In 1896 Leo XIII, the best pope since Benedict XIV in his Traddiness's opinion, issued Apostolicae Curae, which surmises that owing to a historic defect of form and a congruous defect of intent—the second following the first—Anglican Holy Orders are to be considered "absolutely null and utterly void." Does this still hold?
I have no opinion on the matter and it does not impact many of us necessarily, but it could be an important question in the future. Some things have changed since the days of Papa Pecci. AC notes that the Anglican ordination rite was improved to say something about what is meant by "Receive the Holy Ghost" at ordination and concedes that "this addition could give the form its due signification," albeit too late given that succession had been broken by over a century's use of the invalid Edwardian rites (AC 26). What may have changed things was the introduction of the "Dutch touch" in the 1930s or there about. Anglican clergy would often ask schismatic "Old Catholics" from continental Europe to "confirm" their orders using the Roman ordination and consecration rites.
Fr. Hunwicke has written about the concept of intention and its implication for the "invalidators" of Sacraments quite a bit in the last year or so. What is to be done if the Church of England has indeed undergone the "infection" (Hunwicke's wording) of the Dutch touch? Then again, we may be presuming too much. Papa Pecci in AC 28 states that the context of the episcopal consecration rites defects the intention regardless of the improved form. Michael Davies used to like to quote a 19th century case of a Methodist minister in Oceania who said something to the effect of "Baptism is only a symbol, it does not do anything at all" and then proceeded to pour water over the inhabitants' heads, saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The Holy Office determined that regardless of the minister's disbelief, he had enough belief that there was such a thing as Baptism that his intention was sufficient for the Sacrament to be valid. Is there a distinction to be made between the two cases that might shed more limpid light on the matter?
And of course there is the curious case of the Anglican bishop of London, Graham Leonard, who converted to Catholicism after having had his orders "confirmed" by Old Catholics in Utrecht. Cardinal Hume wrote "prudent doubt" about the invalidity of Leonard's orders existed. Consequently Leonard was conditionally ordained a priest. Personally, I think he should have been conditionally ordained a bishop in order to respect the possibility that he really was a successor to the Apostles, but I suspect Rome wanted to avoid the question of a married bishop (the Rad Trad has not heard of a married bishop since Pope Hadrian II).
None of these questions amount to an opinion. They really are just questions and points of discussion. Perhaps some of our Thomistic readers and Anglophiles would be kind enough to join in the comment box and share their wealth of knowledge with the rest of us. Are there any recent studied on this subject?
Rather than tackle Anglican orders, I'm going to step back and offer an opinion on sacraments in general (be it Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, Eucharist etc...)
ReplyDeleteI've heard the argument that lack of intent invalidates the sacrament. I don't entirely agree.
If a valid minister lacks the intent, but does not disclose this to the recipient(s) then I'm not sure it is invalid. Would God refuse the grace to someone who fully intended to receive it validly just because the minister secretly didn't believe in or did not wish to dispense the sacrament?
Can the almighty God, who desires that all men be saved, be thwarted by a technicality exploited by one of his creatures?
Just some things to consider...
I *think* there is a distinction made between the minister's private intention and the intention latent in the rites used (explicated by the environment, other ceremonies and words etc). In the case of the Methodist, he made his private intention public, but he still baptized in a way that allows the Church's intention to be there.... I may be quite wrong. I think Lefebvre had the same dilemma; he thought the Pauline rites were invalid until he, and some level headed people around him, re-considered just how little intention is necessary for a Sacrament.
DeleteIf the rite works it is very hard to invalidate a Sacrament. One would need a "positive contrary intention".... ie. during Baptism saying "I am not baptizing at all here, I am just pouring water and saying words and I intend for no Christian things to happen whatsoever." Over a century ago some South American bishop got in a word of trouble for doing that when he [fake] ordained indigenous priests; he invalidated it because of his racial views. They had to be re-ordained.
"One would need a "positive contrary intention".... ie. during Baptism saying "I am not baptizing at all here, I am just pouring water and saying words and I intend for no Christian things to happen whatsoever." "
DeleteSo if a Catholic priest were to say in his homily something to the effect of "the Catholic Church has moved beyond the mumbo-jumbo of the 'real presence' and now teaches that the Eucharist is just a symbol", does he not validly confect the Sacrament during the Consecration?
