Historical Roman view of Anglican Orders

Discussion in 'Sacraments, Sacred Rites, and Holy Orders' started by Stalwart, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    2,506
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Thought I'd start a thread on this to not detract from other topics.

    I contend that during the 16th century, Anglican orders were regarded as valid, and for instance under Mary almost no Anglican priests or bishops were reordained before being accepted as valid under the Roman hierarchy. My view is based on the following:

    1. When Elizabeth acceded to the throne, the Pope sent a legation offering her that he would accept the 1559 BCP as valid, if she were to join the Roman church.


    2. On the question of reordination, suffice it to mention this comment (though I'm not a Continuer):
      This is corroborated by Bishop Scory's biography:
      Scory was ordained under Edward and never re-consecrated before being accepted as a bishop under Mary.


    3. When Mary was installed and Cardinal Pole arrived in England as the Pope's legate, he cleared the English church from any malfeasance from the Roman Church's perspective, via his famous proclamation that the English church was pardoned from "all ecclesiastical sins".

      What this means is that for a Roman Catholic today, the Edwardian church must be considered fully Catholic, and that nothing done there was sinful of contrary.
     
    Incense, Scottish Monk and Toma like this.
  2. Symphorian

    Symphorian Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    351
    Likes Received:
    517
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    Anglican, CofE
    I'm inclined to agree with Stalwart that no clergy were known to have been re ordained during Mary's reign on the insistence of the restored authority of Rome due to issues directly related to the Edwardine Ordinal.

    It is true that a very small number of clergy (approx 15 men) sought re-ordination. There was one case in my Diocese: a Priest called John Grose had been ordained Deacon and Priest by Miles Coverdale in 1552. He became Rector of a village aptly named Creed in 1553. In 1554 he visited +Bonner in London to receive his orders as Deacon and Priest under the old Ordinal. Grose was not forced or required to submit for re-ordination, he chose to seek re-ordination due to personal doubts about the sufficiency of his orders.
     
    Robert, Toma and Stalwart like this.
  3. Old Christendom

    Old Christendom Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    476
    Likes Received:
    568
    Religion:
    Reformed
    Leo XIII officially declared the Anglican orders "null and void" in the late 19th century and so any Anglican priest or bishop that converted to Roman Catholicism would have to seek a reordination if he wished to pursue his vocation in Rome. Despite the ecumenical overtures since Vatican II, I'm not sure this decision has ever been reversed.
     
    Toma likes this.
  4. highchurchman

    highchurchman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    683
    Likes Received:
    538
    Country:
    Britain
    Religion:
    Anglican/Catholic
    Unless I am mistaken, over the last years there were Anglican priests admitted to the Roman Church without being re-ordained! For French parishes.
    It has never been revoked as far as I have heard,never-the-less, basically, it is irrelevant for Anglicans, an irritant perhaps, but no more! Our catholicity should rely on Baptism and belief, do we accept Christ's Gospel? We should read John Sali
    sbury's reply to the Pope and should have it delivered to all our congregations! Or indeed, to all who are interested, it answers the query's and puts the Roman Claims in to perspective.
     
    Scottish Knight likes this.
  5. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    2,506
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I'd say that it's this 1893 declaration that was an innovation in theology. It centered on arbitrary and preposterous requirement, as well as being swiftly refuted in 1897 by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. When we find in Roman history we find that they were very free to accept Anglican ordinations in the 16th century. Plus, even Pius XIII says that the 1662 BCP 'has nothing wrong in it'. Post-16th century ordinations are thereby accepted.
     
  6. Symphorian

    Symphorian Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    351
    Likes Received:
    517
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    Anglican, CofE
    RC's must give 'firm and definitive assent' to Leo's pronouncement on Anglican Orders in Apostolicae Curae to remain in full communion with Rome.

