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.
Posted by Father Chad  

Notes on Holy Order


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.
Posted by Father Chad 



The Original Old Catholic Succession of the Anglican Province of America



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.
Posted by Father Chad 



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.
Posted by Father Chad