ANGLICAN ORDERS

New Zealand Tablet, 31 December 1908, Page 10

ANGLICAN ORDERS

AN INTERESTING BETTER AND A COMMEPit ■_-■;■; ;;-r;^*7^^^^ _'• Reverend and ,D.earV Sir, -4k)ncem^ deep appreciation blithe trouble Fatller^ Goggan lias f gone in *i n P lacin &l befoxe Jour,; readers myself" the Roman Catholic pbsitoori^ih jeepect -to Anglican' Orders. ; -When turner drew* :up ac^ doubt he eviscerated the old<PojptificaXpf ;mahy' pi [ the M : QravissUrid* which help -to umake, ;&; valid , ordinafcibri and a valid conBeer ation;eepeciaUy. in tha- bmissibn oft ail reference to a Sacrifice, and priesthood." 1 Personally, I have no sympathy ;with.;the adventitious Protestantism laiat 'has overlaid and: warped, the^ ; meaning^pf v the "' f iindameritany ; £»thohc - .of 7 Jhe^ f ormularies of ' the of if v th#. Church: Oias^Lo valid ' Orders, if the Apostelwr Succession is broken, l^there, 'is no Real ' Presence of our \ m **g **>*&.^.theiJH^ly, Jluoh^rist,; why is it that so many »nd, ! {learned\ : ecc'iesiasti cs who Kave studied - these* matters,, "adhere ,to Iber comniuuion ? An ,' f^Tf^ nC^ ofi J? im i i^nt, mejlast week Ithe enclosed cxc cari\ publish at your ? . d^r^io^by w^hwh.-y«u.,will ; ;see .it claimed that the AngliSoni T^kt 7 a^ e^^;^^^P Laud than from Parker. •:■ I.did^ojt.press t>is .point in my last letter because, I .more particularly wajuted. In ihe firstins^ee" the questions^of £Defect,of .Form, .and defect of Iriten S + W**f ***&*** rites v e X plained.: X presume, &eretore, that,th« same arguments .will apply to Laud and his S?^ Z» Raik^.- I reciigniff% subject^ one ' wruclv could be .enlarged, upon to an almost illimitable extent, but which is lardly, adapted to the popu ar^Ste Although I can appreciate,, it, ; I am not ouite ; preJared yet to^ accept the Catholic point of^^w S the «mly absolutely correct onei; : I r haye? . however,' Sn given a good + deal ,to think, about, and I feel that I cannot be sufficiently grateful ;r to. Father .Goggan for l,is kindness in enlightening me on , many , points' where i have hilherto been in error, and,>o : you,. Sir, for placing yolfr coWns tn S f& oi fcWs ''WW. iS££E men^a^S^ Weat " Hamilton:; ;; ; ' ;^v JOHN W. WARREN. t„ 0 ? h ® c *^ ract from % GuarcLwn. (June IG, 1908) referred mmmmmm those % Bishop^ and trua bishops; t F^on? wTffS? £ 0m v hlm *?* £^^S^r%^*Sfr' Bishops were CQ^bhseprfl+nT-a £*" a - >v l - T ly - P T «ese two , w %* «W P La l^, from in treland,%df JSaS^ Tlv^. Moreover/ .- deposed; OT SIS *?A ° P^ ■..•**? JB°mari bishops were h * S of; Dublin* ing Mar'^ ref^fee^^ S/^ a^ d tiffin d«rAnglican

' rm, "'i • ' l V - -''■' -■•-■."'. . '• '■■■ '■'-.' ■'- ■ "•'i.'- ■■ : -,: -, -, ■_,-.-. The historical, objectiou . therefore fails; and the liturgical .one is absurd : inasmuch 4 as it ' would render: all primitive ordinations nmttV The rGuardia^ extract concludes with a reference rto; ; the episcopal consecrations performed in France by ;Talleyrand,. who is" described as' •an avowed atheist; f.-Her is, described -as ' the chosen starter of -the new. episcopa i, system ;'./.in;. France -during the! Revolution, and with ; pthers, is alleged by - the' Old Catholic : Bishop Mathew to be the source of 'the French ordinations of today. 3 - . ■■.■•■■.'•..■■.. .-..•■'; .\ „ <• ', , A CO.MMENT. . .-.-•'..■■ '•■ . ' •■".'"■'■.-■:■' .""-'li - ; - ■ — -■■ ■.■-■: - : ,- .