An apostolate outreach of ACP ( Feeding the Children program) a joint effort of Rev. Sillero of ACP , Sis Joseph Maria Clare, OSHT , Bro. Gary and the community of Sitio Cansal-ing , and the other one was taken in Ajong Sibulan last December 31,2009

  Feeding  the Children program in  Sitio Cansal-ing, Sibulan Negros . Rev. Sillero of ACP assisted by Sr. Joseph Maria Clare, OSHT and Bro.Sc Gary Trago

Ajong, Sibulan Negros Oriental with Rev. Sillero, ACP , Sr. Joseph Maria Clare OSHT and Bro. Sc Gary Trago

           

Sr. Joseph Maria Clare OSHT, Bro.Sc Gary Trago and Rev. Rosendo Sillero of ACP are assisting in the preparation of  food to feed the children in Sitio Cansal-ing, Sibulan Negros. "It is a  great joy to feed these children", said Rev.Sillero.
If you are want to partner with us in supporting and sponsoring for the education of  these children,  please call  or send us an email. Our mailing, email address and mobile number are attached to our blogsite. Any donations will be given directly to the Orphanage/Convent of Sister and ACP missions in the Visayas.  Thank you

Ordination of Rev. Rosendo T.Sillero to Diaconate in Dumaguete City

Note: It's ONLY Rev. Rosendo T. Sillero who was Ordained into the Diaconate last October 31st in Dumaguete City and was assigned clergy  for St. John the Apostle Anglican Mission in the Visayas.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The APA Statement on the Vatican Announcement

Monday, October 26, 2009

APA Statement on the Vatican Announcement of October 20, 2009

From the Office of the Presiding Bishop,
The Most Rev. Walter H. Grundorf, D.D.
October 26, 2009

The Anglican Province of America (APA) welcomes with hopeful interest the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering the Catholic Church. It has opened a way for persons who are currently Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church while retaining elements of Anglican liturgy, spirituality, theology, discipline and ethos. This remarkable decision demonstrates on the part of the Roman Communion a recognition of the integral virtues of historic Anglicanism. These characteristics can serve to be a gift to the wider Catholic and Apostolic Church. The new structure proposed by the Roman Communion is a fruit of the prayer and labor of faithful souls who for over a century have devoted themselves to such a form of reconciliation. While many in the Continuing Anglican movement may not avail themselves of this new ecclesiastical structure, the APA awaits with anticipation more information, which will give it a greater opportunity for consideration and reflection.

Our Province remains grateful to Almighty God for the positive relationships which have existed and continue to exist between the Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions. Traditional Anglicans possess in common with the Roman Communion the essentials of the Catholic Faith, including the canonical Scriptures, the universal Creeds, the Seven Sacraments, the male character of the Apostolic Ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and traditional Christian teaching and doctrine concerning Holy Matrimony. We share what Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey called in 1966 a Faith “founded on the Gospel and on the ancient common Tradition.”

Our differences over the role and authority of the papal office, the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope as defined in the decrees of the I Vatican Council of 1870, the 1854 and 1950 dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, the validity of Anglican Orders and Apostolicae Curae will require further intensive and deliberate dialogue. Nevertheless, we anticipate a deepening relationship and collaboration with the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the new Apostolic Constitution about to be promulgated, a Constitution we are eager to read, evaluate and prayerfully consider.

We commit ourselves to fervent prayer for all those who will follow the path now created by the See of Rome, as we pledge to continue our prayer and work with Roman Catholics everywhere for the visible unity of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Anglo-Papalist Ordinariate

The new 'ordinariate' for Anglican Papalists today erected by the CDF offers the greatest hope to those currently of the Anglican obedience who desire to enter into full communion with the See of Rome, and is undoubtedly a fruit of the prayers, longings and labours of many holy and faithful souls who for over a century and a half have devoted themselves to this cause. It is undoubtedly the fulfillment of the highest aspirations and deepest desires of a not inconsiderable number of Anglo-Papalists since the heady days of the Catholic Revival. Let us certainly pray for those who will seek to enter the Roman Communion by the path which has now been paved for them by Pope Benedict XVI. In terms of ecumenical activity, the establishment of the ordinariate may be the most momentous event since the sixteenth century Reformation.

This news is indeed fascinating and compelling, and will undoubtedly be equally fascinating to watch unfold in the days and weeks ahead. But it must be said that we should very much doubt that many in the orthodox Continuing Anglican movement will avail themselves of this new constitutional structure in the Roman Communion, as our priests and people are generally not inclined or disposed to accept the Papal Claims and Dogmas and have no affinity with Papalism. We should confidently assert that most of our Continuing Churchmen repudiate the I Vatican Council of 1870 and so find no overwhelming attraction to this new offer. Papal Infallibility and Papal Universal Jurisdiction, combined with Rome's rejection of the validity of Anglican Orders and its assertion of the de fide and salvific character of the Marian Dogmas, is altogether a situation most Traditional Anglicans will find simply too difficult to accept. Assuredly, for most Continuing Churchmen, the observance of the creation of the new body will be intriguing, but academic, detached and remote, and likely nothing more. We shall be 'observers and by-standers' during the process to come.

In the meantime, we await with hopeful expectation what yet may come from dialogue with the Orthodox Church in America and what relationship may yet emerge between Eastern Orthodox Christians and us, the original Catholics of the Anglican Rite.

In short, as riveting as it is, the new Anglo-Papalist entity will not affect most Continuing Anglican jurisdictions in any direct way, save the Traditional Anglican Communion. But in all love and charity let us pray fervently for those who will now swim the Tiber in this fashion and wish them well in their journey of faith, love, hope and conscience.

