From the newly-published autobiography of Father John Jay Hughes, an eminent theologian and historian, and arguably the most erudite defender of Anglican Orders in the twentieth century. I cannot more highly recommend this splendid book entitled No Ordinary Fool: A Testimony To Grace.'...One difficulty still held me back: the need to abandon—with no guarantee that it would ever be given back to me—the exercise of the priestly ministry to which I had aspired consciously and without interruption from the age of twelve, and which I had exercised unworthily, but with great joy, for six years. Even if the Roman Catholic Church found me qualified for priesthood, this would involve re-ordination. I did not see how I could ever submit to something that would involve denial of the very thing that had brought me to the threshold of the Catholic Church: the sacraments I had received, and administered myself, in the Anglican Church.
The previous September I had drawn up a document tracing the Table of Consecration of the two Episcopalian bishops who had ordained me deacon and priest respectively. This showed that both could trace their own orders, through co-consecrators, to Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic bishops acknowledged by Rome to be validly ordained. Through the good offices of a Benedictine Prior in Rome who had helped me during my visit there in 1959, I had submitted this document to the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), requesting a judgment about the validity of my Anglican orders.
I received a reply in French, on the letterhead Suprema Congregatio S. Officii, dated 30 October 1959 and signed "P. Paul Philippe, O.P., Commissaire du Saint-Office." (He later became a cardinal.) The crucial paragraph stated:
There can be no question of a simple recognition of the orders received, with subsequent permission to exercise the priesthood. The church can only require a certain period of studies, at the end of which conditional reordination would be granted; but there is no reason why this would be refused, provided the other conditions mentioned [the normal criteria for ordination] were satisfied.
This was more than I had dared hope for. I put the letter away, hoping that it might one day prove decisive with the Catholic bishop willing to ordain me. I also communicated the substance of this letter to my father, hoping it might soften his attitude. It did not...'
10 comments:
Who cares whether Roman Catholic recognize Anglican Orders? The real question is whether we recognize theirs, as they are the ones who caused the schism with us.
Three of the seven sacraments confer a permanent or indelible character, and for this reason they cannot be repeated without sacrilege. These three are Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders.
Given the exigencies of human life, however, it is often the case that a prudent doubt arises about whether one of these sacraments has been truly or validly administered. In that case, it is possible to confer these sacraments "sub condicione." This means that there is no intention to confer them again if they have been conferred already. This happens most commonly with Baptism when records are lost or not available and there are no witnesses remaining to swear to the place, time, sponsors, and minister of the sacrament.
I make this point for two reasons:
1. Father Hughes was ordained to the priesthood conditionally by a leading liberal bishop of the time on the basis of the opinion of the under secretary of one dicastery of the Roman Curia. This does not constitute a declaration of "Vatican Recognition of Anglican Orders WIth Old Catholic Infusion." To the best of my knowledge, the only other conditional ordination of an Anglican since Father Hughes was that of Graham Leonard, former Bishop of London.
2. It remains the case that the Catholic Church teaches that Anglican Orders are null and void, and in the case of Father Hughes, it was not the validity of his Anglican Orders that caused a prudent doubt. It was, rather, the possibility that he had Old Catholic Orders which led to his conditional ordination. In other words, Anglican Orders qua Anglican Orders are not held to be a true participation in Apostolic Succession even in the exceptions to the rule.
I agree with Mr. Nelson.
One must admire the chuztpah of an anglocentric view of the universe, perhaps best expressed by the London newspaper headline:
Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off
On the other hand, there is St. Augustine's view to contend with:
Securus Iudicat Orbis Terrarum
Actually, I admire the chuztpah of an Romancentric view of the universe, perhaps best expressed by the Vatican newspaper headline:
Fog on Tiber; God Cut Off.
On the other hand, there is St. Vincent's view to contend with:
quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus
OK, Matthew. So Henry VIII declares himself to be on earth the Head of the Church of Jesus Christ in England, and Rome caused the schism? A very curious reading of history, I must say. But let's look at your first point above.
You say that you care not a fig that half the world's Christians do not believe that the apostolic succession survived in the Church of England or its daughter churches. Then by what standard will you stand against heretical novelties within the Anglican Communion? Ah, yes, the Vincentian Canon.
So let's invoke the Vincentian Canon to ask if any Christian of any time or place before Anglicanism of the 20th century thought that women could be bishops and presbyters. The answer is no. And yet the vast majority of the bishops of the Anglican Communion--including the Archbishop of Canterbury--do now believe this heretical novelty and practice accordingly. By the Vincentian Canon, as well as by Augustine's dictum, it is clear that this decision is beyond the limits of orthodox Christianity. So why would any orthodox Christian want to remain in the Anglican Communion? But if one leaves the Anglican Communion, in what sense can one still be Anglican?
My point is simply this: Refusing Augustine's standard of "securus iudicat orbis terrarrum" inevitably leads to congregationalism in the pursuit of truth. In other words, simply declaring that you don't care what the Catholic Church teaches and believes is not a path to the preservation of the faith once delivered to the saints.
This is a serious question for Fr. Newman.
Concerning your second point - I thought I read that that was the statement issued with regard to Graham Leonard's conditional ordination... almost that exact wording.
So here are my questions:
1) Is that what was said regrading Leonard?
2) If so, is it right (maybe a glib word to use) for it to be applied after the fact to the situation with Hughes?
Again, this is a serious academic question to a respected Roman Catholic priest and theologian.
Philorthodox,
As a Polish National Catholic Clergyman, I wonder what your opinion is of a dialog between the PNCC and the continuing Anglican Churches?
Just curious,
In Christ
PadreEgan
Dear Father Anderson,
I do not know what the reasoning was behind the decision to ordain Dr. Leonard to the presbyterate conditionally, but the distinction I made above is an important one:
Namely, if Old Catholic orders are the source of the claim to at least doubtful validity in the lineage of Anglican clergy, then it is the presence of Old Catholic orders among Anglicans, as opposed to Anglican orders qua Anglican orders, which justifies the decision to ordain conditionally.
This may seem a distinction without a difference to Anglo-Catholics who hold to the validity of their orders, but to Rome it is all the difference in the world.
And even when the decision is made to ordain an Anglican clergyman to the presbyterate conditionally, that is not an indication that he is considered by the Catholic Church to be validly ordained. It only signifies that there is a prudent doubt which cannot otherwise be resolved.
Thank you, Father.
Post a Comment