-■■■: T^e 'Old. Catholic Bishop for England,' displays a bountiful uiiacquaintarice with- the history ,. of the controversy on Anglican Orders; He misstatesihoth the historical and the theological- objections to .the validity of Anghc^n. Orders -and -substantially i misrepresents the .grounds of the constant denial of that Validity by the ei^T eh :*«*' ;J*e days of (the= first .publication and nyr + c i° f ? Cpe Leo Xni., issued . on September 18, 1896' XD It has been repeatedly stated that -the Catholic- Church - "SS? * .of Anglican Orders (in -the -Cathohc sense),, and re-ordains absolutely those. of the Anglican' &HsV^?i g ° ° V< A r "*? mes aild are acee P ted,as cailf- . .dates ; for the^sacred ministry. It has also~ been, frequently „ pointed out that- this action is, based upon the ToUowhg va^i&Sf ?f h ° hC is necessary for ■ZJtimnl nf 6 P e Jf OH^ ho administers a. Sacrament eluding, of course, the Sacrament of .Holy -Orders) should JJT lOJ * P r °P^ /orm of words, but that he ...should also have a proper- intention. Bu4-as Cardinal Legate^Pole declared in Queen Mary's day, and as Leo ' "•SL^wX?. ? t l^' f ° rm and S , , V^uich wore ' not observed ' in the ordinations and consecrations performed Hinder the Ordinal of Sward VI „ which was clrawri up by Cranmer and his En J Z?ellow" fundamental kind They are wholly independent of any defects that may have arisen out of the doubt (which stiU exists) as to^Barlow's consecration as bishop , or out of tl^ " omission of the. Edwardine Ordinal to provide for the hand £*•,* th *: in fP»* or instruments of office to th? S •«^d^t?ii- rtk^r n ° P ronoun . cem ent upon these doubtISof^ne^l^ the -Wof fhfcTnsecSi o? triree ot the four bishops present at Parker's consecration was 'never questioned.' Barlow's consecratioifwarand' is quesfaoiiedj and Scory and, Coverdale, conseemted by -Ca^hrrr ? rd l aal - f i;?s2^ cannot be'adnSolo? tne Catholic Church to be bishops. (4) Even if BarW (Parker s consecrator) were beyond a 1 doubt a bishop he v°eyed?h°e offi^ nf W T "*?** T^ veyed the office of bishop to another by a form that hart OrTi-iS 8 th /° f tSe m Eaw a rdte vrai-iai. *or the form for the ordination of a nFiW contained no reference -whatever to the sacrificial power which is the primary and essential function of the St' hood-this had been thwwn: aside. -with heretical intent >~ and the form for the consecration of a,bi.^oSta^S^referejice whatever to, the office of a bishop. * SoS, so that Lmgard^ould suggest that this latter form « s as suitable or the appointment of a parish clerk as for the v consecration of : a bishop. A whole GenemV Council of bishops with the Pope at their head, could not Siifer either d«aconship or priesthood, or the episcopate > by the form contained in the Edwardine' Ordinal ? °l In- aM the • circmsUnces; it teems passing strange to read ?„ f l ! report of Bishop Mathew's leotSre, in^ta^fl£: ? £ is impossible to deny that all the essential Sements of a /valid consecration were present -when Parker rSelvld tl^ episcopate.' - Not only . is such a denial possible it ,^ b^op-ofCanterblr^^in^ which Anglican Orders are derived Nay ml +i SSSSoS Se^hl^^^ o^S»T2S. cot ■■■■■■t?rSfSsU^'' * h *? Gath ohc sense, is common,- npt alone SeS l^' f W^^^^sterri Churches,; and even t? the great body of Anglicans themselves. (6) Biahon MatW'^ iS yW^ antici P aied f»d answered ;in^revio^s comments Here we may merely remark .that every rite of ordination and consecration of sacred ministerT aot nowledged by the Church, both in East and We f has the" V I following characteristics: (a) They all clearly and expt