It could be argued that Pope Leo XIII was partially prophetic in his declaration of September 1896, in that Holy Orders now conferred in several provinces of the Lambeth Anglican Communion are in many places invalid due to the invalidity of ministers of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination - that is, women who purport to be bishops or men purportedly consecrated to the episcopate by women. In those cases Apostolicae Curae is undoubtedly correct, but not for the reasons identified by the Roman Pontiff. It is not the defect of intention or form, but defect of minister, which renders such ordinations invalid. Subsequent to 1896, all of the world's Anglican bishops, from 1932 in England and 1946 in the USA, have received episcopal consecration in a line from the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Union, which are held by Rome to be undoubtedly valid.


The infusion of Old Catholic Orders, coupled with the use of the 1662 Anglican Ordinal (which Ordinal was not condemned by Apostolicae Curae but in fact was rather asserted by Leo XIII rightly to acknowledge each Order being conferred in each ordination rite), created a situation never envisioned by Leo in the nineteenth century. We should remember it was the 1550 Edwardine Ordinal, not the 1662, which was claimed to have a defect of form. Every living validly-ordained Anglican bishop and priest now possesses Orders from a source that Rome is compelled, at least theoretically, to recognise as valid.


In our own case, Bishop Grundorf was initially consecrated by bishops of the English Matthew Old Catholic line in 1976 before he was conditionally consecrated by Anglican Communion bishops in 1991, thus settling this issue for us permanently. But Apostolicae Curae, it has been said rightly by others, is the second Galileo case, and presents a neo-scholastic theology riddled with inconsistent leaps of logic and largely devoid of patristic sacramental theology, as was amply demonstrated by the Archbishops of England in their Responsio of 1897, Saepius Officio. I for one have moral certainty that Anglican Orders have always been valid since the Reformation: Accipe Spiritum Sanctum!


Even if Apostolicae Curae were correct in its claim of defective form and intention for the Anglican Ordinal, Apostolic Succession undoubtedly was restored with Old Catholic co-consecration, even if the sacramental form utilised by the Old Catholics is not the one identified by Pius XII in 1947. But, of course, I hold Leo XIII was misled and misinformed by some members of his commission and was incorrect in his judgement of 1896. Four of the eight theologians of the 1896 commission held Anglican Orders were valid, but they were ignored principally in favour of Cardinal Vaughn of Westminster, who proposed to the Pope that the condemnation of Anglican Orders would lead to a mass exodus of Anglo-Catholics from the Church of England into the Roman fold. He too was incorrect and misjudged the situation.


All that being said, the position of the APA, the Anglican Church in America, the Anglican Province of Christ the King and some other Continuing Churches regarding validity of Orders is that of Saint Augustine of Hippo: where valid matter, form, minister, intention and subject are unquestionably found, the ordination in question is valid. This means that as long as male bishops consecrated by male bishops in an unbroken succession ordain male priests and deacons or consecrate other male bishops, using the laying on of hands and prayer for the gift of Holy Orders in a recognisable ordination rite, the Orders are always valid. Thus, we receive in Orders male bishops, priests and deacons from the Episcopal Church or other Lambeth Anglican Communion churches, so long as it can be substantiated that their ordaining prelates were male, consecrated by males.


The 1979 American rite, although certainly leaving much to be desired, is essentially a valid ordination rite and is accepted as valid by the APA, for the 1979 rite contains the necessary essentials of ordination.


Usually only in cases where the ordaining bishop's succession is in doubt does the APA require ordination sub conditione. Sacramental intention is actually the simplest of all the necessary requirements for valid ordination, for the only necessary intention is 'generally to do what the Church does,' that is, to ordain bishops, priests and deacons as the Church has always done. One does not have to intend what the Church intends, but merely to do what the Church does.


A bishop may have in his mind and heart an heretical or schismatical intention or understanding of the sacraments, even of Orders, or may belong to a communion or sect that holds officially to false doctrine, even concerning the sacraments, and still validly ordain, so long as he intends seriously to perform the rite as practised by Christians or as instituted by Our Lord. As long as one intends in a general way to ordain according to the mind of Christ, or the New Testament Church, or the true Church, or God's will, the ordination is valid.


This is because the intention necessary for valid ordination is expressed ritually, exteriorly, in the rite itself - and thus ordination is always valid when a valid rite is used. A valid bishop and subject and a valid rite effect a valid ordination. The problem now is that under Mrs Jefferts-Schori 'bishops' are ordained who are not bishops for lack of a valid minister of consecration. So we must do our homework to ensure that the ordaining bishop in every case is in fact a bishop.


Most Continuing Churches follow the historically Augustinian-Western approach to this subject. I should deem the practice of some other Continuing Churches, the Polish National Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy to be Cyprianic in origin.


It is indeed difficult to know exactly how far an ecclesial body has to go into heresy, even heresy regarding Holy Order, before its sacramental intention, the ritual ecclesiastical intention of a Church as a corporate body, is rendered null and void. The Anglican precedent would maintain that such a corruption would have to be of the most extreme and severe kind. The Arians presumably had valid orders, as do Nestorians and Monophysites today, but, of course, their heterodoxies are Christological and not directly sacramental. The Episcopal Church presents an almost unique situation of being a Church having had Apostolic Succession that has introduced a heresy targeting specifically Holy Orders (and, by relation, Christian anthropology in general, as we have seen with the homosexualism and deconstruction of Matrimony crises). There are few examples of this particular kind of error in history of which I am aware, for most sects that strayed over time from orthodoxy as far as TEC eventually abandoned altogether even the semblance of Holy Order - I think of the Montanists, Albigensians, Cathari, and other sects of a gnostic orientation. Such abandonment of Order is now inevitable for the Episcopal Church. TEC will follow suit and has initiated the process of eliminating the Catholic priesthood one ordination at a time.


