The Church of England being separate from the Holy See, the centre of Catholic unity, does indeed have valid sacraments (at least after the re-grafting on of valid lines of succession from the Old Catholics), but being separate means that she cannot, by very definition, be completely Catholic. She lacks full communion, being in schism. She lacks jurisdictional unity, being in schism. Thus, there can never be an Anglican Rite within the Catholic Church unless the See of Canterbury itself is restored. Thus, besides the sacraments of baptism and matrimony, her other sacraments are not complete either. Valid? Yes. Complete? No. Ever since the innovation of women’s ‘ordination’, the question of the Church readdressing the situation surrounding Apostolicae Curae has been dropped. It’s pointless now. Why should theologians and historians waste all their time delving into every individual ordination to discern if there might be Old Catholic lines back there someplace, when the whole thing has been jeopardised? Hence the wise words of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, saying that, ‘I think what we need to focus on now is not the validity or otherwise of Anglican ordinations, whether mainstream or semi-detached, but on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestion that orders (and therefore, one should say sacraments other than baptism) are second order issues’. Indeed, Anglo-Catholics now must go home, for the church that raised them has not only deserted them, but has actively announced that persecution will formally commence.
The point Barchester would like to make is that people must not fear the Anglo-Catholic’s orders, for they are valid Anglican orders. But there is a communal deficit there that even the likes of The Continuum blog must recognise if their claim to be ‘a part of’ the Catholic Church is to hold any water (Barchester does not grant their argument, though that is beside the point). And this is Barchester’s second point – that Anglicans need not fear being ordained a Catholic priest should they decide to move into the Ordinariates. It is not a renunciation of the Anglican’s previous ministry at all, but rather it is making that Anglican priest a fully Catholic priest.
If the Oxford Movement showed us anything, it is that Newman was proven correct. But fortunately we do not have to choose between him and Pusey any more. The Holy Father has provided a way for Pusey to bring his parish in as well. Barchester is thinking about all the catholic parishes in the Church of England who might hesitate to go into the Ordinariate with gusto. This is not a time of sadness. It is a time of determination and of co-operation. This is to be a corporate move and Barchester’s fear of Forward in Faith splitting along the lines of Newman and Pusey over issues like Anglican orders is, we fear, deeply real. But it is deeply ill-informed. This is not a time for sadness about the traitorous behaviour of some within the Church of England, that can come later when we are safe on the other side. It is a time for joy, gladness, and thankfulness, for the end of our Pilgrim Way is in sight.
2 comments:
I would have to take issue with the author's characterization of the validity of Anglican orders. Validity depends on BOTH form and intent. Proper intent, in this case, requires that the one officiating at the sacrament believe in both the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the mass. Such belief was not required of Anglican bishops either before or after the "Dutch touch." Ergo, it cannot be assumed, as the author does, that the Dutch Touch necessarily validates all subsequent Anglican ordinations; hence the continuing requirement for at least conditional ordination into Catholic orders.
There is a third category between "null and void" and "valid," and that is "uncertain." Unfortunately for Anglican clergy, "uncertain" orders must ipso facto be treated as invalid. This does not necessarily mean that Anglican ministry and sacraments convey no grace. It does means, however, that they are burdened with an intolerable uncertainty from the Catholic perspective.
I don't think Anglican orders are valid today. At least, none of those using the Anglican ordinal are.
Post a Comment