citly mention the Order to Be" conferred "(this ■ i& riVt-doriean..^ the Edwardine Ordinal); (VX they contain a .prayer for the ; grace proper to ..the specific Order (this is not done in the : - Edwardine Ordinal).; ancL (c) the 7 form, of .words is pro nounced siniultaneously ,witli ;Che imposition of hands (in . the Edwaidine Ordinal; the form ""is' insufficient arid of no . effect). These, characteristics are found in the' Roman ; Ordinal, the ancient, Galliean Ordinal, the Greek, the -Syro- -, Maronite, the Alexandrian Jacobite, the Syrian Jacobite, the- Nestorian,. the Armenian, "the Liturgy of the Constitutions of. the Apostles, etc., etc., . ', II- — Laud and His Consecrators. . s Our esteemed correspondent, Mr 1 -; .Warren, is right in; his surmise that 'the same a,rguments l \vill apply Vo Laud and. his successors as toParker.' ' : This will be readily 1 seen from the following facts : (1) , The Edwardine Ordinal, with which we are here concerned, was attached to the (Galvinistic) Second Book of Common Prayer when it was published in 1552. : It contained -the . ;def ectivie ''..and invalid forms of ordination . and consecration desdribed above, under the figure (4) in the first part of our remarks on Mr. Warren's, communication. , ; . On /the accession of Queen Mary, the Catholic religion was for a time restored in England, and the -Edwardine Ordinal was abolished. On the accession of Queen^Elizabeth, the Edwardine Ofdirial' was again restored. It continued unaltered till the year 1662. (2) In that year (1662) Parliament somewhat improved the forms r of- ordination and consecration by adding clauses defininarfthe nature, of the Orders imparted. But (a) this improvement came too late, for, in the hundred and ten years during which the invalid fofxns of the Edwardine Ordinal had J>een in use (from 1552 to 1662), the true episcopate had died out completely, the. apostolic succession was broken, j and the ministry of the Anglican Church. had become, in the Catholic sense, laymen only. And, •- as laymen, they could not, no matter under* what form, transmit a spiritual power and jurisdiction which they did not possess. (b). Moreover (as as already been . pointed out in previous articles', -by -citing authorities), the terms 'priest' and ,' bishop ' have not, even in-, this amended form of 1662, their old Catholic meaairig, rior' " was the amended Ordinal' intended to create a sacrificing priesthood— on the contrary, this idea was as strongly repudiated as .ever.. -" ■ ; J 3 ) a^d was made Bishop of St.' David's on June 29, 1621. Be it noted (a) that. he '.was consecrated under the defective and insufficient f,orms ; of the Edwardine Ordinal(b) that no mention was made therein of the particular Order upon him; (c) that; this consecration took place forty-one years before Parliament, in 1662, defined the nature of the Orders imparted; .and (d) that Laud had previously been ordained under the safne Edwardine Ordinal, from which all reference tor a Sacrifice aiufc a Sacrificing priesthood had been cast aside by Cranmer' and his Calvimstic fellow-Reformers. (4) With such a mutilated and defective form, even a whole, bench .of true bishops or a General Council of ibishops, with the Pope at their head, could not validly -.confer on Laud either the power of a sacrificing priesthood or an episcopate in the Catholic sense. ■ (5) Moreover, we might quote at considerable 7 length from. the Canones Ecclesiastici of 1603; from The Holy Table, Name and