Even the protestantising 'heresies' of Archbishop Cranmer and his associates, which are said to have denied the mediatorial-sacrificial character of the priesthood and in some cases even sacramental grace in ordination, did not destroy the valid intention of the Church of England, for the Preface to the Ordinal and the Anglican Rite themselves ensured the necessary transmission and preservation of the essentials of Holy Order by establishing the intention of the whole Church. What matters is the intention of a Church openly declared and expressed in the liturgical rite and action of ordination.


The private opinions of Archbishop Cranmer and friends did not eradicate the necessary intention because the rites used were and are valid. In such a case heretical opinions may exist subjectively - but the valid rite confects objectively. Otherwise no one could ever know or have any assurance or guarantee whatever that any sacraments at any time were valid, and that state would thwart the very purpose for which the sacraments were instituted: the efficaciousness of the sacraments is given by Our Lord through the covenantal signs of grace, not through the personalised or interior beliefs of the celebrant. Thus when the sacrament is celebrated according to the Church's rite with the Church's mandated essentials as given by Our Lord and the Apostles, the sacrament is valid.


If we go too far in our requirements concerning sacramental form and intention in ordination we may fall into Leo XIII's trap, but we must maintain the irreducible minimum of what is actually required by the Church for the valid conferral of the Church's own Apostolic Ministry. Even the Episcopal Church and the 1979 rite officially intend to continue both the Apostolic Ministry of bishops, priests and deacons as received by the historic Catholic Church, and the transmission of the grace of Holy Order. But in practice a defect of ministers and subjects breaks the succession in many places.


I would assert that to lose the grace of ordination a Church must so corrupt an ordination rite that one of the essential requirements for validity has been eliminated. Where the sacraments are concerned, the Church always takes the safer course and requires a certitude for the validity of sacraments - it would not be permissible for the Church to risk the loss of sacramental assurance and grace for the People of God by allowing doubtful Orders and sacraments to be administered in her communion. Orders are presumed valid when the proper form, matter, minister and subject are present - for then you have intention with them. When one of these necessary elements is in doubt, the only solution is conditional ordination.

For those who may be interested... subsequently our hierarchy was consecrated by Bishops of the Anglican Communion episcopate in 1981 and 1991.


The English Old Catholic Succession from Bishop Arnold Harris Matthew


Gerardus Gul, 8th Old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht on 28th April 1908 consecrated, with JJ Van Thiel, NBP Spit, and J Demmel, at Utrecht according to the Pontificale Romanum,


Arnold Harris Matthew, Regionary Old Catholic Bishop for Britain, who on 28th October 1914 consecrated at Bromley, Kent,


Frederick Samuel Willoughby, Bishop Coadjutor of the Old Roman Catholic Church, who on 9th July 1922 consecrated


James Bartholomew Banks, who, with James Dominic Mary O’Gavigan, on 28th May 1940 consecrated at East Molesey, Surrey

Sidney Ernest Page Needham, who on 4th January 1945 consecrated sub conditione


Hugh George de Willmott Newman, who, assisted by John Sebastian Marlow Ward and William John Eaton Jeffrey, on 25th August 1945 consecrated sub conditione, at New Barnet,


Joseph K. Chengalvaroyan Chittoor Pillai, Metropolitan of the Indian Orthodox Church, who on 29th December 1968 at Cincinnati, Ohio consecrated


James Hardin George, Junior, 2nd Bishop Primus of the American Episcopal Church, who on 11th February 1970, consecrated


Anthony Forbes Moreton Clavier, 3rd Bishop Primus of the American Episcopal Church, who on 26th March 1976 in Knoxville, Tennessee consecrated


Walter Howard Grundorf, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of the Eastern United States.

The American Old Catholic Succession from Bishop Arnold Harris Matthew


Arnold Harris Matthew in London on 29th June 1913 consecrated


Prince de Landas Berghes et de Rache, Archbishop of the North American Old Roman Catholic Church, who with William Henry Francis Brothers, on 4th October 1916 at Saint Dunstan’s Abbey, Waukegan, Illinois consecrated


Carmel Henry Carfora, Archbishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America, who on 15th August 1943 in San Jose, California consecrated


Frederick Littler Pyman, who on 8th July 1972 in San Jose, California, consecrated


Larry Lee Shaver, who was received into the communion of the American Episcopal Church in March 1975, and who on 26th March 1976 in Knoxville, Tennessee consecrated


Walter Howard Grundorf, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of the Eastern United States.

The Old Catholic Consecrators

Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum, below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 1970 defence of Anglican Orders, Stewards of the Lord:


Whatever view one takes of the criticisms of Apostolicae curae in this book, it is indisputable that the situation envisaged by the Bull no longer exists. In the course of the last half-century bishops recognized by the Holy See as validly consecrated have taken part in a considerable number of Anglican episcopal consecrations as co-consecrators. A majority of the Anglican bishops in the world today, and probably the large majority, can trace their consecration to bishops about whose episcopal character there is no doubt. This has rendered the verdict of Apostolicae curae obsolete by creating a new situation which could not be foreseen in 1896. As exact information about the new streams of succession introduced into the Anglican episcopate in the last half-century is difficult to come by, we present here a brief list of consecrations and of the bishops concerned. Although the information which follows is believed to be accurate in all details, it can make no claim to completeness.


On 28 April 1908 three bishops of the Dutch Old Catholic Church consecrated the former Roman Catholic priest, Arnold Harris Mathew, a bishop in Utrecht. On 29 June 1919 Bishop Mathew consecrated Bishop de Landesberghes et de Rache.1 He was a co-consecrator on 12 January 1915 of Hiram Richard Hulse as Episcopalian Bishop of Cuba. Bishop Hulse, through his participation in numerous subsequent consecrations in the Episcopal Church, appears in the Table of Succession of almost all present bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States,2 and in the Table of Succession of many of the present bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada.


