, I want to take up a collection to buy him a sense of humor.
...they can receive from an Anglican because God will consecrate that one particular host for them. It's not a general statement on their part regarding the validity of Anglican Sacraments, but rather that God will act through them for the benefit of an otherwise orphaned Orthodox.
Okay, not that I am arguing for the Anglican side or even for Fr. Hart, for that matter; but doesn't this sound like some sort of extreme variation of ex opere operato except that in this case, it is with respect to the minister's Holy Orders rather than his virtue; that, according to the aforementioned, the sacrament remains valid even in spite of these for those receiving it?
Well, after this thread, if I ever want to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, with full assurance of absolute truth, I know who to ask.
Commenting by HaloScan
