The Freak Out over Anglican Ordinations

[Doom]

Okay, because Pope Leo invited the "archbishop of Canterbury," Sarah Mullaney, to the Vatican for some polite ecumenical rigamorale, people all over the Internet are freaking out. "Pope Leo XIII said Anglican ordinations are utterly null and void!" they complain.

About that...Leo XIII said that Anglican ordinations were invalid because a discontinuity arose when the rite of ordination was changed during the reign of Edward VI. That was the situation in 1896.

But what happened after that? Most Anglicans shrugged and said, "Who cares what Rome thinks?" and went on about their business.

But the Anglo-Catholic minority who wanted to believe the C of E has apostolic succession, started taking steps to address Leo's concern and to try to restore apostolic succession by, first changing the rite of ordination to one approved by Rome, and second, started recruiting bishops from the Old Catholics, the Polish National Catholic Chuch and sometimes even an Orthodox bishop, (in other bishops from Churches acknowledged as valid by Rome) to participate in ordinations.

Now, there is a question: Is this enough to restore apostolic succession where it was lost? At the very worst, this is merely an unanswered question. But there is also the possibility that some Anglican bishops and priests might be real bishops and priests, but tracing the lineage of any given priest to determine if he has valid Holy Orders is probably close to impossible.

Therefore, in the Ordinariate, an Anglican priest who seeks to convert and serve as a priest has to be conditionally ordained. Doesn't the fact that the ordination is merely conditional imply that the Church thinks there is at least a possibility that some Anglicans might have been validly ordained?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It's not a blanket offer; the candidate has to show that he was ordained by a bishop who can trace his lineage back to a bishop with valid orders. And of course now that women are attempting ordinations, things get a lot more complicated.

I'm not sure that the ordination rite ever was altered back. I would have to research and I don't feel like it at the moment.

Another question is whether someone can be validly ordained as a bishop who wasn't validly ordained as a priest (a per saltem ordination). I don't know that there's an official answer to that. CoPilot says that the prevailing opinion is that it's valid, but I don't exactly trust it.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

And it goes without saying that the ordination of a woman is definitely invalid. I guess I said it anyhow.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

But yes, it is possible that some Anglican ordinations are valid.

[Doom]

But yes, some Anglican ordinations may be valid.

As I understand the issue, the problem was the 1552 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, which changed the rite of ordination and taught Reformed Theology. But this book was used only briefly because Edward died a year later, and Queen Mary tried to restore ties to Rome. She died 5 years later, and Elizabeth introduced the 1562 edition, which was more moderate and walked back the Reformed theology. Then came the 1604 edition under James I and, finally, the 1662 edition after the Restoration under Charles II, which are much more sacramental.

So as I understand it, the problem Leo found was the 1554, which changed the rite of ordination to an invalid form of ordination, but even though the rite was changed back to something valid in later editions, the fact that an invalid form was briefly used means apostolic succession was lost in 1552. I'm no theologian, but that is my understanding of what Leo said.

I think that any Anglo-Catholic Anglican who cared about apostolic succession would want to be ordained by a bishop he believed to have valid holy orders. So I don't know that all that many Anglican priests try to enter through the Ordinariate who could not trace their ordination to a valid bishop. Although many of those Anglican bishops who do have valid holy orders are becoming harder to find because so many of them have already become Catholic.

When the Church of England voted to ordain women in 1992, they introduced a "conscience" provision of the "flying bishop" who had never ordained a woman, who could participate in ordinations of priests who objected to women's ordination. But in the 30+ years since that, something like 1/3 of the flying bishops have become Catholic, meaning there are few bishops left who have never ordained a woman.

[Highlander]

I ask this seriously and without a desire to stir the pot.

As a former Episcopalian, confirmed by a former Episcopal priest, and once in the Episcopal "Diocese" of Monsignor Jeffrey N. Steenson (initial ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter), I have followed the whole kabuki dance of various ECUSA and other Anglican organizations and persons deciding whether to join the Church ... or, usually, not. The overall result has been that the dissident Anglicans have faded even faster than ECUSA. As another who also followed the issue told me, "Those who wanted to become Catholic did so long ago; the shrinking remainder still think that their status is the focus all Christendom."

So -- why is it important whether an Anglican Ordination by an Anglican Bishop has occurred? Is such a "priest" able to perform the Sacraments validly in the Church? By that, I mean can an Anglican "priest" baptize a Catholic child in a Catholic parish? Or marry a Catholic couple? Can he hear a confession? If not, what does it matter who ordained him?

Am I on track with this at all? Am I asking the right questions?

[Doom]

Am I on track with this at all? Am I asking the right questions?

I personally lost track of the number of the numbe of Anglican splinter groups out there, but at this point it is probably several hundred. I have a friend who recently joined the ACNA (Anglican Church North America), which is part of GAFCON, a group of Anglicans who left the ECUSA following the ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as a bishop in 2003. In the last two years, ACNA has itself split at least twice and maybe 3 times.

Other Anglican denominations do not accept the sacraments of the ACNA because the ACNA has women priests.

On the larger point that "every Anglican who is going to become Catholic has already done so" is true only if you are talking about the old fogies who are in their 60's or older and have been talking about leaving for decades but stay put.

But it is important to remember that every year, more people come of age, there are plenty of people in their 20's or 30's who are just now starting to become disenchanted and may well leave for Rome or elsewhere within the next few years.

The Ordinariate, which offers a way for Anglicans to become Catholic while retaining their unique liturgical traditions, was founded by Benedict XVI in 2009 (introduced into North America in 2011), and the traffic into the ordinariate has not slowed down, and indeed, since the election of the new "Archbishop" of Canterbury, it has increased.

So yes, they are still coming in.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

A validly ordained Episcopal priest at a minimum can confect the Eucharist validly, and a validly ordained bishop confirms validly.

[Highlander]

Thank you both.

[anawim]

Fr., your posts are sometimes like the Burma Shave billboards.

And don't anyone under a certain age, ask what Burma Shave was.

[Highlander]

Validity and other such concepts would still not lead me to participate in any religious activity with any Anglican "priest". Sitting in a pew, listening to the first sermon delivered by a priestess, unmoored me. Subsequent statements and actions by Anglican clergy,, coupled with conversations with retired Anglican clergy I respected, completed the departure. It did not take long.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Fr., your posts are sometimes like the Burma Shave billboards.

And don't anyone under a certain age, ask what Burma Shave was.

I'm old enough to know what it was but not old enough to have used it.