Subsequent to the establishment of full intercommunion between the Anglican communion and the Old Catholic Church, bishops of the two churches began to take part as co-consecrators in the episcopal consecrations of the other church on a reciprocal basis. Each church recognised the validity of the other's ministry in advance. The exchange of consecrators was not motivated, therefore, by any residual doubts on one side or the other about the validity of the orders conferred in the two churches. The mingling of the two lines of episcopal succession was desired by both sides as a logical consequence of the existing relationship of intercommunion. Old Catholic bishops have acted as co-consecrators at the consecration of the following Anglican bishops:


George Francis Graham-Brown, Bishop in Jerusalem; and Betram Fitzgerald Simpson, Bishop of Kensington, 24 June 1932


Harold Jocelyn Buxton, Bishop of Gibraltar; and Alfred Morris Gelsthorpe, Assistant Bishop on the Niger, 24 February 1933


Geoffrey Francis Alien, Bishop in Egypt(later translated to Derby, England); and Kenneth Charles Harman Warner, Bishop of Edinburgh, 25 January 1947


Robert Wright Stopford, Bishop of Fulham (now Bishop of London); and John Keith Russell, Assistant Bishop on the Upper Nile, 11 June 1955


Stanley A. Eley, Bishop of Gibraltar; John H. L. Phillips, Bishop of Portsmouth; A. W. Goodwin Hudson, Bishop Coadjutor of Sydney (Australia), 25 March 1960


George Christopher Cutts Pepys, Bishop of Buckingham; and Ronald Cedric Osbourne Goodchild, Bishop of Kensington 3, 1 May 1964


In addition bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church, whose orders are also recognized as valid by the Holy See, have taken part as co-consecrators in the consecration of the following Anglican bishops in North America:


United States of America


Harold E. Sawyer, Erie, Pa.; Horace W. B. Donegan, Suffragan (later
diocesan) of New York, 6 November 1946


Lauriston L. Scaife, Western New York, 28 October 1947


David Ernrys Richards, Suffragan of Albany, 19 July 1951


Donald H. V. Hallock, Coadjutor of Milwaukee (two Polish National Catholic
co-consecrators), 10 January 1952


Frederick J. Warnecke, Coadjutor of Bethlehem, Pa., 5 February 1953


William S. Thomas, Suffragan of Pittsburgh, 29 September 1953


John H. Esquirol, Suffragan of Connecticut, 9 April 1958


Charles Packard Gilson, Suffragan of Honolulu, later Bishop of Taiwan, 28 September 1961


Charles Waldo MacLean, Suffragan of Chicago, 14 February 1962


James Winchester Montgomery, Suffragan of Chicago, 29 September 1962


Albert Arthur Chambers, Springfield, Illinois, 1 October 1962


Charles Bowen Persell, Jr., Suffragan of Albany, 9 February 1963


Canada


Walter E. Bagnall, Niagara, 21 September 1949


Frederick H. Wilkinson, Coadjutor of Toronto, 6 January 1953


William A. Townshend, Suffragan of Huron, 30 November 1955


George B. Snell, Suffragan of Toronto, 25 January 1956


Henry R. Hunt, Suffragan of Toronto, 6 January 1960


Harold F. G. Appleyard, Suffragan of Huron, 6 January 1961 4


It is sometimes argued that the participation of these non-Anglican bishops as co-consecrators is worthless because a defective sacramental form was used at these consecrations,5 or because the co-consecrators in the Anglican rite do not join in reciting the words of the essential form, but merely lay their hands on the head of the bishop being consecrated while the form is said by the archbishop or other chief consecrator alone. The assumption underlying the second of these two objections is not entirely correct. The custom at the consecrations in England is for the Old Catholic bishops to lay on hands either with the Anglican bishops or subsequently, and to say, 'Accipe Spiritum Sanctum'.6 To argue, however, that the silent imposition of the co-consecrators' hands in the Anglican rite, while the chief consecrator alone says the form in the name of all, is worthless is to impose upon Anglicans standards which Roman Catholic theologians would not think of imposing upon their own bishops. This argument is like saying that all Roman Catholic ordinations to the priesthood today are invalid because the essential laying on of hands is separated from the utterance of the essential form as defined by Pius XII in 1947. The answer to this objection is that there is a 'moral unity' between the silent and essential laying on of hands and the following prayer which contains the words of the essential form. On the same principles the silent participation of co-consecrators in the laying on of hands in the Anglican rite of episcopal consecration is a 'moral participation' in the essential form, which is said by the chief consecrator alone.7


The second objection, that the participation of Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic consecrators in Anglican consecrations over the last decades is worthless because of the use of an invalid form, may be dealt with even more briefly. The form condemned in Apostolicae curae has not been used since 1662: the Bull deals specifically with the form in use from 1552 to 1662. And we have already noted the opinion of the Bull's principal author, that the form as expanded in 1662 could conceivably be valid.8


The consecrations listed above are of significance not only for the Anglican bishops concerned, but for all other bishops to whom they have passed on their succession, and to the clergy ordained by such bishops. Since the required minimum of three consecrators is normally greatly exceeded at Anglican episcopal consecrations, the bishops who have been listed above have very quickly passed on their succession to others.