Thing (l637); from Wood's : Annals: ' from The Boohe of Common Prayer (London, 1{334); from the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of 1640- from ' Clarendon and Bramhall and Collier and numerous' other works, to show, beyond yea or nay, that the "Anglican Church of Laud's time, both in England and in Ireland utterly repudiated and abhorred the idea of a Sacrifice and a^ Sacrificing priesthood.. So. that, even if Laud; had" been both ordained priest and consecrated bishop by true bishops, with a ualwi ./orm of words, he would hot havebeen a priest, or a bishop in the Catholic sense,' for -lack"' ofifce proper tntention in .those who ordained and consdcratecl him. But he was both ordained and consecrated (a)-with'_an- invalid form, and (b) without the proper inten-'---tion, and (c) his consecrators were not bishops but laymen '" Ihere-was^no true bishop at his consecration." All those : present had been both ordained, and consecrated uhdef the defective and invalid- Edwardine Ordinal. It in no way - helps the case for .Anglican: Orders to state that Antonio 8 .% Doniu "5 the ' lapsed-' Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, aided in the consecration of two of the Anglican bishops '.J who were present at the consecration of Laiid. - E6r De-" Dommis was i not , their consecratorj he "only assisted. :> But ' even-if he had been their consecrating prelate, he could "l^-f^ validly, ordained or .validly, consecrated with the -form of .the Edwardine Ordirial, .even if he had the proper intention to,; do, what the Church • does. It only remains to add that De, Dominis afterwards ''*''■ returned as a humbe penitent to the Church, arid died in the unity of the faith.; - , * «••*"..

£t i ivflt.-^al^esrand and the French Episcopate. _ ''""" Iri"vtk'e~^G«ar^'a/i-rerwr±.vPiJ^e^pld Catholic Bishop Mathew's lecture on Anglican; Of dSfsp tfie* lactp " df vthe episcopal conS(§criSto^]^y Talljßyrand T»njd, others in France during the Revolution are , grievously -misstated. Talley■^^^a^,? 1 -^^ SUIS »nd "fbMeirto answer for, but no one can lay^b his^ charge ipj^o^al pf^a&ejsna „«at ..the time that he consecrated thftrJ^nfi^ltulti^^ The facts, stated in the bfietestf'^Yms, are these : (1)- Talleyrand was made Bishop of**Auturi <France) in 1788. : In IVi/u he (improperly) accepted. ,the|: (revolutionary) civil constitution of ..the clergy arid resigned In February, 17 :?1,, ; he, c ; sacril'egibusly arid in' 1 defiance of > papal', -briefs, . Mk\ t validly/ (6pris^rated> J the' (^chismatical) bishops -of .L'Aisne^nd^Firiis^erre^-'But/^sb sfar^ from being; /an ..avowed atheist ' -at^ tliat .very^tihie, Talleyrand wa-s ;^'^beheying,,though^e^OTs^^atid^ jmd^savs %eiNgyte}le[ffi ppri r MM. . -Eirmin^ P-idot FrefesVPaf'is) ne'- ; protesta hautement <le son attachement au, ; Saint; Siege '^('lbudl^ 4 protested his devotion to <• » »J o * ><?e )•-, ,;: Irt 1801 the i^ha^pySmanr obtained frpm Pope P v ius •Vll.'vthe caricellatfdtf of decree of excoinnnmicatioh: proripu^ He; (no .'-■ longer, of; ebunSe, acting-; ai- bishops was^alsoipermitted; by the.. Hply rj ,See 'to "exeVclße" lay ' : sunetions-rrl)ut" was .never allowed by the; Holy: : See to I 'iriarr^. ;v* Hia»consecratibn of • the two ;' constituti6rial ?