Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 07:06:15 PM

Title: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 07:06:15 PM
I don't iknow if the Vatican holds Apostolicae Curae as ex cathedra infallible, but one argument at a time.
Apostolicae Curae
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders
September 15, 1896

In Perpetual Remembrance.

We have dedicated to the welfare of the noble English nation no small portion of the Apostolic care and charity by which, helped by His grace, We endeavour to fulfil the office and follow in the footsteps of "the Great Pastor of the sheep," Our Lord Jesus Christ. The letter which last year We sent to the English seeking the Kingdom of Christ in the unity of the faith is a special witness of Our good will towards England. In it We recalled the memory of the ancient union of the people with Mother Church, and We strove to hasten the day of a happy reconciliation by stirring up men's hearts to offer diligent prayer to God. And, again, more recently, when it seemed good to Us to treat more fully the unity of the Church in a General Letter, England had not the last place in Our mind, in the hope that Our teaching might both strengthen Catholics and bring the saving light to those divided from us. It is pleasing to acknowledge the generous way in which Our zeal and plainness of speech, inspired by no mere human motives, have met the approval of the English people, and this testifies not less to their courtesy than to the solicitude of many for their eternal salvation.

2. With the same mind and intention, We have now determined to turn Our consideration to a matter of no less importance, which is closely connected with the same subject and with Our desires.

3. For an opinion already prevalent, confirmed more than once by the action and constant practice of the Church, maintained that when in England, shortly after it was rent from the centre of Christian Unity, a new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI, the true Sacrament of Order as instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession. For some time, however, and in these last years especially, a controversy has sprung up as to whether the Sacred Orders conferred according to the Edwardine Ordinal possessed the nature and effect of a Sacrament, those in favour of the absolute validity, or of a doubtful validity, being not only certain Anglican writers, but some few Catholics, chiefly non-English. The consideration of the excellency of the Christian priesthood moved Anglican writers in this matter, desirous as they were that their own people should not lack the twofold power over the Body of Christ. Catholic writers were impelled by a wish to smooth the way for the return of Anglicans to holy unity. Both, indeed, thought that in view of studies brought up to the level of recent research, and of new documents rescued from oblivion, it was not inopportune to re-examine the question by Our authority.

4. And We, not disregarding such desires and opinions, above all, obeying the dictates of apostolic charity, have considered that nothing should be left untried that might in any way tend to preserve souls from injury or procure their advantage. It has, therefore, pleased Us to graciously permit the cause to be re-examined, so that, through the extreme care taken in the new examination, all doubt, or even shadow of doubt, should be removed for the future.

5. To this end We commissioned a certain number of men noted for their learning and ability, whose opinions in this matter were known to be divergent, to state the grounds of their judgement in writing. We then, having summoned them to Our person, directed them to interchange writings, and further to investigate and discuss all that was necessary for a full knowledge of the matter. We were careful, also, that they should be able to re-examine all documents bearing on this question which were known to exist in the Vatican archives, to search for new ones, and even to have at their disposal all acts relating to this subject which are preserved by the Holy Office or, as it is called, the Supreme Council and to consider whatever had up to this time been adduced by learned men on both sides. We ordered them, when prepared in this way, to meet together in special sessions. These to the number of twelve were held under the presidency of one of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, appointed by Ourself, and all were invited to free discussion. Finally, We directed that the acts of these meetings, together with all other documents, should be submitted to Our venerable brethren, the Cardinals of the same Council, so that when all had studied the whole subject, and discussed it in Our presence, each might give his own opinion.

6. This order for discussing the matter having been determined upon, it was necessary, with a view to forming a true estimate of the real state of the question, to enter upon it, after careful inquiry as to how the matter stood in relation to the prescription and settled custom of the Apostolic See, the origin and force of which custom it was undoubtedly of great importance to determine.

7. For this reason, in the first place, the principal documents in which Our Predecessors, at the request of Queen Mary, exercised their special care for the reconciliation of the English Church were considered. Thus Julius III sent Cardinal Reginald Pole, an Englishman, and illustrious in many ways, to be his Legate a latere for the purpose, "as his angel of peace and love," and gave him extraordinary and unusual mandates or faculties and directions for his guidance. These Paul IV confirmed and explained.

8. And here, to interpret rightly the force of these documents, it is necessary to lay it down as a fundamental principle that they were certainly not intended to deal with an abstract state of things, but with a specific and concrete issue. For since the faculties given by these Pontiffs to the Apostolic Legate had reference to England only, and to the state of religion therein, and since the rules of action were laid down by them at the request of the said Legate, they could not have been mere directions for determining the necessary conditions for the validity of ordinations in general. They must pertain directly to providing for Holy Orders in the said kingdom, as the recognised condition of the circumstances and times demanded. This, besides being clear from the nature and form of the said documents, is also obvious from the fact that it would have been altogether irrelevant thus to instruct the Legate one whose learning had been conspicuous in the Council of Trent as to the conditions necessary for the bestowal of the Sacrament of Order.