    Saepius Officio, the Anglican response to AC is available from Project Canterbury:

    http://anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf

    As far as I'm aware, in recent years, there have only been two conditional (sub conditione) ordinations of Anglican clergy. These were John Jay Hughes and Graham Leonard. Leonard was one time Bishop of my Diocese and later Bishop of London. Leonard was conditionally ordained as a RC Priest by the late Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster. Hume was known to have certain reservations about Apostolicae Curae due to Old Catholic and Orthodox involvement in Anglican ordinations since the pronouncement of AC in the late 19th century. Apparently Leonard was conditionally ordained directly to the Priesthood (per saltem ordination) without first being made Deacon. I believe that Leonard was able to show specific documentation regarding the involvement of an Old Catholic Bishop when he received Anglican Orders.

    Due to Polish Pat (PNCC) and Dutch Touch (Old Catholic) involvement in Anglican ordinations there must be a wide infusion of these lines in Anglican Orders. Curiously, Rome has made no official pronouncement as to its effect despite the conditional ordinations of Hughes and Leonard.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  7. highchurchman

    highchurchman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    683
    Likes Received:
    538
    Country:
    Britain
    Religion:
    Anglican/Catholic
    My memory isn't what it was and I may be wrong in this instance, but, were there not one or two Anglican,apostates, welcomed in to French diocese a few years ago? This without re-ordination!
    On the subject of ordinations, when I became a priest, I was filled with pride, for which the bishop reprooved me, that my orders were streamed from Laud and I think Non Juring sources!
     
  8. Symphorian

    Symphorian Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    351
    Likes Received:
    517
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    Anglican, CofE
    Hi
    Highchurchman - there is (or was) some kind of anomalous situation in France where agreement was made between the French RC Bishop's Conference and Anglicans to allow Anglicans in France to receive Holy Communion from a RC Priest (subect to his agreement) if because of distance, the Anglican communicant is unable to attend an Anglican Chaplaincy. Whether this practice still continues I do not know.
     
  9. highchurchman

    highchurchman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    683
    Likes Received:
    538
    Country:
    Britain
    Religion:
    Anglican/Catholic

    Thanks, but I'm sure they allowed more than one Anglican Priest to serve without re-ordination. I might be wrong, but I'll look further!
     
  10. Old Christendom

    Old Christendom Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    476
    Likes Received:
    568
    Religion:
    Reformed
    Actually, what is most ironic about this whole affair, is that the current rite of episcopal ordination in the Roman rite would be considered "null and void" by Leo XIII's standards. In fact, some traditional Roman Catholics, mostly sedevacantists, make this precise claim.

    The only reason the current rite is not considered "null and void" by Rome and its theologians it's because Rome fashioned it!
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  11. highchurchman

    highchurchman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    683
    Likes Received:
    538
    Country:
    Britain
    Religion:
    Anglican/Catholic
    Roman view of Anglican Orders?


    It's all of interest historically, but in practical terms as the old advert used to say,'It's all pants!,'
    The fact is our Orders stem from the Celtic Church and are at least as old as 37 AD. When Elizabeth, wrote to her apostate bishops in answer to their claim about the papacy, she pointed out two things,
    A. They wouldn't have dared say that to her father, Henry Tudor and that,
    B. they knew quite well that Anglican Orders stemmed from S.Joseph of Arimathea.( Corr.Eliza !. Fernley.Pub.Madras) It's a rough quotation. The same author tells us that when James Ist, sent his bishops to the Council of Dort, he had them before his Great Council and he instructed them quite clearly that there was to be no admittince of parity between the Protestant Clergy and Anglican Orders; our Orders came from, or via, Arimathea. Again a rough Translation.
    As I said, it's all pants, because the Orthodox leadership in the 1930s and before, after discussions said that in view and resting on the Anglican submissions, that they found no faults on Anglican Orders! We have seen, however, that the advent of Gay Bishops and Womens Orders put a dampner on the business.
    Regarding the Orthodox View of Anglican Ordinations see this Board, above and the Canterbury Project on line.