The new situation thus created has not yet been the subject of a formal ruling by the Holy See. However as long ago as 1960 Rome took official cognisance of this changed situation by granting to a convert Anglican priest in the United States a dispensation from the diriment matrimonial impediment of major orders so that he could convalidate his putative marriage of many years, which was invalid according to Roman Catholic canon law. This case is especially significant in view of the fact that one of the precedents cited by Apostolicae curae involved 'a certain French Calvinist' who had been ordained priest in the Church of England and, after subsequently entering the Roman Catholic Church, desired to marry. It was decided in 1684 that he had not contracted a diriment impediment to marriage by being ordained in the Church of England, since the ordination was invalid.9 The present author's conditional ordination to the diaconate and priesthood by the then Bishop of Munster, Dr Joseph Hoffner, on 27 January 1968 was based upon the facts set forth in this appendix. These facts form no part of the argument of this book. They are included here merely for the sake of completeness, and because the rather 'mechanical' or 'pipeline' view of apostolic succession assumed here governs the practice of the Holy See, and will continue to govern it until catholic theologians are able to find general acceptance for a reasonable restatement of prevailing notions of apostolic succession. The understanding of apostolic succession here criticised has been correctly described by Roger Beckwith as 'un-Anglican'.10 The present author hopes to see the day when it may be generally regarded as un-catholic as well.


____________________________________


1 Cf H. R. T. Brandreth, Episcopi Vagantes and the Anglican Church, London 1947, 12, 16, and 24.


2 The Table of Episcopal Succession for all living bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America is published annually in The Episcopal Church Annual. Prior to 1952 this work was published annually under the title, The Living Church Annual and contained the Table of Succession of all deceased bishops of the American Episcopal Church as well.


3 Information kindly supplied by the Rev'd Canon J. R. Satterthwaite of the Church of England Council on Foreign Relations. The first of these consecrations, that in 1932, is attested by a lengthy Latin protocol preserved at Pusey House, Oxford, and Lambeth Palace, London, in which the Old Catholic Bishop of Haarlem, Henry Theoroe John van Vlijmen, declares that when laying on hands with the Archbishop of Canterbury and saying the formula, 'Accipe Spiritum Sanctum' he 'formally intended to confer . . . the order of the episcopate according to the mind of our holy mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church . . . and to impart the same episcopal character which . . . we bishops of the Old Catholic Church possess, that is, the fullness of priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same, in the precise sense in which the fullness of the priesthood has been understood everywhere, always, and by all.' (Emphasis in original.) The document also states that the reason for the Bishop of Haarlem's participation was 'to mingle as two streams the episcopal succession which has come down from the Apostles, namely that derived through the bishops of the Old Catholic Church and that which has come down through the Anglican hierarchy until the present time.'


4 Information kindly supplied by the Ven. Henry P. Krusen, Archdeacon of Western New York.


5 Cf AODI 192f


6 Information kindly supplied by Canon Satterthwaite.


7 It is interesting to note that the Second Vatican Council conformed the practice at the consecration of bishops in the Latin rite to that of the Anglican Ordinal: henceforth all the bishops present may join with the three consecrating bishops in the laying on of hands. Cf CLit 76.


8 Cf the letter of Cardinal Merry del Val on p 237 above.


9 Cf ANUV 297f


10 Cf Roger Beckwith, 'What are Anglican Orders?': CIRev 53 (1968) 879-84. However see also the present author's 'Ecumenism is a Two-way Street: A Reply to Roger Beckwith': CIRev 54 (1969) 275-80.

About Me

The Reverend Canon Chandler Holder Jones, SSC

Parish Priest and Rector of Saint Barnabas' Anglican Church in Dunwoody, Georgia, I serve as Canon Vocations Director of the Diocese of the Eastern United States of the Anglican Province of America. I also serve as the Chairman of the Diocesan Board of Examining Chaplains. I am a member of the Society of the Holy Cross.

View my complete profile   

ACP is in Communion with APA

New era begins as Benedict throws open gates of Rome to disaffected Anglicans

By Damian Thompson Religion Last updated: October 20th, 2009

The Pope is offering Anglicans worldwide 'corporate reunion' (Photo: AFP)

This is astonishing news. Pope Benedict XVI has created an entirely new Church structure for disaffected Anglicans that will allow them to worship together – using elements of Anglican liturgy – under the pastoral supervision of their own specially appointed bishop or senior priest.
The Pope is now offering Anglicans worldwide “corporate reunion” on terms that will delight Anglo-Catholics. In theory, they can have their own married priests, parishes and bishops – and they will be free of liturgical interference by liberal Catholic bishops who are unsympathetic to their conservative stance.
There is even the possibility that married Anglican laymen could be accepted for ordination on a case-by-case basis – a remarkable concession.
Both Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Archbishop Rowan Williams are surprised by this dramatic move. Cardinal Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was in Lambeth Palace only yesterday to spell out to Dr Williams what it means. This decision has, in effect, been taken over their heads – though there is no suggestion that Archbishop Nichols does not fully support this historic move.
Incidentally, I suspect that Rome waited until Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor’s retirement before unveiling this plan: the cardinal is an old-style ecumenist who represents the old way of doing things. His allies in Rome, and many former participants in Anglican-Catholic dialogue, are dismayed by today’s news, which clears away the wreckage of the ARCIC process.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is unlikely to be pleased, though he was vigorously concealing any displeasure at a press conference this morning. (There was a lot of spin about this decision “arising out of dialogue”.) The truth is that Rome has given up on the Anglican Communion. With one announcement, the Pope has given conservative Anglicans a protected route to union with Rome – and promised that, even once they are members of the Catholic Church, they will be offered a permanent structure that allows them to retain an Anglican ethos.
Thousands of Anglicans who reject women bishops and priests and liberal teaching on homosexuality are certain to avail themselves of this provision. Within a few years, there will probably be “Anglican ethos” Catholic parishes in England and Wales (and one wonders how many conservative cradle Catholics will gratefully start attending Mass there).
Under the supervision of a “Personal Ordinary”, who can be a priest or unmarried bishop, ex-Anglicans will be able to put forward their own candidates for ordination. In the short term, there will be no difficulty in ordaining married former Anglican clergy.
The Vatican would not use the phrase, but this is very close to the setting up of a “Church within a Church”. Yet that is not as unusual as it might seem: Eastern-rite Catholics have their own liturgy and church structures, and in America a small number of ex-Anglicans use service books that borrow from the Book of Common Prayer.
Anglicans will have to request their own “Personal Ordinariate”, to use the Vatican’s clunky term. How might that play out in England? This is just a guess, but the most pro-Roman C of E bishop, the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet, could submit a request to Rome. He would be ordained a (married) Catholic priest, and might himself be made “ordinary” (bishop in all but name) of ex-Anglican clergy and lay people who have been received into the Catholic Church together.
This unprecedented canonical structure will affect different countries and dioceses in different ways. But we are not talking about the creation of an “Anglican-Rite” Catholic Church. Although some parishes will want to use the Anglican-usage liturgy, in England many ex-Anglican congregations will be only too happy to avail themselves of the new English translation of the Roman Rite, to be introduced next year.
This is a decision of supreme boldness and generosity by Pope Benedict XVI, comparable to his liberation of the Traditional Latin Mass. The implications of this announcement will take a long time to sink in, but I suspect that this will be a day of rejoicing for conservative Anglo-Catholics and their Roman Catholic friends all over the world.