9. To all rightly estimating these matters it will not be difficult to understand why, in the Letters of Julius III, issued to the Apostolic Legate on 8 March 1554, there is a distinct mention, first of those who, "rightly and lawfully promoted," might be maintained in their orders: and then of others who, "not promoted to Holy Orders" might "be promoted if they were found to be worthy and fitting subjects". For it is clearly and definitely noted, as indeed was the case, that there were two classes of men; the first of those who had really received Holy Orders, either before the secession of Henry VIII, or, if after it, and by ministers infected by error and schism, still according to the accustomed Catholic rite; the second, those who were initiated according to the Edwardine Ordinal, who on that account could not be "promoted", since they had received an ordination which was null.

10. And that the mind of the Pope was this, and nothing else, is clearly confirmed by the letter of the said Legate (29 January 1555), sub-delegating his faculties to the Bishop of Norwich. Moreover, what the letters of Julius III themselves say about freely using the Pontifical faculties, even on behalf of those who had received their consecration "irregularly (minus rite) and not according to the accustomed form of the Church," is to be especially noted. By this expression those only could be meant who had been consecrated according to the Edwardine rite, since besides it and the Catholic form there was then no other in England.

11. This becomes even still clearer when we consider the Legation which, on the advice of Cardinal Pole, the Sovereign Princes, Philip and Mary, sent to the Pope in Rome in the month of February, 1555. The Royal Ambassadors three men "most illustrious and endowed with every virtue," of whom one was Thomas Thirlby, Bishop of Ely were charged to inform the Pope more fully as to the religious condition of the country, and especially to beg that he would ratify and confirm what the Legate had been at pains to effect, and had succeeded in effecting, towards the reconciliation of the Kingdom with the Church. For this purpose, all the necessary written evidence and the pertinent parts of the new Ordinal were submitted to the Pope. The Legation having been splendidly received, and their evidence having been "diligently discussed," by several of the Cardinals, "after mature deliberation," Paul IV issued his Bull Praeclara Charissimi on June 20 of that same year. In this, whilst giving full force and approbation to what Pole had done, it is ordered in the matter of the Ordinations as follows:

Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders . . . by any one but a Bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders again.

12. But who those Bishops not "validly and lawfully ordained" were had been made sufficiently clear by the foregoing documents and the faculties used in the said matter by the Legate; those, namely, who have been promoted to the Episcopate, as others to other Orders, "not according to the accustomed form of the Church," or, as the Legate himself wrote to the Bishop of Norwich, "the form and intention of the Church," not having been observed. These were certainly those promoted according to the new form of rite, to the examination of which the Cardinals specially deputed had given their careful attention. Neither should the passage much to the point in the same Pontifical Letter be overlooked, where, together with others needing dispensation are enumerated those "who had obtained both Orders as well as benefices nulliter et de facto." For to obtain orders nulliter means the same as by act null and void, that is invalid, as the very meaning of the word and as common parlance require. This is specially clear when the word is used in the same way about Orders as about "ecclesiastical benefices". These, by the undoubted teaching of the sacred canons, were clearly null if given with any vitiating defect.

13 Moreover, when some doubted as to who, according to the mind of the Pontiff, could be called and considered bishops "validly and lawfully ordained," the said Pope shortly after, on October 30, issued a further letter in the form of a Brief and said:

We, desiring to wholly remove such doubt, and to opportunely provide for the peace of conscience of those who during the aforementioned schism were promoted to Holy Orders, by clearly stating the meaning and intention which We had in Our said letters, declare that it is only those bishops and archbishops who were not ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church that can not be said to be duly and rightly ordained . . .
14. Unless this declaration had applied to the actual case in England, that is to say, to the Edwardine Ordinal, the Pope would certainly have done nothing by this last letter for the removal of doubt and the restoration of peace of conscience. Further, it was in this sense that the Legate understood the documents and commands of the Apostolic See, and duly and conscientiously obeyed them; and the same was done by Queen Mary and the rest who helped to restore Catholicism to its former state.

15. The authority of Julius III, and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic rite even in Rome.

16. In the observance of this practice we have a proof directly affecting the matter in hand. For if by any chance doubt should remain as to the true sense in which these Pontifical documents are to be understood, the principle holds good that "Custom is the best interpreter of law." Since in the Church it has ever been a constant and established rule that it is sacrilegious to repeat the Sacrament of Order, it never could have come to pass that the Apostolic See should have silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom. But not only did the Apostolic See tolerate this practice, but approved and sanctioned it as often as any particular case arose which called for its judgement in the matter.

17. We adduce two cases of this kind out of many which have from time to time been submitted to the Supreme Council of the Holy Office. The first was (in 1684) of a certain French Calvinist, and the other (in 1704) of John Clement Gordon, both of whom had received their orders according to the Edwardine ritual.

