Theological Outlines by Rev. Dr. Francis J. Hall:
'The intention of a Sacrament is always the intention of Christ and His Church, unless the matter and form are so employed as visibly to exclude such intention, in which case the Sacrament is altogether invalid.'
The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology by Dr. C. B. Moss
Intention of Ordination
The intention of ordination is that the bishop ordaining or consecrating intends to admit the candidate to one of the three Holy Orders of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that his personal belief about the functions of those who are ordained should be orthodox; nor is the internal intention necessary, for if it were, we could never be certain that anyone was rightly ordained. (In Spain in the fifteenth century there were many bishops who were secretly Jews; the notorious Bishop Talleyrand, afterwards Napoleon's minister, was an open unbeliever, but those whom such men ordained were held to be validly ordained.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Comprovincial Newsletter - November 2024
The Comprovincial Newsletter - November 2024 - https://mailchi.mp/anglicanprovince.org/november2024
-
Being a Tractarian, ressourcement, patristically-minded, first millennial, conciliarist, philorthodox kind of Anglo-Catholic, I have always ... -
Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum , below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 197... -
Another liturgical tradition from the Orthodox Church for one's contemplation, a section of THE OFFICE FOR THE RECEPTION OF CONVERTS: Wh...
6 comments:
thanks for taking the time to parse this matter (rec orders).
I only wonder if, on your definition of intention, there is really any place left for intention as a criterion of validity. on your rendering, proper matter and form do all the work for proper intention, so that the latter looks like a mere pastiche.
also, can we really know that the individual conferring the sacrament is not doing so in a "playful" or "ironic" way? what if he carefully conceals his levity (plays it with a straight face)? yet you suggest (I think) that there are such subjective conditions which could render a sacrament invalid. how does this affect your argument that reading "intention" to include subjective intention would place us in an unacceptably sceptical position with respect to the validity of any sacrament?
once again, thanks for providing us with a free, incisive and accesible anglo-cathoic education!
andrew preslar
st. michael's anglican (apa)
Dear Andy:
Thank you for your gracious words and your keen interest in the obscure points of sacramental theology! Sacramental intention is all wrapped up in the liturgical administration of a sacrament: the Church presumes that when a minister seriously administers a sacrament with the proper matter and form recognised by the Church, there is with it the minimal necessary intention 'generally to do what the Church does.' There must be a real intention to administer the sacrament, in the case of ordination, to ordain to one of the three Sacred Orders of the Catholic Church, however understood personally. That inention is expressed by the deliberate and intentional use of the Church's rite for the sacrament. In a true sense the necessary intention is 'built into' the proper administration of the sacrament. Western dogmatic theology attempts to separate into neat and distinct categories what is organically united and part of a whole liturgical action. We can only have moral certainty that any sacrament is valid, and that is based of the appropriate and intentioanl use of the Church's sacramental rite. We can never really know what is going on inside the head and heart of the minister or the subject of the sacrament, so sacramental intention is determined by the rite employed. A mock baptism in a play or a staged ordination service created for entertainment would, for examples, not be serious administrations of a sacrament. What is important is a intention on the part of the minister to conform to the rite used in such a way that the sacrament, however privately understood, is given according the the Church's formula. There must be a real intention to do what the Church does, which means to administer the Church's given rite.
Consider these words of Dr Francis J. Hall: 'when a minister, otherwise competent, by seriously administering a sacramental rite of the Church in the appointed manner manifests his intention of doing what the Church does therein, the sacrament thus administered is valid. It is not necessary for validity that the minister's opinion at to what the Church intends to do in the sacrament shall be orthodox.'
God bless you!
Chad+
Fr. Chad,
thanks again!
it is true that things which are separable in thought are not always separate in reality. a sophist can always find a way of doubting what experience teaches. However, some of the distinctions we arrive at in thought are found to hold in reality. the willingness to reckon with such categories is one of the great virtues of western
theology.
intention is a mental property, but not necessarily of just (in the case at hand) the mind of the individual minister. perhaps some aspect of the teaching that the church is the mystical body of Christ is lying nearby in support of your contention that to have the proper intention is, basically (or simply?), to administer the Church's given rite. what the minister does in his official capacity (however flawed as an individual) Christ does as sovreign & omnipotent Lord and High Priest of the New Covenant Church. (clearly implying two senses of "does"-- a distinction addressed by western dogmatic theologians!) the "mind of Christ" supervenes (supplying the necesary intention) so that, ex opere operato, the sacrament is conferred?
anyway, your view is attractive, for the reasons you have given.
most of my stuff is just shooting from the hip. God bless you and all the blogosphere Anglicans that I am reading unto great profit and enjoyment.
in Christ,
andrew preslar
Ditto to Andrew's sentiment thanking you for the free Anglican education. Andrew is the one who gave me this url so thanks to him too.
This discussion about the validity of REC Orders brings up several issues about ECUSA Orders.
1) By ex opere operato are the ordinations of openly homosexual men valid ordinations? It seems that this has to be the case, since we accept Rome's (therefore our own) Orders, since it seems that there were periods when the Visible Church in Rome was apostate (if this were possible) during such times as the Rule of Harlots, etc, through which Apostolic Succession passed (or perhaps Ecclesia Anglicana wasn’t touched by the pornocracy?). Is there an ecclesiastical way to revoke an openly homosexual ordination? The Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch don’t have jurisdiction to excommunicate, and I’ve never heard of Canterbury excommunicating anyone. So although it grieves me, I can’t see a way around recognizing Gene Robinson’s ordination as valid. Is this the correct view of his ordination?
2) I also want to make sure I'm using the correct logic on the ordination of women: any ordination of a woman is invalid because the "matter" is missing, even though form and intention seem to be there. The matter would be the laying of hands on a man. Hence a woman can not be ordained anymore than a giraffe can be baptized. So although we would recognize Robinson’s ordination, we don’t recognize Schori’s?
Thanks Again,
Matt Harlow
St. Michael’s Anglican (APA)
http://www.stmichaelsanglican.org
Dear Matt:
Thank you for visiting!
1. The consecration of a validly baptised man to the episcopate, so long as the proper ordination rite is used, is valid, even if he is, as in the case of the Bishop of New Hampshire, in grave sin. This is the teaching of Saint Augustine against the Donatists. Although the consecration is sacramentally valid, both the recipient of the consecration and those who confer it incur the gravest sin and commit blasphemy in so acting. The consecration is technically valid, but bears no fruit or benefit spiritually for the ordained or the ordaining - such an act places all involved in a state of mortal sin.
2. Although terminiology may differ from time to time and place to place, you are absolutely right about the 'ordination' of women. The attempt to ordain a woman is an attempt to alter the matter and subject of a sacrament instituted by Our Lord and His Apostles, and is therefore invalid. Speaking specifically, a purported ordination of a woman to Holy Orders is invalid because the subject is incapable of receiving the grace of ordination - by divine institution, only a baptised man can receive ordination validly.
God bless you!
Chad+
An addtional note - an ordained man living in a state of grave sin can, by God's grace, of course repent of his bad life. Upon such repentance, he would exercise his ministry validly and beneficially for the sake of Holy Church, the Bride of Christ. A woman purportedly ordained may indeed, God willing, be a virtuous and godly person, but can never, because of ontology, exercise the ministry, because she cannot receive orders metaphysically or sacramentally.
God bless you!
Post a Comment