Tags: Anglo-Catholics, Archbishop Rowan Williams, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Pope Benedict XVI

Our Church and School of the month featuring St. Yves. School in Haiti

   This is St. Yves School (Haiti)

Special thanks to Most Rev'd.Walter H Grundorf , APA family and parishes. This building would not be standing today if not for APA's sacrificial and generous giving! In behalf of St. Yves faculty,staff and parishioners.

Thank you very much. Fr.Mews

The Validity of Anglican Orders

The Validity of Anglican Orders

By the Reverend William J. Alberts

IT is a not unusual experience for an Anglican, entering a Roman Catholic Church, to find, prominently displayed in a tract case, some pamphlet attacking the validity of Anglican Orders. In fact, this is one of the favorite topics of Roman authors.
Controversy is frequently unpleasant and always a possible source of that vicious lack of charity which every Christian ought to try to avoid. Nevertheless, necessity is laid upon us to try to present our answer to the charges which Roman Catholics make against the validity of our Orders, and consequently against the Catholic heritage of our beloved Church and the validity of our Sacraments.

Let it be stated at once that this article will not be exhaustive, nor will it be able within its brief compass to give detailed references. All it will attempt is a statement of the main Roman Catholic objections to the validity of our orders and to indicate a brief reply to them.

According to generally accepted Catholic practice no sacraments are valid in which there is a defect of matter, form, or intention. By 'matter' is meant some external thing which is used in conjunction with the administration of a particular sacrament. An example of such matter would be the water used in Holy Baptism. By 'form' is meant the words which give signification to the use to which the matter is being put. An example of 'form' would be the words 'John, I baptize thee, in the Name, etc.,' at Baptism. By 'intention' is meant that in conferring a sacrament the minister must have at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does. Any supposed sacramental rite which was deficient in one or more of these three requisites would be invalid and would lack the assurance which Catholic Sacraments give: that they are the very means by which God bestows upon His children the particular grace for which the Sacrament was instituted.

The guarantor of sacramental grace is, humanly speaking, the Episcopate: no Bishop, no Church, no Sacraments, no divinely assured salvation. It is therefore of utmost importance that we be assured that our orders of ministers are valid, that is to say, that they are the same which our Lord gave to the Apostles and which the Apostles transmitted to other fit men to be the means of continuing in union with the divine Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Nobody questions that the Church in England was a valid Catholic Church up to the reign of our supposed founder, Henry VIII. This king was a staunch Catholic. His vigorous attack against the errors of Luther earned for him the title 'Defender of the Faith' bestowed upon him by a grateful pope. This title is still the proud possession of every monarch in England.

Henry got into matrimonial difficulties, the ramifications of which we cannot now discuss. Suffice it to say that he wanted a papal annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon which had yielded no living male issue. Since no woman had ever successfully inherited the English throne, and since Henry's own father's title had been none too secure, he was anxious for a male heir.

The Roman Catholic, and even some secular, history books make it out to appear that Henry's desire to get rid of Catherine was his lust for Anne Boleyn. Without attempting to defend Henry's doubtless none too pure intentions, let it be said, for the sake of justice, that the first time the question of an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon arose the much maligned Anne Boleyn was a child seven years old.

Political considerations — and not the high ideals of Papacy — made such an annulment difficult. Henry, never the world's most patient citizen, was aided in his dilemma by Cranmer who suggested that the matter of the legality of the marriage to Catherine might well be settled by the English authorities without recourse to Rome. Henry acted upon this advice, had his marriage annulled, and declared that 'The Bishop of Rome hath no more power in England than any other foreign bishop.'

Thus was the breach with Rome begun. Be it noted that the same Bishops, Priests and Deacons who were in union with the Papacy the day preceding the break with Rome continued their offices after the break. There was practically no exception to this fact. Mass and other sacramental rites were continued as formerly; Henry VIII never heard Mass in English in his life; and he burned men at the stake for denying the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

Henry was succeeded by his son Edward VI. He was a mere boy at the time of his accession to the throne and he was guided by two protectors whose sympathies were definitely on the side of the Reformation. Under Edward VI, and guided doubtless by Cranmer who was now Archbishop, there was put forth in 1549 the first English Prayer Book. One year later appeared an Ordinal — a book which set forth the matter, form and intention in making additions to the ministry.