Rad Trad,
DeleteLefebvre was not consistent in any view he had on the new ordination rite. He actually used the Pauline ordination rite in the early days for the ordination of Abbé Cotard at the insistence of the Abbot of the monastery where the service took place. Afterwards he offered the candidate sub conditione ordination several times but Abbé Cotard felt he didn't need it. Indeed the 'feeling' anyone had about their new rite ordination seemed to be the basis of how it was treated. If someone felt doubtful then sub conditione ordination was carried out. Contra-wise if someone felt fine with the new rite for the most part he was left alone. During my relatively brief involvement with the $$PX (1988 - 91) attitudes had hardened. A man came to the English franchise at the time Lefebvre paid his last visit here. The man, let's call him Fr. XYZ, had a somewhat unstable history and was looking for his niche. The District Superior and clergy strongly urged him to accept sub conditione ordination as did Lefebvre himself. Fr. XYZ refused and lasted a few more weeks and was encouraged to leave when certain aspects of his past were dug up. Fr. XYZ is now on Mount Athos as a monk. I believe until recently the $$PX would supply conditional ordination on request.
Yet Mormon baptisms are universally considered invalid on account of invalid intent (they do not believe in the Trinity but three gods called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost).
ReplyDeleteBecause, in that case, ALL parties lack the intent. If only the minister lacks the intent and the recipient is unaware of this fact, I'm not sure the rule applies.
DeleteFor instance, a priest has (pick one) privately lost his faith, holds heretical beliefs, or maliciously sabotages a sacrament for some people because he doesn't like them. He continues his work as usual and the congregation is unaware. Those who receive his sacraments would - legally speaking - be receiving invalid sacraments.
However it is my personal belief that God supplies the grace to the recipient(s) in such cases.
This is consistent with the idea of Baptism of Desire/Blood and the Catholic teaching of God's Justice and Mercy. When the sacrament is physically impossible to receive, and the recipient wishes for the grace, God supplies the grace.
As an initial thought here: I think a distinction should be made between grace given to a sincere candidate for a Sacrament--as L. of B. discusses--and the sacramental Character, which, without a valid minister or ministerial intention, is not received, i.e. the principle effect of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. This would hold true for Baptism of Blood and of Desire. This grace is, it goes without saying, more than sufficient for salvation.
DeleteIn the case of Holy Orders, however, if there is no sacramental Character, then there is no power conferred on the candidate to offer the Holy Sacrifice or to absolve sins.
I see. So we have:
DeleteBaptism is covered through God's extraordinary grace.
Holy Orders is not.
My question is, what of the other five sacraments? It seems - to me anyway - that at least Confession and Matrimony should be covered in such extreme circumstances (heck, if there is physically no priest, then a Catholic couple with the right intentions may enter into a marriage). I'd also imagine that the Eucharist is NOT covered in an invalid/sabotaged Mass, but that the recipient would receive some grace for their sincere attempt.
i understand the distinction you're making. However consider the example of an adult "convert" who secretly does not believe in the dogmas of the Church, and is baptized, but later has a spiritual conversion and decides to be a devout Catholic. And, coincidentally, the priest who baptized him had the same nonbelief in the Church, and only baptized him to keep getting his paycheck from the diocese. In this case both parties did not really believe in the Sacrament yet I do not think the convert would be re-baptized.
DeleteI think the only way to clear this up is to say that all Sacraments will be accepted as valid assuming (a) the proper sacramental formula was used and (b) the minister is publicly believed to be the proper confectioner of the Sacrament. So if an unordained man pretended to be a Catholic priest and said Holy Mass, the Eucharist would be valid due to the extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise every Catholic on earth would have to live in constant anxiety that their priest was invalidly ordained because his bishop was an imposter, etc.
I think that is good approach, though I am not sold on the idea of a definitely invalid priest saying a valid mass. I'd imagine the unknowing layperson would receive some graces in those circumstances, but they would not be receiving the Body and Blood.
DeleteStill, the layperson should only have to worry about invalidity unless they are made aware of enough evidence for there to be doubt. In all other cases of "grey areas"...
“It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands” - Anastasius of Sinai
L. of B.: the distinction I'm making is not that between the conferral of grace through the ordinary way and the extraordinary way but rather the distinction between the conferral of the sacramental Character in Baptism (as well as in Confirmation and Holy Orders) and the non-conferral of the Character.
DeleteAccordingly, the hypothetical situation of a subject desiring Orders but not receiving the Sacrament through the defect of intention of the minister (bishop), the subject would receive grace according to the usual conditions: freedom from mortal sin, the right disposition, etc. Nevertheless, without the Character there is no power (or quality) in the subject's soul to absolve or confect the H. Eucharist.
The only added consideration for Baptism apart from Confirmation and Orders is that it is of necessity for salvation, and the sincere desire for salvation through the Church would, or ought to be considered sufficient disposition of the soul to receive sanctifying grace, although not the Character of Baptism.