18. In the first case, after a searching investigation, the Consultors, not a few in number, gave in writing their answers or as they call it, their vota and the rest unanimously agreed with their conclusion, "for the invalidity of the Ordination," and only on account of reasons of opportuneness did the Cardinals deem it well to answer with a dilata (viz., not to formulate the conclusion at the moment).

19. The same documents were called into use and considered again in the examination of the second case, and additional written statements of opinion were also obtained from Consultors, and the most eminent doctors of the Sorbonne and of Douai were likewise asked for their opinion. No safeguard which wisdom and prudence could suggest to ensure the thorough sifting of the question was neglected.

20. And here it is important to observe that, although Gordon himself, whose case it was, and some of the Consultors, had adduced amongst the reasons which went to prove the invalidity, the Ordination of Parker, according to their own ideas about it, in the delivery of the decision this reason was altogether set aside, as documents of incontestable authenticity prove. Nor, in pronouncing the decision, was weight given to any other reason than the "defect of form and intention"; and in order that the judgment concerning this form might be more certain and complete, precaution was taken that a copy of the Anglican Ordinal should be submitted to examination, and that with it should be collated the ordination forms gathered together from the various Eastern and Western rites. Then Clement XI himself, with the unanimous vote of the Cardinals concerned, on Thursday 17 April 1704, decreed:

John Clement Gordon shall be ordained from the beginning and unconditionally to all the orders, even Holy Orders, and chiefly of Priesthood, and in case he has not been confirmed, he shall first receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.
21. It is important to bear in mind that this judgement was in no wise determined by the omission of the tradition of instruments, for in such a case, according to the established custom, the direction would have been to repeat the ordination conditionally, and still more important is it to note that the judgement of the Pontiff applies universally to all Anglican ordinations, because, although it refers to a particular case, it is not based upon any reason special to that case, but upon the defect of form, which defect equally affects all these ordinations, so much so, that when similar cases subsequently came up for decision, the same decree of Clement XI was quoted as the norm.

22. Hence it must be clear to everyone that the controversy lately revived had already been definitely settled by the Apostolic See, and that it is to the insufficient knowledge of these documents that we must, perhaps, attribute the fact that any Catholic writer should have considered it still an open question.

23. But, as We stated at the beginning, there is nothing we so deeply and ardently desire as to be of help to men of good will by showing them the greatest consideration and charity. Wherefore, We ordered that the Anglican Ordinal, which is the essential point of the whole matter, should be once more most carefully examined.

24. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the "matter and form". All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the "matter and form", it still pertains chiefly to the "form"; since the "matter" is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the "form". And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Order, the "matter" of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confirmation.
25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) 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, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "mere commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess. XXII, de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.

28. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop", etc. added at a later period, but even these, as We shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, "Almighty God", since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium.

29. It is not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether, when bestowed, as they say per saltum, on one who is not a priest, it has or has not its effect. But the episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa. So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.

30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what We have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorised. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognisant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.

31. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.

32. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, "Almighty God, giver of all good Things", which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate "form" of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church.

33. With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

34. All these matters have been long and carefully considered by Ourselves and by Our Venerable Brethren, the Judges of the Supreme Council, of whom it has pleased Us to call a special meeting upon the 16th day of July last, the solemnity of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. They with one accord agreed that the question laid before them had been already adjudicated upon with full knowledge of the Apostolic See, and that this renewed discussion and examination of the issues had only served to bring out more clearly the wisdom and accuracy with which that decision had been made. Nevertheless, We deemed it well to postpone a decision in order to afford time both to consider whether it would be fitting or expedient that We should make a fresh authoritative declaration upon the matter, and to humbly pray for a fuller measure of divine guidance.

35. Then, considering that this matter, although already decided, had been by certain persons for whatever reason recalled into discussion, and that thence it might follow that a pernicious error would be fostered in the minds of many who might suppose that they possessed the Sacrament and effects of Orders, where these are nowise to be found, it seemed good to Us in the Lord to pronounce Our judgment.

36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

37. It remains for Us to say that, even as We have entered upon the elucidation of this grave question in the name and in the love of the Great Shepherd, in the same We appeal to those who desire and seek with a sincere heart the possession of a hierarchy and of Holy Orders.

38. Perhaps until now aiming at the greater perfection of Christian virtue, and searching more devoutly the divine Scriptures, and redoubling the fervour of their prayers, they have, nevertheless, hesitated in doubt and anxiety to follow the voice of Christ, which so long has interiorly admonished them. Now they see clearly whither He in His goodness invites them and wills them to come. In returning to His one only fold, they will obtain the blessings which they seek, and the consequent helps to salvation, of which He has made the Church the dispenser, and, as it were, the constant guardian and promoter of His redemption amongst the nations. Then, indeed, "They shall draw waters in joy from the fountains of the Saviour", His wondrous Sacraments, whereby His faithful souls have their sins truly remitted, and are restored to the friendship of God, are nourished and strengthened by the heavenly Bread, and abound with the most powerful aids for their eternal salvation. May the God of peace, the God of all consolation, in His infinite tenderness, enrich and fill with all these blessings those who truly yearn for them.