^ sacrilegipus, but; ;;there v afe "absolutely whatevef. for supposing that'th^ contrary, we are bbuira* A W assume that- Talleyrand intended tp. do what .the .Cathblic ; -eKurcE^itf*endsj arid foyigjvei Catholic. Ofdprs: accofairigHo; Catholic' doo^ V.T 6 -' >-i^ $ o^>^ ahd'used-the ful^^ Church. Arid Catholic" writers haye < ever maintained;^ and the Papal Bull of 18&6 ; : aeclafesV^^hat. *when anyone^ has rightly and seriously made rise 'of "Jform^ an^^matter" requisite for eifectirig 'arid corifeiwj&g.the Sacraouent, he is considered by to^tto-w-hafc-the Ghrirch . does. On this principle,'' cpntihaie^^e Bull* **Eeaifc. the doctrine that ;a Sacf amerit f ism uls^o^Srred ■■' by tfre%inistry of ; one who is _ a heretic * br * wribaffised;; provided the - : , Catholic rite be employed; 'On -the Aether handy "if the rite he changed; [as; in the case- of? ithe: Edwardine Ordinal], ' with the manifest 'intention' of 'introducing <anoth^c r.ite not approved by the .Church v^r^d'^f rejecting wHwtLthe Church does, and; what, by T; the-institution "of .Christ; be- . longs, to the nature of a^Sacramerit, then it is clear, that y. n />* only is necessary- intention- wanting-,to the Sacrament, but that the" u interitibn ;; iS>advefße''toj and destructive of, the Sacr anient.' ,r. ; T .= „: i^r - 'Thisr disposes* of the-ydiffioulty^arisingi out. ; of the two irregular and schismatical coiisecrations perf brined by Talleyrand * Of thea36 bishops in France .jn.t^oseHerrible times, only four (pf whom Talleyrand was brie)- proved faithless, to their; sacred trust: 'But- although rebellious and excommunicated* ai Vschism&tics, : they ! still -were as ordaining or cpnse<sratirig c prelates; Ghfistiari- bishops usinc in their f ulness *.' the, Churcn*s e^a^ished' forms.- It was 'of course, a grave': and . (as PiusfVlysaia)'^execrable ' scanaal-.. But ''*&<? !-'-QM 'Catholic : Bisibp; iiri error in stating:, that * tench episco^ : ; at. that time by ;'.'. avowed; atHeist^-uri^^atf^he^ French , ordinations b^ to-day' are' derived from bishops so consecrated. BisKpp Mithew's lecture is^ifchro'ughbuti marked ; by. much inaccuracy arid exaggerate than a .reaspnable share of bitterness. "There is >»o evidence what..eyer that any one pf the conse.s tion was in validly ' ' consecrated. I Thevwrhole^-pf esumption : ,. is. quite the other : : : sray^'; ; .f For- ; th\e rest, -both 1 the legitimate .bishops^ e^ > j n _ iiruders were.;ppn>lieile^ the lnterests^pf peace, to rMigirJtheiT hishopfics'inte- the hands of. the Pope. TKpsW'who/ refused; were 'excommunicated and deprived $ / :s^f^j^lJtf ,^^sjiffiy The bishoprics were then reorganised, : 'M3tfi;Tnfew''bbundiri'eß, in accordance , with the provisions of tKe ''ainoi they' were filled. (also by : tics nominated by :[ Napoleon, arid ? canoriically appointed and Holy; See. Ttese^ facts may be found in any history of. mo'defh France^ 'of !in any 'general* history ;^oi the,: Chvurch.; ..,;;.;;'; ""'."' /\',-'^"'".' '''"■/'■ ■" ,:J ' :; - ■■'-• : - - 5 ; A final woi^ on TaHe^ witty^ufc unworthy eccjesiastic, with liis; faults;^'makes,; ; on; the" whole a -rather; 'favprabiec^ of FJizabeth's paT- ,, liameht?iry bf coristitrii^nAp" prelates;-^His- follies, and .the scandals he. cau Church in : ; Francp. , ; But amphg;: lus'-many ' f pllies'/ "atKeisrn was not v vbne; and.^amprigjßis 'sinV;^^^ exerr ;cisirig . episcopal f unctions '^liiie aypyjring a disbelief- in God. ,:His biographers -telTtlhow^ iri' l^f^'^ars, he. yearned for full reoonciliatipn ■'■ Sic; hbw : he engaged in pious* conferences .an^ the Abbe

Dup'anloup and M. Royer-Collard 3 and iri;iß3B/Yhe"---died in full communion with the Church to ivhich he had given so much grief. — Editor, N.Z. T.