On September 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII issued a now famous Bull called Apostolicae Curae in which he declared Anglican Orders invalid due to alleged defects in this and subsequent ordinals. To the arguments of Leo XIII we will now address ourselves.
Anglican Orders, says Leo XIII, are defective because they do not employ the proper matter and form. He admits that the 'matter' is variable and that the laying on of hands alone is at least permissibly valid in itself, so long as the 'form' sufficiently sets forth that the reason for using such laying on of hands is to make a true Priest or Bishop in the Catholic Church.

At the time of the split between England and Rome, ordination to the Priesthood was accompanied by presentation of the Chalice and Paten, and by anointing the hands of the ordinand. The first Ordinal of Edward VI omitted the anointing, but continued the
transmission of the instruments and bestowed also a Bible. The second Prayer Book, issued in 1552, dropped the transmission of the instruments and simply continued the giving of the Bible after the laying on of hands, the Bishop saying as he delivered the Holy Scriptures: 'Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments in this congregation, where thou shalt be appointed.'

It is interesting to notice that when Anglican Orders were first attacked in the 17th century by English Romanists, their invalidity was asserted on two counts:

1. That there was no tradition of the instruments which was then held to be the real 'matter' of the Sacrament of Holy Orders; and

2. a denial of the orders of Archbishop Parker, from whom, in the reign of Elizabeth in 1559, subsequent English orders were derived.

It is perhaps indicative of the desperation of those who attacked Anglican Orders at that time that this alleged invalidity of Parker's orders was based upon what was called the Nag's Head Fable. In this incredible story, which was solemnly told as true by Romanist propagandists, Parker was party to a mock ceremony which happened at Nag's Head Tavern. It seems that the third cousin of the wife of somebody's brother had a friend who had heard from a friend who had heard from somebody who knew the man who did it that he looked through a keyhole and saw one of the supposed consecrators of Parker place a Bible on his head and that was all the ceremony there was. This story was, as I have said, accepted and used despite the fulness of the records of Parker's consecration by Bishops Barlow, Scory, Coverdale and Hodgkins, all of whom, it is explicitly stated, laid their hands upon his head and repeated the words of consecration.

Since we have mentioned the consecration of Parker, let it here be said that Romanists frequently center their attacks upon that event. They have, of course, abandoned the Nag's Head Fable since one of their able historians, Lingard, showed it to be completely untrue. But they now attempt to deny the validity of Parker's consecration on the ground that there is no record of Barlow's consecration, and that Barlow was Parker's chief consecrator. Into the details of this we cannot now go. Suffice it to say that there were many records of unquestioned Bishops which we do not now have. But even if the unlikely were true and Barlow were not consecrated, it is good Roman Catholic doctrine that all the assistant Bishops in consecration act as co-consecrators, so that were one invalid, the consecration's validity would be assured by the others. It is perhaps worth mentioning too, that Cardinal Pole, who was sent to England during the reign of Mary Tudor who reconciled England to the Papal obedience, accepted Barlow's consecration without question.

However, we must return to the matter and form of the first Ordinal. It is with the 'form' that we now concern ourselves. The 'form,' you will recall, is the words which determine what is being done. The Ordinal of 1550 prescribed that the Bishop shall place his hands upon the ordinand's head and say 'Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained ; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of His holy Sacraments. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'

This form, says Leo XIII, is defective because the words 'Receive the Holy Ghost' certainly do not in the least definitely express the Sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power 'of consecrating and of offering the true body and blood of the Lord . . .' (Council of Trent, Session XXII d. Sacr. Ord. Can 1).

Furthermore, says Leo XIII, Anglicans themselves recognized that this form was defective, and in 1662 they added 'For the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands' in a vain attempt to make the form valid.

To anyone not conversant with the facts, and to an Anglican layman reading these impressive words in a two-penny tract such pronouncements might cause some heart searching. But whether the Pope or an angel from heaven utters them, they are simply not historically true. There is no mention of the priestly function of offering 'The sacrifice of Masses' in any unquestionable Catholic ordination forms prior to the ninth century — possibly even later than this. And as far as making a specific mention of the office to which the man is to be ordained, there are not fewer than nine references to this in the ordination of priests in the 1550 Ordinal.

The addition of the words 'For the office and work of a Priest, etc.,' in 1662 was not made because Anglicans recognized a defect in their previous form, but was inserted against the Presbyterians who maintained that there was no essential difference between the office of Presbyter and that of a Bishop. In inserting the words 'for the office and work of a Priest' and 'for the office and work of a Bishop' the Church of England was affirming her belief in the validity of her Catholic orders and their difference from the Presbyterian form of the ministry.

More serious, and certainly more convincing to the average layman, is the pointed omission of the function of offering the sacrifice of Masses in the Anglican Rite. Let it be at once admitted that this is a fact. There is no mention of the 'sacrifice of Masses.' This was a deliberate omission for two reasons at least.

First, because Cranmer and others who worked with him in the compilation of the Ordinal were determined to avoid the dangerous medieval conception which seemed to consider every Mass as another immolation of our Lord. In this sense they denied the sacrifice of Masses — and be it noted Rome officially does too. That the Mass itself is a repleading of the 'one oblation of Himself once offered' upon the Cross and that this offering is a 'full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world' ought to be, it seems to us, clear to anyone who can read English and who takes the trouble to read the Canon of
the first English Prayer Book — or of the later ones.

The second reason for the omission of the function of sacrifice is that English Bishops desired to emphasize the other functions of the priestly office which were gravely neglected. Surely a priest of the Catholic Church is as much bound to be a shepherd of souls as he is to offer sacrifice. If we take the Lord's own words as our criterion, and take those very words which Roman Catholics so love to use in connection with their defence of Papal Infallibility, i.e., 'Feed my sheep,' the pastoral office was one of the duties Jesus laid upon the Apostle Peter.