39. We wish to direct our exhortation and our desires in a special way to those who are ministers of religion in their respective communities. They are men who from their very office take precedence in learning and authority, and who have at heart the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Let them be the first in joyfully submitting to the divine call and obey it, and furnish a glorious example to others. Assuredly, with an exceeding great joy, their Mother, the Church, will welcome them, and will cherish with all her love and care those whom the strength of their generous souls has, amidst many trials and difficulties, led back to her bosom. Nor could words express the recognition which this devoted courage will win for them from the assemblies of the brethren throughout the Catholic world, or what hope or confidence it will merit for them before Christ as their Judge, or what reward it will obtain from Him in the heavenly kingdom! And We, ourselves, in every lawful way, shall continue to promote their reconciliation with the Church in which individuals and masses, as We ardently desire, may find so much for their imitation. In the meantime, by the tender mercy of the Lord our God, We ask and beseech all to strive faithfully to follow in the path of divine grace and truth.

40. We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of Our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

41. We will that there shall be given to copies of these letters, even printed, provided that they be signed by a notary and sealed by a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, the same credence that would be given to the expression of Our will by the showing of these presents.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, on the Ides of September, in the nineteenth year of Our Pontificate.


Given the standards set up by Apostolicae Curae to judge the transmission of the episcopate among the Anglicans as void, what transmission of the pontificate takes place, merely by acceptance by the supreme pontiff elect?

The character of Catholic ordinals
From time immemorial a group of ordination rites have been in use in the Catholic Church and in those Oriental schisms which broke away from it in early times, but whose orders it has always recognized as valid. When these various rites are compared, they are found to differ indeed in the text, but to be entirely alike in the essential character of the "forms" appointed to accompany the imposition of hands. All, that is to say, signify in appropriate terms the order to be imparted, and supplicate Almighty God to bestow upon the candidate the divine gifts necessary for his state. In the Western Church, though there are traces of a now obsolete "form" anciently employed in parts of Gaul, the form of the Roman Church is the only one that has persisted, and it quickly passed into universal use. This is the prayer, Deus honorum omnium, which can be found in the "Pontificale Romanum." Its earliest appearance in writing is in the so-called "Leonine Sacramentary", referred by Duchesne to the sixth century; that it should appear there is proof positive that it must have been in existence for some time previously, at least as orally preserved, the force of which proof is greatly strengthened by the testimony to the conservatism of the Roman Church which we have from Pope Innocent I. For this Pope, writing in A.D. 416, to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium, complains that "if the priests of the Lord desired to preserve ecclesiastical ordinances as they were handed down to us by the Blessed Apostles, no diversity, no variety would be found in the very orders and consecrations themselves", but adds, "Who does not know and consider that what was delivered to the Roman Church by St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and is to this day kept (by it), ought to be observed by all, and that no practice should be substituted or added without being sanctioned by authority or precedent." When we trace downwards the history of this Roman rite we find that the conservative principle enunciated by St. Innocent has been faithfully followed. Thus Morinus, a great authority, writes, "We deem it necessary for the reader to know that the modern Roman Pontifical contains all that was in the earlier Pontificals, but that the earlier Pontificals do not contain all that is in the modern Roman Pontifical. For some things have been added to the recent Pontificals, for various pious and religious reasons, which are wanting in all the ancient editions. And that more recent Pontificals are, the more these additions obtrude themselves. But this is a wonderful and impressive fact, that in all the volumes, ancient, more modern, and contemporary, there is ever one form of ordination both as regards words and as regards ceremony, and the later books omit nothing that was present in the older. Thus the modern form of ordination differs neither in word nor in ceremony from that used by the ancient Fathers." Among the additions which Morinus has in mind as having been made during the early Middle Ages, the tradition of the instruments, that is, of the paten and chalice in the case of the priesthood, and that of the book of the Gospels in the case of the episcopate, are the most important. Indeed, these drew to themselves so much attention that for many centuries they and the words accompanying them were supposed by many to be more essential even than the imposition of hands and the prayer, Deus honorum. Still there was never any danger that the prevalence of these theological views would affect the validity of the ordinations given, for the simple reason that the principle of never omitting anything was rigidly adhered to.

The origin of the Anglican succession
It was this venerable ordination rite, as preserved in the English varieties of the Roman Pontifical, which was in use in the country when Henry VIII began his assaults on the ancient religion. He did not himself venture to touch it, but in the next reign it was set aside by Cranmer and his associates who, under the rule of Somerset and Northumberland, were engaged in remodelling the whole fabric of the Church of England to suit their extreme Protestant conceptions. These men pronounced the ancient forms to be utterly superstitious and requiring to be replaced by others more in conformity with the simplicity of the Gospel. Hence the origin of the Edwardine Ordinal, which, under the sanction of the Act of 1550, was drawn up by "six prelates and six other men of the realm learned in God's law, by the King's Majesty to be appointed and assigned".