Joseph: in the case you offer, it seems you hold that the sacramental Character would be conferred but no grace received along with it in the Baptism (due to a defect of the subject's will), at least until the efficacy of the Character is "unlocked" by the subject's conversion. There is a kind of analogy with the sacramental grace of Matrimony, where the bond, the principal effect of the Sacrament, becomes efficacious only when the defect in the will of one of the spouses (or both) is removed. (This is referred to by Canonists as "sanatio in radice," as you may know.)
DeleteYour proposition about a valid Mass being offered by a layman (because of the intentions of those assisting at Mass and possibly communicating) will, I'm afraid, come up against canons 10 and 11 from the seventh session of Trent, condemning the propositions that all Christians have the power to administer the Sacraments and that a minister does not need to have the intention to do, at least, what the Church does in order to confect and confer the Sacraments.
I don't understand how an atheist can baptize and it is considered valid (as long as he intends to do what the Church does), but a Mormon's baptism isn't valid. Isn't the Mormon'sintention the same as the hypothetical atheist?
ReplyDeleteI think it ties into what I was saying above. The intention of the recipient is key.
DeleteMormons who are baptized are intending to be baptized in the name of three gods. An Atheist baptizing in the name of the Triune God someone who wishes to baptized in the name of the Triune God would be performing a valid sacrament.
Even if the atheist does not believe in the one true God, those receiving do. In the case of the Mormons, none of them believe it. Hence, if you convert from Mormonism, it is required that you be rebaptised.
Ok, I think I found my source of confusion. I thought that becauseMormon's believed that they are doing what the Church intends, then their administration of baptism would be valid, even if they have a completely wrong understanding of God (which would be the case, for example, of an theist). I was forgetting, however, that those receiving Mormon baptism, for it to bevalid, would need to believe in a Triune God.
DeleteYou could even go so far as to say that the sacrament would still be valid even if the recipient lacks the proper intention: for example, if an atheist baptises a dying infant. I suppose the only thing that would invalidate the sacrament would be if the recipient has a conscious intention that is contrary to the Church's faith concerning the sacrament.
DeleteChristopher: not to make too fine distinctions, I would say that in the case of infant baptism by an atheist (not an impossible scenario nowadays), it is clearer to speak not of a lack of proper intention but of incapacity of any intention, since a candidate's lack of intention would imply (objectively, not necessarily as regards an individual subject) sin (or, "the lack of a due good").
DeleteNow that we have cleared up some things regarding sacramental intention, does anyone have knowledge on Anglican orders and their validity?
ReplyDeleteI'll openly admit that it's a subject of which I (as someone with zero ties to Anglicanism) am ignorant.
Oncet, M.J. recalls reading about an Anglican Cleric who was secretly ordained by a Catholic Bishop off the coast of Venice.. He might even have been consecrated a Bishop.
ReplyDeleteThat is the very little info left in that teeny memory cell. Does that strike a note with anybody?
As to Anglican Ordes being absolutely null and utterly void, M.J. has since been learnt that what once read as an air tight open and shut case is anything but; but if that phrase means as little as it is being taken to mean, then what'n'hell is binding?
ReplyDeleteEVERYTHING solid has been baptized by the Universal Solvent, Ecumenism, and this part of Tradition is slowly dissolving before our very eyes; maybe this once weighty declaration will become so dissolved it will melt down into the now nonexistent Limbo.
Prior to his swimming the Tiber virtually every Catholic - every Catholic who had ever read about this matter- thought that the Pope was crystal clear in his teaching; but, now-a-days all it takes is one convert to subvert all that was once universally held.
What was that again about Sensus Fidelium?
There was at least once married bishop in modern times. Bishop Salomão Barbosa Ferraz was consecrated in the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church in 1945 and later reconciled with Rome in 1963. He was received as a bishop by Pope John XXIII and not re-ordained. He also participated in all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council. He died in 1969.
ReplyDeleteAnd as some things just happen in Brazil, here we have a precedent: the erratic Msgr Salomão Barbosa Ferraz (1880-1969). Originally Presbyterian, became Anglican and then founded his own sect. He was consecrated bishop in 1945 by the schismatic Archbishop Carlos Duarte. He was received into the Catholic Church in 1963 and named "titular of Eleutherna", acting as auxiliary to Rio de Janeiro and taking part in some sections of Vatican II. He was married and father of seven children. The difference is that Dom Salomão Ferraz had already been a validly sacred bishop when it was received into the Church.
ReplyDeleteTranslated from http://oblatvs.blogspot.com/2010/11/homens-casados-passarao-integrar.html