Roman Catholics argue that if a man gave authority to a steward to act for him and sign checks and then later give him power to act for him, without specifically mentioning the function of signing checks which he had hitherto enjoyed and exercised as a prerogative of his office, it would be pretty conclusive evidence that he was rescinding the power of the steward to sign his checks. Likewise they argue, the failure of the Anglican Ordinal to mention specifically the power to sacrifice proves that it never was intended to bestow it. But such a conclusion by no means follows. What is nearer to historical facts is that the man who gave his steward power to act for him and to sign checks found that the said steward was neglecting the other duties just to sign checks. So, in order to remind him that he was not doing his full job merely by being a check signer, he emphasizes that the steward has power to act for him in all matters. The emphasis is on the 'all' matters and the plain inference is that the steward should stir about some of his father's other business.

It should be borne in mind that prior to the 9th century no sacramentary contained the anointing of the hands; the transmission of the instruments; the words 'Offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead' or 'whose sins thou dost forgive,' etc. If because of the omission of any of these Anglican Orders are invalid, then no orders in Christendom, including those possessed by Rome, are valid either.

We come now to the next matter which must occupy our attention. It is the assertion of Leo XIII that the formulators of the Ordinal had no intention of perpetuating Catholic Orders or Sacraments. I have already dealt with the claim that they did not intend to make sacrificing priests, I shall now deal with the general intention of the Ordinal to continue the Catholic orders.

Rome makes much of the fact that Cranmer and others who shared his opinions had a prejudice against the Roman Catholic conceptions of a sacrificing priesthood. In this they are doubtless correct. But as the Reverend Doctor Felix L. Cirlot has so ably demonstrated in his monumental work Apostolic Succession and Anglicanism , the private opinions of Cranmer, or even the public opinions of Cranmer and his followers do not commit the Anglican Church to such views.

As a matter of fact it is good Roman Catholic doctrine that the private opinions of a minister, however erroneous they may be, cannot affect the validity of any sacrament he administers. So long as he acts as the official representative of the Church and uses her formularies, then by that very fact he intends what the Church intends.

The importance of this is vital. Since nobody can ever see into another's mind and determine with what intention he administers any sacrament, it is most essential that the recipient have an objective assurance that he receives a valid ministration of the Church. It is the Church's official formularies which supply this assurance. Lex orandi, lex credendi — 'the rule of prayer sets forth what is believed.' If the validity of a sacrament depended upon the private opinion of the celebrant, or upon his personal orthodoxy, how could one ever be sure he was receiving a valid sacrament?

As Dr. Cirlot points out in the above mentioned work, the only way Rome can establish her case against Anglicanism is by deciding quite gratuitously that every doubtful or ambiguous word or phrase in the Anglican Formularies be interpreted in the most Protestant way and as though that way represented the mind of the whole Anglican Communion rather than of a small but powerful minority within it in 1550.

This kind of argument may establish a Roman Catholic case, but it hardly establishes a sufficient ground of truth to cause any Anglican priest to doubt the validity of his Orders, or for any Anglican communicant to become concerned about the Sacraments received from such Anglican priests. Moreover, the matter of what the Church officially intended to do is set forth in the Preface to the Ordinal of 1550. It is significant that nowhere in the Bull of Leo XIII which condemned Anglican Orders is any mention made of the intention there set forth. We refer our readers to the text of the Preface to the Ordinal as it appeared in 1550, and as it has appeared in every Anglican Prayer Book since then, down to the present day.

It would be difficult, we think, to find a more explicit statement of intention than that. This, whatever the private opinions of Cranmer, is the official intention of the Church. It sets forth what the Church of England believes about Holy Orders and what it requires for them. Only by adopting the querulous prerogative of Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland and making words mean 'anything I want them to mean' can this plain statement be explained away.

Two minor points I should like to note in conclusion: there is now a tendency on the part of some Roman writers to deny jurisdiction to bishops not in communion with Rome. Let me dispose of this by pointing out that there never was a time in the Church's history when the universal jurisdiction of Rome was accepted. See Waddington History at the Church p. 234. where it is pointed out that in the Pontificate of Alexander II (1061) a constitution was drawn up under which 'No Bishop in the Catholic Church was permitted to exercise his functions until confirmed by the Holy See.' This is by way of reaction from previous confirmation of the Emperor who appointed Popes, Bishops, etc. So Henry VIII in taking back the right to appoint was only rescinding a Papal action of llth century.

The last point is the sly Roman reference to the 39 Articles and their supposed denials of Catholic truths. The articles appeared in 1562. The decisions of the Council of Trent which set forth the present Roman Catholic official position concerning the Eucharist were not officially accepted and confirmed until 1564. To attempt to use the Articles as denying doctrine which even Rome did not officially accept until two years after the Articles appeared is a feat of logical legerdemain worthy of those Indian fakirs who throw a rope into the air, climb up on it and then they and the rope disappear. Nobody has ever seen this done. But everyone will admit it is a good trick — if it can be done. But so far as this Anglican is concerned, until he sees it, and until he sees a better case for Rome than has yet been produced, he won't believe it!

The Reverend Canon Chandler Holder Jones, SSC

Parish Priest and Rector of Saint Barnabas' Anglican Church in Dunwoody, Georgia, I serve as Canon Vocations Director of the Diocese of the Eastern United States of the Anglican Province of America. I also serve as the Chairman of the Diocesan Board of Examining Chaplains. I am a member of the Society of the Holy Cross.

View my complete profile