This new rite underwent some further changes two years later, and was thus brought into the form in which it remained till the year 1662, when it was somewhat improved by the addition of clauses defining the nature of the orders imparted. As the Ordinal of 1550 had no lasting influence on the country, we may disregard it here, as we may also disregard, as of less consequence, the rite for the ordination of deacons.

In the Ordinal of 1552 the "essential form", that is, the form adjoined to the imposition of hands, was, in the case of the priesthood, merely this: "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"; and these other words, whilst the Bible was being delivered, "Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments in this Congregation, where thou shalt be so appointed." In the case of the episcopate it was, "Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands, for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness"; and these others, while the Bible was delivered, "Give heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon these things contained in this book . . . . Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd not a wolf; feed them, devour them not; hold up the weak, heal the sick, bind together the broken, bring again the outcast, seek the lost . . . ."

The additions made in 1662 were, in the case of the priesthood (after the words, "receive the Holy Ghost"), "for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands"; and in the case of the episcopate (after the words, "Take the Holy Ghost"), "for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands".

By this new Ordinal seven bishops and a number of inferior clergy were made during the last two years of Edward VI. On the accession of Mary in 1553 it was discarded, and the Pontifical resumed, but on the accession of Elizabeth in 1558 its use was restored, and has continued (with the addition of the defining clauses since 1662) down to the present day. The Anglican clergy are thus the creation of this Ordinal, and, primarily, the validity of their orders is dependent on its sufficiency — that is, on its sufficiency in its earlier form, for if that be wanting, the Apostolical succession must have lapsed long before 1662, and could not be resuscitated by the additions then made. It was on this consideration of the character of the Edwardine rite that the Holy See based its definitive decree of 1896.

Still, for the complete understanding of the history of the subject it is necessary to know something of the circumstances under which Archbishop Parker was raised to the episcopate, and of the further defects which the Anglican succession has been thought to inherit from its relation to the same. This Dr. Matthew Parker was chosen by Queen Elizabeth to be her first Archbishop of Canterbury. The metropolitan see was then vacant by the death of Cardinal Pole, and all the other sees of the kingdom, with a single exception, were vacant likewise, either because of the death of their previous occupants, or because the bishops who survived were, in the eyes of the Government, deprived for refusing to conform to the new order of things. The Queen intended through Parker to raise up a new hierarchy, but a difficulty confronted her. When consecrated himself, Parker could consecrate his intended colleagues; but how was he to get consecrated himself? None of the Catholic bishops still living would consent to perform the ceremony, and in default of them she had recourse to four ecclesiastics of no very high reputation, three of whom (William Barlow, John Scory, and Miles Coverdale) had been deprived by Mary, and the fourth (John Hodgkins) was a turncoat who had been consecrated suffragan Bishop of Bedford in 1537 and had consistently changed with every change of the times. To Barlow was given the lead, and he, with the others as his assistants, consecrated Parker, 17 December, 1559, in the private chapel at Lambeth, using the Edwardine Ordinal. Three days later Parker, with the aid of Barlow, Scory, and Hodgkins, consecrated four others at Bow Church. From these ancestors the whole Anglican succession is sprung. Was, then, the consecration of Parker a valid act? This is the other ground of dispute round which, as a matter of history, the controversy has gathered.
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

It is said that the pontificate is an office and not an order. How is it confered? In Apostolicae Curae the mere addition of the words "office and work of bishp" would have sufficed to save the Anglican epsicopate if it had been added in time. How is the "office and work of supreme pontiff" confered, and how can it be immune to scrutiny like Anglican orders.  If Anglican orders lapsed and could not be resuscitated, how does the office of supreme pontiff not lapse with an interegnum, and how does it resuscitate with the acceptance of election by the pontiff-elect?
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: ialmisry on February 17, 2011, 02:28:05 PM
Came across some interesting things on the issue of the WRO, Anglican Orders and the Vatican:
Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism. A Word about Intercommunion between the English and the Orthodox Churches. By J. J. Overbecr, D.D. London : N. Trubner & Co.

Dr. Overbeck dates his preface from Reading, professes to be a member of the Orthodox (Russian) Church, and avows his object to be the establishment of a Western orthodox Catholic Church.—'a reunion annihilating ' schism and heresy, Romanism and Protestantism, unbounded tyranny ' and unbounded liberty.' How he purposes to accomplish this does not appear, unless it be by a tour de force, for he is unmeasured in his lofty denunciation of every Church but his own, and imperiously summons it to implicit submission. He has but little mercy for Rome, the schism of the West; he has still less for the English Episcopal Church, which ' stands insulated without any recognised Caiholic sister-Church, dis' owned by the whole Catholic Church.' ' The English Church is not, ' and never was recognised by any Catholic Church.' As to the AngloCatholic section of it, its members ' are &o incredibly short-sighted as ' to identify the English Church with their own limited party in the ' Church." Dr. Overbeck ruthlessly denies the validity of the orders and sacraments of the English Church, quoting against those who maintain them, Hooker and other Anglican authorities, and reminding them that the Romish Church insists upon the reordination.of their clergy. He denies the unity of the Church, dwelling with cruel unction upon its divisions ; the Episcopal Church is ' a queer medley of quarrelling parties; an ' instructive pattern-card of heresiology,' He taunts it with its obsequious seeking of communion with the Eastern Church, and plainly tells it even more haughtily than Rome tells Dr. Pusey—that compromise is impossible; inasmuch as it is essentially a Protestant and heretical Church, it must abjure all Church pretensions, and unconditionally submit.

