Rev. John E. Upham examines the lineal qualifications of Anglican Holy Orders as they relate to the Roman and Eastern Church, in his paper On The Validity of Anglo-Catholic Holy Orders. He states in the paper that historically the Eastern Orthodox Church has supported Anglican Holy Orders while the Roman Church has rejected the validity of Anglican Orders. In March of 1923, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Damiaos, in the name of the Synod, wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, stating that the Holy Orders of the Anglican Church have the same validity as the Roman Church since they have the same “elements,” as the document says. In 1936 the Rumanian Commission of the Orthodox Church declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid. Three years later the Rumanian Commission, as well as the Holy Synod of Greece, declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid.
On September 18th of 1896, with the strong consent of a Roman Catholic commission, and without the presence (defense) of an Anglican, Pope Leo XIII declared in his Bull, Apostoliciae Curae that Anglican orders lack the necessary “form and intent” to be valid.
The theology of the Catholic Church requires that there be “form, matter, minister, and intent” to convey grace to the recipient of Holy Orders. The “form” involves the words themselves in the service. The “matter” is the outward sign of the Sacrament. The “minister” is of course the Priest, Deacon, or Bishop. And the “intent” is what the Church intends to do as the Church has always done. These requirements would seemingly match Anglican Orders, but not according to Pope Leo’s Apostolicae Curae. In section 33 of this article, it explains that there was a defect of form and intention in the consecration of Matthew Parker, the first Archbishop of the Anglican Church. The Pope implied that there was a new rite that was not met in the consecration. The paper implies that there was no correct intention since, to the Pope’s and his council, the Anglican church did not intend to hold to and continue apostolic orders through time; a rather cheap and ambiguous shot, especially since the Pope did not refer to the Preface of the Edwardine Ordinals, which clearly state the intention of the English Church to continue the practice of the Early Church.
Leo also basis his argument on the Anglican Orders lack of “Form” by quoting the Council of Trent and its proclamation that when a man is ordained he receives the power “of consecration and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord.” The Anglican Church added the words “for the office and work of a Bishop or Priest” in the Edwardine Ordinal after the Council of Trent was an admission on the part of the Anglican Church that the first Orders, such as the Ordination of Archbishop Matthew Parker, was “defective and inadequate.” But what the Pope did not know or take in consideration was that the words “for the office and work of a Bishop or Priest” were added to ward off the Presbyterians and draw a distinction in Orders between the Anglicans and the Presbyterians. They were not added because the Anglican Church thought there to be some sort of theological defect in the form.
It seems to me that Pope Leo XIII would have rejected Anglican Orders even if that particular phrasing as well as any other phrasing was included in the English Ordinal. He really did not have to say such a meticulous and absurd thing about the linguistics of the Anglican Form of Ordination. Certainly linguistics do matter, but linguistics matter no further than theology matters. In other words, there was no breach in theological form with the Anglicans. The Pope knew that Anglicans have been ordaining “Deacons, Priest, and Bishops” from day one and to say that their form or intent was not to ordain in this way is simply immature and out right childish.
From the evidence of Rev. John E. Upham’s document, On The Validity of Anglo-Catholic Holy Orders, Pope Leo’s Apostolicae Curae was clearly a political move to stop the flow of converts into Anglicanism. If the Pope would have declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid, many people would have flocked to the Anglican Church, knowing that they would receive both “present and historical” grace. It has been said that Pope Leo XIII was not a vindictive man and was indeed trying to promote the unity between Roman and Anglo Catholics but we must remember that the Papacy “is served by a very fallible bureaucracy that can be manipulated and by politically driven motives.”
It is clear to me that Anglican Holy Orders are indeed valid; valid to take up the gifts of prophet, priest, and king. There is no void of form or intent in the Orders and they hardly differ from the Roman Catholic Form. Further support lies within the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church has recognized Anglican Orders.
Perhaps there will come a day when this debate will be reexamined. We shall see what direction the CofE heads after the Lambeth conference next year, determining their commitment to the universal church.
Comments
Thanks for the excellent post. You have addressed a number of issues so I will try to be concise.
I’ll summarize the change in faith concerning the Eucharist that occurred in the Church of England by citing a few historical documents.
The Six Articles, published by Henry VIII in 1539, decree: “First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ’s mighty word (it being spoken by the priest), is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary; and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread or wine, nor any other substance, but the substance of Christ, God and man.”
This statute clearly declares the law of intent of priests of the Church of England to do that which Jesus established and what had been practiced since apostolic times.
Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury and chief author of the 39 Articles of Religion, wrote: “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. […]Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” (Articles of Religion)
Not only does Parker deny the essential reality of the Eucharist in the Articles but he denies the purpose of the Divine Liturgy, which is the renewal of the New Covenant. This denial of the fundamental aspect of the Eucharist and the priesthood is continued in the Books of Common Prayer of 1550-59 and Ordinals with the deletion of the language of sacrifice. To quote Peter Toon, “the Articles are Calvinist when referring to the Sacraments.”
John Cosin, Bishop of Durham during this period, further amplifies these “differences between Roman Catholics and us of the Church of England,” in his “Letter to the Countess of Peterborough.”
Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester during this period says, in his Responsio ad Apologiam Bellarmini: “But a change in substance we look for, and find it nowhere…the substance nevertheless remaining what it was before (that is bread)…That your Christ made of bread is sacrificed there we will never allow.”
The sacrificial nature of the Eucharist as the representation and renewal of the New Covenant established by Christ is essential to the presbyterate and episcopacy. Therefore, because of the clear lack of intent to do what the Church throughout the ages has done and the defective form, one cannot affirm with certainty that Parker or any ordained ministers of that generation were ordered to the presbyterate or episcopacy of the ancient Church.
This defect of form in the Anglican Divine Liturgy and in the Ordinal was addressed in later editions.
When Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis’ pronounced the “certainty” of the validity of Anglican Orders, he did so for a variety of political reasons and created a furious uproar in the Orthodox world. Opposition was so great that his compound in the Phanar district in Istanbul was attacked by a group of clergy and laymen who intended to depose him. His reign was cut short by world-wide opposition and he went quickly into exile after only 2 years on the Patriarchal throne. Despite this and a few other statements accepting Anglican orders, in practice, Orthodox Churches treat Anglican orders as invalid. Anglican ministers seeking to become Orthodox presbyters are required to receive the Sacrament of Chrismation as well as the unconditional Sacrament of Ordination.
Rome, however, in some circumstances, ordains Anglican ministers conditionally.
Gil, Leo’s rejection of Anglican Holy Orders was not based on the Eucharist. Also, in the late 19th century, prior to Leo’s argument, The Church of England altered their Canons to loosen those whom did not adhere to the 39 articles.
Gil, due to my work-load, I cannot reply too often - Hope you understand, and thanks for the comments.