Dr. Overbpck writes somewhat wildly and spasmodically, but he hits very hard. Evangelicals, Broad-churchmen, and Ritualists all come in for a share of his blows ; the latter are the most to be pitied, as thev receive them kneeling. Surely the scorn poured upon them by both the Roman and the Eastern Church will teach them the folly of their mimic hierarchy and spurious sacerdotalism.
The British quarterly review, Volume 44 By Robert Vaughan
The opinions of Cranmer, and of Barlow, the reported consecrator of Archbishop Barker, were distinctly Erastian. At a conference held at Windsor, 1547, Cranmer answers to the question, " Can a bishop make a priest ?" as follows : " A bishop may make a priest, and so may princes and governors also, by the authority of God committed to them." Barlow replies, " Bishops have no authority to make priests without they be authorized by the Christian princes, and that laymen have other whiles made priests."

To the question, " Whether in the New Testament be required any consecration of a bishop or priest, or only appointing to the office be sufficient ?" Cranmer answers, " He that is appointed to be a bishop or priest needeth no consecration by the Scriptures, for election or appointing thereto is sufficient." Barlow also expresses the same sentiment. (See Stillingfleet's Ireniaim, and Collier, vol. ii. appendix.)

The "judicious" Hooker undoubtedly maintains the true Episcopalian belief, that ordination by bishops is preferable, but not of absolute necessity to a church. A very able article in this Magazine, published September. 1866, (Vol. III. No. 18,) shows the truth of our view. Passages are deduced from a work called Vox Ecdcsia, which contain the highchurch position, and admit that in case of necessity (which is left to the individual to determine) " orthodox presbyters may ordain." As Archbishop Parker said, " Extreme necessity in itself implieth dispensation from all laws." The author of this article, to which we beg leave to refer our readers, shows plainly that such a doctrine " overthrows the very idea of apostolical succession, elevates human necessity above divine law, and legitimates every form of error and schism."

Before their own communion, therefore, the low-churchmen have every advantage, as they are consistent with the principles of the Reformation which brought their church into being. When Protestants desert their own platform, on what ground can they logically stand ?

Secondly,before the Christian world the high-churchmen occupy a very unfortunate position. They make assertions which unchurch themselves, while they separate from their brethren, and aspire to an ecclesiastical status which they have not, which the whole world denies to them, and which they can never defend. If the apostolical succession is necessary to the existence of a church, then by the verdict of all who hold such a doctrine, they are no church; for with all their pretensions, they have it not. It has been shown over and over again, by arguments incontestable, that the ordination of Archbishop Parker, if indeed it ever took place, was wholly and entirely invalid. There is not satisfactory evidence that any ceremony of consecration was observed ; there is no proof whatever that Barlow, the officiating prelate, was ever ordained ; and lastly, the form used (according to the theory of the high-churchmen) was utterly inadequate to convey valid orders. What need, then, to argue further with those who will not see ? If any Catholic bishop at this day should venture to consecrate with the form which they tell us was used in Parker's case, he would be subject to severe censure, and his act would be considered totally null and valueless. One would naturally suppose that the judgment of the Catholic Church on this question would be held in respect. She ha: preserved the ancient rite, and holds the absolute necessity of episcopal ordination ; and while she considers it a sacrilege to reiterate the sacrament of orders, she reordains, without question and without condition, every English minister who, coming into her fold, aspires to the sacred priesthood. The same course has been adopted by what the Pan-Angelican Synod calls the Eastern Orthodox Church, which no more regards the Episcopalians as a churoh than she does the Methodists or Presbyterians. Is any more evidence required by any honest mind ? If the opinion of the eastern churches is of any weight, it has been more than once given. Dr. J. J. Overbeck, a Russian priest, in a recent work on " Catholic Orthodoxy," treats at some length of the English orders, which he pronounces to be null. These are among his words :

" i. The Anglo-Catholic fathers, on the point of apostolical succession and its needfulness, held latitudinarian views, subversive of the whole fabric of the church. 2. The boasted unity or concord of Anglicans even in essentials is a specious illusion. 3. Anglo-Catholicism is genuine Protestantism decked and disfigured by Catholic spoils."

" As Parker's consecration was invalid, the apostolic line was broken off, irremediably broken off."

" If Rome considered all ordinations by Parker and his successors, namely, the whole present English episcopate and clergy, to be invalid, null, and void, and consistently reordained all those converts who wished and were fit for orders ; the Eastern Church can but imitate her proceedings, as both, in this point, follow the very same principles The fact of the reordination is the final and conclusive verdict on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations. By this fact all further controversy is broken off and indisputably settled."

We fancy, then, the amusement which the pastoral of the late Anglican Synod will produce in the Eastern churches, for whose benefit it has been translated into the Greek language. We would recommend to the great Patriarchs to send a commission of doctors to the West, that they may see that oneness of mind of which the bishops so fervently speak. Then when they see it, we would like to have them point it out to us, that we may see it also, and rejoice with them.
Catholic world, Volume 7 By Paulist Fathers
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: Keble on February 17, 2011, 04:38:30 PM
Saepius Officio (http://anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf), the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: WetCatechumen on February 18, 2011, 01:31:36 AM
I think that the Pope's infallibility and his office as the arbitrator of appeals are getting confused here.

The Pope is infallible if he is speaking for the Church as to what constitutes a loss of valid Holy Orders.

However, when he's speaking about a particular case, my understanding would be that he's not infallible, although since he is the highest court of appeal, you're pretty much stuck.

Hence, it's easily possible for us to be wrong that the Anglicans have valid Holy Orders - but the criteria set forth for determining it are infallible.
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: ialmisry on February 18, 2011, 03:07:14 AM
I think that the Pope's infallibility and his office as the arbitrator of appeals are getting confused here.
LOL. Someone here just recently was claiming for your side that the supreme pontiff is infalible because he is the court of no appeal.

The Pope is infallible if he is speaking for the Church as to what constitutes a loss of valid Holy Orders.
Interesting, given that he is at seeming loss to explain how he acquires "infallibility" without Holy Orders.

However, when he's speaking about a particular case, my understanding would be that he's not infallible, although since he is the highest court of appeal, you're pretty much stuck.
Which is why "papal infallibility is such a useless concept, and the stipulation of "ex cathedra" only underlines that futility.

Hence, it's easily possible for us to be wrong that the Anglicans have valid Holy Orders - but the criteria set forth for determining it are infallible.
Oh, have they sorted out that "Apostolicae Curae" was "ex cathedra"?
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: Keble on February 18, 2011, 10:17:54 AM
I think that the Pope's infallibility and his office as the arbitrator of appeals are getting confused here.

The Pope is infallible if he is speaking for the Church as to what constitutes a loss of valid Holy Orders.

However, when he's speaking about a particular case, my understanding would be that he's not infallible, although since he is the highest court of appeal, you're pretty much stuck.

Hence, it's easily possible for us to be wrong that the Anglicans have valid Holy Orders - but the criteria set forth for determining it are infallible.

Well, it's not even that good, because one of the points of Saepius Officio is that Roman rites at various times have contained the same faults that they claim Anglican rites have.
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: WetCatechumen on February 19, 2011, 11:38:18 PM
I think that the Pope's infallibility and his office as the arbitrator of appeals are getting confused here.
LOL. Someone here just recently was claiming for your side that the supreme pontiff is infalible because he is the court of no appeal.

The Pope is infallible if he is speaking for the Church as to what constitutes a loss of valid Holy Orders.
Interesting, given that he is at seeming loss to explain how he acquires "infallibility" without Holy Orders.

However, when he's speaking about a particular case, my understanding would be that he's not infallible, although since he is the highest court of appeal, you're pretty much stuck.
Which is why "papal infallibility is such a useless concept, and the stipulation of "ex cathedra" only underlines that futility.

Hence, it's easily possible for us to be wrong that the Anglicans have valid Holy Orders - but the criteria set forth for determining it are infallible.
Oh, have they sorted out that "Apostolicae Curae" was "ex cathedra"?
When you do me the respect of not immediately responding to the first thing I say with, "LOL", as well as stating your objections in a charitable manner, I'll respond to you.
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: ialmisry on February 20, 2011, 12:16:18 AM
I think that the Pope's infallibility and his office as the arbitrator of appeals are getting confused here.

The Pope is infallible if he is speaking for the Church as to what constitutes a loss of valid Holy Orders.

However, when he's speaking about a particular case, my understanding would be that he's not infallible, although since he is the highest court of appeal, you're pretty much stuck.

Hence, it's easily possible for us to be wrong that the Anglicans have valid Holy Orders - but the criteria set forth for determining it are infallible.

Well, it's not even that good, because one of the points of Saepius Officio is that Roman rites at various times have contained the same faults that they claim Anglican rites have.

Not to mention the problem that their "head" does not transmit his pontificate: how does he get it then?
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: ialmisry on August 27, 2011, 01:14:15 AM
I can across something else of interest to the issue of the "manus" on supreme pontiff: Cajetan's Authority of Pope and Council Compared.
If someone insists that, when the apostolic see is vacant, the universal Church still exists, even without the pope as its head, the answer is that the universal Church exists only imperfectly, in such a way that this imperfection is a condition diminishing "the universal Church," just as a beheaded body diminishes an intact body.  The universal [body], after all, includes within itself all its office-holding members, the chief of whom is the head. Accordingly, the Church at such a time is headless and without its supreme part and power. Whoever denies this falls into the error of John Hus, denying the necessity of a head of the Church, which was condemned by Saint Thomas and by Martin V with the Council of Constance." And if someone took the view that the universal Church in this sense [without its head] has power immediately from Christ and is represented by the universal council, he would err intolerably, as is obvious from the texts cited and as will become more apparent further on.

Concerning the second comparison at the other extreme, between the pope set on one side and the whole Church, that is, even including the pope, on the other, it is said that the pope with the rest of the Church does not have greater power of spiritual jurisdiction than he has by himself, because his power
contains in itself the powers of all the rest, as their universal cause
There is no power of jurisdiction in the Church which is not in the pope, as is inductively obvious.

Even the power to elect the pope is in the pope's power. This is obvious both from the case of Peter, who chose his successor, as John III says in c. Si Petrus [C. 8 q. 1 c. 1], and from the fact that the pope ordains the exercise of the power to elect, determining when and how an election should be held, and, what is more important, determining the location of that power, when he established that election belongs to at least two thirds of the cardinals. This is proved from c. Si papa [D. 40 c. 6], where it is said that the whole body of the faithful recognizes that its salvation depends most, after the Lord, on the pope's good condition. Pope Leo says in c. Ita Dominus [D. 19 c. 7], "The Lord wished the sacrament of this gift to belong to the office of all the apostles, so that He placed [it] principally in most blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, that from him, as from a head, He might pour out His gifts, as it were, upon the whole body."  It is absolutely obvious in that passage that all the rest of the Church's body is allocated power by the pope as if by a head.

Oh dear, it seems that not even a Council has the power to make a bishop into a supreme pontiff, a real problem for Petrine succession.
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 27, 2011, 03:48:36 AM
Well, the charism of infallibility cannot be conferred by the bishops. It is from the Holy Spirit as and when needed.  It is an intermittent thing.   "Oh, oh," says the Spirit, " I see he is writing something again. I'd better flutter down and stop him making any mistakes. There was that dreadful mistake years ago when he got it wrong, didn't quite grasp the other point of view, and he lost all those Ethiopian fellows.  As to the mess he created with all the mistakes in Humbert's Bull which he never bothered to retract.... Oh my!  If he's going to keep alienating people, those poor Anglicans, there won't be any money coming from Peter's Pence.  We'll be broke!"
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: ialmisry on September 01, 2011, 12:20:43 PM
on the transmission of the "office":
Formosus, as a bishop, had been laicized, and Pope John VIII convenved a synod and extraced an oath by Formosus that he never return to
Rome and exercise priestly function. Pope Marinus I then restored him to his see, and then Formosus was elected Pope. He ordained the future Stephan VI, who, once he was elected, nullfied Formosus' papacy and all his ordinations, including evidently his own (he dug up Formosus' corpse and tried him). Then Pope Theodore reverse this, while his deposed predecessor Pope Romanus still lived (and thus should be the legitimate pope). Then Pope Christopher came (now for a century considered an anti-pope), who was succeeded by Pope Sergius III (excommunicated by Pope), who dug up Formosus again, reimposed Stephen's decisions and demanded that all the hierarchs ordained under Formosus had to be reordained, (he murdered popes Leo V and Christopher), a decision then reversed by Pope Anastasius III. And I've actually left out quite a few details.

Now (except for the modern view of Christopher) we are dealing with popes who are all seen as being legimate who are annullying each other's papacies, excommunicating, defrocking, etc. calling into question the episcopal character that a pope must have according to canon, and the validity of the election (excommunicated and the invalidated episcopate don't validl elect). Which is a problem if your source of unity comes from the pope.

With an antipope, the issue is even deeper, as who is an antipope is mostly determined by hindsight (Christopher wasn't struck from the official list until over a thousand years after his death).

Now I have always said the problem is that the pope, according to Latin theology, is ontonlogically different from other bishops (infallibility for one) and questioned why that is not reflected in an ordination to the papacy. I've been told the election is the elevation, and his powers come from that (problematic). Now if you have an irregular election, what does that do to the pope's status? The transmission of a unique charism (which the latin church claims for the pope) makes a unique problem: if any other bishop, three other bishops (or one in an emergency) could pass the charism on. But the pope claims a charism above the faculty of the bishops.
Title: Re: "Apostolicae Curae" and the "Office and Work" of "Supreme Pontiff'
Post by: Papist on September 01, 2011, 02:30:59 PM
I think that the Pope's infallibility and his office as the arbitrator of appeals are getting confused here.

The Pope is infallible if he is speaking for the Church as to what constitutes a loss of valid Holy Orders.

However, when he's speaking about a particular case, my understanding would be that he's not infallible, although since he is the highest court of appeal, you're pretty much stuck.

Hence, it's easily possible for us to be wrong that the Anglicans have valid Holy Orders - but the criteria set forth for determining it are infallible.
This sounds about right to me.